03/05/2002 03:04 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 5, 2002
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 352
"An Act extending the dates for assignment of performance
designations of public schools and the dates for reports and
monitoring based on those designations; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 352(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 309
"An Act relating to the Interstate Compact on Placement of
Children."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 352
SHORT TITLE:SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/23/02 2042 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/23/02 2042 (H) EDU, HES
01/23/02 2042 (H) FN1: ZERO(EED)
01/23/02 2042 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/13/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
02/13/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/13/02 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/13/02 2230 (H) EDU RPT 4DP 3NR
02/13/02 2230 (H) DP: GUESS, JOULE, STEVENS,
WILSON;
02/13/02 2230 (H) NR: PORTER, GREEN, BUNDE
02/13/02 2230 (H) FN1: ZERO(EED)
02/21/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/21/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 309
SHORT TITLE:INTERSTATE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1956 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1956 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1956 (H) HES, JUD
01/14/02 1956 (H) REFERRED TO HES
01/29/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/29/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
01/30/02 2101 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/05/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/05/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/05/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/12/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/12/02 (H) <Bill Postponed to 2/19/02>
02/19/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/19/02 (H) <Bill Postponed to 2/21/02
02/21/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/21/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/05/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commission of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 320
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 352 and answered questions.
MARK LEAL, Director of Assessment
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 352 and answered questions.
DEE HUBBARD, Parent Teacher Association Representative
School Designator Committee
P.O. Box 88
Sterling, Alaska 99672
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 352.
LARRY WIGET, Ph.D., Executive Director
Public Affairs
Anchorage School District
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 352.
SUE WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 309 on
behalf of Representative Chenault, sponsor; expressed belief
that the bill would not place Alaska outside the ICPC agreement.
THERESA TANOURY, Director
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained that HB 309 would place Alaska
outside of the ICPC agreement.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 309, expressed concern
that the penalties in the bill do not require proof of a
culpable mental state.
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner-Juneau
Department of Corrections
431 Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 309, expressed concern
about the potential cost to the state of the imprisonment
provision in the bill.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
Representatives Dyson, Coghill, Stevens, Cissna, and Joule were
present at the call to order. Representative Kohring arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 352-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORTS
Number 0157
CHAIR DYSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 352, "An Act extending the dates for assignment
of performance designations of public schools and the dates for
reports and monitoring based on those designations; and
providing for an effective date."
[Amendment 1 had been adopted on 2/21/02. Amendment 2 had been
placed before the committee on that date and discussed; the full
text is found in the 2/21/02 minutes.]
Number 0172
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commission of Education, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development
(EED), thanked Representative Dyson for his earlier meeting with
EED personnel regarding the proposed language [in Amendment 2]
to address the reporting of district efforts to involve the
community in establishing behavior standards. He reported that
the current processes were discussed in that meeting; as a
result, [EED] had drafted a letter outlining the procedures for
[EED and school districts].
DR. McLAIN offered that reporting of this issue was the main
concern [addressed in Amendment 2]. He said, "We wanted to
commit for the record that we think that that reporting does
make sense." He noted that EED has found a way to [procedurally
accommodate this reporting]; the aforementioned letter outlines
the procedures for doing so. He concluded, "It's my
understanding that this would address the concern that was
raised in Representative Dyson's proposed amendment, and we're
hoping that with this process laid out, ... that concern is
alleviated."
[Committee aide Jason Hooley, in response to a question,
indicated Chair Dyson had offered Amendment 2 at the February 21
hearing; it had not been adopted or voted on.]
Number 0288
CHAIR DYSON recounted that several years ago, the legislature
passed into law a school safety and behavior bill; it required
each school to go through a community process to establish
community-supported behavior and safety standards for the
school. The bill also provided protection for teachers and
administrators for enforcing the standards and following the
procedures, provided the school had a discipline procedure in
place. He said:
To my dismay, there's no written record or ...
evidence that any schools have been aggressively
following the law. So, in a ... slightly clumsy
fashion, I was attempting to amend into this bill a
requirement for the reporting of the process of
[these] behavior and safety standards.
CHAIR DYSON reported that [EED] has convinced him this isn't the
most appropriate way to accomplish it; furthermore, [EED] will
accomplish this through regulation. "That's what they've put
before you in writing," he added. He drew attention to the EED
letter dated March 7 to superintendents [that will inform
administrators of the new procedures].
CHAIR DYSON withdrew [Amendment 2] for the foregoing reasons.
He noted that the main bill [with Amendment 1's typographical
correction] was before the committee.
Number 0450
CHAIR DYSON asked about the three types of designations: one
used with schools in need of improvement under Title I and the
[Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)]; one passed by
the legislature one or two years ago; and one introduced by the
federal government.
DR. McLAIN agreed with Chair Dyson's synopsis of the first two
types of designations; he elaborated on the federal designation,
saying, "They're giving new guidelines on how they wanted to
[have] the fed part revised and broadened. The current fed -
the one that's out now - really refers only to Title I schools."
DR. McLAIN estimated only 270 schools of Alaska's 506 schools
are designated as Title I schools. Those 270 schools are the
only schools covered by the current set of [federal
designations]. He said the new U.S. House Resolution 1 [the
reauthorization of the ESEA] takes a much broader [approach to
designations], requiring states to have a designation system for
all schools.
Number 0479
CHAIR DYSON asked if the [U.S. Department of Education (DOE)]
has identified the new designations it is requiring.
DR. McLAIN replied that they indeed have. He asked Mark Leal to
expound on that matter.
Number 0550
MARK LEAL, Director of Assessment, Teaching and Learning
Support, Department of Education and Early Development, stated
that the ESEA talks about "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) and
sanctions for schools that do not make adequate yearly progress.
The ESEA does not address the higher designations such as
"distinguished" that a school might receive, he offered. The
ESEA is very specific about what Alaska would call an "in
crisis" designation based on test scores, and it is very
specific about the definition of AYP for students and subgroups
in the state.
Number 0590
CHAIR DYSON inquired if United States H.R. 1 automatically
supersedes the old designations.
