Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/02/1995 02:04 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
May 2, 1995
2:04 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
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CSSB 123(FIN): "An Act relating to student loan programs and fees
for review of postsecondary education institutions;
relating to a postsecondary student exchange
program administered by the Western Interstate
Commission on Higher Education; 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."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 88(FIN): "An Act establishing a pilot program for charter
schools; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 119: "An Act exempting schools from certain fees charged
by the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SB 58 am: "An Act restricting the use of the title `industrial
hygienist' and related titles and initials."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS: Board of Nursing
Belle Cunningham
Kathleen Kloster
Joe Senungetuk
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. JOE L. McCORMICK, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, AK 99801-7109
Telephone: (907) 465-6740
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 123.
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.
DAN FAUSKE, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
P.O. Box 101020
Anchorage, AK 99510-1020
Telephone: (907) 561-1900
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281.
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 282.
SENATOR BERT SHARP
Alaska State Legislature
Room 514, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 88.
CHRISTINE CASLER
HC31 Box 5248A
Wasilla, AK 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-3739
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
KATHY FUNT
P.O. Box 4
Gustavus, AK
Telephone: (907) 697-2458
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
ANNIE MACKOVJAK
P.O. Box 63
Gustavus, AK 99826
Telephone: (907) 697-2246
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
LYNN JENSEN
P.O. Box 87
Gustavus, AK
Telephone: (907) 697-2259
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
DAVID CORNBERG, Independent Education Consultant
P.O. Box 82631
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-4514
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
CATHERINE PORTLOCK
10501 Loudermilk
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W. 11th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT:Testified in support of SB 88.
LINDA SHARP
2060 Esquire
Anchorage, AK 99517
Telephone: (907) 278-6951
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant
to Commissioner Halloway
Department of Education
801 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4156
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support by SB 88.
ROBERT GOTTSTIEN, Member
State Board of Education
630 W. 4th Avenue, #300
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 257-5601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Bert Sharp's
Alaska State Legislature
Room 514, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA
Alaska State Legislature
Room 406, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 119.
KIT BALLANTINE, Acting Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Room 105
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-5280
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 119.
AARON TRIPPLER, Director of Government Affairs
American Industrial Hygienist Association
2700 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 250
Fairfax, VA 22031
Telephone: (703) 849-8888
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 58.
PENNY GOODSTIEN, Representative
Anchorage Branch/Midnight Sun Section
American Industrial Hygienist Association
9500 Buddy Lerner
Anchorage, AK 99561
Telephone: (907) 346-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 58.
JANET OGAN, Legislative Secretary
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Room 113, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 58.
JEFF CARPENTER, Member
Midnight Sun Section
American Industrial Hygienist Association
9121 King David Drive
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 344-8516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 58.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 123
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/95 578 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/10/95 578 (S) HES, FIN
03/20/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/20/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/21/95 721 (S) HES RPT CS 3DP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/21/95 721 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DOE-2)
04/19/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/26/95 1249 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/26/95 1249 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DOE-2)
04/27/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/28/95 1310 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/28/95
04/28/95 1314 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/28/95 1315 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/28/95 1315 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/28/95 1315 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 123(FIN)
04/28/95 1315 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
04/28/95 1315 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/28/95 1323 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/29/95 1659 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/29/95 1659 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
05/02/95 (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
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
05/02/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
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
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
05/02/95 (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
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
05/02/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 88
SHORT TITLE: PILOT PROGRAM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP, Frank, Miller, Taylor, Rieger, Green,
Halford
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/95 288 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/15/95 289 (S) HES, FIN
02/21/95 356 (S) COSPONSOR(S): RIEGER
02/22/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/22/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/01/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/01/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/08/95 543 (S) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
03/01/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/08/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/08/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/09/95 556 (S) HES RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE
03/09/95 556 (S) FN (DOE)
03/27/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/95 840 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/30/95 840 (S) PREVIOUS FN (DOE)
03/30/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/10/95 979 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/11/95
04/11/95 979 (S) RETURN TO RLS COMMITTEE
04/11/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/11/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/12/95 997 (S) RULES RPT 3CAL 2 OTHER 4/12/95
04/12/95 999 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/12/95 999 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/12/95 999 (S) COSPONSOR(S): HALFORD
04/12/95 999 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/12/95 999 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 88(FIN)
04/12/95 1000 (S) PASSED Y12 N8
04/12/95 1000 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y15 N5
04/12/95 1000 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/13/95 1036 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/13/95 1036 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION
Y12 N6 E1 A1
04/13/95 1037 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y16 N2 E1 A1
04/13/95 1037 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/18/95 1340 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/18/95 1340 (H) HES, FINANCE
05/02/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 119
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPT SCHOOLS FROM CERTAIN DEC FEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KUBINA, Davies, Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 131 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 132 (H) HES, FIN
03/29/95 987 (H) COSPONSOR(S): IVAN
05/02/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 58
SHORT TITLE: USE OF TITLE "INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST"
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/01/95 129 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/01/95 129 (S) HES, L&C
02/15/95 286 (S) HES RPT 2DP 2NR
02/15/95 286 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LABOR #1)
02/15/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/15/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/07/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/07/95 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/21/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/21/95 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/22/95 744 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 4NR
03/22/95 744 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LABOR)
03/27/95 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/05/95 872 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/5
04/05/95 873 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/05/95 874 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/05/95 874 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 58
04/05/95 874 (S) PASSED Y16 N2 E2
04/05/95 874 (S) RIEGER NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/06/95 898 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/06/95 898 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN
CONSENT
04/06/95 898 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/06/95 899 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
SB 58 AM
04/06/95 899 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y16 N3 E1
04/06/95 900 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/07/95 1170 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/07/95 1170 (H) HES, LABOR AND COMMERCE
05/02/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-46, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee to order at 2:04
p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Brice, and Davis. A quorum was present to conduct
business. Co-Chair Bunde read the calendar and announced the order
of the bills.
SB 123 - POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Number 129
DR. JOE McCORMICK, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education (DOE), said SB 123 is basically
the same as HB 257 which was passed by the House HESS Committee.
However, there are two notable exceptions. The loan limits, as
they apply to career school programs, were modified to allow for a
$6,500 annual maximum for programs that are 30 or more weeks in
length. That is the standard definition of a year in length. A
$4,500 maximum was established for programs that were less than 30
but more than 20 weeks in length; and a $3,000 maximum was allowed
for programs of less than 20 weeks in length but at least 10 weeks.
DR. McCORMICK continued that HB 257 had a total maximum loan
eligibility of $79,000. The Senate modified that to $60,000. As
a point of reference, the $60,000 does represent about a 26 percent
increase over the current maximums allowed for under current law.
In addition, SB 123 denies loans to individuals who are
incarcerated full-time. HB 257 provided loans for incarcerated
individuals who were scheduled for release within two months.
DR. McCORMICK recommended that the HESS Committee embrace the
Senate bill, and pass it.
Number 268
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced for the record that Representative Vezey
joined the meeting at 2:08 p.m.
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY said her office received two communications
from people who feared they would not be able to get loans for
trade schools because those schools were less than six months in
duration. She asked how those schools were addressed.
DR. McCORMICK said the original house version, HB 257, proposed
that those programs that were one year in length remain at $5,500,
and those programs that were less than nine months in length were
dropped to $4,000. The Senate version came up with a compromise
that actually improves the situation regarding trade schools.
Those programs that are a year in length are allowed $6,500. That
is $1,000 more than they now receive. Those programs that are 20
to 30 weeks in length are allowed $3,500, which is $500 more than
allowed by the House version.
DR. McCORMICK continued that those programs that are less than 20
weeks but are at least 10 weeks in length are allowed $3,000 a
year.
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Dr. McCormick to comment on how many
trade school or vocational programs are less than six months in
length.
DR. McCORMICK responded that approximately 70 to 80 percent of
those programs are of that duration. They usually run about six
months to a year.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how many are less than six months in
duration.
DR. McCORMICK answered no more than 30 percent, perhaps only 10 to
15 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that is in terms of programs. If it is
broken down into student classroom or learning hours, what are the
numbers?
DR. McCORMICK said it does not break down into very many students.
Typically, a small school like that does not enroll more than 10 to
20 students per term. Those schools are usually very small
operations.
Number 431
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON joined the meeting at 2:10 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE said in other words, something like a
beauty school would no longer be eligible.
DR. McCORMICK indicated that was not correct. Under SB 123
everyone who is currently eligible will still be eligible. The
change occurs in the amounts allowed. Currently, all program
lengths are eligible for the same amounts, regardless of the length
of the program. SB 123 simply takes into account the length of the
program.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and asked for the wish of
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved CSSB 123(FIN) from the HESS Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note.
There were no objections, and the bill passed.
HB 205 - STREET GANG ACTIVITY
Number 515
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, recalled at the last hearing on HB 205 the issue
had come up about whether or not a provision could be included for
those juveniles who have run away from home. In such a case, their
parents would not be liable for acts committed by that child as
part of a street gang.
