Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
03/16/2020 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB185 | |
| HB24 | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB181 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 185 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 16, 2020
9:05 a.m.
9:05:24 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnston called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Erin Shine, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston;
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tompkins, Sponsor;
Representative Matt Claman, Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dale Kelly, Commissioner, Commercial Fishing Entry
Commission, Department of Fish and Game; Tamara Van Wyhe,
Director, Division of Innovation and Educational
Excellence, Department of Education and Early Development;
Lacey Sanders, Administrative Services Director, Department
of Education and Early Development, Office of Management
and Budget, Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY
HB 24 LIMITED TEACHER CERTIFICATES; LANGUAGES
CSHB 24(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
six "do pass" recommendations and five "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one new
zero note from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development and one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(EED).
HB 181 PUBLIC SCHOOLS: MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION
HB 181 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 185 REGISTRATION OF BOATS: EXEMPTION
CSHB 185(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Fish
and Game, one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Administration, and one previously
published zero note: FN1 (DPS).
HJR 15 CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE
HJR 15 was REPORTED out of committee with seven
"do pass" recommendations and four "do not pass"
recommendations and with one previously published
zero note: FN1 (GOV).
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
HOUSE BILL NO. 185
"An Act relating to the registration of commercial
vessels; and providing for an effective date."
9:06:34 AM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 185, Work Draft 31-LS1250\E (Klein,
3/12/20).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON,
highlighted new language on page 2, line 27 through page 3,
line 3 of the committee substitute (CS).
Co-Chair Johnston asked the Department of Fish and Game to
address the new fiscal note.
DALE KELLY, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHING ENTRY
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via
teleconference), reviewed the fiscal note that reflected
the waiver provided for in HB 185 for vessel owners who
paid fees for the Derelict Vessel Fund through the Division
of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in either 2019 or 2020. She
elaborated that the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) would begin collecting the fees beginning in January
2021. She detailed that DMV assessed a three-year fee of
$24 for the program and CFEC would assess an annual $8 fee.
She explained that without the waiver, fishermen who had
already paid would be overcharged for one or two years when
the new fee was implemented. The commission would not know
precisely how many vessel owners had paid the fee until the
end of 2020. In order to account for the waiver, CFEC used
the $21,500 decrement in DMV's fiscal note to adjust its
revenue projection downward for the first three fiscal
years of the program.
Ms. Kelly clarified that because the new fee would begin
during the second half of FY 21, CFEC had reduced the
revenue projection for that year by half (about $35,000
minus the $21,500). Although the waivers would last no more
than two years and would end on December 31, 2022, FY 23
would be included because it began in July 2022. She
reported that CFEC licensed roughly 8,800 vessels per year
and all vessel owners would pay the $8 annual fee. From
FY 24 onward, CFCE estimated an annual revenue of $70,500
for the Derelict Vessel Fund. She explained that during the
first two years of the program, CFEC anticipated some added
expense in handling the waivers, but it would work to try
to absorb the costs within the current budget. After that
time, CFEC anticipated minimal costs to collect the
licensing fee.
9:09:47 AM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 185(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 185(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note
from the Department of Fish and Game, one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Administration, and one
previously published zero note: FN1 (DPS).
HOUSE BILL NO. 24
"An Act relating to instruction in a language other
than English; and relating to limited teacher
certificates."
9:10:42 AM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 24, Work Draft 31-LS0290\G
(Marx/Caouette).
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON,
directed committee members to page 1, lines 11 through 12
in the committee substitute (CS) that incorporated the
amendment that had passed the previous Friday. She relayed
it was the only change in the CS.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 31-LS0290\G
was ADOPTED.
Representative Wool was concerned that immersion schools
were being treated differently than other public schools.
He noted they were all funded the same way and were in the
same school district under the auspices of the Department
of Education and Early Development (DEED). He detailed that
when there was a language teacher shortage in a regular
public school they had to go through the typical process;
however, immersion schools had a fast track to getting
teachers. He believed language teachers were needed
everywhere and he had heard from his school district about
the need. He reported that his district would be willing to
accept a teacher under the conditions of the bill. He
supported the concept. He reasoned that immersion schools
were likely similar to charter schools (there was no
immersion school in his community). He highlighted that
kids attending charter schools tended to have parents who
could drive them to school. He elaborated that the parents
were typically more involved, and the kids were usually
higher performing. He explained that it tended to attract a
different kind of student. He reiterated that he did not
have an immersion school in his district, but he was basing
his experience off of charter schools that tended to be a
little higher performing.
