Legislature(1995 - 1996)

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

Document Name Date/Time Subjects