Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/06/2014 10:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB31 | |
| HB150 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 6, 2014
10:04 a.m.
10:04:27 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Sponsor; Charles Edwardson,
Southern Southeast Alaska Technical Education Center; Pearl
Brower, President, Ilisagvik College; Representative Peggy
Wilson.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Pamela Goode, Self, Delta Junction; Christine Hutchinson,
Self, Kenai; Mary Nanuwak, Self, Anchorage; Steven Angasan,
South West Alaska Vocational and Education Center, King
Salmon; Karen Cedzo, Delta Career Advancement Center and
Partners for Progress in Delta, Delta Junction.
SUMMARY
HB 31 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CURRICULUM
CSHB 31(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
"no recommendation" and with one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Education and Early
Development.
HB 150 TECHNICAL/VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
HB 150 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
10:04:46 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 31
"An Act requiring school districts to develop and
require completion of a history of American
constitutionalism curriculum segment; and providing
for an effective date."
10:05:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill again. He pointed to the substantive
section of the bill on page 2, line 15; the provision would
require the chief school administrator of a school district
to develop and submit a curriculum to the governing body of
a school district for approval. The purpose of the
curriculum was to teach American constitutionalism as found
in the U.S. Constitution, early states' constitutions, Bill
of Rights, the Federalist Papers, and other. He believed
there was enthusiasm about the topic nationwide and noted
that it was not inconsistent with curriculum chosen by
public schools. He read from the Alaska public school
content standards (copy on file):
A student should understand the constitutional
foundations of the American political system and the
democratic ideals of this nation. A student who meets
the content standard should (1) understand the ideals
of this nation as expressed in the Declaration of
Independence, the United States Constitution, and the
Bill of Rights...
Representative Keller relayed that the related curriculum
in the content standards fell under a "soft" mandate. He
referred to letters of support from various schools. He was
typically uneasy with mandated curriculum; however, he
believed constitutionalism was an exception. He stressed
the importance of keeping sight of the values that made the
United States a great country; he believed the topic was in
danger of falling through the cracks. The bill placed
responsibility on school superintendents to ensure the
curriculum was taught at their schools. Districts would use
their standards to measure whether a student successfully
completed the curriculum. He asked for the committee's
support on the legislation.
10:08:12 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze looked at page 2, line 25 of the
legislation and did not believe the language was a soft
mandate. Representative Keller wanted the mandate to be
meaningful and not too soft. He detailed that the provision
would not allow a district to issue a secondary school
diploma to a student who did not successfully complete the
curriculum approved by the superintendent.
Representative Wilson remarked that the bill implemented an
unfunded mandate to be placed on the state's school
districts; districts would need to develop the curriculum.
She wondered how many districts did not provide the course
currently. She asked how much the mandate would cost
particularly related to smaller districts. Representative
Keller answered that he had nothing firm to provide. He
furthered that [free] curriculum was available on websites
such as icivics.org. He pointed to support from multiple
school districts and no opposition from any others and
inferred that there would be no significant fiscal
imposition on districts.
Representative Wilson asked if the intent was to test on
the curriculum in order for a student to pass and graduate.
She wondered about special needs children who may be unable
to pass the test. She noted that the legislature was
looking to eliminate the current graduation test. She
wondered if the bill included a provision for students who
may not be able to accomplish the goal.
Representative Keller answered that the decision would be
left up to the district. He noted that districts all had
standards for measuring the competency and accomplishment
of special needs students. He added that four students from
Tri-Valley High School had testified in a recent House
State Affairs meeting and had a "stunning" understanding of
the values of American constitutionalism.
10:11:43 AM
Representative Munoz asked if the sponsor intended for
American constitutionalism to be part of the American
history curriculum requirement currently in place. She
wondered about the length of a curriculum segment.
Representative Keller confirmed that the segment fell under
history requirements. He had selected the history approach
over a civics option. He communicated that the length of
the segment would be left up to districts to decide.
Representative Munoz asked for verification that the
segment would fall under the current history requirement.
She wondered if two or three years were required. She
understood that the requirement included a half year of
Alaskan history. Representative Keller confirmed that the
segment would fall under the current history requirement,
but he did not know the required course length.
10:13:02 AM
Representative Guttenberg recalled that his secondary
school experience had included courses on the U.S.
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and early American
history. He asked if the subject was not currently taught.
