Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/27/1995 02:05 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
April 27, 1995
2:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION on the need for education and training in the field of
Alaska Tourism: Dr. Jay Kandampully, University of
Alaska Fairbanks.
* HB 281: "An Act ratifying an agreement between the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation and the commissioner of
revenue and making certain pledges to obligees of the
corporation regarding that agreement; relating to the
authorization for and the issuance of bonds by the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to pay for the
costs of repair and rehabilitation of student housing
facilities of the University of Alaska; and providing
for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 282: "An Act relating to the authorization for and the
issuance of revenue bonds by the University of Alaska
to pay for the costs of repair and rehabilitation of
buildings and other structures, excluding student
housing and dormitories, of the University of Alaska;
expanding the uses of the Alaska debt retirement fund
to allow financing of the repair and rehabilitation of
University of Alaska facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 242: "An Act relating to the establishment, modification
and enforcement of support orders and the
determination of parentage in situations involving
more than one state; amending Alaska Rule of
Administration 9; amending Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure 79 and 82; and providing for an effective
date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 244: "An Act relating to administrative establishment of
paternity and establishing paternity by affidavit;
relating to child support enforcement; and providing
for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 205: "An Act relating to a claim based on criminal street
gang activity; relating to offenses related to
criminal street gang activities; relating to the crime
of recruitment for, sentencing for, and forfeiture of
property relating to criminal street gang activities;
restricting criminal street gang offenders from
obtaining a permit to carry a concealed handgun;
amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 280: "An Act establishing the Alaska Human Resource
Investment Council and transferring certain functions
of other entities to the council; establishing a
planning mechanism for employment training and other
human resource investment needs; and providing for an
effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS: Board of Dental Examiners.
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. JAY KANDAMPULLY, Professor
School of Management
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-5527
POSITION STATEMENT: Made a presentation on the need for education
and training the field of Alaska tourism.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
Statewide University System
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 155000
Fairbanks, AK 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-7311
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281 and HB 282.
BILL HOWE, Deputy Commissioner of Revenue
Treasury Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110405
Juneau, AK 99811-0405
Telephone: (907) 465-4880
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281 and HB 282.
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th, Suite 312
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-6801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 242 and HB 244.
ART PETERSON, Attorney
Dillon and Finley Law Firm
350 N. Franklin St.
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 242.
STUART HALL, Ombudsman
State of Alaska
P.O. Box 113000
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4970
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 242.
SHANNON O'FALLON, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 242.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Court Building, Room 717
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 205.
CAPTAIN BRUCE RICHTER
Anchorage Police Department
4501 S. Bragaw
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 786-8500
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 205.
BOB RUBADEAU, Special Assistant to the Lieutenant Governor
Lieutenant Governor's Office
State Capitol, 3rd Floor
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3520
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 280.
SARAH SCANLON, Vice President
Northwest Alaska Native Association
Former Chair, Alaska Job Training Council
1001 E. Benson Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: (907) 265-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 280.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 281
SHORT TITLE: AHFC TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND; BONDS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/95 901 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/24/95 901 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/24/95 901 (H) FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/24/95 901 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV, UA)
03/24/95 901 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/27/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 282
SHORT TITLE: FINANCING REPAIR/REHAB OF U AK BLDGS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/95 904 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/24/95 904 (H) HES, FIN
03/24/95 904 (H) 4 ZERO FNS (2-ADM, REV, UA)
03/24/95 904 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/27/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 242
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 642 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 642 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/08/95 642 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, REV)
03/08/95 642 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DCRA)
03/08/95 643 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/25/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/26/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/27/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 244
SHORT TITLE: PATERNITY; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 645 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 645 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/08/95 645 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, REV)
03/08/95 645 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, LAW)
03/08/95 645 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/25/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/27/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 205
SHORT TITLE: STREET GANG ACTIVITY
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/95 497 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 497 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/27/95 497 (H) 7 ZERO FNS (2-ADM,3-DHSS,CORR,LAW)
02/27/95 497 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS)
02/27/95 498 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/25/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/27/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 280
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RESOURCE INVESTMENT COUNCIL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/95 896 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/24/95 896 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/24/95 896 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
03/24/95 896 (H) 4 ZERO FNS (DCED,DCRA,DOE,DHSS)
03/24/95 897 (H) 2 ZERO FNS (LABOR, UA)
03/24/95 897 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/24/95 899 (H) SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
04/20/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/20/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/22/95 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/25/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/27/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-43, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 2:05
p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Robinson, Brice and Davis. A quorum was present to conduct
business. Co-Chair Bunde read the calendar and announced the order
of the bills.
Number 061
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY introduced her "surrogate" daughter for
"Take your daughter to work day," Julia Johnson. She is a sixth-
grade Girl Scout from Juneau. Co-Chair Toohey thanked her for
being present.
Number 123
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON introduced the "daughters" of
Representative Bettye Davis, who were also present at the meeting.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the arrival of Representative Rokeberg at
2:07 p.m.
Number 217
PRESENTATION ON THE NEED FOR TRAINING AND EDUCATION IN THE FIELD OF
ALASKA TOURISM.
DR. JAY KANDAMPULLY, Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
spoke about vocational needs in the field of tourism. University
research has shown that training needs are vocationally biased, and
basic skill needs in the Alaska tourism industry is needed. There
is a need to provide employers with human resources. Because the
state has a lack of skilled people who can fill basic positions
such as waiters, bus conductors, or tour guides, employers go
outside Alaska and recruit people from the Lower 48.
DR. KANDAMPULLY said education is needed that is vocationally
biased toward technical and skill-based jobs, and does not
emphasize book-learning. Real-life and technical experience is
necessary to be a part of the tourism industry. When a student
graduates or ends school, he or she should ideally have experience
in the industry already.
DR. KANDAMPULLY noted that oftentimes, a person will be asked, "You
have a degree in tourism and management. Do you have any
experience?" and the answer is no. In a skills-based education,
that will not be the case.
Number 330
DR. KANDAMPULLY said one program he has begun in Fairbanks is the
training of high school juniors and seniors in technical skills by
which they will be able to go straight from high school into a
service-based job. That program has internships and technical
skills training for summer job placement.
DR. KANDAMPULLY has also designed a program that goes beyond the
school-to-work program. The school-to-work program typically is a
good approach when giving students an opportunity to work.
However, those students should be given more. They need the
opportunity to come out of the industry and, if they want to study
further, to make use of an available individual development
process.
DR. KANDAMPULLY felt it is important to build a bridge in between
high school and college; college and post-graduate learning
institutions; and in between high school, college, graduate school
and the industry. A student graduating from high school with
technical, skills-based knowledge may enter the industry. If the
student then desires, he or she can go to college or stay in the
industry two or three years until he/she is ready for college.
DR. KANDAMPULLY said sometimes, students do poorly in high school.
They may quit high school and go straight into a service industry,
staying there for a few years. Then the student realizes that he
or she needs more education in order to advance a career. He or
she cannot attend college because of a lack of a high school
diploma. Dr. Kandampully said a program of the sort he has started
allows the person to gain credit for the time of experience she/he
already has in the industry, and gain much needed training for
advancement.
Number 476
DR. KANDAMPULLY added that the ability to transfer credit from his
program to the institute of higher education is necessary. The
school program which Dr. Kandampully is running provides six
college credits for children who are enrolled. Therefore, before
even entering college, they have six college credits. That
encourages them to continue to the university and study further in
this field.
DR. KANDAMPULLY said his program does not focus solely on tourism.
The program applies to any field of technical knowledge. Teaching
should be divided in the following way: Thirty percent should be
applied theory, not pure theory; 30 percent of instruction should
include technical skills, which is very important so the student
learns what to do in the industry; and 40 percent of the
instruction should be taught within the industry so there is no
conflict between what is taught and what actually happens within
the industry. When the student comes out of instruction, the
student has been trained in the skills needed in the industry right
now--instead of having read a textbook that could have been written
ten years ago.
DR. KANDAMPULLY felt a provision of that sort will allow the
industry to take part in educating students. This type of teaching
breakdown would be useful for those under full-time instruction, as
well as those who are currently working within the industry and
would like to learn more.
Number 613
DR. KANDAMPULLY said the more the employees know what needs to be
done in the industry, the more the customer will benefit. This is
true for any industry, including tourism, construction,
engineering, etc. The customer will know that when patronizing a
particular organization, he/she will get the best service possible.
DR. KANDAMPULLY noted that many of those employed in the service
industry come from remote Alaskan villages, where the individual
does not perhaps understand what is needed in the industry in the
cities and towns. If education can be merged with industry
placement, students coming from small towns will be able to work
where they are needed, either in their own towns or around Alaska.
DR. KANDAMPULLY said the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council
bill will help his programs. Such a council advocates a vocational
education.
Number 714
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that Dr. Kandampully would be provided with a
copy of HB 280, Human Resource Investment Council. She said he may
find it interesting and perhaps helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the university has given Dr.
Kandampully any help on his projects.
DR. KANDAMPULLY said yes. On the previous day, he spoke at a
Alaska Visitor's Association meeting. The industry is completely
in support of his approach. The industry told Mr. Kandampully it
has been crying out for programs of this sort for a long time. In
addition, nine different school districts wanted to adopt the same
program to develop training and tourism vocational education within
the school districts. Now the question is one of connection
between the industry and the school districts.
DR. KANDAMPULLY noted, however, that there was a problem. If, for
example, a student was to drop out after two years of college, the
student drops out with nothing. The only thing that student has is
a high school diploma. Dr. Kandampully's program will allow that
student to get a certificate in the first year of study. The
second year will provide a diploma. Therefore, even if the student
dropped out of Dr. Kandampully's program in the second year, he/she
would already have a certificate and a diploma. At every stage,
there is a gain. There is never any loss.
Number 849
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Kandampully to list some of the technical
skills that the tourism industry seeks in their employees.
DR. KANDAMPULLY answered that technical skills are necessary.
Technical skills can be as simple as interaction skills. Those
can be very technical whether the job is driving a tour bus or
answering phones. Doing anything professionally is technical.
When a person calls a hotel, their first and only interaction with
the hotel is with the person who answers the phone. The way the
receptionist reacts to and speaks with the caller is crucial to
whether or not the caller decides to stay at that hotel. The
receptionist may be the least paid, and least experienced person in
that entire hotel, but the receptionist would dictate whether the
caller would come to the hotel or go to a competitor's.
Number 923
DR. KANDAMPULLY noted that therefore, technically the receptionist
must be skilled to attract customers.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE and HESS Committee members thanked Dr. Kandampully
for his informative presentation.
HB 281 - AHFC TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND; BONDS
HB 282 - FINANCING REPAIR/REHAB OF UA BUILDINGS
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that since many of the bills being heard
today were being heard for the first time, if it appears to be in
the best interest of the committee, the bills will be held until a
HESS Committee meeting on Tuesday, May 2, 1995.
Number 1024
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University System,
University of Alaska, said HB 281 and HB 282 are bills introduced
by the Governor to begin to try and deal with the University of
Alaska's deferred maintenance problem. HESS Committee members are
well aware of the problem the university is facing in this area.
