Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2001 01:48 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
April 19, 2001
1:48 P.M.
TAPE HFC 01 - 87, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 87, Side B
TAPE HFC 01 - 88, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 88, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:48 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Richard Foster
Representative John Harris
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Gretchen Guess; Senator Lyda Green; Hans
Neidig, Staff, Senator Lyda Green; Heather Nobrega, Staff,
Representative Norman Rokeberg; Dean Guaneli, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Darwin
Peterson, Staff, Senator John Torgerson; Rita Davis, Special
Education, NEA-Alaska, Palmer; Karla Griswold, Teacher, NEA-
Alaska, Anchorage; Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Angela
Salerno, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health
and Social Services; Lucy Hope, NEA-Alaska, Wasilla; Dr.
Bruce Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development; Rod McCoy, NEA-Alaska, Old Harbor,
Anchorage.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Linda Kesterson, Department of Law, Anchorage; Doug Griffin,
Director, Alcohol Beverage Control Board, Anchorage; Karen
Dempster, Superintendent of Yukon Koyukuk School District;
Louise Parrish, Valdez; Dr. Ed McLean, Kenai; Jim Nordlund,
Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department of
Health & Social Services, Anchorage; Jim Stouffer, Division
of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage;
Barbara Lefler, PERC, Anchorage; Millie Ryan, Executive
Director, Governor's Council Disabilities and Special
Education, Anchorage; Jennifer Jones, Governor's Council
Disabilities and Special Education, Anchorage; Jean Bugg,
Anchorage; Tim Weiss, Parent Incorporated, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 132 An Act relating to the possession or distribution
of alcohol in a local option area; requiring
liquor license applicants to submit fingerprints
for the purpose of conducting a criminal history
background check, and relating to the use of
criminal justice information by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board; providing for a review of
alcohol server education courses by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board every two years; and
providing for an effective date.
CS HB 132 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes
by Department of Revenue dated 3/26/01, Department
of Law dated 3/26/01, Department of Corrections
dated 3/26/01, Department of Administration dated
3/26/01 and the Alaska Court System dated 4/03/01.
HB 142 An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance
program; and providing for an effective date.
CS HB 142 (HES) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
by Department of Health & Social Services dated
2/23/01.
SB 77 An Act repealing the exception that applies to
collection and payment of interest of $150 or less
on royalty or net profit share underpayments and
overpayments; and providing for an effective date.
SB 77 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note
by Department of Natural Resources dated 2/22/01.
SB 133 An Act relating to a two-year transition for
implementation of the public high school
competency examination and to establishing an
essential skills examination as a high school
graduation requirement; and providing for an
effective date.
SB 133 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HCR 14 Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b), and 42(e),
Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature,
concerning Senate Bill No. 133, relating to high
school competency testing.
HCR was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
#HCR#14
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b), and 42(e), Uniform
Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, concerning
Senate Bill No. 133, relating to high school competency
testing.
SENATE BILL NO. 133
An Act relating to a two-year transition for
implementation of the public high school competency
examination and to establishing an essential skills
examination as a high school graduation requirement;
and providing for an effective date.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN testified that HCS for CSSB 133 (HES)
Version "T" is a combination of the Senate-passed version of
SB 133 and the Education Committee's HB 94. The bill
maintains accountability for the State Performance
Standards. It also addresses the public's concerns about
opportunity to learn, children with disabilities, and
students who transfer into an Alaskan high school from
another state. She noted the work, which had gone into the
effort, was intended to make the High School Competency Test
fair to all students and make it legally defensible.
The bill includes the following provisions:
· Delays the effective date of the High School
Competency Test until February 1, 2004;
· Legislature's commitment to improving education
through the State Performance Standards and intent
that the High School Competency Test would be part
of an evolving process;
· Students must demonstrate mastery of the State
Performance Standards in reading, English and math
in order to receive a diploma, or have passed a
competency test in another state;
· A waiver could be granted to students who transfer
to an Alaskan high school or who has rare or
unusual circumstances and who has satisfied the
state performance standards to the maximum extent
possible;
· If a student cannot demonstrate mastery of the
standards, he/she would receive a Certificate of
Achievement, which would note which portions of
the test the student had passed, his/her
attendance record, and any other qualifications
the district felt were appropriate;
· Special education students may demonstrate mastery
by a combination of passing the test without
accommodations, with accommodations, or through a
portfolio;
· A requirement that the Department of Education
would provide the Legislature with an annual
report showing indicators of the progress that
schools are making toward high student
achievement;
· Rewards students, between 2002 and 2004, for
passing the High School Competency Test;
· Asks the Department to make recommendations to the
Legislature regarding an appeals process and
portfolios; and
· Asks the Department to report to the Legislature
on the proposed criteria and procedures for
waivers.