Representative Keller replied that he had observed that the
subject was slipping [from school curriculum]. The
legislation aimed to remind districts to bring focus back
to the topic. He believed the nation was experiencing a
renewal in the understanding of the U.S. Constitution's
value.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the difference
between American constitutionalism history and American
constitutional history. Representative Keller replied that
the difference was related to constitutional values. He
pointed to inherent rights including all people being
created equal. He mentioned rights as sovereign citizens
versus having a monarch in power. He stated that the
spectrum was broad and included items that were important
to the country. The content standards included ideals found
in the U.S. Constitution.
Representative Guttenberg discussed expanding school
options throughout the state and observed that home
schooling and religious institutions were not included. He
noted that the state had no control over the other
institutions, but it did have control over equivalency
tests. He wondered if another educational entity included
the proposed American constitutionalism requirement its
students would not be required to pass a literacy or
standard test. He surmised that theoretically the students
could take competency tests without the curriculum
background and may not be able to answer related questions.
He thought it may put the students at a disadvantage.
Representative Keller answered that the issue was outside
of the bill's scope.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed constitutional history was being
mistaught on many occasions. He referred to guest speakers
sponsored by the National Education Association who
explained that the Second Amendment was not really about
individual rights.
10:17:08 AM
Representative Guttenberg relayed that he had attended and
judged high school We the People constitutional
competitions. He discussed that the variety of answers and
context of questions covered a broad spectrum. He
communicated that the students were learning many things
and applying the competition in a multitude of ways.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the bill would
include students who were home schooled in a public
process. She asked for verification that the only students
the bill would not apply to would be independent home
schooled students and private schools. Representative
Keller answered in the affirmative. He relayed that the
bill was directed at public schools, public school
correspondence programs, charter schools, and homeschool
support programs.
10:18:37 AM
PAMELA GOODE, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the legislation. She served as a board
member on the Deltana Community Corporation where she
interfaced with forestry, city council, and board members.
She relayed that whenever issues were discussed the first
thing she brought up was constitutionality. She had been
surprised to learn that many of the individuals did not
think about constitutionality as an issue. She discussed
that the constitution was written so everyone should be
able to understand it. She detailed that the
constitutionality of an issue was not dictated to U.S.
citizens by a higher authority. She found it disturbing
that leaders of the community did not think about the
constitution. She reasoned that children were not thinking
about constitutionality if it was absent from the minds of
leaders and role models. She believed it was disheartening
that a law needed to be made to ensure that the issue was
taught in schools. She believed the subject should be
mandated in private schools as well. She noted that there
may be a conflict because it was not possible to teach the
rich history of the country's founding documents without
addressing biblical values.
10:22:18 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked if Ms. Goode was on the
school board.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that Ms. Goode had testified that
she belonged to the Deltana Community Corporation. He
explained that unincorporated communities had umbrella
corporations to allow the communities to accept state funds
and engage in certain community activities.
CHRISTINE HUTCHINSON, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the legislation. She understood that
the subject was currently taught in schools; however, it
was not a requirement. She pointed to a specific teacher in
Nikiski who did an incredible job teaching the subject. She
believed the difference between constitutionalism and
teaching the constitution was to teach the foundation on
which the constitution was based. She stressed that
teaching the constitution did not provide students with
knowledge of the foundation on which it was based. She did
not believe it would be cumbersome to make the subject a
high school graduation requirement. She opined that
requiring graduates to take the course was a benefit to the
entire community. She did not believe the cost would be
substantial. She had heard a government class testify in a
House State Affairs Committee meeting earlier in the day
about a convention of states; she was impressed by the
testimony. She thought a convention of states could be
important. She did not like requirements, but she stressed
that the subject would not be taught without the mandate.
She reiterated her support.
10:27:23 AM
Representative Gara did not believe many people in the
legislature would disagree that students should be taught
about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and other;
however, it was important to make sure teachers had time to
teach subjects adequately. He pointed to a bill provision
that would require teaching about the Declaration of
Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers,
the Bill of Rights, and other. The bill also included a
requirement to teach all of the first state constitutions
(a total of 13). He wondered if the provision was important
to Ms. Hutchinson. He believed the requirement would take a
significant amount of time away from other subjects.