Representative Wool thought it seemed slightly
disadvantageous to the schools and children who could not
afford to be driven to school but wanted language exposure.
He considered that perhaps the bill did not apply to high
school. He noted a person who had testified previously had
stated there were K-12 programs; however, the bill sponsor
had relayed there were not many vibrant K-12 programs. He
remarked that younger kids did not have language programs
in public schools. He objected to the idea that only
immersion schools had the advantage of the hiring process,
even though they were all in the public school system and
all received state funds.
9:13:52 AM
Representative LeBon considered how districts treated the
immersion language program. From his perspective, the bill
opened the door for a school district to pursue immersion
language opportunities for students. He asked whether an
immersion language opportunity allowed a student to receive
foreign language credit towards graduation. Alternatively,
he wondered if the immersion program was an enhancement to
a student's academic portfolio, similar to a foreign
language club. He considered whether the immersion program
was a substitute for curriculum requirements to graduate by
senior year in high school. He believed most of the
programs would be at the high school level or may begin in
middle school. He asked if the immersion language was
intended to be an enhancement to the school day and to the
language for a student or whether it was also intended to
be a substitution for the foreign language requirements
that a school district may establish for graduation from
high school. He asked if it was one or the other or both.
Representative LeBon shared that when he had served on the
Fairbanks School Board, the board would approve curriculum
for foreign language requirements to graduate. He stated
that if the school district chose to allow the bill to be a
substitution for the foreign language requirements to
graduate, the curriculum for the immersion language program
would need to be reviewed and accepted by the school board.
Additionally, the performance of the instructor and student
would have to be measured and tracked. The minimum
requirements as established in the curriculum would have to
be met if the bill substituted for the foreign language to
earn credits to graduate. He summarized his questions. He
wondered if the bill resulted in an educational enhancement
as in a foreign language club or if it would add to the
foreign language curriculum where standards would be
established for the instructor and student. He believed it
was an enhancement and not a substitution, given the name
Alaska Native language preservation. He believed it would
be up to a school district to decide whether to treat the
program as its foreign language requirement.
Co-Chair Johnston noted the department was available for
questions.
TAMARA VAN WYHE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), asked Representative
LeBon to repeat the question.
9:17:49 AM
Representative LeBon repeated his question. He wondered if
the bill would allow a school district to take an immersion
language opportunity and treat it as part of the foreign
language curriculum for graduation. Alternatively, he
wondered if it was up to the district to decide. He asked
if the department had any insight into how a district may
treat the issue.
Ms. Van Wyhe replied that much of the decision would be up
to the school districts to determine. She elaborated that
if a district or school offered foreign language in a club-
type scenario with no credit attached, certification for
the instructor would not be necessary. However,
[instructor] certification would matter if academic credit
was earned. She elaborated that the district would need to
go through the proper channels to ensure the instructor was
certificated. How the issue was handled would be a school-
by-school and district-by-district decision.
9:19:08 AM
Representative LeBon provided a scenario where a school
district wanted to take advantage of the talent of a
foreign language speaking individual in the community and
allow the language (e.g. Russian or Chinese) to be part of
the foreign language requirement curriculum. He asked if
the class would be part of the curriculum and would fall
under a whole different approval process. He stated that it
was typically referred to a curriculum committee to write
the curriculum and establish standards for instruction and
student performance. He surmised it would have to be
tracked and followed and a passing grade would have to be
earned to check off the foreign language requirement for
graduation. He had been reading the bill as an immersion
program that would enhance the preservation of Alaska
Native languages via a community member coming to the
school to teach for a stipend or activity fee (not at the
pay level of a certified language teacher). He asked for
comment.
Ms. Van Wyhe answered that it would be a question for the
individual school districts. The way districts handled
special coursework related to a uniquely qualified
individual was specific to each district - it would depend
on the size of the district, the resources available, and
the size of the teaching staff. She was not comfortable
answering the question for districts across the state. She
deferred to the bill sponsor for additional clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMPKINS, SPONSOR, asked if
the question was whether fluency attained through an
immersion credit should not qualify as a language credit in
a school district.
