Legislature(1993 - 1994)

02/11/1994 03:00 PM HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
           HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES                         
                       STANDING COMMITTEE                                      
                        February 11, 1994                                      
                            3:00 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair                                                
  Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair                                                     
  Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair                                                  
  Rep. Al Vezey                                                                
  Rep. Pete Kott                                                               
  Rep. Harley Olberg                                                           
  Rep. Bettye Davis                                                            
  Rep. Irene Nicholia                                                          
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  Rep. Tom Brice (excused)                                                     
  OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                    
  Rep. Mark Hanley                                                             
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  HB 84:    "An Act implementing certain recommendations of                    
            Alaska 2000 to improve the state's education                       
            system; and providing for an effective date."                      
            PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS                             
  *HB 409:  "An Act relating to the maximum amount of                          
            assistance that may be granted under the adult                     
            public assistance program and the program for aid                  
            to families with dependent children; proposing a                   
            special demonstration project within the program                   
            of aid to families with dependent children and                     
            directing the Department of Health and Social                      
            Services to seek waivers from the federal                          
            government to implement the project; and providing                 
            for an effective date."                                            
            HEARD AND HELD                                                     
  (* First public hearing.)                                                    
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  TERRY CRAMER, Attorney                                                       
  Division of Legal Services                                                   
  Legislative Affairs Agency                                                   
  130 Seward St., Ste. 409                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105                                                    
  Phone:  (907) 465-2450                                                       
  Position Statement:  Answered legal questions on CSHB 84                     
  VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director                                          
  National Education Association/Alaska                                        
  114 Second St.                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  (907) 586-3090                                                       
  Position Statement:  Testified in opposition to CSHB 84                      
  SHEILA PETERSON                                                              
  Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey                                      
  Department of Education                                                      
  801 10th St., Ste. 200                                                       
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  (907) 465-2803                                                       
  Position Statement:  Answered questions on CSHB 84                           
  JAN HANSEN, Director                                                         
  Division of Public Assistance                                                
  Department of Health and Social Services                                     
  P.O. Box 110640                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640                                                    
  Phone:  (907) 465-3347                                                       
  Position Statement:  Testified in support of HB 409                          
  PUDGE KLEINKAUF                                                              
  4201 MacInnes                                                                
  Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                      
  Phone:  (907) 561-7113                                                       
  Position Statement:  Testified on HB 409                                     
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HB  84                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/22/93       135    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/22/93       135    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  01/22/93       135    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE  (DOE) 1/22/93                      
  01/22/93       136    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/18/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/18/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/18/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/05/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/06/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/06/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/26/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  01/26/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/31/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  01/31/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/04/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/08/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/08/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/11/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  BILL:  HB 409                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: AFDC DEMO PROJECT AND DECREASE                                  
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY,Therriault                              
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/28/94      2176    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/28/94      2177    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                     
  02/11/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-16, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m., noted                  
  members present and announced the calendar.  He brought CSHB
  84 to the table.                                                             
  HB 84 - IMPLEMENT AK 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS                                    
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that Terry Cramer, from the Division of                   
  Legal Services, was available for questions and referred to                  
  the committee substitute (CS) version 8-GH1033/X (version X)                 
  of CSHB 84 and indicated that it would be the working draft.                 
  REP. G. DAVIS explained that the CS was the result of his                    
  proposed amendments from the committee's last meeting and a                  
  subsequent meeting with Chair Bunde.  He said his initial                    
  concern was the initiation of a tenure review committee that                 
  would include teachers and administrators.  He said the CS                   
  proposed a committee of no less than three and no more than                  
  five members.                                                                
  (Due to operator error, approximately 15 minutes of                          
  testimony was erased.  For continuity, the tape numbers will                 
  not indicate the erasure.  There is a prolonged pause on the                 
  tape indicating the lost testimony.  Transcription for the                   
  lost testimony has been recreated with notes from the                        
  meeting.  There will be no tape numbers used for this                        
  particular time.)                                                            
  REP. G. DAVIS indicated that in Section 7, line 21, a                        
  teacher may apply for tenure when the teacher has been                       
  offered a fourth consecutive full-year contract with the                     
  same school district.  He also said that the section                         
  allowing for public comment was removed and that a parent                    
  could always personally address an administrator.                            
