Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/10/2022 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB187 | |
| HB146 | |
| HB60 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 10, 2022
1:33 p.m.
1:33:15 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative James Kaufman, Sponsor; Representative Liz
Snyder, Co-Chair, House Health and Social Services
Committee; Noah Klein, Counsel, Legislative Legal Services;
Representative Matt Claman, Sponsor; Emma Potter, Staff,
Representative Matt Claman; Helge Eng, Director, Division
of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources; Tessa
Axelson, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tanya Keith, Chief, Wage and Hour Section, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development; Kelly Manning, Deputy
Director, Division of Innovation and Education Excellence,
Department of Education and Early Development; Jason
Lassard, Executive Director, National Alliance on Mental
Health Illness; Justin Pendergrass, Self, Wasilla; Alison
Arians, Division of Forestry, Special Projects Coordinator.
SUMMARY
HB 60 PUBLIC SCHOOLS: MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION
HB 60 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 98 FOREST LAND USE PLANS; TIMBER SALES
HB 98 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 146 DISCLOSURE OF WAGE INFORMATION
HB 146 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 187 STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
CSHB 187(STA) was REPORTED out of committee with
six "do pass" recommendations and five "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one new
zero fiscal note by the Office of the Governor.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the day.
HOUSE BILL NO. 187
"An Act relating to the elimination or modification of
state agency publications that are outdated,
duplicative, or excessive or that could be improved or
consolidated with other publications or exclusively
delivered electronically; and providing for an
effective date."
1:33:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KAUFMAN, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
He acknowledged that the committee had previously discussed
the bill, but he would be happy to summarize the bill again
and answer questions.
Representative Thompson asked if the bill sponsor had
received any pushback to the bill.
Representative Kaufman responded that he had only received
positive feedback.
Co-Chair Foster would be supporting the bill with the
caveat that it would not reduce or prohibit public
announcements. His only concern was that many people in the
state did not have reliable internet and some publications
needed to be provided on paper. He did not think the bill
would have a negative impact but wanted to be certain.
Representative Kaufman indicated that the bill was based on
legislative approval with checks and balances and
protections in place.
Co-Chair Merrick reported that Representatives Wool,
Carpenter, and Johnson had joined the meeting.
1:37:19 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
1:37:40 PM
Representative Edgmon agreed that on the surface, the bill
seemed acceptable and he would be supporting the bill. He
supposed that the individuals that would be most affected
by the bill were not involved in the bill process. He
wanted to be mindful of the impacts of the bill,
particularly as a rural legislator. He suggested that the
legislature might consider implementing the bill in stages.
Vice-Chair Ortiz agreed with Representative Edgmon and Co-
Chair Foster.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report CSHB 187(STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 187(STA) was REPORTED out of committee with six "do
pass" recommendations and five "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one new zero fiscal note by the
Office of the Governor.
1:39:41 PM
AT EASE
1:39:59 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 146
"An Act relating to disclosure of information
regarding employee compensation by employers,
employees, and applicants for employment; establishing
the fund for protection of compensation disclosure
rights; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Merrick invited the bill sponsor to present
HB 146.
1:40:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LIZ SNYDER, CO-CHAIR, HOUSE HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, thanked the committee for
hearing the bill and hoped it would move quickly out of
committee. She reported that the bill helped Alaskans
return to work and feel secure in their job as the state
recovered from the economic impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic. She indicated that the bill established three new
expectations, each of which she would summarize. The first
expectation was that workers could see the salary range for
a position as part of its posting information, the second
was that workers would have the right to salary history
privacy, and the third was that workers could not be
penalized for discussing compensation amongst themselves.
She would provide additional detail on each of the
expectations.
Representative Snyder expanded upon the first expectation
requiring that salary and wage information be available at
the time of posting. Only about 12 percent of current job
postings in the state offered detailed wage information.
She argued that Alaska was competing in a global market and
the state was losing residents every year. She thought
knowing the salary upfront would help applicants make
informed decisions and encourage people to stay in the
state.
Representative Snyder continued to explain the second
expectation regarding salary history privacy, which was
proposed in an effort to minimize wage scarring. When a
person entered or re-entered the workforce at a low or
depressed salary, copious research suggested that the
salary tended to stick with the individual and persist over
a person's entire professional career. She explained that
the phenomenon was referred to as wage scarring. Even
though the mechanism was not completely understood, the
depressed wages could also be experienced by a person's
children. After the 2007 to 2009 recession, only one in
four displaced workers were able to return to their
original earnings. She hoped the bill could help protect
workers in Alaska from experiencing similar situations due
to the pandemic.
Representative Snyder reviewed the third exceptions which
would ensure that workers could discuss compensation
amongst themselves. There was already a federal law that
ensured that wage discussion was allowable, but the bill
would codify it in state statute. She suggested that the
law was poorly enforced and the bill would help the state
enforce it more effectively. If any employer penalized or
restricted discussion of compensation, it was already a
violation of federal law. There was significant evidence
that similar laws minimized wage scarring. She had been
cognizant of the language in the bill and she had made
great efforts to utilize language that would help
businesses follow the law and take action to minimize or
completely avoid penalties. She thanked the committee for
hearing the bill.