Ms. Hutchinson replied that the first states were much
different than the current 50 states. She discussed that
many states in the West included the Blaine Amendment in
their constitutions, which the nation was now addressing
many years later. She did not believe that teaching to
about the 13 first state constitutions would be excessive.
She believed it would be useful for students to see how the
U.S. Constitution had been applied individually to the
first states. She had been following a convention of states
project; she compared the issue to a treaty concept for
different countries. She believed the teaching would be of
value and did not believe the language created a burden.
Co-Chair Stoltze communicated that the Blaine Amendment
originated from anti-Catholic sentiment.
10:32:21 AM
MARY NANUWAK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. She did not
believe people should be partial when it came to education.
She noted that villages were shorthanded when it came to
budgeting. She opined that the state's larger cities
including Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau received
everything. She hoped that if the cities had shortfalls it
would help them to understand what rural Alaska was going
through. She believed that everything the legislature
discussed year after year was interrelated. She stated that
everyone did well when they had the desire to succeed. She
discussed encouragement she offered to young people about
succeeding. She shared a personal story about a Chevak
resident's contribution to environmentally responsible
programs. She discussed that it was important for youth to
be involved in the community because they would be
responsible in the future. She thanked the committee for
its hard work. She spoke about the impact young teachers
had on students. She urged the committee members to start
listening with their hearts.
10:39:48 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 2, Line 29
Delete "2013"
Insert "2014"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Costello explained that the amendment
updated the effective date of the legislation from July 1,
2013 to July 1, 2014.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
10:41:29 AM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Page 2, line 21: delete "the first state
constitutions"
Page 2, line 26, after "the" insert "course in which
the"
Page 2, line 26, after "section" insert "is contained"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that out of fairness to the
sponsor he wanted to discuss the first line of the
amendment. He spoke to the goal of the language, which was
to ensure teachers had enough time to teach all subjects.
He wondered if teaching the 13 first state constitutions
would take too much class time. He asked to hear from the
sponsor.
Representative Keller clarified that the bill only required
districts to teach the values and ideals encompassed in the
13 first constitutions. He recognized that a comprehensive
list would be problematic. He believed that including the
first state constitutions was incredibly important. He
stated that the first time constitutions were printed was a
significant time in history. He detailed that the colonies
included an amendment process in their constitutions
reflecting their struggle to determine how government
should be run. He remarked that an early draft of the U.S.
constitution included an amendment process that required
two-thirds of the congressional vote; the process had been
changed in order to allow the involvement of the states. He
believed the information was difficult to understand
without the context of the values included in the first
state constitutions. He stated that the documents had
created the greatest nation on earth.
Representative Gara noted his intent to amend Amendment 2.
He asked how much time teaching the first 13 state
constitutions would take up in the curriculum.
Representative Keller answered that he would leave the
issue up to teachers to decide. He did not believe a
specified time would be productive, healthy, or possible.
Representative Wilson stated that districts would decide
what to include based on their current teachings. She
recalled that she had been required to learn the state
constitution in 8th grade and the U.S. constitution in high
school. She surmised that the length of time it would take
to teach the items would depend on the existing curriculum.
She hoped students learned about the constitution prior to
high school. She observed that the "soft" part of the
legislation entailed that schools would not be required to
go through the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) and there would be no set curriculum.
10:47:39 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that studying 13 states was more
manageable than studying all of the existing states.
Representative Costello liked the requirement related to
teaching the values in the first state constitutions. She
stated that it was not possible to discuss the U.S.
Constitution or the Declaration of Independence without
talking about Thomas Jefferson and the first constitutions.
She believed that adding the state constitutions helped to
frame the discussion about the background of the U.S.
Constitution. She appreciated Representative Gara's intent
to amend the amendment.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that Thomas Jefferson had wanted
his gravestone to include that he had been the drafter of
the Declaration of Rights for the State of Virginia. He
opined that it would be difficult to talk about the U.S.
Constitution without discussing the Virginia Declaration of
Rights. He was uncomfortable pretending to be a school
board or board of education member.
10:49:21 AM
Representative Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2 by deleting
the following language:
Page 2, line 21: delete "the first state
constitutions"
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Gara MOVED AMENDED Amendment 2. He explained
that line 2 of Amendment 2 had been discussed in committee
the prior year. He hoped the amendment would honor the
intent of the sponsor. He wanted students to take and
complete a course in history. He elaborated that the
current bill could imply that a student would be required
to separately complete the segment within a course. He did
not know how that would be determined. The amendment would
require a student to complete a course in which all of the
requirements were taught.
