Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/10/2024 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 | |
| HB400 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 10, 2024
3:53 p.m.
3:53:31 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 3:53 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, 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
None
ALSO PRESENT
Justin Ruffridge, Vice-Chair, House Labor and Commerce
Committee, Sponsor; Deborah Riddle, Operations Manager,
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence, Department
of Education and Early Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Erica Jones, Self, Anchorage; Carol Simpson, Self, Homer;
Amanda Wraith, Self, Wasilla; Lori Zulliger, Self, Wasilla;
Scott Gingrich, Self, Anchorage; Matthew Forester, Self,
Anchorage; Cherie Taylor, Self, Soldotna; Eric Palin, Self,
Big Lake; Adele Pribbenow, Self, Soldotna; Penny Vadla,
Self, Soldotna; Kelvin Odegard, Self, Fairbanks; Ellie
Ostler, Self, Anchor Point; Dawn Cogan, Self, Fairbanks;
Terri Beach, Self, Fairbanks; Brandy Brant, Self, Homer;
Tracy Maxwell, Self, Juneau; Jacintha Mezzeti, Self, Eagle
River; Faelyn Simpson, Self, Eagle River; Shad Schoppert,
Self, Anchorage; Ashley Bauman, Self, Soldotna; Andrea
Flynn, Self, Soldotna; Andrea Boeshart, Self, Soldotna;
Alicia Jensen, Self, Sterling; Kimberly Welch, Self,
Wasilla; Audrey Madsen, Self, Wasilla; Hannah Murkin, Self,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 400 CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS; ALLOTMENTS
HB 400 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 151 MISSING/MURDERED INDIGENOUS PEOPLE;REPORT
SB 151 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 170 EXTND SR BENEFITS; REPEAL LONGEVITY BONUS
SB 170 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 183 WORKERS' COMP BENEFITS GUARANTY FUND
SB 183 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 189 EXTEND ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING
SB 189 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 205 AHFC AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE BUILDING
SB 205 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 259 COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES
SB 259 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act relating to correspondence study programs;
relating to allotments for correspondence study
programs; and providing for an effective date."
3:55:29 PM
Co-Chair Foster invited Representative Justin Ruffridge to
the table and asked for a description of the bill.
JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, VICE-CHAIR, HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE
COMMITTEE, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for hearing the
bill. He referenced the recent court decision regarding the
allotment program for correspondence studies that struck
down sections of statute dealing with allotments and
individualized learning plans. The bill sought to establish
uncodified law of a board regulated version of
individualized learning plans and constitutional allotment
programs with a sunset date of June 30, 2025. The bill
stated that individualized learning plans would be
regulated by the State Board of Education and allotments
would be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the
Alaska Constitution dealing with educational spending and
regulated by the board; the bill included some audit
provisions to ensure it was accomplished.
3:57:02 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note.
DEBORAH RIDDLE, OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION OF INNOVATION
AND EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the fiscal note OMB component number
2796. The fiscal note totaled $6,000 for the update and
development of regulations to support the legislation.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
3:58:56 PM
ERICA JONES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that she is a homeschool parent and special needs teacher
with the IDEA program. She spoke in support of the bill
because it gave the state and the Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) the time to carefully and
methodically review the legal concerns. She stated that
education needed to be well thought out and deliberate. She
noted there were many concerns with a separate education
bill, SB 266. She believed the Senate bill rushed to a
solution rather than taking time to consider possible
consequences. She had strong concerns with the allotment
carryover restrictions in the Senate bill. She explained it
would reduce students' abilities to save a portion of funds
from year to year for specialized curriculum. Much of the
curriculum for special needs students was very expensive,
but it could be used for multiple years for each student.
Saving funds from year to year was the only way many
families could afford the specialized curriculum. She
reiterated her support for HB 400.
4:01:08 PM
CAROL SIMPSON, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. She had seven adult children she
had homeschooled. Over the years she had appreciated the
legislature's support for home schooling in general and
correspondence programs in particular. She stated the bill
appropriately focused on the issues the judge had objected
to. The bill also included a sunset clause, which provided
for more time to thoughtfully assess needs and develop
statutes and regulations in better alignment with the state
constitution, while protecting the continuation of
correspondence programs. She did not support SB 266, which
included provisions beyond the immediate need. The House
bill provided relatively broad guidance to the State Board
of Education and relied on the board to create specific
guidelines for implementation of the legislature's intent.
She believed that relying on DEED to carefully determine
needed regulations while the legislature was not in session
provided for a more thoughtful process and the inclusion of
more stakeholders. She reiterated her support for HB 400
and opposition to SB 266. She thanked the committee.
Representative Ortiz asked for verification that Ms.
Simpson believed the Senate bill was too prescriptive for
reforms that would need to be made and the House bill was
more open-ended for DEED to work out.
Ms. Simpson answered that the Senate bill included
additional provisions beyond what the judge addressed. She
liked that the House bill was specific to the concerns
expressed by the judge. Additionally, because HB 400
included a sunset clause, the direction was toward the
board to come up with regulations. She noted that
originally SB 266 included numerous old regulations, much
of which had been dropped; however, it still included
additional provisions.
4:04:28 PM
AMANDA WRAITH, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), provided
a scenario of a group of Alaskan adults who had given up
lucrative careers and had dedicated their lives as
volunteers for the educational success of a small group of
Alaskan students. She stated that the adults studied the
gifts and aptitudes of the children from birth to customize
a learning strategy. She reported that it was working and
the kids were successful. She referenced chronic teacher
shortages, overcrowded classrooms, and stressed budgets.
She stated there were nearly 30,000 Alaskan students
educated at home by independent home educators and home
educating partners of the school district. She stated the
volunteer educators saved taxpayers and districts hundreds
of millions in education funding and teacher salaries
annually. She continued to address the benefit of
homeschool volunteer teachers. The state had offered often
to provide each student a small percentage of the funding
for the cost of education. She noted that the homeschool
students qualified for only 90 percent of the Base Student
Allocation (BSA) that went to their districts each teacher
was allowed less than half of the money. She provided
funding comparisons between homeschooling and brick and
mortar schools. She supported the allotment carryover.