  (Rep. Nicholia and Rep. Kott arrived at 3:13 p.m.)                           
  REP. VEZEY asked Ms. Terry Cramer to explain the catalog                     
  revision system for subparagraphs.                                           
  Number 100                                                                   
  TERRY CRAMER, Attorney, Division of Legal Services,                          
  Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that the old system                    
  used sequential letters and the new system uses a selection                  
  of random letters to protect confidentiality of the                          
  REP. VEZEY suggested the use of a computer random numbering                  
  CHAIR BUNDE opened the meeting to public testimony on                        
  CSHB 84.                                                                     
  Number 120                                                                   
  VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education                      
  Association/Alaska (NEA/AK), testified in opposition to CSHB
  84.  He stated that, although he has concerns pertaining to                  
  peer review within the legislation, the NEA/AK could support                 
  the tenure amendment.  He said the CS would strengthen the                   
  evaluation of probationary teachers by providing for the                     
  creation of a nontenured teacher evaluation program.  He                     
  said the system would be "bargained" since the process would                 
  be the only meaningful way teachers can impact decision                      
  MR. MARSHALL suggested that there be individual improvement                  
  plans for probationary teachers, requiring two formal                        
  observations and two evaluation sessions.  He said that                      
  under the evaluation process there would be a preobservation                 
  and evaluation conference, a visit by the evaluator to the                   
  teacher's instruction site, and a post observation                           
  conference to discuss the instructional content observed.                    
  Resulting from the evaluation, an individual improvement                     
  plan would be developed by the administrator and the                         
  MR. MARSHALL stated that he was opposed to peer evaluation.                  
  He felt that good teachers would be taken out of the                         
  classroom much too often to attend to the demands of a                       
  tenure review committee.  He said that the teacher who is                    
  out of the classroom longer than six weeks is no longer a                    
  peer because of the different sociological pressures of an                   
  observer role.                                                               
  MR. MARSHALL also felt that there were inherent procedural                   
  problems with the CS.  He said there would be problems if a                  
  nontenured teacher applies for tenure in the month of May,                   
  explaining that the school year ends at that time and he                     
  questioned how the review committee would handle such                        
  applications.  He also stressed the concern that the                         
  superintendent does no more than forward the recommendations                 
  and materials to the school board and the local tenure                       
  review committee.  He also asked if a meeting was held by                    
  the tenure review committee upon receipt of the materials to                 
  consider the tenure application.                                             
  Number 150                                                                   
  MR. MARSHALL said, as he understood the proposal, the                        
  recommendations of the review committee would then go to the                 
  school board.  The school board would either accept or                       
  reject the recommendations.  He inquired as to the length of                 
  time of the entire process.  He also questioned why a                        
  teacher, under the proposed legislation, would not be                        
  allowed an opportunity to appear before the tenure review                    
  committee when his/her application and materials were being                  
  discussed.  He asked if the reasons for denial of tenure                     
  were subject to any standards of burden on the review                        
  committee or school board to show reasonable cause.  He                      
  asked if a nontenured teacher could be excluded from the                     
  confidential deliberations of the review committee.  He felt                 
  there were no clear rights of appeal for the teachers who                    
  are denied tenure through the proposed legislation.                          
  (See Attachment 1 for a hand-out from Vernon Marshall of                     
  Alaska Administrative Code pertaining to the purpose, scope,                 
  method, and use of evaluation for professionals.)                            
  Number 167                                                                   
  MR. MARSHALL stated again that the goal was to improve the                   
  nontenured teaching staff.  He said that he would support                    
  in-service.  He further stated that if there was an                          
  evaluation plan for probationary teachers, he would support                  
  extending the tenure period an additional year.  He felt if                  
  after the third year the teacher still had not achieved the                  
  specified standards, then they should seek employment                        
  Number 338                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that tenure is not granted until the first                  
  teaching day of the beginning of a teacher's third contract.                 