Representative Keller believed the amendment would
complicate the bill. He thought the current language was
clear. He surmised that superintendents could determine how
to address the issue. He thought the amendment may narrow
the options available to the superintendent by implying
that the subject had to be part of a course.
10:52:07 AM
Representative Edgmon contended that the amendment would
actually provide more flexibility to superintendents. He
spoke to various thresholds in the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was objection to amended
Amendment 2. There being NO OBJECTION, amended Amendment 2
was ADOPTED.
Representative Costello pointed to the zero impact fiscal
note from DEED.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the fiscal note pertained
only to DEED and did not address whether there would be
fiscal impacts on school districts.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the fiscal note
reflected the fact that curriculum was already in place. He
noted that the committee had not heard from school
districts.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that school districts had been
welcome to testify on the legislation.
Representative Guttenberg continued on his point. He
recalled that the concepts had been taught when he had been
in school. He did not object to the fiscal note. He
wondered if it reflected that the curriculum was ready to
use or currently in place in schools.
Representative Wilson stated that the fiscal note only
applied to the department. She discussed that the bill did
not require the department to take any action. She hoped
the curriculum was already in place in the state's schools.
She was concerned about the implementation of unfunded
mandates that could ask schools to do more and more with
existing funds. She was in favor of the bill because she
believed the majority of the districts had the curriculum
in place or that it could be easily incorporated into
current curriculum. She noted that the subject materials
were available free of charge; Fairbanks used the We the
People organization. She believed that in the future it
would be appropriate to involve districts to determine
whether legislation would impact them financially.
10:56:01 AM
Representative Costello relayed that the fiscal note had
been replaced with an updated zero impact note dated
January 21, 2014.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 31(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Neuman communicated that he would not vote
against moving the bill from the committee, but he was not
supportive of mandating school curriculum. He compared the
issue to opposing federal oversight in Alaska. He discussed
that school districts were trying to downsize because of
costs. He believed Southeast was considering moving to a
four-day school week to reduce costs. He wondered if there
would be enough time to teach the class. He spoke in
support of local control.
10:58:36 AM
Representative Edgmon agreed with comments made by Vice-
Chair Neuman. He applauded the bill sponsor for introducing
the bill and believed that the concept was sound. However,
he believed the language in the bill was prescriptive and
included multiple items detailing what school districts
would be required to do. He pointed to various examples in
the bill language. He was concerned about how small rural
schools would meet the objectives. He planned to discuss
the bill with his district's schools to get a better sense
on the true fiscal impact prior to hearing the bill on the
House floor.
Representative Costello appreciated the previous comments,
but believed that the voice of the founding fathers of the
country were of the utmost importance. She opined that
their voices had not been heard throughout the process. She
believed that there were abuses by the federal government
regarding the states. She remarked on the benefit of more
students reading about the U.S. Constitution. She shared
that she had recently traveled to the East Coast and had
had the opportunity to visit the home of Thomas Jefferson.
She noted that some students had the same opportunity. She
opined that the experiences were profound. She stated that
the men and women who were a part of the country's
foundation deserved a nod. She had struggled with requiring
that the subject be taught in schools, but had determined
that the voices of the founding fathers needed a place to
be heard.
11:01:39 AM
Representative Guttenberg stated that clearly teaching
American constitutional history was important. He discussed
opportunities to visit various historical sites. He was
concerned about the use of the word "constitutionalism,"
which he believed meant something less than American
constitutional history. He thought the bill should include
a list of some of the values encompassed in the word
constitutionalism. He remarked that the public testifiers
seemed to think that the word had definitive values.
Representative Gara read the bill to mean that schools
would be required to teach the U.S. Constitution, the
Declaration of Independence and items that lead to the
documents. He did not believe the term "ism" was a problem.
He believed the bill's goal was to teach students about
American constitutional history. He remained concerned
about including teaching on the first 13 constitutions in
the requirement. He had discussed the idea of requiring
physical education (PE) in schools with Representative
Costello and Senator Lesil McGuire; however, school
districts had communicated that because of the multitude of
subjects they were required to teach, there was not time
for PE. He agreed that it was important for students to
understand the country's history and constitutional
history. He understood that there were certain key players,
state constitutions, and provisions that were important for
students to learn; however, he wondered if it was necessary
for students to learn everything about the first 13 state
constitutions. He thought the teachings could take longer
than teaching the U.S. Constitution. He was concerned that
schools would be squeezed out of teaching subjects such as
physical education. He expressed his intent to discuss the
possibility of narrowing the scope with the sponsor.
