Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/17/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB140 | |
| HB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 17, 2015
1:32 p.m.
1:32:33 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
ALSO PRESENT
Jane Pierson, Chief of Staff, Representative Steve
Thompson; William G. O'Leary, President and CEO, Alaska
Railroad Corporation; Linda Leary, Board Chair, Board of
Directors, Alaska Railroad Corporation; Representative Wes
Keller, Sponsor; Commissioner Michael Hanley, Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development;
SUMMARY
HB 30 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CURRICULUM
HB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 140 LEG. APPROVAL: AK RAILROAD REVENUE BONDS
HB 140 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 140
"An Act authorizing the Alaska Railroad Corporation to
issue revenue bonds to finance a positive train
control rail transportation safety project that
qualifies for federal financial participation; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the meeting agenda and indicated
he would not be moving either of the scheduled bills out of
committee.
1:33:51 PM
JANE PIERSON, CHIEF OF STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE
THOMPSON, introduced herself and told a personal story
about riding on the Alaska railroad from Seward to
Anchorage. She read the sponsor statement:
HB 140 will authorize the Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC) to issue up to $37 million in tax-exempt bonds
backed by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula
funds received annually by ARRC. Bond proceeds will be
used to finance Positive Train Control (PTC): a safety
program mandated by the federal government without any
correlating funding, which is estimated to cost ARRC
approximately $158 million.
ARRC proposes to refinance $66 million in existing
bonds and extend the repayment date in order to issue
an additional $37 million in bonds to pay for a major
portion of the remaining $55 million in PTC costs.
Under AS.42.40.285 ARRC is required to receive
legislative approval to issue bonds. In no event will
the general credit of the State of Alaska or ARRC be
pledged for the repayment of these bonds. AS.42.40.500
requires that all liabilities incurred by ARRC shall
be satisfied "exclusively" from the assets or revenue
of ARRC and not the State.
Debt payment for the bonds will come from a portion of
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula funds
which are statutorily mandated by Federal law and
received annually by ARRC. Issuing debt backed by FTA
formula funds is authorized through FTA regulation and
has already been used by ARRC to issue bonds.
PTC is technology designed to stop or slow a train
before human-error causes an accident to occur. In
2008, the federal Rail Safety Improvement Act required
certain railroads to install a fully functional PTC
system by the end of 2015; by virtue of its passenger
service, ARRC is subject to this requirement. A
failure to implement PTC will force ARRC to severely
curtail or eliminate passenger service and/or face
severe fines for non-compliance.
Estimates for this large research and development
project indicate that it will cost approximately $158
million to implement. Since 1997, ARRC has invested
$68.9 million to develop a PTC system. In 2013 and
2014, ARRC received an additional $19.1 million and
$15 million respectively from the State of Alaska to
continue work on PTC. Between 2016 and 2018, an
additional $55 million will be required for ARRC to
complete the development and installation of PTC by
2018. This figure does not include the estimated $5
million to $7 million per year of operating and
capital maintenance costs related to the system that
ARRC will fund after PTC is installed.
She added that the bond issuance would leave the additional
$18 million to complete the project for the funding
package. She noted that if ARRC did not show that it was
making a good-faith effort to implement PTC, the Federal
Railroad Administration could implement fines up to $100
thousand per day. She concluded her introduction of the
bill and mentioned that Bill O'Leary, ARRC's President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Linda Leary, ARRC's Board
Chair were in the audience available for questions. She
also indicated Barbara Amy, ARRC's Chief Financial Officer,
was online and available for questions.
1:38:37 PM
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Co-Chair Neuman and
Representative Gattis had joined the meeting and asked if
any committee members had questions.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered if anyone had any ideas on how
to increase revenue to pay for the additional $5 million to
$7 million per year for the operational expense of the PTC
system.
WILLIAM G. O'LEARY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA RAILROAD
CORPORATION, responded that the $5 million to $7 million
would be the ongoing costs to maintain the system once
installed. He anticipated taking the maintenance funding
from the railroad's operating and capital budgets. The
railroad had been in a series of flux with the drops in key
revenue streams including federal monies. He thought that
funding would be a challenge starting in 2019.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about how much gross revenue the
state received from passenger service.
Mr. O'Leary estimated that the annual gross revenue for
passenger services was between $26 million to $27 million.
He reported that passenger activity had grown over recent
years.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Mr. O'Leary if the cost of the PTC
was paid for through passenger fees. Mr. O'Leary responded
in the negative. He signified that ARRC would be exploring
different revenue options. He opined that the railroad was
operating in a competitive market place and raising fees
could lead to more competition. He assured the committee
that ARRC would be reevaluating its entire fee structure.