4:09:11 PM
LORI ZULLIGER, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
supported the bill. She was a homeschool parent. She
relayed that it was through state support by recognizing
parent choice and providing allotments that her family had
been able to make the educational option for their daughter
through the IDEA program. She shared information about her
daughter's educational journey. She supported HB 400, which
put determining regulations for correspondence programs and
allotments back into the hands of the State Board of
Education. The bill dealt with the constitutional issue of
the initial [court] ruling. She asked the committee to
consider the parents and how they may best teach their
students, the students and how they may be best served, and
the small business vendors who supply services to
homeschooling communities in the state. She asked the
legislature to tread lightly when regulating options for
families homeschooling their children. She highlighted it
was important to remember that the educational system was
in place to give each student the least restrictive
environment in which to learn and thrive. She thanked the
committee.
4:12:24 PM
SCOTT GINGRICH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), is a
home school parent with five kids and used the IDEA
program. He stated homeschooling and parent involvement was
critical for students' success and had positive impacts on
academic performance, student behavior, self-esteem, and
motivation. He added that parental involvement helped
strengthen the bond between parents and schools. He was in
favor of the bill. He liked allowing parents the option to
opt out of standardized tests. He listed various tests used
in the past 20 years. He noted that parents had not
received test results for an entire year, and it made it
difficult for parents to see value in the tests. He stated
that the allotment carryover should not change, and he
liked that about HB 400. He did not support the allotment
provisions in SB 266. He outlined reasons. He believed the
allotment program was constitutional and there should not
be a change to the allotment carryover. He addressed the
ILP [individualized learning plan], which he believed was
good teaching. He thanked the committee for taking the time
to listen. He liked the one-year sunset in the bill that
allowed the legislature time to get feedback and do more
research in order to make the best decision.
Representative Galvin thanked Mr. Gingrich for his
testimony and shared that she had gone through IDEA
beginning in 1998. She remarked that he had been
homeschooling for 20 years and she noted there had been
changes during that time. She had been frustrated with the
myriad of tests over the years. She asked if Mr. Gingrich's
kids were currently participating in the Alaska Reads Act,
MAP testing, and others.
Mr. Gingrich responded that he only had one student left at
home and he was in the later part of high school and beyond
the testing ranges for the tests.
Representative Galvin stated that the allotment carryover
was relatively new. She stated that in years past there had
been an allotment for curriculum that aligned with the ILP
and had to be in accordance with what a licensed teacher
advised. She discussed what had been included in the
curriculum. She asked if Mr. Gingrich went through that
experience.
Mr. Gingrich affirmatively.
Representative Galvin stated her understanding it had
changed. She asked Mr. Gingrich to describe the
differences.
Mr. Gingrich responded that instead of being rushed to use
allotment dollars, if a parent had a budget, it allowed
them to make better decisions with how money was spent. He
stated that curriculum was getting more expensive, and
saving the money for when it was needed to use on things
like college classes was an opportunity to do things
gradually. He shared that his oldest two kids ended up with
30 college credits prior to graduating from high school. He
elaborated on his kids' experience.
Representative Galvin was supportive of enabling students
in Alaska to have concurrent classes. She thought it was a
wonderful opportunity for high school students if everyone
could afford it. She referenced Mr. Gingrich's testimony
about saving money and using it accordingly at a later
time. She noted that it had not been possible in the past
and the money had just been returned to the system. She
asked about supplies. She asked if a book went back to IDEA
after a student had used it.
Mr. Gingrich answered that homeschool families were allowed
to save a book to use for their other kids. When they were
finished with a book it was returned to IDEA to be reused.
Representative Galvin stated her understanding families
could save the book as long as they wanted, and it was then
returned to the system.
Mr. Gingrich replied that if a family withdrew from the
program, they would have to return the book.
Representative Galvin asked if the same was true for a
computer.
Mr. Gingrich responded that families had the option to
purchase at a depreciated rate depending on how old the
computer was, or it could be returned.
Representative Galvin appreciated hearing the information.
4:23:31 PM
MATTHEW FORESTER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
shared that his family used the IDEA homeschool program. He
spoke in support of the current version of the bill and was
happy to see the changes. He wished the situation was not
happening because he thought the system currently in place
worked well. He was glad the bill left the responsibility
to the State Board of Education to address the
constitutional question and he liked the sunset provision
because Alaskans deserved time to evaluate the issues and
avoid unintended consequences. He did not support SB 266.
He shared information about his family with three kids who
had been homeschooled through the IDEA program. He
appreciated the legislature trying to take quick action.
4:26:14 PM
CHERIE TAYLOR, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), is a
homeschool mom. She supported the bill that no longer
included provisions unrelated to the constitutional
question. The bill required the State Board of Education to
address the constitutional question in particular. She
supported the sunset provision of one year, which
acknowledged that Alaskans needed more time to weigh the
issues carefully and avoid unintended consequences. She
strongly opposed SB 266. She stated the bill contained
questions that were unrelated to the constitutional
question. She highlighted that SB 266 was not temporary.
She believed the language would have intended and
unintended consequences for homeschoolers and schools. She
stated that more time was needed than was left in session
to fully have productive discussions about the issues.
Families needed homeschooling to continue in the current
model with the least disruption for students and families.
She concluded that HB 400, version R supported what was
needed.
Representative Ortiz stated that several callers had talked
about how SB 266 had provisions that were not related to
the court's ruling that the program was unconstitutional.
He asked for some examples of measures that were not
related to the judge's ruling.
Ms. Taylor believed the judge's ruling applied to the part
of the constitution specifying that public funds should not
be used for private education. She stated that SB 266
addressed items that were not really at play including
standardized testing for all families and no allotment
carryover.