11:06:46 AM
Representative Wilson cited language on page 2, line 19
through 20 specifying that an approved syllabus would be
required to ensure a student's understanding of the history
of American constitutionalism as included in each of the
documents listed [lines 21 through 24]. She stated that
each of the documents had to do with how the U.S.
Constitution was developed. She observed that the bill did
not include language requiring schools to teach the state
constitutions for all of the first 13 states. She
elaborated that the point was how the state constitutions
had influenced the development of the U.S. Constitution.
She was very concerned that the legislature was mandating
something that hopefully schools were already teaching. She
expressed intent to discuss the issue with schools in her
district to get more information. She remarked that schools
were already struggling in the current environment. She
believed the legislature had previously passed a bill
related to the teaching of the Alaska Constitution.
Co-Chair Stoltze communicated that the state Board of
Education had mandated the teaching of the Alaska
Constitution.
Representative Wilson continued to discuss her concern. She
did not intend to hold the bill up from moving out of
committee; however, she observed that some proponents of
the bill were in the same group that opposed federal
mandates on what should be taught in schools. She believed
it was important to know whether the subject was currently
being taught in the state's schools. She stressed the
importance of understanding how legislation impacted
municipalities. She agreed that everyone believed the
subject should be taught, but surmised that perhaps the
action should have been taken by the Board of Education.
Co-Chair Stoltze shared some of the same concerns. He
recalled voting against Alaska history curriculum in the
past due to similar concerns and noted that the subject was
one of his passions. He believed the bill language was
definitive. Additionally, he opined that the language was
broad enough that it would become part of existing
curriculum. He believed the schools would interpret the
language in the same way. He believed that often the
subject was not taught. He hoped the public viewed the bill
as requiring more meaningful curriculum. He remarked on
other subjects taught in schools that he thought were less
important. He had visited the home of Thomas Jefferson and
recognized his accomplishments. He had also looked at the
slave quarters and remarked that the experience had
provided a whole package of history. He referred to a
comment made by John F. Kennedy to a group of noted people
that it was probably the most distinguished and educated
assemblage of people ever to be at the White House with the
exception of the time Thomas Jefferson had dined there
alone. He opined that curriculum including Thomas Jefferson
could not be a negative thing.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 31(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with "no recommendation" and with one new
zero fiscal note from the Department of Education and Early
Development.
HOUSE BILL NO. 150
"An Act extending the unemployment contributions for
the Alaska technical and vocational education
program."
11:13:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, SPONSOR, discussed the
legislation. He shared that he had carried a related bill
in the past that had extended the sunset date for the
Technical Vocational Education Program (TVEP). He noted
that a flow chart was present in members' packets ["State
of Alaska Tax Flow Chart: Unemployment Insurance, State
Traiining and Employment Program, Technical and Vocational
Education Program"] (copy on file).
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that the committee would hear a
presentation by Vice-Chair Neuman and would then hear
public testimony prior to any questions.
Vice-Chair Neuman believed an important part of the
discussion pertained to the origin and flow of the money
(shown in the flow chart). The bill also included a sunset
date on the extension. The chart showed federal withholding
taxes for several programs. He detailed that TVEP came out
of the unemployment insurance tax rate; the rate had been
0.1 percent in the past and had increased to 1.5 percent a
few years back. The federal funds were distributed by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
through the schools. He noted that the bill contained a
chart showing how the money was distributed; money was
spread across various geographical locations. He remarked
that some forthcoming issues had come to light. He pointed
to the bill's immediate effective date on page 2, line 7.
He believed the committee was addressing bill version U
[actual bill version before the committee was version N].
He relayed the importance of taking action in the current
fiscal year so that federal funding was not lost. He
pointed out that there were schools hoping to be added to
the list included in the legislation. He noted that
Representative Peggy Wilson had a school in her district
that was interested in receiving some of the funds.
