Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/08/2024 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 | |
| SB91 | |
| SB95 | |
| SB99 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 99 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 228 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 8, 2024
4:04 p.m.
4:04:37 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 4:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Sponsor; Emily Nenon, Alaska
Government Relations Director, American Cancer Society and
Cancer Action Network; Sylvan Robb, Director, Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Senator Kelly Merrick, Sponsor; Kerry Crocker, Staff,
Senator Kelly Merrick; Hunter Lottsfeldt, Staff, Senator
Bill Wielechowski.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Gail Braten, Self, Anchorage; Tim Jennings, Self,
Anchorage; Beverly Wooley, Self, Big Lake; Brooke Lavender,
ALS Care Services Manager, ALS Association, Girdwood;
Jeffrey Schmitz, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration; Doug Fifer, Retired,
Anchorage Police Department, Norfolk, Virginia; Kelly
Manning, Deputy Director, Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development.
SUMMARY
HB 275 SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS/TRACKING
HB 275 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 74(FIN)
PHYSICAL THERAPY LICENSURE COMPACT
CSSB 74(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 75(FIN)
AUD. & SPEECH-LANG INTERSTATE COMPACT
CSSB 75(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 91(FIN)
TELEHEALTH: MULTIDISCIPLINARY CARE TEAM
CSSB 91(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
seven "do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
CSSB 95(STA)am
LIC. PLATES: SPECIALTY ORGS/PEACE OFFICER
HCS CSSB 95(STA) was REPORTED out of committee
with eight "do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration.
CSSB 99(EDC)
FINANCIAL LITERACY PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS
CSSB 99(EDC) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 228 EXTEND BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
SB 228 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. He noted that
the committee would meet for roughly one hour before
returning to the House floor.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN)
"An Act relating to telehealth; relating to
multidisciplinary care teams; and relating to the
practice of medicine."
4:06:57 PM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, read from prepared remarks:
Good afternoon, Co-Chairs and members of the House
Finance Committee. For the record, this is Matt
Claman, Senator for District H in West Anchorage.
Our office began work on Senate Bill 91 in the summer
of 2022 after we were contacted by a constituent who
had recently been diagnosed with ALS, a rare
degenerative disease that leads to paralysis and death
within 2 to 5 years. There is no cure for ALS.
Upon receiving her diagnosis, Sheila Swanson flew to
Seattle to receive specialty treatment at an ALS
multidisciplinary care clinic, where multiple types of
healthcare professionals work together to treat her
complex illness. The multidisciplinary care team model
of healthcare has become the standard of care for
people with ALS because it's proven to extend their
quality of life. When Sheila was ready to return home
after treatment, she was told that she could continue
to receive telehealth care from her physician, but she
would need to fly to Seattle to receive in-person care
from the other seven members of her multidisciplinary
care team, including a respiratory therapist, speech
language pathologist, a physical therapist, and other
health care providers.
Sheila travels each quarter to receive care from her
multidisciplinary care team, but there will come a day
that she is unable to do so. Sheila's written
testimony is included in your bill packet, and I
encourage you to read her letter to learn about her
experience.
Receiving the kind of care Sheila needs is not
possible in Alaska. There are about 30 Alaskans with
ALS diagnoses and no clinics that specialize in this
area of care. I would prefer for this healthcare to be
available in Alaska, but as a practical matter,
specialized care for rare diseases is available in
large cities with major medical centers and a higher
volume of patients.
In 2022, the legislature passed House Bill 265, which
created a framework in statute for various in-state
healthcare professions to practice telehealth and
ensured Alaskans' access to critical health care. SB
91 only amends House Bill 265 for out-of-state
providers by adding members of out-of-state
"multidisciplinary care teams" as an option for
telehealth when an Alaskan is suffering from a life-
threatening condition and the multidisciplinary care
is not reasonably available in-state.
To address patient protection, SB 91 ensures that all
out-of-state members of multidisciplinary care teams
are subject to Alaska's regulatory authority. SB 91
also aligns multidisciplinary care teams with the
current registration process for Alaska's telemedicine
business registry.
Senate Bill 91 will expand telehealth options so that
Alaskans with life-threatening health conditions can
receive the specialized care they need while remaining
at home and in their local support network whenever
possible.
Thank you for hearing this legislation today. If the
Committee would like, my staff, Claire Lubke, will
take you through a sectional analysis of the bill.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
4:10:53 PM
Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony.
GAIL BRATEN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), and TIM
JENNINGS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
at the same time. Mr. And Ms. Braten were both long-time
residents of Alaska. Mr. Braten shared that he has
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Ms. Braten stated that
healthcare for ALS was a challenge and SB 91 would allow
the Braten's to remain in Alaska for part of the treatment
via telehealth. The disease was tremendously difficult, and
the disease progresses rapidly with the loss of bodily
functions. She stressed that there was no known cure, but
research was advancing at a fast pace. She shared that they
were informed that a multidisciplinary collaborative
approach among a multiple disciplined healthcare team
provided that best care. Alaska lacked specialized,
multidisciplinary care teams for ALS and other rare, life-
threatening diseases. She delineated that they travelled to
the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota in February 2024 to
attend an ALS Multidisciplinary Clinic. They met with a
neurologist, physical rehabilitation specialist, speech
pathologist, registered dietician, occupational therapist,
respiratory therapist, research coordinator for clinical
trials, and a social worker. It was recommended that we
attend the clinic every 3 months. Travel was time
consuming, expensive, and eventually, it would become more
and more difficult to travel. However, Mr. Braten would
still need the expertise and developing therapies found at
the Mayo Clinic. Telemedicine with the healthcare team will
be key to managing his disease, but unless SB 91 passes,
that will not be an option. She emphasized that time was
critical for Mr. Braten to continue his multidisciplinary
care. She urged the committee to adopt the legislation. Ms.
Braten thanked the committee.
4:15:33 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
EMILY NENON, ALASKA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
CANCER SOCIETY AND CANCER ACTION NETWORK, favored the
legislation. She voiced that telehealth created more
options in healthcare. She reported that 85 percent of all
cancer care was available locally. However, for a small
number of patients outside access to care was critical. She
exemplified a follow up appointment after treatment or
surgery as a reason for telehealth. A telehealth
appointment would allow the patient to continue care
relieving the burden of travel.
Representative Hannan recounted that the bill had been
described to be related to terminal diagnoses. She asked if
all individuals with a cancer diagnosis would be able to
receive services via telehealth. Ms. Nenon answered that
when the original telehealth bill was adopted the
definition of life threatening was included and currently
in statute. She delineated that the definition was based on
federal law that applied to any condition that without
intervention a person's life would be shortened. Therefore,
without intervention the condition would progress, and it
applied to stage 1 cancer and other conditions. She
concluded that it applied to timely intervention.
4:19:23 PM
Representative Galvin asked about deep depression and
anything along the lines of mental health. She asked
whether telehealth applied if one could not get the care in
Alaska. Ms. Nenon replied that she was not a healthcare
provider. She thought that there were many mental health
conditions that could be life threatening without proper
intervention.
4:20:28 PM
BEVERLY WOOLEY, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the legislation. She elaborated that HB 265
(Health Care Services by Telehealth, Chapter 38 SLA 22,
07/13/2022) created a statutory framework for telehealth
provided by out-of-state physicians offering greater access
to care. The bill went further allowing multidisciplinary
care teams to also participate in telehealth. She shared
that she was a 20 year cancer survivor and often needed to
travel out-of-state for care related to earlier treatment.
She delineated that treating cancer was complex and often
required a multi-disciplinary team; the standard of care at
cancer center throughout the world. Currently, telehealth
with out-of-state providers were only allowed between the
patient and the physician. However, much of her care and
the care of other cancer patients was provided by other
members of the physician's team like a nurse or physical
therapist, etc. She emphasized that it would be a great
benefit to her and other Alaskans to receive care via
telehealth without having to fly out of state for a brief
or follow up appointment. The bill would alleviate much of
the issues regarding travelling for follow up appointments
with members of a physician's multidisciplinary care team.
She urged the committee to pass the bill.
4:24:22 PM
BROOKE LAVENDER, ALS CARE SERVICES MANAGER, ALS
ASSOCIATION, GIRDWOOD (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SB 91. She shared that the organization's
mission was to serve individuals with ALS and ensure they
have support and access to care. Alaska was one of two
states that did not have an ALS multidisciplinary care
team. She elucidated that traveling for care was a
financial burden and added a physical and emotional toll on
patients and families. She had awarded several quality of
life grants in the current year so patients could travel
out-of-state to see their multidisciplinary care team. The
bill would reduce the current burden. The goal was to make
multidisciplinary care more available to community members
and improve quality of life. Alaska had an above average
prevalence of ALS and the fewest resources. The bill would
offer the access to care. She thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony for SB 34, which
was left open during the morning meeting.
SYLVAN ROBB, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS,
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the new
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) fiscal impact note dated May 5, 2024. She indicated
that the fiscal note showed a first year cost of $159.3
thousand that would continue into the out years in
Designated General Funds (DGF) and the fund source was
Receipt Services where the costs were paid for by the
licensees' fees. The additional cost reflected the need for
an additional investigator.
4:29:01 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee could hear the
sectional analysis if desired.
Representative Hannan was a strong supporter of the bill.
She looked at lines 11-12 on page 1 of the bill and read:
"service, as provided by the multidisciplinary care team,
that is not reasonably available in the state." She
wondered if the language was in the original bill. She was
concerned by the language "not reasonably available in the
state." She offered that there were areas of the state
lacking certain specialists but existed in other parts of
the state. She wondered if it precluded someone if their
preferred medical team was out-of-state. Senator Claman
responded that the language was modified during the bill
moving through the committee process. The section was
specific to a multidisciplinary care team. Therefore if one
type of specialist was available in the state but was not
part of the multidisciplinary care team the language did
not place any limitations on a person seeking telehealth
for a specialist on their multidisciplinary care team out-
of- state. He emphasized that the phrase only applied to
multidisciplinary care teams. Representative Hannan wanted
to know if the phrase could be eliminated, and the same
goal could be achieved. She was concerned over how
insurance companies would interpret the language and
restrict coverage. She wondered if the language was
critical, or whether the language was the only way to reach
a compromise for the bill.
4:32:08 PM
Senator Claman answered that the language had been worked
out with a number of interested parties and the language
not reasonably available" was familiar to the courts and
there was flexibility in the standard. He reiterated that
it was not a strict standard. He stated that the language
was worked on in a number of iterations. Currently, the
state lacked any multidisciplinary healthcare anywhere in
Alaska that treat the conditions discussed in the bill.
Representative Coulombe understood that the service could
not currently be provided in Alaska because the team was
not registered in Alaska and would need to register with
the state in order to provide telehealth. She wondered
where the medical board fit in the process. Senator Claman
answered that HB 265 required a business registry and not a
registry for the individual physician. He exemplified that
the University of Washington Medical Centers registered in
the state and all of the physicians licensed there were
able to provide telehealth to Alaskans. He referenced
Sheila Swanson who had been going to Seattle for ALS care
and was able to receive services via telehealth in Alaska.
A multidisciplinary care team could have members in
different medical businesses. In that case, all the
businesses were required to register in the state to allow
the team members to participate in telehealth in Alaska. In
addition, once registered, the business would become
subject to investigations regarding the care provided.
4:35:23 PM
Representative Coulombe surmised that the state medical
board still had some disciplinary power over the team. She
wondered how the board intersected in the process. Senator
Claman responded affirmatively and affirmed the boards
oversight jurisdiction due to the registration.
Senator Claman appreciated the bill hearing.
Co-Chair Foster asked for members to inform him if they
did not anticipate submitting amendments and wanted to move
bills faster.
Representative Josephson supported moving the bill.
4:37:07 PM
AT EASE
4:40:48 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted they had to be back on the floor at
5:00 p.m.
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT CSSB 91(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 91(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with seven "do
pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Senator Claman.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 95(STA) am
"An Act relating to special request specialty
organization registration plates; relating to special
registration plates commemorating peace officers
killed in the line of duty; and providing for an
effective date."
4:41:48 PM
SENATOR KELLY MERRICK, SPONSOR, she reviewed the bill with
prepared remarks. She explained that SB 95 tasked the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with issuing specialty
plates and removed the requirement for legislation. The
bill saved money by passing the cost of developing and
issuing the plate onto the organization rather than the
state. She stated that it was originally a license plate
bill to end license plate bills. After a Senate amendment,
the bill was the license plate bill to end license plate
bills with the exception of one more license plate. She
continued that after a House State Affairs amendment
several more license plates were added. She believed that
the bill created a state efficiency and asked the committee
for its support of the legislation.
4:43:27 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note.
4:45:00 PM
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed
the new fiscal impact note for the Department of
Administration allocated to Motor Vehicles dated May 6,
2024. He explained that the total development cost was
$14,000 per different plate, which was described in the
fiscal note analysis on page 2. The new organizations would
pay the development costs. The assumptions used for the
fiscal note was based on 16 new organizations per year, the
development costs, and the anticipated revenues in addition
to any additional fees the plate may generate above the
$100 fee established in the legislation. The fee may be set
higher than $100 as well.
Representative Josephson relayed a personal experience. He
asked if the plate would identify a specific police officer
or whether it was for all peace officers.
KERRY CROCKER, STAFF, SENATOR KELLY MERRICK, replied that
the bill defined peace officers as follows: state trooper,
municipal police officer, correctional officer, village
public safety officer (VPSO), an officer assigned to a
court, and any other public servant vested by law with a
duty to maintain public order or to make arrests. He added
that if someone wanted to honor a fallen officer, they
could purchase the plate. The plate would not specify a
particular officer.
Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony.
DOUG FIFER, RETIRED, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, NORFOLK,
VIRGINIA (via teleconference), shared that he was a
lifelong Alaskan born in Homer. He had retired in 2021
after 25 years of service. The idea of registration plates
commemorating peace officers killed in the line of duty
came to him as he traveled around the country noticing that
most states had plates honoring fallen officers. In 2017,
he had contacted state senators who overwhelmingly
supported the idea. However, 8 years later there was still
no law or license plate. He listed many other organizations
that had specialty plates and asked that fallen officer
plates be considered. The state had 50 officers killed in
the line of duty in its history. He participated in a
national memorial bicycle ride to honor fallen officers
that culminated in Washington D.C. as a somber reminder of
those officers killed in the line of duty. He asked the
committee for support.
4:51:26 PM
Co-Chair Foster inquired whether any committee members
wanted to submit an amendment.
Representative Cronk stated it had come to his attention
that the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could not issue a
second same license plate unless it was specifically
authorized in statute. He exemplified not allowing the
purchase of a second personalized license plate. He asked
if the sponsor would be willing to accept a friendly
amendment to allow a second plate. Senator Merrick replied
that a personalized plate was not the same as a specialty
plate. She relayed that a specialty plate references a non-
profit organization. She asked for clarification.
Representative Cronk answered that they both fall under the
same title AS 28.10.108(g). He asked the director of DMV to
clarify.
Mr. Schmitz responded that there was a difference between
specialized and personalized plates. He agreed that current
law passed two years ago authorized that only one plate was
necessary. The state previously required that 2 licensed
plates were displayed. Therefore, DMV only issued one plate
based on AS 28.10 108(g). He reiterated that only one plate
was issued as directed by statute.
4:54:48 PM
Representative Cronk left it up to the senator and stressed
that he offered the amendment as a friendly amendment.
Senator Merrick did not oppose the idea. She thought the
important thing was that the license plates were assigned a
cost of $100. She thought it would be important to find out
if a second plate would have the same additional cost.
Representative Cronk deferred to DMV.
Mr. Schmitz answered that the second plate would cost $30,
which was the same as a personalized plate.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Cronk how he wanted to
proceed. Representative Cronk would be willing to offer a
friendly amendment.
Co-Chair Foster noted that they did not need to set an
amendment deadline and the committee could come back later
in the evening when the amendment could be offered. He
suggested that Representative Cronk work with the division.
Senator Merrick interjected that she felt comfortable with
Representative Cronk offering a friendly amendment.
Representative Stapp suggested recessing and coming back
with the amendment after floor.
Representative Hannan asked about the fiscal note. She
cited the fiscal note analysis that estimated the
development of $14,000 per plate and 19 new plate types per
year. She thought the number seemed high. She also recalled
that the state changed from two license plates from one two
years prior to deliver a cost savings. She recalled the
sponsor had advocated that the savings would make the costs
less than $30 per plate. She wondered if all license plates
typically cost $30 per second plate.
Co-Chair Edgmon, and Co-Chair Johnson joined the meeting.
5:00:03 PM
RECESSED
7:16:06 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster returned to hearing SB 95.
Representative Cronk stated that he would not offer the
amendment.
Representative Hannan voiced that many people believed that
by requesting a specialty plate the revenue went to the
organization. She stated that was not what happened. She
wondered what happened to the revenue. Senator Merrick
understood that the only current organization that did
receive revenue from license plates was the State Council
on the Arts. She deferred to her staff for further answer.
Mr. Crocker answered that the amount was often so minuscule
it was not included in the operating budget. Representative
Hannan inquired whether the bill changed the method of
accountability leaving it up to the division. She wondered
whether the legislature would need to obtain the amount
from the division and appropriate it. Mr. Crocker pointed
to page 4, line 14 of the bill [? organization plate may
charge a fee on first issuance and renewal of the plates?]
and responded that the language allowed organizations to
charge an additional fee to recoup the revenue. He offered
that it would be up to DMV and the administration to ensure
the revenue was received and the legislature to appropriate
it.
7:20:15 PM
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 95(STA)am out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
HCS CSSB 95(STA)am was REPORTED out of committee with eight
"do pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Administration.
Senator Merrick thanked the committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 99(EDC)
"An Act establishing a financial literacy education
program for public schools; and providing for an
effective date."
7:21:10 PM
Co-Chair Foster discussed the agenda items and how he would
proceed through the remainder of session.
HUNTER LOTTSFELDT, STAFF, SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI,
provided a description of the bill. He summarized that the
legislation created a half credit requirement for financial
literacy for high school students. He explained that there
was a list of 14 topics found on page 2 of the bill. The
point of the bill was to teach students how to balance a
check book. He noted that 22 states had the same
requirement and some school districts in the state required
the course. Alaska led the nation in credit card debt at
$8,026 per person with the second highest state's debt at
$7,000. The average student loan debt was $34,000. In
addition, only one-third of Americans could cover a $400.
emergency. The American Public Education Foundation awarded
Alaska a grade of F on its national report card for
financial literacy. He delineated that the bill provided a
flexible pathway to adopt the mandate. The program must be
completed before graduation and the school district could
choose how they wanted design and offer the course.
7:25:08 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note.
KELLY MANNING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), reviewed the published
(FN2 (EED) fiscal impact note dated January 10, 2024, in
the amount of $71,000 in one-time funds. The appropriation
supported the development of a rubric to evaluate courses
against the requirements and would bring together a group
of 20 educators that included paying a stipend. The
appropriation also enabled the hiring of a facilitator to
develop the rubric and evaluation process and lastly,
$6,000 was for legal fees to implement regulation changes.
7:27:18 PM
Representative Galvin emphasized that she was fully
supportive of the bill and the concept of learning life
skills and financial literacy. She was concerned about the
multitude of unfunded mandates and how class sizes were
growing and growing. She asked the department how 20
teachers and stake holders would be enough to put the
mandate in place and train hundreds if not thousands of
teachers. Ms. Manning responded that the 20 educators would
comprise a committee participating in the development of
the rubric and evaluation of curriculum at the start of the
process. She elaborated that the group would help create a
process to ensure a course aligned with the standards.
Moving forward the department would ensure that any
curriculum districts submitted for approval would follow
the process. The districts would be responsible for
training educators and providing resources and the
department would ensure the curriculum aligned with the
requirements. Representative Galvin understood that the
department would hand the curriculum to districts. She
asked if there would be any support for districts in
training or classroom management. Ms. Manning replied that
the provisions of the bill required the department to
evaluate the districts' courses and the districts to
implement the course.
Mr. Lottsfeldt pointed to page 2, line 4 of the bill that
included language to the maximum extent practicable," with
the understanding that smaller districts may not be able to
offer the course. He delineated that in the House Education
Committee, Representative Himschoot included an amendment
requiring a list of open source free curriculum was
available to the teacher.
7:32:50 PM
Representative Galvin favored the language maximum extent
practicable. She referenced the large class sizes and felt
that the current policy had left children behind, and some
districts were cutting music programs and closing schools.
She would be supportive of the bill, but she was concerned
that the underlying problem of ensuring there was
predictable and adequate funding for schools was not
settled.
Representative Hannan noted that the mandate required an
increase in graduation credits. She asked if there was a
graduation requirement. She did not find it in the bill.
She determined that SB 99 referenced a program, and she was
trying to determine if it was a specific requirement to
graduate or if merely an equivalent program had to be
offered. Mr. Lottsfeldt answered it was an additional half
credit requirement for graduation. He pointed to page 1,
line 13 of the bill and read: "?A school district may
provide the program through one or more courses offered by
the school district?" The sponsor wanted to leave it up to
the school districts whether to integrate existing course
work already offered. He viewed it being taught in other
courses as well and not all in one course. Representative
Hannan thought that was the reason the bill was confusing.
She exemplified teaching an economics course and wondered
if it needed to account for all of the requirements. She
asked if the requirement was for a new credit, a change in
curriculum, or up to the districts to decide if existing
courses fulfilled the requirement.
7:37:32 PM
Mr. Lottsfeldt responded that for a school district such as
Haines that had a financial literacy requirement would not
require the additional half credit. He understood that
existing programs could count, but a junior achievement or
other program would need to account for the half credit
which equated to 60 to 90 hours of instruction.
Representative Hannan relayed that she had graduated from
the Anchorage School District and had been required to take
personal finance. She asked if Mr. Lottsfeldt knew if it
was still a requirement. Mr. Lottsfeldt answered that when
he attended West Anchorage High School it had not been a
requirement.
Representative Stapp thought it was very important to teach
personal finance. He relayed that he would cross sponsor
the bill. He thought it was very relevant and strongly
favored the concept. He would like to move the bill.
Representative Cronk did not disagree with the bill, but he
reported that "they" spent two years arguing over local
control. However, the bill mandated that school districts
teach the course.
7:40:48 PM
Representative Ortiz agreed that financial literacy was a
good thing to learn; however, he shared the concerns about
local control. He referenced the document specifying that
Alaska received an F grade in financial literacy and asked
how it was determined. Mr. Lottsfeldt answered that he did
not know how the rating had been determined. Representative
Ortiz was skeptical that the requirements could be
evaluated, and a curriculum could be developed for $71,000.
He asked how it would work. Mr. Lottsfeldt answered that he
did not know. He understood that the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) put forward the
amount that was necessary to do the work. Representative
Ortiz commented that the mandates were all good stuff,
but the reality was it would not all happen through the
process outlined in the fiscal note.
7:43:22 PM
Mr. Lottsfeldt agreed with Representative Ortiz's
statements. He noted that there was an interest in creating
a more real world experience for students upon graduation
but there were legitimate questions regarding funding. He
understood the concerns.
Representative Coulombe had similar concerns. She noted
that the bill contained "a lot of shalls." She relayed the
following from the bill [page 2, lines 2 through 3]: "A
school may not issue a secondary school diploma to a
student unless the student has completed a financial
literacy program?" She agreed that students should be
taught financial literacy. However, she was shocked there
was not pushback about the types of bills from the same
people advocating for local control. She asked if a
district already offered a financial curriculum whether it
could it be grandfathered in. Mr. Lottsfeldt answered that
the intention was for districts to use what already existed
if it met the rubric. The sponsor was trying to make the
mandate as easy as possible to adopt, realizing the
constraints. Representative Coulombe opined that school
districts should be teaching reading, civics, and financial
literacy courses but the state thought they were not.
Hence, there was a READS Act, a Civics bill, a Financial
Literacy bill. She was unsure whether she supported the
bill. She supported teaching financial literacy, but they
were adding more and more layers of bureaucracy for school
districts. She believed that there was an "obvious trend
for the state to keep telling districts what to do and she
did not support it.
Mr. Lottsfeldt thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline of Friday, May 10
at 5:00 p.m.
CSSB 99(EDC) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster discussed the likely schedule and agenda
for the following day.
Representative Hannan interjected that the committee had
heard another education bill earlier in the day. She
relayed that she taught social studies for 30 years. She
announced that she would not be voting for any of the bills
where the legislature was dictating curriculum to students.
She argued that school districts taught courses in
different ways. She presumed that if a rural school
district did not require a course to graduate, they had a
specific reason for choosing not to require it. She did not
support mandating a district teach something when they may
need to focus on applied math or other subjects. She
indicated that there were three bills heading to the floor
where the legislature was mandating specific curriculum
with no extra money. She stated that Junior Achievement as
a program was incredibly successful in Juneau. However,
when the class that always hosted Junior Achievement as a
club was cut Junior Achievement was eliminated. She
believed that everyone supported teaching better financial
literacy and civics engagement, but she opposed the
legislature overreaching into areas of local control.
Co-Chair Foster noted that SB 228 would be removed from the
schedule for the following day.
Co-Chair Foster RECESSED the meeting until the following
morning [note: the meeting never reconvened].
7:52:47 PM
RECESSED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 275 DPS Follow-Up-1 NIJ Best Practices.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB 275 DPS Follow-Up-1.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB 275 DPS Follow-Up-2.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB 275 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB275 Letters of Support and Letter of Opposition.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| SB 75 & SB 74 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050624 2.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 74 SB 75 |
| HB275 Sectional Analysis Version B 3.22.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB275 Summary of Changes Version A to B 3.22.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 275 |