4:29:13 PM
ERIC PALIN, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference), shared
that he is a homeschool father of four daughters enrolled
with the IDEA program. He stated that the IDEA
correspondence school had offered incredible freedom for
his family. He provided detail about his family and their
experience with correspondence. He stated that
homeschooling worked at a fraction of the cost of brick and
mortar schools. He relayed that IDEA had always been very
careful to follow the rules regarding proper reimbursement
for educational expenses. The bill supported his freedom
and visions for his children's academic success without the
controls included in SB 266. He strongly opposed the Senate
bill and thought it was inequitable and onerous. He
supported HB 400 version R with its set one-year time limit
in order to allow for judicial and legislative corrections
when time was available. He supported that HB 400 contained
no mandatory testing requirements for students and that the
allotment was fully maintained without onerous spending
limits and restrictions for the fine arts and physical
education. He continued to discuss his reasons for opposing
SB 266. He urged the committee to support HB 400.
Representative Galvin stated that many of the testifiers
were referencing SB 266 and much of the testimony had been
that there should not be required testing associated with
allotments. Yet, she heard frequently there was not enough
accountability associated with the big spending on
education. She asked how Mr. Palin would respond to
individuals with the specific concern.
Mr. Palin shared that he had an email conversation with
Senator Loki Tobin about the topic the previous week about
the specific issue. He believed the opposition was to a
mandatory requirement requiring taking tests in order to
get an allotment. He was happy to do a test, but he did not
want restrictions forced upon him. There were other ways to
determine if a child was doing well. He stated that ILPs
were well defined, and families had monthly feedback from a
contact teacher. Families also submitted quarterly work
examples and students could get additional support in areas
they were struggling with. He stated that in all actuality
he was the teacher and could track how his kids were doing.
Representative Galvin shared that she had opted out for one
of her children because she did not believe the particular
test would be helpful. She was considering how to answer to
many Alaskans seeing public dollars spent to come up with
some accountability. She reasoned there may be other ways
to check off that box. She asked about the allotment
carryover, which she noted was relatively new to the state
in the past 10 years. She noted that neighborhood schools
were not afforded the opportunity, but correspondence
schools were. She knew the Senate bill had a portfolio
option instead of a testing requirement.
Mr. Palin answered that the cost for a child in a brick and
mortar school compared to homeschooling was about three to
one. He noted that funding associated with the [allotment]
rollover was a much smaller sum at $2,700 per child per
year under the IDEA program. He noted that the funds were
often completely consumed. He stated that music lessons and
PE consumed much of the funding. He remarked that it was
not like people were rolling over $5,000 per year. He noted
that SB 266 contained provisions that limited spending on
specific things like fine arts, music, and PE to 15 percent
of the allotment per year. He provided an example of the
cost of music lessons. He supported HB 400, version R.
4:41:42 PM
Representative Galvin appreciated Mr. Palin sharing his
perspective. She noted that the committee had not received
substantial public testimony from the neighborhood schools
because testifiers had been asked not to talk about public
education funds during the operating budget public
testimony since there had been separate legislation on the
topic.
Representative Coulombe stated there was a public testifier
on the line. She requested to have the question asked in
order to respect people's time.
Representative Galvin stated some schools had been shut
down and some had no music classes. She was trying to think
through policy for individual families who deserve to teach
their children at home and so many others who were dealing
with other issues. She thanked Mr. Palin.
Representative Stapp stated that his issue with the Senate
version of the bill was that the testing was only
applicable to correspondence school kids. Currently
everyone could opt out of testing, but the Senate bill
specified that everyone but home school students could opt
out of testing. He thought it created an equity issue. His
second issue with the Senate bill pertained to the rollover
provision. He stated that when the legislature allocated
funds to school districts, the state did not take the
funding back if the districts did not spend all of the
money.
Mr. Palin agreed. He stated that SB 266 included
inequitable provisions.
4:45:13 PM
AT EASE
5:00:02 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted there were 19 testifiers remaining.
He had a meeting at 5:30 p.m. He asked people to keep the
time in mind.
5:01:19 PM
ADELE PRIBBENOW, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), is a
homeschool parent and certified teacher working with the
homeschool program. She shared that she had been involved
in homeschooling in Alaska since 1984. She believed HB 400,
version R best addressed the needs of Alaskan homeschoolers
by following the law, while not putting a sudden kink in
their homeschooling journey. She stated that the one-year
sunset date acknowledged that Alaskans needed more time to
weigh issues carefully to avoid unintended consequences.
She highlighted that SB 266 was not temporary and contained
issues that were unrelated to the constitutional question.
She thanked the committee.
5:02:21 PM
PENNY VADLA, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), shared
that she had worked as a high school and college teacher
beginning in 1977 and had retired in 2006. She was
currently in her sixth term on the school board. She
thanked the legislature for supporting the state and
students in brick and mortar schools and homeschools. She
reviewed the guidelines in HB 400 and wanted to ensure the
guidelines were monitored. She supported adopting
regulations and standards for ILPs with formative and
summative assessments. She thought the formative
assessments would help the summative assessments. She
supported an annual allotment with oversight. She hoped the
state would ensure the funds were not used for private
schools or religious purposes. She believed in the
separation between church and state. She also supported SB
266 but needed to review it again to provide feedback. She
had never been a tester and liked portfolios as a measure
of success. She stated that testing took a variety of
measures to be successful. She highlighted the importance
of band participation and lessons were very different from
being in band. She shared that she paid for private music
lessons for her son and daughter. She did not want to pit
one type of schooling with another, she believed both were
essential. She thanked the committee.
5:05:44 PM
KELVIN ODEGARD, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), is a
homeschooling parent and had been a homeschooled student.
He supported the bill that seemed to address the judicial
issue and concerns with constitutionality of public
education funds going to private schools or religious
schools. He liked that the bill primarily relied on DEED to
get into the details given the short timeline and that it
had a sunset date that would enable more time for any
issues to be addressed. He shared that the homeschooling
program used by his family had rigorous standards around
how things were paid for and ensuring they were returned
when finished with them. He appreciated that HB 400 did not
get into how programs were run and that it focused on the
funding. He did not support the Senate bill that he
believed tried to address any issue ever brought up
pertaining to schooling. He understood there were numerous
issues with brick and mortar and homeschools, but he did
not believe a bill should be trying to address everything.
5:08:33 PM
ELLIE OSTLER, SELF, ANCHOR POINT (via teleconference),
shared that supported HB 400, version R, which she believed
was superior to SB 266 in every way. She stated that one of
the biggest benefits of homeschooling was the ability to
create an individualized education for children. She had
five children who were homeschooled and paid for private
music instruction with their allotment. She stated it would
be a financial strain on her family to have a percentage of
the allotment for the arts reduced as in SB 266. She
remarked that homeschooling was less costly to the state
than brick and mortar school models. She noted that the BSA
for homeschoolers was reduced twice before going to
students. She shared that the IDEA program allowed $2,700
per child, which included art, PE, and curriculum with
oversight from a certified guidance teacher. She elaborated
that she had one child with a learning disability who
qualified for an individualized education plan (IEP). Her
daughter had achieved a higher reading level than they had
been told was possible. She stated that many homeschoolers
left public schools because they had failed special needs
students abysmally. She relayed that rollover allotments
were important because some families were purposely setting
aside portions of money to pay for opportunities such as
trade classes through the Alaska Vocational Technical
Center (AVTEC) and college courses. She stated that the
people homeschooling their kids were doing so at no cost to
the state. She emphasized that children deserved a strong
familial and educational foundation, which would build a
stronger Alaska. She thanked the committee.
5:11:47 PM
DAWN COGAN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), shared
how homeschooling had benefitted her family. She had
enjoyed the freedom of choice to teach her children at home
for 18 years. She detailed that her family lived an hour
north of Fairbanks and she had opted to homeschool because
transportation to and from school was not possible. She
relayed that they had faithfully attended school testing
annually during that time. She elaborated that when testing
became a choice, they had discontinued their participation
because the results arrived long after the window to use
the status to make informed decisions. She shared
information about assessment strategies she had discovered
that worked better for her family. She stressed that
parents should have the right to opt out of state testing.
She relayed that allotment carryover accounts had been a
powerful resource for students pursuing dual enrollment at
University of Alaska campuses and pursuing other
educational opportunities. She stated that a large amount
of the money was kept in state and there was close
management by correspondence school programs with policies
in place to manage accountable use of the funds. Her
daughter used the funds to attend the University of Alaska
Fairbanks and graduated high school with over 20 university
credits. She shared information about her daughter and
son's education and lives. She loved having an individual
learning plan and she respected the state's constitution.
She hoped lawmakers could reach a decision that honored the
state's constitution, while continuing to allow families to
utilize state-funded allotments. She stated that SB 266
gave a good option between testing and portfolios; however,
it made punitive changes to the feasibility of providing
homeschool children an equitable and well-rounded education
by limiting allotment carryovers and implementing a 15
percent limit on funds allowed for art, music, and PE
vendors. She asked the committee to vote yes on HB 400,
version R.
Representative Tomaszewski thanked Ms. Cogan for calling in
and for her commitment to the kids in Fairbanks.
5:15:50 PM
TERRI BEACH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), was a
former homeschool parent and remained active in the
homeschooling community in Fairbanks. She shared
information about her children who had excelled in school.
She stated that having an adequate allotment with the
freedom to choose quality curriculum that suited their
needs made a tremendous difference. She stated that quality
curriculum tended to get more expensive at higher grade
levels. She had needed support in some areas where she had
not been the strongest teacher. She relayed that access to
the allotment rollover was very important. She noted that
everyone received the rollover but not everyone used it.
She shared that when her kids graduated, they had rollover
money that was returned to the school district. She was
concerned about the financial restrictions the Senate bill
put on PE. She explained that her kids had been required to
have three semesters of PE, but the funds had been limited.
She was concerned about additional oversight in the Senate
bill. She supported HB 400, version R.
5:19:13 PM
BRANDY BRANT, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), is a
homeschool mom of three children currently through the IDEA
program. She supported HB 400, version R. She shared that
her three children were neurodivergent with disorders
including dyslexia, dysgraphia, OCD, and anxiety. The
allotment provided her family the freedom to find success
in areas that was not necessarily brick and mortar style.
She believed HB 400 gave more time to keep progressing in a
way that protected those freedoms and respected
constitutionality. She had spent 12 years leaning into the
system and it had provided support, structure, and
accountability. The announcement of the change was
unnerving. She supported the timeframe in the bill, which
provided more time for nuanced conversations. She stated
that the sunset clause allowed the bill to come to an end
in a way that allowed things to move forward.
5:21:48 PM
TRACY MAXWELL, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), is a
homeschool parent of two neurodivergent daughters who had
struggled in different academic areas. She detailed that an
individualized education taught them to use their strengths
and manage their differences. She shared information about
her daughters. She relayed that their stories were
testaments to the success of homeschooling. She supported
HB 400, version R because it allowed homeschooling to
continue without disruption. The bill also gave time for
careful consideration of the issues over the next year. She
addressed questions about accountability for homeschoolers.
She stressed that testing did not indicate a child's
success or whether she was successful as a teacher. She
emphasized that her dyslexic daughter would never do well
on a test, but it did not mean she was not learning. She
believed it was necessary to change the thinking on how to
hold schools accountable. She thanked the committee.
5:23:55 PM
JACINTHA MEZZETI, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
supported HB 400, version R. She stated that the bill
canceled itself in July 2025, which she supported. She
liked that the bill would prevent rushed and potentially
inadequate legislation and any unexpected consequences
would be provisional. The bill required the State Board of
Education to address the constitutional question, which she
believed was appropriate. She emphasized that the bill
preserved many time-tested educational correspondence
program practices. She did not support SB 266 because it
was not temporary and tried to answer questions larger than
the constitutional challenge at hand. She thought the
language of SB 266 seemed ignorant that the correspondence
program brought educational dollars and educational equity
to all Alaskans including Alaskans in Native and rural
villages whose students had been underserved prior to the
implementation of the programs. She thanked the committee.
5:27:12 PM
FAELYN SIMPSON, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), is
a homeschool parent of three children with special needs.
She supported HB 400, version R. She supported that it did
not make many changes to the allotment carryover, testing,
or changes in spending, and that it would sunset in July
2025. She did not believe there needed to be any rush to
get permanent legislation in place. She believed SB 266 had
a number of problems. She did not support the no carryover
and that 10 percent of the funds could be spent on art,
math, and PE. She stated her kids were very active and her
family likely used around 50 percent of the funds for art
and PE classes. She shared information about the costs for
some of the classes, which were very expensive. She listed
the costs of some of the classes. She did not support the
permanence of the Senate bill. She noted that most
homeschool families were one income families. She did not
want the allotments to change drastically.
5:31:07 PM
SHAD SCHOPPERT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of HB 400, version R. He and his wife had been
homeschooling their children for nine years through the
Anchorage School District, formerly Family Partnership
Charter School. He had been on the advisory committee for
Family Partnership. He stated that the bill provided a path
for correspondence school kids across the state to continue
their programs. The bill allowed parents to continue to
define what was best for their children's education and did
not attempt to restrict correspondence school families. The
bill allowed families to opt in or out of testing and
enabled families to reserve funds for more extensive
courses. The bill treated correspondence schools the same
as brick and mortar schools with respect to reporting
requirements and allowed for freedom of choice within the
ILP. The bill did not micromanage how correspondence
families spent the small amount of funds they received. He
continued to review the benefits of the bill. He believed
there were several misconceptions about correspondence
programs. He stated that educational materials had to be
returned. Families did not merely receive a check to use
however they wanted; they had to jump through significant
hoops and reimbursement requirements. He stated that some
may challenge correspondence families because they used
their funds for unique or special things that catered to
their children's specific needs. He challenged that if
money were no issue, he thought every brick and mortar
school would do the same thing. He thought statute should
be broad like HB 400, version R. He urged the committee to
support the bill.
5:35:08 PM
ASHLEY BAUMAN, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), is a
homeschool parent of three children. She was in support of
HB 400 that gave a year to figure out how to make the
situation work. She shared that she owned a toy store and
sold educational items. She had heard a substantial amount
from the homeschool community and she found it amazing to
hear an outpouring of what homeschooling and the allotment
meant to people and what it provided to the children of
Alaska. She wanted to ensure homeschooling would be
continued through the next year. She found it scary to
think that if funds were taken away that homeschool
families may not receive the funds again in the future. She
shared information about her children. She explained that
much of the allotment for one of her kids went to sports
and physical activities. She stated that to completely
regulate what every child did, did not provide the
personalized ability to do what was right for each kid. She
emphasized that homeschooling was not an easy endeavor and
was likely one of the hardest things she had ever done. She
reiterated her support for the bill.
5:38:22 PM
ANDREA FLYNN, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), shared
that she had homeschooled in Alaska for three years and had
been a homeschooling parent for ten years. She noted that
the other states her family had lived in did not have a
correspondence program or allotment. She relayed that
having the funds to purchase the tailored curriculum her
family needed had been a large benefit. She supported HB
400 that would provide more time to consider what the
permanent future bill should entail. She did not believe it
was right to punish all homeschooling families for the few
people spending the funds on private education. She relayed
that her family used the IDEA program, which was strictly
regulated. She noted that no funds were spent on religious
items. The $400 families would be allowed to spend on art,
music, and gym in the Senate bill was not sufficient for
her family. She remarked that students in public school had
freedom to take art, music, and PE. She relayed that her
daughter was getting to the age of needing to take her
driver's exam and was dyslexic and needed tutoring. Her
daughter was hoping to take the Jump Start program when she
was a junior and her family had been trying to save some of
the rollover allotment for the purpose. She reiterated her
support for HB 400.
5:40:37 PM
ANDREA BOESHART, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference),
shared that she is a second generation homeschooler. She
supported HB 400, which she believed seemed to best address
the issue at hand. She thought there was overreach in the
Senate bill. She supported the allotment rollover in the
House bill, which had been a great benefit to her family.
She shared detail about her daughter's education. The funds
had enabled her daughter to take UAA college credits and
violin classes. She stated the amount allowed by SB 266 was
not sufficient for elective classes. She liked that the
House bill repealed itself within a year and did not try to
fix what was not broken.
5:42:49 PM
ALICIA JENSEN, SELF, STERLING (via teleconference), is a
th
homeschool parent with a 5 grader enrolled in the IDEA
program. She supported HB 400, version R. She stated that
with the sense of urgency it made the most sense for the
coming year and it repealed itself in a year. Additionally,
the bill would safeguard constitutional spending. The bill
would allow the legislature and court time to deal with the
repercussions of the ruling. She believed the Senate bill
was a broad overreach that was not related to the court
ruling and it did not expire. She stated they could not
conflate the court ruling regarding correspondence programs
and allotment spending with the public school budget. She
shared that homeschool parents were catering to the
methodologies that worked for their kids. She noted that AK
STAR testing used completely different language than the
curriculum she used at home. She stated that DEED needed to
focus on fixing the brick and mortar school system and it
did not need to be weighed down with holding homeschool
families accountable when they already had very good
systems in place that did so.
5:46:32 PM
KIMBERLY WELCH, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), shared
that she is a homeschool mom of four children. She spoke in
support of HB 400, version R, which she believed made the
most sense for homeschoolers. She found Senate Bill 266 to
be appalling and a slap in the face for any homeschool
family. She had several children with learning disabilities
who did not do well on tests. She emphasized that the
allotment provided in SB 266 for music and gym was too low.
She was blessed with a musically gifted child, and she
could not imagine taking the opportunity away. She shared
information about her children's education. She stated that
the Senate bill came across as greedy and money hungry. She
supported that HB 400 could be revised and revisited. She
hoped the committee would look at the future of Alaskans
and the big picture and would opt to pass HB 400 and not
the Senate bill.
5:50:09 PM
AUDREY MADSEN, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), is a
homeschool parent of three kids and was seeking a degree in
education. She agreed that HB 400, version R was the better
situation for homeschool families. She supported the
expiration date of the bill. She shared that her youngest
child had been in a public school special education
classes, but unfortunately her family had been faced with
letting his knowledge drop or homeschooling him to provide
the education he needed. She stated her son had not been
able to get the services he needed in public school. She
shared information about her son. She shared that her son
had grown immensely in the past year she had been
homeschooling. She provided information about her other
kids. She relayed that homeschoolers could adjust
curriculum to a student's level. For example, it was
possible to have one child doing 3 or 4 grade math and
thth
5 or 6 grade language arts. She stressed the benefits of
homeschooling. She relayed that in terms of
extracurriculars, the allotment only went so far. She
highlighted that the rollover could make a difference of a
few extra courses. She discussed parity with brick and
mortar schools. She thanked the committee.
5:53:52 PM
HANNAH MURKIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), is a
homeschool parent. She explained that when a family
purchased correspondence curriculum supplies, things that
were consumable were not given back to the program. She
detailed that families could keep things like textbooks if
they planned to use them for another child or they could be
returned to the program. She discussed testing and was glad
it was not a part of HB 400. She shared that her child had
gone to a brick and mortar school in kindergarten, and the
testing had stressed her son out so much that he was not
really able to participate in standardized testing. She
th
elaborated that her son was in 4 grade and she had him do
the math testing at home, but it had been very stressful
for him because the test was too long. She shared that he
had he done well and had scored above average, but it was
too long. She supported HB 400, version R. She thanked the
committee.
5:57:18 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony. He provided the
address for written testimony.
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT HB 400 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Ortiz and Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson spoke to his objection. He stated
there were many sources of concern. He turned to page 2,
subsection (d), lines 12 to 13, which indicated that the
board would decide what the state constitution meant. He
elaborated that the board would contact the attorney
general's office and the attorney general's office would
say the judge was wrong and the attorney general's office
would tell the board what was right. He did not think that
was accurate. He did not think what the AG thought was
right was accurate and he did not think the supreme court
would deem it to be accurate either. He did not think the
subsection worked. He did not know of any objections to the
law that had been passed by the legislature prior to 2014.
He wanted to make sure it complied with Article 7, Section
1. He stated that his interpretation of the bill was that
it required some testing; however, none of the testimony
had been in favor of testing. He added that testifiers
thought SB 266 required testing, but it had an option for a
portfolio. He stated that he and his staff had been working
as fast as possible to prepare amendments. He explained
that moving the bill during the current meeting did not fit
in the example of what the chair mentioned two days
earlier. He requested time to consider amendments.
Co-Chair Foster wanted to come back to determine what to do
with the bill and possibly hear another piece of
legislation.
6:02:35 PM
RECESSED
7:25:09 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee had left off
with a motion to move HB 400 from committee followed by an
objection.
Representative Ortiz requested that Representative Stapp
withdraw the motion and for the bill to be set aside in
order to move forward with other bills on the agenda out of
respect for people's time.
Representative Tomaszewski thought that out of respect for
the people present and the time sensitivity related to the
lateness in session that any amendments that would have
been brought in committee would likely be brought again on
the House floor. He thought they should report the bill out
if it was the will of the committee.
Representative Galvin thought it was the previous day when
Co-Chair Foster had stated there may be some bills where
the will of the committee would be to move the bill without
any amendments, but there were other bills the committee
would allow for process. She had at least one conceptual
amendment. She requested an opportunity for the process
with HB 400. She remarked that it was an important topic
for many Alaskans.
7:27:41 PM
Representative Coulombe reminded members that
Representative Ruffridge and his staff had been present for
many days and nights waiting for their turn to hear their
bill. She apologized to others waiting, but the bill
sponsor had been waiting for a long time as well.
Representative Stapp stated it was his intention to move
the bill from committee. He thought other members had
amendments ready. He had no problem withdrawing his motion
to move the bill to allow time for amendments. He would
then make another motion to move the bill from committee
after amendments were completed. He would rather not
postpone due to the time sensitivity.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the motion to move the bill
for the purpose of conceptual amendments.
Co-Chair Foster stated the committee would begin with
amendments from Representative Josephson as soon as they
were distributed.
7:29:08 PM
AT EASE
7:31:56 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 (copy
on file):
Page 2, lines 12-13:
Delete all material.
Page 2, lines 12-13:
Insert:
"(d) The Department shall write regulations regarding
correspondence programs and student allotments
consistent with an appellate decision on the Matter of
Alexander, et al. v. State of Alaska (on appeal from
3AN-23-04309CI)"
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. It was
his understanding that although there was some objection by
th
the administration early on, on June 25 there would be
oral arguments on the subjects raised in the matter of
Alexander v. State of Alaska. He stated that he had
confirmed his understanding with the Alaska Court System.
He believed the fact the [Alaska] supreme court was taking
the topic up quickly indicated that the court viewed the
topic to have such public importance that it intended to
rule swiftly. He would rather not have a special session
because it would be costly and time consuming. The
amendment would delete lines 12 and 13 from the bill. The
impact would be that the legislature would not ask the
State Board of Education to ask the attorney general to
come up with regulations consistent with Article 7, Section
1. He noted it could take a couple of months for the court
to write an opinion. He was told that as soon as the 28th
th
or 29 of June, the [state supreme] court may affirm or
partially affirm the prior ruling made by Judge [Adolph]
Zeman. He asked why the legislature would want the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) to
write regulations based on its interpretation of Article 7,
Section 1 when the supreme court was going to give a fresh
pronouncement on a topic it had not issued an opinion on
since the Sheldon Jackson decision in 1979. He supported
asking DEED to write regulation consistent with the future
court decision.
7:35:17 PM
Representative Stapp spoke in opposition to the amendment.
He stated there were 22,000 homeschool families that were
looking to the legislature. He noted it was per the judge's
ruling that the legislature had some sort of statement. He
thought the best thing the legislature could do would be to
get the process started for the State Board of Education to
begin the regulatory framework. He reasoned that in the
event there was a subsequent ruling from the supreme court
(with a time uncertain), the board would have already begun
the process. He elaborated that if the regulatory framework
was dependent on a process that the maker of the amendment
noted may not be until Labor Day, he did not believe it was
fair to homeschool families to wait that long.
Representative Galvin asked Representative Josephson if the
amendment would mean that homeschool would stop until the
process was done.
Representative Josephson responded that the only thing the
amendment would change was lines 12 through 13. He stated
his understanding that the stay was currently in effect. He
believed Representative Galvin was asking if the amendment
would lift the stay. He wondered whether the legislature
could overcome a stay on the same topic by writing a law
when there was an existing case and the courts assumed
jurisdiction. He did not know the answer.
7:37:15 PM
Representative Hannan asked if the amendment would preclude
homeschooling decisions going forward before the
regulations were written. She did not see it that way. She
detailed that the bill spelled out correspondence
provisions and specified that the board would write
regulations. She highlighted that the board process of
writing regulation would not be done by June or August
because there was a process DEED would undergo including
public notice regulations. She did not think the current
provisions or the amendment would result in a secure set of
regulations by Labor Day.
Representative Hannan viewed the bill as giving enough
governance to go forward with some limited aspects. She
stated that points one through four gave some direction
about how to run correspondence. She noted it did not
address all of the elements existing under the current
correspondence law, but she interpreted the language to
mean they could move forward with the four things needed.
She thought that as the bill was drafted that having DEED
write regulations based on the constitution did not change
anything. She noted that if upheld, the court decision
would throw it all out. Presumably, the regulations in
place were written in line with the constitution. She noted
that the court had found them not to be [in line with the
constitution], and whether the supreme court would agree
was to be determined. She reasoned that if the supreme
court agreed with Judge Zeman's decision, it would be easy
because "they've already got them if they throw it out."
However, if the supreme court gave more guidance and
direction, it would narrow what had to be done because HB
400 lay out some general guiding principles for the
correspondence program to go forward. She was in support of
the conceptual amendment.
7:40:10 PM
Representative Ruffridge understood the conceptual
amendment offered by Representative Josephson; however, he
believed it would essentially throw into question the
ability of the State Board of Education and the Department
of Law to draft regulations consistent with the state
constitution. He was not certain it was a fair assessment.
There were currently a number of current regulations that
were linked back to AS 300 and AS 310. He elaborated that
with statutes being put into question or struck down, there
needed to be a statutory or legal framework to tie the
regulations to. He thought that the idea that there needed
to be a massive regulations project to rewrite new
regulations seemed broad. He believed the existing
regulations were clear and detailed, but they needed to be
tied back to a law that allowed them to exist. He did not
think the language of the amendment did that in a clear
enough way. He stated the amendment tied it to something
that was a bit of a moving target. He opposed the
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Josephson to provide
wrap up on the amendment.
Representative Josephson stated that one of the problems
with the bill was asking DEED to write regulations - which
took time to write at a minimum due to the notice period -
on a law that was currently being challenged. The only
guidance he knew of was the Sheldon Jackson decision from
45 years back. He believed the amendment may help avoid a
special session. He stated that the Board of Education had
been ordered to write something legally consistent with the
most recent decision issued by the court which was
Alexander v. State of Alaska. Otherwise, there would be a
regulation written short of a review of the decision. He
did not know whether the regulation would be changed again
to be consistent with the new law. The amendment left open
the question of what the ruling would look like. He argued
that if the conceptual amendment passed, it should be
lawful, and a special session should not be needed.
7:43:50 PM
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION to conceptual
Amendment 1.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Ortiz, Josephson, Galvin
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Johnson,
Foster
Co-Chair Edgmon was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 FAILED (4/6).
7:44:39 PM
Co-Chair Johnson asked for the bill's effective date.
Representative Ruffridge responded that there was not
currently an effective date in the bill. He believed it was
a subject that needed to be taken up.
7:45:09 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED conceptual Amendment 2 (copy
on file):
Page 2, line 11 following "plan" insert:
"A parent or guardian may not purchase services and
materials from a private or religious organization
with a student allotment."
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson read the amendment language above.
He explained that the specific statement was one of the
things missing from the bill. He noted the language was not
that different from a bill that became law around 2014
sponsored by former Senator Mike Dunleavy. He stated it was
a more direct statement of the law as it was best
understood. He elaborated that without the sentence in the
bill, they were back where they started, with an illegal
bill. He explained that the language had been missed when
regulations had been written from the 2014 bill. He stated
there was no direction to DEED to monitor compliance. He
noted there was also another issue about the bill not being
effective for 90 days and there was likely to be a decision
before that time.
Representative Stapp adamantly opposed the amendment. He
clarified that the state constitution specified that no
funding shall be used for the direct benefit of a private
or religious educational institution, whereas the amendment
specified that a parent or guardian may not purchase
services and materials from a private or religious
organization with a student allotment. He interpreted the
conceptual amendment to mean that a person could not use
their allotment for any services purchased from a private
or religious organization. He pointed out that most
homeschool families used their allotments to purchase
books, and services (e.g., gymnastics, individual learning
plans), materials (e.g., laptops) from private vendors. He
thought the amendment spoke to the crux of the issue. He
did not believe the state specified that school districts
should be unable to use their BSA funding for services from
private organizations. He did not know why the legislature
would want to put something in statute that was far more
prescriptive than the state's constitution.
7:48:24 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 to
conceptual Amendment 2. The conceptual amendment would take
a direct quotation from the constitution that had been
cited by Representative Stapp.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED because the language was
already in the constitution. He did not think there was any
reason to also define it in statute.
Co-Chair Foster asked for verification that Representative
Ortiz had made an official motion.
Representative Ortiz agreed. The amendment would substitute
the language currently in conceptual Amendment 2 with the
constitutional language cited by Representative Stapp.
Representative Ruffridge explained that his intent in
drafting the underlying bill (on page 2, lines 12 through
13) was to adopt the language of the constitution as the
basis for the drafting of regulations. He thought that
directly inserting language from the constitution into the
bill was unnecessary.
7:50:57 PM
AT EASE
7:52:07 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson referenced Representative
Ruffridge's description of his purpose for subsection (d)
of the bill. He stated that the way appeals typically
worked was that the greater burden was on the petitioner,
which was the State of Alaska in the current case. He
detailed that the state was currently losing the case and
it wanted to flip the result to say that Judge Zeman's
ruling was wrong. He noted that currently the judge was
right. He referenced Representative Ruffridge's statement
that his intent in subsection (d) was to have DEED issue
regulations consistent with the constitution. He pointed
out that DEED was part and parcel of the state, which was
in the losing position of the lawsuit. He remarked that
DEED was independent and could disagree with Attorney
General Treg Taylor, but he found it highly unlikely. He
asked why the legislature would want DEED to write
something when it was in the losing posture in the case.
Representative Ruffridge responded that he wanted to be
cautious. He clarified that the bill did not ask DEED to
write the regulations. Typically, the regulations would be
written by the State Board of Education, which was a little
different. He elaborated that the individuals on the board
were appointed by the governor and worked as volunteer
citizens of the state, typically with some experience in
education. He surmised the board members' experience was
likely more extensive than many of the members of the
legislature. He thought they were best suited to continue
to draft regulations. He would send the regulations to the
committee that dealt with correspondence programs in the
state. He elaborated that the board had written and adopted
the regulations for decades and had cleaned them up here
and there and made simple changes; however, for the most
part, the regulations had functioned relatively unchanged
for a while. He did not believe a large regulations project
was needed. He believed it would be a simple adjustment in
regulation to specify that a person could not use an
allotment provided for correspondence study to pay tuition
at a private school. He stated that the language was not
currently in regulation or statute, which was the problem
highlighted in the court case. There was a need to state
that individualized learning plans should exist and should
be funded because they were part of the public school
system.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Ortiz to provide wrap
up on conceptual Amendment 1 to conceptual Amendment 2.
Representative Ortiz explained that he offered the
amendment in good faith in response to comments from
Representative Stapp that he believed the original
amendment was too prescriptive. He noted that
Representative Stapp had cited the specific part of the
[state] constitution. He would also be nervous if the
language was too prescriptive or more prescriptive than the
constitution. He stated that Representative Stapp had
indicated a preference for the language. He stated that
including the language in statute would provide more
guidance and it would remind everyone dealing with the
issue that language needed to comply with the constitution.
He saw no harm in that.
7:56:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Ortiz, Galvin, Hannan, Foster
OPPOSED: Cronk, Stapp, Coulombe, Tomaszewski, Johnson,
Edgmon
The MOTION to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 to conceptual
Amendment 2 FAILED (5/6).
7:58:03 PM
Representative Josephson provided wrap up on conceptual
Amendment 2. He stated that former Senator Dunleavy's bill
passed in 2014 was enrolled as FCCS HB 278 and created AS
14.03.320. He noted that the section did use the words
"private or religious organization." He believed the
language in the amendment was consistent with judge's
decision that was being appealed.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Galvin, Josephson, Hannan, Edgmon
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Stapp, Cronk, Johnson,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt conceptual Amendment 2 FAILED (5/6).
7:59:29 PM
Representative Galvin MOVED conceptual Amendment 3 (copy on
file):
Increase the BSA by $680
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Galvin explained that she had heard a lot of
testimony in the meeting on the importance of stability and
maintaining a good sense of what would happen in the
future. She believed there was nothing more important than
having predictable, adequate, stable funding. She
highlighted that the legislature had increased the BSA
funding by $600 in the base budget. She stated that arts,
PE, and music should be available to homeschool students
and neighborhood school students as well. She understood
that many districts had already cut those items. She
described the amendment as a "lift all votes amendment."
Representative Stapp did not view the amendment to be in
good faith or as germane to the subject. He expressed
irritation it had been offered. He MOVED to TABLE
conceptual Amendment 3.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Edgmon,
Johnson
OPPOSED: Hannan, Ortiz, Galvin, Josephson, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 3 was TABLED.
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT CSHB 400(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Ortiz interjected that he had a conceptual
amendment, but he would not offer it.
8:02:08 PM
AT EASE
8:02:31 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted that Co-Chair Johnson had a
conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 4 to
add an effective date to the bill of July 1, 2024 (on page
2, line 20).
Co-Chair Foster asked for verification the amendment would
set an effective date of July 1, 2024.
Co-Chair Johnson agreed.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the language to allow
Legislative Legal Services to make technical and conforming
changes to the bill could also be included in a motion to
move the bill from committee.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 4 was
ADOPTED.
8:03:54 PM
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT CSHB 400(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED. He relayed that prior to
session he had known little about allotments and
correspondence courses. He now knew more and understood
their value. He stated that currently allotments were
suspended, but they would return. He noted that he had not
done the suspending. He added that he was in the minority
and his power to fix the suspension was restricted. He
stated that the decision had been issued by the superior
court four weeks back and session was five days from the
end. He remarked that the legislature had recently pretty
handily rejected a senior member of the board. It was his
sense that the board would view the issue outside the law.
He believed the board would philosophically follow what the
attorney general told them to follow. He stressed that it
was not likely what the supreme court would order in about
two months. He was concerned that the legislature would ask
the board to write the regulations and the supreme court
would determine it was the wrong direction.
Representative Josephson commended Co-Chair Foster for
being unflappable and fair. He provided comments about the
process. He explained that when he was given an amendment
deadline on one piece of legislation it created hope that
he would be given an amendment deadline on another piece of
legislation because it was the culture. He noted that he
had not been afforded that in the current situation, which
he found to be disappointing.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Edgmon apologized to the committee "for coming in
to this a little bit late." He understood the fundamentals,
the gravity, and the nature of the issue. He referenced
Representative Josephson's point and asked about the
downside of taking a little more time to consider the
issue. He stated that House Finance Committee was the last
committee prior to going to the House floor, which he
referred to as the wild West. He considered whether there
was more contemplation that should take place over what was
in the bill. He understood that Representative Ruffridge
knew the issue well and had spent a lot of time on it. He
thought there was a bit of an asterisk to the issue because
the higher court was poised to take action at some point.
He wondered what would happen if the legislature did not
get it right and something it put into law did not comport
with what the higher court decided. He noted the
legislature did not have any way to change that course in
the next five days. He felt rushed in the current
situation. He remarked that sometimes in the building a
person worked off of intuition and he highlighted that the
legislature currently did not have all of the facts at
hand. He stated that a person could respond that the issue
was cut and dry and "this is what we need to do." He
questioned whether it was cut and dry. He currently thought
he would be a no vote on moving the bill from committee.
Co-Chair Foster called for an at ease. [Note: the meeting
never reconvened.]
8:08:36 PM
AT EASE
ADJOURNMENT
8:12:58 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.