Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/09/1995 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 1995
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Norman Rokeberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 124:"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Nursing Home Administrators; and providing for an
effective date."
HELD AT SPONSOR'S REQUEST UNTIL AN UNSPECIFIED DATE
* HB 92:"An Act extending the termination date of the Citizen's
Review Panel for Permanency Planning; and providing for
an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 94:"An Act relating to the management of public schools by
a private agency."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
MARVEEN COGGINS, Legislative Aide
to Representative Cynthia Toohey
Room 104
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4919
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 92.
CECELIA KLEINKAUF, Attorney
900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 710
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 561-7113
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 92.
CINDY DEVLIN, Administrative Assistant II
Citizens Foster Care Review Panel
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration
900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 710
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-6104
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 92.
CANDICE WHEELER, Social Worker II
Citizens Foster Care Review Panel
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration
900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 710
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-6104
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 92.
PAULINE HASUND, Citizen Volunteer
900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 710
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-6104
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 92.
VERNETA WALLACE, Citizen Volunteer
900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 710
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-6104
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 92.
SHARON BARTON, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Administration
10th Floor
State Office Building
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-5655
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the DOA concerning HB 92.
ROBERLEY WALDRON, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
2200 Belmont Drive
Anchorage, AK 99517
Telephone: (907) 338-4213
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 92.
SHERRIE GOLL, Lobbyist
KIDPAC
P.O. Box 221156
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-6744
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 92.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Room 102
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Read sponsor statement and provided testimony
for HB 94.
WILLIE ANDERSON, NEA Alaska UniServ Director
NEA Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 94.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 124
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 133 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 133 (H) HES
02/09/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 92
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND FOSTER CARE REVIEW PANEL
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/95 69 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/18/95 69 (H) HES, FIN
02/09/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/95 69 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/18/95 70 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
02/09/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-6, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY called the Health, Education and Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. Present at the
call to order were Representatives Toohey, Bunde and Robinson. A
quorum was not present. The meeting was being teleconferenced with
Anchorage.
HHESS - 02/09/95
HB 124 - EXTEND BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that HB 124 was tabled indefinitely and
would not be heard today.
HHESS - 02/09/95
Number 102
HB 92 - EXTEND FOSTER CARE REVIEW PANEL
MARVEEN COGGINS, Legislative Aide to Representative Toohey,
discussed the sponsor statement:
House Bill 92 would extend the termination date of the
Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning to 1997.
This would be in accordance with the recommendation of
the Division of Legislative Audit which completed an
audit in September of 1993.
The enabling legislation had bi-partisan support and
passed both the House and the Senate unanimously in 1990.
It established an external citizen's review process in
order to ensure that children do not languish in out-of-
home placements, but receive the benefits of a permanent
home. The goal of the act was to reunite children with
their families, but in those cases where reunification
was not in the best interest of the child, the process
would more expeditiously place the child in a secure,
permanent home.
It is estimated that about 500,000 children pass through
state foster care in any given month throughout the U.S.
During the 1970s, congress became aware that children
were being removed from their families frequently,
sometimes unnecessarily, to be placed in foster homes or
institutions. Once removed, children were seldom
reunified with their biological family. Children who
could not return to their families lingered in temporary
care, rather than being provided with permanent, adoptive
families. Thousands of children were caught for years in
foster care drift, removed frequently from one foster
family to another. Crowded court calendars and
understaffed child welfare agencies were contributing to
an increase in the number of children and the length of
time spent in substitute care. Among solutions proposed
by child advocacy organizations were the comprehensive
implementation of permanency planning casework and foster
care placement monitoring through regular case reviews.
A resource was identified to help monitor the situation:
citizen volunteers. There are now citizen review panels
in 25 states, including Alaska. In Alaska, the
Department of Administration (DOA) originally made a
decision not to implement the panels. It has only been
since FY94 that DOA is implementing pilot panels in
Anchorage, so there is not yet adequate information to
analyze the panel's effectiveness. External citizens'
reviews have only been on-going as a model project since
mid-December 1993. Although functional for just a short
period of time the panel has submitted two annual reports
to the legislature.
Earlier in 1993, the Division of Legislative Audit did an
audit regarding the upcoming sunset date for the
Citizens' Review Panel. The result of the audit was the
recommendation to extend the sunset date to 1997. This
would allow the Anchorage project sufficient time to
gather data to determine the panel's effectiveness.
Effectiveness can be measured by the length of time
children remain in foster care, and by the savings
associated with children no longer being part of the
foster care system.
According to the reports, public acceptance of the
external review process has been excellent. The office
has received numerous calls from parents requesting their
child be reviewed by the citizens' review panels. Foster
parents have stated they appreciate being a part of the
external review process. The office has been able to
provide assistance to Native village councils regarding
some procedures.
This bill has the support of the Alaska Chapter of the
National Association of Social Workers and the National
Association of Foster Care Reviewers. It has been shown
that not only can children spend less time in out-of-home
placements, but cost-savings can result.
Number 300
MS. COGGINS then introduced members of the audience who were in
support of HB 92. Present were Roberley Waldron, former Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Administration; and Patty Swenson,
Member, Citizens Foster Care Review Panel. On teleconference in
Anchorage were Cecelia Kleinkauf, Cindy Devlin and Candice Wheeler
with the Citizens Foster Care Review Panel.
Number 345
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked who from the DOA currently
manages the program. She stated that originally, the intent was
there was to be an executive director of the program.
MS. COGGINS said since Roberley Waldron is no longer with the DOA,
the person in charge is Sharon Barton, also of the DOA.
Number 388
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY stated for the record that Representative Tom Brice
joined the meeting at 3:08 p.m. A quorum was now present.
Number 426
CECELIA KLEINKAUF, Attorney, with a Master in Social Work (MSW),
testified from the Department of Administration in Anchorage. As
both a social worker and an attorney, she has had the privilege of
working with the DOA, under contract, to help set up and establish
the Foster Care Review Panel in Anchorage.
MS. KLEINKAUF said the need for foster care review and external
foster care review emanates from a federal law passed in 1980,
which was the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act.
That federal law requires that when children go into foster care,
a case plan is developed for them and the child and the plan are
periodically reviewed at six-month intervals.
Number 493
MS. KLEINKAUF said while the Division of Youth and Family Services
(DFYS) takes the child into custody and is given statutory power to
develop the initial case plan, the need for an external review of
child welfare case plans is well documented across the country.
This is both for an objective look at what is happening to a child
in foster care and also to address the need for an outside review
system in order to make sure that individual children don't get
lost in the overburdened system and linger too long in foster care.
MS. KLEINKAUF stated that the whole purpose of an external review
is to provide a citizen or an independent to review children who
are in foster care. This is toward the goal of having them achieve
a permanent home in the most timely manner. The permanent home may
be with their own family, in a long-term guardianship situation or
perhaps in an adoptive home.
Number 567
MS. KLEINKAUF said the review panels consist completely of trained
volunteers, which is how the panels are constructed in all states.
The cases for review come to the Citizen Review Panel, via the
Superior Court, when the child first comes into state care and
temporary custody of the DFYS.
MS. KLEINKAUF explained out of that court referral, panels are
established to look at why the child is now under state care. The
panels look carefully at preventive efforts and the reasonable
efforts made to keep the child out of foster care, and what
reasonable efforts have been made to return the child to its home
or a permanent situation as quickly as possible.
Number 635
MS. KLEINKAUF continued that toward that end, the Review Panel
meets with parents, a DFYS representative and perhaps with the
child, the foster parent, the guardian and all the interested
parties related to the child, to try to look at the overall plan
and see what effort is being made toward establishing a permanent
situation for the child.
The recommendations developed by the panel are available to all the
parties involved with that case.
MS. KLEINKAUF concluded by saying that former Deputy Commissioner
Roberley Waldron could speak on some more specific review instances
as well as the annual report prepared for the legislature.
Number 736
CINDY DEVLIN, Administrative Assistant II, Citizens Foster Care
Review Panel, Office of the Commissioner, DOA, recounted that she
first joined the Review Panel program in October, 1993. This was
when a lot of the program's groundwork had been laid by the
Advisory Committee through working with Ms. Kleinkauf and Deputy
Commissioner Waldron.
MS. DEVLIN said since then, she has been working in the development
and the continued improvement of the program. Most recently, the
program has been working toward combining their efforts with the
DFYS to coordinate their Title IV-E reviews. The DOA program has
a very good working relationship with the DFYS review staff.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE left the meeting to attend another meeting.
Number 790
CANDICE WHEELER, Social Worker II, with a Master in Social Work,
Citizens Foster Care Review Panel, Office of the Commissioner, DOA
said that she had over 25 years of experience with children in out-
of-home placement. Foster care and adoption are her areas of
expertise. She has been working with the Citizens' Review Program
since it began 14 months earlier. It has been an interesting and
sometimes heart-wrenching experience for her. It saddens her to
think that this program may be lost. Her staff is finding that 86
percent of children they review are still in out-of-home care 12 to
18 months later.
MS. WHEELER said the panel is finding that in this program, victims
can be made visible. Social misery can be put on the agenda of
those with power. The question they ask everyday is, "Who is
speaking for the children?" DFYS has mandated to reunite children
and families and that is excellent as far as it goes. However,
some children have been in and out of home care for 12 to 18
months. Many children in the program are babies, or two years old,
or six years old. These children need to have a step made to get
them into permanent placement.
MS. WHEELER continued that a male parent, being interviewed by the
panel, recently admitted he was a "dope fiend" and an alcoholic,
and this man is a "high-powered attorney paid by the State." Who
is advocating for the children? That is the job of the Citizens'
Review Panel. And that is why she would like to see the program
continue.
Number 878
PAULINE HASUND, Citizen Volunteer, Citizens Foster Care Review
Panel, said that she had been a foster parent for nine years. She
is no longer a foster parent, since that is a requirement for
membership on the panel. She wanted to be on the panel because she
wanted to help ease the load on the social workers. She knew that
outside input and help in placing these children in permanent homes
would be welcomed. The social workers have worked with the panel
members very well.
MS. HASUND has given two days each month to the panel as a
volunteer. But she has also given many more days, each month, at
home crying while she reads case records. She wishes she could
take these children home and provide for them herself, but that is
not possible. She urged the HESS Committee members to extend the
funding for the Citizens' Review Panel because it helps everyone
concerned, the court system, social workers and, above all, the
children.
Number 979
VERNETA WALLACE, Citizen Volunteer, Citizens Foster Care Review
Panel, also had previously been a foster parent in the state of
Alaska for 21 years. She has done a lot of volunteer work within
the community as well. Having worked with the DFYS and seeing how
overloaded the social workers are her main concern is for the
children. From her perspective, the panel has been very helpful
and has been making strides. There has also been a lot of growth
within the panel over the years. She strongly urged the HESS
Committee members to continue the funding for the program.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY assured Ms. Wallace that funding is not an issue
for the HESS Committee today. That issue will be addressed by the
Finance Committee, which is the next committee of referral.
Number 1083
SHARON BARTON, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Administration, explained that she has only dealt with the
Citizens' Review Panel since December, when she was placed in her
current position upon the departure of Roberley Waldron. The DOA
has been both pleased and frustrated with the administration of
this program over the last 14 months. The DOA's position on the
bill is neutral. If it is in the interest of the legislature to
continue the program, the DOA would be pleased to administer it.
Number 1120
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Barton if there is an executive
director position for the Citizens' Review Panel, or if Ms. Barton
is simply responsible for the program.
MS. BARTON replied that was one of the frustrating parts about
administering the program, especially during a transition period.
When the funding level was set, a few years ago, at $125,000, the
DOA tried to figure out how they could get the most reviews done
for that amount of money. It was decided that amount did not allow
for an executive director position and Roberley Waldron took on
that position in addition to her position as Deputy Commissioner.
Ms. Waldron provided the program with direction as if she was an
executive director.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the original budget for the
program was $500,000, what happened to all the money that was
there, and why wasn't it used to create an executive director
position.
Number 1210
ROBERLEY WALDRON, former Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration, said that former Commissioner Mala of the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and former
Commissioner Keller of the DOA met and came to an agreement.
Commissioner Mala said that if there was a problem in the issue of
foster care and permanency placement which needed to be addressed,
he wanted the opportunity to try and work within the DHSS.
Therefore, they agreed the Citizens' Review Panel Program would not
be implemented.
MS. WALDRON said at that time, there was an administrative
assistant hired. So money had also been spent for supplies and
some office space. This amounted to about $47,000 in Ms. Waldron's
estimation. That money lapsed back into the general fund because
the DOA found other work for the administrative assistant. The
legislature reappropriated the unspent funds, and those funds were
vetoed by former Governor Hickel on the recommendation of the
Commissioners of DHSS and DOA. This recommendation was given,
again, on the reasoning that the DHSS would like to fix any
perceived problem internally.
Number 1286
MS. WALDRON continued that the DOA began to get calls from
legislators which asked why the program was not being implemented.
The legislators reminded the DOA and the DHSS that the program was
legislation and threatened to sue the departments. One person with
a great interest in the implementation of the program was former
Representative and Senator Virginia Collins. Another interested
person was former Representative Fran Ulmer, now Lt. Governor of
the state of Alaska.
MS. Waldron said two years passed with no funding. The following
year the program received $125,000, and this year the program has
$104,500. The executive director could not be hired with that
amount of money, so when the DOA began to implement the program,
Ms. Waldron's idea was to use the members of the administration who
should have been in the statewide panel as an advisory panel. She
decided she would act as the executive director since she would
have the agency in her office so the most reviews could be
accomplished for the amount of money allotted. That is what
happened.
MS. WALDRON said that however, she was fortunate to have a very
capable social worker, Candice Wheeler. Ms. Wheeler began to run
the program and the advisory board was there to have staff
meetings, conduct reviews and deal with problems. Ms. Wheeler has
been a major driving force in getting the foster care review panels
working.
Number 1371
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that she was simply curious about
the funding, and saddened by the fact that former Senator Collins
worked hard at getting the program through and receiving funding,
and the program and funding were subsequently lost. Representative
Robinson said it will be very difficult to get the needed funding
back to effectively serve the children.
Number 1404
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was anything left of the $125,000
provided for the last fiscal year.
MS. WALDRON said "no." The program was implemented that year.
Currently, they have $104,500, which means they will have to stop
doing reviews immediately unless other funding is provided.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Ms. Waldron if it could be requested that the
program be continued without funding.
MS. WALDRON stated that would be impossible. Even though there are
about 19 wonderful citizen volunteers who give up to two days each
month to the program, the volunteers do not have the legal access
into the files where DOA workers go and extract the information
they use. The program does require staffing. It also requires a
trained expert to lead the citizen panel and to write the
recommendations.
Number 1473
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Ms. Waldron about the minimum amount of
funding on which the Panel could function.
MS. WALDRON answered that if the program was continued as is, with
two social workers working as review panelists, it would take about
$170,000. It would be better if one more social worker could be
added. They could do many more reviews with one more social
worker. Ms. Waldron encouraged the HESS Committee members to pass
HB 92 and not to substitute the Citizens' Review Panel with some
other plan. The current plan is the one which needs to go forward.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY assured Ms. Waldron that her intention was to
continue with the current program.
Number 1528
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked Ms. Waldron what kinds of costs will
be incurred if children in foster care are bounced from home to
home in the absence of some organization that develops permanency
plans. It is the understanding of Representative Brice that the
most expensive part of foster care is within the first month when
setup costs, moving costs and administrative costs are incurred.
Those costs tend to drop considering the length of time the child
stays in a home.
MS. WALDRON replied that foster parents are paid a monthly amount
for the care of foster children. The costs really do not diminish
over time.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE thought that when a child is moved, there is
some up front money to help defray costs. Ms. Waldron answered
that she did not have the knowledge to respond to that question
effectively because that money comes from the DFYS and not the DOA.
Number 1560
MS. WALDRON continued that children are moved regularly for
different reasons. They recently reviewed a two-year-old who has
been in 14 different foster homes. Representative Brice said that
was ridiculous. He believed there are financial savings depending
on how long a child is kept in one place.
MS. WALDRON said the real financial savings are seen when the child
is placed permanently, and Representative Brice strongly agreed.
He said that the Citizens' Review Panel helps to establish those
permanent homes. In addition, the costs of moving children from
place to place does not take into account the toll this takes on
the children. This cost is of greater importance than can be
counted in dollars.
Number 1630
SHERRIE GOLL, Lobbyist, Alaska Women's Lobby, represented KIDPAC,
a children's advocacy organization. She testified in support of HB
92. She said that permanency planning is very important for the
HESS Committee members to understand. The social workers at DFYS
do a very good job. The division is very under funded and the case
loads are very high. The children who are in state custody and the
Alaskan children in need of aid can use every bit of help they can
get.
MS. GOLL said the Foster Care Review Panel is a wonderful program
and it would have been great if it had received adequate funding.
Ms. Goll remembers when former Senator Collins, who was, at that
time, a representative, developed the program. The program was
going to cost $500,000, which was very minimal because the program
was supposed to be statewide.
MS. GOLL continued that currently, there is one pilot project in
Anchorage, where the heaviest case load is. It is very important
that the program be continued. She referred HESS Committee members
back to last year's annual report to show how much citizens can
accomplish by placing a little bit more light on the cases of kids
who are in foster care. This can result in the permanent placement
of a child. When case loads are high, such alternatives can often
slip by.
Number 1705
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY called a brief at-ease at 3:32 p.m. until another
HESS Committee member arrived to make a quorum.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY called the meeting back to order at 3:35 p.m. She
announced that Representative Gary Davis had joined the meeting and
a quorum was again present.
Number 1714
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Barton about the current budget.
MS. BARTON said that the $104,500 allotted for this year's budget
allows them to continue the program and keep the staff until March
15. At that time, the staff will be laid off. Ms. Barton said
that supplemental funding will be necessary to carry the program
through the rest of the fiscal year.
MS. BARTON stated that the $170,000, asked for next year, allows
for a three person staff. The DOA has also disbanded the deputy
commissioner's office, in Anchorage, which had shared lease costs
with the program. Therefore, the Review Panel would have to be
funded for its continuing lease costs. The additional money in the
budget is one time money used for computers and furniture.
MS. BARTON said currently, the furniture being used for the program
offices is on loan from Roberley Waldron. The computers currently
being used are very out of date.
Number 1788
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the extra money needed was in the
emergency supplemental. Ms. Barton answered it was not in any
supplemental fund request, emergency or otherwise.
Number 1811
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved that HB 92 be passed from the HESS
Committee with individual recommendations, and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it was appropriate for the HESS
Committee to also move a note or personally speak with whomever is
in charge of the supplemental budget to ask about the possibility
of supplemental funding for the program.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said two different issues were being
discussed, although they are related. It would be appropriate for
the HESS Committee to write a letter if that was the will of the
committee. Individual legislators can also write a letter
requesting that additional funding be considered for the program.
Whether or not it is appropriate that the request is part of HB 92,
Representative Brice was not sure, but he didn't think so.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY agreed that she didn't think it was appropriate.
She stated that the outcome was uncertain because of the financing.
Co-Chair Toohey suggested that the Finance Committee was certainly
aware that HB 92 and the funding needed was coming to them, and it
will be up to the Finance Committee members to make the decision.
The Citizens' Review Panel received a lot of support last session
and there is obviously a lot of support this session.
Number 1892
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested that Co-Chair Toohey write a
letter to make sure that this receives a high priority from the
Finance Committee. Representative Robinson was doubtful that
everyone in that committee is watching for the program and that
they really care that the program continues. To Representative
Robinson, it would be a shame to lose the program and then have to
begin it again. She thought the HESS Committee is the only
committee before Finance and it is important that the HESS
Committee members let the Finance Committee know of this program's
importance and the importance of funding.
Number 1917
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the motion to pass HB 92 out of
committee had passed without objection. Hearing no objections, the
bill was passed out of the HESS Committee, to the Finance
Committee. with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes by Co-Chair Toohey.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS left the committee meeting at 3:40 p.m.
Number 1935
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY called the meeting back to order at 3:45 p.m. A
quorum was not present to conduct business, therefore, only
testimony would be taken.
HHESS - 02/09/95
HB 94 - PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES read her sponsor statement into the
record:
Parents, teachers, political leaders, and students are
all asking for improvements and changes in our
educational system. No governmental attempts at
reforming education seem to have slowed the growth of
problems in our schools, much less created solutions.
This bill would allow Alaska's regional school boards a
new option: that of contracting with private agencies
for the management of our schools.
Articles from New York and Connecticut point to the
differences private management can make in public
schools, despite initial opposition to the concept. HB
94 would in no way require school boards to employ or
even investigate this option. But with revenues
declining and an enormous part of Alaska's budget going
toward education, it is time we opened the door to all
possibilities for spending this money more wisely and
efficiently.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that in the bill packets, HESS Committee
members would find letters from people who are in opposition to the
bill.
Number 2008
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that one of the most difficult challenges
political and nonpolitical arenas face is to look at absolutely
every opportunity possible to make things better and less
expensive. Representative James doesn't have any answers for
problems.
She spoke to a number of schoolteachers from all walks of life,
young and old. She found they are very frustrated with the way the
education system is run. They are classroom teachers and probably
know best how to deal with students they have in their classes.
Yet by rules and regulations applied to them, and administrative
decisions and policies, they are not able to do what they know
would work best.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that if the opportunity was there for
private contracting of some of the smaller Alaskan school
districts, some teachers could actually teach the way they know is
best. The teachers could form their own private organizations and
they could implement the systems that would work best.
Number 2055
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES has no intention of selling or supporting a
private agency. She only believes that every opportunity should be
available to get Alaskan children a good education through the most
inexpensive methods possible so Alaska can maximize the use of its
funds and maximize the ability to educate Alaska in a better way.
Representative James thinks to not pass the bill is to get rid of
an option. The decision to utilize this option would be the
decision of the local school board. The private agency would be
represented by those who had put together an educational plan and
organization.
Number 2093
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said Page 1, line 13 of HB 94, reads: (A regional
school board may) appoint, compensate, and otherwise control all
school employees in accordance with this title; these employees are
not subject to AS 39.25 (State Personnel Act).
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY wanted to know if these employees would be subject
to union regulations and if they would have to be part of a union
if they chose not to be.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES did not believe that is the case. A legal
opinion may be necessary, but it is not the bill's intent to
require that the employees of a private agency who contracted with
the school board be part of a union.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if teachers would have to be part of a union.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that would be a decision of the
teachers. She continued that if a private organization was
implemented, they would not necessarily fall under the same
auspices of a public or pseudo-public organization which is ruled
by state regulations. The teachers employed by a private agency
would be able to decide if they wanted to be in a union or not.
That would not be a decision that the state could enforce upon a
private agency.
Number 2148
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the curriculum would be controlled.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that the curriculum would be part of
the contract. She visualizes people wishing to operate a school
system presenting a curriculum, a cost and a program for operating
the system to the school board. Representative James felt the
curriculum would be a very important part of that presentation.
Presumably, the curriculum would be the selling point.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked the difference between contracting to a
private agency and a private school with public funding.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that private schools don't get funding
from the public. Private schools and their students pay their own
way. HB 94 allows for public funds paying for a private agency
that contracts with a public entity. Generally, private schools
are not provided with public funds. A school district run by a
private agency would be a private school authorized to be given
money from public funds.
Number 2194
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was something in the laws or the
Alaska Constitution that said public funds could not be used
without some sort of oversight. She also asked if it was possible
to have such an oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that she was not aware of any such
laws. In drafting HB 94, such laws were not brought to her
attention if they exist. She would think that the legal drafters
would bring such a problem to her attention. The only delineation
that exists is that public funds cannot be used for private
religious education.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there are times when Alaska does contract
for education, with private entities, in specific areas such as
special education and speech therapy. Currently, there are
contracts with specialized agencies to serve that part of the
curriculum.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained HB 94 would allow the whole
management or sections of management to be contracted out. It may
be that a private industry wants only to take over special
education. If they offer an ability to do that, they may offer
teachers an early-out retirement program. Many teachers have
expressed to Representative James that such a program is necessary
to get new blood into the school systems. This would be optimal to
replace the "burned out" teachers.
Number 2266
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued that one of the reasons she thinks
teachers get burned out is because they are working an uphill
battle with the rules and regulations and what they can and cannot
do. They do not get to implement what they know these students
need. Representative James thinks that teachers are just as
frustrated as the public is about how the schools are operated.
The teachers cannot do some of the things that would give children
a better education. If the opportunity existed for the teachers to
put together a private organization and contract with the school
districts, Alaska may be able to get some otherwise tired-out
teachers doing things they like to do and do very well. We would
all be winners if we made those opportunities available.
Number 2299
WILLIE ANDERSON, National Education Association (NEA) Alaska
UniServ Director, testified against HB 94. He said that HB 94, as
he reads it, would allow for private operation of a public school.
It does not achieve the objectives that Representative James
articulated. In his understanding, this bill would allow for the
same kind of situation going on currently in Baltimore, Maryland
and Hartford, Connecticut. A private agency will come in, for
profit, and run the operation while being subject to the rules and
regulations of the state.
MR. ANDERSON continued that he did not see where the savings would
be to the public if a public school was run for profit.
TAPE 95-6, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. ANDERSON continued that all the rules that are applicable to
other public schools are applicable to the schools run by private
agencies. If it is the intent of HB 94 to create a private school
voucher system, in which parents apply to the state to receive
money to send their children to private schools, Mr. Anderson does
not think that is congruent with the Alaska State Constitution.
The constitution essentially says that public funds cannot be used
to send children to private schools. In addition, the bill does
not create that type of system.
Number 069
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that her intent is not to second
guess or violate any state decisions made concerning educational
principles. Her intent is also not to create voucher schools. Her
intent is not to have families searching out better schools in
which to place their children. Her intent is to give teachers and
other qualified individuals the ability and opportunity to put
forth an agenda, the curriculum and management in one package.
This package would be their own administration.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that one of the problems in the existing
school system is that the Administration is overwhelmed with all
the rules and regulations they must follow. She is not saying the
private agency would not have to follow the same rules, but they
also would not have the other level of Administration, forms and
reports to deal with. Basically, it would allow the teachers in
the private agency to implement agendas that otherwise could not be
implemented.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said there being no further testimony, the bill
would be held.
Number 181
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY adjourned the meeting at 4 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|