  He stated that applications should be submitted by teachers                  
  before the end of the school year and that the school board                  
  would have the summer to determine the result of the review                  
  Number 366                                                                   
  MR. MARSHALL said there may be individuals who apply for                     
  tenure before the end of the school year that are not going                  
  to be granted tenure but would not know that until the                       
  beginning of the next school year.                                           
  Number 391                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that as tenure is structured now, teachers                  
  do not officially receive tenure until the first teaching                    
  day of the third year.                                                       
  Number 407                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS stated the CS was a compilation of most all                    
  concerns of those who have followed and participated in the                  
  process, including NEA/AK.  He felt that most of Mr.                         
  Vernon's concerns could be addressed.                                        
  Number 459                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Cramer if it is possible to make a                     
  "quick fix" change to page 6, line 12, indicating that the                   
  person who served as reviewer for a teacher who received two                 
  consecutive years of unsatisfactory evaluations may not be a                 
  member of the tenure review committee for the same teacher's                 
  Number 491                                                                   
  MS. CRAMER said that it could be fixed and indicated that                    
  she would change page 6, line 20.                                            
  Number 524                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked if the change was clear to the committee.                  
  Number 526                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that "there was nothing in the statute that                  
  prohibits the local tenure review committee from being                       
  different from the committee that does the review."  He felt                 
  that the legislation was very permissive.                                    
  Number 537                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE agreed and indicated that a diligent effort was                  
  made to make the statute permissive.  He said the reviewer                   
  is not defined.  He said that what was being addressed was                   
  not having the same reviewer on the review committee that                    
  had already reviewed a deficient teacher.                                    
  Number 556                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS said it would be best to be specific by adding                 
  the additional language.                                                     
  Number 572                                                                   
  MS. CRAMER asked if there would be a problem if a person who                 
  had found a teacher's performance satisfactory serving in                    
  review of that same teacher again.                                           
  Number 575                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that would not apply.                                       
  REP. VEZEY asserted that many of the suggestions Mr.                         
  Marshall proposed are not prohibited by the statute.  He                     
  felt the proposal should remain as is.                                       
  Number 613                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG asked if the changes taking place would be                       
  offered as an amendment.                                                     
  Number 617                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said yes.                                                        
  Number 616                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG stated that he would like to be the first person                 
  to object.                                                                   
  Number 624                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Olberg to speak to the objection.                     
  Number 636                                                                   
  MS. CRAMER, after some discussion, explained the new                         
  language by saying that on page 6, line 18, a sentence would                 
  be inserted after the period that would read:  "A person who                 
  served as reviewer of the performance of a tenured teacher                   
  and who found the teacher's performance unsatisfactory, may                  
  not serve on the local tenure review committee that reviews                  
  that teacher's performance."                                                 
  Number 649                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked if the language was clear to the                           
  Number 651                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 84 (version X) as a                  
  working draft.                                                               
  Number 657                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections.  Hearing no objections,                    
  CSHB 84 was adopted as a working draft.                                      
  Number 661                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY made a motion to adopt the amendment.                            
  Number 662                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE noted Rep. Olberg's objection that was made                      
  earlier and asked for further discussion.                                    
  Number 666                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG stated that "this is micro-management at its                     
  worst... assuming that tenure review committees are a good                   
  idea and I don't think they are.  We harp about local                        
  control and municipalities having options and then we tell                   
  people how to run their school districts.  I think it's                      
  inappropriate and I'm tired of it.  I'm tired of the entire                  
  Number 681                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE called for the vote.                                             
  Rep. Cynthia Toohey      Yea                                                 
  Rep. Con Bunde           Yea                                                 
  Rep. Gary Davis          Yea                                                 
  Rep. Al Vezey            Yea                                                 
  Rep. Pete Kott           Nay                                                 
  Rep. Harley Olberg       Nay                                                 
  Rep. Bettye Davis        Yea                                                 
  Rep. Irene Nicholia      Yea                                                 
  Rep. Tom Brice           Excused                                             
  Number 706                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that the amendment for CSHB 84 was                        
  Number 712                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS asked what Chair Bunde's intent for the bill                   
  was.  She further stated that she did not want it to pass                    
  out of committee because she felt there was opportunity for                  
  more work to be done on the bill.                                            
  Number 725                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that it was his intention to move the                     
  bill out of committee and asked if Rep. B. Davis would be                    
  able to craft an amendment at that time.                                     