Co-Chair Merrick invited Ms. Tanya Keith to review the
fiscal note.
1:47:06 PM
TANYA KEITH, CHIEF, WAGE AND HOUR SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
reviewed the fiscal note from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD) with control code AYpxa. The
fiscal impact note reflected three new positions that would
be responsible for facilitating the complaints and
investigations that would be the result of the proposed
regulations in the bill.
Representative Snyder commented that she had spent
significant time looking at the cost of implementation of
similar bills in other states. She had included comparisons
to other states in members' bill packets. The fiscal note
reflected a cost of implementation that was similar to
states with larger populations. She invited the department
to comment on how it determined the amount. She added that
the fiscal note also reflected some previous language that
had since been eliminated from the bill. It was also
possible that the bill would generate some revenue and she
did not believe the potential revenue was reflected in the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Ms. Keith if the department could
provide an updated fiscal note.
Ms. Keith responded in the affirmative.
1:49:57 PM
Representative Thompson was concerned about the
implications of the bill and did not understand the
requirements being imposed on the private sector. He asked
why the bill was being introduced.
Representative Snyder responded that the primary motivation
behind the legislation was to minimize wage scarring,
particularly after emerging from an economically
challenging time. Similar legislation had been proven to be
helpful in getting people back into the workforce. She
argued that the state placed regulations on businesses
often, and she thought the regulations associated with the
bill would look out for Alaskan workers and placed a
minimal burden on businesses.
Representative Thompson thought the bill might work for the
public sector, but not the private sector. He asked if the
bill effected small businesses.
Representative Snyder responded in the affirmative, but she
was open to amendments that would consider the
circumstances of small businesses.
Representative Thompson wondered whether small business
would be permitted to post a "Help Wanted" sign in windows.
Representative Snyder thought it might be helpful to hear
from Legislative Legal Services. She thought it was
becoming more common to see salary ranges on recruitment
signs in Fred Meyers.
Representative Thompson reemphasized that he was concerned
specifically about small businesses.
1:52:41 PM
NOAH KLEIN, COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, read lines
9 through 12 on page 2 of the bill that referred to the
publishing of employment notices by business. He did not
think it would be prohibited for Fred Meyer or a mom-and-
pop business to publish solicitations as long as the signs
did not specifically detail a position without offering a
salary range. If the sign simply said, "Help Wanted" there
would be no problems.
1:53:40 PM
Representative Carpenter asked for details about the
process the commissioner of DLWD would utilize to
investigate and convict a business that violated the
proposed law.
Ms. Keith replied that one of the investigators in the Wage
and Hour Division (WHD) would determine whether a violation
occurred. If it was determined that there was a violation,
an enforcement action by the commissioner would be
recommended.
Representative Carpenter asked whether there would be an
appeal process for businesses.
Ms. Keith responded that there would be an appeal process
where a business could request a hearing to provide a
defense against the allegations.
Representative Carpenter asked who would receive the
appeal.
Ms. Keith indicated there would be regulations written to
enforce the law, but that had not happened yet. In similar
situations, there was an informal hearing process.
Representative Carpenter asked if it was customary for the
legislature to create laws that would give regulatory
authority to a department to penalize individuals. He
thought the specific penalization was left up to regulation
and not up to the legislature.
Representative Snyder needed to refer to her notes.
1:56:21 PM
AT EASE
1:56:41 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Snyder echoed Representative Carpenter's
request for clarification from Legislative Legal Services.
Mr. Klein would have to review statutes to provide a broad
response on whether it was customary for the legislature to
give regulatory authority to a department. He emphasized
that the department would have to provide adequate
constitutional due process.
Representative Carpenter asked if the state was enforcing
similar provisions already through the National Labor
Relations Act.
Ms. Keith reported that WHD was not currently investigating
similar issues.
Representative Carpenter asked if the division was already
asking for authority to investigate similar issues.
Ms. Keith responded in the negative.
Representative Rasmussen referred to AS 23.10.720 and asked
whether a three-year timeframe was a broad statute of
limitation for a variety of regulations or was it simply
applicable to wage information disclosure.
Mr. Klein asked Representative Rasmussen to restate her
question.
Representative Rasmussen restated her question.
Mr. Klein indicated that three years was the statute of
limitations used in other areas of Alaska law.
Representative Rasmussen thought businesses with 50
employees or less should be exempt. She thought that small
businesses were operating with small margins and three
years was a significant period of time in a small
businesses' life. She asked how the penalty for violating
the law was determined.
2:01:13 PM
Representative Snyder responded that she had looked at a
range of penalties used by other states to determine a fair
penalty range. She noted that the penalty she chose was
lower than the majority of other states. In addition to
reducing the range of penalties, she used language to allow
the commissioner to determine whether a business should be
penalized for each day of violation. There was also the
option for a company to conduct an audit to fix the
violation.
Representative Rasmussen asked if there was a cap on the
penalty amount.
Representative Snyder responded that there was no cap.