Representative Harris asked about the changes made to the
House HESS version of the bill. Senator Lyda stated that
she preferred the "simplicity" of the Senate version. She
stressed that it is important that the high standard be
maintained.
Representative Croft asked the difference between
accommodation, modification and waiver. Senator Green
recalled that the waiver language would refer to someone who
is not currently included. Under federal law, a student can
qualify through various ways in order to be classified as a
student with special needs to make their education
comparable to the other students. She explained how an
accommodation or modification could be made for certain
circumstances. She commented that the intelligence or the
manner in how the student reaches the result should not be
the focus. Senator Green deferred to Dr. Bruce Johnson for
a more thorough definition of the terms.
Representative Hudson voiced appreciation for the hard work
that had been undertaken for the betterment of the young
people in Alaska. He questioned if there was one area in
the House committee substitute, which needed to be modified.
Senator Green voiced her concern with the minimum competency
record and the portfolio referenced on Page 3, Line 19-20.
Vice-Chair Bunde interjected that language referred to the
State Board of Education and the option of providing a
report back. Senator Green added that the language
addressing the State performance standards was of concern.
The performance standards for math are not in the best
interest of the student.
Representative Hudson pointed out the difference on Page 3,
Line 30, and the certificate of achievement. The Senate
version contains no certificate of achievement area.
Representative Hudson asked why it had not been included.
Senator Green explained that the current exam is being
rewritten. Using the essential skills subset as the goal
versus the larger rack of information to test over, the test
is being brought to a standard that most students should do
well on. She believed that all of the individual needs of
students were being addressed. If the State has a small
number of students who do not pass the test, she would not
be concerned, as that child could repeat the year in order
to pass the test. She stressed that it is the goal that the
student meets the established standard.
Representative Hudson reiterated that he was looking for the
area of disagreement. He noted the inclusion of diploma or
certificate of achievement, suggesting that a policy issue
is the "difference". Senator Green was not sure how
essential the certificate of achievement would be.
Representative Davies asked if there were issues regarding
the standards of treating special education students
differently, by allowing them the same opportunities and
success. Senator Green explained that each student deserves
a diploma. Those that are severely developmentally disabled
would take a different test. Some students will need the
accommodations. In the Senate version, those students would
be able to do that. In the discussion regarding the waiver
language, it is the role of the Department of Education &
Early Development and the State School Board to develop the
language.
Representative Croft referenced Page 3, indicating that the
student either pass the test or has a portfolio of work for
a certificate of achievement. He recommended having a test
or having an alternative way that the student can achieve an
appropriate level. He stated that would provide everyone
the opportunity to "get there". Once that is accomplished,
they would receive their diploma. As the bill currently
stands, there would be only one standard, the test. He
emphasized that something else was needed because there are
going to be a lot of special need kids that will not meet
the standard of that test. Representative Croft stressed
the need for an alternative route for those kids.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that 40%-50% of the current
Individual Education Program (IEP) students do not get
diplomas at this time. Under the current standard, that
number is lax for graduation and that about 10% of all high
school seniors do not get diplomas under the current system.
He recommended that defining a diploma should be discussed.
Senator Green advised that referencing the portfolio refers
to a child with a disability. She pointed out that the
Senate version contains present statute language on how to
implement that test.
LUCY HOPE, SPECIAL EDUCATION, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
(NEA)-ALASKA, WASILLA, voiced support for SB 133. She
pointed out concerns indicated on Page 3 and the portfolio
language addressing special needs children. She stated that
the proposed language would not be the best way to determine
special needs student proficiency. She asked who would
score the portfolios. Ms. Hope commented that the language
of the Senate version more clearly acknowledges the concerns
of the special need students and that language is already in
place and defined. She urged substituting the language for
the IEP accommodations and modifications and using the
Senate version of the bill.