  Number 728                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS passed out copies of her amendment and said                    
  that her version would eliminate tenure review committees.                   
  She said that she has done research to obtain information                    
  from other school districts in the country that have tenure                  
  review committees as proposed in CSHB 84 and found none.                     
  She felt more time was needed to consider the proposal and                   
  for the school districts to have an opportunity to respond                   
  to the proposed legislation.  She said that in conversations                 
  she has had with local school districts they indicated their                 
  disapproval of the tenure process, citing that it was                        
  cumbersome.  Rep. B. Davis felt that teachers who were                       
  having problems should be allowed to teach into the third                    
  year and have evaluations again that year.                                   
  TAPE 94-16, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS she felt that the school board should                          
  determine if the teacher should be tenured.  She ask for                     
  comments on her proposed amendment and reiterated her desire                 
  that CSHB 84 not move out of committee.                                      
  Number 024                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said, "I see a major... two major premise                        
  changes.  Of course, one eliminating the peer review part                    
  and that's an area where we as reasonable people will                        
  disagree."  There was also a proposed change in the two year                 
  tenure process.  He felt that the outcome of the proposed                    
  amendment would be very similar to the tenure system as it                   
  stands currently and from the information he has received                    
  from parents, PTA and school boards, that system is not                      
  working.  He reminded the committee that HB 84 was addressed                 
  last session, a HESS Committee meeting was held on it in                     
  September, and also the past two weeks have been spent                       
  reviewing it.                                                                
  Number 083                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY made a motion to pass CSHB 84 as amended.                         
  Number 087                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS stated her objection.                                          
  Number 091                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. B. Davis to move her amendment.                       
  Number 093                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS stated that she would make a motion and that                   
  the committee could take whatever action they deemed                         
  necessary.  She further stated that when the vote for moving                 
  CSHB 84 out of committee comes up, she would object.                         
  Number 107                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that Rep. B. Davis has moved to adopt                     
  Amendment 1 to CSHB 84 (version X) as amended.                               
  Number 127                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG objected.                                                        
  Number 131                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call to adopt the proposed                      
  amendment to CSHB 84 as amended.                                             
  Rep. Pete Kott           Nay                                                 
  Rep. Harley Olberg       Nay                                                 
  Rep. Bettye Davis        Yea                                                 
  Rep. Irene Nicholia      Yea                                                 
  Rep. Tom Brice           Excused                                             
  Rep. Cynthia Toohey      Nay                                                 
  Rep. Con Bunde           Nay                                                 
  Rep. Gary Davis          Nay                                                 
  Rep. Al Vezey            Nay                                                 
  CHAIR BUNDE, with two yea votes and six nay votes, stated                    
  that the amendment failed.                                                   
  Number 171                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 84 as amended out of                   
  committee with individual recommendations.                                   
  Number 178                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS objected.  She felt that not only had there                    
  been a subcommittee meeting on the bill that many people                     
  were not made aware of, but also the information made                        
  available to her in days prior indicated that the meeting                    
  was going to facilitate further discussion on CSHB 84, not                   
  to pass it out of committee.  She said, "I believe that my                   
  rights have been violated."  She stated that she is a                        
  reasonable person and tries to work with everyone.  She then                 
  said, "for you (Chair Bunde) to make the comment that                        
  reasonable people want to have a review committee, as if I                   
  am unreasonable, is unconscionable.  And, I reject it, and I                 
  resent it."                                                                  
  Number 222                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that it was not his intention to indicate                 
  that Rep. Bettye Davis was unreasonable and stated for the                   
  record that Rep. Bettye Davis has been a "helpful and                        
  reasonable member of this committee."  He also asserted that                 
  he felt he had not rushed the legislation through the                        
  committee and that the CS as amended would better suit his                   
  Number 267                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS contended that she has had nothing on file                     
  from her public opinion messages or any telephone calls that                 
  indicated support for the concepts outlined in CSHB 84.  She                 
  said that it would be helpful to her if Chair Bunde could                    
  provide her with any information that would indicate                         
  differently.  She felt that the CS was not the majority                      
  desire of the people.                                                        
  Number 304                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that he would be happy to discuss the issue                 
  personally at a later time.                                                  
  Number 309                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG said that he heard Chair Bunde state "that there                 
  was room for reasonable people to disagree, meaning you                      
  (Rep. B. Davis and Chair Bunde) as two reasonable people are                 
  Number 325                                                                   
  REP. NICHOLIA asked if there was a new fiscal note for                       
  CSHB 84.                                                                     
  Number 328                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that the fiscal note would be $4000 and                   
  would need to be adopted with the CS.                                        
  Number 344                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS asked what the $4000 was for.                                  
