Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/08/1998 07:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 8, 1998
7:30 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 163, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 163, Side 2
TAPE HFC 98 - 164, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 164, Side 2
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Grussendorf Representative Mulder
Representative Foster was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Karen Rehfeld, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Education; Morgan, Facilities
Section, Education Support Services, Department of
Education; Richard Cross, Deputy Director, Department of
Education; Eddy Jeans, Manager, School Finance Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education.
SUMMARY
SB 11 "An Act relating to state aid for school
construction debt; and providing for an effective
date."
HCS CSSB 11 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
impact note by the Department of Education.
SB 36 "An Act relating to transportation of public
school students; relating to school construction
grants; relating to the public school foundation
program and to local aid for education; and
providing for an effective date."
SB 36 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 297 "An Act relating to breast-feeding."
CSSB 297 (2d RLS) was REPORTED out of Committee
with "no recommendation" and with a fiscal impact
note by the Department of Labor, 4/2/98.
SB 313 "An Act relating to sponsor certification of
initiative petitions; relating to sponsor
identification during petition circulation;
relating to the voidability of an initiated law;
placing limitations on the compensation that may
be paid to sponsors of initiative petitions;
prohibiting payments to persons who sign or
refrain from signing initiative petitions; and
repealing procedures for filing a supplementary
initiative petition."
HCS CSSB 313 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee
with "no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal
note by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
dated 3/19/98.
SENATE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to transportation of public school
students; relating to school construction grants;
relating to the public school foundation program and to
local aid for education; and providing for an effective
date."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute for SB 36, work draft #0-LS0070\J,
dated 5/8/98 (copy on file).
RICHARD CROSS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
observed that Mr. Jeans would explain the proposed committee
substitute. He noted that the school funding formula uses
an adjusted student count to distribute funding. A school
site table was developed as part of the Alaska School
Operating Cost Study, commissioned by the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee. It also uses district cost factors
instead of an area cost differential. The district cost
factors were also developed as part of the Alaska School
Operating Cost Study. The actual number of students is
adjusted based on the size of the school, special needs, and
the district's operating costs. An additional 26 million
dollars is included.
EDDY JEANS, MANAGER, SCHOOL FINANCE SECTION, EDUCATION
SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION reviewed the
legislation by section. He pointed out that state aid
equals basic need minus a required local contribution and 90
percent of eligible federal impact aid. Basic need equals
the sum subsection (D). He reviewed the calculations in
section AS 14.17.410:
(A) The adjusted daily membership (ADM) of each school in
the district is calculated by 30 applying the school
size factor to the student count as set out in AS
14.17.450;
(B) The number obtained under (A) of this paragraph is
01 multiplied by the district cost factor described in
AS 14.17.460;
(C) The ADMs of each school in a district, as adjusted
according to (A) and (B) of this paragraph, are added;
the sum is then multiplied by the special needs factor
set out in AS 14.17.420(a)(1);
(D) The number obtained for intensive services under AS
14.17.420(a)(2) and the number obtained for
correspondence study under AS 14.17.430 are added to
the number obtained under (C) of this paragraph.
Mr. Jeans noted that there is a 4-mill tax levy on the full
and true value of the taxable real and personal property in
the district, not to exceed 45 percent of the district's
basic need. He observed that local contribution could not
exceed a two-mill tax levy on the full and true value of the
taxable real and personal property in the district, or 23
percent of the district's state share of public school
funding for the fiscal year. He maintained that this
provision would maintain the federal disparity standard. He
observed that newly formed boroughs could phase in the
required local effort over a four-year period. The special
needs factor is 1.2. The intensive services funding is
equal to the intensive student count multiplied by five. In
order to receive funding for special education, gifted and
talented education, vocational or bilingual education a
district must have its plan on file with the Department.
Mr. Jeans noted that the legislation sets out funding for
correspondence program set at 80 percent of the ADM.
Funding for the state boarding school is included in AS
14.17.440. This allows the Mt. Edgecumbe School to receive
funding for eligible intensive services.
The school size factor table begins on page 5, line 22. A
school must have at least 10 students. If a school has less
then 10 students they would be counted with the school which
has the lowest ADM in that district.
District cost factors are included under AS 14.17.460.
These are based on the McDowell Group Alaska School
Operating Cost Study, March 1998. The Department is
required to monitor cost factors and prepare and submit a
report of proposed new district cost factors to the
legislature by January 15th of every other year. He
estimated that the base student allocation would be $3,928
dollars.
Mr. Jeans explained that schools eligible for quality school
funding would receive the districts adjusted ADM multiplied
by $16 dollars.
A funding floor would be established for school districts
that received less funding under the old foundation formula.
The floor would be permanent. State aid is defined for the
purposes of setting the floor.
School districts are required to submit student estimates by
November 5th.
School districts cannot accumulate an unreserved fund
balance of greater than 10 percent of their current year
expenditures.
The Department of Community and Regional Affairs is required
to determine the full and true value of taxable real and
personal property in each district. School districts must
budget for and spend at least 70 percent of their school
operating expenses on instruction. "Instructional
component" includes expenditures for teachers and for pupil
support services.
Mr. Jeans noted that the student counting period would be
the 20-school-day period ending the fourth Friday in
October. The counting period for state correspondence study
would be July 1 through the fourth Friday in October,
The distribution of state aid is not changed by the
legislation.
Mr. Jeans observed that the Department would be given the
authority to prorate the school foundation formula if
insufficient funds are appropriated. Districts are required
to maintain complete financial records and spend their money
for school purposes. The Department is required to develop
regulations to implement the legislation.
Mr. Cross observed that school districts would be required
to provide, at a public meeting for parents, information
which shows how the school is performing to standards and
how the district determines the standards are being met. A
"School District Report Card to the Public" would be
included. Beginning in January 15, 2001, the Department
would provide the governor and the legislature with a
performance report on each public school and designate the
schools. Schools performing well would be accredited. By
August 2002, schools would be designated as distinguished,
successful, deficient or in crisis. Those schools in crises
would be required to submit plans for improvement. The
Department would be required to facilitate the improvement
process and provide technical support. Existing staff or
qualified persons would be used. If any school district
continues to be deficient or in crisis for a two year period
the school district would appear before the State Board of
Education and submit a report including steps to improve
quality in the school.
Mr. Cross noted that the legislation includes definitions of
a "school district" and a "charter school".
Additional standards are given to the Department to develop
performance standards for reading, writing and mathematics.
An assessment system would be provided to all school
districts.
Mr. Jeans reviewed section 13. He noted that a reference to
employing a chief school administrator was added in section
13 and deleted in section 14.
Districts that both contract and operate their own pupil
transportation would be reimbursed. The school district
portion would be reimbursed at 90 percent and the contractor
would be reimbursed at 100 percent.
Mr. Jeans noted that the Department is required to apply the
same criteria in determining eligibility for reimbursement.
The legislation clarifies that districts may employ a chief
administrator.
He noted that other sections made technical changes to
current statute to correspond to changes made by the
legislation. "Funding" was changed from "foundation".
Section 31 amends AS 14.30.650. It provides that the
Special Education Service Agency would receive a grant equal
to $15.75 times the number of students in the state in the
average daily membership of the proceeding year. The change
is required because there will no longer be special
education categorical funding under the new foundation
program.
Section 40 is transition language requiring the Department
to define the term "school" in regulation. The Department
is required to submit district cost factors by January 15,
2001. Centralized correspondence funding is set at 70
percent in the first year, 75 percent the second year and
then 80 percent the third year. The minimum expenditure for
instruction would be set at 60 percent in the first year, 65
percent the second year and then 70 percent the third year.
The Special Education Services Agency is given a one-year
grace period in regards to data.
Section 45 requires the Department to compare the use of
school funding and submit a report.
Mr. Cross clarified that special education students would
not be identified for the purposes of state aid. Special
education students would continue to be identified and
included in school plans.
Mr. Cross noted that the report mandated under section 45
would use a school size table developed by the McDowell
group. He stressed that the report requirement would test
the method of funds distribution against an instructional
unit within two years to determine if a school based method
of calculation is more effective and equitable then a
community based means. He explained that the Department
would promulgate emergency regulations to define a "school"
for purposes of the Act. The school definition would be
consistently applied to all districts in the state of Alaska
to eliminate differences in school systems across the state.
The number of small schools allowed in larger communities
would be limited.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the legislation would make
the employment of a chief administrator permissive. State
statute would not mandate that a school administrator be
employed. Representative Martin spoke in support of the
change. He questioned if a chief school administrator would
be paid for within the student allocation.
Mr. Cross explained that the amount of funding would not
changed based on the employment of a chief school
administrator. He noted that the Aleutian Educational
Region Attendance Area does not employ a chief school
administrator. They contract with Unalaska for
administrative services. Under current law, school
districts must have a contract with a person who is licensed
as a superintendent in the State and is subject to
professional ethics requirement of the Professional Teaching
Practices Commission. Even though the Aleutian East Borough
School District does not have a superintendent in their
employment, they do have a certificate administrator who is
responsible and accountable for the operation of the
district. He thought that the legislation would allow a
district to employ someone that did not have credentials to
manage the district. A chief school administrator would not
be subject to any licensure requirements of the state of
Alaska. He stressed that the intent of the legislation
should be clarified. He questioned if the intent is to
allow districts to hire anyone they want as a chief
administrator.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Mr.
Cross explained that the legislation applies an equal rate
of 20 percent to all districts for kids with
exceptionalities. Only children with continual medical
attention are accounted separately. He did not think that
over identification of those students would be of concern.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that this was subject to abuse
under the old formula. The flat multiplier was instituted
to prevent manipulation of these students to achieve a
funding advantage. He observed that it is difficult to fake
the intensive need category.
Representative Davies referred to page 25, line 16. He
noted that the Department would define "school" for
calculation of state aid. Mr. Cross provided members with
the proposed regulation, 4AAC 09.007, defining "school" for
the purpose of calculating state aid (copy on file). He
maintained that the definition would not be subject to abuse
and would evenly and consistent apply resources. Schools of
less then 10 students would be counted with another school.
Communities with an ADM of 10 to 50 students would have one
school. Communities with an ADM of 51 to 750 would have one
elementary school and 1 secondary school. In communities
with an ADM greater than 750, each facility which is
administered as a separate school would be counted as 1
school. Each alternative school with an ADM of less than
250 would be counted with the largest school in the
district.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 163, Side 2)
In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Mr.
Cross noted that schools must have property insurance that
includes fire insurance.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Cross
noted that page 17, line 1 states that if a public school
continues to be deficient or in crisis for two years there
would be a public meeting with the Board of Education to
present a written report.
Representative Mulder referred to subsection (i) on page 17.
Mr. Cross stressed that the Department can show which
methods have proven effective for schools in crisis.
Districts would be encouraged to adopt strategies that have
been proven to work. He observed that placing someone in
the school would not be successful if the school did not
want them present. He explained that the Department would
bring proven expertise.
Representative Kelly referred to the student counting
periods. Mr. Cross noted that the legislation uses the same
count period as the current formula, except that a spring
count is not used. If good cause is shown, upon written
request, the commissioner can allow another 20-day count
period for special circumstances.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Mr. Cross
expressed concern that over half of the school districts in
the State would not met transitional amount. He emphasized
that goals should be attainable. He observed that the
Department would work to improve information relating to how
schools spend their funds as recommended by the McDowell
study. He estimated that the largest school districts would
meet the 70 percent level.
Representative Davies suggested that a reporting standard be
set.
Mr. Jeans raised technical issues relating to the
legislation. He referred to page 2, line 6. He noted that
under current law, AS 14.17.021(d) allows the Department to
make adjustments to correct underpayments in the previous
fiscal year. He recommended that a similar provision be
adopted. He noted that the Department must distribute state
aid based on audited local revenues.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the provision was
already included in the proposed draft.
Mr. Jeans referred to page 5, line 7. He noted that the
base student allocation is premature. He suggested that the
"the base student allocation and multiplying that product
by" be deleted. This would allow an adjusted ADM for
correspondence students.
Representative Davies questioned if a charter school could
be a boarding school. Mr. Jeans noted that AS 14.17.440
deals with the Mount Edgecumbe boarding school. A charter
boarding school would not fall under this provision.
Mr. Jeans noted that page 8, line 13 states that the
Department shall establish a competitive grant process to
implement the quality school system. He pointed out that
grants would not be competitive and recommended that
"competitive" be deleted. Co-Chair Therriault noted that
the legislature would appropriate money for this purpose on
a yearly basis. Mr. Jeans explained that entitlement would
be established that would be built into the budget.
Representative Davis noted that an upper limit is set.
There is no lower limit. Mr. Cross explained that $16
dollars would be used as a multiplier. If sufficient funds
are not appropriated the funding would be prorated. The
amount could not exceed an adjusted ADM multiplied by $16
dollars.
Representative Martin questioned if the floor would be
permanent regardless of student size. Mr. Cross explained
that as school districts gain or loss students the amount of
funding that they would receive would depend on the new
formula. District cost factors are not intended to be
permanent. The Department would submit recommended changes
to the district cost factor every other year. The
legislation also requires that the school size table be
compared to another method of allocation to determine if
there is a more equitable way of distribution. He
emphasized that a school funding floor is an appropriate
means to use while an adjusted per student means of
distributing public school funding is developed.
Representative Martin expressed concern that children can be
counted more than once. Co-Chair Therriault stated that if
a student moves the districts cost goes down. The floor is
only a portion of the funding.
Mr. Cross noted that page 11, line 13 states that
"instructional component" includes expenditures for teachers
and for pupil support services. He pointed out that
"teacher" is one classification of expenditure within the
function of instruction. He suggested that the language be
amended to included instruction, special education
instruction and support services, and support services for
students and instruction and school administration. He
explained that support services for students would included
boarding home programs, social workers, and guidance
services. Library services, audiovisual and teacher in
service days would be included under instructional services.
District administration and operation and maintenance would
not be included.
Representative Martin questioned if there is a national
standard. Mr. Cross was not aware of a national standard.
Co-Chair Therriault summarized that the definition would
differentiate between the operation of the school building
and the central office that administers the whole program.
Representative Davies questioned where janitorial services
would be listed. Mr. Cross explained that they would be
under operation and maintenance. Representative Davis noted
that some janitors bring supplies. Mr. Jeans emphasized
that the Department needs a better means of setting a target
as recommended by the McDowell Study. He stressed that
principles are an important part of instruction.
Representative Kelly recommended that a subcommittee should
define instructional component and establish results based
criteria.
In response to a comment by Representative Davis, Mr. Cross
stressed that the McDowell report found that any formula
needs to be dynamic. The report emphasized the need for
better data.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if two student counts should
be included. Mr. Cross noted that the spring count would
generally be lower than the fall count. He felt that the
fall count would be the most effective. He did not
recommend two counts.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Cross noted that the two biggest districts heavily weight
the 70 percent average. He did not think that averaging
would be effective where school district size varies as in
the state of Alaska. He felt that 70 percent was a
misleading number. The McDowell report stated that
administration was the area in which they had the least
confidence due to inconsistency in the data.
Representative Grussendorf stressed that the legislation is
a starting point that will need to be revisited. He
stressed that recommendations should come from the school
districts.
Representative Davis asked if the Department is comfortable
with the definition of alternative school.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -164, Side 1)
Mr. Cross stated that there were not many "tough calls" in
applying school districts to the definitions. He emphasized
that there could be some flexibility in how alternative
schools are counted. The Department is suggesting that
alternative schools be counted with the largest school in
the district. He noted that the McDowell Group indicated
that the definition improves the quality and validity of the
study.
Representative Grussendorf asked if there is any alternative
school over 250 students. Mr. Cross noted that there are
alternative programs in Anchorage that are in excess of 250
students.
Mr. Jeans provided members with an eight-page spreadsheet
demonstrating the effect of SB 36 on school districts (copy
on file). He discussed the spreadsheet. He noted that the
North Slope Borough would not receive the floor.
Municipalities must contribute the equivalent of a 4-mil tax
to qualify for the floor. The North Slope Borough is at
approximately 2 mils. The first page of the spreadsheet
showed the funding amount under SB 36, the existing state
aid, the difference between the current and proposed amount,
floor, net change and Quality education grant. Additional
spreadsheets contained projected ADM, correspondence
students in and out of district, special education factors,
state support, required local support, federal impact aid,
mill rate and full determination, and instructional
expenditure amounts.
Co-Chair Therriault asked why Galena's local support was at
34.6 mills. Mr. Jeans noted that some smaller communities
have low property wealth. Hoonah receives timber receipts
that the city appropriates to the school in addition to
their cap for education.
Districts were compared to see how they fared with the local
cap on page 8. Klawock and Nenana would have to contribute
additional money to meet the required local effort. No
districts are over their maximum.
Page eight contained the percentage spent on instruction
versus administration and potential reduction in state aid
if the percentage spent on the instructional unit is not
met.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Mr.
Jeans explained that timber receipts are reported as local
revenue. Federal impact aid refers to federal dollars
deducted from the foundation program.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Jeans
explained that the required local effort is 45 percent of
basic need for the North Slope Borough, Valdez, Unalaska and
Skagway. He noted that Unalaska has large fish processing
plants that increases their full value determination.
SB 36 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 11
"An Act relating to state aid for school construction
debt; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute, work draft 0-LS015\D, 5/8/98 (copy on
file).
MICHAEL MORGAN, FACILITIES SECTION, EDUCATION SUPPORT
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION stated that he worked with
Co-Chair Therriault's staff on the proposed committee
substitute. Mr. Morgan reviewed changes incorporated by the
proposed committee substitute. He noted that page 4, lines
2 and 3 were changed to assure that the last of the bonds
authorized in 1993 stay intact. The bond election passed in
Fairbanks in 1996 would stay in place. Subsection 8 on page
4 looks at retroactive reimbursement for projects in
districts, which passed bonds that were not funded. He
explained that there was no money left under the formula to
reimburse some school districts for bonds that were passed.
Representative Mulder noted that Ketchikan, Anchorage, and
Sitka passed bonds with the stipulation of a 70/30 split
with the State.
Mr. Morgan noted that subsection 9 on page 4 offers 70
percent reimbursement for districts that have projects,
which bond in the future.
Page 5, lines 1 and 2 states that an amount due a
municipality for reimbursement may not be reduced by the
cost to the department to administer the reimbursement
program.
Page 6, line 28 through page 7, line 1 was added at the
request of the Department. This would allow the same types
of projects that are currently available under the grant
program in AS 14.11.008 to be offered. Projects to improve
space and allow operating cost reductions would be covered.
Section 6, on page 7 provides a maximum authorization of
$357,143,000. This is the total project cost. The state
share would be 70 percent of this number.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the municipality would
provide the bonding. The state share would be paid through
debt reimbursement general funds.
KAREN REHFELD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION noted that the fiscal note
includes the repeal of the off-set of the cigarette tax
distribution for the debt retirement program, of $2.4
million dollars in FY 99.
Representative Mulder MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute work draft 0-LS015\D, 5/8/98.
Representative Kohring MOVED to report HCS CSSB 11 (FIN) out
of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note.
HCS CSSB 11 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Education.
SENATE BILL NO. 313
"An Act relating to sponsor certification of initiative
petitions; relating to sponsor identification during
petition circulation; relating to the voidability of an
initiated law; placing limitations on the compensation
that may be paid to sponsors of initiative petitions;
prohibiting payments to persons who sign or refrain
from signing initiative petitions; and repealing
procedures for filing a supplementary initiative
petition."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a memorandum from
Richard Glover, dated May 8, 1998, regarding the
constitutionality of the legislation (copy on file). He
observed that a Supreme Court decision ruled that payment
for signatures could not be prohibited. The Court did not
specify if the amount could be limited. There is a current
court case regarding the requirement that an identification
badge be worn. The 10th circuit court ruled that this is
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will consider the case.
The state of Alaska has signed a brief in support of the
constitutionality of this provision.
Representative Mulder MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 during the
previous meeting. Amendment 1 would place a cap on the
payment for signatures. Representative Davies OBJECTED. He
spoke in support of a daily or hourly fee. He felt that a
fee per signature would result in a more aggressive approach
by the collector.
Representative Grussendorf expressed concern that problems
could occur with an hourly rate.
Representative Mulder spoke in support of the amendment. He
stressed that a cap of a dollar per signature would slow the
collection of signatures.
Representative Davies questioned the State's interest in
slowing signatures. He noted that the amendment would limit
the amount of money that can be paid. The existing language
only limits the manner of payment. He maintained that the
amendment would be closer to a constitutional challenge.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Therriault
OPPOSED: Moses, Davies, Grussendorf
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-3).
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on
file). Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion. Representative Davies explained that Amendment
2 would delete the requirement that the collector wear a
badge. He noted that the Court ruled that the badge
deprives the collector of the protections of anonymous
speech. He spoke in support of addressing the sponsorship
of the petition on the petition itself.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that "sponsor" refers to the
person carrying the petition.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of Amendment 2.
Representative Mulder disclosed that he has been requested
to work on an initiative petition.
Representative Martin argued that the person gathering
signatures is not necessarily the sponsor. Co-Chair
Therriault reiterated that the legislation indicates that
the sponsor is the person carrying the petition.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Davies, Grussendorf, Kelly
OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Davis, Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-5).
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 164, Side 2)
Representative Davies WITHDREW Amendment 3. He MOVED to
ADOPT a conceptional amendment: "The name of the group
circulating the petition and the name of the group paying
for the petition, if different, shall both be prominently
displayed in bold, capital letters, on the bottom of each
signature page of the petition."
Representative Mulder spoke against the amendment.
Representative Davies stressed that it would be the same
disclosure as occurs when a sign is posted.
Representative Martin spoke against the amendment. Co-Chair
Therriault questioned how the amendment would distinguish
between a group that is paying to work the petition through
the system and a group of citizens that are not being paid
to collect signatures.
Representative Davies stressed that the intent is to
identify the group that is behind the petition. The group
can be identified through the Division of Elections or APOC.
Representative Grussendorf stated that he is opposed to paid
for petitions. He spoke in support of the amendment. He
expressed concern that any group could come to the state of
Alaska and pay for a petition.
Members questioned if the name of the group is already
listed on the top of the petition.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Davies, Davis, Kelly, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, Kohring, Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (5-4).
Representative Davies referred to section 6. He noted that
section 6 repeals AS 15.45.170 and 15.45.230.
Co-Chair Therriault read:
AS 15.45.170: "Upon receipt of notice that the filing
of the petition was improper, the initiative committee
may amend and correct the petition by circulating and
filing a supplementary petition within 30 days of the
date that notice was given;"
And
AS 15.45.230: "An initiative submitted to the voters
may not be held void because of the insufficiency of
the application or petitions by which the submission
was procured."
Representative Davies MOVED to delete section 6. He noted
that the amendment would maintain the status quo.
Representative Kelly OBJECTED. He spoke in support of a
"drop dead" date. A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses
OPPOSED: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-6).
Representative Davies MOVED to delete AS 15.45.230. Co-
Chair Therriault OBJECTED. Representative Davies spoke in
support of the amendment. He emphasized that if an
initiative is certified and goes on the ballot, then the
issue is decided. A small insufficiency in the gathering
process would not be sufficient to null the election. He
maintained that the statute would prevent frivolous
lawsuits. A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses, Martin
OPPOSED: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Mulder, Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-5).
Representative Davis MOVED to report HCS CSSB 313 (FIN) out
of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 313 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the Office of
the Lieutenant Governor dated 3/19/98.
SENATE BILL NO. 297
"An Act relating to breast-feeding."
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of the
legislation. He observed that the legislation would prevent
legal sanctions for nursing children in public.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is a zero fiscal note
accompanying the legislation.
Representative Davies MOVED to report SB 297 out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 297 (2d RLS) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Labor, 4/2/98.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11 p.m.
House Finance Committee 16
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|