MS. KNUTH had prepared an amendment which added a paragraph on page
2, line 1 of the bill. This paragraph appears in at least one, and
perhaps two other bills that have gone through this session.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for further discussion of the amendment. He
also called for objections.
Number 602
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt the amendment only addresses a small part
of what is a flaw in Section 1 of the bill. There are many other
aspects of the bill that the HESS Committee members have not talked
about. A lot of the concerns are simple, such as what happens to
children who are under joint custody agreements, or children who
are visiting non-custodial parents. There may be simple cases of
people who don't have control over their kids.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY again expressed concern over suing someone who
is indigent--there is no point to that. He felt Section 1 still
leaves a lot to be desired.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on the amendment.
Voting "yes" on Amendment 1 was Representative Davis,
Representative Brice, Representative Robinson, Co-Chair Toohey, Co-
Chair Bunde, and Representative Vezey. There were no "no" votes.
Amendment 1 was adopted, and HB 205 as amended was before the HESS
Committee. Co-Chair Bunde asked for further discussion or the will
of the committee.
Number 711
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 205 as amended with individual
recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There was an
objection, and a vote was taken. Voting "yes" on the passage of
the bill were Co-Chair Toohey, Co-Chair Bunde, Representative
Robinson, Representative Brice and Representative Davis. Voting
"no" was Representative Vezey. The CSHB 205(HES) was passed out of
the House HESS Committee.
HB 281 - AHFC TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND; BONDS
Number 830
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced this bill had been heard previously, and
he had proposed an amendment. The bill had been held so everyone
would have a chance to look at the amendment.
Number 847
DAN FAUSKE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), understands the amendment proposed by Co-Chair
Bunde would in essence eradicate Section 3, under ratification.
The problem Mr. Fauske had with that is that in negotiations with
the rating agencies in an attempt to get AHFC off credit watch, the
agencies stated they wanted to see that some form of agreed upon
legislation was in existence. With this legislation, the agencies
could see what the transfers out of the corporation would be on a
regular basis over a period of time. This was so the agencies
could protect their bond holders.
MR. FAUSKE said without that kind of language, the AHFC runs the
risk that the credit agencies will not honor the agreement as it
was seen, as far as transferring money out of the corporation. The
AHFC will probably be placed back on credit watch with all the
negative implications and, subsequent to that, any future bond
sales. Probably, future bond ratings will most likely go down
depending on how much money was taken from the corporation.
Number 928
MR. FAUSKE stressed that his concern is not so much a case of being
told what to do by people on the East Coast. The point is to look
ahead in time after the bonds are already sold. The bonds are sold
and the rating has been maintained based on the financial stability
and strength of the corporation. If that is weakened, the rating
agencies have a fiduciary responsibility to notify their bond
holders of a potential problem. Therefore, the strength of the
transfer bill was based on the fact that there would be some
agreement between the legislature, the administration and the
corporation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE understood. His reason for offering the amendment
was not antagonistic in respect to someone from "back East" trying
to tell Alaska what to do. Surely the ratings agencies are aware
that this is a very hollow assurance. The next legislative session
could repeal the entire bill or that section of the bill if the
legislature chose to do so.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if the rating agencies are not aware, they
should be aware that HB 281 provides a very hollow assurance. Co-
Chair Bunde does not feel that taking Section 3 out automatically
indicates that Co-Chair Bunde wants to continue to drain capital
reserves from the AHFC. To Co-Chair Bunde, Section 3 is a
meaningless part of the bill.
Number 1030
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY pointed out the legislature cannot change the
law without the Governor's signature or a veto override.
Therefore, if HB 281 is passed, it is more difficult to change a
law than it is to initially pass a law. HB 281 does provide what
Representative Vezey believes most courts would interpret as the
pledge of the full faith and credit of the State of Alaska for
those bonds. That is more than those bonds have now.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that is a subject of debate in and of its
own. If the state of Alaska puts its full faith and credit behind
those bonds, Representative Vezey would imagine that the financial
managers on the East coast would probably care less what is done to
the AHFC as long as the bonds are guaranteed.
Number 1080
CO-CHAIR BUNDE conceded that he was not a bond attorney, but he
thought the quasi-governmental agencies that issue bonds have the
full faith of the state if the bonds ever went to court. However,
some people like to be meticulous.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY assured Co-Chair Bunde if that was the case,
the bond rating company would not be the least bit concerned.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Representative Rokeberg joined the
meeting at 2:20 p.m.
Number 1120
MR. FAUSKE said the AHFC is the only housing finance corporation in
the United States that has its own general obligation (G.O.)
rating. That is very significant, because there is no other such
corporation that has that. The AHFC is a stand-alone organization
and the credit is based on the full faith and credit of the
corporation. Therefore, if the legislature or some other body were
to take significant acts that impaired the ability of the
corporation to service its debt, any number of things could happen.
MR. FAUSKE did not wish to discuss those possibilities at the
moment. He only wanted to state that Section 3 assures the full
agreement with the legislature that the legislature will not impair
the corporation's ability to service its debt. It is also in the
spirit of the language that the corporation cannot be utilized in
full force to solve all the fiscal problems of the state.
MR. FAUSKE said, "The AHFC has arrived at what seems to be a
reasonable amount of money based on some technical analysis as to
fund equity balances of the corporation that meet with the
guidelines established to maintain the bond rating that the AHFC
currently enjoys." That bond rating is translated into some low
mortgage interest rates for the residents of Alaska.
MR. FAUSKE explained that a bond rating is a direct result of risk.
The higher the rating, the lower the risk. In retrospect, if
ratings go the other way, interest rates go up.
Number 1212
CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not disagree with the proposal the bill laid out
as a reasonable withdrawal of dividends from the AHFC. However,
regarding the full faith and credit of the state of Alaska, if the
legislature chose to dissolve the corporation, the state would take
on its debts and responsibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE thought that was true with any other bonding
agency that is quasi-governmental. The AHFC has been able to
maintain a substantially high bond rating because it has
established through past history that the state is willing to take
those golden eggs and stow them away in an appropriate manner.
That is what Section 3 intends.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the state has done that in the past, and
it has done that without Section 3.
Number 1278
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG thought that there needs to be teeth
in legislation, therefore, he is going to vote against the
amendment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the amendment was moved at the last
meeting, and there were objections to the amendment. A roll call
vote was taken. Voting "yes" on the amendment were Co-Chair Bunde
and Representative Vezey. Voting "no" were Representative
Rokeberg, Representative Brice, Representative Robinson, Co-Chair
Toohey and Representative Davis. Amendment 1 failed.
Number 1318
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG introduced an amendment. It was moved as
Amendment 2, and there were objections for purposes of discussion.
Amendment 2 modified the title of the bill and deleted Section 4,
which provides the bonding authority to provide the $3 million.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the reason he brought forth the
amendment is because he considered this particular provision a
blatant raid on the equity of the AHFC for a special purpose.
Representative Rokeberg did not feel that was right, and it was
very poor public policy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was also concerned about the credit
worthiness of the AHFC, and their ability to maintain their credit
worthiness and their bond rating. In addition, the university
system and all school systems in Alaska should be able to provide
the repair and maintenance of their physical plants within their
operating budgets and not look for special appropriations to do so.
Number 1390
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG appreciated the situation the university
was in. However, this bill amounts to one state entity raiding
another. The two are not related. If the legislature wants to
bond the repair and maintenance of the university system it should
do so with a G.O. bond that goes before the vote of the people.
That is why Amendment 2 is being offered.
Number 1411
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what the difference was between taking $200
million from the AHFC to put into the general fund as was done last
year, and what is being provided for in the bill, other than the
fact that the bill's provisions have a purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the purpose of the $270 million
appropriation is to give a predictable annual dividend to the
state's general fund. The state can do what it wishes with that
money. Representative Rokeberg supports that because it is a
sustainable type of dividend. The real estate community and the
state supports that. It provides stability.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his amendment was offered to further
avoid any major raids of bond equity of the corporation.
Representative Rokeberg does not feel this is the right cause and
purpose. If the legislature wishes to repair and maintain the
university with bonding money, the legislature should go to the
voters and ask their permission.
Number 1470
MR. FAUSKE said Representative Rokeberg's concerns are a separate
issue in terms of how to go about this area. Mr. Fauske said he
did not wish to discuss the merits of going to the people for a
vote or not. HB 281 is a G.O. of the corporation that falls within
the parameters of the corporation based on the merger of 1992.
MR. FAUSKE said this would have come under the old Alaska State
Housing Authority (ASHA). Mr. Fauske believed the repair and
replacement of state facilities used to be one of the functions of
ASHA. That gave the mechanism whereby the state was operating
within the overall umbrella of the corporate activities.
MR. FAUSKE stated that at the beginning of the session, up to March
of this session, there was a great deal of activity going on as far
as funding for the university. This program became part of the
process to help eliminate the overall deteriorating maintenance on
the university campuses. This agreement has been discussed with
the rating agencies. At this level they have considered this $30
million in G.O. as well as the withdrawal from the corporation.
MR. FAUSKE concluded it falls within the parameters of what is
being done, and within the perusal of the rating agencies and what
they have been told the state is trying to do. It does not,
however, address the question that Representative Rokeberg is
asking.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said unlike Co-Chair Bunde's amendment which
attempted to address a specific concern, the current amendment is
probably eviscerating the whole intent of the legislation and would
probably be considered dilatory in that sense. HESS Committee
members might want to consider some type of an action on that
point. On the other point he does believe that when HESS Committee
members are talking about the discussion of the AHFC and its
corporation's bond authority, HESS Committee members need to
discuss establishing also whether or not it is appropriate for the
AHFC to be used to adequately fund the deferred maintenance
operations at the state university.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE considered the debate that has taken place
over the last two years concerning the issue. He has not heard any
realtors complain, nor has he heard anyone argue. In addition,
Representative Brice has not heard the AHFC get concerned over
their bonding rating, as testimony has said that the bill, as is,
protects the corporation's bonding authority. Therefore,
Representative Brice opposes the amendment.
Number 1636
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Fauske, given the language on
Section 4 of HB 281, if the payment of the principal interest would
not be a draw-down on the retained earnings and other resources of
the corporation.
MR. FAUSKE answered yes in that it is coming from corporate
receipts. It is not a revenue bond per se because it is a G.O.
bond.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concluded that any retained earnings or
profits generated by the lending activities throughout the state,
for example, "The homeowners paying their mortgage checks to their
servicing agent to the AHFC as the underwriter of their mortgage,"
are going to finance this bigger bond issue.
MR. FAUSKE said following that paper trail, that is correct based
on the fact that the AHFC is a profit making corporation, and
profits are derived from repayment on mortgages, investment
earnings and other mechanisms. Money is coming into the
corporation, and the profits are then being utilized as a financial
strength to support the bond credit.
Number 1695
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it was kind of like a phantom tax.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on Amendment 2. Voting
"yes" on the amendment was Representative Rokeberg. Voting "no"
were Representative Robinson, Co-Chair Toohey, Co-Chair Bunde,
Representative Vezey, Representative Davis, and Representative
Brice. Amendment 2 failed.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY was expecting to see a schedule of transfers
of capital in this bill. He asked if that would be coming in
another bill.
MR. FAUSKE believed that appears in the agreement between the
commissioner of revenue and the corporation which is based on HB
281.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that copies were in the bill packets.
Number 1807
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 281 with individual recommendations
and accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections, and the
bill passed out of committee.
HB 282 - FINANCING REPAIR/REHAB OF UA BUILDINGS
Number 1874
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said HB 282 is the third bill that has come
before the HESS Committee regarding funding for the University of
Alaska system. He asked the total amount of bonded indebtedness
that the legislature is being asked to authorize for the University
of Alaska this session.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University System, replied
that there are two bills. One is for $30 million which is just for
student housing. In addition, there is now $120 million of
additional deferred maintenance. HB 282 authorizes the AHFC to
issue bonds in the amount of $45 million with the delayed effective
date of July 1, 1996, if cash is not available next year for
deferred maintenance.
MS. REDMAN said this would not draw down on the AHFC reserves to
pay off this debt. This would come from the Alaska debt retirement
fund, the way the bill is written. The AHFC would simply be used
as the bond issuer.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for further public testimony, and there was
none. Public testimony was closed. Co-Chair Bunde asked for
further discussion from the committee.
Number 1980
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was going to vote against the bill.
By his calculations, HESS Committee members authorized $111.5
million in new construction and maintenance bonds for the
university in the last couple of days. This bill calls for another
$45 million. He thinks HESS Committee members should draw the line
somewhere.
MS. REDMAN noted that HESS Committee members did pass out a
straight revenue bond proposal for new housing facilities. Again,
that uses AHFC. But generating revenues from the dorm projects
will go to pay that bond indebtedness off with a small subsidy from
the AHFC. That would be the interest rate subsidy of about $1
million a year.
Number 0236
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the interest rate on that bond, in
terms of the interest subsidy, would be at a rate of 3 percent.
MS. REDMAN said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that was the interest rate
subsidy, the spread, between the cost of their money and what that
3 percent is.
MS. REDMAN said again that Representative Rokeberg was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was not sure at what rate the last bond
went out at, but he ventured to say that it is probably over 7
percent, even if it is a tax-free bond. Therefore, there is a 400
basis point spread differential in the $36 million.
Number 2072
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY essentially asked Representative Rokeberg to
explain his concerns in layman's terms, because as the bill stands,
she understands it and she is going to vote for it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is concerned that on the prior bond
issue of $36.5 million, the subsidy is substantial. The earnings
of the AHFC are subsidizing the housing bonds HESS Committee
members already passed from the committee. Representative Rokeberg
hopes that bill passes, because the bill is needed. But this bill
is adding to that whole situation by moving out the $30 million
bond issue which is entirely paid for by the AHFC. Not one penny
is being paid by the university system.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued that this bill now asks for
another $45 million. Apparently, the debt service is going to be
paid for by the state. Therefore, the totality of all this is too
much. It is going to be difficult to spend $30 million on a good
maintenance program in one year. Representative Rokeberg asked why
another $45 million should be given right now. There is even a
circuit breaker in HB 282 for a $20 million offset.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this is more than the capital budget
that is even being contemplated.
Number 2148
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that this money would not be spent
in one year. However, it would not be hard to spend the $30
million in one year. The deferred maintenance at the university is
growing at $20 million a year, and the university has not even
looked at the total facilities. There is a huge backlog of major
maintenance which is really reconstruction.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY also asked Ms. Redman what role private
housing is currently playing in the university's housing needs.
MS. REDMAN replied that option has been investigated in Anchorage,
Fairbanks and Juneau to see if anyone in the private sector was
interested. A bill was passed last session that allows the
university to offer tax exempt status to private organizations who
came onto university property to build. With that bill, the
university sought people to build, but it has not been successful
in finding interested parties.
Number 2200
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked about off-campus housing.
MS. REDMAN asked if Representative Vezey meant having private
people build facilities for the university off property.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the university currently housed
students staying off campus in private facilities.
MS. REDMAN said yes, but the university does not support that
housing. There are just a lot of students who are trying to live
in the communities. There is no relationship for a lot of legal
reasons with those providers.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how much of the university's housing
needs that was fulfilling.
MS. REDMAN answered that it varies in each community. In Juneau,
most students are still living off campus. In Anchorage, a huge
majority of students are living off campus. About 95 percent of
the students are in the community. In Fairbanks, about 40 percent
of students are living off campus.
Number 2242
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the reason the university cannot get private
entities to pay for housing in Anchorage is because it cannot and
will not pay for itself. The AHFC subsidizes at 3 percent, and Co-
Chair Bunde still thinks the whole plan will fail. However, he
reiterated that he is willing to be proven wrong.
Number 2254
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the concern that all the bonds
will be let at once. That is the beauty of bonding versus straight
general fund capital money. Straight general fund capital money
has to be spent within three years. Bonding authorization lasts a
little longer, and the economy is not super heated in Anchorage,
Juneau or wherever the projects are taking place. They can be let
in smaller amounts to allow for local contractors to do the work.
In addition, smaller amounts provide work for Alaska firms, whereas
large jobs attract and need large Seattle or Los Angeles firms to
do the job. That is the beauty within the bonding proposal.
TAPE 95-46, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked to wrap up. He said by passing the
bill the HESS Committee members were almost rewarding the
mismanagement and mischief of the university. The university
should have put their house in order long ago, although
Representative Rokeberg realizes it is trying to reorganize
currently. He also understands that the university needs help, and
he was not saying the legislature should not help the university
through some of the bond issues.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt, however, that the HESS Committee
members should look at the broad scope of things. The HESS
Committee just moved $30 million out of the committee, and the
university is now asking for another $45 million. Representative
Rokeberg suggested that the HESS Committee not give them that $45
million. He thinks $30 million is a good start.
Number 060
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that these bills go to the Finance
Committee, and he does not have any information that would lead him
to believe that the Finance Committee will not pick and choose as
to what goes out of that committee. Co-Chair Bunde said he would
be willing to give the Finance Committee the option to pick and
choose.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 282 with individual recommendations
and accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected, and a roll call vote was taken.
Voting "yes" on the passage of HB 282 were Co-Chair Toohey, Co-
Chair Bunde, Representative Vezey, Representative Davis,
Representative Brice, and Representative Robinson. Voting "no" was
Representative Rokeberg. HB 282 was passed from the House HESS
Committee.
SB 88 - PILOT PROGRAM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS
Number 160
SENATOR BERT SHARP provided the sponsor statement for the bill. He
said the issue of charter schools was discussed at length during
the two years of the Eighteenth Alaska Legislature. Senator Sharp
had the misfortune of having that bill on the Senate side during
that time. It was just one small part of the Alaska 2000
propositions in the Senate. It was in two bills, SB 60 and SB 61.
Those bills had companion bills in the House.
SENATOR SHARP said those two bills, which in all aspects were
omnibus education bills, tried to address diverse issues. Each
bill was controversial in some way, and each issue tainted or
detracted from the other one. This led to the fact that none of
them passed.
SENATOR SHARP has tried to craft SB 88 to be a single issue bill
for charter schools. Charter schools were an item in SB 61 during
the Eighteenth Alaska Legislature. This bill allows school
districts, teachers and parents the space to be creative. It
allows the charter schools to utilize existing school facilities,
new facilities, and/or the option of leasing adequate facilities
owned by private enterprises within the community.
SENATOR SHARP said a geographical application has been done to
assure fairness statewide in that one area does not come in and
take up the total allocated 30. There are 30 suggested for the
pilot program which lasts up to the year 2005. The sun sets at
that time. The allocation is pretty straight forward on the second
page of the bill.
Number 289
SENATOR SHARP continued that all charter school proposals must be
submitted to the local school board for consideration. Upon their
approval by the school board, they then must be forwarded to the
commissioner of the DOE for review and compliance to state law.
All staffing of charter schools must be done on a volunteer basis,
with the principal or administrator of that charter school having
the right of final approval of all staff selection.
SENATOR SHARP said Section 3 of the bill concerns the funding of
charter schools. Section (a) of 3 reads that a local school board
shall provide an approved charter school with an annual program
budget. The budget shall be not less than the amount generated by
the students enrolled in the charter school less administrative
costs retained by the local school district, determined by applying
the indirect cost rate approved by the DOE.
SENATOR SHARP said the amount generated by students enrolled in
charter schools is to be determined in the same manner as it would
be for a student enrolled in any other school within the school
district. No more or no less funding would be available to the
school district. This is just an option that could be considered
by the school board upon presentation of the proposal.
Number 379
SENATOR SHARP said the exciting thing about charter schools is that
they provide the opportunity to get children involved with teachers
on something that may bring them together in an atmosphere that is
more focused on education. There have been areas in other states,
particularly in Wisconsin and New Jersey, that found it worked
exceptionally well. Charter schools worked primarily in those
areas in which the proposals were made for the existing school
buildings within the district. Normally, the older buildings were
used.
SENATOR SHARP said the charter school concept was incorporated with
the parents and the teachers who volunteer. The enthusiasm was
therefore, a lot higher and more focused on the agenda of the
charter school.
Number 432
SENATOR SHARP found an interesting paragraph that reads, "This
Administration will work to free local districts from regulations
and mandates which restrict parents and educators from exploring
innovation." That paragraph was from Governor Tony Knowles's State
of the State address.
SENATOR SHARP thought that was a good challenge. He noted his
school district is the one that requested that SB 88 be pushed, and
his community really feels that there are some opportunities
present. There are also restrictions in the bill on what is
allowed. The school board has total control. The school has to be
non-secretarian in nature, and meet all other state laws as
overseen by the commissioner of the DOE.
Number 487
SENATOR SHARP also wanted to point out that the Fairbanks North
Star Borough District wrote a letter of support. The DOE notes
that the State Board of Education, at the last meeting, voted
unanimously in support of the concept of SB 88. There are a few
other letters of support in the bill packets.
SENATOR SHARP stated there is a very small fiscal note from the DOE
for $2,000 for taking care of sending information back and forth
between the school districts if the activity is there, and to cover
forms that the DOE may require processed.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she was very concerned that the schools are
going down in value, teaching ability and other aspects. She has
often said that she does not want to detract from those concerns by
passing legislation such as this. That is her fear. If charter
schools are implemented, motivated children, parents and teachers
will work together. That is fine. But she fears that such schools
are going to jeopardize the attention that should be given to the
students the current school system is producing.
Number 585
SENATOR SHARP understood that concern. But the opportunity to
stimulate parents and teachers is prevalent. Most of the interest
in Senator Sharp's community comes from the teachers who want to be
involved in a school in which they can have more freedom, challenge
the students and challenge themselves. They dislike the total
regimentation that is applied school wide. The specs of the bill
allows the school boards to relax some of the textbook requirements
as long as state standards are met for education.
SENATOR SHARP felt if some experimentation was not done in an
attempt to find out what works, the system is eventually doomed.
However, he conceded that there are different situations in
different districts. His grandchildren go to very good schools.
However, some of the teachers are very committed in that particular
school. Many teachers would like to be challenged somewhere else
as they advance in their careers. They would like a chance to
experiment and see if something else will work better. This may be
their opportunity.
Number 658
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that in Section 1 of the bill says that there
will not be more than ten charter schools in the Anchorage area.
She asked how many charter schools were in Anchorage at the moment,
and if the bill was retroactively mandating the total number of
charter schools in Anchorage or if those would be added schools.
SENATOR SHARP said the only community that he is aware of that has
pursued charter schools doggedly is in Anchorage. It seems to have
worked well in different areas. SB 88 encourages other school
districts to consider the options. There are many reservations,
especially in the district in Senator Sharp's area. The people are
unsure they will have the power to create their own school.
Perhaps the bill will allow those people to relax concerning the
standards and regimentation of the schools.
SENATOR SHARP reiterated that he has heard good things about some
of the efforts made in the Anchorage alternative schools. He
thinks the bill is portioned out so one area could not take all the
options from the bush area and begin four or five schools.
Number 737
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the schools in Anchorage are called
"alternative schools," they are not charter schools. There is a
polar school, and it is very loose. The students are allowed to
vote on the academic focus, therefore, the focus for the month of
January was cross-country skiing.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that was the crux of his question to
Senator Sharp. He wanted to know if Senator Sharp was aware of any
charter schools in the state that meet the criteria he is
establishing with the bill.
SENATOR SHARP said he was not. But he does know there is
excitement out there about the possibility of charter schools. The
bill incorporates some fine tuning by everyone who testified in the
other body. Those wishes were accommodated without making the bill
too heavy on one side or the other.
Number 830
CHRISTINE CASLER testified via teleconference that SB 88 is
essential for districts to implement updated teacher practices
supported by educational research, and to allow parents choices
when their children do not learn well in traditional settings. The
bill would also alleviate extensive waiting lists for alternative
programs which now exist in some districts. Finally, the bill
would begin to restore community confidence in education and bring
about real change to the status quo which industry and community is
demanding.
MS. CASLER continued that SB 88 can bring about real hope and
change in education for everyone. She urged HESS Committee members
to pass SB 88 so education can get exciting for everyone.
Number 895
KATHY FUNT testified via teleconference from Gustavus in support of
the bill. The idea of site-based management is a fairly new one,
and it will involve parents and community members. When those
entities are involved in the schools, changes can be made. It is
important to have parents and communities involved and accountable.
Such involvement would also be very beneficial to the children.
She would like to see SB 88 pass, so the communities can give it
a try.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assumed there was only one school in Gustavus.
MS. FUNT said yes, and that she and other community members were
wondering what would happen in the case of a small, single-site
community if a charter school is started. She was concerned about
people who move to the community and do not like the idea. She
wondered what kind of problems might arise.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Ms. Funt had addressed his concerns exactly.
If a charter school is begun where only one school exists, those
who are not inclined to be part of that charter school do not have
choices. Co-Chair Bunde said that is something to keep in mind.
Number 979
ANNIE MACKOVJAK testified via teleconference from Gustavus that she
believes SB 88 provides a welcome alternative to the now-existing
public schools, but still is within the public school framework.
It would allow a school to try innovating teaching techniques, or
even to apply old techniques, such as Montessori methods.
MS. MACKOVJAK said her husband is from Cleveland, Ohio. He went to
a Cleveland Aviation high school. High schools in Cleveland could
also focus on science, vocational skills, music or art. She
cautioned, however, that charter schools should only be started for
educational reasons. As Alaska grows, it should be leveraging
educational opportunities. The existence of charter schools is one
way to accomplish that.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked what Ms. Mackovjak thought about the
possibility of a group of parents deciding they wanted an
agricultural school in Gustavus, while the other parents wanted a
fishing based school. He asked if majority would rule in that
case.
MS. MACKOVJAK said she did not have an answer to that question.
She is supporting SB 88 statewide, not only for her area. She sees
charter schools as a potential problem in small areas.
Number 1069
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Senator Sharp if there was a limit on the
number of students a school would have to have.
SENATOR SHARP answered that there was no limit on the number of
students. The bill is fairly loosely structured to allow as much
space as possible for the school board and the people who want to
propose a charter school. The situation is that the school board
should make sure the economics are there so two schools could
function within a small school district. If not, Senator Sharp
would assume that the school board would not approve of a charter
school.
SENATOR SHARP said if a proposed charter school has a good proposal
in an large area, that would probably not harm the economics
because the schools would be operating in separate little towns or
villages.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Senator Sharp what happens if there is a small
student body, and one group of parents wants to establish a charter
school. If new parents move to town, they will not have options.
Co-Chair Bunde noted that the minimum in state law for establishing
a school now is eight students. The former commissioner of
education was trying to raise that number to ten.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE foresaw that someday the legislature will study
small schools to see if they should stay open at all. If a student
body consists of 16 students, and those students are divided into
two schools, are those schools then subject to closure?
SENATOR SHARP assumed that the economics of having instructors in
both schools would not allow the school board to even allow a
charter school.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that was assuming the school board would make
good, economic decisions.
Number 1176
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that the bill has a ten year trial time.
SENATOR SHARP stated that assuming it takes two years for anyone to
even get a proposal together and considered, and the maximum
contract can only be for five years with a possible extension to
ten years, the sunset date on the bill is still in ten years. This
is strictly a limited project.
Number 1203
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG addressed page 4, Section 5. That section
refers to teachers' employment agreements. He asked if there was
any requirements for certified teachers, or if teachers were to be
recruited within the district. He asked from where teachers were
being recruited.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE believed that all the same regulations that apply to
other public schools apply to this bill. Charter schools are
simply a facet of the public schools. There must be certified
teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the bill provides for an
exemption.
SENATOR SHARP said if the school board has a collective bargaining
agreement, it must abide by the existing structure of that
agreement. SB 88 would not allow the school board to circumvent
any agreements that are currently in place. However, the proposal
put forward to the school board for a charter school will, in all
likelihood, nominate a principal to be in charge of that school.
That person has the right, upon selection, to select the staff of
that school. No teacher can be forced against their will, it has
to be voluntary.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was more concerned about "Aunt
Gertrude" having a position created for her in the school. He was
also concerned that there could be a mix between exempt and non-
exempt teachers.
SENATOR SHARP did not think there would be any exempt teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the bill says exempt teachers can be
hired if there is an agreement between the district and the
bargaining unit. Therefore, there can be exempt teachers. He
again asked if there would then be exempt and non-exempt teachers.
SENATOR SHARP conceded that there could be both exempt and non-
exempt teachers if there is an agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said therefore, that Aunt Gertrude could be
hired as long as she is certified.
SENATOR SHARP said that was right. The teacher has to be certified
according to state regulations.
Number 1341
LYNN JENSEN testified via teleconference from Gustavus. She asked
what recourse applicants would have if they were denied the
opportunity to become a charter school. She asked if there would
be a recourse, or if the denial would be the final word.
SENATOR SHARP answered that at the present time, it was the
consensus of the Senate committees that the school board should
have total responsibility to avoid any problems of fragmenting the
community and the school system as such. The school board is
elected and responsible for all schools in that district. The bill
does not seek to isolate charter schools from responsibility.
Number 1380
DAVID CORNBERG testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that he
is an independent education consultant involved in education
reform. Charter schools is yet another attempt to do better with
what is available. He wanted to make three points in support of
the bill. First, there are no hard and fast predictive models that
show if a program is implemented today, school systems will be
better in 2005. In addition, there are no models that show what
will not work.
MR. CORNBERG felt the important thing about SB 88 from the
standpoint of reform is that it be given a chance. He strongly
urged just giving charter schools a try, and in the course of doing
so, refining Senator Sharp's bill.
MR. CORNBERG said his second point refers to the federal charter
schools initiative. That initiative comes under the Improving
America's Schools Act. That initiative is currently funded at $6
million. He spoke with a Washington, D.C., contact that day and
the contact said the President has requested $20 million for next
year for that initiative.
Number 1452
MR. CORNBERG continued that no school in a state that has no
charter school legislation can apply. So, as long as Alaska has no
charter school legislation on the books, it cannot apply for that
federal initiative. Therefore, Mr. Cornberg strongly urged that
the bill be passed at all levels and be put on the books to get the
state into a position to apply next fall for some of that money.
That money will help fund the charter school initiatives in the
state.
Number 1473
MR. CORNBERG said his third point regards the concerns with
dividing the community. Mr. Cornberg has lived in some very small
communities. Apart from the financial concerns, 16 students
dividing into two schools will put everyone out of business. The
fact is that society is a democracy. In a city with 500 residents,
there is only one mayor. People have to look at that. If a
democratic constituency decided for a charter school, the people
would have to live with that. Small communities are democracies,
and democracy applies to education also.
MR. CORNBERG strongly urged HESS Committee members to pass SB 88.
Number 1505
CATHERINE PORTLOCK testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
She asked for the support of HESS Committee members for SB 88. She
said charter schools can provide models for improved education at
no additional cost. There is overwhelming evidence that children
have diverse learning styles and educational needs. When a program
is well suited for the child or allows for student differences,
students attend more and learn more.
MS. PORTLOCK said when parents are given choices for their
children, they become more involved in their children's education,
which leads to greater academic success and satisfaction with the
system. Rather than bleeding resources from other programs,
charter school programs have breathed new life and new ideas into
public schools across the country.
MS. PORTLOCK added parents are with their children, rather than
leaving education to the schools or taking their children out of
the public schools and trying to home-school.
MS. PORTLOCK added that teachers' needs are not often considered,
but certainly charter schools can work with differences in teaching
philosophies. When teachers feel they are valued and appropriately
placed, they will be more effective and more committed.
Number 1560
MS. PORTLOCK said public support of the school system is eroding at
the same time that funding is becoming scarce. Parents and
teachers are demanding proof of improvement in school performance,
but are resistant to change. Schools need to be provided for those
changes, for parents, children and teachers to feel that the school
system is there for them.
Number 1599
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards
(AASB), said the AASB is on record in support of SB 88. Much of
the testimony that has already been given substantiates the need
for charter schools. The AASB sees, in SB 88, opportunities for
communities to become involved. The criteria is set forth.
Communities will be empowered to address areas of need. If
criteria is satisfied, communities can put together a proposal and
bring it before the local board. A local determination is made,
economics are examined, and compliance with laws and regulations
are satisfied.
MR. ROSE said if an opportunity exists, perhaps the school district
does not see it. But if a community member does identify and can
create that kind of support in a program and proposal, it would be
very encouraging. What is contained in the bill meets all the
concerns of the AASB. The AASB sees tremendous opportunity for
creativity and enthusiasm, and empowerment of communities.
Number 1662
LINDA SHARP testified that she has lived in Alaska since 1971. She
is the parent of two children. One is in her third year of public
schooling in Anchorage, and one who will be eligible for public
school next year. She suggested that charter schools are exactly
what exist in Anchorage as alternative schools. The alternative
schools began in 1972, with Chugach, and went onto Stellar, the ABC
Program, the Montessori, and then the expansion of the Chugach
concept. Language immersion programs also grew out of the
alternative school system.
MS. SHARP said there are 13 alternative schools at the elementary
level currently operating in Anchorage. Ms. Sharp said the desks,
kids, teachers and the money are all included in any school
district. Charter schools are not going to take any money or other
resources out of the district. Charter schools will not bring in
any more children. Charter schools are merely an innovation with
what is currently in the district.
MS. SHARP said charter schools let parents, teachers and
communities propose innovations. Ms. Sharp presented handouts to
HESS Committee members concerning education. She also had met a
member of the Hispanic community that had been lobbying for charter
schools. He believes charter schools will help the 20 to 30
schools in Anchorage that score very low on education tests.
Number 1752
MS. SHARP presented a list of Anchorage School District (ASD)
elementary schools and their scores. The 30 lowest scoring schools
are schools that have no alternative program in them at all. They
contain the traditional programs that are defined. All the
alternative schools are well into the upper one-half of the scores.
MS. SHARP presented some information from "Educational Digest."
Many articles, but not all, suggested that charter schools are the
best solutions. Vouchers and other ways of solving challenges for
schools are not as good.
MS. SHARP said her child was accepted, through the lottery system,
to an alternative school this year. In Anchorage, the alternative
schools are so popular that there are long waiting lists. Over
2,000 children are waiting for access into those schools. Most
parents have to be fairly resourceful, because those schools are
not located in enough places yet around Anchorage. Therefore,
parents must drive twice a day to drop off and pick up their
children.
Number 1800
MS. SHARP said the alternative school her child is attending used
to be the lowest scorer. It also had the highest incidence of
violence, the highest teacher turnover, and the greatest
dissatisfaction. Two years ago, an alternative program was
introduced to the school. Now, about 150 parents are taking their
children to that school. Not all the children are in the
alternative program, but the $15,000 raised by the PTA has gone to
every teacher in the school in equal amounts. Every child has
benefit from that money.
MS. SHARP said the PTA meetings have 30 to 40 parents attending.
One parent is from the regular program. The rest of the parents
are from the alternative program. Those parents, according to Ms.
Sharp, stand ready to serve any teacher in the building. Resources
are not limited to those in the alternative program. Parents of
students in the alternative program will help teachers in the
"regular" program.
MS. SHARP concluded that the program benefits all the teachers and
all the students at Anchorage's most needy school.
Number 1840
MS. SHARP presented an article out of the December 2, 1991,
"Newsweek" magazine entitled, "The Ten Best Schools in the World."
Schools were identified that unified around a theme such as math,
science or art. When teachers choose where they want to go because
of interests and common themes, and when parents choose where to
send their child, the parents and teachers are unified and
supportive.
MS. SHARP felt that charter schools were needed now. The
indicators are going down. New schools and wings are opening this
year and next year in Anchorage. This is a perfect time to move
those willing to a different end of the school and not feel that
they are ousting other people.
Number 1894
MS. SHARP addressed the opposition to SB 88. She knows people in
Anchorage who plan to lobby against this bill. Those people like
the voucher idea. Those people are tired of the system and want
the system to topple and fail. They are tired of what is going on,
and they want vouchers.
MS. SHARP said other people are worried that the best and the
brightest will leave the public schools and attend charter schools
although charter schools are still public schools. She suggested
that the best and brightest of the teachers are about 80 to 90
percent of the teachers. There are not that many bad public school
teachers. In addition, teachers who choose to teach in a certain
program feel that program is bringing out their own particular
talents.
MS. SHARP also noted that caucasians are the minority in
alternative schooling programs. The vast majority of children in
her child's new alternative school are not white-European. These
children also come from widely varying socioeconomic classes.
Number 1960
MS. SHARP said SB 88 meekly challenges the status quo. Charter
schools do not entail a huge risk. SB 88 only entails a small
step. There is a five year sunset provision, and the school boards
are in charge. The AASB is going to oversee the program. No
radical changes are taking place.
MS. SHARP said the teacher of the year from Kodiak was just honored
because she formed partnerships with the community. Charter
schools are asking for the chance for partnerships. When parents
are asked to be a permanent part of the table, where curriculum and
staffing issues are made, the parents are going to help solve the
problems that arise.
MS. SHARP noted Governor Knowles has sent his children for eight
years to Anchorage's public alternative schools. Dr. Halloway,
Commissioner of the DOE, wrote Ms. Sharp a letter saying the State
Board of Education unanimously endorses the program. Ms. Sharp
added the Anchorage branch of the National Education Association
(NEA) is not opposed to charter schools.
MS. SHARP asked HESS Committee members to "reward the innovations
and reward the risk takers, and give people that have new ideas a
chance."
Number 2032
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS wondered why SB 88 was necessary if there are
already 13 alternative schools in Anchorage and charter schools and
alternative schools were the same, as Ms. Sharp indicated.
MS. SHARP said SB 88 is a very small step in the right direction.
There is no money or major incentives given. SB 88 merely gives
the school boards a notice to pay attention and look through the
proposals in an up-front way. Whenever there is a superintendent
in Anchorage that favors partnerships and choices, a new one is
selected every few years. At other times Anchorage has a
superintendent and a school board that are afraid. They don't want
to be perceived as spending money in this time of cutbacks.
MS. SHARP stated that a Russian immersion program was voted down at
Bear Valley. The parents were asked two years ago, by the school
board, to raise $15,000 with the community for start up costs. The
parents and community did this. Sixty-seven percent of the parents
at the school said they wanted this program. The superintendent
and the school board said "no." Ms. Sharp asked the school board
why the program was not implemented. School board members told her
that they were warned by the legislature that they should not be
asking for more money. The district did not want to look like it
was spending more money on programs.
MS. SHARP said SB 88 gives school districts permission to
investigate these programs.
Number 2097
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Ms. Sharp was asserting that alternative
schools were the same as charter schools.
MS. SHARP said there is essentially very little if any difference
between the programs currently existing in Anchorage and charter
schools.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted if there are 13 charter schools in Anchorage,
then Anchorage is three above its allotment according to the bill.
MS. SHARP understood that there would be no more than ten new
programs implemented.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted the bill said the "State Board of Education
may not approve more than 30 charter schools to operate in the
state at any one time. It shall approve charter schools in a
geographically bound manner as follows: Not more than ten schools
in Anchorage, not more than five in Fairbanks...."
MS. SHARP said that was not the intent of the bill. She has been
in contact with the authors of the bill, and their intent is 30 new
charter schools. Ms. Sharp was certain it was not the intent to
take away three of Anchorage's current schools.
Number 2162
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Halloway, DOE,
said that as Ms. Sharp indicated charter schools are very similar
to alternative schools. However, there are distinct differences.
The charter school will set up a mechanism to formally approach a
local school board with a charter between parents, teachers and the
local school board. The charter will stipulate the educational
objectives and how those objectives will be accomplished.
MS. PETERSON explained that the charter schools will also be more
autonomous than alternative schools. A charter school will
maintain its own financial operations and will have its own
principal who will oversee the charter school's teachers.
MS. PETERSON added that alternative schools currently in existence
are not charter schools, and therefore, would not fall under the
number that is outlined in the legislation. When Commissioner
Halloway looked at this legislation, she applied her test, "Is this
good for kids?" She came up with a definite "yes." Charter
schools are a good concept for children. It will encourage
parents, teachers and communities to work together as an academic
policy committee to form a charter school.
TAPE 95-47, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. PETERSON noted that after the proposal for a charter school is
approved by the local school board, the State Board of Education
must also approve it. She concluded that the DOE does strongly
support this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that there may be a school that has
four or five children. That is not even a unit. Therefore, he
asked if there was going to be a proration which would be
calculated on a per student basis. There is going to be no new
money from within the school district. If the district receives so
many units, then Representative Davis understands that funding
would be prorated on a per student basis.
MS. PETERSON asked if Representative Davis was assuming that the
local school board would approve a program of four students for a
charter school, and asked how much money would be appropriated to
those four students. She answered that at the minimum, it would be
four times what an average child would be generating in that
school. The local school board would have to make that decision,
and whether or not it felt that was in the best interest of the
school district.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said "plus an approved indirect cost rate."
MS. PETERSON said he was correct.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that as there are schools in Alaska with four
students as the total population, it is possible that there would
be charter schools composed of four, six or eight students.
MS. PETERSON stated if that was the choice of the local school
board and the State Board of Education, that could be so. With the
State Board of Education overseeing the charter schools program and
making the approval, it will be looked at on a statewide
perspective. If, in the wisdom of the board, it was felt that
having a charter school for six children was in the best interest
of the state, it would be approved. However, the board could also
not approve such a school if it was not in the best interest of the
state.
Number 149
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY could not believe that a charter school would be
allowed to operate with four students. There is a great demand for
these schools, at any rate. Therefore, Co-Chair Toohey relies on
the wisdom of the State Board of Education and the school board.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the school boards approve of 21 schools
in the state that have 12 or fewer students.
Number 207
ROBERT GOTTSTIEN, Member, State Board of Education (SBE), testified
in support of charter schools. He noted that the state is trying
to do more with less. The same struggle is taking place in
education. Charter schools are a chance to do more with less. In
a sense, if the education community is not given opportunities to
experiment, succeed and fail, the foundation formula would need to
be raised even more.
MR. GOTTSTIEN said schools need to innovate, and learn how to
produce better results. If the education community is denied by
the legislature the opportunity to figure out how to do things
better, then the legislature has a responsibility to figure out how
to give children the opportunities they are not be allowed to
receive from the schools.
MR. GOTTSTIEN believes that charter schools help children in
critical ways. It is very important to get more parental
involvement in education. Charter schools are the way to do just
that. More value can be retrieved from education if parents are
brought into the process. Charter schools are different than
alternative schools. More power and authority is given to charter
schools. Top-down decision making did not work in the Soviet
Union, and it does not work in education.
MR. GOTTSTIEN said it must be recognized that the failures of the
USSR are the same factors that public education is being criticized
for. The USSR did not care about the individual. It was concerned
about the general public. Public education is in that situation.
Alternative schools are trying to get away from that, but public
schools have never attempted to try and deal with the discrete
problem of every child.
Number 370
MR. GOTTSTIEN said the best way to solve the discrete problem of
every child is to help bring the parent into the process and to
give each teacher freedom to identify and deal with those problems.
Hopefully, the parents will be involved as well.
MR. GOTTSTIEN concluded that there are two choices. One is to
continue business as usual, and expect less result for more money.
Charter schools and education reform seek to do better and to
create a better value and results. Charter schools can do those
things more economically. Parents can do what they think is more
important for their children. They do not have to decide on what
is good for everyone, and how to solve everyone's problems.
MR. GOTTSTIEN said parents can focus on solving the problems of
their own children with the resources that are available. If HESS
Committee members are as conscientious as they appear to be in
dealing with the fiscal gap, charter schools are right in line. If
HESS Committee members want to continue business as usual, then
charter schools and choices will not be supported, and HESS
Committee members will have to accept an escalating cost in
education that otherwise would not be necessary.
Number 485
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and opened up committee
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt comfortable with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought the testimony of Mr. Gottstien was
right on target. Alternatives need to be offered, and local school
districts need flexibility so problems can be addressed in more
unconventional ways. Latitude needs to be offered and parents need
involvement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said one can walk into a classroom and see
that there is a niche for some of those that do not belong and do
not want to be in the organized, structured classroom. There are
alternatives and options, and those need to be provided. Most
districts are offering options to some degree already. SB 88 is
imposing requirements for more parental and cohesive involvement
from a community standpoint.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS fully supports SB 88. When the Education 2000
omnibus package came before the legislature, this is one of the
first things that jumped out at him. He can identify with charter
schools because of the Kenai alternative schools. Representative
Davis has toured that school, and he knows the people there. He
appreciates them and understands the value of that program in the
district. SB 88 is an extension of the alternative programs, is
more detailed and community based.
Number 635
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON associated herself with the remarks of
Representative Davis. She felt SB 88 was an excellent bill. A few
years back, Representative Bettye Davis came forward with such an
idea and it was not well received. At that point, people were not
really open to the ideas. More parental involvement is needed, and
Representative Robinson is very glad that this bill is before the
legislature. She made a motion to move CSSB 88(FIN) out of the
House Hess Committee with individual recommendations and
accompanying fiscal notes.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked to comment first. She was fearful that the
best and the brightest were going to be put in charter schools.
She did not want the state to forget that the school system is
failing. But with any luck, the whole system will go to charter
schools if they become as good as everyone says they are. Co-Chair
Toohey, therefore, appreciates that possibility and she supports SB
88.
Number 707
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was concerned about children with
disabilities and their involvement with charter schools.
MS. SHARP said she has visited the 13 alternative schools in
Anchorage, and those schools welcome children with special needs
the same as other children are welcomed. Those children's names go
into the lottery and their names are drawn. Nothing on the lottery
indicates that those children have special needs. It is the desire
of the parents that put them into the lottery for the school.
Those children are dealt with the same as they would ever be. They
still have an individual education plan as mandated by federal law,
and those children are served by special educators.
Number 780
MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator Sharp, said SB 88
does not intend to discriminate whatsoever.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS directed Representative Rokeberg to the
statement in the bill that read, "The charter school will comply
with all state and federal requirements for the use of public
funds." Representative Davis thought the federal requirements that
go along with the title programs would be applicable to charter
schools.
Number 814
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said everyone is shaped by their own personal
experiences, even though we all try to understand other points of
view. Co-Chair Bunde has worked in public schools and has had
family and friends in the schools for 27 years. He has seen
education fads come and go.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said where he grew up, 50 years ago they
consolidated schools because it was too expensive to have what
were, in essence, charter schools. Each little community had its
own school. The non consolidated schools could not offer the broad
program that the bigger school could. Therefore, Co-Chair Bunde
questions, if not in this year, then in five or ten years, what the
costs of charter schools will be.
Number 869
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said when he first went to work in the Anchorage
public schools, the latest fad was to build elementary schools
without walls. That was going to solve the problems of the
educational community. Last year, funding was given to put in the
final wall for those wall-less schools because they did not work.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Bear Valley Elementary School was
mentioned by Linda Sharp, and that school is in Co-Chair Bunde's
district. Co-Chair Bunde's perception of what went on while trying
to establish that immersion program is very different. There was
incredible anger among the parents. Some felt the program was
being crammed down their throats, and others felt they were being
thwarted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE recalled that parents were reduced to yelling at
each other at the school bus stop. This type of program does not
build community.
Number 914
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said one could look at East St. Louis for the
success of magnet schools. Federal courts demanded that "a ton" of
money be put into magnet schools, and those schools failed
miserably. America is a melting pot and there are two great
facilities for encouraging a melting pot. One is the draft.
People of all stripes went to the military and learned from each
other. The draft is gone, and now the last remaining facet of the
melting pot is the educational system. Charter schools is going to
now fractionalize that.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asserted that at a time when people yell about
diversity, charter schools look to taking "all the math people and
putting them over here, and all the art people over here." Co-
Chair Bunde has a problem with SB 88 in Alaska, because of the
mobile population of this state. The average Alaskan has been in
Alaska five years. A group of parents get a charter school going,
and in a few years, their kids are out of it, or they are out of
Alaska.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said meanwhile, the people who live in that
neighborhood have no choice, they are stuck dealing with the
inertia of undoing a charter school.
Number 996
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agrees that the biggest problem facing schools today
is parental involvement. Therefore, charter schools take the most
active parents, those who are most interested and most concerned,
and pull them out of the public schools and put them into their own
special little world. This is the wrong way to go.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked about student leaders. Leaders need followers
and followers need leaders. Therefore, when all the best and the
brightest are pulled out, there will be an imbalance. The area
that cannot get the parents together to form a charter school
becomes a dumping ground. The dullest and the least abled will be
placed there.
Number 1038
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that of course teachers like charter schools.
Who would not want to teach highly motivated kids. Parents like
charter schools, but what keeps them from getting involved in their
current school. There is incredible inertia out there. Recently,
an alternative school, the incredibly popular Polar School in
Anchorage had a huge lottery. A group decision determined that the
focus of the school for the month of January was cross-country
skiing. Now parents are wondering what monster they have created.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE previously stated he is willing to be proven wrong
on certain topics. He does not support charter schools, and he
will not vote for it. However, he will not hold the bill in
committee because obviously, the committee likes the bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote. Voting "yes" on CSSB
88(FIN) were Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Vezey, Representative
Rokeberg, Representative Robinson, Representative Brice, and
Representative Davis. Voting "no" was Co-Chair Bunde. CSSB
88(FIN) passed out of the House HESS Committee.
HB 119 - EXEMPT SCHOOLS FROM CERTAIN DEC FEES
Number 1160
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that since this was the first public hearing
on HB 119, he would not ask HESS Committee members to vote on it at
this hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA, sponsor of the bill, explained that HB
119 would exempt schools from having to pay the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) fees for inspecting kitchens and
food programs. In 1992, the legislature authorized the DEC to
charge user fees. This was a way for DEC to pay for part of their
budget. Fiscal year (FY) 1993 was the first year the DEC engaged
in that practice.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA continued that during FY 93 and FY 94, the
DEC did not charge schools because it did not want to add to the
budget problems of the schools. Evidently, the DEC subsequently
had some legal counsel which advised that it cannot arbitrarily
choose who it is going to charge for services. Therefore, this
year, FY 95, the DEC began charging school districts for inspecting
kitchens and food programs.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the net effect is a shift of $25,000
from schools to the DEC's budget. The DEC has never charged
schools before. Representative Kubina felt the school budget,
which has not been getting cost of living increases, is more
important than the budget of the DEC. The DEC is also better able
to absorb the costs.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted that this is a policy decision by the
legislators concerning who is going to pay out of what budget. He
feels that the DEC should continue to pay. Therefore, the bill was
introduced.
Number 1238
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how many visits the DEC makes to a school in
a nine month period or each school year.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the DEC makes a minimum of one visit per
school year.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she could not believe that the charge would be
so extensive for one visit.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted that the charge was for several
schools. A smaller school district would not pay as much. The
total cost, statewide, is about $25,000. That is why there is a
fiscal note of $25,000 that would, in essence, come back out of the
DEC budget. Representative Kubina asked HESS Committee members to
remember that the DEC had not been charging schools up to this
point anyway.
Number 1280
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if there are currently other exemptions
in this program.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said in the original law, nonprofit agencies
were exempted. He felt that had it been considered at the time,
the legislature would have also exempted schools.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if nonprofit organizations included
senior citizen centers and pioneers' homes.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he felt the exemptions were for homeless
shelters and other such entities.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he would like to see a list of current
exemptions.
Number 1345
KIT BALLANTINE, Acting Director, Division of Environmental Health,
DEC, said the only exemption from the fees occur if an entity
qualifies as a charitable organization under IRS regulations rather
than a nonprofit. Schools do not qualify as charitable
organizations. They are therefore not exempt under IRS guidelines
and they are therefore not exempt from DEC fees.
MS. BALLANTINE said although the legislation was passed in 1992,
the fees were not implemented until late in 1993, because of the
regulatory process. Therefore, the DEC had not been charging any
fees until late 1993. These fees, however, will make a significant
difference in the DEC budget. The $25,000 is much needed.
MS. BALLANTINE recalled that in 1993, the DEC actually had to ask
for a supplemental due to a lack of fee collection. Last year, the
DEC actually had to transfer money from another component because
it did not collect fees. Therefore, that $25,000 will make a
difference in the DEC budget.
Number 1406
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how many visits the DEC makes each year to
schools.
MS. BALLANTINE answered that the DEC makes at least one visit per
year per school. The visits and fees would also include any
technical assistance, training of food service staff, spot checks,
follow up checks, etc., for schools.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if a breakdown chart was available per visit.
MS. BALLANTINE said the visits depend on the seating and the type
of facility. For example, a large full food service kitchen may
serve many satellite kitchens that would warrant a $200 fee. A
small satellite kitchen which only serves food would be charged
only $25 to $50. The fees are determined by the extent of the food
service and the number of seats. Therefore, the scale is sliding.
Number 1472
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commented that he has studied situations such
as this for a number of years. He has problems with a state
agency, run with state general fund dollars, suing, fining or
charging another state agency. It is just money going around in
circles, and no good is done. Last year, the Kenai School District
was fined in excess of $200,000 by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). That money went to the Department of
Labor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted that although there is some local input,
much of the money for that district is state dollars. The
Department of Law fines and sues other agencies, and it is just
moving money from one hand to the other. This is ludicrous. He
does not know what other method can be employed to discipline or
punish state agencies, but there must be another method than
creating a paper trail and money exchange.
Number 1530
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she would like the DEC to train one person in
every school kitchen to do the job of the DEC inspectors.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed with Representative Davis in that the
funding exchange is circular. The school districts get money from
the state. The district must then give the money right back to the
state to pay for these inspections. Representative Brice felt that
addressing some of these concerns can alleviate a few school
district problems. It would be a small step, but it would be the
first step in a long journey.
Number 1594
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the consequences of this bill
becoming law are not all that apparent. A law was passed in the
Eighteenth Alaska Legislature which mandated that the DEC continue
to provide these oversight services and continue to charge fees to
pay for the services. If public agencies are exempted from paying
these fees, the DEC is put into a position of having to go back and
either raise fees where they can or ask the legislature to raise
fees on the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said therefore, a tax would be put on the
private sector for a service that is being forced upon it. No one
in the private sector volunteers for these exemptions. The state
says it is going to do something, and those in the private sector
are going to pay for it. The DEC would establish fees by
regulation. It would be forced to raise fees to remaining entities
to cover costs.
Number 1644
CO-CHAIR BUNDE added that as the money rotates, there is also a
certain amount of evaporation that takes place. He said the bill
would be held in committee.
SB 58 - USE OF THE TITLE "INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST"
Number 1692
AARON TRIPPLER, Director of Government Affairs, American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA), said the AIHA is the world's largest
association of occupational and environmental health professionals.
AIHA has long been involved with the process of title protection
for the profession of industrial hygiene. The practice of
industrial hygiene is an important tool for protecting the health
and safety of workers, their families and the community.
MR. TRIPPLER said with an increased emphasis on the environment
today, there is the possibility of unqualified individuals
representing themselves to the public as capable of protecting
health and safety. The result could be devastating.
MR. TRIPPLER continued that title protection for the profession of
industrial hygiene simply protects that profession and those titles
so everyone is assured the individual calling themselves an
industrial hygienist is qualified. The AIHA is not trying to
exclude anyone from involving themselves in the industrial hygiene
profession. It is only that those unqualified individuals cannot
use the term.
Number 1757
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she had been approached this session by the
dietitians and nutritionists. They also wanted a bill to protect
the words "dietitian" and "nutritionist." Co-Chair Toohey
commented at that time that she is a dietitian. She is a mother
and a grandmother therefore, she is a dietitian. Anytime one
person feeds another, he/she is a dietitian. Co-Chair Toohey
resents the fact that the someone would restrict her calling
herself a dietitian, a nutritionist or a feeder of people.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY did not want to besmirch the industrial hygienist
profession, but anytime laws are passed that restrict calling
oneself or anyone else a name, the English language is being
restricted.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she could call herself a doctor if she wanted
to, and that is her business as long as she does not do
unprofessional things. She has a problem excluding the use of a
word or a series of words because one group wants to keep their own
esoteric membership.
Number 1822
MR. TRIPPLER said there are many professions that use title
protections. Such titles include certified public accountants and
waste water treatment operators. The AIHA does not want to
restrict a person from calling him/herself an industrial hygienist,
as long as he/she does not represent him/herself to the public and
claim that he/she has the qualifications necessary to assist
someone else by legal standards as an industrial hygienist.
MR. TRIPPLER said a certified industrial hygienist has a degree in
the sciences, five years experience, and passes a two day
examination. There are many consequences that could result from
people posing as industrial hygienists. For example, the schools
in the state of New York, a few years ago, were closed down at the
beginning of the year because of an asbestos threat. That threat
was the result of the school contracting with individuals who
called themselves industrial hygienists qualified in asbestos
abatement.
MR. TRIPPLER said the schools eventually had to go back and find a
truly certified industrial hygienist to clean up the asbestos
situation. Therefore, the AIHA is not trying to restrict people
from participating in the field. A person just cannot present
themselves to the public as a certified industrial hygienist.
Number 1884
PENNY GOODSTIEN, Representative, Anchorage Branch/Midnight Sun
Section, AIHA, said she has been working for 17 years as an
industrial hygienist. There have been people in Anchorage that
have presented themselves as industrial hygienists. There is much
money to be made doing health and safety work.
MS. GOODSTIEN recounted a story in which she was working as a
substitute site safety manager. A man who was an environmental
engineer told people he was also an industrial hygienist. He was
in charge for months, and he put the organization on the wrong
respirator all summer long. Luckily no one was hurt. Someone
could have become very seriously ill. That man also did incorrect
air sampling and did not know what he was doing.
Number 1923
MS. GOODSTIEN said the man called himself an industrial hygienist
and everyone believed him. In addition, Ms. Goodstien has seen
people make business cards claiming they are certified industrial
hygienists. That indicates quite a bit of training, and further
training must be taken every year by actual certified industrial
hygienists. The charlatans were hired based on the credentials
they claimed to have. There is presently no way to protect the
public.
MS. GOODSTIEN feels this is a public health issue more than it is
an issue of protecting the industrial hygienist profession. It is
the public who hires the industrial hygienist. There are cases all
over the country in which fraud was prevalent. In Arizona, a
shopping center spent $2 million to remove asbestos that was not
there because a non qualified person identified asbestos. That
person was getting a kickback from the laboratories and making
quite a bit of money.
MS. GOODSTIEN concluded therefore, it is not only a public health
issue, it is an economic issue.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked her to elaborate on the economic problem.
MS. GOODSTIEN said when a business or organization, such as the
Arizona shopping center, hires a non qualified person who makes a
wrong "diagnosis," and $2 million is spent correcting a problem
that does not exist, that creates economic problems. The shopping
center was shut down, stores lost money. Therefore, not only are
there health issues, but people can end up spending a lot of money
they do not need to spend.
Number 1995
JANET OGAN, Legislative Secretary to Senator Loren Leman, testified
on behalf of the sponsor of the bill that SB 58 was introduced at
the request of the Midnight Sun Section of the AIHA. Presently,
according to the AIHA, there are 15 certified industrial hygienists
in Alaska. AIHA recommends this legislative and regulatory
language to provide title protection. The title protection defines
titles and definitions used by the profession. It establishes
legal recognition and protects industrial hygiene titles.
MS. OGAN said those titles may be used by only those who meet the
criteria outlined in the definitions. An individual who does not
meet the criteria may practice within the scope of the meaning of
industrial hygiene so long as the individual does not use the
titles, initials or represents him or herself to the public as an
industrial hygienist.
MS. OGAN noted that other states have also implemented this
legislation such as California, Illinois and Tennessee to name a
few. Many other states are planning to introduce such legislation
this year.
Number 2057
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the bill refers to people who have
graduated from a college or university that is accredited by the
Alaska Council on Postsecondary Education. Therefore, he said a
traditional college or university would give such degrees. He said
there must be college programs in industrial hygiene, but
understood that one could also have degrees in biology, chemistry
or engineering.
MS. OGAN said Co-Chair Bunde was correct. There is a board exam
that must be taken and passed. A college degree is not the only
requirement necessary to be certified.
Number 2085
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he had a little trouble identifying with
the bill, as he has never belonged to a profession that needed to
protect its name. He has either been a ditch digger, which no one
wants to admit; or a politician, which no one wants to admit.
JEFF CARPENTER, Member, Midnight Sun Section, AIHA, spoke via
teleconference in support of SB 58. He added that this legislation
will also insure that state or local government agencies do not
restrict the practice of industrial hygiene. The prohibition that
occurs in SB 58 has also been done in other states. However, other
states are even more restrictive. In California, a registered
architect must sign off on asbestos abatement plans even though
that architect may have no knowledge of asbestos health hazards and
work place health hazards in general. The architect may have no
specific training in industrial hygiene at all.
MR. CARPENTER said an industrial hygienist or even a certified
industrial hygienist must take their plan to an architect, get a
stamp of approval on it, and then proceed with their work. SB 58
would insure that state or local government agencies do not
restrict the practice of industrial hygiene by qualified persons
identified in SB 58.
Number 2169
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how long the schooling and testing would take
for a biologist to become an industrial hygienist.
MR. CARPENTER said he has a degree in biology. He did not begin
his studies in college with the forethought of becoming an
industrial hygienist. However, he wanted to give something to the
community. As a biology graduate, he needed to gain experience in
anticipating, evaluating, recognizing and controlling health
hazards in the workplace.
MR. CARPENTER continued that typically, to gain membership to a
professional organization such as the AIHA, five years of
professional practice is required in anticipating, evaluating,
recognizing and controlling health hazards in the workplace. In
addition to that experience, one must submit references, work
experiences and an application to the American Board of Industrial
Hygiene. A two day certification exam is then taken.
Number 2229
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and asked for the wish of
the committee. Representative Davis made a motion to move SB 58 am
from committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes. Co-Chair Toohey objected, and a roll call vote was
taken. Voting "yes" were Representative Davis, Representative
Rokeberg, and Co-Chair Bunde. Voting "no" were Co-Chair Toohey,
and Representative Vezey. SB 58 am passed out of the House HESS
Committee.
TAPE 95-47, SIDE B
Number 000
CONFIRMATION HEARING - BOARD OF NURSING
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted the names before the committee: Belle
Cunningham, Kathleen Kloster and Joe Senungetuk. He read, "This
does not reflect any intent by any of the members to vote for or
against these individuals during further hearings for confirmation
purposes." Co-Chair Bunde asked for the wish of the committee.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved that the names be forwarded to the House
floor. There were no objections, and the names were forwarded.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 070
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|