DR. McLAIN responded:
It will. It was very specific ... in that it will
replace [the old designations]. But the schools that
are already in that process are not grandfathered -
... they will continue. So if a school is already in
year two or year three [as a school improvement site],
they will continue. ... They will not get a chance to
start over. ... We do have 11 to 13 schools that have
been designated as school improvement [sites].
CHAIR DYSON asked for clarification about the name of the
designation for [Title I] schools needing improvement.
MR. LEAL offered that it is "school improvement site."
CHAIR DYSON asked whether one of the new federal categories fits
that name, "schools in need of improvement."
DR. McLAIN replied that the federal designation of "school
improvement site" is synonymous with the state designation of
"school in crisis."
CHAIR DYSON pointed out that ["school in crisis"] is the
existing state name and suggested that [EED] might want to
change that name.
Number 0688
MR. LEAL replied that [EED] has not proposed [to change the
designation name]. He noted that currently the main task is to
try to bring "these two pieces of legislation together ... under
one system" and ensure that the state is following the new
federal laws.
CHAIR DYSON asked, "So the feds have already made provision for
the existing ... Title I, that it'll ... fit under the new
federal [requirements]? ... What you've got to do is make sure
the state's [designations] conform to the new H.R. 1?" He asked
why this alignment will take two years.
Number 0730
MR. LEAL noted that this proposal [for a delay] was initially
offered to allow [EED] to implement the [designation] model that
the School Designator Committee determined to be the most fair:
a model using one-third status and two-thirds growth. It would
take [EED] at least another year to obtain growth data, he
reported; then, to capture the High School Graduation Qualifying
Exam (HSGQE) results from 2004 along with data showing
graduation rates, the two years were requested.
MR. LEAL told members [EED] is now trying to evaluate how it
will make the state's model fit with the new federal
requirements. He said, "I'm not a hundred percent sure - and we
don't have the direction yet from the federal government -
whether the model that we have proposed is ... going to fit with
the federal model." He offered that his inclination is to
develop the best possible model, rather than hurry the process
along.
Number 0819
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted his support for the delay. He
asked, "What is the point of the performance designations? And
if a school, say, is declared 'in crisis,' what does that mean?
And what are the teeth in this that would cause a school in
crisis to change?" Taking money away from a school in crisis
will obviously not help it improve, he offered. Likewise, a
school that has done a superior job shouldn't be penalized for
that good job. He inquired how the state will ensure that these
[designations] will work.
Number 0875
DR. McLAIN replied that [EED] wants to use the federal
allowances in the new law to combine with other money and
supports provided at the state level. The specific federal
dollars, sanctions, and rewards are varied, he noted. For
example, one specific federal provision pertains to school
improvement sites; it calls for the district to set aside 20
percent of its Title I funds for two activities: to provide
transportation to students who attend the failing school and to
provide supplemental services.
DR. McLAIN pointed out that Dr. Susan Sclafani, Counselor to the
U.S. Secretary of Education, had addressed this provision with
EED personnel during her recent visit to Juneau; she'd
recognized that this provision for transportation and
supplemental services was designed with Lower 48 urban areas in
mind. These urban areas are places where students could get on
a bus to go to another school; there might be, for example, a
Sylvan [learning] center or some tutors nearby to send students
to. He indicated that both EED personnel and Dr. Sclafani
acknowledge that more work needs to be done at the state and
federal levels to address the ramifications of this provision
for isolated communities and schools for which transportation to
another place is not feasible. He said:
That's the kind of detail that we need to work out
with them, but that is the kind of answer that the
feds have in terms of additional dollars that could
not just be spent for "business as usual." [The
funds] must be targeted for those sort of ...
purposes.
Number 0971
DR. McLAIN expressed his understanding that [EED] must define,
by the end of the summer, the criteria for being on the list of
providers for supplemental services. He noted that Alaska and
other states are in conversation with the U.S. Department of
Education because this subject is new to them.
DR. McLAIN acknowledged some concern on EED's part regarding
what it means to allow someone to be on the list of providers
for supplemental services. For example, if a Mr. Jones wants to
be a tutor, [EED] has to decide: What are the criteria for
allowing him to be on that list? What is [EED's] liability?
What does it mean for someone to be on that list? Dr. McLain
stated that if Mr. Jones provides supplemental services but
shows no progress in two years' time, he can be dropped [from
the list of providers]; however, [EED] must define how to
determine what adequate progress is. These are the kinds of
details [EED] is working on with other states to ensure it is a
solid piece, he added.
Number 1041
DR. McLAIN continued:
We're hoping ... the budget that was proposed had
additional state dollars that we were asking to have
put into place: the $2-million fund to provide some
targeted instruction and targeted support for the low-
performing schools; and then $2 million, a request
that the administration had for a fund, for the high-
performing [schools].
If there's a model out there that is indeed working,
we want to support that and perhaps use that as a
model for other schools that might find themselves
serving similar [populations]. That's still in our
request, but that would be the kind of a state dollar
that would accompany [the federal funds].
DR. McLAIN said in addition to the 20 percent set-aside, as
[school improvement sites] pass into their third and fourth
years of the plan, the federal government allows the state to
become increasingly directive. Instead of just giving the money
over, the state can become more restrictive about what is done
with that money. In any case, school [improvement sites] will
have to show their programs are based on a proven methodology
and research. He said:
What we have to do, between now and the beginning of
this next year, is set up what's our criteria. How do
we define that? So we've got a lot of rulemaking that
we have to do internally [and] get out to the
districts. And that's, again, to come back to the
question of why are we looking for the delay. We
think those are pretty critical questions and we want
to be able to turn our attention to that.
Number 1122
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked whether the 20 percent set-aside
was new federal money or money taken from some other school or
district.
DR. McLAIN indicated EED has only seen general, large-budget
categories from the federal government, and wants to ensure that
the [20 percent set-aside is new money]. He said when Dr.