Deferred maintenance is a problem that faces the entire state of
Alaska. However, the university just happens to be the "biggest
player."
MS. REDMAN said about 50 percent of all state facilities are
University of Alaska facilities. Over 80 percent of all the state
facilities over 40 years old belong to the university. The
university is therefore a very large part of the state's problem.
The university currently has a backlog of deferred maintenance
close to $157 million.
MS. REDMAN asked to clarify a misperception that somehow this
deferred maintenance problem has been created through gross
mismanagement on the part of the university. Although there may
have been mismanagement at the university over the last few decades
in one area or another, this problem was clearly not created
through taking money from maintenance and moving it to other
problems.
Number 1100
MS. REDMAN stated that in 1986, the university had a 20 percent
reduction, a mid-year "recision" of 12 percent in August of that
year, and the university took $1 million from maintenance at the
Fairbanks campus to keep the semester going. That $1 million was
then replaced the next year.
MS. REDMAN said since that time the Board of Regents have mandated
a program. The university has about a $12 million in underfunding
for the operating maintenance budgets throughout the system.
Because there has never been a formula created over the years, the
board mandated all of those funds be reallocated from existing
resources to bring the maintenance budgets back up over the next
three years.
MS. REDMAN said the university knows it cannot depend on new state
money to do that, it must be done internally. The Board of Regents
is absolutely committed to getting the deferred maintenance backlog
fixed, and assuring the university will never get into that
situation again. If that means, which it does, that the university
is going to have to reallocate money by shrinking programs and
campuses, then that is what it will do. That is what the
university is doing over the course of the next three years to
bring the budgets back up to par.
Number 1174
MS. REDMAN stated the problem has been complicated for the
legislature as well. Ms. Redman said this is her 18th session of
working with the legislature. She noted that it is "not much fun"
to appropriate money to buy paint and fix things. It is much more
fun to build new buildings. Even though the university has not
been building many new buildings over the last decade, it has been
almost impossible to get money to fix old buildings.
MS. REDMAN continued that the Governor has come up with a plan to
begin addressing these problems. The plan relies on the use of the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). HB 281 appropriates $30
million to deal with the student housing deferred maintenance. The
university has approximately $30 million worth of problems in
university housing at the present time. It is within the purview
of the AHFC to deal with the housing issue, and HB 281 would
authorize the issuance of bonds to begin the repair and
rehabilitation of those facilities.
MS. REDMAN noted that everyone would prefer cash. However, it does
not appear that cash is available this year or in the future. This
bill therefore provides the university with an option that is
probably the best one at this point to solve the problem.
Number 1247
MS. REDMAN said the second bill, HB 282, goes together with HB 281.
HB 282 has a delayed effective date because Governor Knowles is
still trying to figure out how to get cash in the future. HB 282
says that if neither the Governor nor the legislature can come up
with at least $20 million for the university for next year, the
university would then authorize the AHFC, with a delayed effective
date, to again let $45 million worth of deferred maintenance bonds
with an effective date of July 1, 1996.
MS. REDMAN said the Governor feels that would give him time. He is
planning to work during the interim with a group of people to try
and figure out a long-term plan for the deferred maintenance with
a cash approach. That is always the university's first priority.
In case that does not happen, the university needs to have a plan
so it can begin laying out a bid plan to get these projects under
way. The university is facing some crucial health and safety
issues at this point.
MS. REDMAN warned that soon, some buildings will have to be closed
down, particularly on the Fairbanks campus. That is the oldest
campus. However, the Anchorage campus also has a total of $35
million worth of deferred maintenance accrued on that campus alone.
As HESS Committee members know from their own homes, when a problem
is not taken care of, it accelerates very quickly. Therefore,
within a couple of years, the newer Anchorage campus will be in as
bad shape as the Fairbanks campus.
MS. REDMAN concluded by saying that it is essential that these
problems be addressed. These bills are the best way to approach
those problems at this point in time, and the university asked the
support of the HESS Committee members.
Number 1340
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stipulated that although there may not have been
gross mismanagement at the university, there may have been
mismanagement.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG took exception, he felt that the
mismanagement was gross mismanagement. He asked to summarize the
two bills. He understood that HB 281 is a request for $30 million
and the authority to use the AHFC for maintenance of existing
residential housing. He asked if this has anything to do with the
new housing for Anchorage, Ketchikan and Juneau campuses as
provided for in HB 309 and HCR 18; he also asked how much money the
university asked for in that legislation.
MS. REDMAN answered that Representative Rokeberg was correct, the
two are separate issues. HB 309 and HCR 18 would provide the
university with about $30 million for new housing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that $30 million was also from
AHFC, and Ms. Redman answered "yes."
Number 1444
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that HB 281 asks for $30 million, and
HB 282 asks for $45 million. Therefore, Ms. Redman was asking for
$75 million. Representative Rokeberg realized there was a
"tripwire" in HB 282, which made it contingent upon whether the
Governor could come up with $20 million. He asked if the
university knew what the money would be spent on.
MS. REDMAN said the university has a detailed list of deferred
maintenance needs. The "tripwire" is that if next year the
Governor comes up with $20 million in cash, HB 282 would not go
into effect. The bill has a delayed effective date of one year
from the coming July.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for testimony from the AHFC. He asked
about the budget for the university over the last ten years, such
as in 1986, the year of the real estate and oil crash in Alaska.
He also asked what percentage of the university budget has been
allocated to repair and conduct operational maintenance. He
specified he was referring to the maintenance portion of the
physical plant.
MS. REDMAN said she did not have that information handy, although
she could get that information for Representative Rokeberg and
would do so presently. She said it is based on a formula approach,
which is a nationally recognized formula for what is done for
maintenance.
Number 1476
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the university has been spending
according to that formula over the last ten years.
MS. REDMAN answered that the university has not been spending that
amount over the last decade. The university is bringing its budget
up to that level. The general fund of the university for the
current year, 1996, is exactly the same as it was in 1986.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the problem with spending money on
maintenance is that the legislature has not given the university
enough money.
MS. REDMAN answered that was part of the problem. The university
certainly could have made choices during the last decade as
enrollment has gone up about 35 percent. The university could have
made choices to not serve students, but that choice was not made.
That perhaps is where the "mismanagement" of funds that Co-Chair
Bunde spoke of occurred. The university has been trying to respond
to enormous growth and need with a budget that has not kept up with
that need.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt it was unfortunate that the university
built new structures while not looking after the existing physical
plant as well as it could have. Representative Rokeberg understood
that there were needs for new buildings. But it is unfortunate
because state buildings other than those of the university have not
been properly maintained. That is a serious situation.
Number 1557
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it was not also true that many new
facilities have been built to bring the university into compliance
so other federal dollars could be gained.
MS. REDMAN said in fact, the university has only built two new
facilities in the recent past. Fairbanks has a new natural
sciences facility, which is the first new facility on that campus
in 20 years. The Anchorage campus has a new business building,
built about four years ago, which is their first new building in
about 12 years. The university has not been building new
buildings. Ms. Redman noted that the library on the Juneau campus
was the last facility built.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the buildings have received blame for being
where all the money went, however, money has been spent on programs
on which reasonable people can disagree as to whether the money was
well spent.
Number 1603
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS assumed the university has a list of what
needs to be done first, second, etc.
MS. REDMAN said the university has a detailed list on file with the
Office of Management and Budget. Ms. Redman offered to provide it
to HESS Committee members.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY agreed that the university has probably taken in
more students than it has room for. She asked if the university
was going to begin levelling off enrollment and accept the fact
that it can no longer keep expanding enrollment. She asked if the
university was ever going to catch up to its enrollment.
MS. REDMAN said that the university has hit that point,
particularly in Anchorage. The Anchorage campus has simply topped
out, and it topped out in the fall semester of 1994. Without
additional operating funds for faculty, the university simply
cannot take anymore students. Four hundred classes close out at
the Anchorage campus each semester within the first day of
registration. The university is overbooked.
MS. REDMAN said that is a sad situation to be in, and the
university must tell Alaskan residents, "Sorry, there just is no
room for you."
Number 1669
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY did not feel that was a sad situation. Every
university has a capacity, and the university has been ignoring
that capacity. The buildings are going to crumble and the
university is going to close. Then the university will be spread
out with little campuses here and there. The university must cut
back, and begin looking at using grade schools and facilities that
are already built.
MS. REDMAN said the Anchorage campus uses every available classroom
in the city of Anchorage. Every night, except Friday night, the
university is using over 150 classrooms in schools. The university
uses many classrooms. All of the community colleges use community
facilities.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the one step that has not been made is weekend
classes. There are some weekend classes, but not many. A choice
has to be made between no classes and weekend classes.
MS. REDMAN said Co-Chair Bunde will be pleased to hear that the
Anchorage campus is now moving to a Monday-Wednesday-Friday
sequence. Chancellor Gorsuch is also investigating the Tuesday-
Thursday-Saturday model. For some programs, that will work.
However, some students just simply do not show up.
MS. REDMAN also noted that the Anchorage campus is the only one
that has not scheduled Friday classes.
Number 1772
BILL HOWE, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury Division, Department of
Revenue, noted that HB 281 references a plan to be worked out by
the commissioner of revenue and the AHFC for an orderly transfer of
excess capital at the AHFC to the general fund. This morning, the
AHFC board met and adopted the plan that Mr. Howe distributed to
HESS Committee members.
MR. HOWE discussed the plan in an attempt to tie it to HB 281. He
said page 2, lines 9 through 13 of HB 281 references the transfer
agreement, which is now before the HESS Committee members. The
agreement is supported by a financial schedule, in which Mr. Howe
highlighted some key numbers that will put his remarks in context.
The number he highlighted in the upper left-hand column shows that
at the end of the 1995 fiscal year (FY 95), AHFC will have about
$615 million in unrestricted cash on its books.
MR. HOWE said the Governor's plan that has been adopted by the AHFC
board is to transfer $270 million over the next five fiscal years
to the general fund. Beginning in FY 96, $70 million will be
transferred, with $50 million being transferred in each of the
following four years. In addition to that, the AHFC will maintain
its capital projects and grants at the $50 million level through
this whole period of time.
MR. HOWE added that of course, the capital budget is submitted to
the legislature for review. There is no assumption that all $50
million will be granted. There may be some play between the
unfunded in the capital grant line and what would be transferred to
the general fund.
MR. HOWE explained that HB 281 says that the AHFC has $1 million a
year available for spending. The recommendation from the AHFC
board which the HESS Committee members were just given states that
after this year, $50 million of that will be transferred every year
to the general fund. The balance will be used to fund housing-
related capital projects such as new public housing.
MR. HOWE said those capital projects will be submitted to the
legislature for review. Most importantly, this schedule was
reviewed by the bond rating agencies in New York. Those agencies
have issued a press release saying if this bill and this program is
adopted, even though it means taking (in one form or another) $100
million out of AHFC every year, the credit rating agencies will
take the AHFC off its current credit watch status and will re-
establish it with an "A plus" bond rating.
MR. HOWE mentioned that because there are competing proposals.
Some are from the university and some are from other places on how
to use the AHFC cash. When SB 40 was introduced, it called for a
withdrawal of $350 million in cash over the next two years, and no
commitments whatsoever as to how much would be taken out in future
years. The immediate result of that was the bond rating agencies
put the AHFC on the credit watch list with a negative rating.