Additionally, he had spoken with Representative Costello
about DLWD money included in the department's operating
budget. He relayed that HB 150 had been included in Section
17 of the governor's education bill. He had spoken with
DLWD Commissioner Blumer who had communicated the
department's intent to remove some language. He discussed
the governor's proposed education bill and relayed that
Sections 1 through 5 had described the requirement to
report funding to DEED and DLWD. Many of the school
districts had struggled with the requirement because it
included social security numbers for youths under 18 years
of age. Subsequently, the discussion with Commissioner
Blumer had been to remove the related requirements. He
discussed the priority of putting the money to work.
11:17:31 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman continued to explain that the bill. He
relayed that DLWD would ensure that the vocational schools
covered under the legislation were truly teaching
vocational programs. He stated that the bill pertained to
all Alaskans because of the unemployment insurance
benefits; the goal was to ensure that adult training
programs were available. The programs had been incorporated
together and comprised a great training tool for the
schools; it provided the opportunity for adults and younger
students to work together at the same level. He relayed
that work with Commissioner Blumer was ongoing. He referred
to discussion about adding more schools and surmised that
the conversation would continue. The bill before the
committee only made a change to the sunset date [the sunset
would be extended to June 30, 2024]. He noted that the
program would be examined in the governor's education bill
as well. He preferred to address the effective date as
contained in HB 150. On a separate note, he believed there
needed to be discussion about how the funds were
distributed to the various schools. Currently DLWD had some
regulations, but he believed sideboards related to
qualification for funds should be implemented. He thought
that various issues should be addressed including how the
money was distributed geographically, was the funding even,
and was the program competing for funds with university
programs. He suggested that any added schools receive funds
out of the 50 percent allotted to the University of Alaska
given that its budget was the largest. There was currently
about $10.8 million available for the program. He believed
it was appropriate to address the issues in the committee
process. He recognized that changes to the formula
calculation could be made by the legislature in the future.
He corrected that the bill before the committee was version
N.
11:20:43 AM
Representative Costello appreciated the legislation and
believed that vocational education and jobs were a
significant part of the state's work. She mentioned that
the Southern Southeast Technical Education Center and
Ilisagvak College's community and workforce development
program were likely candidates to receive some of the
funds. She wanted to hear from the department about how
some entities made it on the list and others did not. She
shared that the funding did not really fit in the current
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
budget; she believed the list in the bill made sense. She
asked if the sponsor planned to talk about the effective
date.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Costello to formally
move bill version N before the committee for consideration.
Representative Costello MOVED to place House Labor and
Commerce version N before the committee as a working
document.
Vice-Chair Neuman believed Representative Costello had made
some good points related to how the money was distributed
and used to ensure there was equality across the state. He
agreed that the school mentioned in Southeast was a
probable candidate for the funds; however, he sensed that
the numbers had been determined based on which programs had
applied in the beginning. He was unsure the method was the
best way to distribute education funds. He agreed that the
committee may want to look at changing the effective date
from immediate to June 30, 2014. He wanted to ensure that
funding would not be lost. He noted that further discussion
on the issue could be addressed in the governor's education
legislation.
11:23:30 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze wanted to address why the University of
Alaska and the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) were
listed as two separate recipients in the bill.
Representative Munoz believed the reason UAS had been
designated as a separate entity was because it had had
trouble accessing the funding despite an active and
successful vocational education program.
Co-Chair Stoltze thought that the University of Alaska
Anchorage may want the same thing as UAS to guarantee a
spot at the table.
Vice-Chair Neuman remarked on the possibility of taking
some of the funds away from the university. He relayed that
many of the schools contracted with the university for
services.
11:25:16 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that if departments had concerns
they should speak to the entire committee.
CHARLES EDWARDSON, SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST ALASKA TECHNICAL
EDUCATION CENTER (SSEATEC), discussed a brief history
related to the center. He relayed that the center was
currently building dormitories that had been funded with
state capital appropriations and $5 million of the center's
own funds. He read a statement:
This isn't just funding for school funding just for
funding sake. What this is is a workforce development
effort to support economic development in our region.
Economic development has been identified in all of our
respective areas as a priority. Truly sustainable
economic development relies on strong workforce
development efforts to train our local residents in
the relevant industries in our respective areas. Our
strong point at SSEATEC is working with industry.
Mr. Edwardson communicated that the center had a
significant ratio of investment; the center had invested a
significant portion of its own funds into the effort.
SSEATEC was a vocational facility that offered certified
postsecondary courses. The facility housed the high schools
and the alternative high school in Ketchikan; students
received math and elective credits. The center identified
the relevant industries in Southeast Alaska and developed
its curriculum based on the information. He relayed that
the center partnered with many of the industries; the
mining industry had been identified as a target industry.
The center also used Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DLWD) statistics on projected job growth. He
relayed that the center had been in close contact with
Ucore Rare Metals Inc. regarding its plan to develop a rare
earth mine on Prince of Wales Island; the company had
agreed to priority hire of SSEATEC program graduates and
had provided a letter of support to the legislature (copy
on file). The Alaska Ship and Dry Dock directly hired out
of the Ketchikan Construction Academy that was housed in
the SSEATEC facility.
Mr. Edwardson shared that the construction academy had 100
percent job placement with 78 percent of the students going
into the construction field. He relayed that the statistics
were reported to the DLWD; he reported the information to
the Construction Education Foundation. He referenced signed
guarantees from five additional general contracting
companies located in Ketchikan. He believed the center
qualified to be included in HB 150. He recognized concerns
about how the funds were allocated to the various included
entities. He stated that the unemployment contribution was
increasing and projected to increase as a result of job
placement of local residents; the tax funded the workforce
development and vocational training. He stressed the
center's success. He believed that it was the right time to
double down on the center's efforts. He communicated that
in an effort to sustain the economic development it was
necessary to continue funding facilities such as SSEATEC.
Mr. Edwardson stated that throughout the bill's history
when a facility came online adjustments had been made. He
believed that if vocational training programs acted as a
team people would continue to be put into the workforce
successfully; however, if the center was stifled for
funding it would not be possible to sustain its own
investment. The center needed the state's help to address
workforce development needs in Ketchikan.
11:32:22 AM
Mr. Edwardson relayed that the center was a public
facility. He detailed that it was a subsidiary of the
Ketchikan Indian Community. He pointed to the
constitutional right to enter into profitable businesses.
He acknowledged that education was not incredibly
profitable, but it was available to all Alaskans.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for verification that the concept
was an example of educational choice at work.
Mr. Edwardson agreed. He addressed a concern that the
facility should be open to all Alaskans; he assured the
committee that it was a public facility open to all
Alaskans. He noted that the state had contributed $3.3
million into the center. He stated that the center paid
$1.2 million in education efforts annually. He discussed
state and its own expenditures. He relayed that the prior
year he had requested an operational match for $1.2
million; however, he had selected a percentage based on
other schools of the center's size and activity. Ideally he
would like a $1.2 million state match. He thanked the
sponsor for pointing out geographical concerns related to
the distribution of funds. He communicated that the
southern Southeast region of Alaska was not represented
other than the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS). He
shared that the center worked in close partnership with
UAS; the entities had a working agreement that the center's
programs would complement UAS programs. He stated that
funding did not exist for a true vocational technical
center focused on industry demands.
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that Mr. Edwardson would be a
continued part of the discussion. Mr. Edwardson was happy
to address any questions or concerns.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that there would be questions at
some time. Mr. Edwardson noted that how the funds would be
divided would be up to the legislature. Co-Chair Stoltze
believed Mr. Edwardson should play a part in determining
the fund source. Mr. Edwardson did have methods he could
discuss. Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that the issue would be
addressed at a later date.
Representative Wilson asked for further information on how
the program's outcomes were measured. She wanted to
understand how many people the center put to work and where
the students came from. She wanted to receive the same
information from each entity interested in the funds.
Mr. Edwardson agreed.
11:36:29 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked if the educational program was
operated through a for-profit company. Mr. Edwardson
replied that the program had the ability to be for-profit,
but he noted that education was not profitable. He shared
that it had been necessary to form a business outside of
the corporation in order to make the program available to
the public. The entity had its own business license and
line item in the budget; it had been necessary to separate
the entity from the tribe.
11:37:53 AM
STEVEN ANGASAN, SOUTH WEST ALASKA VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATION
CENTER, KING SALMON (via teleconference), spoke in support
of the legislation. He noted that the committee had a
letter of support for the entity in its packets (copy on
file). He discussed changes that had occurred in the past
three to four months. The center had received a federal
grant for a rural jobs accelerator program from the United
States Department of Agriculture; the grant was one of 15
awarded nationwide. The grant provided for fisheries job
training; however, the grant did not cover a significant
portion of the items the center hoped to accomplish. The
center had partnered with a regional community development
quota (CDQ) group based on a large number of courses in the
past quarter. He explained that the center compiled reports
with the state management team; the center had discovered
that its numbers in the last three months were larger than
the numbers in center's report in member's documentation
for 2010. He communicated that the center had made historic
steps towards providing a career guide for fisheries. He
believed DLWD was also working in the same direction. The
center had recently released a career guide and would
provide copies to committee members. He stressed without
funding from unemployment tax, entities like the center
would not exist. He relayed that state funding provided was
vital to all of the regional training centers. He noted
that financial difficulties in recent years had resulted in
cuts to the entity's regional meetings. He applauded Vice-
Chair Neuman for bringing the bill forward. He stated that
the bill would do much in the future for the region. He
relayed that the center had one of the highest outcomes of
wages in the state. He thanked the committee for working on
the legislation. He hoped the finances would be available
in the future.
11:42:39 AM
KAREN CEDZO, DELTA CAREER ADVANCEMENT CENTER AND PARTNERS
FOR PROGRESS IN DELTA, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She relayed that the TVEP
funds made available to Delta Junction had been life-
changing for youth and adults in the community. She
communicated that the goal was to provide training and
education to enable the students to pursue careers or
other. She expressed intent to provide additional
information throughout the bill process.
PEARL BROWER, PRESIDENT, ILISAGVIK COLLEGE, recognized that
the bill focused on the extension of the sunset date. She
understood that the funds were incredibly important to the
state. She asked that the college be considered as a
candidate for funding moving forward. She relayed that the
college was designated as a regional training center
through its connection with the North Slope Training and
Education Cooperative. She shared that the college had
offered 247 workforce development classes with close to
1,900 students in the last fiscal year. She believed the
college was meeting the workforce development training
needs across the state; it had had programs in Barrow to
Metlakatla. She stressed that the college was a statewide
entity and she looked forward to being part of the
conversation going forward.
Representative Gara agreed that the sunset should be
extended. He noted that Anchorage had vocational education
needs as well, but they were not as severe as needs in
small communities. He addressed that if funds were expanded
to additional entities that a portion of funds would be
taken from one of the other recipients. He wondered about
any recommendations.
Ms. Brower answered that she did not currently have
recommendations. The college had not been aware of TVEP
funding until recently. She was unsure why the college, as
a regional training center, had not been included in the
initial list of recipients. She would be grateful to be a
part of the conversation going forward.
Representative Gara replied that he hoped the college would
be a part of the conversation as well.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed he had visited all of the
facilities that were on the list and that hoped to be on
the list. He remarked that it was not possible to give 110
percent to the budget. He expressed frustration that DWLD
had been unable to answer a handful of questions. He
believed the department had provided an embarrassing
performance. He was frustrated when the public's money was
treated in a cavalier fashion.
11:48:53 AM
Representative Wilson replied that the subject was on the
upcoming DLWD budget subcommittee meeting. She would make
sure the questions were reiterated and answered. She had
also asked the department whether the funding percentage
could be changed.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the legislature could make
the change.
Representative Gara agreed that answers were necessary in
order to make decisions during the legislative session. He
had been disturbed by testimony provided by DEED earlier in
the week related to the Base Student Allocation (BSA). He
understood the frustrations.
Representative Costello thanked Ms. Brower for her
testimony. She had been to Ilisagvik College and was
impressed by the entity. She relayed that its funding
currently fell within the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development operating budget. She noted it was
difficult to determine where the funds for the college
should come from; the legislature had also discussed
providing funds from the capital budget. She appreciated
Ms. Brower's testimony and hoped that there could be
continued discussion about including other entities
deserving of the funds.
11:51:43 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked on the complexity of the issue.
Vice-Chair Neuman understood that the issue was not simple.
He believed it may be prudent for the committee to look at
how the funds were distributed.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the discussion would
continue. He recognized the importance of the issue to many
Alaskans. He commented that criteria other than merit could
have entered into the picture when it had been determined
which entities would receive the funding. He appreciated
the sponsor's work on the subject. He thanked the committee
for its participation.
HB 150 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
11:52:54 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:52 a.m.