Sclafani met with EED personnel to discuss Title I monies, EED
was told an additional approximately $8.5 million [is being made
available]. He said he'd be more comfortable after he'd had
time for more careful review.
DR. McLAIN expressed his understanding that the intended source
of the 20 percent set-aside is new money. School improvement
sites that fail to improve will experience increased control
over [all Title I funds, not just the 20 percent set-aside]. He
said [EED personnel] have discussed with federal personnel the
issue of district-level decisions about many of the
instructional resources at a particular site. That site might
not have direct control over such decisions as staffing and
other resources. He noted that this is a very important issue.
Both he and Mr. Leal have been site and district administrators;
he stated, "We want to make sure that we've got that process
well in hand before we start going out with ... chipped-in-stone
rules."
Number 1246
CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding of the federal
regulations: that the 20 percent comes out of that school's
portion [of Title I monies] if it doesn't make improvements by
the end of the second or third year; this 20 percent can be
available to the parents who are seeking it. He added:
When we got into this business ... two or three years
ago, our present governor said if the schools finally
don't make enough improvement and show that they're
making progress, ... we're going to take them over.
Now, both he and ... Commissioner Holloway, I think,
have ... moved off of that strong [of] a statement,
and I'd ask both of them if they were ... going to
start the state-operated schools again or whatever
else. But I think your question is, Representative
Stevens, right on the mark.
CHAIR DYSON added that his reading of the federal "stuff"
indicates to him that in the third and fourth years without
improvement, the staff must be changed.
Number 1307
DR. McLAIN responded that EED wants to provide a clear summary
sheet of those consequences to the [House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee]. He noted that state Title
I staff are working on that; he apologized for not being able to
provide it today. He questioned which part of a school
district's Title I funds are considered for the 20 percent set-
aside - the district's Title I funds or the individual site's
Title I funds. He offered that he'd heard the response to be 20
percent of the district's allocation, a much larger sum. He
concluded that this information is what he hopes to provide in
the summary sheet.
Number 1344
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked about the percentages of schools
falling into each of the four [state-designated] categories. He
offered his opinion that statute already mandates the reporting
of this information, even if [sanctions] are not yet enforced.
He also asked how the state will dovetail with the federal
rules. For example, is the state's premise even the same as the
federal government's? He noted his impression from [Dr.
Sclafani's presentation] that the state has a different premise
from the federal government's.
Number 1389
MR. LEAL responded that [EED] does not have breakdowns of the
percentages of schools in the four categories because it does
not yet have the growth data. He said:
The bigger question for us right now is ... your
second question, and that is, how is this going to
dovetail with the federal requirement? Because if ...
the federal requirement is to designate schools that
haven't made adequate yearly progress, ... that is, in
effect, designating the bottom of the ...
[designation] system. It doesn't require us to
designate ... the other areas. ... If we [don't] get
the delay, we would be working just with this
"adequate yearly progress" definition - which isn't
what the [designator] committee really wants to do,
but it might be what we have to do.
Number 1440
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the department would have
to make a decision about this matter; he added that [the
legislature] would work with EED. This decision pertains to
using the federal designation [of school improvement sites] as
Alaska's lowest designation. He queried, "Is that ... what
you're thinking?"
MR. LEAL replied:
The definition is a state definition; it's not a
national definition. And ... there's pretty specific
guidelines on what adequate yearly progress would be.
And ... once we set ... that bar, based on this year's
test results, then we also have to set goals for each
subgroup ... to achieve ... AYP, [which] is ... based
on the percentage of students who are proficient. And
so once we ... find out where that bar is according to
the federal definition, then we need to go back and
set goals to get ... each school and each subgroup to
achieve a hundred percent [proficiency] within 12
years.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the growth and status
[scores] being used as designations would be considered valid
criteria by [DOE].
MR. LEAL replied, "It doesn't seem so." He offered that in
conversations as recent as yesterday, [DOE] personnel indicated
that to all appearances, the federal AYP definition would be the
one EED must use for the bottom [level of designations]. He
offered that he foresaw some flexibility for EED to include
other, higher categories of designations.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this issue would present a
regulatory problem to EED. He surmised that the statutes are
broad enough, but then questioned whether, indeed, they are.
Number 1550
MR. LEAL replied that [EED] is currently drafting regulations
for both outcomes. For the outcome in which the delay is not
granted, draft regulations are about 85 percent written for
designating schools based only on status. He noted that EED is
also drafting regulations to address AYP. "We're struggling
right now ... to get this thing going," he concluded.
Number 1590
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Leal for his impression of the
federal timeline [for implementing the designations].
MR. LEAL replied that the direction [from the federal DOE] is
for [EED] to implement the law; [DOE] will tell the state which
parts of the state's implementation don't fit the guidelines as
they are being written. He acknowledged, "It's not a great
process." He added:
I think that the federal government is kind of
struggling with the same thing this [designator]
committee is - and that is, that they want this ... to
move ahead, and they don't want it to ... get bogged
down in the regulatory process. ... It's a difficult
situation for us to try to guess what it means.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "Maybe we shouldn't amend this."
Number 1644
DR. McLAIN observed for the committee that Mr. Leal is in daily,
even hourly, conversations with [DOE]. This is a good example
of why EED is requesting the [delay]. He continued:
We really want to keep ourselves going down this one
path, and there's constant flux. If ...
Representative Coghill had asked us questions about
the status and growth four days or so ago, we probably
would have answered somewhat differently. This took
us ... by surprise when the feds started to indicate
that that might not be the way. I give that as an
example just of how fluid right now, I think, some of
the decision making is ... over there.
Number 1676
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that [Alaska] is still left with
the problem faced by some schools - including schools in her
district - that effectually have two kinds of schools in the
same building. The concern is that these schools will be
"lumped into the same category." She mentioned a big
responsibility placed on the students, teachers, and
administration [as the designations are established].
Furthermore, there is a large responsibility for legislators; as
in any business, there must be commitment from the people who
fund [the enterprise]. She added, "It doesn't matter what the
feds say they're going to do; in the end, ultimately, we're the
one who will make the final decision. ... Do we have that
commitment?"
Number 1762
CHAIR DYSON responded:
[We] have a constitutional responsibility in this
state ... for education and what that means. And
whether or not money is the answer or part of the
answer is a question for a lot of debate that we have
to do in the future. And your point's well taken.
Number 1780
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING noted his philosophical difference of
opinion by questioning whether more money for education
necessarily equates to better education. He acknowledged the
common goal of a "good, solid education for our kids"; however,
he pointed out his belief that more money for public schools is
not necessarily the answer. Alternatives in education such as
promoting correspondence studies need to be explored. He added,
"I'm not trying to get on a high horse here, ... but I just felt
a need to go down this road a little bit to keep the issue alive
of alternatives."
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING pointed out a voucher bill that he'd
sponsored a few years ago that "didn't get very far,
unfortunately." Mentioning property tax credits and funding for
correspondence study, such as through Alyeska Central [School],
he said those kinds of programs will go a long way toward making
education the best it can be. He concluded, "I really
appreciate where you're coming from, [Representative Cissna]. I
think we have the same ultimate goals. It's just [that] we have
a different path that we wish to travel."
Number 1837
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said it will be a disservice if
additional time isn't taken. He observed that the designations
are based on limited information - the tests students take,
which determine whether a school is deemed "in crisis" or
"distinguished." Although primarily the norm-referenced tests
and dropout rates are used, so many other things enter into what
makes a good school, such as a music program or an athletic
program. He drew attention to the additional indicators [listed
on the sample report card]. He queried, "Are those things going
to be ... taken into account when you actually give the report
card on the school? It'll go beyond that issue of simply making
a designation, but it'll also, I assume, comment on those other
elements of what makes a good school."
Number 1880
MR. LEAL replied that [EED's] intent is to report those other
school-quality indicators as part of the school report card. He
pointed out that there is a significant amount of discussion and
debate within the [designator] committee of trying to find other
elements on which [EED] can collect reliable data to put into
the designation portion. He said, "But understand that in order
to keep the two systems compatible, that would only be to
identify the higher end of the designation." This is another
area in which the [designator] committee's work is unfinished,
he concluded.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked for examples of additional
indicators.
MR. LEAL offered that one indicator that the [designator]
committee has discussed is some measure of parent and community
involvement; there is "significant pressure" from the State
Board of Education [and Early Development] to do this. "Again,
it's a delicate path ... because we cannot, under the federal
law, ... say that a school that has a high degree of parent
involvement and ... very low test scores or doesn't make
adequate yearly progress is ... a distinguished school," he
said. Test scores will remain the driving force. The
[designator] committee also wants to "flesh out the higher ...
grades of high school" by looking at SAT [Scholastic Achievement
Test] scores, a graduate survey, or something to "take the
[designation] piece all the way to its ... logical conclusion,"
he noted.
Number 1981
DEE HUBBARD, Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Representative,
School Designator Committee, testified via teleconference. She
said, "Now you can see ... the amount of fun we've been having
over the past ... two years in dealing with this situation."
She pointed out that at the last meeting of the School
Designator Committee, members received a 15-page document
analyzing the new, federal education bill and addressing issues
the [designator] committee needs to revisit. She said:
I can't emphasize enough why we need this delay. We
have really been working hard; this is probably one of
the more "brain drain" committees I have ever been
on.... We've tried to get good measurements, but our
problem has been that we want to measure things that
... we're unable to measure. It's just the same thing
that [Mr. Leal] is talking about with the ... parent
and community involvement - how can you measure that?
So we've been having some problems.
But we've been working hard at ... trying to define
measurements that will be able to be statistically
viewed. Anything that you can do to move this bill
along - to give us that extra ... two years of work
that we really need - I would definitely appreciate.
... We could go ahead and make designations, but they
wouldn't be very valuable. ... With that, you would
lose the credibility of the whole system. So I would
appreciate this bill getting legs and running a four-
minute mile as soon as possible. Thank you again, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIR DYSON thanked Ms. Hubbard for her work on the [designator]
committee.
Number 2090
LARRY WIGET, Ph.D., Executive Director, Public Affairs,
Anchorage School District, testified via teleconference. He
noted that he had provided written testimony and [an Anchorage
School District (ASD)] resolution in support of delaying the
school designations. He echoed the sentiment of other
witnesses' support of the delay. The ASD is working closely
with [EED], he noted, and has representatives on the School
Designator Committee. "We're working ... also with the feds and
other organizations around the state ... and country to get
further clarification on the true impact of the No Child Left
Behind bill," he said. "We are very, very supportive of the
delay [for] all the reasons that have been [voiced] by others."
Number 2121
CHAIR DYSON began discussion of what would become Amendment 3.
He offered his intention to amend the delay date to 17 months
from now, instead of 29 months from now - delaying it one year
instead of two. He asked what impact such an amendment would
have on the process.
DR. WIGET replied that the idea of status sticks in his mind -
what "we" know about students now, versus what information will
be available two years from now. More testing will provide
better data. He added that it will take time to work through
the details in the ESEA. His response and that of the
[Anchorage] School Board is to move the date more in alignment
with the [HSGQE], he concluded.
Number 2185
CHAIR DYSON offered Dr. McLain and Mr. Leal an opportunity to
comment on his proposed amendment.
DR. MCLAIN said he would recommend the 2004 date - not just for
alignment with the HSGQE, but to allow alignment with federal
[dates]. The 2004 date allows [EED] to obtain answers to the
questions being asked about parent involvement, for example. He
offered that these types of questions are being asked by other
states. He said:
It's a recommendation of the national PTA as well. ...
I suspect that there will be a lot of statisticians,
psychometricians kind[s] of people, [and] committees
... that'll be working on this. ... I would
respectfully ask that you allow us that amount of
time. This is a very important piece, and I think
that what we gain in terms of doing it right ... makes
that two-year [delay] valuable. We will continue on
with the federal pieces. We will have consequences.
It is very public; people know about this process now.
Number 2240
MR. LEAL offered that a shorter timeline would force [EED] to
abandon the [designator] committee recommendation earlier than
it might have to. He indicated his uncertainty about the
impacts of the federal legislation. He said, "They talk about
flexibility, and I don't know if we're going to be given the
flexibility to implement the system ... that the [designator]
committee ... has proposed." Compressing the timeline will make
it more necessary for [EED] to abandon the [designator]
committee recommendation and simply go ahead with what will work
with the ESEA, rather than petitioning the federal DOE to grant
a waiver or accept Alaska's system.
Number 2279
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked Chair Dyson why he wants to make the
delay shorter.
CHAIR DYSON replied, "After I make the amendment, we'll have
that discussion."
Number 2301
CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt [Amendment 3], on page 2, line 5,
where it says, "Beginning [in] September 2004", to change the
year to "2003"; and on page 2, line 12, where it says "January
1, 2005", to change the year to "2004".
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE and REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected.
Number 2327
CHAIR DYSON explained:
There's three or four things that bother me.... I
have a theory ... - and it's based upon my six years
here and six years on the legislative body of the city
where I live - that public policymakers never, never,
never, never do the right thing at the right time.
And the rare times that we have some idea what the
right thing is, we either can't get it through the
process or can't get the public support to have it
happen. So then we're always doing something less
than the best thing at far less than the opportune
time, and continue delaying getting the results from
what you want.
When we were having the debate on ... the high-stakes
tests here, ... it was heated and [there was] a great
deal of discussion about it. And three different
teachers ... who taught here in ... Juneau ...
collared me at one time or another during those days
and weeks that that was going on. And one of them
said, "This is the healthiest thing that's ever
happened ... in ... ten or twelve years.... You guys
are firing a cannon shot across the bow of the
educational establishment, and the kids are all of a
sudden straightening up and saying, 'Oops - somebody's
going to test me here ... I'm going to have to do more
than just have 12 years of seat time....'"
TAPE 02-18, SIDE B
Number 2371
CHAIR DYSON continued:
The teachers said, "And it's doing the same thing for
us. All of a sudden, we as a faculty are coming
together and ... working on making sure that our kids
are proficient, because there's a test. And we all
hope that ... we would do it just out of a sense of
professionalism...."
All ... six of us are going to face a test next fall,
and it's good for us. ... I don't think that another
29 months from now, having ... the [designations] in
effect -- I think we're delaying the impact ... of the
good that's wanted to be done by the high-stakes
tests.
And I may be wrong. I suspect most of you will be
back here next ... year, and certainly if I am, and
... it is looking like ... a year from now that ... 17
months is not enough, and it needed to have been 29
months, then I will use all my influence ... to get
the ... date changed again. So, that's, kind of, my
[reasoning] for wanting to do it. And ... I ... have
neither the education, nor the experience, nor the
exposure of our experts.
Number 2313
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained his reasons for not supporting
[Amendment 3]. He pointed out that some members did not support
the high-stakes test legislation. He agreed that the debate was
heated. He said this [heated debate] occurred because some
members thought that the original timelines for implementation
were too short. He said:
It's like building the second story of a house first,
before you even put down the foundation. And that's
precisely why I didn't support the initial high-stakes
[testing legislation] as it was originally ...
implemented. So we moved the test - backed it out a
couple of years. To me, that's a little bit more
palatable, but ... we've already built the second ...
floor, and we're starting to build the first floor.
... We still haven't laid the foundation. And we're
getting closer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE offered that he has listened to EED
personnel. He also has listened to witnesses who testified at
this hearing who have volunteered their time, are immersed in
education, and understand what the [state] is faced with. These
volunteers, a body of experts, are recommending to the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee to
delay the designation. He said:
I would adamantly argue that we keep the [designation]
with the original date [provided in HB 352]. ... I do
think we need to ... finish laying down this
foundation, because we do need to have that ... as a
complete package, where there's the [designation] and
the high school qualifying exit exam.... So, I would
be speaking against the amendment.
Number 2225
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted his appreciation for Chair Dyson's
"greater experience and wisdom" in these matters and his
willingness to revisit the delay next year. He asked, "What
will the department do differently if they are faced with 17
months as compared to what they will do if they are faced with
29 months? And I think that's an important thing to know what
steps they will take and how they will be impacted by that."
Number 2181
DR. McLAIN said the federal bill with which [EED] is seeking to
align has deadlines that correlate with the 2004 date. He said:
My general goal would be to allow us the kind of time
to do exactly the sort of negotiations and friendly
arm-twisting that Mr. Leal made reference to.... We
would still, between now and 2004, be following
through with the Title I ... school improvement sites
and working on developing those consequences and
supports. ... We will ... be refining - very
specifically and immediately - the "in crisis"
alignment with the feds' ... "school improvement site"
criteria.
That would be our first piece - and then working to
see what kind of flexibility we can get out of them,
so that we can make the rest of the system as much of
what Alaskans would like to see. ... I really do
appreciate Representative Joule's comment; these
people ... give up ... a lot of ... time. I want to
give them the chance to be able to complete this
process. We have a lot of ownership.
Number 2115
MR. LEAL noted that the major change without the delay would be
that the [designator committee] would probably abandon its
efforts to create a model that uses two-thirds growth, and it
would proceed with its best reading of the federal guidelines,
without assuming any flexibility from [the federal DOE].
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked what would be lost in that process
- as far as effort and time for the department - if it were
looked at in 17 months, with the option of extending it to 29
months.
Number 2066
MR. LEAL acknowledged that he is new to [EED], and this is his
first time following legislation through [the process]. He
indicated he might have a better perspective next year. He said
it has taken a considerable amount of his time to prepare for
the various hearings.
CHAIR DYSON offered that he'd heard Mr. Leal and Dr. McLain say
that [EED] is working to include the improvement piece; one
result of the proposed 17-month delay could be the abandonment
of the [designator] committee's work to have two-thirds of the
[designation] be based on improvement. "Did I hear you
correctly?" he asked.
MR. LEAL replied yes.
Number 1990
CHAIR DYSON acknowledged that he wasn't nearly as close to the
[designation] process as Mr. Leal and Dr. McLain have been, but
offered that he didn't see that 17 months would be an inadequate
amount of time for the [designator] committee to continue its
work. He remarked, "Jobs expand ... to fill the time required."
He offered that he hadn't lobbied anybody regarding [Amendment
3], and said there is no pressure from him, as the chair, to
pass it.
CHAIR DYSON turned attention to Representative Joule's comment
about the foundation of education. He explained that he
understands the foundation to be that students are learning what
they need to know in order to [pass the high-stakes tests]. The
premise of the high-stakes testing, he said, is that it isn't
testing "a whole bunch of new stuff," but is testing the things
for which there is widespread agreement among Alaskans and
pedagogical experts.
CHAIR DYSON noted that this isn't new. He expressed his opinion
that the committee has done its job and come up with something
reasonable. The schools that have not been preparing students
have something to answer for, he concluded. "We ought not to
have had to tailor education significantly different at all,
just because the tests are there," he said. "They should have
been the kinds of things that kids were learning ... just
because it was a good school system."
Number 1900
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to a conference several years ago
at which teachers presented the steps required in teaching and
learning different things at different ages. She said that some
of the lessons being learned about how people learn - what steps
they take - are new. She added, "It's a huge, huge bite that
we're asking a department and a state and these schools to bite
and accomplish and digest all in one time."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that she has areas of expertise
where she feels comfortable, but isn't an expert on the amount
of time [the designation process] will take. Her publishing
work is an indication to her that a job that might be perceived
as a quick one, for example, never is. She offered deference to
people with years of experience in this field. She concluded,
"It's not that I don't believe that ... your commitment is not
sincere, but I'll have to ... respectfully disagree."
Number 1803
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated his concurrence with some of
Chair Dyson's remarks. He offered that the [implementation of
school] designations has been a growth process. The Quality
Schools initiative has not occurred in a vacuum, he observed.
Some aggressive deadlines had been set that required "some
pressure relief." He offered his opinion that ease of the task
should not be considered as a criterion for determining whether
something is the right thing to do. School and/or curriculum
reform have been issues ever since he can remember, he offered.
"If you don't have a deadline, the tension to do something
relaxes," he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed his understanding that [tasks]
must be prioritized for this to be accomplished. He noted his
preference for the earlier date [provided in Chair Dyson's
amendment]; it will help in dealing with the federal [DOE] more
aggressively. He offered that he believes the federal
government is seeking direction from the states; a more
aggressive date will put [DOE] "on notice" as well. He conveyed
his understanding that Alaska is not behind most states, but is
"well in the pack."
DR. McLAIN said, "We're ahead of many states."
CHAIR DYSON offered, "And that's to your credit."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted his appreciation for this, and his
goal to not relax [in the state's efforts]. He spoke in favor
of Chair Dyson's amendment.
Number 1694
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that he did not take exception to
[Amendment 3]. He asked Chair Dyson what criteria he would use
to reconsider extending the deadline to 29 months.
CHAIR DYSON indicated that if the federal [DOE] keeps moving the
target, that would be a legitimate reason to extend the delay.
He offered that he would be impressed by testimony from members
of the designator committee that not enough time was available
to accomplish an excellent job.
Number 1600
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dyson, Coghill,
Stevens, and Kohring voted for [Amendment 3]. Representatives
Cissna, Joule voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was
adopted by a vote of 4-2.
Number 1590
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved to report CSHB 352 [HB 352 as
amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
352(HES) was moved out of the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee.
HB 309-INTERSTATE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN
CHAIR DYSON announced the final order of business to be HOUSE
BILL NO. 309, "An Act relating to the Interstate Compact on
Placement of Children." [Before the committee, adopted as a
work draft on 2/05/02, was a proposed committee substitute (CS),
Version F.]
TAPE 02-19, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR DYSON called for an at-ease at 4:13 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 4:23 p.m.
Number 0075
SUE WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, offered to answer questions on behalf of
Representative Chenault, sponsor of HB 309.
CHAIR DYSON observed that a major issue before members is
whether the proposed changes to statute contained in HB 309
cause the state to be out of compliance with the Interstate
Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). He asked Ms.
Wright to address this matter.
MS. WRIGHT replied, "I don't believe that it does, in fact,
place us outside the compact." She cited AS 47.70.010, Article
III, subsection (d), which reads:
(d) The child shall not be sent, brought, or
caused to be sent or brought into the receiving state
until the appropriate public authorities in the
receiving state shall notify the sending agency, in
writing, to the effect that the proposed placement
does not appear to be contrary to the interests of the
child.
MS. WRIGHT said, "This particular piece of legislation was an
event-driven piece of legislation until the time that we began
to get feedback from other sources that this is a repetitive,
systemic problem within the ... division." She reported that
one child's case involves a lack of documentation: there are no
court orders or medical records - no authority for the foster
parent to have this child. This family has contacted
Representative Chenault's office and will reluctantly testify,
if necessary, but is concerned about reprisals. Ms. Wright said
Alaska requires more [documentation] to transfer an automobile
from state to state than it does to transfer a child. "There is
very little or no accountability," she added.
Number 0294
MS. WRIGHT referenced a position paper from the Evan B.
Donaldson Adoption Institute that outlines a problem with ICPC
enforcement. She explained that the courts have tended to
proceed in one of three ways when a violation of the ICPC has
occurred. She said:
They disregard the ICPC altogether ... and grant a
petition to either have a child stay in the receiving
state; or they deny the petition to adopt or have the
child stay in the receiving state; or they grant
retroactive compliance. Now, that involves another
state agency. And generally speaking, almost always
there's ... a court system involved in the ICPC
transfers of children, [and] possibly a private
adoption agency.
MS. WRIGHT emphasized that there should always be a court
involved that allows the transfer of a child from one state to
another. House Bill 309 requires that certain copies [of
documents] accompany the child, and creates consequences for
[failure to comply]. For example, no documentation accompanied
the child she'd mentioned previously; Arizona [the receiving
state] was not contacted until the day or day before the child
was transferred, and this was after a court proceeding. She
said House Bill 309 creates consequences for [failure to
comply]. this is what [HB 309] seeks to stop. "This isn't a
department vendetta," she said. The rights of the children are
being forgotten in this matter; if a child is transferred out of
the state for any reason, documents should accompany that child.
Number 0475
MS. WRIGHT reiterated that there is a minimum amount of
documentation that should transfer between states; currently,
this doesn't necessarily happen until a child is in transit.
This is not an isolated incident, but a repetitive one. She
added, "If necessary, we can string a hundred foster parents in
here to tell you. I'd hate to waste the committee's time."
CHAIR DYSON returned to the question of whether this bill takes
the state outside the ICPC agreement.
MS. WRIGHT replied with her understanding that [the ICPC]
includes allowances for each state to have individual violation
consequences. The issues raised by the Secretariat [to the
Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the
Placement of Children] are "issues that are already in existence
in the compact; they're not issues that we're bringing up
today," she said. She offered her belief that [Alaska] would be
in compliance with the ICPC. She continued, "We haven't
received anything from the department that says we're not in
compliance legally."
Number 0561
THERESA TANOURY, Director, Division of Family and Youth
Services, Department of Health and Social Services, referenced
comments from the secretariat dated February 7. She drew
attention to [page 1] line 10 of the bill, which says "the
department may not accept placement of the child unless
documentation requested under Article III(c) of the compact is
supplied in the form of certified copies." This does not
specify what "certified copies" means, she noted. It could mean
that the author of a document needs to certify it, or that the
division certifies that all the documents are real. Either way,
this certification would cause a delay.
MS. TANOURY added that every [document] packet includes a 100A
form, the contract between the states for a child being
transferred between those states. A cover letter from the
caseworker, a social summary, and a court order for custody are
also included in the packet. The court order is in the ICPC
packet, she said; Alaska uses this to show the other state that
the child is in Alaska's jurisdiction. A financial/medical
plan, a copy of the Title 4(e) eligibility, and the case plan
are included. Other supporting documentation may include drug
and alcohol assessments, medical information, psychological
evaluations, and references, among other things. She added that
the department is typically not the author of these documents;
they are submitted by various people. Either the author or the
division would have to certify that they are true copies.
MS. TANOURY explained that [Section 1 of HB 309] does not alter
the compact, which is all in AS 47.70.010, but mandates that
Alaska cannot accept a child without the sending state providing
certified copies. The language of "certified copies" places
Alaska outside the compact, according to the secretariat. She
read:
Because the state would be using language that is
different [from] the contractual language that forms
the basis of the conduct by all other party
jurisdictions, the state would be operating outside
the compact.
MS. TANOURY explained that Alaska would have difficulty asking
other states to accept Alaskan children, because Alaska would be
entirely outside the compact. Other states don't have any
guarantees of what Alaska might do, she said. Alaska would be a
"dumping ground" for other states to send children.
Number 0752
CHAIR DYSON said, "To this layman's ears, that sounds like a
gross overreaction. And something in me wants to say, 'Picky,
picky, picky.'" He offered that this bill simply requires
paperwork to accompany a child, and there must be some
confidence that the paperwork is correct. He said, "To say that
... disqualifies the State of Alaska from participating seems
really [a] petty overreaction, but tell me what I'm missing."
MS. TANOURY replied that the language that says the department
may not accept placement of a child from another state is at
issue.
CHAIR DYSON interjected, "Without the paper."
MS. TANOURY added, "Without ... certified copies."
CHAIR DYSON asked:
Who wants a piece of paper that you don't know is
accurate? ... I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to debate
with you, but that's all that I think ... we're after
here, is that ... some way or another, we know that
those are the right pieces of paper with the right kid
at the right time. ... And how do we go about doing
that?
CHAIR DYSON said he could see that sending originals would be
inappropriate, but how does someone know it isn't a forgery or
the wrong or outdated paper?
MS. TANOURY responded that because [DFYS] is a public child-
welfare agency dealing under the [ICPC] compact, it provides
that information through cover letters and dates of custody
orders. Are they certified copies - no. Ms. Tanoury said the
compact is the code of ethics and trust [among states]. Ms.
Tanoury indicated that she would like the name of the child in
the case alluded to earlier so that she may follow up on it.
She said, "We're doing something wrong, and I don't know how to
correct it if I don't have the specific case so that I can
follow up on it."
MS. TANOURY noted that she had tried earlier to clarify that
under the compact, paperwork for an intact family is not sent
ahead to the [receiving state]. The state is informed after the
family moves that a child in Alaska's custody is in that state.
The state then provides some monitoring and other requested
services for Alaska; this is reciprocal. She pointed out that
this is not the case for children being sent out of state to a
relative not known by [DFYS]. In this case, the compact
requires all of the paperwork ahead of time. The home must be
studied and approved by the other state before the child can be
released.
Number 0971
CHAIR DYSON explained that the committee is not interested in
promulgating legislation to address a particular case; it is,
however, interested in addressing systemic problems. He offered
his impression of Ms. Tanoury's earlier representation of the
this case that [DFYS] did what it deemed best for the child in
question as quickly as possible, albeit, ahead of the paperwork,
but not to the detriment of the child. The child was put in the
best possible placement and the paperwork was following.
MS. TANOURY added that the majority of the complaints she
receives are complaints that the process is taking too long.
Grandma, for example, wants the child, and DFYS cannot send the
child until the paperwork is completed. She said that this
characterizes 95 percent of the complaints she hears about. A
national conversation among the states addresses how to get the
process moving more quickly. "Our request to ... L.A. County
gets lost or ... at the bottom of their pile; it's not one of
their kids," she said.
Number 1054
CHAIR DYSON recalled that Ms. Tanoury's earlier testimony
indicated that [DFYS] acts on a judge's decision rather than
waiting for the official court document, which can take days or
weeks. He noted that he had wondered whether it is appropriate
for [DFYS] to act on the judge's decision or whether it should
it wait until the paperwork is complete.
MS. TANOURY said that was correct, but clarified that a court
order is sent with a child leaving from or arriving to the
state. This court order indicates that a child is in [state]
custody. In the aforementioned case, the court order was just
approving the move.
Number 1127
CHAIR DYSON noted that the question he'd asked Ms. Tanoury to
defend was whether this bill passing into law would put Alaska
outside of ICPC compliance. He referenced the letter from
Dennis Eshman, J.D., which states that the term "certified copy"
puts Alaska outside of ICPC compliance. Because Alaska
[proposes] to use language different from that House Bill 309
creates consequences for [failure to comply]. used to form the
basis of the conduct by all other parties of jurisdiction,
Alaska would be outside the compact. He asked if this was Ms.
Tanoury's position.
MS. TANOURY replied, "Based on his decision, yes."
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Tanoury if she would like to add anything.
MS. TANOURY indicated she would like to comment on the penalties
contained in the bill.
CHAIR DYSON offered that the representation he has heard
expressed over the years identifies a lack of accountability as
an issue: there is no record that anyone was ever reprimanded.
The intention of the [sponsor] of the bill, he noted, is to get
[DFYS's] attention to "do your business the way you should."
MS. TANOURY replied, "And it has." She explained that many
states have [provisions for] violations of the compact. She
estimated that 19 or 20 states do so, including Alaska. She
observed that none of the violations seem as extreme as [what is
called for in HB 309]; "this does seem very punitive." She
expressed her opinion that [DFYS] employees are some of the
hardest-working state employees; she said, "They don't - not all
the time - intentionally do things like this." Checks and
balances are in place, and she offered her hope that these work
in the majority of cases.
MS. TANOURY said she would like the names of cases in which this
process hasn't worked correctly so she can [take corrective
measures]. She noted that the [language in HB 309] is punitive
and goes well beyond a class B misdemeanor, whereas most states
with a penalty have a penalty for each incident, not for each
day of violation.
Number 1279
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated she will be introducing an
amendment. She offered her opinion that it would be great to
fix problems that occurred.
Number 1331
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, noted that
she was hesitant to testify because she is not familiar with the
compact; she is familiar with criminal law in general.
MS. CARPENETI expressed her understanding that [Section 3] would
make a violation of the compact punishable by 180 days of jail
for each day of violation for acts where there is no culpable
mental state, a "bad mind," or criminal negligence. She noted
that there is no intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal
negligence that one is in violation of the law. Generally, for
someone to be held accountable for this type of penalty, there
is some sort of requirement that the state, in prosecuting the
person, has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she had
some sort of bad mind, and that this was not just a mistake.
She noted that this is the concern of the department about this
section.
MS. CARPENETI also pointed out that Title 11 includes more
general statutes that address misconduct by officials; these
require some sort of culpable mental state. Official
misconduct, misuse of confidential information, and endangering
the welfare of a child are examples of these general statutes
that might apply to some of these bad acts in dealing with a
child. She noted that the department is concerned that a person
could go to jail for 180 days without any culpable mental state
for every day of violation, when there is a possibility that a
person could violate it by an innocent or good-faith mistake.
Number 1439
CHAIR DYSON asked which statute cited deals with negligence with
regard to a child.
MS. CARPENETI replied that various statutes address this.
Custodial interference in the first degree is a class C felony,
and custodial interference in the second degree is a class A
misdemeanor.
CHAIR DYSON asked what custodial interference means.
MS. CARPENETI answered it means interfering with a custodial
order of a court. She offered that she did not know whether the
compact applies to parental misconduct. She explained that
official misconduct is in violation of AS 11.56.850 or the
misuse of confidential information.
CHAIR DYSON asked for another statute that she'd mentioned that
deals with negligence in relation to a child.
MS. CARPENETI replied, "Endangering the welfare of a child?"
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Carpeneti to elaborate on this statute.
He noted his impression that this one came the closest to
sending a child to the wrong place or handling a case
improperly.
MS. CARPENETI responded that this would be a violation of AS
11.51.100. She offered her uncertainty that this applies to the
types of cases in question. She added, "I'm not sure exactly
what you're looking for."
CHAIR DYSON said, "We're looking for something that's
appropriate."
MS. CARPENETI offered that AS 11.51.100 prohibits a parent,
guardian, or other person legally charged with the care of a
child under 16 to intentionally desert a child in a place under
circumstances creating a substantial risk of physical injury, or
to leave the child with another person who is not a parent,
guardian, or lawful custodian, knowing that the person is a sex
offender or should be registered as such.
CHAIR DYSON observed that this didn't sound like what he was
looking for. He suggested that Ms. Carpeneti could see what
[the bill] is attempting to do - get authentic documents to
accompany a child. Original documents will not work, he said,
and Ms. Tanoury has offered that "certified" gets the [American
Public Human Services Association's] "knickers in a knot." He
asked Ms. Carpeneti for a better term of law to meet the desired
end.
MS. CARPENETI said she'd like to speak with [DFYS] about this
matter. "Authentic" implies that a document is authenticated by
someone. She offered to research this and make some suggestions
for language and to address the [penalty language]. She
indicated she could do this by March 7.
CHAIR DYSON summarized that the committee would like Ms.
Carpeneti to answer two questions: whether there is a better
way to say "accurate documents", and whether there are more
appropriate disincentives than $1,000 a day.
Number 1610
MS. CARPENETI indicated she would seek answers to those
questions.
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would suspend the
hearing on HB 309 until March 14.
Number 1660
CHAIR DYSON, on another subject, asked members if they were
comfortable with the committee's entertaining a committee bill
that is the House equivalent to SB 302. [He observed
concurrence from Representatives Kohring, Stevens, and Cissna.]
He announced that the committee would go ahead with that as a
committee bill.
Number 1680
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner-
Juneau, Department of Corrections, noted her concern with the
incarceration provided in [HB 309]; this would be a great cost
to the state. [HB 309 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|