MR. HOWE said if the legislature continues with proposals like SB
40, the AHFC bonds will be junk bonds. They will not be worth the
rating. This is why it is so significant that the current plan was
approved by the rating agencies.
Number 1993
MR. HOWE was asked while giving testimony previously if this $100
million a year is some kind of magic number. He was also asked if
more could be retrieved from the AHFC and still maintain the
current rating. In the judgement of Mr. Howe, the reason the
rating agencies agree to HB 281 is because it is equivalent to what
the AHFC earns each year. Therefore, as long as the AHFC basically
does not cut into the capital base that essentially secured the
outstanding bonds, the credit agencies will go along with this
program.
Number 2030
MR. HOWE said part B of the bill is about issuing the $30 million
in bonds and basically giving that money to the university to
rehabilitate the student housing primarily at the Fairbanks campus,
where most of the residential housing is. The AHFC will issue and
service the bonds, and will basically be part of the university's
capital budget. The AHFC will be subsidizing the university in
that regard.
MR. HOWE said when HB 309, which had to do with new student
housing, was discussed in the HESS Committee, the amount asked for
was $36.5 million. The AHFC would issue $36.5 million of new bonds
and subsidize the interest rate. That would be in addition to the
amount of money asked for in HB 281. Mr. Howe reiterated that all
bills dealing with the AHFC in some manner must be looked at
together and within the context of the overall program.
MR. HOWE said HB 281 is the Governor's and the Commissioner of
Revenue's overall program for the AHFC for an orderly transfer of
assets that will maintain itself as a business entity.
Number 2089
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if she could summarize what Mr. Howe just
said for the information of the committee. The $270 million is to
do deferred maintenance, etc., in Fairbanks, and again Anchorage is
being thrown to the wolves.
MR. HOWE disagreed. He said the $270 million goes to the general
fund, and is appropriated as the legislature sees fit. Part B of
the bill says that the AHFC will issue $30 million in bonds. If
this program is approved, the AHFC will still have a bond rating,
and will again be able to issue A plus bonds at attractive rates,
raise the $30 million, and have that $30 million to use in the
Governor's highest priority program. That is to rehabilitate
existing buildings that are not usable.
MR. HOWE said that is the Governor's program as encompassed in HB
281. The Anchorage housing program is a separate issue. HB 309
stated that the AHFC would raise $36.5 million of additional bonds.
The bond proceeds would be utilized by the university to build new
student housing, as opposed to rehabilitating old housing, in
Anchorage, Juneau and Ketchikan. The only further involvement that
AHFC would have, in addition to raising the bonds, would be to
subsidize the interest rate by a factor of about 3 percent a year.
Three percent a year on $36 million in bonds is approximately a
million a year. That would be a continuing subsidy on the part of
the AHFC.
Number 2177
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the Governor has another bill
before the body to implement the transfer agreement as found in
Section 2 of HB 281.
MR. HOWE answered that HB 281 is the only bill that the Governor
has introduced in this area.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Howe knew why the Governor
chose to tie the bond authorization with the transfer act.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that companion bills have been introduced into
the Senate. Senate bills 143 and 144 are the same as Hbs 281 and
282. Those bills are currently in Senate Finance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concluded that there is not another bill
that accomplishes the Alaska Housing transfer of the $270 million
to the general fund. HB 281 is the only bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE corrected him by saying that SB 143 is a companion
bill, similar to HB 281.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the reason he asked is because there
are two different things going on in HB 281. Money is transferred
from the equity of the AHFC to the state general fund; and there is
also authorization for the AHFC to pay for and service a debt of an
additional new bond issue. Those two elements are not even
related.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE suggested that the elements are related because they
both aim to take money from the AHFC.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed. He said it is clear in HB 281 that
the entire debt service of both the principal and interest of the
$30 million is going to be paid for by the AHFC. Mr. Howe also
mentioned that, regarding the $270 million transfer, that the bond
rating would not be severely impacted because this was the
perceived net profits throw-off of the AHFC on an annual basis.
But there is another situation in which the annual debt service is
about $1.8 million on this particular bond issue. This will be an
additional drain on the equity and the balance sheet of the AHFC.
That is in addition to anything else that may come around.
MR. HOWE responded that the additional debt service, both principal
and interest over a 20-year period of time, related to the $30
million worth of bonds for rehab housing is included in the capital
expenditure line on the schedule passed out to HESS Committee
members. The additional debt service is part of the $50 million.
In fact, that is the reason the AHFC moved from $50 million a
period to $53,974,000. The $3,974,000 represents the debt service
on the bonds that HESS Committee members are discussing.
MR. HOWE noted that he was referring to the handout and had
highlighted the numbers under the Family Housing Programs. That
would be considered as student housing within the concept. To the
degree that all these other bills that come before the HESS
Committee utilize AHFC's cash assets or debt service ability, the
$53 million is being counted against.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked to clarify. He used FY 97 as an
example. Under the Family Housing Program line item, as seen in
the handout, the amount is $53,974,000. He asked if that amount
was in addition to the $50 million, or if that was the totality of
all the housing programs and debt service.
Number 2344
MR. HOWE said that was the totality of the grants.
TAPE 95-43, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. HOWE continued that for the 1996 capital budget, the capital
request is approximately $50 million, of which $20 million is used
for federal matching. Whether or not the legislature fully
appropriates or allows the AHFC to use corporate receipts for that
purpose is problematic at this point. Therefore, to answer
Representative Rokeberg's question about where does the university
housing funding come from, that is part of the $53 million on the
handout schedule.
MR. HOWE continued that to the degree that these amounts are
appropriated by the legislature means that there is less money for
other programs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said therefore, the $50 million, using FY
97 as an example, goes into the general fund unencumbered. Then
$53 million is for other programs. He asked if the programs were
new programs brought forward by the Governor. He asked what makes
up the $53 million.
Number 094
MR. HOWE answered that approximately $20 million of the $50 million
are state matching funds for federal loans such as Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) programs through regional housing
authorities. There is another $20 million related to the old
Alaska State Housing Authority (ASHA) activities that the AHFC two
years ago was asked to absorb. There are a number of projects in
that area that need to be totally renovated.
MR. HOWE said old age housing is also an element, taking another
$20 million. The balance is comprised of various programs that are
heavily supported by the Alaska Builders' Association. There are
credits applied for weatherization that assist people in both urban
and rural areas to improve heat efficiencies in that program.
MR. HOWE said that each of those programs each year is reviewed by
the legislature and either adopted or not.
Number 207
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was not trying to hold up the
discussion, he was just trying to clarify exactly what the bill was
going to do. The various programs just described by Mr. Howe,
along with any new legislation that may be adopted is covered under
this line item, which is a cost on an annualized basis to the AHFC.
Therefore, it has an impact on the AHFC balance sheet and
profitability.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred again to the example of FY 97. He
asked if the cash flow requirement for the one $30 million bond
issue, which is approximately $1.8 million, is in the line item.
MR. HOWE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Howe was aware of any other
requests of the AHFC this year of which perhaps the HESS Committee
members are not aware.
Number 240
MR. HOWE said his understanding of the current state of the capital
budget of the AHFC as submitted totals approximately $53 million.
It is highly problematic whether or not the legislature will fund
all of that. He would expect that the legislature would fund
something less than that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said most of the funding is already
committed money, it is already annualized.
MR. HOWE said that was not correct. Other than the type of program
that would be adopted in the bill, where a specific bond issue was
authorized and the AHFC was directed to service that issue over a
period of time, that would be a "carry-forward commitment." But
the other elements in that $53 million number are subject to annual
appropriations.
Number 300
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Representative Rokeberg could perhaps
explore the AHFC further at another time. He brought up another
issue that may necessitate the holding of the bills until the next
week. Co-Chair Bunde said he was not trying to close the previous
conversation completely, he just wanted to bring up another point
to discuss.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON interjected that unfortunately the House
State Affairs Committee was meeting presently to close out the rest
of the bills for the rest of the session. She was needed for a
quorum in about two minutes, and they asked her to stay for about
15 minutes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked her to wait until he presented an amendment,
and then HB 281 and HB 282 would be held until Tuesday, May 2.
Number 396
CO-CHAIR BUNDE proposed an amendment. He called Section 3 of HB
281 a "blackmail clause." It essentially says, if the provisions
of the bill are followed, the AHFC's financial assets are off the
table to any other legislative action. Many times in the last few
days comments have been made that nothing this legislature does can
bind a future legislature. HB 281, Section 3 is an attempt to bind
a future legislature. Perhaps it is also making pledges and
promises that future legislatures may not want to fulfill. Should
oil prices crash, Co-Chair Bunde doubted that the state would want
to honor that pledge.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said perhaps the state will want to cash out the
AHFC in its entirety, and operate with that money instead of using
the constitutional budget reserve.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would like HESS Committee members to peruse
the proposed amendment, and hold Hbs 281 and 282 until the
following Tuesday.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON left the meeting at 3 p.m.
HB 242 - UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED), Department of Revenue, said HB 242 relates to all the
procedures the division must go through to collect money for child
support in other states. The most difficult cases for CSED to
collect are interstate cases. Those types of cases comprise 44
percent of the caseload. Most noncustodial parents know the best
way to get away from paying child support is to cross state lines.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE had to speak as a sponsor of a bill in another
committee. He turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Toohey, and said
he would return promptly. It was 3:01 p.m.
MS. STRAUBE said HB 242 would provide a tool to help the CSED to
collect in those cases. Probably the most important thing the bill
will do is eliminate the multiple order system that already exists.
This is a problem. For example, one party has a support order in
Colorado, and one party has a support order in Alaska. There
really is no clear guidance on which support order the CSED should
enforce.
MS. STRAUBE stated HB 242 would eliminate that problem. It would
make it very clear as to who has continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction. It would promote efficiency by using the same
federal forms for all interstate cases. It would also allow direct
income withholding from one state to another. One of the most
frequent complaints CSED receives from obligees/custodial parents
is that the other state is not collecting any money, and/or not
collecting it fast enough. This bill would make it easier for the
CSED to withhold income, and not depend so much on whether or not
another state's child support office is operating very well.
Number 700
MS. STRAUBE continued that there are no expenditures forecasted for
this bill. However, the bill would collect $340,000 per year for
the state's share of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) reimbursement. There would also be another $680,000 that
would go directly to children.
MS. STRAUBE said when the CSED collects money, it does it in two
different ways. One way is that the money is collected and it goes
to reimburse the CSED for AFDC costs. Or, if the money is not an
AFDC case, the money goes directly to the children. This bill is
very important, and basically the federal government has mandated
this type of action. There are at least 21 states that have
already approved this action, and Ms. Straube felt that number had
increased. Alaska is the only state left in Region X (ten) that
had not passed this type of legislation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE returned to the meeting at 3:05 p.m.
MS. STRAUBE said this bill was up last year, but it did not make it
all the way through before the end of the session. There were no
problems with the bill, and no one testified against it, but it
simply got lost in the shuffle. She added that it was originally
introduced in the House.
Number 798
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she has gotten several letters on child
support enforcement, and she has passed those letters on to Ms.
Straube. She asked if the maximum amount the state is allowed to
withhold from a delinquent father is uniform across the U.S., or
does the amount vary from state to state. She asked how the amount
would be kept fairly uniform, and what is the state's percentage.
MS. STRAUBE answered that on arrearages, the state's percentage is
up to 50 percent. That is different than what the state would be
receiving if the enforcement was ongoing. If the enforcement is
ongoing, a percentage of the delinquent parent's salary is taken.
MS. STRAUBE said for one child, the amount of income withheld is 20
percent. Two children is 27 percent, three children is 33 percent.
Number 851
CO-CHAIR BUNDE shared, for the committee's information, that he has
spoken to a guardian in Anchorage who looks after the interests of
a man who has sired 20 children and pays zero child support. He
then reassumed the gavel, and asked for further testimony.
ART PETERSON, Attorney, Dillon and Finley Law Firm, said he was
testifying in his role as a uniformed law commissioner for Alaska.
He said that in the uniform laws conference, his organization began
working on this type of legislation in 1989, having had by that
time several decades of experience with the current (now old)
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. Several decades of
experience brought to light numerous problems. The primary problem
is the one of inconsistent, multi-state court orders.
MR. PETERSON said HB 242 removes that problem. That is the single
most significant provision in the bill. By removing that problem,
the system is made more efficient so the courts and the
administrative agencies funding these issues can deal with them
more expeditiously. It makes the system easier to understand and
thus fairer to both parties, the obligors and the obligees. It
also provides a better way to get support for these kids, which is
the primary purpose of all such legislation.
Number 968
MR. PETERSON noted that HESS Committee members have just received
his letter of April 25, 1995, to which he attached some amendments.
Those actually set out the amendments that are mentioned in a
letter from Marilyn May of the Attorney General's Office. Mr.
Peterson said he would be happy to answer any questions, and
expressed his strong support for this bill. The sooner this bill is
placed on the books, the better off the state government and the
people involved in the child support system will be.
Number 1002
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the proposed amendments were simply
conforming amendments with Title 9 at the request of the Governor.
MR. PETERSON answered that was not quite true. The amendments seek
to conform with Administrative Title 9 of the court system. It is
essentially at the request of the courts, or at the sense of anyone
reading what has happened, because the court has already made the
change referred to. Therefore, the bill should not refer to those
"changes" because they will not be changes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the amendments were made with the
concurrence of the Governor.
MR. PETERSON answered that was correct.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would call the amendment attached to Mr.
Peterson's letter amendment one, and move amendment one. The
amendment begins on page 1, line 3. There were no objections and
amendment one was adopted.
STUART HALL, Ombudsman, State of Alaska, said his office is in very
strong support of this legislation and its companion measure in the
Senate. The enactment of this legislation would assist many who
have sought the help of the State Ombudsman over the last years
with the CSED. In FY 94-95, to date, the ombudsman has assisted
over 1,660 individuals with complaints about the CSED. Many of the
complaints were filed by custodial parents who depend on the
division to collect child support from the out-of-state parent.
MR. HALL said a large number of those complaints came from single
parents concerned about the slow pace of case establishment and
child support collection. Enactment of this legislation would
streamline the establishment process, which would, in turn, prompt
speedier collections. Two things the Ombudsman's Office likes
about the bill is the simplification of the process: The
elimination of the multi-state, multi-jurisdictional orders; and
the ability, under this statute, to go directly from the last order
to the employer in Colorado, or wherever.
MR. HALL said those elements should cut down on the frustration and
confusion and the delay, which are the kinds of complaints most
often heard. This legislation is endorsed heavily, and Mr. Hall
urged its early and speedy enactment.
Number 1187
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 242 from the HESS Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There
were no objections, and the bill was moved.
HB 244 - PATERNITY; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Number 1216
MS. STRAUBE testified that right now, there are new federal
guidelines that require that 75 percent of all child support orders
be established within six months. In order to establish child
support orders, paternity must be established. "Paternity," she
said, "is taking an eternity."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that he thought it only took nine months.
MS. STRAUBE said the bad news is, that despite all the work done by
the CSED, the CSED then has to give their work to the courts who
more or less "rubber stamp it." That is because the CSED uses the
court's standards to determine paternity. Sometimes the case sits
on the court's docket for six months. Therefore, with the files
just sitting in the courts for six months waiting for signature, it
is already clear the CSED cannot make the time constraints, because
it only has six months to do all their work.
MS. STRAUBE said that is why the CSED is very concerned about this
issue. The CSED could shave six months off the process if it were
able to administratively establish the process. The CSED already
uses the court standards as set forth in AS 25.20.050. Those
standards are basically either a voluntary acknowledgement, or the
genetic test shows that the likelihood of a person being the father
is 95 percent or more.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON re-joined the meeting at 3:12 p.m.
MS. STRAUBE noted that due process would be assured so the decision
would be open to judicial review. The CSED thinks it is a good
investment for a yearly general fund investment of $72,700. For
that amount, the CSED can bring in $850,000 per year in its share
of AFDC reimbursements. It makes sense, therefore, for the state,
for the children, and to the federal government. The federal
government is moving in that direction. In fact, part of the GOP
Contract with America stated it wanted to see more states doing
administrative processes and cutting down the time, instead of
having to go to the courts for everything.
Number 1344
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked who would comprise the "tribunal" as referred
to in the bill.
MS. STRAUBE said the definition given on page 2, lines 18 through
20 of the bill, is that a tribunal means "a court, administrative
agency, or quasi-judicial entity authorized by law to determine
parentage."
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked to back track. A bill was presented to the
HESS Committee members last year by Representative Bettye Davis
that tried to establish paternity at birth in the hospitals. She
asked if that legislation has had any impact at all.
MS. STRAUBE said the hospitals were kind of already doing that.
The bill simply made it more likely that the hospitals would do it.
It has been more successful. The state cannot force anyone to sign
anything, but, Representative Bettye Davis's bill made it more
likely as the father would be feeling joyous about the event.
MS. STRAUBE said that legislation is working, but there is no
similarity between those bills. The bills do not replace each
other.
Number 1422
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what percentage of children born have a
mother that refuses to name the father.
MS. STRAUBE said she could not answer that sufficiently. She said
she can tell Co-Chair Toohey how many cases there are in which the
parentage is unknown. Whether the mother refuses to name the
father or they don't know, the division does not know the
difference. Out of about 3,200 paternity establishment in progress
cases, 639 are unnamed fathers. About 2,600 fathers have been
named.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assumed there are mechanisms to encourage mothers
who do know the names of their child(ren)'s father to divulge that
information.
MS. STRAUBE answered that this is not part of her division's job.
However, she does know that Public Assistance has the right to deny
public assistance to those who do not have a very good reason for
not naming the father. The CSED does believe, however, that there
are those who really do not know the names of the father.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE disagreed with her first comment. He said finding
out paternity certainly is a job of the CSED.
MS. STRAUBE corrected her former statement by saying that the CSED
cannot enforce any punitive measures. Only the Department of
Health and Social Services can enforce punitive measures.
Number 1498
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was any way of forcing DNA testing
on a group of, say, three people for a child of an unknown father.
MS. STRAUBE said if a person does not agree to blood testing, the
CSED can default that person as the father of the child. The
individual is always free to take the blood test and disprove that
paternity.
Number 1558
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how often that default paternity is evoked.
MS. STRAUBE said that provision is evoked regularly. It is the
procedure of the CSED that if the proposed father will not
cooperate, he is defaulted. It then takes a long time, but if the
paternity is defaulted, the court has to agree to the default, then
the order is placed for income withholding, and eventually the
child support is hopefully gleaned.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if automatic DNA tests are done if the man
admits that he might be the father. She also asked who does the
testing.
MS. STRAUBE said there was contention in that issue. If AFDC is
being received, DNA testing is automatically performed. The CSED
pays for that testing. If the case is not AFDC, the CSED does not
pay for the test. However, those provisions are being studied
anew.
Number 1584
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Straube to speak to the fiscal note on HB
244.
MS. STRAUBE said in a full year, the majority of funds are either
federal receipts matching, or they are federal incentives. The
CSED did put down a general fund match of $72,700 in the funding
source for 1997. She used the example of FY 97 because it is a
full year and may be easier to see the figures.
MS. STRAUBE said the important thing to remember is that, if one
looks at the change in revenues, the bill is bringing in $850,000
to the state coffers. The gains far outweigh any expense to the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY joined the meeting at 3:22 p.m.
SHANNON O'FALLON, Assistant Attorney General, Human Service
Section, Department of Law (DOL), said her area of work focuses on
Child Support Enforcement. If a man has been named in a paternity
complaint and the man refuses to be blood tested, one of the things
the department can do is go to the court and ask for sanctions.
One of the sanctions requested is that the man is defaulted on
paternity. The court fairly routinely grants that default as long
as the DOL shows that the man is willfully refusing to test.
MS. O'FALLON said it must be shown that an appointment has been
repeatedly set up for them, and they never show up. With default,
the court adjudicates the individual the father of the child
without blood testing.
MS. STRAUBE said the state cannot test anyone without cooperation.
Number 1691
MS. O'FALLON wanted to also note that if a man is excluded through
blood testing, he does not pay for blood testing costs. If the
case is not under AFDC, and the man is found to be the father
through the genetic test, the man then pays the blood test costs.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said his question about the fiscal note was not to
indicate anxiety. He simply wanted the fiscal note explained for
the edification of the committee, and to put into the record that
Ms. Straube anticipates this bill will generate money for the
general fund.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the 3,200 figure mentioned for the
paternity establishment in progress cases was a per year figure.
MS. STRAUBE answered that was the total number of pending cases
right now. Those cases involve trying to get affidavits signed by
the mother, or trying to get cases signed by the court. Ms.
Straube said she did not know how many new cases the division gets
a year. However, 3,200 is a huge backlog, and the CSED is working
very hard to close that backlog. Everything that can be done is
being attempted.
MS. STRAUBE said the CSED is doing some collocating with Public
Assistance to try and shorten the time period, it is asking for HB
244, it is working with the DOL to shorten the time period, and
administrative changes are taking place to take care of that
terrible backlog. There are far too many people wondering who the
father is in their particular case.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY closed public testimony and asked for the wish of
the committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved HB 244 with accompanying "money-making" fiscal
note and individual recommendations. There were no objections and
the bill was moved.
HB 205 - STREET GANG ACTIVITY
Number 1831
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, said HB 205 is the
Governor's bill relating to street gang activities. Particularly
in Anchorage, street gangs have become a distressing part of life.
Ms. Knuth, as a citizen of Southeast Alaska, did not appreciate the
problem until she listened to parents, police officers and
prosecutors in Anchorage. This is a real problem and it is
something that needs action right away.
MS. KNUTH noted that it can be seen in the Lower 48: Once you lose
ground to gangs, it is terribly difficult to reclaim it. This bill
takes a multi-faceted approach to the problem. The first section
creates a civil cause of action against gang members, allowing the
recovery of trouble damages by someone who is injured by gang
members or gang activity. If the gang member is a juvenile, the
bill allows recovery against the juvenile's parent(s) as well.
MS. KNUTH continued that after those provisions, all the focus is
on criminal sanctions and attempts to give courts greater latitude
in dealing with gangs and gang members. The first criminal
provision in Section 2 is recruiting a gang member in the first and
second degree. The crime of recruiting a gang member in the first
degree is charged if the use of force is threatened or utilized.
MS. KNUTH explained that recruiting a member in the second degree,
which is a misdemeanor, occurs if force is not used or threatened.
Number 1929
MS. KNUTH emphasized that this bill does not criminalize gang
membership. There are a number of bills in the Lower 48 that have
tried to make it a crime to simply be a member of a gang. There
are first amendment difficulties with that, as well as other legal
problems. Alaska has chosen not to attempt those provisions.
However, HB 205 does make it a crime to recruit other people to
become gang members.
MS. KNUTH said that leads her to Section 3, which gives the
definitions of criminal street gangs. What is being utilized is a
standard definition that is in use throughout the United States:
"A group of three or more persons who have in common a name or
identifying sign, symbol, tatoo or other physical marking, style of
dress, or use of hand signs; and who, either individually, jointly,
or in combination, have committed or attempted to commit, within
the preceding three years, for the benefit of, at the direction of,
or any combination of...." two or more crimes that are specified
within the bill.
MS. KNUTH said these are specified under AS 11.41, which are crimes
against a person; AS 11.46, which are property crimes; or any other
felony offense.
Number 1978
MS. KNUTH said misdemeanor drug offenses were specifically left out
of that. Unfortunately, there is a large percentage of the
juvenile population using drugs such as marijuana. Merely doing
that will not constitute being a gang member. Those are two
different problems that may overlap in some instances, but in
Alaska juveniles are capable of using drugs without benefit of gang
membership. The Governor's office did not think it would be
appropriate in Alaska to use misdemeanor drug offenses as an
indicator of gang membership.
MS. KNUTH continued that Section 4 allows the state to forfeit
property that is either used to further gang activity or is the
product of crimes committed by gangs. That property will go to the
general fund, but that may serve as a deterrent for the gangs.
MS. KNUTH said Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 all relate to sentencing
provisions for gang activities. If the case is a felony, the fact
that it was done by or for the benefit of a gang can be used as an
aggravator. An aggravator will give the sentencing judge the
flexibility to go about the presumptive sentence. If it is not a
felony offense, then these provisions elevate the offense one
level. Therefore, if the offense was a class B misdemeanor and was
committed by a gang member or on behalf of a gang, the charge would
be prosecuted and result in conviction as a class A misdemeanor.
A class A misdemeanor would be bumped up to a class C felony
offense.
Number 2057
MS. KNUTH said those are the highlights of the bill. There are
zero fiscal notes that have been submitted by the Department of
Health and Social Services, the DOL, the Public Defender's Office,
the Office of Public Advocacy, and the Department of Corrections.
The fiscal notes are indicative of the fact that the state is on
the cutting edge of this problem.
MS. KNUTH stated it is believed that this problem is still in its
infancy, and the cases are not going to represent a large
percentage of the prosecution's time. Now is the time to act. The
bill is supported by the Chiefs of Police, by the Association of
Peace Officers, by the Department of Parole and Probation Officers,
and by anti-drug groups throughout the state as well as education
groups.
Number 2091
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she was concerned with the seven zero fiscal
notes. There are more than a few gangs in Anchorage. There are
about 36 gangs in Anchorage. Whether or not those gangs have
become destructive and powerful, she does not know. This bill is
going to cost a lot of money, and if the HESS Committee members are
willing to pass the bill, they should know that those fiscal notes
are not necessarily honest. This bill is going to be expensive,
and Co-Chair Toohey is willing to pay for it. However, she really
objects to seeing zero fiscal notes on something that talks about
the courts.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY expressed concern about the possibility that when
a department likes a bill and wants it passed, it is given a zero
fiscal note. That is not right, but it is done. Co-Chair Toohey
said she could not let seven zero fiscal notes go by without saying
anything.
Number 2156
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Ms. Knuth to tell him what AS 11.41
and AS 11.46 were.
MS. KNUTH repeated that AS 11.41 relates to offenses against a
person. In the misdemeanor category, that would be assault in the
fourth degree, and reckless endangerment. Otherwise, it relates to
sexual abuse, sexual assault, felony assault, and kidnapping
offenses. AS 11.46 are property offenses. At the misdemeanor
level, the offenses would include theft in the fourth and fifth
degree, and arson in the second degree. The felony levels referred
to in that statute are values over $500 or arson in the first
degree. Those are the two most common ones.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY appreciated the difficulty of trying to define
things. But when he reads the definition of street gang, he thinks
of the crew he works on in construction. They all dress alike, use
the same tools, etc. Fortunately, other criteria must be met
because his crew is already well qualified as a gang. He was
concerned that if any one of them committed a crime, such as
reckless endangerment, there would be danger that the whole crew
could be considered a criminal street gang.
Number 2222
MS. KNUTH noted that there would need to be, within the preceding
three years, two or more crimes that were committed for the benefit
of, or at the direction of, or in association with the group. The
example being given by Representative Vezey would not qualify
because there is one member of the group who commits one offense.
The DOL would need to be able to show that this was for the benefit
of the group, and there was more than one offense within three
years.
MS. KNUTH explained that the DOL has tried to tailor the definition
so it does target gangs and the types of crimes committed by gangs.
Obviously, left out of the bill are drinking offenses, smoking
offenses, loitering. Those are the types of things people could
run into difficulties with. She noted that there are states that
have specifically excluded labor organizations from their
definitions of gangs because of such similar concerns.
Number 2290
CAPTAIN BRUCE RICHTER, Anchorage Police Department, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 205. He said the bill would be a
useful tool to combat the gang problems that are currently on the
rise in Anchorage. However, the gangs are still a small enough
problem that, if the bill could be used in an aggressive manner,
some results could be seen. Clearly, there is visible street gang
activity in Anchorage. These street gangs are also clearly
recruiting younger members to be part of those gangs. A bill such
as HB 205 will assist in curbing gang activities.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a few weeks ago, he went to a national
conference on state schools. He learned that there are gangs, and
there are gang "wanna-bes."
TAPE 95-44, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated those groups do not care what they are
called, their behaviors are very, very similar. In addition,
subsequent crimes almost always are compounded on the last.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Captain Richter if the "Little
Rascals" are still in West Anchorage.
CAPTAIN RICHTER said the Anchorage Police Department (APD) has had
some experience with a gang that calls itself the Little Rascal
Gang. There has also been experiences with a group of young Asians
who were robbing gun stores. The APD has recovered a number of
stolen guns from a house gang members were living at just last
week.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Captain Richter had a chance to look at HB
205.
CAPTAIN RICHTER answered yes, and he has a copy of it in front of
him right now.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if, in his opinion, if there is a chance that
the bill will cost money to implement.
CAPTAIN RICHTER replied that obviously, there is a cost any time a
case goes into the court system. However, Captain Richter feels
that right now there may be problems finding charges that fit an
exact situation. This bill would provide one more charge for the
police "tool box" that could be used to detain dangerous
individuals in appropriate cases to fight back against the gang
problem. He does not, therefore, see this bill as accruing
additional cost over and above the cost of doing business as a
police department.
Number 150
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY assured Captain Richter that the legislature and
the HESS Committee members were trying very hard to not pass
unfunded mandates. She feared HB 205 was an unfunded mandate. She
asked for Captain Richter's word that the bill was not going to
cause any heartburn to the Anchorage Police Department.
CAPTAIN RICHTER said the criminal activity that is taking place in
Anchorage has a cost. The state is picking up that cost
investigating shootings, assaults, and burglaries. Sometimes the
APD gets into a situation in which it may not be able to take a
person or persons to court on a burglary. However, the APD may be
able to go to court to stop activity using gang ordinances. In
that way, the bill is not an extra cost.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he had a question on Section 1 of the
bill, paragraph B. He said he is a very strong advocate of the
British system, but he did not know if it was equitable to take
this area of statute and apply the British system when in every
other area of civil law is applied with the American system as
modified by Rule 82.
MS. KNUTH asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that in paragraph B, the bill reads
that the prevailing party gets full attorney fees paid. He refers
to that as the "British" system. The United States, of course,
uses the "American" system in which both sides pay their own
attorney fees. Alaska also uses Rule 82, in which a portion of the
attorney fees are paid based on the amount of recovery received.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY reiterated that he is a staunch advocate of
the British system, but he wondered if is equitable for that
portion of the civil laws to be taken out and the British system
applied. He noted that all the tort and civil cases will still be
tried using Rule 82.
Number 318
MS. KNUTH replied that in this instance, what justifies the change
is that these are criminal acts committed against a victim.
Requiring that the victim absorb some of the attorney's fees
necessary to make themselves whole further victimizes them. It is
on that basis that the distinction has been made. There are
exceptions to Rule 82, but Ms. Knuth would certainly agree with
Representative Vezey that the state needs to be reasonable in its
approach to this provision. She hopes the provision is fair in
this case.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if she was envisioning that these cases
would be subject to punitive damages.
MS. KNUTH believed that would be a possibility. That is one of the
elements of damages that would be recoverable.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Ms. Knuth thought that victims should
be able to retrieve damages for trouble and punitive damages.
MS. KNUTH expected that the judge would look at the totality of the
circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought that was a jury decision.
MS. KNUTH said a judge does have control over certain things. He
or she may say it is unreasonable for a jury to make an award
amount. If damages are awarded for "trouble," that is a form of
punitive damages. One would need to be careful in that situation
to make sure there is not "double" recovery. However, there could
also be instances in which the actual loss is fairly minimal, and
even with trouble damages, there still has not been the statement
the state and the victim wants made with an award of punitive
damages.
Number 476
MS. KNUTH also noted that she does not expect gang members to be
extremely well-off financially. Therefore, to some extent this may
be a hollow victory that the state is providing to victims. There
may not be any money to be had anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY agreed. He also wished to express concern
that the bill is making the parent responsible if the minor is not
emancipated. Representative Vezey conceded that he does not know
who the street gang people are. But he envisions a lot of single
parents who have lost control of their children and have not had
their minor child emancipated primarily because of the legal cost
involved. He noted that hope may also be a deterrent to
emancipation.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the bill was putting a parent who was
probably not-so-well-off in extreme financial jeopardy. He
realized that the gang members referred to were minors, but
probably over the age of 12. He believes that people over the age
of 12 are beyond the age of reason. Therefore, he was concerned
that the bill creates a problem for parents who are already having
all the difficulty they can handle.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the bill was really being reasonable
in that respect. He did not think there was any money to be had
from the gang members. A law is being created with HB 205 which
allows the state to go after parents who have lost control of their
children. He does not know of any parents who have said they
wanted their child to grow up and become a gang member.
Number 615
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said if a parent has "lost" their child, and the
child has run away from home two or three times, and the parent
calls the police and says she/he has a child that cannot be
controlled and that statement is on record, there are Alaska laws
that say that this child is no longer the responsibility of the
parent.
MS. KNUTH said the DOL would be amenable to an amendment that
tracks such provisions. Ms. Knuth remembered that such provisions
were incorporated into a bill that increased a parent's possible
liability from $2,000 to $10,000. That provision says that if the
child is a reported runaway, there is no liability for acts that
occur after that time. The DOL would be amenable to such an
amendment.
MS. KNUTH also noted that victims have done nothing. She/he was
simply walking in the wrong place or cannot afford to live in a
better neighborhood. That person's situations and circumstances is
being compared with the household that is made up of the juvenile
gang members and the gang member's parent(s). She asked who,
between the victim and the parent, was more able to control--not
who has control, but who was in a better position to control--and
who was more responsible for what the juvenile gang member has
done.
MS. KNUTH understood that parents can lose control of their
children. But at the same time, there is a far closer connection
between the parent and child than there is between the victim, who
is in a hapless situation. One of the things that the legislature
does is to look at that situation and find a balance. It must make
a decision about who should bear the loss. She is sympathetic to
the situation being described, and she would hope that the runaway
amendment would address most of the concern.
Number 747
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was still concerned about the zero
fiscal notes.
MS. KNUTH said she would try to speak to as many fiscal notes as
she could, on behalf of the Executive Branch. The conduct that the
bill is trying to reach is criminal conduct. Everyone is required
to deal with that conduct and the results of that conduct already
under existing law. The difference between charging someone with
theft and charging someone with theft and an aggravator that was
done on the behalf of a gang is an incremental increase in the
prosecutorial effort. The case is already present. The handling
is different.
MS. KNUTH explained the same thing applies for the judge. The
judge is sentencing this person. The difference between sentencing
for a theft charge and then also considering the aggravating factor
is incremental. At times, the Public Defender's Office and the
Office of Public Advocacy do not go along with everything that the
DOL, Criminal Division proposes. There should be separate
credibility to their zero fiscal notes because all divisions and
departments are already dealing with the problem. Therefore, the
entities do not believe that separate costs are going to be
incurred.
Number 845
MS. KNUTH said most of the reason for HB 205 is to provide
something that gangs can become familiar with. The bill is as much
of a publicity campaign as it is a new approach and a new fix-it.
Gangs need to feel targeted. Gangs need to feel vulnerable and
understand they are being focused upon.
MS. KNUTH noted the focus of law enforcement is also being changed
to specifically notice gang activity. However, mostly more
flexibility is being created in the system, rather than bringing in
new crimes and prosecuting those crimes.
Number 880
MS. KNUTH asserted it is for that reason that the zero fiscal notes
have integrity in HB 205. Ms. Knuth understood the concern of the
HESS Committee members, however.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assured Ms. Knuth that she was not held responsible
for any errors in the fiscal note process. Co-Chair Bunde said
that he would like to hold the bill until Tuesday, May 2 because
there are concerns about the bill. He asked for an amendment
incorporating the runaway provision to protect parents who are
trying to do the best they can.
Number 942
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked a question about the title. The
title reads, "...restricting criminal street gang offenders from
obtaining a permit to carry a concealed handgun...." He asked what
sections of the bill specifically relate to that provision.
MS. KNUTH answered that Sections 8 and 9 refer to those provisions.
She explained that if a person has been convicted of a crime that
identifies that person as a gang member, that provision would be
applied.
Number 968
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Knuth if she would support a change
in statute which said if a person is a victim of criminal assault
by a street gang, the victim is authorized to use force to protect
themselves, including deadly force.
MS. KNUTH said she would not. A system of justice is needed that
protects people from ourselves as well as each other.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that she has obtained a permit to carry a
concealed weapon. If she is beset upon by a street gang, and she
is in fear of her life, she is by law allowed to defend her life.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Ms. Knuth had referred to a first degree
crime in which force was applied to increase gang membership. Co-
Chair Bunde understands that force is always involved with gang
recruitment and in the initiation. People can be "jumped in" or
"sexed in." He said he would leave the explanation of the sexed-in
ritual to the imagination of the HESS Committee members. However,
when one is jumped in, the individual is beaten brutally. The
initiate asks for this beating, and participates in it.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if that, therefore would not move any
initiation to first degree, as there is an incredible assault.
Individuals are kicked, pounded and jumped on, and when it is all
over, they "get a hug."
MS. KNUTH felt that would fall under the felony of recruitment
violation. She would charge those actions as felony actions, on
top of the proper charge for that conduct within itself.
MS. KNUTH thanked the committee for hearing the bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE wanted to make it clear that his comments about
being jumped in did not mean that he was discouraging the first
degree charge from being applied.
Number 1094
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how this bill would affect the types
of initiations that occur in schools. There has been a real push
to eliminate those types of initiations.
MS. KNUTH expected that many of those instances do not tie in with
gang membership or the existence of a gang. She encouraged the use
of other tools to try and deal with that problem. Ms. Knuth
acknowledged that she did not know enough about that particular
problem. If it could be shown that the behavior was gang related,
then some of the charges provided for in HB 205 could be utilized.
However, it sounds like there are some assaults and reckless
endangerments going on that do not look beyond the initiation.
HB 280 - HUMAN RESOURCE INVESTMENT COUNCIL
Number 1160
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that he referred the bill to a subcommittee
because he feared, as he was a member of one of the affected
commissions, he was more sensitive to the issues. He asked for the
subcommittee report on this bill from Co-Chair Toohey, as she was
farther removed from this issue.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the subcommittee meeting was attended by
Representative Robinson, Representative Rokeberg, Dr. Joe McCormick
of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, and Bob
Rubadeau of the Lieutenant Governor's Office. Several issues were
discussed. The most contentious issue centered on Representative
Rokeberg's concern about the size of the committee.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said several attempts were made to reduce the
council, unfortunately, due to the federal guidelines, those
efforts were to no avail.
Number 1255
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he met with Mr. Rubadeau, and
testimony was taken at the subcommittee hearing which satisfied
some of Representative Rokeberg's concern as to the large size of
the council. He had wished to decrease the size of the council,
but he ultimately agreed that the Lt. Governor's office had done a
very good job of reducing it to as few people as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his other concerns were adequately
answered. He previously felt the use of the word "Investment" in
the title seemed rather silly to him. However, he learned that was
part of federal statute, and the state cannot toy with that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the subcommittee hearing was fruitful,
and resulted in helpful language changes which are reflected in the
Committee Substitute.
Number 1356
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said two amendments were before the HESS Committee.
Amendment one referred to page 1, line 4, of HB 280. After the
word "needs," the amendment proposes to insert "relating to the
membership of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education."
BOB RUBADEAU, Special Assistant to the Lieutenant Governor, said
Dr. McCormick offered a couple of suggestions at the subcommittee
hearing as a representative of the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE). The subcommittee members and other
members of the HESS Committee studied those suggestions and deemed
them to be, at first, fairly minor changes that would allow the
ACPE to continue. However, as the amendments were explored
further, the amendments seemed to make policy decisions that
perhaps the subcommittee had not considered.
MR. RUBADEAU explained that what had been proposed in the first
amendment, relating to the membership of the ACPE, was that it
basically changed the name from the Governor's Commission on
Vocational Education (GCOVE) membership, to the Alaska Human
Resource Investment Council (HRIC) membership. Only the name was
being changed to have a vocational education-based, proactive
representative on the ACPE. Dr. McCormick basically felt, as many
people do, that a smaller commission would be better.
Number 1450
MR. RUBADEAU noted that as policy implications were studied,
however, it would take a vocational voice off the ACPE. The
commission basically does fund an enormous amount of secondary and
postsecondary education opportunities for students within the
state. The Office of the Lt. Governor feels very strongly about
the importance of vocational education and training to the future
of Alaska. The bill reflects that.
MR. RUBADEAU stated that by removing the voice from a very
important tool of the legislature and the Administration has to
influence vocational education and the direction it is going. This
would perhaps therefore be a larger policy implication than perhaps
simply shrinking a council. He was not sure HESS Committee members
wanted to make such policy decisions without further exploring the
membership on the ACPE.
Number 1494
MR. RUBADEAU said he was not privy to the total membership of the
ACPE, but he knew that the commission consisted of regents, members
of the University of Alaska, and secondary educators. However,
this situation begs the question: Is this a policy decision HESS
Committee members want to make in this bill, when this bill is
simply trying to emphasize the voice of vocational education in
this state? Mr. Rubadeau did not think it was wise to therefore
delete that voice from a very important commission.
MR. RUBADEAU noted that Co-Chair Bunde was a member of the ACPE,
and asked if he would like to speak to the voice that it brings to
his commission.
Number 1527
CO-CHAIR BUNDE replied that the ACPE does contain proprietary
schools and representatives from vocational education, public
schools, legislators, and regents. There is a mix, and the ACPE is
a miniature version of perhaps what the HRIC aspires to be. Co-
Chair Bunde is concerned, as a member or commissioner of the ACPE,
that rolling the ACPE member into the HRIC would perhaps undermine
that member's ability to provide the service to the state at the
previous level.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE was also still unsure of the need for the ACPE after
the HRIC is established. While the ACPE certifies proprietary and
vocational technology kinds of schools, they also are very involved
in student loans. Therefore, the ACPE has dual responsibility.
Number 1590
MR. RUBADEAU told Co-Chair Bunde that the bill's sponsors were very
careful in looking only at the federal programs that were involved
in the state. The Lt. Governor's office did not want to undermine
the wisdom that past legislators have put into developing the ACPE.
It wanted to deal specifically with the federal funding, to get the
state ready for the block grant scenario it is rumored is coming
out of Congress.
MR. RUBADEAU noted that the HRIC has been implemented in other
states. Dr. McCormick shared that the state of Texas has
incorporated its Postsecondary Education Commission as a very
important dual participant in the planning and long-range strategic
development of vocational education and training within the state.
At this point, this bill does not address the ACPE in any way
except, and this was only a recision type of inclusion into HB 280,
by saying that anywhere the GCOVE was mentioned, that state statute
needed to be amended to reflect the changes in the name. This was
because 18 months after the HRIC has been in place it will replace
the GCOVE. That is the only relationship the sponsor's office saw
at that point.
MR. RUBADEAU said, "As far as usurping the power, trying to in any
way influence, other than providing a membership to perhaps make
that transfer of information more immediate, that was the only
reason this was included in the bill."
Number 1666
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked who was talking to Dr. McCormick
after the meetings of the subcommittee.
MR. RUBADEAU indicated that he had spoken with Dr. McCormick two
times since the subcommittee meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Dr. McCormick was still in favor
of this removal of the HRIC member from his board of directors.
MR. RUBADEAU said in further discussion with Dr. McCormick, the
sponsor's office looked at the legal implications. Dr. McCormick
felt both amendments made very little sense after the implications
were studied.
Number 1683
MR. RUBADEAU addressed the second amendment. He said the sponsor's
office was wondering what would occur if a "meaningful outcome
assessment" was added over and above the assessment procedures that
are already in place with the Job Training Council (JTC), with the
GCOVE, and the UI Trust Fund. If another level of assessment is
added that is not in place right now, there is concern that fiscal
notes would have to be sent back to the agencies due to the
additional workload and possible additional cost of providing the
needed data.
MR. RUBADEAU said hopefully, the HRIC knows it will have to come up
with some way of justifying their work. There is a need to provide
some sort of outcome assessment, and Dr. McCormick felt comfortable
with the assessment procedures in place.
Number 1747
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that as a member of the ACPE, he asked Dr.
McCormick to protect the interests of the commission. Dr.
McCormick does not believe that he maintains the concerns that he
originally had about the bill. Co-Chair Bunde noted that does not
mean that he, personally, is completely at-ease with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Co-Chair Bunde has had a
conversation with Dr. McCormick subsequent to the meeting.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE answered yes, and Dr. McCormick said he is no longer
concerned about the amendments. He did not feel either amendment
was now necessary.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that outcome assessments, unless they are in
place, are crucial. The whole program is useless unless the state
knows who goes to work after the training. She asked Mr. Rubadeau
if he felt assessment programs were in place within the bill.
MR. RUBADEAU said yes. Each of the federal mandated work programs
and job training programs have outcome-based assessments. Those
programs have to provide those assessments to the federal
government, showing that they are indeed doing the job that is
required of them.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG summarized that an additional outcome
assessment may cause fiscal notes to change.
Number 1831
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY told Mr. Rubadeau that he thinks the entire
proposed HRIC is seriously flawed. There are only four employers
on a board of over 20 people. Representative Vezey has watched
training program after training program, and those programs tend to
be geared toward professional trainers, and not toward employers.
Employers have a better understanding than anyone of what is being
sought in an employee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY did not think the HRIC could ever provide a
meaningful job training program unless it was employer-driven.
Employers are the ones that provide the jobs. Representative Vezey
has had some experience with some very successful job placement
programs, and those programs are employer-oriented. Employers
drive the program. Representative Vezey does not think the council
can get educators and people from community service who all have
visions of how they think the world ought to be, to tell an
employer what they want in an employee. It is the employers that
know what is needed in an employee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said any council that does not recognize that
primacy of priorities is not going to work.
Number 1889
MR. RUBADEAU asked to direct Representative Vezey's attention to
the top of page 4 of the bill. One of the confusions in the bill
is because of the recision language. Many people look at the
composition of the proposed consolidation council, and they are
actually looking at the components of the ACPE. The beginning of
the membership on the new consolidated council begins at the top of
page 4. There were two major drivers in this bill. One is it had
to be private sector-driven. The private sector had to have a
majority of the membership on this council. Number two, private
sector had to have the chair or the co-chair.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY read that there will be one to four additional
members of the private sector, it does not say "private sector
employers." It means people who are not employed by the
government.
MR. RUBADEAU directed Representative Vezey's attention to number
(5). It says "four representatives of business and industry...."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY interjected, "Four out of 24."
MR. RUBADEAU offered that the bill mandates that there be a
majority of private sector members, and this includes employers and
organized labor as the drivers on this, and they must form a
majority of this board and commission.
Number 1946
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY reiterated his point. He said unless the
commission is employer-driven, and a small sector of the private
sector is employers, it can not be expected to really work. The
bill sets up an institution that is really more toward protecting
itself than meeting the needs of employers. And that is where jobs
come from.
MR. RUBADEAU introduced Sarah Scanlon, Vice President of the
Northwestern Alaska Native Association (NANA); Chair, School-to-
work; and past chair of the JTC; and said she has worked on this
legislation for the past three years. She is a private sector
member of the school-to-work program. She is a former private
sector member of the JTC, and is a private sector employer who
feels she has done an enormous amount of work putting together this
legislation. This legislation is even private sector employer-
driven.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Representative Rokeberg could ask a question,
and then Ms. Scanlon could testify.
Number 1995
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG had reconsidered some of his earlier
statements because he read a letter that arrived for him and all
committee members from Janice Tatlow of the Anchorage Mat-Su
Private Industry Council. The letter contained recommendations
that did not add membership, but asked that the bill more clearly
specify who from the private sector is represented.
MR. RUBADEAU said he had seen the letter, and he had met with the
private industry council. He feels their concerns have been met.
Other letters of support have been written by the private industry
councils around the state. Those councils feel that, as
Representative Vezey has stated, the HRIC should be employer and
private sector driven. However, the only partnership opportunities
that are possible are between the federally mandated employee
training programs and the private sector to develop a long-range,
strategic plan for vocational education and job training in the
state of Alaska.
MR. RUBADEAU said he hopes the HRIC will be able to put together a
consolidated plan, that is private sector and employer driven that
will meet the needs of Alaska and remove some of the problems that
the Department of Labor has found in their surveys about not having
Alaskan jobs for Alaskan employees.
Number 2058
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Rubadeau would tell him who
makes up private industry councils, and also what service delivery
areas are.
MR. RUBADEAU said service delivery areas are regional organizations
within the state of Alaska that accept monies from the unemployment
insurance trust fund. One-tenth of one percent of the money that
is put up by employees goes to the unemployment insurance fund.
That money is directly designated to go to service delivery areas
basically for job training and retraining to keep people employable
and employed. The service delivery areas are set up to
administrate those grants, as well as working with the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) and other monies to effectively plan within
their regions job training that makes sense.
MR. RUBADEAU said the private industry councils are also made up
completely of private sector employers within the regions who
direct the programs for service delivery areas, JTPA and the jobs
program for effective use within their locations. Each one has a
different training plan that they have to submit to the state.
Number 2106
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the suggestion in the amendment is
just to add to the language in HB 280 that would stipulate that
there are at least two representatives from the private industry
council rather than one under subsection (5). Additionally, on
subsection (10) the bill would stipulate that there would be at
least one additional member from the private industry councils.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Rubadeau had considered this,
and what he would think about that type of amendment.
Number 2122
MR. RUBADEAU said the sponsor's office would be amenable to
including the private industry councils at any stage in planning.
In talking to David Stone, Chair of the Statewide Private Industry
Council, the Lt. Governor's office envisions that as it develops
the HRIC plan, the regional representation, like the tentacles off
a major plan, and the feedback from the regions are going to be
directly related to the private industry councils. The Lt.
Governor's office feels they are full partners in the planning.
The office hopes they will be included in each and every step of
developing a long-range plan for vocational education.
MR. RUBADEAU stated that in talking with David Stone, he thinks
that many of the issues have been addressed. Instead of having a
"feeder" from the private industry councils, the Lt. Governor's
office wants to make them full partners and satellite planners from
the HRIC.
Number 2159
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that adding the two amendments to the
bill does not change the total number in the HRIC membership. It
just stipulates further who would be present.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was still not convinced, after speaking with
Mr. Rubadeau and Dr. McCormick that amendment two is a bad idea.
He is still in favor of amendment two. He wants to study the issue
and the costs involved.
Number 2195
SARAH SCANLON, Vice President, NANA; Chair, School-to-Work;
appreciated the concern of Representative Vezey. She said the
private sector has shared that concern for quite some time. The
federal mandates under the JTPA define "private sector" as
employers. It is not defined as private individuals within the
state or citizens within the state.
MS. SCANLON said the concerns have been addressed, and the
legislation has been worked on for the last ten years. Last year,
the legislature passed this bill. Unfortunately, Governor Hickel
vetoed the bill due to agency interference.
MS. SCANLON said the whole bill is designed to consolidate the
fragmented, messy system currently in place. Everyone recognizes
the need to save money. This is an attempt to do that. The
efforts for the HRIC have been private sector driven. Problems
have been encountered, however, with state agency people because
they want to protect their "turf."
MS. SCANLON encouraged HESS Committee members to pass HB 280 so the
state can have a better system in place for employment and training
for the citizens of this state.
Number 2243
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said if "private sector" is defined as being
private sector employers, that does help. Representative Vezey had
never read that definition. Still, the bill stipulates for 5 or 8
out of 21 members of the HRIC to be employers. The HRIC should be
comprised of a majority of employers.
MS. SCANLON said somehow the bill is not clear, and she understood
Representative Vezey's confusion. The HRIC will be comprised of,
at most, 14 representatives of the private sector out of the over
21 members.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY admitted that he strongly supports
consolidation, but he advocates that the HRIC be employer driven.
TAPE 95-44, SIDE B
Number 000
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY read lines 16 and 17 on page 4: "...at least one
representative from the organization representing the training and
employment needs of Alaska Natives...." She asked Ms. Scanlon if
she felt one representative was enough.
MS. SCANLON answered that there are other places to plug in
representatives of the Native organizations, therefore the bill is
fine as it reads. In fact, the sponsors of the bill may have had
in mind to include the employment training agencies from the Native
communities. These are nonprofits who have been out of the
picture, and those entities need to be incorporated into this whole
investment policy.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked to state for the record that the HRIC would be
driven/dominated by private sector employers. He asked to go on
and discuss amendment two. He has had some previous experience in
public education and as a commissioner with proprietary schools.
What those schools purport to do and what they actually do is
sometimes different. Therefore, Co-Chair Bunde still favors
amendment two. He asked Mr. Rubadeau to speak to that and the
possible fiscal impact.
Number 119
MR. RUBADEAU said the amendment is very tenuous. His office has
worked very hard since January to get a tenuous alliance between
all the agencies that were involved and all the private sector
volunteers that have served on the commissions and councils that
have been proposed for consolidation. If the intent of the
legislature is to say that the HRIC will develop some way of
reporting whether or not the HRIC is making progress towards its
goals, then that can be done and the HRIC would welcome this
amendment.
MR. RUBADEAU continued that if the legislature envisions with
amendment two that the HRIC creates an entirely new vehicle for
assessment that is outside of what the federal law requires the
HRIC to do anyway, then the HRIC will have to develop a new vehicle
and a new data reporting and tracking system. Tracking people who
still have a job 12 months out of training may cause the HRIC to go
back to agencies and ask them if a new fiscal note is required. If
HESS Committee members do not feel that was necessary, then Mr.
Rubadeau would bow to the expertise of the HESS Committee members.
He would welcome the amendment if a new vehicle is not necessary
because the HRIC wants to show that it is doing a good job.
Number 230
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Mr. Rubadeau hit on his point exactly. What
happens to a person 6 months or 12 months after he or she has
completed a program? Rand Corporation released information that
indicated that about 72 percent of those who completed training
programs go back on welfare. Co-Chair Bunde was not sure of the
exact percentage, but the numbers were terrible. Therefore, if the
system is not working, the state needs to know that so something
can be done to change it.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt a compromise could be struck. As any state
agency, it would be incumbent upon the HRIC to provide the
legislature with a yearly update as to what has transpired. In
that update, there should be specifics. The state should know that
"X" number of people were in "X" number of programs, "X" number
graduated and 12 months later, "X" number has a job. The state
must know that there is continuing impact from the HRIC.
Number 324
MS. SCANLON said the existing programs do have the ability, through
existing Department of Labor records, to research when people go to
work, how long they have been working, what their current rate of
pay is, and connect that information to the training programs to
see whether or not there are any measures of success. That ability
to make those reports is therefore already possible through the
Department of Labor.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thought a legitimate program would have that
information available. He doubts the state is asking for a new
vehicle. If the program does not have that information available,
the HRIC should have the right to say it needs that information and
get that information. That is how Co-Chair Bunde envisions
amendment two.
MR. RUBADEAU said the only word that threw him off in the amendment
was the word "outcome." That conjures up an outcome-based
assessment policy that perhaps would be ill-defined in some
people's minds. It seems to raise and beg more questions than
answers. He would think that all assessment is outcome-based.
However, including the word "outcome" may not fit into federal
legislation.
Number 416
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought that during the discussions of the
subcommittee, this particular amendment came from Dr. McCormick.
It was well-received by the subcommittee, particularly as it
related to the idea that the "results" of the activity (as an
equivalent word for "outcome") was what he was driving at. That is
why Co-Chair Toohey brought this amendment forward.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the amendment was excellent because if
in fact the HRIC is required to have these assessments anyway, it
is always more reassuring to see it spelled out in the law. He
said if the amendment is duplicative from a financial standpoint,
the amendment should be adopted anyway.
Number 479
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she has worked with the JTPA through the
nursing assistant program. She said it does try and track progress
two months out of the program. Nothing is going to work unless
there is not a carrot that says the trainee has to work or he/she
will have to pay for the training. Sometimes, some of the jobs
proposed are not fun jobs or glamorous jobs. They are jobs that
might bring in enough money to fund a person for adequate living.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said unless employment is stressed, the person may
not work.
Number 540
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said amendment two is inherent in the whole
system. He has worked in three different vocational programs. To
annually reapply for funding, the program must fill out a form.
You have to write down the base, the graduates, the input and the
output of the program. There must be placement, and the program
can be sold on that placement. However, if the amendment is added
that would be fine because it does not hurt anything. Assessment
is inherent in the whole operation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS approves of the concept. The state has been
trying to condense these commissions and committees for many years.
The HRIC is a very good approach.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said other programs, like the JTPA, have
gotten "bad marks" because there has been a lot of money available.
Organizations have sprung up just to get a hold of that money.
Therefore, a lot of the instructional programs are useless. There
is so much money for these schools, and so many schools and so many
graduates, but the jobs are not there. The schools have to gear
their training to the available jobs. The HRIC will help solve
those problems.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt the inclusion of the amendment will look
good, but really assessment is inherent in the whole program. The
intent of the new system is to plan for block grants anyway.
Number 672
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he has a reasonable sense of the committee's
feelings.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved amendment two.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected, due to the fact that Mr. Rubadeau's
discussion on the wording is something that needs to be considered
at some time in the future.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY suggested a possible amendment to the amendment.
The amendment could read, "to a meaningful program of outcome
assessments where needed...."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt "where needed" provided a pretty big loophole.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said JTPA makes assessment an absolute mandate.
MS. SCANLON noted that all the federal programs mandate assessment.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that therefore, "where needed" is not needed.
Number 736
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he did not want the HRIC to sponsor the
meaningful program, he wanted the council to collect reports.
Therefore, Co-Chair Bunde suggested that the words "to collect the
results of the outcome assessments that effectively measures...."
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it seems there is a consensus among
HESS Committee members that they want the HRIC to collect the data
on the success of these training programs. HESS Committee members
also want the HRIC to report these assessments back to the
legislature. The state wants to know what is and is not working.
Therefore, she felt the HESS Committee members could provide that
direction to the bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the chair would accept a conceptual amendment
based on amendment two with the understanding that the council will
collect and distribute these assessments that the various
participants produce. Co-Chair Bunde expressed a wish to create
the verbiage that would require that these assessments be provided
to the HRIC.
Number 872
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the objection was maintained to conceptual
amendment two. The objection was not maintained, and conceptual
amendment two was passed. When Co-Chair Bunde creates the wording,
he will distribute it to HESS Committee members and to Mr.
Rubadeau.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved the following conceptual amendment.
The amendment references page 4, Section (5), line 9. The
amendment seeks to strike the word "one" after "least," and insert
the word "two," on that line. Moving down on the same page to line
24, the amendment aims to delete the period after the word
"council," add a comma, and add the following words: "with at
least one member from private industry councils representing
private sector business."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the reason for this is the
recommendation of the private industry councils themselves, as well
as the concerns raised by Representative Rokeberg and
Representative Vezey about the representation of the private
sector. From the testimony of the subcommittees and Representative
Rokeberg's inquiries about what "private sector" means, the
Administration answered that labor unions and other quasi-
governmental organizations were "private sector."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG found that a little unusual. Therefore,
the thrust of this amendment is to insure a heavier weight toward
private business.
Number 994
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Rubadeau if this amendment would then
increase the size of the council by one, or would it displace
someone.
MR. RUBADEAU answered that it states in (10) that "at least one"
was necessary. Therefore, if there were only one, the added one
would be another member of private industry councils, representing
private sector business. Mr. Rubadeau said he was very comfortable
with the amendment, as it reflected the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved amendment three.
Number 1031
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the amendment incorporated line 24
also. Representative Rokeberg had said "with at least one member
from the private sector" down on line 24.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wanted to hear from Mr. Rubadeau that he
was comfortable with that amendment.
MR. RUBADEAU agreed with the amendment. He said it spells out even
more clearly the natural relationship that is envisioned with the
private industry councils and the private sector.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the objection had been maintained, and it
was not. Conceptual amendment three passed. Amendment one was
withdrawn.
Number 1077
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that on page 4, line 23, after the first
time the word "sector" appears, that the word "employers" be
inserted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections, and there were none. The
conceptual amendment passed.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY also moved that the section beginning on page
4, lines 2-4 be deleted. He would also amend line 9, after (5), to
change the word "four" to "eight."
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG also opposed the amendment because of the
lengthy testimony which reviewed the balanced membership of the
HRIC. The Administration made a fair case for the necessity of
having the commissioner levels and personnel from the state
Administration participate in the activity to provide the
leadership that is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON understood that the numbers are also part
of the federal mandate, and such coordination is part of the
concepts and requirements in meeting the criteria.
Number 1253
MR. RUBADEAU said that public sector involvement is very
specifically laid out, as it includes memberships from education,
labor and the private sector. The amendments offered so far have
not in any way changed the relationships between the memberships
and the quotas that must be met under the federal guidelines. Up
to this point, the amendments have basically specified that the
private industry councils will be involved, and private sector
employers will be those targeted. However, once the HESS Committee
members start to tinker with the total membership, then the
mandated percentages are screwed up.
MR. RUBADEAU said percentages are very specifically laid out in the
federal law that brings $42 million to the Alaska. That money
could be jeopardized by not having the proper oversight council.
If the federal requirements are not met, the money will not be
acquired.
Number 1286
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how many elected or appointed government
officials are required to be on the council. That is what he just
proposed eliminating: The commissioners. The commissioners can
certainly sit on the board under paragraph (b) under (10). The
commissioners can be nonvoting members. Representative Vezey was
deleting the appointed public officials from being voting members
of the board, and replacing four of those with four people from the
private sector.
Number 1327
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there is a federal requirement that at
least 15 percent of the members of the council must be public
members. Therefore, there must be at least 4 people of the 26.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would not consider the commissioners
of the various departments as public members.
MR. RUBADEAU clarified. He said the commissioners that are
involved are those commissioners that are overseeing the actual
delivery of the services. These are where the programs are
located. The HRIC is not about the consolidation of programs.
JTPA is serviced under Community and Regional Affairs (CRA). The
unemployment security trust is under the Department of Labor.
GCOVE is under the Department of Education.
MR. RUBADEAU said his office is not proposing removing those
programs from the line agencies that have been doing a good job at
delivering those programs. The bill proposes an oversight
committee that shrinks three duplicative oversight committees into
one. Those commissioners need to be at the table in order to
insure that whatever the strategic plan is that comes out of the
process of the oversight committee, it is done at the line agency
level.
MR. RUBADEAU said his office feels it is very important for the
commissioners to be there. That will help bring the partnership of
public and private business together. That partnership has to be
embodied at the table. The commissioners have to be there to talk
about what is best for Alaskan employers and employees, and how to
turn the tide and get job training that is meaningful to the state.
That is why these commissioners are there.
Number 1429
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the commissioners are so important to
the council, why does the bill say their designee can be present
instead of the commissioner.
MR. RUBADEAU said the HRIC will probably meet quarterly. If a
quorum must be met, the HRIC commissioners should have that option.
However, the commissioners are very committed to the proposed
council. There are very important decisions that must be made in
the next decade in Alaska on how to wrestle back Alaskan jobs for
Alaskans. The commissioners need to be at the HRIC table to make
those decisions.
MR. RUBADEAU stated that Department of Labor statistics show that
one-third of all employment dollars go to out-of-state employees.
Those dollars need to be brought back to Alaska. The DOL can help
the HRIC do that, and so can the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that some major changes were coming
down from the federal government concerning how training programs
are administered. He said that to speculate that those changes
will have the same strings tied to them as the programs that
already exist would be extremely presumptuous and probably
erroneous. He really thinks that the legislature should wait until
it sees what the federal programs look like. Then the state should
perform one reorganization, and do it then.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said last year he supported a major
reorganization of those programs. But he was not anticipating that
the federal government was going to propose major reorganization.
He fears that the state of Alaska would just start to get a system
in place, and an entirely new program would be passed down to
Alaska from the federal government.
Number 1497
MR. RUBADEAU said the opportunity under the HRIC, that only 21
other states have taken advantage of, is a 1993 amendment to the
JTPA federal program. That is driving what the Lt. Governor's
office feels are the block grant scenarios that are proposed. The
Lt. Governor's office has studied the five bills that are presently
in Congress. All five address the HRIC concept. The Lt.
Governor's office feels that the other states are working rapidly
to get on-line with this. If the block grant scenarios come down
prior to the state of Alaska having an HRIC in place, Alaska will
have to work quickly to catch up.
MR. RUBADEAU said the state should begin planning now, and do an
orderly phase-out of the existing programs to get to the HRIC,
which is part of the bill. It is the sunset provision in the bill,
so Alaska stands ready, as it should, to benefit not only from
revenue streams now but the revenue streams to come.
MR. RUBADEAU said this bill represents fore-planning, rather than
trying to catch-up after the fact.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Rubadeau if the amendment passes, does
that make the entire bill obsolete as far as meeting the federal
government guidelines in order to receive funding.
MR. RUBADEAU answered that federal government requirements would
not be met.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote on conceptual amendment five.
Voting "yes" on the amendment was Representative Vezey. Voting
"no" was Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Rokeberg,
Representative Robinson and Representative Davis.
Number 1611
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved HB 280 as amended with individual
recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There were no
objections, and the bill passed.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS - BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS
Number 1632
CO-CHAIR BUNDE read the names of the proposed appointments to the
Board of Dental Examiners: Raymond Lang, Kenneth Crooks, James
Clark, Phyllis Pendergrast, Carol Ross and Connie Stewart.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she called the Dental Society and asked for an
opinion. The society said it approved of all candidates.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he had also made some inquiries, and found no
objections in the dental community. He read for the record the
following statement: "This does not reflect any intent by any of
the members to vote for or against these individuals during any
further sessions for the purpose of confirmation." He then asked
for the wish of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that the names be passed without
recommendations onto the floor. There were no objections and it
was so done.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|