Representative LeBon explained he was trying to understand
the world the bill applied to. He asked if the bill applied
to a foreign language offered by a school district and
perhaps it required students to take one year of foreign
language to graduate. If so, he asked if the immersion
language would or would not potentially satisfy the
requirement to graduate.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that Brandon Locke
[director of the World Languages and Immersion Programs in
the Anchorage School District] would have been best suited
to answer the question because it would be on a district-
by-district basis [Mr. Locke testified previously on the
bill in a 3/10/20 10:00 a.m. meeting]. He believed it would
be fairly absurd to not credential scenarios where students
were fully fluent in a language. For example, if there were
students coming out of grade 6 who could fluently speak
Japanese and continued to do so through high school,
something would be wrong if the school district did not
recognize it as foreign language credit. He noted that he
did not know how the foreign language credit worked. He
added that the issue would be on a district-by-district
basis. He surmised there was probably an existing mechanism
to determine how the language would be credited.
9:23:12 AM
Representative LeBon used the example provided by the bill
sponsor about a Japanese speaking student. He considered a
situation where a school did not offer Japanese as a
language and the student was the only student taking the
language in an immersion course. He thought the district
would have to determine whether to formally recognize
Japanese as an immersion language and to give the student
foreign language credit. He continued that it would be
necessary to run the course through a curriculum
development process and ensure the instruction met the
standards; it would also require approval by the school
board. He continued that it would also be necessary to
measure proficiency and declare that the instructor and
student met the minimum standards and performance
expectations, respectively.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded that he understood
the direction of the questioning. He thought it was a
nuanced inquiry. He had dialogued with over a dozen
districts during the four years he had carried the
legislation and the topic of how students coming out of
immersion language programs qualified towards foreign
language programs had never come up as a "sticky wicket."
He did not have the answer to the question. He explained
that someone who ran an immersion program would have to
answer the question. He explained that the programs had
been around for a long time and operated successfully.
Representative LeBon referenced a scenario where a student
entering a school district was fluent in Japanese. He asked
if the student could opt out of taking a foreign language
to graduate to meet the foreign language requirements of
the district if Japanese was not one of the offered
languages. He asked if the student would be required to
take Spanish, French, or German if they were the three
offered foreign languages and the district had no immersion
program. He wondered if the student would be given a pass
because they spoke fluent Japanese. He guessed the answer
would be no. He surmised that the student would be required
to take another foreign language even though they already
spoke a foreign language fluently.
9:26:26 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there was a handle on the number
of existing immersion schools and whether they only existed
at the elementary or high school level.
Ms. Van Whye replied that DEED did not track the data. She
would check with the teacher certification administrators.
Representative Wool followed up on Vice-Chair Ortiz's
question. He recalled that a testifier who ran the
immersion programs in Anchorage had referenced a K-12
program; however, the bill sponsor had communicated that
the program was not robust. He believed many of the
immersion programs were for younger students in K-6 or K-8.
He assumed those classroom hours would not apply towards
high school requirements. He did not believe [entering
school] speaking a foreign language was enough to exempt a
student from the foreign language requirement. He shared
that his sister-in-law spoke a foreign language and her
kids were fairly fluent and they had been a bit discouraged
when they had to take a foreign language in school. He
reasoned that it was not merely about speaking a language
or else students would not have to take high school
English. He thought the foreign language requirement was
more of an academic requirement than just being able to
speak the language.
Representative Wool highlighted that the bill specified an
immersion program. He thought Representative LeBon may have
been referring to an immersion program within a
conventional school. He surmised the bill would apply if a
school wanted to start a program; however, the person
instructing within the immersion program would not be able
to teach a "regular" foreign language class within the same
school, which he found challenging. On the other hand, he
considered that perhaps the immersion teacher would be too
busy teaching economics, history, and other topics in the
immersion program. He had many questions remaining. He
asked what a typical grade 9 through 12 immersion program
looked like at present and into the future.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins believed the programs
varied. He stated the question would have been best
directed to Brandon Locke. The bulk of immersion programs
were K-6 (whether they terminated at 6th grade varied).
There were different language immersion tracks in the
Anchorage School District where there was a continued study
and maintenance of the language, including at higher levels
(e.g. studying literature of the language). He did not
believe there was a cookie cutter answer as to what an
immersion program looked like after grade 6. Broadly
speaking, immersion programs were primary education focused
and the amount of time spent in a target language classroom
tapered off as a student approached 6th grade. He explained
that the immersion programs were frontloaded in the first
few years of primary school. He relayed that the questions
would be best directed to administrators of the programs.
9:30:45 AM
AT EASE
9:30:54 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 24(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 24(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with six "do
pass" recommendations and five "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one new zero note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
and one previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (EED).