Representative Wool asked if other states with similar laws
had exemptions based on business size.
Representative Snyder would have to get back to the
committee with a response.
Representative Wool noted that he was the owner of a small
business and hired hundreds of people. He relayed that he
generally followed the practices regulated by laws in other
states already. He wondered if an employee voluntarily
disclosed past wage information whether a business would be
permitted to verify the information.
Representative Snyder responded that the language was not
specifically in the bill, but she did not think the bill
would prohibit verification if an employee voluntarily
disclosed wage information.
Representative Wool relayed that he would sometimes list
the wage as a number followed by "depending on experience"
or "DOE" in solicitations for his small business. He
wondered if that would be permittable by the bill.
Representative Snyder responded that her intention was to
encourage employers to post a specific range.
Mr. Klein indicated listing an amount followed by DOE would
be acceptable.
2:06:26 PM
Representative LeBon wondered if Representative Snyder had
been contacted by a private sector industry or any industry
asking for help with wage disclosure.
Representative Snyder responded that was not how the bill
came to be. However, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Cisco,
Google, and others had proactively adopted the provisions
proposed by the bill. She thought companies were trying to
stay ahead of the trend.
Representative LeBon asked if it would be considered
misleading if he posted a job in the banking sector with
the wage listed as, "salary depending on experience,
training, and education level."
Representative Snyder asked Representative LeBon to repeat
his question.
Representative LeBon repeated his question.
Representative Snyder would argue that language would not
reflect the full picture of the description of the
position.
Representative LeBon noted that there were other benefits
to consider in addition to salary, such as bonuses, sick
leave, and vacation. He suggested the story was much larger
than the salary range. He wondered if it would be
misleading if one company had a higher salary range but a
competitor had a lower salary range but more generous
benefits.
Representative Snyder thought the bill would provide
further incentive for businesses to provide greater detail
about benefits. She thought it would help educate
applicants on positions which would avoid wasting the time
of the applicant and the business.
Representative LeBon had hired many people over the past 40
years. His motivation was to hire the best person every
time and would write job postings with the goal to attract
the best talent. He continued to emphasize that the story
was much bigger than simply a salary range.
2:11:47 PM
Representative Josephson asked Mr. Klein about the
delegation of authority on regulations. He referred to line
18 on page 3 of the bill.
Mr. Klein indicated he was looking at the line to which
Representative Josephson was referring.
Representative Josephson asked about AS 23.10.085 which
discussed the scope of administrative regulations. He
thought that Alaska law allowed DLWD to write the
regulations regarding minimum wage and payment of overtime.
Mr. Klein responded in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson added that there was a case where
the authority was disputed and the United States Supreme
Court was asked to look at the issue, however the court
declined to address it. He asked if he was correct.
Mr. Klein responded that Representative Josephson was
correct.
2:13:29 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what prompted the bill and what made
it timely.
Representative Snyder indicated the bill was based on her
background in public and community health and economic
wellbeing. An important part of community health was the
ability to support oneself financially. She was highly
informed on wage scarring and she became very concerned
about workers not returning to the workforce after leaving
due to the pandemic.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for a more detailed definition of
the meaning of wage scarring.
Representative Snyder explained that if a person returned
to the workforce and accepted a lower salary job and then
aspired to move to a different job, it was more likely that
the low wage would be used as justification for continuing
to pay the individual poorly if employers were permitted to
ask about past wages.
2:16:32 PM
Representative Carpenter referred to page 2, line 16 of the
bill. He did not understand the language and wanted more
information.
Representative Snyder indicated that the intent of the
language was to permit applicants and employees to be free
to talk about compensation with each other.
Representative Wool agreed with Representative LeBon's
earlier point about benefits being an important part of
compensation. For example, hospitals were having trouble
competing with traveling nurses because traveling nurses
were sometimes paid three times more than in-house nurses
but did not receive the same benefits. He understood
wanting to get people back to work but thought there were
many jobs currently available for prospective employees. He
thought the trades needed experienced workers. He wondered
if businesses could tell prospective employees that they
could disclose their past wages if they so desired, but
that disclosure was not required.
Representative Snyder responded that the intent of the bill
was to prevent any sneaky inquiries into past pay. However,
there was nothing preventing an employer from asking for
the desired salary range of a prospective employee.
Representative Rasmussen thought that a savvy employee
might look at the larger picture of a compensation package,
which would include benefits. She was concerned that some
employees might be deceived by a salary-only disclosure.
Representative Snyder suggested that going into a job
interview with a seed of information was better than having
no information at all.
2:22:43 PM
Co-Chair Merrick invited Representative Snyder to submit
any additional comments she may have in writing to the
committee.
HB 146 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:22:57 PM
AT EASE
2:24:22 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 60
"An Act relating to mental health education."
Co-Chair Merrick invited Representative Claman to begin.
2:24:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, introduced HB 60. He
read a prepared statement:
"Co-chairs, members of the House Finance Committee,
thank you for hearing House Bill 60, which amends the
existing K-12 public school health education statute
to include mental health education guidelines.