1:41:44 PM
Representative Gara commented that over the years the
railroad had not made a consistent net revenue. He wondered
about the railroad's net revenue in real estate operations,
for example, over the previous five years. Mr. O'Leary
responded that the revenue bonds would not be a credit for
ARRC. He continued that the only supporting revenue stream
for the bonds would be the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) formula monies, federal monies the railroad received
annually. He relayed that over the previous ten years ARRC
had received between $29 million to $36 million per year in
FTA funds. The funds came as a result of ARRC offering
year-round scheduled passenger service. The corporation
itself had a net income of $11 million to $14 million over
the previous five years.
Representative Gara asked if Mr. O'Leary had full
confidence that the railroad would be able to repay the
revenue bonds.
Mr. O'Leary responded that since the credit of the railroad
would not be supporting the bonds, the only revenue that
would be applied were FTA monies. He furthered that FTA
funds were up for reauthorization in congress as part of
the national transportation reauthorization. He explained
that the funding that ARRC received was part of formula
monies that supported many other passenger train lines all
over the country. He expressed his confidence in the funds
continuing into the future. Otherwise, he surmised there
would be too great an impact on the populous of the states.
Representative Gara commented that the bill seemed fine. He
expressed concern that the railroad would come back to the
state for funds to pay for the bonds in the future. For
example, if ARRC received $30 million in federal funds but
began to lose more than that as a railroad operation, he
wondered if ARRC would come to the state for additional
funds. He wanted to know whether Mr. O'Leary was confident
that ARRC had enough internal revenue to avoid coming to
the state for help with the bond repayment.
Mr. O'Leary responded, "Yes." He explained that the bond
indenture was written such that the bond holders' debt
service payments were made before the federal revenue could
be used for any other purpose.
Representative Gara suggested that ARRC had been making
approximately $11 million to $14 million in net revenue. He
wondered if it included the $29 million to $36 million from
the federal government. Otherwise, he surmised ARRC was
losing money.
Mr. O'Leary responded positively that the net revenue
included the federal funds. However, the monies that came
in did not flow into net income. The funds were used for
capital activities. He continued that the FTA funds were
used for debt service first and then for capital
activities.
1:46:17 PM
Representative Gara wanted to confirm that ARRC would be
revenue positive even without FTA funding. He asked that if
ARRC was using the FTA money for capital expenses and the
funds were now pledged to pay for the revenue bond, was
there any foreseeable circumstance in which ARRC would have
to come to the state for additional money. He wondered if
ARRC would always have a positive net revenue.
Mr. O'Leary stated that in his view there would be
sufficient revenue and that ARRC would not be coming to the
state for any kind of operating subsidy.
Representative Wilson asked about funding for the previous
two years.
Mr. O'Leary responded that in the past two years ARRC had
received state general fund (GF) monies totaling $34
million. Prior to that, since 1997, AARC used federal
monies including ear marks and formula funds, and revenue
generated from internal railroad operations.
Representative Wilson asked why ARRC was not asking for GF
monies.
Mr. O'Leary replied that ARRC started out looking for GF
monies, but was quickly disabused of the notion. Alaska
Railroad Corporation (ARRC) was challenged by members of
the [Finance] committee to think creatively about how to
move the project forward without $55 million in GF funding.
Representative Wilson thanked Mr. O'Leary for his efforts.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if other states had used their FTA
revenue stream to pay for PTC. He wondered if Alaska's
approach had been used previously.
Mr. O'Leary confirmed that the approach had been used in
other states. He furthered that ARRC had used the approach
in 2006 when the railroad issued its first bonds.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how it had worked for the state in
the past and for other railroads.
Mr. O'Leary believed that it had worked well for ARRC and
for other railroads to leverage FTA funds. The funds were
consistent, coming from FTA, and provided the opportunity
to finish projects that would have otherwise taken much
longer to complete.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the federal funding stream.
He wondered if it stemmed from a freight surcharge or if it
was a full faith in credit with the federal government. Mr.
O'Leary relayed that the monies came from the mass transit
account in the highway trust fund.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how the highway trust fund was
fueled. Mr. O'Leary responded that the fund was augmented
by a federal gas tax.
Representative Kawasaki suggested that in previous
committee meetings with Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities it was reported that the federal highway
trust fund was shrinking. He wondered how ARRC would be
affected.
Mr. O'Leary indicated that there was risk in the federal
reauthorization concerning how the highway trust fund would
be funded and at what levels. However, congress was
investigating different approaches alternate to a flat gas
tax. He noted the possibility of a mileage-based approach.
Alaska Railroad Corporation believed the outflows from the
federal government would continue in a similar form.
Co-Chair Thompson signified that his understanding was that
the bond holders were aware of the risk of FTA dollars
going away.
Mr. O'Leary responded affirmatively. He reported that there
were very explicit disclosures on all of the bond-offering
documents that showed there was no pledge of full faith in
credit of the state, nor of ARRC, but rather the only
security for the bonds was the formula money that ARRC
received from FTA.
1:51:00 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the timing was critical for ARRC
to secure the bonds in the current year.
Mr. O'Leary responded that the timing was extremely
critical. The railroad was not quite living hand-to-mouth
on the project but explained that ARRC would need to have
an infusion of cash by June 2015 or July 2015.
Vice-Chair Saddler wonder about the interest rate
associated with the bonds. Mr. O'Leary reported that the
modeling ARRC was doing with a financial advisor was based
on an interest rate below 2.5 percent.
Co-Chair Thompson commented that if the state waited a year
the interest rate could jump to 5 percent or 7 percent. He
added that an interest rate of 2.5 percent was a good rate.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about what would happened if ARRC
did not receive authority from the legislature in the
current year.
Mr. O'Leary stated that ARRC would have a significant
problem. He elaborated that the railroad would not be able
to enter into any further contracts or spend additional
funds which would result in the project coming to a
complete halt. Alaska Railroad Corporation would not be
acting in good faith in the eyes of the Federal Railroad
Administration, the railroad regulator. The consequences of
not implementing PTC within the designated timeline could
lead to fines of up to $100 thousand per day and eventually
the inability to provide passenger service. He noted that
not only would ARRC lose $26 million to $27 million in
gross revenues for passenger service, ARRC would no longer
be eligible to receive FTA funding. There would be a very
different model for ARRC going forward. He referred to it
as a, "death spiral."
Vice-Chair Saddler followed up by asking if it was possible
that the Federal Railroad Administration would issue
waivers for the PTC requirement.
Mr. O'Leary responded in the negative. He relayed that he
had recently been in Washington D.C. the prior week to meet
with Alaska's congressional delegation and with federal
regulators. He cited that the consistent message from all
parties was that there was no way for ARRC to get out of
meeting the PTC requirement.
HB 140 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed a personal story about Mr.
O'Leary's mom.
Representative Gara interjected that he knew that Linda
Leary was a good fisherman.
LINDA LEARY, BOARD CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA
RAILROAD CORPORATION, thanked the committee for hearing HB
140 and admitted to loving to fish.
Co-Chair Thompson acknowledged Sharon Kelly from the
Speaker's office and wished her a happy birthday. He
followed by bringing up the next agenda item, HB 30.
1:56:12 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act requiring school districts to develop and
require completion of a history of American
constitutionalism curriculum segment; and providing
for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, began by reading from
the sponsor statement:
CS for House Bill 30 will require the Alaska's
Department of Education and/or organized school
districts to implement curriculum segments within
civic or history courses centering on 15 years of
American History critical to the creation of our
country. The program will concentrate on the documents
that so many people have lived and died for over the
past 239 years. Included in the course work will be an
understanding of the Declaration of Independence,
first state constitutions, Articles of Confederation,
and the U.S. Constitution.
Representative Keller proposed that American
constitutionalism was a beacon. He read from HB 30
beginning on page 1, line 14:
(2) American constitutionalism represents this
country's greatest gift to human freedom; its ideals,
ideas, and institutions have influenced different
people in different lands at different times.
Representative Kelly suggested that it was best illustrated
with a story. He relayed that approximately 90 to 100 years
after the constitution was passed the French had warm
feelings towards America. He opined that America would not
be a nation without the French having helped with money and
troops. He continued to explain that the French American
founders were dead after 90 years and most likely only
their grandchildren were alive. He relayed that at the time
France was under the monarchy of Napoleon III, who was
known to be oppressive. The French came up with the idea of
building Americans a statue, the Statue of Liberty. The
official title of the Statue of Liberty was, "The Liberty
and Lighting of the World." Some of the influential people
in France wanted to install a marker to remind them of what
was happening in the world. He conveyed that the French
were impressed with what Americans took for granted;
inalienable rights of human beings such as life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. The Statue of Liberty was
given to the U.S. by the French as a reminder to the world
about American freedoms. He remarked that there was an
impressive amount of symbolism in the statue including the
torch and the crown on the woman's head with seven points
representing the seven continents and the seven seas. He
reiterated that the statue was a beacon to mankind of what
had been enshrined in the great country of America. He
pointed out the tablet tucked under the woman's arm and
explained that it was a symbol of the rule of law rather
than of a monarch. He reiterated that Americans took some
things for granted. There were broken chains at the feet of
the Statue of Liberty representing the consequences of the
values of the U.S. Constitution resulting in enslavement.
He provided another interesting fact that July 4, 1776, the
date of the Declaration of Independence, was listed on the
tablet. He stressed the document's profoundness as it
related to America's constitutionalism.
Representative Keller informed the committee that HB 30 was
an unfunded mandate. In his estimation it was a soft
mandate because high stakes were not involved.