Representative Croft asked good examples of modification and
accommodations. Ms. Hope noted that an "accommodation"
would allow the student to take the same test. Ms. Hope
explained that an accommodation is something that would not
give the student an unfair advantage versus a modification
that would give the student an advantage such as using a
calculator. The accommodations and modifications are
determined by the IEP of the student. Braille for a blind
student would be an accommodation, but reading to a blind
person would be a modification because someone else could
benefit from having it read. She noted that reading a
reading test would be totally disallowed; the seriously
dyslexic student would be disallowed from getting the
diploma in that case.
Representative Whitaker clarified that the IEP team would
determine the criteria for a special needs student earning a
diploma. Ms. Hope acknowledged that was correct.
Vice-Chair Bunde clarified that the IEP team consists of the
parents, teacher and a representative from the school
district. Vice-Chair Bunde referred to the Senate version,
which would provide for as many competency tests as IEP
teams. He believed that different teams would have
different standards. Ms. Hope replied that it would depend
on the student's proficiency.
Representative Davies asked how many students have
difficulties in passing the tests. Ms. Hope replied that
there are many reasons that a modification could be
recommended. She did not know the percentage, but noted
that it would usually be for students with specific learning
disabilities.
Representative Davies questioned the drawback to having all
students using a calculator. Ms. Hope replied that it would
depend on what was being tested. The ability to think
through a process is being tested, not the knowledge of
those facts being reviewed.
TAPE HFC 01 - 87, Side B
RITA DAVIS, SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER, NEA-ALASKA, PALMER,
noted that she had worked with teens providing IEP goals to
set the standard and developing class schedules to meet the
graduation requirements with the alternate of a diploma.
She reviewed a situation with a special needs student, who
had been one of her students and had disabilities and then
how the accommodations and modifications helped that student
complete her high school graduation. She urged passage of
SB 133.
Representative Davies agreed with the comment that the State
does not have to "water down the standards" being an
important portion of the bill. He understood that the
students would be "moving" toward the same standards, using
different routes. Ms. Davis explained that the goals are
matched according to the student's disability. Every IEP
looks different.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that the University of Alaska
system does not require a high school diploma. Ms. Davis
replied that when students are labeled with a learning
disability, it is difficult to predict what makes that
student "vulnerable". She spoke to the effort each student
must make in order to succeed.
Representative Croft commented that there is an unspoken
worry that IEP's don't expect enough of the students or that
IEP's are sometimes used for students that do not really
have a disability but instead want some type of
modification. He inquired if IEP's were being abused. Ms.
Davis replied that there are stringent guidelines regarding
disabilities established by the federal and State
government. The assessment evaluation is a well-established
system. The IEP is a part of that standard and it is a way
to give information to identify the student's ability. She
emphasized that programs are designed to meet graduation
standards.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that a parent must "sign off"
on the IEP. Ms. Davis responded that it is a team decision
and at the high school level, the students are involved in
the decision. She commented that the standard would not be
lowered if the parent thinks it is too tough.
ROD MCCOY, SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER, NEA-ALASKA, ANCHORAGE,
addressed his experience as a teacher of special education
students in Anchorage. He emphasized that he supported the
Senate version of the legislation. He addressed how painful
it is to expect more than the student's individual ability.
Mr. McCoy pointed out that it is important to respect the
individual differences between students.
Vice-Chair Bunde interjected that it is "criminal" to damn a
child to low expectations. Mr. McCoy agreed. Vice-Chair
Bunde voiced his concern that the standard continues to
decline. He pointed out that currently, high school
students are functioning at a junior high level. Mr. McCoy
th
interjected that the national level is that of a 5 grader.
KARLA GRISWOLD, TEACHER, NEA-ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, voiced
support of the Senate version of the bill. She commented on
the exceptional standards that currently exist in the State.
Ms. Griswold voiced concerns regarding the portfolio. There
are some things that are not essential skills which are
being required of the students. She suggested that some
students do need "extra tools". The State should stick with
the standards and have high expectations of the students.
She added that on the whole, the special education students
are hard workers.
TIM WEISS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENT
INCORPORATED, ANCHORAGE, commented that Parent Inc., is a
group of parents of children needing special education
services. These parents want to insure that no matter how
severe their child's disability is, they are able to get a
diploma.
Mr. Weiss noted that the bill provides for several concerns
which are necessary for students with disabilities:
· Recognizing that after taking the test, the IEP
team may determine that re-testing is
inappropriate; and
· Explicitly outlining the methods by which students
with disabilities can receive a diploma.
Mr. Weiss worried about the fact that an EIP team could not
request a waiver in unusual circumstances. The Department
of Education & Early Development has currently determined
that their "alternate examination" through portfolio work
can only be for the lowest functioning 2% of students with
disabilities.
LOUISE PARRISH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VALDEZ,
voiced support for the legislation and concern that
legislators have not had experience with disabled children.
The majority of those kids in Alaska fall under the category
of specific learning disability. She addressed concerns
with dyslexia and specific learning disabilities (SLD). Ms.
Parrish commented that all struggling kids could benefit
from a system of K-2 screening, diversion and intervention
using proven methods of reading instruction. She stressed
that all children can learn if schools decide to make reform
a priority.
DR. ED MCLEAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), KENAI, stated
schools are expected to teach a full array of skills to
children and to decide what is essential. Out of that full
set, the schools are attempting to identify which skills and
concepts are essential. All students cannot be required to
cover the entire broad range. The question revolves around
what level is enough.
Dr. McLean discussed essential skills. He suggested that if
the use of a modification is allowed, it should be allowed
during the assessment. Dr. McLean referenced Page 5 of
reports, which would be provided. He stated if the
districts were required to report the number of kids with
waivers and the number that graduate with the exam, the
district could add an additional report indicating the
number of students that graduate with the use of
modifications. He pointed out that federal save-guards
already are in place and would not need to be modified.
TAPE HFC 01 - 88, Side A
Dr. McLean voiced his appreciation of all the work that had
been done through the legislation.
Vice-Chair Bunde inquired if the current test standards met
the definition of "essential skills". Dr. McLean replied
that his district did define the essential skills. It is
being developed and the district is determining how the
passing skills are measured in determining foundation or
essential skills. Dr. McLean explained that the important
piece is not only the level but also the focus of the test.
Vice-Chair Bunde thought that the modifications could change
the test and raise a red flag. Dr. McLean replied that
there are federal regulations, which outlines the
requirements that IEP must follow in terms of eligibility.
He stated if there was a district with a high number of IEP
students, that the district office would initiate an
inquiry.
Representative Hudson asked about the Kenai certified
diploma. He inquired how the State could guarantee that the
money being spent for education was producing students that
can meet the necessary minimum standards. Dr. McLean
replied that setting the standards, the Borough begins with
a yearlong process of monthly meetings held to establish
indicators of a successful policy. Then those ideas are
accessed and the criteria reference is considered.
Representative Lancaster asked which version of the
legislation was preferred. Dr. McLean responded that he
preferred the Senate version as it provides for
accountability and that a variety of the details would be
addressed through the public process. He commented that
cost is critical for modifications.
KAREN DEMPSTER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
SUPERINTENDENT OF YUKON KOYUKUK SCHOOL DISTRICT, commented
that she had been a special needs student, who continued on
to law school. She noted that she could not finish the
general education diploma (GED) exit exam. She commented
that the debate now revolves around two situations, special
need students and those students that only have a specific
limitation. Ms. Dempster spoke to the objective criteria
currently being used. After the student meets the testing
qualifications, then they must meet the standards.
Ms. Dempster added that it is important to look at what
criteria are being used to determine whether a student is
handicapped or not. She addressed concerns with the
portfolio work and testing for the IEP student. Currently,
there is a standard in place that allows seeing which
student has a handicap. That standard is rigorous. Ms.
Dempster recommended going with the version of the bill that
allows for the identification of the handicap and for the
modification to accomplish the testing. She urged that
consideration be made on how to handle this concern. She
noted that employers often do look at the other criteria.
She applauded Vice-Chair Bunde with the inclusion of the
high school education standards to help raise the awareness
of why education is important. The accommodation should not
be a lessening of the standard.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that both versions of the bill
provide for accommodations and that the divergence begins
with the modifications.
BARBARA LEFLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENTS FOR
EFFECTIVE READING CURRICULUM (PERC), ANCHORAGE, testified to
experiences with her child who has a learning disability.
She commented that a curriculum was formed to address his
needs. She stressed that children with learning
disabilities can succeed if there is a curriculum for their
conditions. Ms. Lefler stressed that parents are becoming
worn down in fighting for their child. She urged that the
IEP diploma language be removed.
Representative Hudson asked about the "weight" referenced on
Page 3 with regard to the certificate of achievement. Ms.
Lefler responded that a certificate of achievement is a
"back door" to allow the IEP team to let them off the hook.
She stressed that a certificate of achievement does not
carry as much weight as a diploma.
Vice-Chair Bunde commented that the certificate of
achievement applied to all students not just the IEP.
MILLIE RYAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION, ANCHORAGE, stated that the Council does support
high standards for all students and that expectations need
to be higher. The performance standards offer an
opportunity for schools to accommodate for the students and
their learning style. Ms. Ryan added that it is important
to provide a variety of ways to provide for students to
demonstrate what they have learned. The Council recommends
adding language that allows for the participation in the
alternative learning assessment outlined in their IEP that
results in a diploma if they do not pass the exit exam three
times. She recommended that the alternative assessment be
in line with the performance standard.
Vice-Chair Bunde stated that an assessment would be a
modification of the test.
JENNIFER JONES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GOVERNOR'S
COUNCIL ON DISABIITIES AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, ANCHORAGE,
addressed her own physical disability. The ability to pass
the test with modifications currently exists. A certificate
of achievement does not carry the same weight as a diploma
and limits the student's ability to succeed in the future.
Students fear that they are not going to be able to move
forward. Ms. Jones recommended adding language for the
alternative assessment to be in line with the performance
standard.
JEAN BUGG, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EDUCATOR,
ANCHORAGE, commented on the certificate of achievement
amounting to a diploma with a "disclaimer". She stressed
that document would not qualify the student for a "real"
job. Ms. Bugg stated that the Alaska education system needs
better teaching skills to assure the best methods to reach
disabled students.
Co-Chair Williams stated that SB 133 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
An Act relating to the possession or distribution of
alcohol in a local option area; requiring liquor
license applicants to submit fingerprints for the
purpose of conducting a criminal history background
check, and relating to the use of criminal justice
information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;
providing for a review of alcohol server education
courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every
two years; and providing for an effective date.
HEATHER NOBREGA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG,
noted that the House Judiciary Committee has been requested
to introduce HB 132 to address some problems in the area of
bootlegging alcohol, and the issuance of liquor licenses to
persons with criminal records outside the State of Alaska.
Bootlegging is a prevalent problem in "dry" areas, and is a
large contributor to crime in those areas. By requiring
applicants for liquor licenses to give their fingerprints,
the State could thoroughly investigate the criminal
backgrounds so that only responsible individuals might
obtain a liquor license. She urged the Committee's support
of the legislation.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if the sponsor had a position on the
proposed amendment. Ms. Nobrega noted that Representative
Rokeberg supported the amendment, however, voiced concern
with the potential fiscal impact. He recommended that the
House Finance Committee work out the funding concerns.
Representative Croft asked where in the bill "six" would be
replaced with "12". Ms. Nobrego replied that change would
be made in Section 2 and 6.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned if the legislation would make
bootlegging more lucrative. Ms. Nobrega replied that was
not the intent of the legislation. The intent is to make it
more difficult to get the alcohol.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, spoke in support of the
legislation. He emphasized the problem that alcohol causes
in Alaska. There are provisions in current law that
establishes presumptions on the amounts of alcohol. He
added that the Criminal Justice Assessment Commission has
worked to look at a variety of aspects regarding crime in
Alaska and that alcohol is one of the primary concerns.
There is a problem with current law as it applies to the
attempt to send liquor into dry areas. The problem arises
when people attempt to mail or ship alcohol. When they do
that and are successful and over a certain amount, it then
becomes a Class C felony. If they do not succeed, it is
treated as an attempt, which in Alaskan law is handled as a
lesser crime. The level of culpability is the same.
TAPE HFC 01 - 88, Side B
Mr. Guaneli added that multiple shipments from multiple
stores have been used to circumvent the law. The only
effective way to deal with that, is to create a "delivery
site", an area that all alcohol shipped into a dry area has
to be delivered to a central location. Barrow bans the sale
of alcohol but allows its importation and operates one of
the delivery sites. Mr. Guaneli acknowledged that the price
is driven up by that practice, and emphasized that less is
getting into the community. The amendment would allow the
State to step-in and assume that function.
Representative Croft inquired the fiscal impact resulting
from the amendment.
Mr. Guaneli responded that the Department of Public Safety
received a substantial appropriation from the federal
government to combat bootlegging alcohol. As a result of
that appropriation, the Administration discussed effective
ways to deal with the concern. There is sufficient money
within that appropriation so that the program could be
operated at least for the first fiscal year without any
money coming from the general fund.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked the administrative costs to the
program in Barrow. Mr. Guaneli replied that the program is
operated under a contract and did not know the exact dollar
amount. The administrative fees cover the costs.
Representative Hudson questioned if the concern was
principally a rural issue. Mr. Guaneli affirmed it was and
noted that it actually applies only to the areas that have
banned sales but still allow importation, a couple primary
places, Bethel and Kotzebue. They are the hubs for the
smaller villages.
Representative Hudson questioned the intent. Mr. Guaneli
noted that the aim is not to reduce the social use of
alcohol. The intent is to address those people that are
selling alcohol for a profit through multiple package
stores. Profits are enormous and seriously drive that
industry.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if it were the goal to limit the
illegal distribution, and how would the success of the
program be evaluated. Mr. Guaneli responded that success
would not be measured by the reduction in alcohol. The
success would be measured in the reduction in the need for
social services and a reduction in crime. He affirmed that
there is not a baseline for the reduction of alcohol. He
added that the price of alcohol would be a measure.
Mr. Guaneli emphasized the difficulty creating a perfect
system. The intent is to limit persons to the amount that
they can statutorily receive in any month. There will
always be situations in which people try to circumvent the
law.
Co-Chair Mulder referenced the amendment and asked why the
Committee should consider adopting it as Bethel already has
it in place. Mr. Guaneli advised that it is already
allowed, but is not being done in certain locations
throughout the State. Given the amount of money that the
State spends in that area, there is a strong need to limit
the flow. It will not hurt to grant authority to the State.
He reiterated that this funding was available from another
source this year.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if it would be better to put a sunset
on the legislation. Mr. Guaneli replied that a study would
be a legitimate expenditure.
Co-Chair Mulder commented that measuring the success of such
a program would be nebulous. He reiterated applying a
sunset to justify that the program has been successful. Mr.
Guaneli agreed that following a period of time, if the State
does not show some success, then perhaps the effort should
be abandoned.
Representative Harris commented that there was an election
in Barrow that turned down the funding for the project. He
agreed that a sunset should be applied.
Vice-Chair Bunde endorsed the sunset. He noted that he was
preparing an amendment to the amendment proposing a 50%
local match. He hoped it would encourage a local buy-in.
DOUGLAS GRIFFIN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
ALCOHOLIC CONTROL BOARD (ABC), ANCHORAGE, stated that
language is needed by the Legislature to provide for a
statewide check. Mr. Griffin identified Section 3 of the
bill, which speaks to the criminal background check. There
needs to be specific information that allows the ABC Board
to access the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data
bank to provide a nationwide background data check.
Currently, ABC can only access criminal convictions within
the State of Alaska. He stressed that the addition of that
language would provide for a cost savings to the State. Mr.
Griffin pointed out that everything is run through the
Department of Public Safety. The State would benefit from a
more complete background check.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1 with the
conceptual addition of a 3-year sunset and a provision that
if any general fund was required, a 50% local match would be
required. [Copy on File]. Representative Harris OBJECTED
for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Harris asked if the federal money could be
encumbered during the process. Mr. Guaneli believed that
the $1.4 million federal dollars was available. A portion
of that money has been earmarked for a certain number of
troopers and prosecutors. He added that there is another
source of federal money re-occurring every year for drug and
alcohol concerns. Mr. Guaneli was confident that federal
funding would be available for at least the first year.
Until contracts and regulations are available, it will be
difficult to know what the amount is. He added that the
fees need to be assessed.
Representative Harris asked if the Administration was
confident that within the next three years, no general funds
would need to be used to maintain the program. Mr. Guaneli
reiterated that he could not guarantee that no federal funds
would be required for the entire length of the program.
Representative Harris asked if the sunset should be one
year. Mr. Guaneli replied that a one-year sunset would be
too short, as it will take time to write the contracts and
regulations. Three years would be an appropriate length of
time.
Representative Harris WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Williams advised that the drafter recommended that
a Letter of Intent should accommodate the bill.
Representative Hudson recommended making a separate adoption
of the Letter of Intent.
Representative Croft redefined Amendment #1, adding to it
the three year sunset date.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Representative Hudson MOVED to ADOPT the Letter of Intent
stating that:
"It is the intent of the Legislature that any general
fund money that goes into the operation of this program
must have a 50% local match".
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED for a question.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that Michael Ford, Legal
Drafter, had submitted the intent language.
Co-Chair Williams WITHDREW his OBJECTIN.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report CS HB 132 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations, the Letter of
Intent and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 132 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by Department of
Revenue dated 3/26/01, Department of Law dated 3/26/01,
Department of Corrections dated 3/26/01, Department of
Administration dated 3/26/01 and the Alaska Court System
dated 4/03/01.
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance
program; and providing for an effective date.
ANGELA SALERNO, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, stated that Jim Nordlund was on
line and ready to testify.
JIM NORDLUND, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, ANCHORAGE, commented that five years ago,
the Administration worked with the Legislature to create a
new welfare law for Alaska. The Aid to Families with
Dependent Children and Job Opportunity and Basic Skills
programs created the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program
(ATAP). He advised that changes were needed with that
program as it was initially established.
Mr. Nordlund stated that HB 142 would repeal the percentage
limit on the number of families that may continue on receive
assistance for more than 60 months due to hardship. Removal
of that limit would permit the Department of Health and
Social Services to base its hardship exceptions on objective
criteria rather than on a fixed percentage of overall
caseload. As families are successful in finding work and
the overall caseload decreases, the number of hardship cases
makes up a greater percentage of the total.
Mr. Nordlund noted that Alaska established an extremely
aggressive goal, compared to other states, capping hardship
cases at a specific percentage of the total. Other states
either avoided time limits completely or set a broader range
of exemptions to the limits. The fixed percentage in law
artificially bars needy families with disabled adults from
receiving essential cash assistance and services for the
children. The first families will begin to exceed the 60-
month lifetime limit in July 2002.
Mr. Nordlund added that the bill would address the seasonal
provisions for a two parent needy family by removing
outdated eligibility requirements as cited in Superior Court
ruling. The change permits the Department to apply the
seasonal reduction provision to all two-parent needy
families in which both parents are physically and mentally
able to work.
The legislation will require disabled parents to have self-
sufficiency plans. The State can better serve these parents
by promoting their efforts toward self-sufficiency.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report CS HB 142 (HES) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 142 (HES) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by Department of
Health & Social Services dated 2/23/01.
SENATE BILL NO. 77
An Act repealing the exception that applies to
collection and payment of interest of $150 or less on
royalty or net profit share underpayments and
overpayments; and providing for an effective date.
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, noted in
1998, the Legislature enacted AS 38.05.135(g), exempting the
Department of Natural Resources from calculating interest on
small over to underpayments of royalty if the interest was
$150 or less. The cost of calculating the small
over/underpayments was more than the interest received or
credit applied. Prior to 1998, Department of Natural
Resources was calculating the small processed 1,716 royalty
filings where interest amounts were between a negative $150
and a positive $150. The net amount of the
under/overpayments was a positive $4,096.
Mr. Peterson stated that the effort of calculating,
processing and tracking interest for small payments was not
cost effective for the oil companies or the State. With the
advent of the State's new Oil and Gas Royalty Accounting
System, all interest is calculated electronically. Most
royalty payers are using mainframe computer systems and
sending their royalty reports electronically. The failure
to repeal AS 38.05.135(g) would require the Department and
royalty payers to reprogram their computer systems to not
compute payments of less than $150 dollars.
Mr. Peterson added that the repeal of the statute would
solve the problem of the administrative burden on the part
of the royalty payers and the State to manually track very
small amounts of interest.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to report SB 77 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 77 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by Department of
Natural Resources dated 2/22/01.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|