Currently the health curriculum guidelines, developed
by the state Board of Education and Early Development,
include learning about prevention and treatment of
diseases; "good" health practices like diet, exercise,
and personal hygiene; and "bad" health habits such as
substance abuse, alcoholism, and physical abuse. But
the guidelines do not address mental health.
House Bill 60 is not an unfunded mandate. The
legislation maintains local control of curriculum by
allowing school districts to choose to adopt the
mental health guidelines. When a local school district
makes its decision, we should have guidelines for the
district to follow.
This bill was brought to my attention in 2019 by a
college student who successfully advocated for similar
legislation when he was in high school in Virginia. We
then worked with a group of Alaska high school
students advocating for increased mental health
resources in Alaska's schools. These students spoke of
their own struggles with mental health as well as
those of their peers some students even said their
mental health struggles began as early as elementary
school. But what we continued to hear from these
students was that, while they learned about signs,
symptoms, and treatments for physical health at
school, there wasn't much conversation about mental
health with their friends and teachers.
Alaska's adolescent suicide rate is three times higher
than the nationwide rate. And our state adolescent
suicide rates are increasing. According to the 2019
Alaska High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which
surveyed 1,875 students in grades 9-12 from 39 high
schools across the state, the percentage of students
who have attempted suicide has doubled since 2007. And
given that 50% of all lifetime cases of mental illness
begin by age 14, and 75% by age 24, we need to start
having these conversations about mental health with
our children. Early data from 2020 and 2021 suggest
that the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on youth has
exacerbated the mental health crisis. The U.S. Surgeon
General declared a youth mental health crisis in
December of 2021, and in his advisory, he emphasized
the "devastating" impact that the pandemic has had on
our children.
This bill requires the State Board of Education and
Early Development to work with representatives from
tribal and mental health organizations to update the
health education standards to include guidelines on
mental health education. Once the legislation passes,
it will be up to school districts across Alaska
whether to use these guidelines to incorporate mental
health into their health education curriculum. As is
the case with current health education curriculum, the
Department of Education and Early Development is
available to assist schools in incorporating health
standards into local curricula. To be clear, this bill
does not create or mandate that schools adopt a
curriculum.
We have a responsibility to treat the current mental
health crisis in Alaska as a serious public health
issue. This bill underscores the notion that mental
health is just as important as physical health and
should be treated as such. We must normalize
conversations about mental health starting at an early
age, just as we do with physical health, in order to
destigmatize mental illness and increase knowledge on
the fundamental aspects of mental health as well as
the causes, risk factors, and treatments for mental
illness."
Representative Claman deferred to his staff to present the
sectional analysis for HB 60.
2:28:13 PM
EMMA POTTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, reviewed
the sectional analysis in a prepared statement:
"Good afternoon members of the House Finance
Committee. For the record, my name is Emma Potter and
I am staff to Representative Matt Claman. Thank you
for hearing House Bill 60.
Section 1 of House Bill 60 adds intent language
stating that it is the intent of the legislature that
the Board of Education and Early Development develop
guidelines for instruction in mental health in
consultation with the Department of Health and Social
Services, regional tribal health organizations, and
representatives of national and state mental health
organizations.
Section 2 amends AS 14.30.360(a) by removing the word
"physical" when referencing instruction for health
education and adding "mental health" to the list of
curriculum items each district includes in their
health education programs.
Section 3 amends AS 14.30.360(b) by adding that, in
addition to establishing guidelines for a health and
personal safety education program, the state board
shall establish guidelines for developmentally
appropriate instruction in mental health.
Section 4 amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by providing that the State Board of Education
and Early Development shall develop the aforementioned
mental health guidelines within two years after the
effective date of this Act.
Thank you for hearing this bill. I would also like to
inform the committee that online for invited testimony
we have Jason Lessard from National Alliance on Mental
Health Anchorage chapter as well as Justin
Pendergrass, a suicide prevention specialist at MY
House in Wasilla."
2:29:37 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked for someone from the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) to
offer the department's opinion on the legislation.
KELLY MANNING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), asked that the question
be repeated.
Representative Rasmussen asked for the department's
position on the legislation.
Ms. Manning indicated the department would implement the
bill if it were to be adopted.
Representative Rasmussen asked if Ms. Manning anticipated
any challenges in implementing the bill.
Ms. Manning indicated the process would take about two
years and would include a standard update process and
stakeholder input.
Representative LeBon thought local school board
participation would be warranted. He asked if school
districts could opt in or out.
Representative Claman responded that the bill intended to
establish guidelines, but districts would not necessarily
be required to follow all of the guidelines.
Representative LeBon asked if most school districts already
had a mental health policy or program. He asked about the
Anchorage School District (ASD) in particular.
Representative Claman did not believe ASD had adopted a
specific mental health policy. He thought this was
partially because there were no state guidelines in place.
2:34:59 PM
Representative LeBon wondered if there would be a minimum
standard for mental health across districts.
Representative Claman relayed that the bill was not a
mandate. Rather, it intended to provide a curriculum to
districts. He thought it would be particularly helpful in
rural districts that had fewer resources to devote to
mental health.
Representative Rasmussen asked how the bill would help
prevent or reduce suicide rates.
Representative Claman thought there needed to be a greater
comfort level in having open discussions about mental
health. He thought it was important for kids to feel like
the resources were available to them.
2:37:14 PM
Representative Rasmussen shared an experience of losing a
friend to suicide. She shared the concern but could not see
how the bill would increase comfort levels in talking about
mental health. She wondered if there might be a group of
teachers that had additional training. She was still trying
to understand how the bill would result in fewer suicides.
Representative Claman responded that the current situation
was that students were confiding in teachers who did not
have any relevant training and had no guidelines to follow.
The bill would result in teachers in the building having
appropriate training and students would have a
knowledgeable person to turn to rather than potentially
receiving misinformation due to lack of training. He had
heard from students that having more teachers with
appropriate training would make a difference.
Representative Rasmussen relayed her son was in
kindergarten in ASD and his school employed health
teachers. She thought that some mental health training had
already occurred within ASD. She wondered if the bill
should be attached to the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) instead of DEED.
Representative Claman indicated that DEED had tremendous
experience in setting guidelines and establishing
curricula. The focus was on the schools and he thought
involving DHSS would make the process more complicated.
2:41:24 PM
Representative Edgmon was intrigued by the bill. He
understood the practical reasoning for it. He thought the
bill would bring the topic of mental health to the Board of
Education and he did not think the board dealt with mental
health related matters.
Representative Claman replied that his whole point of the
bill was to introduce guidelines for mental health
education in schools, not to force it on districts.
Representative Edgmon thought there were already a number
of health-related subjects under the purview of DEED. He
asked if he had given an accurate assessment.
Representative Claman responded in the affirmative.
Representative Edgmon looked forward to additional
discussion surrounding the bill.
2:44:03 PM
Representative Carpenter agreed there was a need to
increase the discussion around mental health. He had a
technical question around the removal of "physical" in the
bill. He was concerned that curriculum would no longer
include physical health.
Representative Claman did not read the language as
excluding physical health in any way. He did not think
including mental health would exclude physical health. He
would not object to adding the words "physical health" to
the language of the bill for clarity.
Representative Carpenter argued that the use of the word
"heath" meant both mental and physical health. He
understood that including "mental health" specifically was
to emphasize the issue. He suggested that some curriculum
that would be encouraged under the bill were already
implemented by the school districts.
Ms. Manning replied that the state would update standards
and the districts would then decide how the standards would
be implemented. She offered to distribute further details
to the committee on current implementation.
Co-Chair Merrick thought additional details would be
helpful.
Representative Claman explained that the deletion of
"physical health" was important because he did not think
the language inherently included mental health. However, he
did not think there would a problem with adding the
language back to the list of curriculum that the bill hoped
to encourage.
2:48:09 PM
Representative Carpenter thought that the list of
additional guidelines would exclude physical health. He was
open to being corrected by the attorneys in the room.
Representative Claman thought that the grammatical
structure of the language mandated the inclusion of
physical health. He thought it was a grammatical matter and
that it was not ambiguous.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Legislative Legal Services was
not available online.
Representative Carpenter was concerned whether the bill
would be effective at changing policy within local
districts. He wondered how many of the districts would
design significant curriculum. He asked if teachers would
have to be specifically trained in mental health.
Ms. Manning indicated that the goal of the board was to
establish standards. She relayed that the guidelines could
be expanded to include training but that it would impact
the fiscal note.
Representative Carpenter thought teachers needed additional
training to provide sufficient education on subjects. He
imagined that the districts would need more money.
2:51:34 PM
Representative Johnson thought much of the issue came down
to local control. She thought teachers would have to
exclude other curriculum in order to make time for mental
health education. She asked in which ways would the
department encourage mental health education.
Representative Claman rebutted that there was nothing in
the bill that required DEED to do anything and that the
bill was about local control. The bill intended to clarify
that the state would provide guidelines to districts should
the districts choose to provide mental health education.
Representative Johnson thought it sounded like school
districts would be encouraged to provide the education
which seemed like a monetary issue to her. Teachers had a
significant workload already, and she though that the state
would be asking teachers to do more if the bill were to
pass. She was concerned about adding guidelines in statute
when the legislature was unaware of the content.
Representative Claman responded that he thought it was a
normal process for DEED and a range of community experts to
convene and determine guidelines. The bill would create
mental health guidelines which would be referred to by
educators, and the state routinely created similar
guidelines for educators. He thought there should be
guidelines specific to mental health.
Representative Johnson thought mental health was just as
diverse as physical health. She asked whether family
planning clinics and gender studies would be included under
the mental health umbrella. She had received several
questions about the topics being discussed in schools.
2:56:30 PM
AT EASE
2:56:39 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Claman referred to a two-page document in
members' packets that outlined Alaska content standards,
"Skills for a Healthy Life" (copy on file). He predicted
that if mental health was added to the document, it would
still be a two-page document and would not become
particularly extensive.
Representative Johnson continued to express her concerns
about adding to the burden on teachers. She remained
concerned about taking away local control and wanted
communities to be able to address mental health crises in
the way the community saw fit.
Representative Claman fundamentally disagreed with
Representative Johnson. He stressed that the bill was not
forcing districts to adopt the guidelines. He did not think
it was reasonable to expect the legislature to approve any
and all guidelines adopted by local or state agencies. He
thought it was reasonable to allow DEED to determine the
guidelines. He emphasized that the bill was not imposing
anything on districts or requiring districts to adopt
mental health guidelines.
2:59:55 PM
JASON LASSARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON
MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESS (via teleconference), relayed that he
had worked for Mental Health Advocacy Through Storytelling
(MHATS) for the past three years which worked to
destigmatize mental health and offer resources by telling
true and personal stories. There was a significant amount
of data that showed that access to mental health resources
decreased suicide rates. He wanted to focus on a couple of
data points. First was the prevalence of mental illness in
the United States: one in five adults had a mental illness.
Additionally, 50 percent of all lifetime mental illnesses
would begin by age 14, and 75 percent began by age 24. The
onset of mental illness largely occurred during teenage
years and it was important for it to be addressed quickly,
safely, and in evidence-based programs.
Mr. Lassard relayed an individual's personal story wherein
the individual did not feel comfortable talking about their
mental health struggles due to societal stigmas and instead
turned to the internet for help. The proposed bill was of
critical importance to ensure that students had access to
education and resources in their communities and did not
have to look to places like the internet, which was rife
with inaccuracies. He reiterated that the bill was not a
mandate. He was regularly asked to provide mental health
services to schools in his area and such conversations were
already happening in schools without guidelines. He wanted
to ensure that if and when a district was ready to engage
in mental health education, that the programs were vetted
and evidence based. He respectfully asked for members'
support. The program was intended to simply destigmatize
the conversations around mental health and suicide. It
would be up to the communities to decide the focus of their
own programs, whether it be suicide prevention, mental
wellness, or something else. He would like to see the bill
do more, but it was a good first step. Given the statistics
he mentioned at the beginning of his testimony, he thought
it was beyond time to address mental health in schools. He
was available for questions.
3:05:49 PM
Representative Edgmon noted that Mr. Lassard had relayed
that one in five adults had a mental illness. He asked what
the numbers were for individuals aged 14 and older.
Mr. Lassard thought it was 17 percent but could confirm the
information and get it to the committee.
Representative Carpenter asked about the responsibility of
parents to speak about mental health to their children. He
thought it was dangerous for the state to teach mental
health to students. He argued that conversations about
mental health should be between parents or doctors and
children.
Mr. Lassard indicated it was a district-level decision. The
parents that were involved with their local districts would
be part of the conversation and the decisions. He provided
an example of a school in the state that attempted to
address suicide but the school did not follow any
guidelines or best practices. There was no space for
students to ask questions or be part of the conversation
and the misguided attempt had a profoundly negative effect
on a number of students despite there being good
intentions. It was a matter of setting basic standards and
guidelines as laid out by experts and ensuring a safe
environment for conversation.
Representative Carpenter did not hear anything about
empowering parents.
Mr. Lassard reiterated that empowering parents happened at
the local level. Parents would be part of the discussion on
whether they wanted to bring the program to the local
school district.
3:10:05 PM
JUSTIN PENDERGRASS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
spoke of his own mental health problems and suicidal
ideations. He had fallen into a deep depression when he was
young that nearly took his life, and as a result he became
homeless for five years. He was enrolled in school and
although it was a safe place for him, he was not learning
anything about mental health and his education was not
helping his situation. He eventually discovered the root of
his mental illness and was able to get help. Since then, he
had dedicated his life to helping others that suffered from
similar mental illnesses. The opposite of suicide was
connection, and therefore the only way to prevent suicide
was to create connection. Mental illness was on the rise
due to the increased isolation that had occurred over the
past few years due to the pandemic.
Mr. Pendergrass argued that the state had a responsibility
to help youth in crisis, and the most reasonable place to
provide help was within school districts. When he was
young, he did not have a parent at home that could help him
through the issues he was experiencing and did not have a
safe place to be able to share his experience. His
financial situation prevented him from getting help without
his parents' assistance. He believed it was unjust for kids
in similar situations to not have access to help.
Mr. Pendergrass relayed that he was currently a suicide
prevention specialist for individuals aged 14 to 24 and 66
percent of the induvials he worked with were struggling
with suicide or mental health problems upon intake. The
majority of the individuals he worked with were
misdiagnosing themselves with a variety of disorders that
they did not understand. He thought schools should be a
place to build connections and become educated, but
connections could not be made without there being a safe
place to do so. He spoke about a school counselor who
created a safe space for him as a teen and gave him a place
to go when he needed one, but unfortunately the situation
did not last long because it was not allowed by the school.
He thought it was important for counselors to be able to
provide mental health education and thought they were well-
equipped to do so. The counselors understood that the
problem was getting worse and there needed to be a way to
address it.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Pendergrass for his testimony.
3:15:30 PM
AT EASE
3:16:08 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Johnson thanked Mr. Pendergrass for
testifying before the committee and for his work in mental
health. She wanted to connect with him and local schools to
help implement the changes in the districts. She reiterated
her for his testimony.
Representative Wool supported the bill and thought it was a
good start. He thought mental health awareness and
education were vital. He noted his daughter went to a
weekly counseling class as part of the basic curriculum at
her school. He relayed that his daughter did not think the
mental health education received in schools was sufficient.
Mental health was a serious problem and had been
exacerbated by the pandemic. Teachers were required to get
continuing education to maintain their license already and
he did not think the bill would cause additional expenses.
He thought mental health could be part of continuing
education for teachers.
Representative LeBon commented that curriculum committees
needed to include robust parental participation. He thought
the best curriculum committees were comprised mostly of
parents who had children in the district.
HB 60 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:20:42 PM
AT EASE
3:22:07 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to forest land use plans; relating to
forest land use plan appeals; relating to negotiated
timber sales; and providing for an effective date."
3:22:15 PM
HELGE ENG, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, introduced the PowerPoint Presentation:
"HB 98 (CSHB 98) Forest Land Use Plans; Negotiated Timber
Sales; Emergency Firefighters" (copy on file). He shared
that there were a couple of trends that precipitated the
bill. One of the trends was to halt any old growth timber
sales from the Tongass National Forest, which had been
catastrophic for the timber industry in Southeast Alaska.
The administration had responded by increasing timber sales
on state lands and the bill would make the timber sale
process more flexible and more efficient.
Mr. Eng turned to slide 4 and explained there were three
major elements to the bill. The first issue was that the
timber industry was struggling to survive. The solution was
to change the negotiated timber sale statutes to allow a
local industry to sell all the timber it harvested and
export it if necessary. The next element was limiting
appeals for forest land use plans. He explained that most
timber was sold competitively, and therefore the sale went
to the highest bidder. Logs from domestic sales could be
used domestically or could be exported. Sometimes
negotiated sales occurred, which were sales directly to a
particular company. Under existing law, negotiated sales
had to be processed domestically and could not be exported.
The bill would permit timber from negotiated sales to be
exported to allow for flexibility and a market driven
solution in order to make timber sales nimbler. He
explained that expanded flexibility would also help provide
and protect jobs.
Mr. Eng moved to slide 9 and relayed that the bill proposed
that forest land use plans would no longer be appealable.
The bill pertained to state lands only. The forest land use
plans step was the last step in the sequence of
opportunities for the public to comment on the timber sale
process. The asterisk at the bottom of the slide indicated
that a step was subject to appeal. He thought there were
already sufficient opportunities for the public to comment
and that limiting appeal on forest land use plans would
streamline the process. He reported that appeals were rare
and he had only seen six appeals in the last ten years and
had received no lawsuits. The Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) listened to public requests and comments
and most of the issues were resolved and not elevated. He
added that the bill was also a response to longer wildfire
seasons that involved more intense fires that were more
difficult to control. The Division of Forestry (DOF) needed
to have an increased presence and more aggressive approach
to address the change in wildfires.
3:30:42 PM
Mr. Eng turned to slide 10 and relayed that fire prevention
efforts were paramount to be proactive in addressing
wildfire danger. An example of a prevention measure was
fuel breaks, but in order to successfully implement such
measures, firefighting crews needed to be robust. The bill
would change existing law which did not allow firefighting
crews to work in a non-emergency capacity using general
funds. He thought the change would help prevent fires from
spreading and from threatening subdivisions. Fuel breaks
around communities in fire-prone areas could dramatically
increase the chances of stopping a fire, saving human
lives, and save millions of dollars. The cost of the bill
was small when compared to the projected payoffs. He was
happy to answer questions.
Representative Carpenter wondered what the reason was for
using firefighters to put in fuel breaks. He thought anyone
trained to make fuel breaks could do the job.
Mr. Eng responded that the department was willing to hire
anyone who was properly trained. He explained that
firefighting crews in the state were consistently
diminishing in size and that it was an attrition in the
workforce. Although anyone who was trained could do the
job, he thought it made the most sense for firefighting
crews to put in fuel breaks. Firefighters would normally
separate from employment following the wildfire season, but
the bill would allow firefighters to continue working year-
round putting in fuel breaks. The state would then benefit
from having a trained workforce that would not need to be
retrained every wildfire season. He thought it was a win-
win solution.
3:34:51 PM
Representative Edgmon thought the bill was interesting. He
mentioned that the bill focused on state land and thought
the proposed solutions to help the timber industry were
reasonable. He did not understand the thinking regarding
the application of firefighting strategies. He thought the
bill eliminated the best interest finding process for
timber sales less than 500,000 board feet. He would like to
learn more about the bill and the process.
Mr. Eng responded that the bill did not propose changing
any best interest findings. He indicated law already
exempted timber sales of less than 500,000 board feet from
best interest findings. It was a compromise for small
purchasers to execute a timber sale more easily.
Representative Edgmon asked if the bill would impact the
Southcentral part of the state where there were many old-
growth forests. He did not think the bill would have a
major impact on Southeast Alaska.
Mr. Eng relayed that the bill came out of concerns from the
timber industry in Southeast Alaska. The bill would apply
to all areas in the state.
Representative Edgmon was trying to understand how the bill
applied to the state as a whole when environments were very
different across the state.
Mr. Eng thought Representative Edgmon had a good question.
The only changes from existing law proposed by HB 98 were
the export provisions for negotiated sales and changes to
the forest land use plan appeals. He did not see best
interest findings or the public process being impacted.
3:40:31 PM
Representative Wool asked about the implications of
doubling the allowable acreage from 10 to 20 in forest land
use plans. He thought this seemed like an additional change
proposed by the bill. He asked if 20 acres was considered a
small timber sale and what 500,000 board feet equated to in
acres.
Mr. Eng corrected himself and agreed that there was an
additional change which was identified by Representative
Wool. The existing language set a 10-acre limit but a 20-
acre limit equated to 500,000 board feet. He thought the
change mostly consisted of clean-up language and would make
the provisions more consistent.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated there was one invited testifier.
3:43:07 PM
TESSA AXELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA FOREST
ASSOCIATION, spoke in support of HB 98. The Alaska timber
industry was reliant on a predictable timber supply from a
variety of landowners. She thought legislation was needed
to streamline processes and ensure efficient forest
replanning. She saw the following three primary benefits of
the bill: DNR would be provided the ability to negotiate
timber sales with any timber resource, the state would be
able to conduct timber sales more efficiently by limiting
forest land use appeals, and environmental standards and
public comment opportunities would be upheld. She was
available for questions.
Representative Wool asked for information on the size of a
common small-lot timber sale.
Ms. Axelson responded that it would depend on the operator.
All operators needed roughly 500,000 board feet of timber
every year in order to maintain operations. She would defer
the definition of small-lot to Mr. Eng.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Mr. Eng to review the fiscal note.
Mr. Eng reported that the fiscal note from DNR with a
control code of FZzrP was a zero fiscal impact note.
3:47:24 PM
ALISON ARIANS, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, SPECIAL PROJECTS
COORDINATOR (via teleconference), offered to speak further
to the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Merrick encouraged Ms. Arians to provide
additional testimony.
Ms. Arians relayed that the bill could not change any
program and would therefore not have a fiscal impact. It
also would not increase expenditures for firefighters
because the general funds that would be used were already
appropriated. She thought it was helpful to spend the
general funds that had already been appropriated.
Representative Wool asked for clarification around the
number of acres that would be exempt from forest land use
plans.
Mr. Eng responded that there were requirements that the
director or the commissioner could only sell up to 500,000
board feet to the same operator in one year. The intent was
to avoid stacking timber sales.
Representative Wool asked if Mr. Eng's comment about the
director or commissioner only being able to sell 500,000
board feet to the same operator in one year was a
requirement to remain exempt from forest use plans.
Mr. Eng responded, "That's correct."
3:50:46 PM
Representative Edgmon thought that although it might seem
that there would be less work involved in the timber sale
process if the bill passed, there would be more work
because of an increase in smaller negotiated sales. He
thought the process would become more time intensive.
Mr. Eng replied, "Possibly." He added that for the state
and the division, increasing small sales was more than a
financial decision. He thought small sales would help small
to medium companies better facilitate their businesses. It
served a greater purpose to diversify the timber industry.
Representative Edgmon thought that the department would
have more work. He suggested that a primer on the topic
would be helpful. He suggested more staff would be needed
later.
Mr. Eng understood and would be happy to give a
presentation on the topic at a later date.
3:53:48 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood that Mr. Eng reported that HB
98 only applied to state-owned land.
Mr. Eng responded that Vice-Chair Ortiz's understanding was
correct for the forest management aspects of the bill. The
firefighter aspect of the bill applied to the DNR's entire
area of responsibility.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what percent of the Tongass National
Forest the state had access to.
Mr. Eng replied that it was somewhat in flux. He understood
that a very small percentage of the approximately 18
million acres of the Tongass would be available for timber
production.
3:55:21 PM
Ms. Axelson responded that it was very small but that she
would provide the specifics to the committee. However, the
industry was reliant on the small available acreage of the
Tongass.
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted that the reason why the operators in
Southeast were becoming more reliant on the small available
acreage was because over the years, the availability of
federal lands had decreased.
Ms. Axelson responded that Vice-Chair Ortiz was correct.
She relayed that the United States Forest Service (USFS)
controlled about 75 percent of available lands in the
Tongass. There were currently no significant sales on the
horizon, and she thought that operators would only become
more reliant on available lands. It was also important to
note that the industry was transitioning from being based
on old growth forests to young growth forests.
3:56:45 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought the bill would be a way to support
the few remaining jobs in the timber industry in Southeast
and preserve the economic level of the industry. He asked
if he was correct.
Ms. Axelson replied in the affirmative and that it would
also help support operators in the Fairbanks region and the
Kenai Peninsula.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the presenters and reviewed the
agenda for the following day.
HB 98 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:57:53 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:57 p.m.