2:02:25 PM
Representative Keller read from a letter of support from
the Mat-Su School District to the committee:
The Mat-Su Borough School District would like to offer
support for HB 30, Constitutional History. It embeds
the teaching of the Constitution and the teaching of
the original documents that helped our country and
governing system in our required civics course. We
concur with the importance of this.
Representative Keller reported that the school district
also spoke against a mandated test which he confirmed was
not part of the curriculum requirement in HB 30. He
continued to explain that the bill was an unfunded mandate
and suggested that many school districts were already
teaching the curriculum. He voiced that all schools should
be teaching American constitutionalism, as the curriculum
covered fundamental issues to the U.S. He was concerned
with people forgetting the country's history. He
communicated that when he reread the history of the Statue
of Liberty he realized how much he had taken for granted.
He appreciated the reinforcement that came from reviewing
the history. He indicated he was open to questions from the
committee.
Co-Chair Thompson read from page 19 of the Alaska
Standards: Content and Performance Standards for Alaska
Students:
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;
2) recognize American heritage and culture, including
the republican form of government, capitalism, free
enterprise system, patriotism, strong family units,
and freedom of religion;
3) understand the United States Constitution,
including separation of powers, the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of government,
majority rule, and minority rights;
4) know how power is shared in the United States'
constitutional government at the federal, state, and
local levels;
5) understand the importance of individuals, public
opinion, media, political parties, associations, and
groups in forming and carrying out public policy;
6) recognize the significance of diversity in the
American political system;
7) distinguish between constitution-based ideals and
the reality of American political and social life;
8) understand the place of law in the American
political system; and
9) recognize the role of dissent in the American
political system.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the bill was creating
duplication or adding to the list of the already
established standards.
Representative Keller responded that from his perspective
he wanted an additional history requirement. He crafted the
bill such that the curriculum was a segment that could be
inserted where appropriate such as in a civics course. He
claimed that his legislation added emphasis to the
established standards. He was unclear about the details of
how well the standards were fulfilled.
Co-Chair Thompson asked Commissioner Hanley if the bill was
duplicative and whether schools were abiding by the current
Alaska Content Standards.
2:06:25 PM
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, confirmed that the
standards in Representative Keller's bill were in the
Alaska Content Standards. He commented that the bill
clarified a couple of components that were implied in the
standards but were pointedly emphasized in HB 30.
Co-Chair Thompson asked Commissioner Hanley if the bill
would result in additional monies and costs to the school
districts.
Commissioner Hanley pointed out that there was a
responsibility to the state's school districts in that the
chief administrator of each school would have to develop
and submit a syllabus to the governing body. He explained
that it was not a separate course, but a curriculum segment
that would be incorporated into a course. He believed that
many of the school districts were already teaching the
segment content in their current curriculum. However, he
claimed there would be some schools that would need to make
some additions and changes.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the commissioner felt that the
Alaska Content Standards already covered the content.
Commissioner Hanley indicated that there could be
duplicity. However, he noted that the foundational
documents specified in the bill were not directly
represented in the Alaska Content Standards. House Bill 30
would bring greater focus on particular components.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the commissioner saw the
requirements of the bill as teaching the U.S Constitution
or constitutionalism.
Commissioner Hanley wondered if Vice-Chair Saddler was
asking for his interpretation of the sponsor's bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler responded affirmatively.
Representative Keller explained that the reason "ism" was
included in the bill was because his intent was to
incorporate the values around the U.S. Constitution. He was
concerned with including the values that were in the minds
and hearts of the American founders. He claimed that
looking at the values was important and distinctive to HB
30.
Representative Keller wanted to make a clarification. He
relayed that he had said previously that his school
district supported the bill based on a letter of support
from Mr. Gene Stone, Assistant Superintendent of
Instruction for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District. However, Mr. Stone was not necessarily speaking
on behalf of the school district. He wanted to stress the
point of correction.
Representative Gara informed the committee that the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District and the Anchorage
School District taught U.S. History and included the U.S.
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of
Independence as part of the course curriculum. He was
unable to find any district in the state that did not
include these items. He asked Commissioner Hanley if knew
of any district that did not include them.
Representative Keller conveyed that he did not believe
there was enough understanding of the historical issues
brought forth in his bill. He admitted that his view was
subjective based on his children's educational experience
and his own.
2:11:39 PM
Representative Gara reiterated that Alaska's Content
Standards already required the teaching of the U.S.
Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill
of Rights. Commissioner Hanley had commented that there
were different foundational documents specified in the bill
on page 2, paragraph 4 [line 5-10]. He wanted to know if
Commissioner Hanley was referring to the first 15 years-
worth of documents.
Mr. Hanley responded affirmatively.
Representative Gara expressed some concern. Currently the
state was required to teach the full U.S Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. He
cited that paragraph 4 on page 2 talked about the special
importance of the first 15 years of documents. Events such
as a woman's right to vote, the right to vote regardless of
race, the abolishment of slavery, and the adoption of the
equal protection clause all occurred following the first 15
years of U.S. history. He expressed concerned with the
latter items were of less importance. He wanted
clarification about the emphasis in HB 30 placed on the
foundational documents versus the emphasis in the current
standards.
Representative Keller responded that, in his view, many of
the things that have gone right in the U.S. including the
ending of slavery, the increase of women's rights, and the
increase in human rights were products of the "ism" portion
enshrined within the first 15-year period of U.S. history.
He believed the history that Representative Gara mentioned
was in large part based on the values evident in the early
documents. He added that the list of the documents was not
exclusive. He suggested that the bill emphasized the values
of the time period which made America great. He opined that
the documents were instrumental in changing and enhancing
human rights. He suggested that a student who was trying to
determine whether something was a violation of human rights
would be at an advantage knowing the basis of American
values and their origins.
Representative Gara commented that the parts of the
constitution that came after the first 15 years including
the abolishment of slavery, a woman's right to vote, and
the right for all races to vote, were equally important. He
wondered if they would continue to be taught in the
classroom. He asked Commissioner Mr. Hanley how the bill
was different from the current mandated curriculum. He
wanted clarification about the difference Commissioner
Hanley had referred to earlier in the meeting.
Representative Keller clarified that the bill in no way
restricted the history curriculum. He stressed that HB 30
was an emphasis bill on American constitutionalism.
Representative Gara wondered how the bill was different
from the requirements outlined in the established
standards.
Mr. Hanley stated that the bill was duplicative for some
school districts. He relayed that some districts that were
not specifically addressing documents such as the
Federalist Papers might have to make some adjustments to
their curriculum with the passing of HB 30.
2:16:52 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if there were any districts
not teaching the curriculum. He mentioned that he learned
how a bill became a law in the second grade through a
School House Rock video.
Mr. Hanley relayed that he was not aware of any school
districts that were not already teaching Alaska's content
standards.
Representative Kawasaki referred to Section 2 of the bill
which required secondary schools to teach a defined
curriculum. He then made reference to Section 3b which said
that a district could not issue a diploma to a student that
did not successfully complete the course. He provided a
hypothetical scenario in which a student falls asleep
during a government class. He wondered under such
circumstances if the student would remain eligible to
receive a diploma.
Representative Keller responded in the negative. He
suggested that the bill required the administrator of
schools to provide the course description in a syllabus.
The idea was to ensure that the student knew the curriculum
through testing. He returned to the question about the bill
being duplicitous. He pointed out that the state standards
were not state law. He wanted to place higher emphasis on
the curriculum even if the bill was crafted to match the
Alaska State Standards verbatim. He wanted the curriculum
placed in statute.
Representative Kawasaki asked if there were any statutory
requirements dictating students to take a certain number of
math or English classes.
Mr. Hanley highlighted Alaska Studies as the only course
requirement defined by either law or regulation.
Representative Kawasaki wondered if the rest of the courses
were part of Alaska's regulations.
Mr. Hanley responded that the Alaska State Standards were
adopted by reference into regulation.
Representative Kawasaki asked the bill sponsor about the
first couple of legislative findings and the use of the
word values. He asked if Representative Keller thought it
was the responsibility of state schools to teach values.
Representative Keller responded affirmatively in regards to
constitutionalism values. He suggested that the values were
the foundation of the United States, the basis for the
country's liberty, and the reason for so many people going
to war to defend the country. He pointed out that the
values he was referring to were not ones he was defining,
but were ones captured in the word "ism" specifically
related to the early state constitutions, the Declaration
of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the
declaration articles, and the Bill of Rights. He believed
the state was in danger of taking the information for
granted.
2:21:22 PM
Co-Chair Thompson mentioned that there was a question about
whether there were any school districts that did not teach
the U.S Constitution. He read from a letter from the Alaska
Municipal League (AML):
While the concept of teaching our young people the
basics of our U.S. Constitution is a laudatory goal,
it seems that this is not the time to put one more
unfunded mandate in front of all of Alaska's school
districts. On introduction of the bill, you mentioned
that most schools are already doing this, so you
visualize very little cost involved. While Anchorage
may be doing this, I am fairly certain that this is
not necessarily being done in Craig, Dillingham,
Galena, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, King Cove, Klawock,
Pelican, Saint Mary's, Seldovia, and Tanana (all First
Class cities responsible for their own school
district).
He conveyed that AML expressed concern and disfavor about
instituting an unfunded mandate for new curriculum for the
above listed schools.
Representative Wilson asked Commissioner Hanley if there
would be a problem incorporating the proposed curriculum
into the Alaska Content Standards.
Mr. Hanley offered that he could take the request to the
state board for consideration. He outlined the process; the
board reviewed the current state standards, evaluated how
the additional curriculum would be folded into the
standards, allowed for a period of public comment, and
submitted a proposal for adoption. He mentioned the value
of having changes placed into statute as well.
Representative Wilson was concerned that some schools in
Alaska were not teaching the Alaska Content standards. She
relayed that she had spoken previously to some of the
schools in her district and did not find any that were not
teaching the curriculum. She asked the bill sponsor,
referring to page 2, about the language used, specifically
the word ensure. She wondered how a school would ensure a
student's understanding of American constitutionalism. She
provided a personal illustration; she explained that in
eighth grade a student had to know elements of the state's
history. A student had to be able to identify the state
comptroller and the governor. She relayed that in high
school she had to know similar information proven in an
exam. She wanted to know how to measure a student's
knowledge. She also pressed for the definition of
"successful" in terms of a grade.
Representative Keller explained that the reference to
ensuring a student's knowledge was meant to describe the
syllabus. He furthered that a syllabus was a description of
a course that defined content, hours, and perhaps a
classroom discussion to measure success rather than a
grade. He referred to page 2, line 26 that provided the
standard; successfully completing the course. He stated
that it was conceivable that the syllabus might not be
based on testing but rather on attendance and class
participation. He trusted the teachers to ensure that
students learned the curriculum. He believed that there was
a sincere effort by the teachers and the administrators
within Alaska to provide students with the information. He
added that there was no standard test to measure a
student's knowledge of the curriculum. He elaborated that
the syllabus defined what information the teachers needed
to present to students. He added that it was part of the
job of a teacher.
2:26:36 PM
Representative Wilson asked who determined the completion
of a course. She asked if there would be an indicator on a
transcript. She also wondered how and where a teacher would
report that a student completed a course.
Representative Keller replied that the intent of the bill
was not to micromanage. He furthered that successful
completion would be when a child successfully completed the
course in which the curriculum segment was embedded. He
remarked that it was a simple mandate instructing a school
district to get the job done.
Representative Wilson suggested that her point was that if
a child were to change districts, one school board might
have a different interpretation than another. She opined
that the curriculum was not clearly defined. She did not
want a student to have to retake a segment.
Representative Gattis thanked the sponsor for bringing the
bill forward and instigating the conversation. She asked if
there were any changes from the old and new standards in
regards to the bill.
Mr. Hanley responded that the social studies standards
remained unchanged. He reported that the English, Language
Arts, and math standards had been altered. He mentioned
that in Alaska's English and Language Arts section,
previously referred to as reading and writing, specific
documents were identified such as the preamble to the
Declaration of Independence and other foundational
documents.
Representative Gattis asked about how to determine if the
standards were currently being taught statewide. She stated
that a bill could be crafted to ensure that the standards
were being taught. She noted that the bill sponsor
mentioned trusting the teachers to do their job. She
wondered how the Commissioner knew whether teachers were
teaching the state's standards.
Mr. Hanley commented that the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) did not micromanage teachers. He
was disappointed and concerned to hear that districts had
voluntarily said that they were not teaching Alaska Content
Standards. He relayed that the department did not review
each district's curriculum to see if they were teaching to
the standards. Instead, reading, writing, and math were
assessed. The state did not have a separate assessment for
social studies, nor was he promoting one. The
responsibility belonged to local school districts.
Representative Gattis commented, "There lies the bigger
problem." She better understood the bill sponsor's concern.
She relayed that she had been on the Mat-Su school board
and had experience in dealing with civics classes. She
noted that districts were able to choose what part of the
standards to focus on. She opined that the state was not
doing what it had done 30 to 40 years prior. She wanted to
know who was responsible for ensuring that the schools were
teaching what the state paid in significant funding to
teach in Alaska's schools.
Mr. Hanley answered that the responsibility laid in the
hands of the local school boards. He communicated that
school boards adopted their district's school curriculum to
be aligned with the state's standards. He shared that when
the department found that districts were not in compliance
or not following through with their responsibilities the
department then followed through. He added that the
department did not have the staff to review each district's
curriculum to ensure alignment.
Representative Gattis thanked Commissioner Hanley.
2:32:33 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler commented that he did not see any intent
in the language of the bill or in the sponsor's words,
referring to page 2, lines 5 through 10, that slighted the
changes made over time to the U.S. Constitution. Nor did he
note any desire to limit the scope of the curriculum
segment to just the first 15 years of the U.S.
Constitution. He relayed that it simply said that the U.S.
Constitution was one of several foundational documents
written over 15 years that should be the subject of
consideration. He asked if the bill required each school
district to develop its own curriculum segment, or if it
was possible for school districts that currently offered
appropriate segments to share them with other districts for
adoption.
Representative Keller reassured the committee that it was
not his intent for every school district to design a unique
curriculum segment. He suggested that one of the advantages
of the bill was that the smaller districts could borrow
curriculum from other districts. He highlighted that in his
district a class called in with enthusiasm regarding HB 30.
The teacher of the class had already developed a curriculum
segment. He knew the teacher personally and was certain the
curriculum could be made available to any district upon
request. He shared that he had written curriculum in the
past and that it was a significant job. He surmised that
with knowledge of the subject it might take a teacher a day
or two to design the specific curriculum segment required
in the bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler suggested that while the bill created an
unfunded mandate it would not necessarily be an expensive
mandate for many of the school districts in Alaska. There
were districts that already had such curriculum segments in
place. He thought it would be cost-effective for all
districts in Alaska to adopt a curriculum currently being
taught.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the sponsor's definition
of the word constitutionalism was the meaning written by
David Fellman.
Representative Keller replied that the content of the bill
was the closest to the definition of constitutionalism. He
referred to page 2, line 20 which read American
Constitutionalism "as portrayed" in the documents listed.
He explained the reason he used the term was because of an
inspirational text book titled, "American
Constitutionalism: A Shot Heard Around the World." The
author called attention to nations around the Atlantic rim
being impacted by observing what happened in America,
trying to duplicate it in their own country, and
experiencing varying levels of success. The author traced
America's history. The sponsor confirmed that he was
intrigued with the book and felt the term was easy to
understand.
2:36:42 PM
Representative Kawasaki did not feel that the term,
constitutionalism, was easy for him to understand. He
suggested that Representative Keller had just used the word
itself to define constitutionalism. He speculated that if
the sponsor was using the definition by David Fellmen it
would be easier to understand.
Representative Keller asked about the document
Representative Kawasaki referenced.
Representative Kawasaki responded that it was a document
that was submitted by the bill sponsor. He indicated that
the document titled "Constitutionalism" quoted David
Fellman, a constitutional scholar. The document was part of
the bill packet.
Representative Keller stated that it was included in order
to provide context and an additional reference.
Representative Kawasaki read from David Fellman's
definition of constitutionalism:
"Whatever particular form of government a constitution
delineates, however, it serves as the keystone of the
arch of constitutionalism, except in those countries
whose written constitutions are mere sham."
Representative Kawasaki continued reading:
"This is by no means a modern idea, for the concept of
a higher law which spells out the basic norms of a
political society is as old as Western civilization."
Representative Kawasaki wondered if the state was only
teaching constitutionalism under Western civilization.
Representative Keller responded affirmatively. He added
that the point was that American constitutionalism had a
huge impact on the world. He emphasized that children went
to war to defend the U.S. Constitution. He observed that
there was nothing in the bill that said the teacher or the
school district should brainwash their children to think
just like Western America. He believed that a student had
the right to have a better understanding of the country's
history and the principles that were in place when the U.S.
Constitution was written. He felt that it was a weak
argument to suggest that kids should not know their
history. He relayed that it was Western in the sense that
America was Western.
Representative Kawasaki elaborated that the author went on
to say that it was the concept of a limited government. He
proposed that the line of thinking was the opposite of
current thought. He highlighted the irony of hearing and
almost passing a bill on the previous day that he thought
was entirely unconstitutional.
2:39:36 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Hanley if DEED would have to hire
additional positions to enforce the curriculum. Mr. Hanley
clarified the difference between standards and curriculum.
He voiced that standards were simply expectations such as
reading, writing, math, and content standards for social
studies that had not been updated recently. He believed
that the requirement fit well into the state's current
content standards which did not need updating. Districts
would continue to be responsible for determining how to
meet the standards with their own curriculum choices.
Co-Chair Neuman referred to page 2, Section 3b, lines 25-
27. He read the portion of the bill:
A district may not issue a secondary school diploma to
a student who does not successfully complete the
course in which the curriculum segment described in
(a) of this section is contained.
He spoke about legislation from the previous year that
allowed DEED to retroactively issue diplomas to students
that had not passed the high school graduation qualifying
exam (HSQED). He asked how students would receive their
diploma. He was unclear.
Mr. Hanley explained that in the previous year legislation
removed the HSQED, a barrier assessment. He noted that if
students had met all other criteria including their
curricular course requirements to graduate and the HSQED
was the only thing stopping them they could request to
receive their diploma. They were required to meet all other
course requirements. It did not allow school districts to
remove courses, it only allowed them to use the assessment
as the barrier to a student's diploma. He anticipated that
if the bill passed it would be a required social studies
course for graduation. Regulations would likely be added to
clarify that the components proposed in the bill would need
to be included into another social studies course required
for graduation.
2:43:15 PM
Co-Chair Neuman discussed being a home school dad. He
reported being a part of the Galena Home School Program,
the largest school in the state with over 3800 students
enrolled. He added that he thought there were more than 10
thousand home school kids in the state. He described his
feeling standing next to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington
D.C. as energizing. He was able to choose the best
curriculum for his children as a home school parent. The
Ideal program required parents to make a selection. He was
not sure he could have taught his children the curriculum
that was required in the bill. He asked how a parent would
be expected to handle a similar situation.
Mr. Hanley replied that the responsibility would likely
fall on the commissioner. It would become one of the
required curriculum segments listed in the bill. He
furthered that no matter what curriculum a parent chose as
a parent. Upon the passage of the bill certain components
would be required as part of a course. A parent would have
to confirm the completion of the segment in order for their
children to receive their diplomas.
2:47:21 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked if there were any other required
curriculums in math, English, reading and writing that were
required for homeschool parents.
Mr. Hanley responded that the only course that he had
referenced earlier was the Alaska Studies Course which was
required as one of the social studies credits.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if there were any required
curriculums for math or English. Commissioner Hanley
responded in the negative.
Co-Chair Neuman conveyed that he had fought hard to make
sure that there were home school opportunities. He was
aware that the sponsor of the bill supported the home
school model. He wondered how the requirement outlined in
the bill would affect home school programs. He expressed
his concern in mandating parents to teach a certain
curriculum. He relayed his own experience in which he was
able to choose his own curriculum for his children.
Representative Keller responded that the mandate of the
bill would apply to the home school student receiving state
funds. He opined that it was a soft mandate that deserved
to be placed at a significant level of importance, at least
in regards to Alaskan history. He was certain
Representative Neuman had taught his children the values
that would be included in the proposed mandate. If a parent
refused to teach the proposed curriculum while taking state
funds, certain repercussions would have to be determined.
He relayed that his grandchildren participated in a home
school program and confirmed that there were requirements
that were imposed when taking state funds. The mandate of
the bill would be one of the requirements.
Vice-Chair Saddler read the definition of constitutionalism
from Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College
Edition:
Constitutionalism is government according to a
constitution or adherence to constitutional principles
or government.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Representative Keller if he agreed
that it was a fair definition of constitutionalism.
Representative Keller responded, "Far be it from me,
Representative Saddler, through the chair, to argue with
Webster."
2:50:26 PM
Representative Gara wondered about the meaning of the term
constitutionalism. He agreed with Representative Saddler
that a definition referenced in the bill would be helpful.
He suggested that in looking at the literature there were
radically left-wing versions and profoundly right-wing
versions of the meaning of constitutionalism. He referenced
a law review article from the University of Louisville that
presented a very narrow version of the meaning of
constitutionalism and cited the case, Brown vs. Board of
Education. The case had to do with whether there could be
white-only schools. He wanted to make sure that children
would have the right to have a free debate about the
meaning of the terms of the constitution. In other words,
he did not want any particular philosophy imposed on
children when interpreting the word constitutionalism.
Representative Keller referred to HB 30, page 2, line 20.
He pointed to the words "as portrayed." He suggested that
it would be unlikely to misinterpret the meaning of
constitutionalism in studying the documents listed in the
bill. He added that indisputable values would be found in
studying things like inalienable rights or the balance of
powers necessary to make a republic work. He argued that
the curriculum was not exclusive and felt that every
student should know it. He elaborated that he felt that as
long as constitutionalism was portrayed in the same light
as the documents in the legislation it was fair game for
the requirements of the bill.
Representative Gara asked if Representative Keller was okay
with including a definition of constitutionalism similar to
that found in Webster's Dictionary.
Representative Keller was amenable. He indicated the
definition found in Webster's Dictionary was consistent
with his intent in the bill and thought it was good to have
on record.
2:53:59 PM
Co-Chair Thompson thanked the testifiers for their time.
Representative Keller thanked the committee and urged the
passing of HB 30. He thought that the bill imposed a
worthwhile mandate. He voiced that the issue was very
important and was the reason he brought it before the
committee in the form of legislation.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that there had been many
questions about the bill and that he would hold the bill in
committee for additional hearings.
HB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
He discussed the following day's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
2:55:18 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 30 AK Ed Stand History.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 AK Ed Standards (no print).pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 AML ltr.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Civics Board Timeline.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Civic's Dunces.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Constitutionalism.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 H Fin hear request.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Keefer eltr.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Thompson comments.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 US Senate S 504 summary and co spons.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 140 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM STRA 4/7/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| HB 140 FN - AK Railroad.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| HB 140 Supporting Document - 2015 PTC Two Pager.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM STRA 4/7/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| CSHB 30 Sponsor.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CSHB 30 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |