Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/23/1999 04:04 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
March 23, 1999
4:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Co-Chair
Representative John Coghill, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Joe Green
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Allen Kemplen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 17
"An Act relating to the calculation of employee contributions and
credited service in the public employees' retirement system for
noncertificated employees of school districts, regional educational
attendance areas, the Alaska Vocational Technical Center, and the
state boarding schools; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 17(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to state aid for education.
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 17
SHORT TITLE: PERS CREDIT FOR NONCERTIFICATED EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BRICE, Phillips, Smalley, Cissna,
Croft, Harris
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 22 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, HES
2/12/99 210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS
2/24/99 308 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SMALLEY
3/03/99 350 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CISSNA
3/05/99 378 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
3/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/15/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/15/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/16/99 467 (H) L&C RPT 7DP
3/16/99 468 (H) DP: HARRIS, CISSNA, BRICE, SANDERS,
3/16/99 468 (H) HALCRO, MURKOWSKI, ROKEBERG
3/16/99 468 (H) FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
3/16/99 468 (H) REFERRED TO HES
3/16/99 468 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
3/16/99 484 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS
3/23/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 6
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Coghill
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/99
1/19/99 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 17 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/05/99 146 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL
3/16/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/16/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/23/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RICK HELMS
P.O. Box 32912
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 789-5951
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 17.
SANDY PEVAN
P.O. Box 871256
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-6198
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 17
and against HJR 6.
DUANE GUILEY
2217 East Tudor Road Suite 1
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 562-7372
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 17.
DON ETHERIDGE
Public Employees Local 71
710 West 9th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 17.
JOHN CYR, President
National Education Association Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 17
and against HJR 6.
BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor
Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-5700
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 17.
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6597
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 6.
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher
for Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6597
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on HJR 6.
SUSAN STITHAM, Vice Chair
State Board of Education
P. O. Box 80913
College, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-5046
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 6.
LINDA ANDERSON
P.O. Box 872092
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-6721
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
STANLEY TUCKER
1001 Dellwood
Wasilla, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 373-3454
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
ROY BURKHART
P.O. Box 204
Willow, Alaska 99688
Telephone: (907) 495-6337
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
JUNE BURKHART
P.O. Box 204
Willow, Alaska 99688
Telephone: (907) 495-6337
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
PHILIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4136
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON reconvened the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting at 4:04 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Dyson, Coghill, Whitaker,
Green, Morgan, Brice and Kemplen.
HB 17 - PERS CREDIT FOR NONCERTIFICATED EMPLOYEES
Number 0020
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House
Bill No. 17, "An Act relating to the calculation of employee
contributions and credited service in the public employees'
retirement system for noncertificated employees of school
districts, regional educational attendance areas, the Alaska
Vocational Technical Center, and the state boarding schools; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0040
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB
17, presented the bill with an amendment. He said this committee
moved this bill out last session, but it ran out of time in the
Senate Rules Committee and died. This bill addresses an inequity
that exists in school districts. Currently certified employees
have a nine-month contract, and get a year of retirement credit,
but the classified employees, which includes janitors, office staff
and maintenance workers, also have a nine-month contract but only
get nine months of retirement credit. Classified employees are not
eligible for unemployment insurance either. This bill would allow
those employees to voluntarily buy into the PERS (Public Employees
Retirement System) the extra two or three months of service for
retirement. Currently a nine-month employee has to work nearly 40
years to reach a 30 year retirement. Included in this bill are the
employees of the Alaska Vocational Technical Center, boarding
schools, regional education attendance area (REA) schools and the
amendment includes the special education service agency (SESA).
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL asked if the stipulation for buying in to this
would change unemployment eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said it would not change unemployment
eligibility, but it would take the step to address the inequity
that exists for these employees.
Number 0300
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER commented that it is a good bill but he is
concerned with the attached fiscal note. He wondered if it
provides additional funding for services that may not have to be
paid for.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said Mr. Church from the Department of
Administration can probably answer that question. The amount of
$72.4 thousand is for computer programming. That amount is not
general fund expenditure; the employees will pay for that computer
change.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked for clarification on that point.
Number 0404
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the $72.4 thousand is from the revenue
that the employees would pay into the system, and the cost
associated with getting that year of service is a voluntary
election by the employees. They have to take a positive action to
say they want to pay an increased contribution into their
retirement system, so they don't have to work 40 years for a 30
year retirement.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL said this does not reflect what could be. It
only reflects what it is going to cost to institute this program.
Number 0549
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the bill was drafted in such a way that
any cost associated with this piece of legislation would ensure the
actuarial soundness of the PERS funds. The $72.4 thousand is going
to come out of contributions by the employees.
Number 0586
The committee took a brief at-ease from 4:12 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this bill provides for future
part-time workers.
Number 0602
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said if they are eligible, but he believes
this is dealing with full-time seasonal employees. This starts
today and goes forward; the employees cannot buy back years.
Number 0670
RICK HELMS, representing Alaska Public Employees Association
(APEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Southeast Political
Board of Directors, came forward to testify. He asked the
committee for their support on HB 17. There are over 3600 members
in APEA and 600 of them are nine-month employees, and this bill
would benefit them. They are also professionals like the teachers
and administrators. It takes them 37.5 years to get 30 years of
service, and passing this bill will fix this injustice. He urged
this committee to pass HB 17 this year.
Number 0767
SANDY PEVAN testified from the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)
Legislative Information Office (LIO) via teleconference. She has
worked in her district 21 years and has only 14 years in her
retirement. It takes five years to be vested PERS, but a
nine-month school employee has to work 7.5 years to be vested. She
urged them to support HB 17.
Number 0829
DUANE GUILEY testified on behalf of the Special Education Service
Agency (SESA) from Anchorage via teleconference. He is in favor of
HB 17 and offered to answer questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked him if the amendment which covers SESA is
satisfactory.
MR. GUILEY said he hadn't seen the specific amendment but
understood what it would do. It does provide the same opportunity
for SESA employees as it does to current employees of the REA and
school districts. When he was told this amendment was the same as
the one in the Senate, he said it did accomplish the objective of
adding SESA to the legislation.
Number 0936
DON ETHERIDGE came forward to testify on behalf of Public Employees
Local 71. They support this bill and would like to see it passed
to help their members who are school employees.
Number 0976
JOHN CYR, President, NEA-Alaska, came forward to testify in support
of HB 17.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wanted reassurance that the payments would be
sufficient to keep the program viable for all those who are already
in it.
BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor, Division of Retirement and
Benefits, Department of Administration, affirmed that the surcharge
allocated will cover all of the costs to the retirement system.
Number 1035
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE offered Amendment 1, 1-LS0157\A.1, Cramer,
3/22/99, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "areas,":
Insert "the special education service agency,"
Page 1, line 9, following "area,":
Insert "of the special education service
agency,"
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "district or"
Insert "district, a"
Following "area,":
Insert "the special education service agency,"
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "or"
Insert ", a"
Page 2, line 27, following "area":
Insert ", or the special education service
agency,"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "or"
Insert ", a"
Page 3, line 2, following "area":
Insert ", or the special education service
agency,"
Page 3, line 6:
Delete "or"
Insert ", a"
Following "area,":
Insert ", or the special education service
agency,"
Page 3, line 12, following "area,":
Insert "the special education service agency,"
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was any objection. There
being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1099
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL made a motion to move HB 17, as amended, with
the fiscal note and individual recommendations. There being no
objection, CSHB 17(HES) moved out of the House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee.
HJR 6 - CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
Number 1111
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House
Joint Resolution No. 6, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska relating to state aid for education.
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, sponsor, testified briefly before
returning to a Finance Committee meeting. He said since HB 5 was
thought to be unconstitutional, he is presenting an alternative
plan, HJR 6, that would change the constitution to allow for direct
funding for private education. His aide, Randy Lorenz, has done
extensive research on this issue, and he asked him to present the
information focusing primarily on the issue of direct funding.
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher for Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, said that at a previous hearing on the school
voucher bill, he heard that the Alaska State Constitution was
unique to Alaska. In his research of the original Alaska
Constitutional Convention, it shows there was nothing more than the
Blaine amendment or the Enabling Act, which is the same as in over
39 other state constitutions. He gave some history to understand
the Blaine amendment and referred to the 1530s during the
Reformation of the Church when the individual denominations were
developed. They did that as a result of the Church of England also
being the government. In the 1600s many of these people came to
the United States and established separate churches. In the 1800s
these denominations had multiple schools and they wanted to form
them under the "common school movement" which is now known as the
public school system. In 1875, U.S. Representative Blaine
introduced the Blaine amendment which sought to prohibit the
Catholic Church from receiving any funds because they saw the
Catholic Church as being a menace to what they believed. That
initiative failed because it was unconstitutional. In 1888 he
changed it to the Enabling Act which allowed four states to enter
the United States as part of the union. Since that time 36 other
states also adopted the same wording as the Enabling Act.
MR. LORENZ referred the members to Item 2, History of Article VII,
Constitutional Convention, Education Section Minutes, pages 1508 to
1535, December 1955 to 1956, which is in their packet. He pointed
out many references in those minutes on various pages where it does
refer to the Enabling Act. In effect, what they have is nothing
more than what other states have done, and this wording has been
ruled in over 20 court cases as being unconstitutional.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what did the Blaine amendment say.
MR. LORENZ said the Blaine amendment prohibited any [sectarian]
control of public schools. It has been construed to mean that they
cannot provide direct public support to any private or [sectarian]
schools. He is trying to draw that inference out.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON reviewed that Mr. Lorenz is trying to show them
that there was a direct connection between the Blaine amendment,
the Enabling Act and the language that went into Alaska's
constitution.
MR. LORENZ referred to Item 5, Michigan's Constitution, Article
VIII, Section 2 in their packets, on page 50, Nonpublic schools,
prohibited aid which reads:
No public monies or property shall be appropriated or
paid or any public credit utilized, by the legislature or
any other political subdivision or agency of the state
directly or indirectly to aid or maintain any private,
denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary,
elementary, or secondary school. No payment, credit, tax
benefit, exemption or deductions, tuition voucher,
subsidy, grant or loan of public monies or property shall
be provided, directly or indirectly...
MR. LORENZ said it is a lot tighter than Alaska's constitution. On
page 14, item B, it has the reference that the U.S. Supreme Court
made in regards to this particular issue and the interpretation.
It talks about the common understanding, and the words in there
should not have any unique meaning; what they stand for is what
they mean.
MR. LORENZ referred to page 16, item C of the same document, which
talks about the use of public funds and support. Under that it
says:
Under the amendment, public funds could not be used to
support the attendance of nonpublic school students at
any location or institution where instruction is offered
in whole or in part to nonpublic school students.
MR. LORENZ went on to read what the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
This is a shocking result. It violates both the free
exercise of religion and the equal protection provisions
of the United State Constitution.
MR. LORENZ referred to page 30, item G, which refers to the
language in that particular area. It states:
The language "or at any location or institution where
instruction is offered in whole or in part to such
nonpublic school students ...Proposal C is
unconstitutional, void and unenforceable and is severable
and capable of being removed from Article 8 Sec. 2
without altering the purpose and effect of the balance of
the sentence and section.
MR. LORENZ summed up that basically what they are saying is the
prohibiting of using monies to support individual children is a
violation of the U.S. Constitution. Alaska has the same reading in
its constitution and should be able to draw the same conclusion.
He feels it gives them a basis to start considering that and move
this bill to the Judiciary Committee.
MR. LORENZ said the second issue is the words "direct" versus
"indirect," and he referred to Item 2, the minutes of the
constitutional convention. On pages 1513 through 1533 the members
of the constitutional convention had a very in-depth discussion
about putting in the word "indirect," and on page 1513 an amendment
was proposed to have the word "indirect" put in.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Lorenz if he is about to show them that
the word "indirect" was inserted deliberately.
MR. LORENZ said they put forth an amendment to insert it into the
constitution during the constitutional convention. As a result of
this ongoing text, they said they did not want the word "indirect"
in there because they did not want to prohibit the ability to use
funds to support individual children.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if it was because they considered putting
the word "indirect" in and did not, that there was a logical and
direct inference that they intended that "indirect" public support
could happen.
MR. LORENZ said yes. He referred again to Item 2, constitutional
convention minutes, page 1514, which states:
In this third sentence we have used the word "direct".
It was spelled out that the maintenance and operation or
other features of direct help would be prohibited. This
was not intended and does not prohibit the contracting or
giving of services to the individual child, for that
child benefits as his part of society.
MR. LORENZ said he thinks the bottom line is they planned to have
the ability to be able to use funds for individual children, and
that it is also public purpose in order to be able to do this. He
feels the intent of the Alaska State Constitution has been
misunderstood and has been perverted so they are not able to do
this now. To bring this in alignment with both the U.S.
Constitution as well as what the forefathers wanted or envisioned
at this time, the only way to do this now is to remove the third
sentence from the constitution.
Number 2032
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if Mr. Lorenz was saying that the
Alaska State Constitution is unconstitutional according to the
federal constitution, and it has been since it was enacted.
Number 2047
MR. LORENZ replied that when Alaska's constitution was written,
what people were thinking at that time was different than what it
is today. It has been viewed that to prohibit money to support
children in nonpublic school settings is now a direct violation of
both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He contends that the way
Alaska's constitution was framed, it does allow the ability, by the
framers' own words, "to be able to use public money to support a
nonpublic school child's education." It is in here that it does
allow this. He continued saying that it is a result of the 1979
Alaska Supreme Court decision on Sheldon Jackson that took the word
"students" to mean they were nothing more than conduits for direct
benefits. If they look back to what the U.S. Supreme Court looks
at as the way of common understanding of the word "direct," it was
a misinterpretation; they went outside the scope of what that word
means.
Number 2094
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Lorenz if he was saying that the
Alaska State Supreme Court misinterpreted the word "direct."
Number 2102
MR. LORENZ answered that he does not know what was on their mind at
the time so he won't make any inferences in that direction at all.
He referred them to copies of the Sheldon Jackson case and their
basic comment was that these college students were nothing more
than a conduit for direct funds. According to what he has read
from other court cases, that would not be "direct;" it would be
"indirect". According to the minutes of the constitutional
convention, they did not prohibit the direct benefit to a child
even if it did indirectly support a parochial or private school.
MR. LORENZ again referred them to page 1515, to Ralph Rivers'
comments which stated:
The word 'direct' is that standard treatment of that
subject. Now when you get into the wording "or
indirect", then you are getting into an argument as to
whether you can even contract with a private institution
for the rendering of certain public services because they
might say they might make a profit.
MR. LORENZ referred to Mr. Rivers statement that continued on page
1516 which stated:
... you talk about prohibiting the disbursement of money
for an indirect benefit to a parochial or private
institution. You are reaching clear out to ad infinitum
in the realms of logic and association.
MR. LORENZ said basically they did not want to go that route. They
did not want to do "indirect" because it talks about the
far-reaching implications that they couldn't even begin to imagine
at that time; but they wanted the ability to use public funds for
the public purpose of supporting children, even if it meant an
indirect benefit to a private institution. They looked at that and
said no, that was fine.
Number 2196
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said it seems the argument is that they
realized that they needed to have some flexibility because of the
wide variety of opportunities that could exist for helping children
with public monies. As a result, they didn't want to put in that
language of "indirect," but they did want to clarify and make a
distinction between "indirect" support and "direct" support. He
doesn't see where the conversation at the constitutional convention
shows that they are supportive of direct support for religious
institutions or religious schools.
MR. LORENZ said what they wanted to prohibit was a direct benefit
to a private institution, like maintenance and operations and
features of direct help.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said since they will not finish this today, he
opened public testimony.
TAPE 99-23, SIDE B
Number 2321
SUSAN STITHAM, Vice Chair, State Board of Education, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. She said the members should have a
copy of the State Board of Education's position statement on
vouchers. She thinks what they would like to emphasize, as they
consider HJR 6, is the issue of accountability for public money in
terms of public schools. They have initiated the partnership with
the legislature, the Department of Education (DOE), the
commissioner of DOE and the State Board of Education in a real
effort in terms of quality schools. The exit tests, teacher
standards in the licensure process and school accountability are
going to improve what is essentially a very good school system in
this state. All of that seems like an appropriate level of
accountability for parents, for children and for the state in terms
of the use of state money.
MS. STITHAM voiced another concern that under current situations,
private schools in this state have no accountability whatsoever.
They are not even required to hire licensed teachers, their
students are not required to take examinations and so it seems
counterproductive in terms of their continuing efforts to try to
make sure that every Alaskan student has the best possible
education that they can provide in terms of contributions to the
future of Alaska and each of them individually.
Number 2260
LINDA ANDERSON testified from the Mat-Su LIO via teleconference.
She is a nurse, a parent and a 26-year resident of Alaska who home
schooled her children. She expressed her strong support of HJR 6.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld this under the freedom of
religion and equal protection under the law. The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled over Michigan's constitution as deliberate
discrimination to prevent payment of public funds for direct
educational benefit of all students. She sees the clear logic that
the U.S. Constitution as written by the forefathers supports the
intent of HJR 6, and the Alaska State Constitution should be
amended to support equal protection and equal rights of all
students. The GI Bill and the Alaska State Student Loan Program
are both constitutional. They need HJR 6 to enable all students
access to equal education. It is the parental responsibility and
accountability to know what school and what services are best for
their children. It is the parents' responsibility, not the
state's. She said people who choose nonpublic schools are being
heavily burdened by paying for their child's needs and still being
forced against their will to double pay for other people's
children. She urged the committee to please pass HJR 6 and help
enable the families; it is constitutional, it is fair and it is
legal.
Number 2188
STANLEY TUCKER testified from the Mat-Su LIO via teleconference.
He spoke in support of HJR 6; he believes it will allow parents a
greater choice for their children's education. Now many children
are discriminated against if they do not attend public school since
they do not receive the benefits that public school children do
from the state coffers. This will be fair since parents who do not
use public schools are assessed property taxes to support public
schools. He has read that competition to public schools in other
states has also benefitted public schools. It is probably because
public schools become more accountable to the public. He agreed
that accountability is a problem, but when parents have a choice to
do what is best for the children, they will. If public school is
the best place; that is where they will put the child, but if it is
not the best place; then they would have the opportunity to put
their child in a place they feel is better. He feels that this
proposed constitutional change would be fair to all Alaskans and
beneficial to Alaskan children.
Number 2129
ROY BURKHART testified from the Mat-Su LIO via teleconference. He
had two children that went through the public school system in
Anchorage and has no complaints with the system. Both his children
were valedictorians of their high schools, but unfortunately some
of the children who graduated with them never learned to read
through the system. He knew of a mother who went to the school
board, the principal, the teachers and got no help. If she could
have found some help in a private school, he wouldn't have seen
anything wrong with that. The state should have helped her. He
thinks competition will improve the public education system.
JUNE BURKHART testified from Mat-Su via teleconference. She agreed
with the testimonies of Linda Anderson, Stanley Tucker and Roy
Burkhart. She did have a concern about a situation in Mat-Su which
would be helped if this amendment goes through. A child diagnosed
with dyslexia was referred to the district's correspondence program
which means the parents will have to home school him. The parents
are distraught; they are not educated to do anything for this child
short of hiring a private tutor. These kinds of things have got to
stop.
SANDY PEVAN testified from the Mat-Su LIO via teleconference. She
spoke against HJR 6. She does not believe that public education
funds should be sent out to private or religious schools; they
belong to the public.
Number 1979
JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association (NEA) Alaska
came forward to testify. He said the members have NEA Alaska's
position statement. He said the issue which is really important is
whether this is good educational policy; not whether it is
constitutional. He suggested looking at some other areas where
vouchers have been into place. He referred to an article of a
study done by Martin Carnoy, a professor of education and economics
at Stanford, not connected with the NEA. Chile tried a voucher
system back in the 1980s. Chile had one of the best educational
systems in South America until Pinochet came into power, and they
decentralized and went to vouchers. He read one statement from
this article:
The lessons for us here in the United States are obvious,
but they are not the ones that privatization advocates
want known. Voucher plans increase inequality without
making schools better. Even more significantly,
privatization reduces the public effort to improve
schooling since it relies on the free market to increase
achievement.
MR. CYR said that is the antithesis of what needs to be done in
Alaska. It sets up bad public policy. He referred to an article
that ran in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner about the voucher system
in Texas. When vouchers were instituted in Texas, the contribution
to public education went down. Public money goes to areas that
some believe it shouldn't go. He reported that Milwaukee spent $25
million; took that money from the public schools and gave it to
children in private schools, with no significant improvement in
either reading or math scores. What actually happened was taxes
went up to pay for children in private schools. In fact, those
children who were in private schools already got the money; it
didn't go for children who left public school.
Number 1850
MR. CYR continued that the same thing happened in Cleveland, but
the only difference was people used vouchers for their children's
taxi fare back and forth to school. He wasn't suggesting that it
isn't appropriate for children to take taxis to school, he doesn't
think this state can afford it. Approximately 15,000 children are
in private, religious or home schools in this state. If the base
allocation is a little over $4,000, that is $60 million that a
voucher scheme would cost before one child leaves public school.
He reiterated that it is not only bad public policy, it is insane
economically at this point in time.
Number 1800
PHILIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section,
Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law. came forward to
testify. He pointed out that the attorney general's office did
provide an opinion regarding HB 5, and SSHB 5 in particular, and
that opinion focused upon Article VII, Section 1 and the Supreme
Court's decision in Sheldon Jackson interpreting that. They didn't
go beyond that constitutional provision because that seemed to be
a showstopper. Essentially the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that
they cannot expend public funds for private educational costs in
this state. Now they are looking at the next step since the
sponsor is seeking to change the constitution, and the attorney
general's office feels it is important to give the committee some
information about some other constitutional and statutory issues
that would impact the ability to set up a statutory program for
private school vouchers.
Number 1750
MR. REEVES said it is true that the repeal of Article VII, Section
1 would remove the most direct legal impediment to tuition
vouchers, but it would certainly not clear the field. Both the
Alaska and United States constitutions' establishment clause has
placed significant restrictions on the expenditure of public funds
for tuition for religious schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has not
ruled that vouchers for general religious education programs are
constitutional under the federal establishment clause. The
Wisconsin Supreme Court did hold that under the Wisconsin and
federal constitutions, the Wisconsin voucher program was
constitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari and
basically has not rendered any opinion on such a wide-ranging
voucher program. Finally, the Wisconsin voucher program had a
significant requirement that was not included in the proposed SSHB
5, which was an opt-out provision which essentially would require
a participating private school in Wisconsin to provide a
nonreligious curriculum to any tuition student who requested it
within the religious school. That obviously is a point of major
impact to the consideration of where the state would want to go in
developing a program.
Number 1694
MR. REEVES referred specifically to the establishment clause. They
can look at both the U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the
federal constitution and then the Alaska Supreme Court decisions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has broadened the limitations under the
federal establishment clause as recently as two years ago. Up
until 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court had essentially ruled that
public funds could not be expended for any educational program
within a private school. In 1997, they overruled their earlier
decision. In the case, a particular remedial public education
program, presented and taught by public education teachers, was
allowed within a Catholic school. That is as far as the U.S.
Supreme Court has gone. Obviously, the Wisconsin voucher program
and the proposal of HB 5 are much broader type programs.
Essentially, the entire educational program of religious schools,
which includes religious instruction classes meant to inculcate
religious values throughout the subject matter, would be funded.
It is the opinion of the attorney general's office that it is
unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would make a jump of that
magnitude from the current position, which recently allowed a
single public class taught by public school teachers to be taught
within a private school setting. Typically the U.S. Supreme Court
acts in more of an incremental fashion, and the attorney general's
office submits that would be a substantial leap.
Number 1602
MR. REEVES said when public funds are expended in private schools,
there is a question as to whether those are totally private schools
any more. A number of federal programs which have strong strings
attached to the expenditure of funding require an array of
accommodations and regulatory structure for the educational
institution that receives those funds. It may be that the
restrictions on discrimination are much greater so that
discrimination in enrollment on a religious basis may not be
allowed. There is a very detailed regulatory regime requiring
accommodations, and there certainly can be no discriminatory
enrollment practices for students who have either mental or
physical impairments that require significant accommodations.
MR. REEVES said he is not here to tell them today that by providing
public funding to those schools, all of those regulations will
apply, but he thinks it is important for the legislature to realize
that once steps are taken in that direction, those are legitimate
legal questions that will have to be considered. He is certain
that the private school administrations will be very concerned
about those types of legal issues.
Number 1510
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there were changes to state statutes to
accommodate the kinds of concerns he raised, would that alleviate
some of the concerns.
MR. REEVES said if he was referring to his comments regarding
statutory requirements on discrimination in enrollment or
accommodations, certainly state statutory programs could be
adjusted to reflect the wish of the legislature, particularly in
the area of special needs students. Most of those requirements are
under the federal law. They are also under state law because the
federal program is set up to make the Department of Education the
responsible entity in ensuring that those are included in public
education programs.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked for Mr. Reeves' comments on the line of
argument on the constitutional convention debate on "direct" and
"indirect".
Number 1422
MR. REEVES said it is not his place to second guess a decision of
the Alaska Supreme Court. The Alaska Supreme Court directly
considered the term "direct" at length in the Sheldon Jackson case.
and cited the constitutional minutes, which he has reviewed. It
was their determination that "indirect" was considered to be
benefits that society at large gained, such as fire protection
services or connection to utilities. Those type of public services
and expenditures, which are of a benefit to private schools and to
any other entity, were considered to be the indirect benefits. The
court expressly ruled that payment of tuition from private schools
was a direct benefit, interpreting the state constitution, and they
also ruled that channeling funds through students which then went
directly to schools to pay that tuition would not remove that
direct benefit. That is their position and that would have to be
what he would provide to them.
Number 1350
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the argument was that the state does
not provide indirect aid to private institutions.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said as he understood the argument, the framers
wanted to be able to supply indirect benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wanted to make it clear that the state does
provide indirect aid to private institutions. They provide
bussing, part-time attendants and the use of public school
facilities for private school students.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON closed the public hearing. [HJR 6 was held over]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1276
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|