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to actions upon veto."
9:31:37 AM
Co-Chair Johnston asked for a brief reintroduction of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMPKINS, SPONSOR, explained
that the resolution would create a uniform two-thirds veto
override threshold.
Representative Josephson supported and co-sponsored the
bill. He stated that when the language had been drafted in
December 1955/January 1956 the state had felt more
insecure. He detailed that according to Gordon Harrison and
other scholars, the state felt it needed the strongest
possible governor, which the state now had. He discussed
that other states had an elected statewide treasurer, lands
commissioner, secretary of state, and attorney general,
which resulted in more diffused power. He noted that some
states had a separately elected court system, which he
opposed. He supported pulling back the reigns on the strong
governor model ever so slightly.
Representative Josephson believed in some respects, the
change would save a governor acting in an extreme position
from himself or herself to some degree. He highlighted that
the previous session there had been a divided capital issue
between Juneau and Wasilla. He elaborated that there had
been 16 people who could interfere with the wishes of 44
[legislators]. He thought it took the rights of the
Minority a little far. He recalled that at the time the
legislature had been looking at the [governor's] $138
million veto to the university. He stated, "I'm not sure
that wouldn't have happened. That is, that we couldn't have
overridden that." He opined that to be the outlier of the
50 states did not have merit.
9:34:12 AM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT HJR 15 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Tilton OBJECTED. She read a Thomas Jefferson
quote from his 1801 inaugural address:
All too will bear in mind the sacred principle, that
though the will of the majority is in all cases to
prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be
reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal
rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate
would be oppression.
Representative Tilton found it curious there were 15
constitutional amendments sitting that had been initiated
by the House, and HJR 15 was the only one to make it
through the committees of referral. The majority of the
others addressed the Permanent Fund Dividend and other
constitutional amendments that would bring the
constitutional spending limit current. She had heard
reference that there were many states with the same
threshold. She countered that Alaska was not like all other
states. She pointed out that Alaska's constitution was
regarded as one of the best, most succinct, and articulate
constitutions in the U.S. She did not support looking at
what other states were doing and comporting to a lesser
document.
9:36:07 AM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wool, Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Foster,
Johnston
OPPOSED: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter, Merrick
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
There being NO further OBJECTION, HJR 15 was REPORTED out
of committee with seven "do pass" recommendations and four
"do not pass" recommendations and with one previously
published zero note: FN1 (GOV).
9:37:01 AM
AT EASE
9:38:17 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to mental health education."
9:38:21 AM
Co-Chair Johnston asked for a brief reintroduction of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, provided brief
remarks. He believed updating the health education
standards to include mental health was long overdue. The
bill would not establish a required curriculum and would
allow local school districts to determine whether they
wanted to go down the path included in the bill. The bill
provided guidelines for work taking place in many districts
across the state.
Representative Claman shared that he had two concerns about
the fiscal note. First, he believed the notion the bill
would require bringing in 20 to 30 people in twice by
airplane to conferences in Anchorage to come up with
updated health curriculum to include mental health seemed
like far too much money and had no justification. He
explained that much of the work could be done remotely. He
thought the fiscal note seemed unusually high. Second, he
was troubled the department had included $6,000 for
regulations and needed legal support for the regulations.
He explained that the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) only
included one section related to education standards - AAC
4.04.140. He detailed that AAC 4.04.140(b) specified that
the content standards for physical education was set out in
the department's publication entitled Alaska Physical
Education Standards as revised or adopted by reference. He
did not believe that equated to $6,000 worth of legal
support for regulation. He recognized there may be some
costs associated with the bill, but he thought the
department's fiscal note was much too high and out of touch
with reality.
Co-Chair Johnston asked to hear from the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED).
LACEY SANDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference),
addressed the sponsor's comments on the fiscal note. She
explained that historically each bill requiring DEED to
work with the Department of Law (DOL) on regulations cost
$6,000 to go through the process based on DOL's standard
billing. She explained that anytime DEED had to deal with
regulations it cost the department money. She spoke to the
travel costs in the fiscal note. She detailed that the
bill's intent language outlined several representatives
DEED would work with to develop the guidelines for
instructions. She elaborated that DEED worked via
teleconference as often as possible and it had determined
that in order to bring the involved voices together to have
the best conversation about what was being developed, two
in-person meetings were required. The cost was based on the
number of people identified in the bill.
9:42:28 AM
Representative Wool asked if the number of people that
would participate in the roundtable policy discussion was
30.