  Number 334                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE referred to Sheila Peterson for that answer.                     
  Number 340                                                                   
  SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey,                    
  Department of Education (DOE), responded by saying that the                  
  $4000 would promulgate regulations to implement the                          
  legislation.  It would introduce regulations for the tenure                  
  reform, as well as the fund for school improvement                           
  allocating $2000 for each.                                                   
  Number 359                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked for further discussion.  Being none, Chair                 
  Bunde indicated the previous motion made by Rep. Vezey to                    
  move CSHB 84 out of committee with individual                                
  recommendations, and there was a subsequent objection.  He                   
  asked for a roll call.                                                       
  Number 373                                                                   
  REP. NICHOLIA asked if the committee would receive a copy of                 
  the fiscal note before CSHB 84 is moved out of committee, or                 
  if the legislation would be moved without the new fiscal                     
  note attached.                                                               
  Number 377                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that CSHB 84 would be moved without a                     
  copy of the fiscal note and that it would be attached before                 
  it moves to the next committee of referral.  He asked again                  
  for roll to be taken.                                                        
  Rep. Con Bunde           Yea                                                 
  Rep. Gary Davis          Yea                                                 
  Rep. Al Vezey            Yea                                                 
  Rep. Pete Kott           Nay                                                 
  Rep. Harley Olberg       Yea                                                 
  Rep. Bettye Davis        Nay                                                 
  Rep. Irene Nicholia      Nay                                                 
  Rep. Tom Brice           Excused                                             
  Rep. Cynthia Toohey      Yea                                                 
  CHAIR BUNDE, with five yea votes and three nay votes, stated                 
  that CSHB 84 as amended was so moved.                                        
  Number 413                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE brought HB 409 to the table.                                     
  HB 409 - AFDC DEMO PROJECT AND DECREASE                                      
  CHAIR BUNDE turned the gavel over to Rep. Toohey to chair                    
  the remainder of the meeting.                                                
  Number 421                                                                   
  CHAIR TOOHEY stated that Rep. Mark Hanley would be                           
  testifying as prime sponsor of HB 409, and that sites in                     
  Fairbanks and Anchorage would be participating by                            
  teleconference and indicated there were no witnesses in                      
  Number 447                                                                   
  REP. MARK HANLEY, Prime Sponsor of HB 409, stated that he                    
  introduced the bill and was willing to look to all                           
  suggestions pertaining to areas of demonstration and                         
  implementation.  He said the intent of the proposal was to                   
  "look at ways to reform our welfare system."  He felt the                    
  best way to reduce welfare costs was to reduce the amount of                 
  people receiving assistance as opposed to reducing payments                  
  made to recipients.  He stressed the need for a systematic                   
  change that would decrease the number of recipients.                         
  REP. HANLEY explained that a program would be created to                     
  allow people to work or perform community service to                         
  continue to receive benefits.  He felt that people who are                   
  working are more likely to obtain a full time job.  He cited                 
  benefits for the recipient as being an increase in income                    
  disregards and an increase in the amount of assets allowed.                  
  Also as incentive to continue working, the recipient would                   
  be allowed to keep one-third of earnings for two years as                    
  opposed to current law which allows the recipient to retain                  
  one-third for four months and then after that period no more                 
  than $30.  He also mentioned that state payments would be                    
  REP. HANLEY asserted that HB 409 is a demonstration project.                 
  A control group and a comparison group would be created and                  
  the state would do the research for the federal government.                  
  He mentioned that the Clinton Administration was in the                      
  process of researching the demonstration projects throughout                 
  the U.S. and there were several states that have implemented                 
  such projects.  He expressed interest in the results of                      
  their demonstration projects.                                                
  Number 586                                                                   
  CHAIR TOOHEY recommended that there be open communication to                 
  keep people aware of the workgroup times.  She then stated                   
  there would be a subcommittee meeting the following day,                     
  February 12, at 1:00 p.m. to further discuss HB 409.                         
  Number 512                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS asked if there were specific geographic sites                  
  chosen to participate in the control group, citing the Kenai                 
  Peninsula as one that had been mentioned previously.                         
  Number 628                                                                   
  REP. HANLEY replied that the areas suggested by the                          
  Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) were                         
  Anchorage, Mat-Su, and a rural community.  He said it was                    
  not his intent to force the project on a rural community.                    
  He did mention that the areas could be changed.                              
  Number 560                                                                   
  REP. BUNDE asked if there was a general time frame for the                   
  implementation of the concepts contained in HB 409.                          
  Number 578                                                                   
  REP. HANLEY asserted that he wanted legislation passed this                  
  year.  He also said he wanted to incorporate any feasible                    
  amendments and also some new ideas he had just been made                     
  aware of.                                                                    
  Number 594                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY asked Rep. Hanley for an overview of the fiscal                   
  Number 700                                                                   
  REP. HANLEY said that contained in HB 409 was a ratable                      
  reduction.  He said there was an initial cost to the program                 
  because of administrative costs and the requirements for                     
  providing transportation for childcare.  He further stated                   
  that there were costs for monitoring the control and test                    
  groups.  He said his intent was not to introduce legislation                 
  that would cost money, and he wanted to provide a way to pay                 
  for it.                                                                      
  REP. HANLEY referred to the net expenditures in the general                  
  fund displayed in the fiscal note.  In comparison to the                     
  fiscal years 1996 and 1997, he indicated a decrease in                       
  expenditures for the last year due to the projected                          
  reduction of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent                    
  Children (AFDC) payments.                                                    
  Number 751                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY asked if there would be no impact on AFDC                         
  payments in fiscal year (FY) 95.  He stated that there were                  
  one dollar differences in several categories and wondered if                 
  the decrease was due to inflationary growth of the program.                  
  Number 772                                                                   
  REP. HANLEY asked Jan Hansen if the rate of reduction was                    
  included in the fiscal note.                                                 
  Number 773                                                                   
  JAN HANSEN, Director, Division of Public Assistance,                         
  Department of Health and Social Services, replied that the                   
  rate of reduction was included in the fiscal note.  She said                 
  the cost of the project was on the top of the chart,                         
  indicating $451,200, and the bottom of the chart displayed                   
  the net savings from the ratable reduction.  She indicated                   
  that, in fact, there was a net savings to the state in                       
  general funds for the first year.  She said the savings was                  
  the result of the ratable reduction generating a reduction                   
  of $829,500 and the cost for the first year would be                         
  $451,200, indicating a net gain in the general fund.                         
  MS. HANSEN stated there are no savings for the project in                    
  the first year because of the time it would take for a                       
  waiver to be developed, for its approval, and for the                        
  computer programming involved for a project of such                          
  Number 814                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that he misunderstood and said, "I thought                   
  we were changing 47.25.320 to where the maximum that a                       
  person could receive for a dependent child, living with a                    
  non-needy relative, was $451 as opposed to $452."                            
  Number 822                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN agreed with those figures and said that was why                   
  the savings in the first year was actually the total savings                 
  from the ratable reduction, indicated as $829,500.  She said                 
  the administrative cost of the project was $451,200 and she                  
  estimated the savings to the state at approximately                          
  Number 838                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY asked if the reduction of federal receipts would                  
  in reality cause a positive fiscal note.                                     
  Number 841                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN stated that "because AFDC is both a federal and a                 
  state program, the $829,500 represents the state's share of                  
  the AFDC.  In a ratable reduction, when we reduce it, we                     
  would save state GF (general fund) and we wouldn't be                        
  spending federal.  And so, the savings here is by ratable                    
  reduction, if we don't even consider the project... there                    
  would be a savings of state general fund from both AFDC and                  
  adult public assistance combined."  She said that the                        
  figures were derived from fiscal notes #7 and #8.                            
  MS. HANSEN stated that in fiscal note #7, under the FY 95                    
  column, the ratable reduction would reduce AFDC expenditures                 
  by $1,160,000.  He said the reduction represents $526,600                    
  federal, $526,700 general fund, and $106,700 in permanent                    
  fund dividend.  She further stated that anytime the payments                 
  to AFDC are reduced, the federal receipts, general fund and                  
  permanent fund are reduced also.                                             
  Number 860                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN said the remaining figure of $829,500 is derived                  
  from fiscal note #8, which is the state general fund share                   
  of the adult public assistance ratable reduction.  She said,                 
  "it's not half and half on the sheet, federal, because adult                 
  public assistance is 100% GF, so there isn't any federal.                    
  So, when we add the GF reduction to adult public assistance                  
  from this ratable, it is 302.8 ($302,800).  When you add                     
  that to the 526 ($526,00) that's the 829 ($829,00) general                   
  fund savings."                                                               
  Number 908                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY asked, if the hold harmless clause was to be                      
  repealed, would it then not be applicable to the fiscal                      
  Number 919                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN stated that if the permanent fund hold harmless                   
  was repealed, the general fund cost would increase, not the                  
  general fund savings because it is paid out of the permanent                 
  fund itself, and one-twelfth of the AFDC budget comes out of                 
  permanent fund hold harmless.                                                
  Number 939                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said there are no bottom lines in any of the                      
  Number 943                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN agreed and said that a bottom line could be put                   
  on the chart for each year and the total project.                            
  Number 951                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said it was unusual for the annual operating                      
  costs to decrease as indicated in FY 99.                                     
  Number 957                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN stated that entitlement has been mixed with                       
  operating costs.  She said the savings in FY 99 indicate the                 
  reduction of AFDC recipients.                                                
  REP. VEZEY said that was opposed to the program not being in                 
  MS. HANSEN agreed.                                                           
  Number 968                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that figure would total $3 million in FY 99,                 
  while the program is increasing at $40 or $50 million a                      
  Number 972                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN said that she was not implying that the AFDC                      
  program overall would have a lower budget in FY 99 than it                   
  has today, but the savings would be generated over and above                 
  what the estimated cost would be if there was no project.                    
  She further stated that the program would continue to cost                   
  more because increased case loads are projected.                             
  Number 988                                                                   
  CHAIR TOOHEY asked how many people would be in the program                   
  and if during the project would there be people dropping out                 
  and people being added on.                                                   
  Number 995                                                                   
  REP. HANLEY replied that the boundaries of the project will                  
  determine the amount of people participating.                                
  Number 005                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN said Anchorage and Mat-Su were two test areas                     
  that case load sizes and cost estimates were based on for                    
  the fiscal notes.  She said that approximately 1000 people                   
  would go into work while still on AFDC, explaining that the                  
  jobs available to the recipients do not provide enough                       
  income to support a family above the poverty level.  She                     
  further stated that 1000 families would be working while                     
  receiving reduced AFDC payments because of their earnings.                   
  The number of families leaving the project would be low                      
  because the jobs available would not support their families                  
  above the poverty level.                                                     
  Number 037                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that the mindset is that the average person                  
  receives public assistance for approximately two years and                   
  indicated that the demonstration project is projecting over                  
  five years.  He asked Ms. Hansen to address that                             
  Number 046                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN replied that in actuality it is not the same 1000                 
  people.  She said in FY 96 there would be an additional 571                  
  clients working who currently are not working.  In Fy 97, it                 
  is projected as an additional 977 clients working.                           
  Number 072                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY stated that as he understood the response, the                    
  figure 1000 indicated additional people that would go beyond                 
  the "normal rotation."                                                       
  Number 078                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN agreed and said that currently 850 households in                  
  the Anchorage and Mat-Su areas have earnings.  In addition                   
  to the 850, it is projected that there will be another 571                   
  households within the demonstration project with earnings.                   
  Number 090                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY asked what the amount of monthly checks would be.                 
  Number 107                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN answered that she was not sure of the volume in                   
  terms of the ratable reduction.  She said that currently                     
  there were 12,600 families on AFDC.                                          
  Number 113                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that was "about 150,000 family weeks a                       
  year... which works out to be about ten bucks a family                       
  REP. HANLEY agreed and said that $11 is listed on the chart.                 
  CHAIR TOOHEY asked for teleconference testimony.                             
  Number 125                                                                   
  PUDGE KLEINKAUF, Concerned Citizen, testified on HB 409.                     
  She reminded the committee that last session AFDC payments                   
  were cut and at the same time the state passed the largest                   
  capital construction bill in the history of the state.  She                  
  said that HB 409 would continue to penalize the 25,000                       
  children receiving AFDC by giving them a ratable reduction                   
  for the second year in a row.                                                
  TAPE 94-17, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MS. KLEINKAUF stated that Section 3 would reduce benefits                    
  for adult public assistance by 1.7% above last years cut.                    
  She felt that the committee and state did not realize that                   
  with the proposed legislation the poor families and children                 
  would be paying for the demonstration project.                               
  MS. KLEINKAUF said that waivers cost money and that the                      
  state should not penalize public assistance recipients in                    
  order to pay the cost of waivers needed for the project.                     
  She cautioned the committee that there could be                              
  constitutional problems raised by the use of waivers that                    
  would treat AFDC children differently than other groups.                     
  She reminded the committee of the already established JOBS                   
  program, and that the program could be used to implement                     
  some of the concepts in HB 409.                                              
  MS. KLEINKAUF said that the state should offer tax                           
  incentives to businesses to hire welfare recipients,                         
  therefore eliminating them from welfare rolls.                               
  Number 390                                                                   
  REP. BUNDE inquired as to whether Alaska has the highest                     
  welfare payments in the nation, and if the ratable reduction                 
  took place, would they still be the highest payments.  He                    
  also asked if Alaska's cost of living was still considerably                 
  higher than the rest of the nation.                                          
  Number 431                                                                   
  REP. HANLEY said Alaska does have the highest payments and                   
  there was a 25% adjustable factor in both AFDC and adult                     
  public assistance.  In regards to Ms. Kleinkauf's                            
  statements, he believed there would be no constitutional                     
  problems.  He said the JOBS training program focuses on                      
  people who are least likely to obtain work and therefore are                 
  trained extensively.                                                         
  MS. HANSEN felt that by doing the demonstration project,                     
  there would be more support for it in the long run.                          
  Number 537                                                                   
  MS. KLEINKAUF stated that most people are strongly in                        
  support of Section 5 that allows for waivers, and the                        
  problem area was in Section 6 with the workfare concept.                     
  She felt that DHSS should take some responsibility in hiring                 
  welfare recipients off the rolls.  She also explained that                   
  women would be better able to get off the rolls if the state                 
  was more strict with child support payments.                                 
  Number 607                                                                   
  CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further teleconference testimony.                     
  There was none.                                                              
  Number 648                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY asked what the methodology to the monthly                         
  payments pertaining to dependent children living with a non-                 
  needy relative.                                                              
  Number 669                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN answered that the department was asked to come up                 
  with a figure that would equate to the cost of the project                   
  in the most expensive year, which was a 1.7% ratable                         
  Number 728                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS stated that she was supportive of waivers.                     
  She said, with all the work that needs to be done, it would                  
  be impossible to implement the statute within FY 95.  She                    
  conveyed her opposition to what she felt was asking the                      
  poorest of Alaskans to pay for the project through ratable                   
  reductions.  She stressed the enforcement of child support                   
  payments to alleviate the welfare rolls.  She felt that job                  
  availability was more important than job training.                           
  Number 820                                                                   
  MS. HANSEN thanked Rep. Hanley for taking the initiative                     
  with the proposed legislation.  She reminded the committee                   
  that the waiver would allow for a demonstration project,                     
  which means that not everyone can be a part of the control                   
  group.  She referred to Governor Hickel's position paper on                  
  welfare reform and said that the position paper cited                        
  factors, that are in the demonstration waiver, as areas that                 
  need to be changed federally so that the state can also                      
  change them.                                                                 
  Number 893                                                                   
  CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further testimony or questions.                       
  There were none.                                                             
  Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR                       
  TOOHEY ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:55 p.m.                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects