Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/25/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR15 | |
| HB210 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 25, 2014
8:33 a.m.
8:33:08 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:33 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-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 Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Charisse Millet, Sponsor; Representative
Shelley Hughes, Sponsor; Ginger Blaisdell, Staff,
Representative Shelly Hughes; Vasilios Gialopsos, Staff,
Representative Charisse Millet; Michael Hanley,
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Steve Colligan, Alaska President of Academy of Model
Aeronautics; Ro Bailey, University of Alaska Fairbanks;
John Binder, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, Anchorage; Clayton Holland, Kenai Peninsula
Rural School District, Soldotna; Jeanne Gerhardt-Cyrus,
Self, Kiana; Ivory Gerhardt-Cyrus, Kiana; Eugene Avey,
Superintendent of Annette Island School District,
Metlakatla; Ron Cowan, Disability Law Center of Alaska,
Anchorage; Ashley Dunks, Self, Mat-Su; Cassie Wells,
President of the Alaska Case, Barrow; Kendra Stea, Crisis
Prevention Institute, Chicago Illinois; Christie Reinhardt,
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education;
Lucy Hope, Special Education Director, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School District.
SUMMARY
HB 210 STUDENT RESTRAINT, SECLUSION, PSYC DRUGS
HB 210 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 278 EDUCATION: FUNDING/TAX CREDITS/PROGRAMS
HB 278 was POSTPONED
HCR 15 TASK FORCE ON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
HCR 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Relating to the continuation of the Task Force on
Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
8:33:57 AM
GINGER BLAISDELL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SHELLY HUGHES,
reported that HCR 15 extended the Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) for an additional three years. The extension
coincided with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
campus selected as a UAS test site. She described the
composition of the task force. The task force was comprised
of seven members; state employees, legislators, one member
from the Aviation Advisory Board, and one member form the
Academy of Model Aeronautics [Alaska Chapter]. She detailed
that the sponsor added the commissioner [or designee] of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT) because of the departments role as the liaison
between the state and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), and one additional public member. In addition, an
amendment that was adopted in the House Labor and Commerce
Committee added three seats; two industry professionals
from unmanned aircraft systems, and the commissioner or
designee from Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development.
Ms. Blaisdell elaborated that the legislation expanded the
duties of the task force to include investigating
complaints and concerns regarding unmanned aircraft and
identification of potential privacy problems. She relayed
that safeguarding Alaskans privacy was a main focus of the
task force. Public education regarding unmanned aircraft
was another expanded role hoped to allay the public's fears
of the new technology. Part of the university's role as a
test site would be to hold public hearings as per agreement
with the federal government. The task force previously held
meetings two that included public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed concern that the two additional
industry members were considered public members. He wanted
to avoid public misperception about their role in the
industry.
REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR, agreed. She voiced
that the amendment was made in the House Labor and Commerce
Committee. She suggested that one member could be
designated as a public member and the other member could be
chosen from industry.
Co-Chair Austerman revealed that he flew model airplanes.
He asked how the legislation would affect the public's use
of model aircraft.
Representative Hughes answered that different rules applied
to the flying of model aircraft which fly under 400 feet.
The task force was concerned with the integration of
unmanned aircraft allowed into national airspace by 2016.
She noted that an unmanned aircraft can also fly under 400
feet but would be differentiated for public or commercial
purposes where model aircraft was considered recreational.
The same UAS technology could be used by hobbyist.
Co-Chair Austerman expressed additional concern about the
legislation affecting recreational users.
Representative Hughes stated that the legislative task
force would have no jurisdiction over hobby aircraft.
Representative Costello asked about the fiscal note, FN1
(LEG). She cited the analysis that listed numerous
commission meetings and public hearings in addition to new
members. She wondered whether the fiscal note appropriation
was sufficient to cover expenses and member's travel.
Representative Hughes replied that last year's task force
costs were absorbed by the members. She mentioned that her
legislative account covered the refreshments. The members
of the task force were willing to continue to serve and
absorb the costs.
Ms. Blaisdell stated that the only costs incurred last year
were two mileage tickets used for staff participation. The
current legislation costs were calculated based on last
year and additional funds were added for a potential bush
or Fairbanks member. Most members were from the Anchorage
area. The sponsor anticipated holding only two or three in-
person meetings, which involved travel.
Representative Costello expressed additional concern. She
wondered whether new public members would be aware of
accepting the financial costs of travel and expenses. She
thought that the fiscal note was inadequate for the
potential costs of the task force expansion and the public
hearing. She wished to further address the costs and fiscal
note.
Co-Chair Stoltze applauded the task force for cutting the
corners and saving money.
Representative Hughes stated that last year she
intentionally kept costs low.
8:45:13 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
STEVE COLLIGAN, ALASKA PRESIDENT OF ACADEMY OF MODEL
AERONAUTICS (via teleconference), supported the
legislation. He stated that he was a member of the task
force. The academy was in existence for 78 years and guided
self-regulation of recreational model aeronautics. Over the
years many technological changes had taken place. His
mission was to separate recreational and commercial use and
protect model aeronautics. The academy fostered youth and
student interest in technology, science, and math. He noted
that little distinguished a model from a commercial
unmanned aerial. The intent or operation of the unmanned
aircraft typically differentiated recreational unmanned
aircraft. He related that unmanned autonomous systems were
once very expensive but currently could be built for
several thousand dollars. The academy was on a mission to
provide the instruction and self-regulation of unmanned
aircraft. The academy wanted to ensure that "best
practices" were being followed responsibly by the user. He
noted that the organization was proactive in helping the
recreational operator know the airspace rules and FCC
regulations.
Mr. Colligan voiced that last year the task force addressed
public safety and privacy. The task force examined the
state's laws related to privacy concerns over unmanned
aircraft and felt the laws were adequate except for a few
minor administrative issues. He qualified that the unmanned
aircraft technology would continue to evolve. He saw the
task force as a common sense approach to filter new
information and coordinate the activities at the
university. He discussed that new small unmanned aircraft
were used to develop three dimensional models used for
surveying and mapping and augmented aerial photography and
satellite imagery. The use of unmanned aircraft in mapping
was cost effective but was currently illegal for profit. He
mentioned the use of unmanned aircraft equipped with
cameras for commercial film or sports use. The academy
established rules for personal use of unmanned aerial
cameras within a controlled line of sight. He thought that
the task force would monitor evolving technology and
develop parameters in the same way as the academy. He
reported that the technology had evolved beyond the point
that the FAA could keep pace. Adding industry members to
the task force that had current experience was a
responsible approach. He reported that he had a mapping
company and was also performing testing and research and
development and hoped he was operation under legal
parameters. He felt that as the technology evolved it was
important to have a forum like the task force to
"communicate and address" privacy and public safety issues.
Mr. Colligan replied, in response to a question by Co-Chair
Stoltze, that the FAA was concerned with regulating 7,500
large unmanned drones in the airspace. He expressed concern
about the safety of general aviation. He also expressed
concern regarding the large number of small unmanned
aircraft from one vendor that was selling 15,000 UAS per
month in the United States (US) market at a cost of $450.
He anticipated rapid growth in the number of UAS coming
into private use.
Co-Chair Austerman agreed with the privacy issues involved.
He wished to avoid overregulation for recreational use.
8:55:24 AM
Mr. Colligan agreed. He explained that under new rules, the
academy was preparing to receive certification from the FAA
through a provision called community based organization
(CBO) for the self-regulation of recreational use.
Representative Edgmon appreciated the testimony. He
supported the bill. He thought that the task force was
needed in the formative stages of unmanned aircraft use to
sift through the issues and make recommendations. He
wondered how a person with questions on unmanned aircraft
use would get answers.
Mr. Colligan replied that the issue was not clear and rules
needed to be outlined. The task force first addressed
public use and required each state agency involved to find
a lead contact to field public inquiry. The university was
becoming a resource for UAS operational standards. He was
not sure that the issue was fully defined.
RO BAILEY, ALASKA CENTER FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
INTEGRATION, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), expressed support for the legislation. She
reported that she was a member of the task force. She
relayed the importance of the formation of the task force.
She related that the public appreciated the task force for
sharing citizens' concerns. The tasks force's ability to
resolve concerns and complaints presented a "valuable
bridging" to a future where unmanned aircraft systems were
understood, properly managed, and controlled through
regulation. She noted that the task force's outreach was
appreciated by the public and organizations that fear
government overreach. She recalled an article stating that
Alaska had the most progressive laws in the country for UAS
use. She stated that as the industry grew the potential for
complaints grew. She noted much interest from outside
companies and agencies who want to test systems in Alaska.
A growing group of inexperienced people were also
purchasing drones that were unaware of the rules.
Separating inappropriate behavior from responsible,
professional operation was the key to establishing "common
sense" rules. She supported the expansion of the task force
to include members of the public, industry and the
commissioner of DCCED.
JOHN BINDER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation
and the expansion of the task force. He remarked that the
task force was primarily focused on privacy and law
enforcement concerns but that the matter was rapidly
expanding beyond those concerns. He reminded the committee
that DOT only dealt with the ground aspects of unmanned
vehicles but was the primary liaison between the agencies
and the FAA, who was responsible for the airspace
coordination. The department was concerned about the
growing use of UAS and how they interact with the public
and general aviation around airports. The department was
"very interested" in developing an integrated and
collaborative role in the task force as UAS capabilities
expanded. He applauded the efforts of the task force
especially as more issues would impact the public and state
owned airports.
Representative Holmes asked whether the travel costs would
be absorbed by the department.
Mr. Binder replied in the affirmative. Most meetings would
take place in Anchorage and costs would be minimal.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Hughes responded to Representative Edgmon's
prior question. She stated that the task force meetings
were publicly noticed and her office was acting as a point
of contact. She expressed the need for the task force to
become a central point of contact. She noted that the next
issue the taskforce would address was the integration of
commercial UAS users related to first amendment rights. She
thanked her staff and the members of the task force for
their efficiency and achievement in establishing the
legislation related to law enforcement and HCR 15. She
remarked that the state's approach to UAS regulation fixed
a problem as it arose. The industry viewed Alaska as a
place to "set up shop" which was a reason for the task
force to continue to address new issues as they arise.
9:07:38 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze recently heard about a Board of Game
regulatory process regarding UAS. He requested additional
information.
Representative Hughes replied that the Board of Game had
added the following proposed regulations to exclude:
" any devise that has been airborne controlled
remotely and used to spot or locate game with the use
of a camera or a video devise…"
Representative Hughes reported that the Department of Fish
and Game (DFG) was aware of use of a drone during a moose
hunt in 2012 and wanted to prevent a reoccurrence. She
added that if the prohibition was not specified in the
regulations the practice would be allowed.
Representative Gara mentioned another aspect of unmanned
aircraft. Sometimes the planes crash and injure people. He
wished to address the need for public safety in the
resolution.
Representative Hughes replied that the FAA addressed the
safety aspects of UAS and the issue was outside of the task
force's purview.
Representative Gara requested language that the task force
could address minimizing public safety risks.
Representative Hughes replied that the task force reviewed
FAA regulations as part of its duties and would continue
the practice.
Co-Chair Stoltze wanted to change the language regarding
public members to include their role in industry. He
stressed the importance of accuracy when communicating to
the public.
HCR 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:13:57 AM
AT EASE
9:15:20 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the administration of psychiatric
medication to a student; relating to crisis
intervention training for school personnel; and
relating to restraint, escort, and seclusion of
students in public and private schools."
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLET, SPONSOR, presented the
bill. She related that she was appointed to the governor's
Council on Special Education and Disabilities and HB 210
was one of the council's three priority bills. The bill
dealt with seclusion and restraint in schools. Alaska was
one of ten states with "vague" regulations regarding
seclusion and restraint in schools. There were currently no
requirements to report or notify parents when a child was
secluded or restrained in school. The issue was brought to
the public's attention last year when a case in the Iliamna
School in Anchorage received media attention; although the
issue had been ongoing for some time. The goal was to
ensure that the schools were not causing more harm and
increasing liability. The bill laid out guidelines about
how, when, and where a student could be restrained,
reporting to the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), and notification requirements for
parents. The provisions enabled the state to track the use
of seclusion or restraint to gauge whether the practice was
overused or misused. Parent notification alerted the
parents and allowed them to prepare for the resulting
consequences in the child's behavior. If a parent had an
autistic child and was not notified that a child had been
restrained they could have no idea why a child's behavior
had changed drastically from earlier in the day. She
believed that the bill offered a better process for the
state and for those that are "most vulnerable." Seclusion
and restraint should be an action of last resort. She had
worked with the Council, DEED, and the Disability Law
Center to craft the legislation. She mentioned that the $14
thousand fiscal note FN1 (EED) was appropriated for school
district training in the proper application of seclusion
and restraint. Students with intensive needs or with
Independent Educational Programs (IEP) were the majority of
recipients of the practice.
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLET,
provided a sectional analysis. He detailed that Section 1
required that the a school districts safety and
disciplinary plan included standards for the use of
restraint and seclusion required under Section 3 of the
bill and were made available to students, parents and the
public. Section 2 required a 24 hour notification period
for a restraint or seclusion incident to the parent or
guardian. He offered that Section 3 was the "core" of the
bill. The section described the specific terms, conditions,
and prohibitions for use of restraint and seclusion in
public schools. The provision included the follow up
requirements for school personnel and parent notification.
The section required that DEED approve the school districts
training programs for the safe, last resort use seclusion
and restraint and de-escalation techniques. Section 3
required that school districts report yearly to the DEED
the number and details of the incidents in order to analyze
the effectiveness of the program. Reporting must ensure the
students privacy. He noted that Section 4 cross-referenced
an exemption in Section 5 for private schools from the
provisions of the bill. He explained that the exemption was
provided because no mechanism allowed for enforcement in
private schools. He believed that the majority of instances
happened in the most vulnerable populations (students with
IEP's) in public schools.
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, supported the legislation. He reported
that he worked diligently with the sponsor. He recognized
the need for protection of Alaska's student's. He
reiterated that the bill clarified current vague
regulations.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he had not heard from the
school districts.
Representative Millet replied that most major school
districts enacted policies and procedures without the
requirement to report to the department. The bill required
the extra step of reporting to the department. She thought
that most schools supported the legislation and welcomed
the de-escalation techniques and parameters established in
the legislation. She stated there was no opposition from
school districts.
9:26:06 AM
Representative Wilson cited page 2, line 23 which specified
the 24 hour time period for parent notification. She asked
for a rationale for a 24 hour notification requirement
instead of a much shorter time period to help prepare the
parent for the student's post incident arrival home from
school.
Mr. Gialopsos replied that the decision to adopt a 24 hour
notification period was made in consultation with legal
services and after assessing the laws passed in other
states. He relayed that some states chose immediate
notification but noted that "immediate" was a vague term.
He declared that if the bill were to pass, the 24 hour
notification period would be the most restrictive in the
country. The legislation did not restrict a local district
to require an even shorter notification period. He believed
in many instances school's provided immediate notification
but "exigent" circumstances took place that could not be
accommodated for therefore, the drafters choose less
restrictive language.
Representative Wilson voiced that same day notification
could be inserted in the bill. She believed that there was
"absolutely no reason" why the parents could not be
notified of an occurrence in the same day. She referred to
page 3, lines 29 through 31 and read:
"(d) School personnel who restrain or seclude a
student shall provide a written report of the incident
to the school administrator. A school shall provide a
copy of the report to the student's parents or legal
guardians on request."
Representative Wilson wanted the incident report
mandatorily provided to the parents or legal guardian. She
stressed that restraint or seclusion occurred with any
student, not only those designated as special needs. She
expressed concerns over the delay in notification due to
the the 24 hour time period and the repercussions it would
cause parents and the child and over the lack of mandatory
reporting to the parents. She wondered what the costs to
smaller school districts were.
Representative Costello appreciated the legislation. She
thought that the legislation was balanced and necessary for
the protection of all students. She asked whether the
sponsors discussed incorporating trauma informed care.
Mr. Gialopsos cited page 5, lines 15 through 25 of the bill
which delineated the crisis intervention training. He
ascertained that trauma informed care would be involved in
the training. He stated that one of the institutes'
representatives that offered the training was better
qualified to answer the question.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
CLAYTON HOLLAND, DIRECTOR PUPIL SERVICES, KENAI PENINSULA
RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference),
supported the legislation. The bill provided the safeguards
necessary to protect all students in Alaska. His school
district employed the MANDT system. Two paraprofessionals
were utilized as trainers in the district. The Kenai
district was large and diverse in school sizes. The
district required that staff was trained in de-escalation
and restraint. In the current year, the district trained a
total of 140 staff members at a cost of $164. per person.
The district discovered that the costs was "well worth" the
results and valued the de-escalation techniques. He noted
that actual restrains were now a rare occurrence and the
training helped the overall culture of the district and
performance of the schools. He reported that his district
already required reporting and same day parent
notification. He supported the 24 hour notification period
which offered the district flexibility in case parents
can't be reached but felt that same day notification was a
"best practice."
Representative Guttenberg asked about school reporting. He
wondered if the incident reports travel with the child to
another school.
Mr. Holland stated that the form remained in the district
office but a district wide system for student reporting
that included any type of intervention, IEP, or
disciplinary action was transferred.
Representative Thompson assumed that the report followed
the student within the district. He wondered if a student's
records transferred to a new district.
Mr. Holland replied that the IEP plan was indicative of the
student's history and transferred to a new district. All of
the restraints in his district happened to students with an
IEP. The district experienced approximately one dozen
restraints last year out of 9000 students.
9:38:24 AM
JEANNE GERHARDT-CYRUS, SELF, KIANA (via teleconference),
testified herself and on behalf of her daughter. She
related that her child was inappropriately restrained in
grades one through eight multiple times beginning at age 6.
Her daughter was exposed to prenatal alcohol. Her husband
witnessed her daughter being inappropriately restrained in
school. She believed restraint was a form of abuse and
unnecessary. She explained that her daughter suffered from
high anxiety and self-accommodated by hiding under a desk
or removing herself from visual or verbal overload. Her
teacher viewed the behavior as non-compliant and the
situation would escalate. Her daughter was subsequently
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder from the
repeated inappropriate response and restraints that she
experienced at school. She stated that she removed her
child from school multiple times. She recalled an incident
where the school staff went to the clinic after a
restraint, but her child who was bruised and injured was
not taken for medial assessment. She felt that the school
only wanted to expel her child. She mentioned that in
village attending school was the ultimate and only social
experience for children. Her daughter missed all of her
middle school years. She shared that her daughter was
presently on the honor roll in ninth grade due to new
trained staff at school who understood de-escalation
skills. The family was guided under the complex behavior
collaborative for teachers and with the support of the new
principle the school allowed the daughter to self-
accommodate and her anxiety is much reduced. The daughter
now excelled in school. She strongly advocated for staff
training.
Ms. Gerhardt-Cyrus proceeded to read her daughters
testimony.
IVORY GERHARDT-CYRUS, THROUGH HER MOTHER (via
teleconference), supported the legislation. She testified
about her experience. She related that due to her past
history of repeated restraints she had no friends. She was
performing much better in school this year with the right
services and without restraint or seclusion incidents. She
was allowed to go for a walk to calm down. She thought back
on her elementary school years as traumatic.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the personal nature of the
testimony.
EUGENE AVEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF ANNETTE ISLAND SCHOOL
DISTRICT, METLAKATLA (via teleconference), testified in
support of the legislation. He specifically supported
Section 3 of the bill that dealt with restraint. He pointed
out that his school district had an increase of special
needs students and at times restraint was necessary for the
safety of students and staff in certain situations. The
district implemented the MANDT training along with
principles of positive behavior to minimize the use of
force. The district believed that teachers should treat the
students with respect and dignity and minimize the use of
restraint use in order to increase productive instructional
time. The district chose a staff member to attend a five
day training in order to become the staff trainer for the
district. He noted that before the training the
oppositional defiant children were difficult for the staff.
Since the staff trainings, restraints were much diminished
and the severely disruptive behavior was reduced with no
incidents in the last two months. The district felt that
the training funding was well spent, and the benefit was
readily seen. He remarked that the reporting requirements
were not burdensome.
9:51:00 AM
RON COWAN, DISABILITY LAW CENTER OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
He reported that he was the primary abuse and neglect
investigator for the center. A number of cases of injury
and death were due to the use of restraint and seclusion.
Studies revealed the inappropriate use or misuse of
restraint and seclusion methods in schools. The federal
government and some states were developing or adopting
regulations delineating the conditions of use. He noted the
frequent use of inappropriate and unsafe seclusion methods
in school districts in Alaska. Frequently a staff member
was present during an inappropriate seclusion therefore,
the parents weren't notified nor were any reporting, follow
up, or assessment performed that could be used to develop
interventions or positive behavioral supports to prevent
future unsafe behavior. The legislation would allow for
consistent policies and practices across the state. The
bill offered protection to students who may be subjected to
restraint or seclusion; a large number of whom have a
disability. He listed the safeguards included in the
legislation: parental notification, reporting requirements,
mandating use of restraint and seclusion only in emergency
circumstances as a last resort, termination of the
restraints or seclusion as soon as the unsafe behavior
subsided, staff training, continuous monitoring of a
secluded student, review of the analysis of plans and
assessments following use of restraint and seclusion, and
annual reporting to the state. He voiced that the "use of
restraint and seclusion was indicative of failure of other
therapeutic interventions" and should only be used under
rare circumstances. The use of restraint and seclusion
should only be used when a child was engaged in unsafe
behaviors for themselves or others and never employed for
convenience, compliance, or punishment. Assessment and re-
evaluation of the students plan with recommended changes
should be carried out immediately after an incident. The
use of restraint and seclusion can lead to a traumatic
experience for a child whose behavior stemmed from other
traumatic experience or a disability. The legislation
ensured added protection to students and parental
notification provided an opportunity for the parents to
work with school staff to develop interventions that
enhanced student learning.
9:56:27 AM
ASHLEY DUNKS, SELF, MAT-SU (via teleconference), supported
the legislation. She explained that she was the parent of
an autistic child. Her son developed progressive behavior
problems at the age of five. The school placed him on an
IEP. She reported that her child returned home from school
bruised. He was secluded and strapped down to a chair and
placed in a room with the lights off for hours. He did not
want to attend school. She was unaware of the treatment her
child received at school. Her son's behavior and anxiety
worsened. His psychiatrist admitted that the actions at
school led to his anxiety and the necessary medication.
Since moving to the Mat-Su school district her son is off
medication and loves school. The school participated in
MANDT training. The techniques contributed to his success
at school. He will be placed in a general education
classroom when entering third grade.
CASSIE WELLS, PRESIDENT OF THE ALASKA COUNCIL OF
ADMINISTRATORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, BARROW (via
teleconference), supported the bill. She believed that
crisis intervention training for schools and de-escalation
and was a major preemptive step to minimize the need for
restraint or seclusion. She supported the parental
notification requirement.
KENDRA STEA, CRISIS PREVENTION INSTITUTE, CHICAGO ILLINOIS
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. She echoed the sentiments from prior
testifiers. She discussed the fiscal implications of
providing training for school districts. A large number of
school districts have already engaged in training in the
various systems available such as, Crisis Prevention
Institute's (CPI) Non-Violent Crisis Intervention or the
MANDT System. Most district's employ the train the trainer
model as the most cost effective approach. She suggested
that any school district concerned with the fiscal
implications for training examine the workman compensation
claims associated with instances of restraint and seclusion
in school districts. She mentioned that the Syracuse, New
York district reduced the worker's compensation claims by
$500 thousand when implementing the training. The cost
savings balanced against the training costs was
significant. District's also reduced litigation. The costs
associated with districts employing evidence based,
nationally recognized training was worth the expense. She
added that the other cost associated with training involved
the time commitment. She recommended programs that offered
a blended learning option with "front-loaded' teaching
options along with the in-class component to reduce the in-
class time, which reduced the cost.
Representative Costello asked whether she supported a 24
hour parental notification period. She stated instances why
the notification period might be too long.
Ms. Stea replied that she supported same day notification
but understood that a 24 hour period was the most
restrictive. The institute felt that any student restrained
or secluded should be monitored for side effects over a 24
hour period. If the parents were unaware of the situation
they cannot properly monitor the child. She reiterated the
institutes support for same day notification but qualified
that the provision was "rarely written into policy."
Representative Wilson asked whether the Council advocated
for same day or 24 hour parental notification.
CHRISTIE REINHARDT, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON DISABILITIES AND
SPECIAL EDUCATION (via teleconference), replied that same
day notice was appropriate. Data showed that parents were
not notified 70 percent of the time. The largest portion of
students that experienced restraint or seclusion had
"significant disabilities often with communication
disorders." The students weren't able or believed to be
credible enough to communicate the incident. She stated
that the council chose the 24 hour period as a low level
option in order to set a definitive time frame. The other
reason for a 24 hours timeframe was that a child might be
removed from a classroom multiple times. The necessity of
notifying a parent multiple times was a burden. She
supported making the requirement "more beneficial for
parents and more protective for children."
Co-Chair Stoltze deduced that the committee supported same
day notification.
Representative Wilson believed that if the school was
restraining a child multiple times in one day the parent
should be notified. The same day notification was essential
and might make things better for the child if the parent
was aware of the incident. She reiterated that seclusion or
restraint was not exclusive to special needs students.
Representative Guttenberg expressed concern about the
therapeutic impact of seclusion or restraint incidents. He
asked whether not notifying parents could prove
"detrimental to everyone."
Ms. Reinhardt replied in the affirmative. She explained
that especially in situations where the children return
home to non-family care givers.
LUCY HOPE, SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA
BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (via teleconference), testified in
support of the legislation. She concurred with the previous
testimony. The legislation mirrored the policies the school
district already adopted. In addition a school nurse or
designee monitored the student during and after any
incident. The district policy was 24 hour notification, but
in practice the parent was notified on the same day. The
district employed a part-time certified MANDT Systems
trainer and trained 350 staff members each year. The
district participated in training other school districts
and would continue to do so. She elaborated that the most
effective way to change a child's disruptive or dangerous
behavior was through relationships. The district
implemented a positive behavior support model between
students, staff, and parents and was the preferred method.
The district chose the MANDT System because of its emphasis
on relationships.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the Matanuska-Susitna school
district favored the 24 hour parental notification period
over the same day option.
Ms. Hope replied that she believed that it was not always
practicable to reach the parents within the same day of the
incident. She believed the intent of any staff member
should be same day notification.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Millet stated she would accept a friendly
amendment relating to Section B, page 3 of the bill
changing the language to "same day notification if possible
but no later than 24 hours after the incident."
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that he preferred making the
change as a committee substitute instead of an amendment.
He alluded to reviewing the overall cost of the program.
Representative Wilson cited page 3, lines 30 through 31:
A school shall provide a copy of the report to the
student's parents or legal guardians on request.
Representative Wilson requested that the words "on request"
should be deleted. She asserted that parents had the right
to receive the report without requesting a copy.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that parents included
caregivers. A child's parent may have forgone rights and
including "caregiver" might be more relevant.
Representative Millet replied that the legislation already
included "legal guardian."
Co-Chair Stoltze wanted to ensure that the language
reflected the intent of any changes to the bill.
Representative Edgmon asked whether the language regarding
the crisis intervention training in HB 210 was sufficient
to allow the department to address the disparity in rural
schools.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the affirmative.
HB 210 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:20:17 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|