Ms. Sanders replied that the fiscal note identified between
20 and 30 representatives of mental health organizations.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for more detail on the stated need
to have two in-person meetings. He asked why the in-person
meetings were necessary.
Ms. Sanders answered that she was new to the department.
Her understanding was that in the past not all voices may
be heard when meetings were held only via teleconference.
She relayed that a colleague was available and may have
more information on the need for the two meetings.
9:44:02 AM
TAMARA VAN WYHE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), relayed that DEED had a
structure for gathering stakeholder input when it came to
the development and revision of standards. She highlighted
how important it was for Alaskans to have a voice at the
table. She elaborated that when discussing standards for
students and learning it was critical to have voices from
across the state representing many of the state's school
districts of various sizes and in different regions. She
confirmed that virtual communication was doable and was
utilized frequently by DEED. She highlighted that the
current experience [with COVID-19] may change the way
things were done in the future, but historically it had
been important to have stakeholders together in the same
room to discuss standards face-to-face and ensure that all
of the educators understood the standards. She elaborated
that it was important for educators to have an opportunity
to learn from content area experts and work with
facilitators to result in standards that had significant
buy-in. She explained that the standards would not be
implemented in the school districts if they did not have
buy-in. The goal was for standards to be meaningful when
they reached the classroom where student learning occurred.
Co-Chair Johnston noted that the process described had less
to do with the standards and general outcome and more to do
with involving the educational community as a whole in
order to ensure "the wheels on the bus are all going the
same direction." When she first saw the bill, she thought
that perhaps the development of the curriculum could be
contracted out and then discussed with communities.
However, she believed DEED was saying it took all the
communities to be part of the development of the curriculum
to work statewide.
Ms. Van Wyhe agreed. She explained that it was not just a
document or a set of standards that mattered; it was the
process that mattered. She elaborated on the importance of
allowing educators to play a role in developing and vetting
those standards before the standards went to the state
board for approval and to school districts for
implementation.
9:47:15 AM
Co-Chair Johnston considered that there may be a need to
develop new forms of communication. She asked if it would
be fair for the fiscal note to reflect one in-person
meeting and one follow up teleconference meeting.
Ms. Van Wyhe answered that things had changed dramatically
over the past couple of weeks related to distancing
practices. She explained that the fiscal note was based on
the department's current practice (two in-person meetings
and virtual meetings in between), which had worked very
well over many years. She believed people globally would be
reconsidering the way they gathered (e.g. the way DEED
gathered to obtain stakeholder input). She considered that
it was possible to convene one face-to-face meeting
followed by additional distanced conversations. She
reiterated that the note was based on the department's
existing practice that had worked well for many years.
Co-Chair Johnston looked at the $35,000 for a one-year
contract, $60,000 for travel, $6,000 for legal costs, and
$12,000 to print booklets. She surmised that the committee
could consider reducing the fiscal note by $30,000. She
asked if the remaining funds would meet the one-time
meeting commitment.
Ms. Van Wyhe deferred to Ms. Sanders.
Ms. Sanders replied that DEED could have an internal
conversation and follow up with a final response.
Representative Josephson remarked that the first time he
had seen a committee change a department's fiscal note he
had been surprised. However, he considered the $35,000
contract and remarked on the thousands of mental health
experts in Alaska. He did not mean to diminish the
seriousness of the work but surmised that a set of
standards could be developed over the course of a weekend.
He believed the two separate in-person meetings could be
cut to one meeting, which would cut the fiscal note in
half. He would vote in support for a motion to change the
note.
9:50:46 AM
AT EASE
9:52:01 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnston was pleased to hear the department was
willing to review the fiscal note. She announced an
amendment deadline for the following afternoon.
Representative Claman understood that DEED often received a
bill from DOL for $6,000 for regulatory work. However, he
found it hard to believe DOL would charge $6,000 to modify
one paragraph in regulation if there were not additional
regulations apart from the one he had identified. He
understood DOL may have standard rates, but he would like
DEED to find out more about what regulations needed to be
changed. He was skeptical of the $6,000 cost.
Representative LeBon stated that the language in the bill
specified that the mental health element to the health
curriculum a school district presented to students needed
to be established by DEED. He continued that the department
had two years to develop the material to present to school
districts. He asked if districts were expected to accept
the DEED recommendations. Alternatively, he wondered if
districts could look at the recommendations and adopt the
mental health component of the program based on their own
goals and objectives. He wondered if a school board would
be expected to give a stamp of approval without much input.
Representative Claman replied that he read the bill
language a bit differently. He pointed to Section 3(b),
where the board developed guidelines. He highlighted that
the current content standards for health guidelines were
two pages. He anticipated the guidelines that came back
from DEED would not be significantly longer, which would
leave curriculum development largely to local school
boards. He thought there would be some expectation the
department would provide some information beyond the
guidelines in terms of what school boards may look for in
their individual curriculum. He did not believe the
Fairbanks or Anchorage school boards started the curriculum
development process in a vacuum. He believed they looked to
see what information was available.
Representative Claman thought the school boards would look
to the state to see what resources were available, but he
believed it would be completely up to local school boards
to develop curriculum. He hoped that on a statewide level
there would be some similarity from one school district to
the next. He did not believe the state would dictate what
the curriculum would look like. Alternatively, he believed
the state would provide guidelines. For example, he
highlighted skills for healthy living guidelines that were
broad and left significant room for school districts to
decide what was best after consultation with parents and
faculty. He did not see the bill as imposing any specific
curriculum on any district. He believed the existing
guidelines supported the notion it would be easy to fit
within those guidelines.
9:56:36 AM
Representative LeBon could not help reading into things,
particularly if the topic would come before the school
board. He stated that if it was the expectation for school
boards to rubber stamp the DEED recommendations, the school
boards would want to see the recommendations as early as
possible. Additionally, school boards would want to see
what the content would look like, whether there was a
fiscal element, whether it crowded out other aspects of
their health program, and whether it fit in well. He
reasoned there were considerations that each school
district and each school board would have to weigh. He was
not reading into the bill that it would be mandated by the
state to all school districts.
Co-Chair Johnston stated that Representative LeBon may have
made the argument for the fiscal note. She pointed out that
DEED had talked about getting buy-in from all parties to a
certain extent.
Representative Claman pointed to Section 3 (AS
14.30.360(b)) and noted that the only thing being added to
existing law was mental health. He elaborated that
curriculum specialists were in existing law; therefore, the
presumption was that the position already existed. He
believed the fiscal note was only related to the guideline
development and not to the existing role of the specialist
in the department. He shared that his conversations with
school districts had consistently been that they had
significant leeway in what they wanted to do.
Ms. Van Wyhe clarified that the topic was standards. She
pointed out that there was a difference between standards
and curriculum. She relayed that DEED supported the work of
developing standards and the State Board of Education had
very high standards for the standards developed by DEED in
terms of the processes followed by the department and
ensuring there was significant stakeholder input. She
furthered that once standards were adopted - standards in
general were voluntary as were the standards in the bill -
the districts would take the standards and develop
curriculum, select instructional materials, and determine
precisely how the standards and expectations of the
standards rolled out in the districts. She noted there had
been a bit of confusion between standards and curriculum in
the past several minutes of discussion.
9:59:37 AM
Representative Wool looked at Section 3 of the bill and
noted that it specified that a school health education
specialist position shall be established and funded in the
department to coordinate the program statewide. He assumed
it was already in place for the physical health program. He
asked if the same person would be tasked with the mental
health program to eliminate the need to hire another
education specialist. He did not want to keep layering
specialists on if possible.
Representative Claman answered that it was existing law and
therefore, there should be an existing position. He
clarified that the bill did not call for adding another
position.
Representative Wool recognized that health education was
being broadened all of the time to include not only
physical health but topics like substance abuse, healthy
relationships, mental health including depression, mental
illness, suicide and other related topics. He asked if the
department envisioned another class. He remarked that often
times the physical education teacher was tasked with the
topic. He shared that at his kid's school the class
alternated between health and gym. He thought it seemed
like a significant amount to ask of a physical education
teacher.
10:01:55 AM
Ms. Van Wyhe answered that the decisions were completely up
to individual school districts. She highlighted that the
standards were voluntary, and it would be up to each
district to determine how to implement them, what the
course offerings would look like, and which staff would
teach the course. The department had no jurisdiction over
the decisions.
Representative Wool asked what the department envisioned
for implementation.
Ms. Van Wyhe deferred to the bill sponsor.
Representative Claman envisioned that the state board would
adopt new guidelines, which would be supportive of more
districts incorporating mental health into their health
education curriculum.
HB 181 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:03:40 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 24 ver. G 3.13.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 24 |
| HB 185 ver. E 3.12.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 185 |
| HB 30 public Testimony Red'd by 030920.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |