Legislature(1995 - 1996)

05/02/1995 02:04 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                                      
                          May 2, 1995                                          
                           2:04 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair                                       
 Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair                                            
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Gary Davis                                                     
 Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                
 Representative Caren Robinson                                                 
 Representative Tom Brice                                                      
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 All members present                                                           
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 CSSB 123(FIN): "An Act relating to student loan programs and fees             
                for review of postsecondary education institutions;            
                relating to a postsecondary student exchange                   
                program administered by the Western Interstate                 
                Commission on Higher Education; and providing for              
                an effective date."                                            
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
  HB 205:       "An Act relating to a claim based on criminal street           
                gang activity; relating to offenses related to                 
                criminal street gang activities; relating to the               
                crime of recruitment for, sentencing for, and                  
                forfeiture of property relating to criminal street             
                gang activities; restricting criminal street gang              
                offenders from obtaining a permit to carry a                   
                concealed handgun; amending Alaska Rule of Civil               
                Procedure 82; and providing for an effective date."            
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
   HB 281:      "An Act ratifying an agreement between the Alaska              
                Housing Finance Corporation and the commissioner of            
                revenue and making certain pledges to obligees of              
                the corporation regarding that agreement; relating             
                to the authorization for and the issuance of bonds             
                by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to pay for           
                the costs of repair and rehabilitation of student              
                housing facilities of the University of Alaska; and            
                providing for an effective date."                              
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
   HB 282:      "An Act relating to the authorization for and the              
                issuance of revenue bonds by the University of                 
                Alaska to pay for the costs of repair and                      
                rehabilitation of buildings and other structures,              
                excluding student housing and dormitories, of the              
                University of Alaska; expanding the uses of the                
                Alaska debt retirement fund to allow financing of              
                the repair and rehabilitation of University of                 
                Alaska facilities; and providing for an effective              
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
 CSSB 88(FIN):  "An Act establishing a pilot program for charter               
                schools; and providing for an effective date."                 
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
 * HB 119:     "An Act exempting schools from certain fees charged             
               by the Department of Environmental Conservation; and            
               providing for an effective date."                               
               HEARD AND HELD                                                  
 SB 58 am:     "An Act restricting the use of the title `industrial            
               hygienist' and related titles and initials."                    
               PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                         
 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:  Board of Nursing                                      
                         Belle Cunningham                                      
                         Kathleen Kloster                                      
                         Joe Senungetuk                                        
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 DR. JOE L. McCORMICK, Executive Director                                      
 Postsecondary Education Commission                                            
 Department of Education                                                       
 3030 Vintage Boulevard                                                        
 Juneau, AK  99801-7109                                                        
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6740                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 123.                           
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General                                      
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 Court Building, Room 717                                                      
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:Testified in support of HB 205.                           
 DAN FAUSKE, Chief Executive Officer                                           
 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation                                            
 P.O. Box 101020                                                               
 Anchorage, AK  99510-1020                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 561-1900                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281.                           
 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President                                                  
 Statewide University System                                                   
 University of Alaska                                                          
 P.O. Box 155000                                                               
 Fairbanks, AK  99775                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 474-7311                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 282.                           
 SENATOR BERT SHARP                                                            
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Room 514, State Capitol                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3004                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 88.                     
 CHRISTINE CASLER                                                              
 HC31 Box 5248A                                                                
 Wasilla, AK  99654                                                            
 Telephone:  (907) 376-3739                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 KATHY FUNT                                                                    
 P.O. Box 4                                                                    
 Gustavus, AK                                                                  
 Telephone:  (907) 697-2458                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 ANNIE MACKOVJAK                                                               
 P.O. Box 63                                                                   
 Gustavus, AK  99826                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 697-2246                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 LYNN JENSEN                                                                   
 P.O. Box 87                                                                   
 Gustavus, AK                                                                  
 Telephone:  (907) 697-2259                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 DAVID CORNBERG, Independent Education Consultant                              
 P.O. Box 82631                                                                
 Fairbanks, AK  99708                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 479-4514                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 CATHERINE PORTLOCK                                                            
 10501 Loudermilk                                                              
 Anchorage, AK  99516                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 346-2534                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 CARL ROSE, Executive Director                                                 
 Association of Alaska School Boards                                           
 316 W. 11th Street                                                            
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 586-1083                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 LINDA  SHARP                                                                  
 2060 Esquire                                                                  
 Anchorage, AK  99517                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 278-6951                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant                                            
   to Commissioner Halloway                                                    
 Department of Education                                                       
 801 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 200                                                 
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4156                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support by SB 88.                            
 ROBERT GOTTSTIEN, Member                                                      
 State Board of Education                                                      
 630 W. 4th Avenue, #300                                                       
 Anchorage, AK  99501                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 257-5601                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant                                         
   to Senator Bert Sharp's                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Room 514, State Capitol                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3004                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA                                                    
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Room 406, State Capitol                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4859                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 119.                    
 KIT BALLANTINE, Acting Director                                               
 Division of Environmental Health                                              
 Department of Environmental Conservation                                      
 410 Willoughby Avenue, Room 105                                               
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-5280                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 119.                                      
 AARON TRIPPLER, Director of Government Affairs                                
 American Industrial Hygienist Association                                     
 2700 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 250                                             
 Fairfax, VA  22031                                                            
 Telephone:  (703) 849-8888                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 58.                            
 PENNY GOODSTIEN, Representative                                               
 Anchorage Branch/Midnight Sun Section                                         
 American Industrial Hygienist Association                                     
 9500 Buddy Lerner                                                             
 Anchorage, AK  99561                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 346-1083                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 58.                            
 JANET OGAN, Legislative Secretary                                             
   to Senator Loren Leman                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Room 113, State Capitol                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2095                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 58.                     
 JEFF CARPENTER, Member                                                        
 Midnight Sun Section                                                          
 American Industrial Hygienist Association                                     
 9121 King David Drive                                                         
 Anchorage, AK  99507                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 344-8516                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 58.                            
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SB 123                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/10/95       578    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/10/95       578    (S)   HES, FIN                                          
 03/20/95              (S)   HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/20/95              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/21/95       721    (S)   HES RPT  CS  3DP 2NR       SAME TITLE             
 03/21/95       721    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DOE-2)                         
 04/19/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/26/95      1249    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  4DP 2NR       NEW TITLE              
 04/26/95      1249    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DOE-2)                         
 04/27/95              (S)   RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203               
 04/28/95      1310    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/28/95                        
 04/28/95      1314    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/28/95      1315    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/28/95      1315    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 04/28/95      1315    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 123(FIN)                
 04/28/95      1315    (S)   PASSED Y19 N- E1                                  
 04/28/95      1315    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                 
 04/28/95      1323    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/29/95      1659    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/29/95      1659    (H)   HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES             
 05/02/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 205                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: STREET GANG ACTIVITY                                             
 SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/27/95       497    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/27/95       497    (H)   HES, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                     
 02/27/95       497    (H)   7 ZERO FNS (2-ADM, 3-DHSS, CORR, LAW)             
 02/27/95       497    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS)                           
 02/27/95       498    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                     
 04/25/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 04/27/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 04/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 05/02/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 281                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/24/95       901    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/24/95       901    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                      
 03/24/95       901    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (REV)                                 
 03/24/95       901    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV, UA)                     
 03/24/95       901    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                     
 04/27/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 04/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 05/02/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 282                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/24/95       904    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/24/95       904    (H)   HES, FIN                                          
 03/24/95       904    (H)   4 ZERO FNS (2-ADM, REV, UA)                       
 03/24/95       904    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                     
 04/27/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 04/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 05/02/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  SB 88                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: PILOT PROGRAM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS                                
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP, Frank, Miller, Taylor, Rieger, Green,           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/15/95       288    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/15/95       289    (S)   HES, FIN                                          
 02/21/95       356    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  RIEGER                             
 02/22/95              (S)   HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/22/95              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/01/95              (S)   HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/01/95              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/08/95       543    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  GREEN                              
 03/01/95              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/08/95              (S)   HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/08/95              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/09/95       556    (S)   HES RPT  CS  2DP 3NR  SAME TITLE                  
 03/09/95       556    (S)   FN (DOE)                                          
 03/27/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/30/95       840    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  5DP 2NR  SAME TITLE                  
 03/30/95       840    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (DOE)                                 
 03/30/95              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 04/10/95       979    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/11/95                        
 04/11/95       979    (S)   RETURN TO RLS  COMMITTEE                          
 04/11/95              (S)   RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203               
 04/11/95              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/12/95       997    (S)   RULES RPT   3CAL 2 OTHER 4/12/95                  
 04/12/95       999    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/12/95       999    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/12/95       999    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  HALFORD                            
 04/12/95       999    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 04/12/95       999    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 88(FIN)                 
 04/12/95      1000    (S)   PASSED Y12 N8                                     
 04/12/95      1000    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y15 N5                      
 04/12/95      1000    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/13/95      1036    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/13/95      1036    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION                         
                             Y12 N6  E1 A1                                     
 04/13/95      1037    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y16 N2 E1 A1                
 04/13/95      1037    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/18/95      1340    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/18/95      1340    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                      
 05/02/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 119                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KUBINA, Davies, Ivan                            
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/25/95       131    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/25/95       132    (H)   HES, FIN                                          
 03/29/95       987    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): IVAN                                
 05/02/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  SB 58                                                                
 SHORT TITLE:  USE OF TITLE "INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST"                             
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN                                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/01/95       129    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/01/95       129    (S)   HES, L&C                                          
 02/15/95       286    (S)   HES RPT  2DP 2NR                                  
 02/15/95       286    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LABOR #1)                       
 02/15/95              (S)   HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/15/95              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/07/95              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/07/95              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/21/95              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/21/95              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/22/95       744    (S)   L&C RPT  1DP 4NR                                  
 03/22/95       744    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LABOR)                          
 03/27/95              (S)   RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203               
 03/27/95              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/05/95       872    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/5                            
 04/05/95       873    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/05/95       874    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 04/05/95       874    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SB 58                        
 04/05/95       874    (S)   PASSED Y16 N2 E2                                  
 04/05/95       874    (S)   RIEGER  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/06/95       898    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/06/95       898    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN                    
 04/06/95       898    (S)   AM NO  1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
 04/06/95       899    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
                             SB 58 AM                                          
 04/06/95       899    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y16 N3 E1               
 04/06/95       900    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/07/95      1170    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/07/95      1170    (H)   HES, LABOR AND COMMERCE                           
 05/02/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-46, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,                    
 Education and Social Services Standing Committee to order at 2:04             
 p.m.  Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,                
 Toohey, Brice, and Davis.  A quorum was present to conduct                    
 business.  Co-Chair Bunde read the calendar and announced the order           
 of the bills.                                                                 
 SB 123 - POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS                                   
 Number 129                                                                    
 DR. JOE McCORMICK, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education                
 Commission, Department of Education (DOE), said SB 123 is basically           
 the same as HB 257 which was passed by the House HESS Committee.              
 However, there are two notable exceptions.  The loan limits, as               
 they apply to career school programs, were modified to allow for a            
 $6,500 annual maximum for programs that are 30 or more weeks in               
 length.  That is the standard definition of a year in length.  A              
 $4,500 maximum was established for programs that were less than 30            
 but more than 20 weeks in length; and a $3,000 maximum was allowed            
 for programs of less than 20 weeks in length but at least 10 weeks.           
 DR. McCORMICK continued that HB 257 had a total maximum loan                  
 eligibility of $79,000.  The Senate modified that to $60,000.  As             
 a point of reference, the $60,000 does represent about a 26 percent           
 increase over the current maximums allowed for under current law.             
 In addition, SB 123 denies loans to individuals who are                       
 incarcerated full-time.  HB 257 provided loans for incarcerated               
 individuals who were scheduled for release within two months.                 
 DR. McCORMICK recommended that the HESS Committee embrace the                 
 Senate bill, and pass it.                                                     
 Number 268                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced for the record that Representative Vezey             
 joined the meeting at 2:08 p.m.                                               
 CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY said her office received two communications           
 from people who feared they would not be able to get loans for                
 trade schools because those schools were less than six months in              
 duration.  She asked how those schools were addressed.                        
 DR. McCORMICK said the original house version, HB 257, proposed               
 that those programs that were one year in length remain at $5,500,            
 and those programs that were less than nine months in length were             
 dropped to $4,000.  The Senate version came up with a compromise              
 that actually improves the situation regarding trade schools.                 
 Those programs that are a year in length are allowed $6,500.  That            
 is $1,000 more than they now receive.  Those programs that are 20             
 to 30 weeks in length are allowed $3,500, which is $500 more than             
 allowed by the House version.                                                 
 DR. McCORMICK continued that those programs that are less than 20             
 weeks but are at least 10 weeks in length are allowed $3,000 a                
 Number 362                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Dr. McCormick to comment on how many            
 trade school or vocational programs are less than six months in               
 DR. McCORMICK responded that approximately 70 to 80 percent of                
 those programs are of that duration.  They usually run about six              
 months to a year.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how many are less than six months in               
 DR. McCORMICK answered no more than 30 percent, perhaps only 10 to            
 15 percent.                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that is in terms of programs.  If it is             
 broken down into student classroom or learning hours, what are the            
 DR. McCORMICK said it does not break down into very many students.            
 Typically, a small school like that does not enroll more than 10 to           
 20 students per term.  Those schools are usually very small                   
 Number 431                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON joined the meeting at 2:10 p.m.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE said in other words, something like a                
 beauty school would no longer be eligible.                                    
 DR. McCORMICK indicated that was not correct.  Under SB 123                   
 everyone who is currently eligible will still be eligible.  The               
 change occurs in the amounts allowed.  Currently, all program                 
 lengths are eligible for the same amounts, regardless of the length           
 of the program.  SB 123 simply takes into account the length of the           
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and asked for the wish of              
 the committee.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved CSSB 123(FIN) from the HESS Committee              
 with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note.            
 There were no objections, and the bill passed.                                
 HB 205 - STREET GANG ACTIVITY                                               
 Number 515                                                                    
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                  
 Department of Law, recalled at the last hearing on HB 205 the issue           
 had come up about whether or not a provision could be included for            
 those juveniles who have run away from home.  In such a case, their           
 parents would not be liable for acts committed by that child as               
 part of a street gang.                                                        
 MS. KNUTH had prepared an amendment which added a paragraph on page           
 2, line 1 of the bill.  This paragraph appears in at least one, and           
 perhaps two other bills that have gone through this session.                  
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved Amendment 1.                                            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for further discussion of the amendment.  He             
 also called for objections.                                                   
 Number 602                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt the amendment only addresses a small part           
 of what is a flaw in Section 1 of the bill.  There are many other             
 aspects of the bill that the HESS Committee members have not talked           
 about.  A lot of the concerns are simple, such as what happens to             
 children who are under joint custody agreements, or children who              
 are visiting non-custodial parents.  There may be simple cases of             
 people who don't have control over their kids.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY again expressed concern over suing someone who           
 is indigent--there is no point to that.  He felt Section 1 still              
 leaves a lot to be desired.                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on the amendment.                  
 Voting "yes" on Amendment 1 was Representative Davis,                         
 Representative Brice, Representative Robinson, Co-Chair Toohey, Co-           
 Chair Bunde, and Representative Vezey.  There were no "no" votes.             
 Amendment 1 was adopted, and HB 205 as amended was before the HESS            
 Committee.  Co-Chair Bunde asked for further discussion or the will           
 of the committee.                                                             
 Number 711                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 205 as amended with individual                  
 recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.   There was an                 
 objection, and a vote was taken.  Voting "yes" on the passage of              
 the bill were Co-Chair Toohey, Co-Chair Bunde, Representative                 
 Robinson, Representative Brice and Representative Davis.  Voting              
 "no" was Representative Vezey.  The CSHB 205(HES) was passed out of           
 the House HESS Committee.                                                     
 HB 281 - AHFC TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND; BONDS                              
 Number 830                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced this bill had been heard previously, and             
 he had proposed an amendment.  The bill had been held so everyone             
 would have a chance to look at the amendment.                                 
 Number 847                                                                    
 DAN FAUSKE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Housing Finance                   
 Corporation (AHFC), understands the amendment proposed by Co-Chair            
 Bunde would in essence eradicate Section 3, under ratification.               
 The problem Mr. Fauske had with that is that in negotiations with             
 the rating agencies in an attempt to get AHFC off credit watch, the           
 agencies stated they wanted to see that some form of agreed upon              
 legislation was in existence.  With this legislation, the agencies            
 could see what the transfers out of the corporation would be on a             
 regular basis over a period of time.  This was so the agencies                
 could protect their bond holders.                                             
 MR. FAUSKE said without that kind of language, the AHFC runs the              
 risk that the credit agencies will not honor the agreement as it              
 was seen, as far as transferring money out of the corporation.  The           
 AHFC will probably be placed back on credit watch with all the                
 negative implications and, subsequent to that, any future bond                
 sales.  Probably, future bond ratings will most likely go down                
 depending on how much money was taken from the corporation.                   
 Number 928                                                                    
 MR. FAUSKE stressed that his concern is not so much a case of being           
 told what to do by people on the East Coast.  The point is to look            
 ahead in time after the bonds are already sold.  The bonds are sold           
 and the rating has been maintained based on the financial stability           
 and strength of the corporation.  If that is weakened, the rating             
 agencies have a fiduciary responsibility to notify their bond                 
 holders of a potential problem.  Therefore, the strength of the               
 transfer bill was based on the fact that there would be some                  
 agreement between the legislature, the administration and the                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE understood.  His reason for offering the amendment             
 was not antagonistic in respect to someone from "back East" trying            
 to tell Alaska what to do.  Surely the ratings agencies are aware             
 that this is a very hollow assurance.  The next legislative session           
 could repeal the entire bill or that section of the bill if the               
 legislature chose to do so.                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if the rating agencies are not aware, they                
 should be aware that HB 281 provides a very hollow assurance.  Co-            
 Chair Bunde does not feel that taking Section 3 out automatically             
 indicates that Co-Chair Bunde wants to continue to drain capital              
 reserves from the AHFC.  To Co-Chair Bunde, Section 3 is a                    
 meaningless part of the bill.                                                 
 Number 1030                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY pointed out the legislature cannot change the            
 law without the Governor's signature or a veto override.                      
 Therefore, if HB 281 is passed, it is more difficult to change a              
 law than it is to initially pass a law.  HB 281 does provide what             
 Representative Vezey believes most courts would interpret as the              
 pledge of the full faith and credit of the State of Alaska for                
 those bonds.  That is more than those bonds have now.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that is a subject of debate in and of its           
 own.  If the state of Alaska puts its full faith and credit behind            
 those bonds, Representative Vezey would imagine that the financial            
 managers on the East coast would probably care less what is done to           
 the AHFC as long as the bonds are guaranteed.                                 
 Number 1080                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE conceded that he was not a bond attorney, but he               
 thought the quasi-governmental agencies that issue bonds have the             
 full faith of the state if the bonds ever went to court.  However,            
 some people like to be meticulous.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY assured Co-Chair Bunde if that was the case,             
 the bond rating company would not be the least bit concerned.                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Representative Rokeberg joined the              
 meeting at 2:20 p.m.                                                          
 Number 1120                                                                   
 MR. FAUSKE said the AHFC is the only housing finance corporation in           
 the United States that has its own general obligation (G.O.)                  
 rating.  That is very significant, because there is no other such             
 corporation that has that.  The AHFC is a stand-alone organization            
 and the credit is based on the full faith and credit of the                   
 corporation.  Therefore, if the legislature or some other body were           
 to take significant acts that impaired the ability of the                     
 corporation to service its debt, any number of things could happen.           
 MR. FAUSKE did not wish to discuss those possibilities at the                 
 moment.  He only wanted to state that Section 3 assures the full              
 agreement with the legislature that the legislature will not impair           
 the corporation's ability to service its debt.  It is also in the             
 spirit of the language that the corporation cannot be utilized in             
 full force to solve all the fiscal problems of the state.                     
 MR. FAUSKE said, "The AHFC has arrived at what seems to be a                  
 reasonable amount of money based on some technical analysis as to             
 fund equity balances of the corporation that meet with the                    
 guidelines established to maintain the bond rating that the AHFC              
 currently enjoys."  That bond rating is translated into some low              
 mortgage interest rates for the residents of Alaska.                          
 MR. FAUSKE explained that a bond rating is a direct result of risk.           
 The higher the rating, the lower the risk.  In retrospect, if                 
 ratings go the other way, interest rates go up.                               
 Number 1212                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not disagree with the proposal the bill laid out           
 as a reasonable withdrawal of dividends from the AHFC.  However,              
 regarding the full faith and credit of the state of Alaska, if the            
 legislature chose to dissolve the corporation, the state would take           
 on its debts and responsibilities.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE thought that was true with any other bonding             
 agency that is quasi-governmental.  The AHFC has been able to                 
 maintain a substantially high bond rating because it has                      
 established through past history that the state is willing to take            
 those golden eggs and stow them away in an appropriate manner.                
 That is what Section 3 intends.                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the state has done that in the past, and            
 it has done that without Section 3.                                           
 Number 1278                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG thought that there needs to be teeth           
 in legislation, therefore, he is going to vote against the                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the amendment was moved at the last                 
 meeting, and there were objections to the amendment.  A roll call             
 vote was taken.  Voting "yes" on the amendment were Co-Chair Bunde            
 and Representative Vezey.  Voting "no" were Representative                    
 Rokeberg, Representative Brice, Representative Robinson, Co-Chair             
 Toohey and Representative Davis.  Amendment 1 failed.                         
 Number 1318                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG introduced an amendment.  It was moved as             
 Amendment 2, and there were objections for purposes of discussion.            
 Amendment 2 modified the title of the bill and deleted Section 4,             
 which provides the bonding authority to provide the $3 million.               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the reason he brought forth the                  
 amendment is because he considered this particular provision a                
 blatant raid on the equity of the AHFC for a special purpose.                 
 Representative Rokeberg did not feel that was right, and it was               
 very poor public policy.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was also concerned about the credit                   
 worthiness of the AHFC, and their ability to maintain their credit            
 worthiness and their bond rating.  In addition, the university                
 system and all school systems in Alaska should be able to provide             
 the repair and maintenance of their physical plants within their              
 operating budgets and not look for special appropriations to do so.           
 Number 1390                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG appreciated the situation the university              
 was in.  However, this bill amounts to one state entity raiding               
 another.  The two are not related.  If the legislature wants to               
 bond the repair and maintenance of the university system it should            
 do so with a G.O. bond that goes before the vote of the people.               
 That is why Amendment 2 is being offered.                                     
 Number 1411                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what the difference was between taking $200             
 million from the AHFC to put into the general fund as was done last           
 year, and what is being provided for in the bill, other than the              
 fact that the bill's provisions have a purpose.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the purpose of the $270 million                  
 appropriation is to give a predictable annual dividend to the                 
 state's general fund.  The state can do what it wishes with that              
 money.  Representative Rokeberg supports that because it is a                 
 sustainable type of dividend.  The real estate community and the              
 state supports that.  It provides stability.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his amendment was offered to further             
 avoid any major raids of bond equity of the corporation.                      
 Representative Rokeberg does not feel this is the right cause and             
 purpose.  If the legislature wishes to repair and maintain the                
 university with bonding money, the legislature should go to the               
 voters and ask their permission.                                              
 Number 1470                                                                   
 MR. FAUSKE said Representative Rokeberg's concerns are a separate             
 issue in terms of how to go about this area.  Mr. Fauske said he              
 did not wish to discuss the merits of going to the people for a               
 vote or not.  HB 281 is a G.O. of the corporation that falls within           
 the parameters of the corporation based on the merger of 1992.                
 MR. FAUSKE said this would have come under the old Alaska State               
 Housing Authority (ASHA).  Mr. Fauske believed the repair and                 
 replacement of state facilities used to be one of the functions of            
 ASHA.  That gave the mechanism whereby the state was operating                
 within the overall umbrella of the corporate activities.                      
 MR. FAUSKE stated that at the beginning of the session, up to March           
 of this session, there was a great deal of activity going on as far           
 as funding for the university.  This program became part of the               
 process to help eliminate the overall deteriorating maintenance on            
 the university campuses.  This agreement has been discussed with              
 the rating agencies.  At this level they have considered this $30             
 million in G.O. as well as the withdrawal from the corporation.               
 MR. FAUSKE concluded it falls within the parameters of what is                
 being done, and within the perusal of the rating agencies and what            
 they have been told the state is trying to do.  It does not,                  
 however, address the question that Representative Rokeberg is                 
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said unlike Co-Chair Bunde's amendment which             
 attempted to address a specific concern, the current amendment is             
 probably eviscerating the whole intent of the legislation and would           
 probably be considered dilatory in that sense.  HESS Committee                
 members might want to consider some type of an action on that                 
 point.  On the other point he does believe that when HESS Committee           
 members are talking about the discussion of the AHFC and its                  
 corporation's bond authority, HESS Committee members need to                  
 discuss establishing also whether or not it is appropriate for the            
 AHFC to be used to adequately fund the deferred maintenance                   
 operations at the state university.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE considered the debate that has taken place               
 over the last two years concerning the issue.  He has not heard any           
 realtors complain, nor has he heard anyone argue.  In addition,               
 Representative Brice has not heard the AHFC get concerned over                
 their bonding rating, as testimony has said that the bill, as is,             
 protects the corporation's bonding authority.  Therefore,                     
 Representative Brice opposes the amendment.                                   
 Number 1636                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Fauske, given the language on               
 Section 4 of HB 281, if the payment of the principal interest would           
 not be a draw-down on the retained earnings and other resources of            
 the corporation.                                                              
 MR. FAUSKE answered yes in that it is coming from corporate                   
 receipts.  It is not a revenue bond per se because it is a G.O.               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concluded that any retained earnings or               
 profits generated by the lending activities throughout the state,             
 for example, "The homeowners paying their mortgage checks to their            
 servicing agent to the AHFC as the underwriter of their mortgage,"            
 are going to finance this bigger bond issue.                                  
 MR. FAUSKE said following that paper trail, that is correct based             
 on the fact that the AHFC is a profit making corporation, and                 
 profits are derived from repayment on mortgages, investment                   
 earnings and other mechanisms.  Money is coming into the                      
 corporation, and the profits are then being utilized as a financial           
 strength to support the bond credit.                                          
 Number 1695                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it was kind of like a phantom tax.               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on Amendment 2.  Voting            
 "yes" on the amendment was Representative Rokeberg.  Voting "no"              
 were Representative Robinson, Co-Chair Toohey, Co-Chair Bunde,                
 Representative Vezey, Representative Davis, and Representative                
 Brice.  Amendment 2 failed.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY was expecting to see a schedule of transfers             
 of capital in this bill.  He asked if that would be coming in                 
 another bill.                                                                 
 MR. FAUSKE believed that appears in the agreement between the                 
 commissioner of revenue and the corporation which is based on HB              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that copies were in the bill packets.                
 Number 1807                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 281 with individual recommendations             
 and accompanying fiscal notes.  There were no objections, and the             
 bill passed out of committee.                                                 
 HB 282 - FINANCING REPAIR/REHAB OF UA BUILDINGS                             
 Number 1874                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said HB 282 is the third bill that has come           
 before the HESS Committee regarding funding for the University of             
 Alaska system.  He asked the total amount of bonded indebtedness              
 that the legislature is being asked to authorize for the University           
 of Alaska this session.                                                       
 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University System, replied            
 that there are two bills.  One is for $30 million which is just for           
 student housing.  In addition, there is now $120 million of                   
 additional deferred maintenance.  HB 282 authorizes the AHFC to               
 issue bonds in the amount of $45 million with the delayed effective           
 date of July 1, 1996, if cash is not available next year for                  
 deferred maintenance.                                                         
 MS. REDMAN said this would not draw down on the AHFC reserves to              
 pay off this debt.  This would come from the Alaska debt retirement           
 fund, the way the bill is written.  The AHFC would simply be used             
 as the bond issuer.                                                           
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for further public testimony, and there was              
 none.  Public testimony was closed.  Co-Chair Bunde asked for                 
 further discussion from the committee.                                        
 Number 1980                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was going to vote against the bill.           
 By his calculations, HESS Committee members authorized $111.5                 
 million in new construction and maintenance bonds for the                     
 university in the last couple of days.  This bill calls for another           
 $45 million.  He thinks HESS Committee members should draw the line           
 MS. REDMAN noted that HESS Committee members did pass out a                   
 straight revenue bond proposal for new housing facilities.  Again,            
 that uses AHFC.  But generating revenues from the dorm projects               
 will go to pay that bond indebtedness off with a small subsidy from           
 the AHFC.  That would be the interest rate subsidy of about $1                
 million a year.                                                               
 Number 0236                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the interest rate on that bond, in           
 terms of the interest subsidy, would be at a rate of 3 percent.               
 MS. REDMAN said that was correct.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that was the interest rate                   
 subsidy, the spread, between the cost of their money and what that            
 3 percent is.                                                                 
 MS. REDMAN said again that Representative Rokeberg was correct.               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was not sure at what rate the last bond               
 went out at, but he ventured to say that it is probably over 7                
 percent, even if it is a tax-free bond.  Therefore, there is a 400            
 basis point spread differential in the $36 million.                           
 Number 2072                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY essentially asked Representative Rokeberg to                  
 explain his concerns in layman's terms, because as the bill stands,           
 she understands it and she is going to vote for it.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is concerned that on the prior bond           
 issue of $36.5 million, the subsidy is substantial.  The earnings             
 of the AHFC are subsidizing the housing bonds HESS Committee                  
 members already passed from the committee.  Representative Rokeberg           
 hopes that bill passes, because the bill is needed.  But this bill            
 is adding to that whole situation by moving out the $30 million               
 bond issue which is entirely paid for by the AHFC.  Not one penny             
 is being paid by the university system.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued that this bill now asks for                 
 another $45 million.  Apparently, the debt service is going to be             
 paid for by the state.  Therefore, the totality of all this is too            
 much.  It is going to be difficult to spend $30 million on a good             
 maintenance program in one year.  Representative Rokeberg asked why           
 another $45 million should be given right now.  There is even a               
 circuit breaker in HB 282 for a $20 million offset.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this is more than the capital budget             
 that is even being contemplated.                                              
 Number 2148                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that this money would not be spent             
 in one year.  However, it would not be hard to spend the $30                  
 million in one year.  The deferred maintenance at the university is           
 growing at $20 million a year, and the university has not even                
 looked at the total facilities.  There is a huge backlog of major             
 maintenance which is really reconstruction.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY also asked Ms. Redman what role private                  
 housing is currently playing in the university's housing needs.               
 MS. REDMAN replied that option has been investigated in Anchorage,            
 Fairbanks and Juneau to see if anyone in the private sector was               
 interested.  A bill was passed last session that allows the                   
 university to offer tax exempt status to private organizations who            
 came onto university property to build.  With that bill, the                  
 university sought people to build, but it has not been successful             
 in finding interested parties.                                                
 Number 2200                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked about off-campus housing.                          
 MS. REDMAN asked if Representative Vezey meant having private                 
 people build facilities for the university off property.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the university currently housed                 
 students staying off campus in private facilities.                            
 MS. REDMAN said yes, but the university does not support that                 
 housing.  There are just a lot of students who are trying to live             
 in the communities.  There is no relationship for a lot of legal              
 reasons with those providers.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how much of the university's housing               
 needs that was fulfilling.                                                    
 MS. REDMAN answered that it varies in each community.  In Juneau,             
 most students are still living off campus.  In Anchorage, a huge              
 majority of students are living off campus.  About 95 percent of              
 the students are in the community.  In Fairbanks, about 40 percent            
 of students are living off campus.                                            
 Number 2242                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the reason the university cannot get private              
 entities to pay for housing in Anchorage is because it cannot and             
 will not pay for itself.  The AHFC subsidizes at 3 percent, and Co-           
 Chair Bunde still thinks the whole plan will fail.  However, he               
 reiterated that he is willing to be proven wrong.                             
 Number 2254                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the concern that all the bonds               
 will be let at once.  That is the beauty of bonding versus straight           
 general fund capital money.  Straight general fund capital money              
 has to be spent within three years.  Bonding authorization lasts a            
 little longer, and the economy is not super heated in Anchorage,              
 Juneau or wherever the projects are taking place.  They can be let            
 in smaller amounts to allow for local contractors to do the work.             
 In addition, smaller amounts provide work for Alaska firms, whereas           
 large jobs attract and need large Seattle or Los Angeles firms to             
 do the job.  That is the beauty within the bonding proposal.                  
 TAPE 95-46, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked to wrap up.  He said by passing the             
 bill the HESS Committee members were almost rewarding the                     
 mismanagement and mischief of the university.  The university                 
 should have put their house in order long ago, although                       
 Representative Rokeberg realizes it is trying to reorganize                   
 currently.  He also understands that the university needs help, and           
 he was not saying the legislature should not help the university              
 through some of the bond issues.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt, however, that the HESS Committee                
 members should look at the broad scope of things.  The HESS                   
 Committee just moved $30 million out of the committee, and the                
 university is now asking for another $45 million.  Representative             
 Rokeberg suggested that the HESS Committee not give them that $45             
 million.  He thinks $30 million is a good start.                              
 Number 060                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that these bills go to the Finance                    
 Committee, and he does not have any information that would lead him           
 to believe that the Finance Committee will not pick and choose as             
 to what goes out of that committee.  Co-Chair Bunde said he would             
 be willing to give the Finance Committee the option to pick and               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 282 with individual recommendations             
 and accompanying fiscal notes.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected, and a roll call vote was taken.             
 Voting "yes" on the passage of HB 282 were Co-Chair Toohey, Co-               
 Chair Bunde, Representative Vezey, Representative Davis,                      
 Representative Brice, and Representative Robinson.  Voting "no" was           
 Representative Rokeberg.  HB 282 was passed from the House HESS               
 SB 88 - PILOT PROGRAM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS                                   
 Number 160                                                                    
 SENATOR BERT SHARP provided the sponsor statement for the bill.  He           
 said the issue of charter schools was discussed at length during              
 the two years of the Eighteenth Alaska Legislature.  Senator Sharp            
 had the misfortune of having that bill on the Senate side during              
 that time.  It was just one small part of the Alaska 2000                     
 propositions in the Senate.  It was in two bills, SB 60 and SB 61.            
 Those bills had companion bills in the House.                                 
 SENATOR SHARP said those two bills, which in all aspects were                 
 omnibus education bills, tried to address diverse issues.  Each               
 bill was controversial in some way, and each issue tainted or                 
 detracted from the other one.  This led to the fact that none of              
 them passed.                                                                  
 SENATOR SHARP has tried to craft SB 88 to be a single issue bill              
 for charter schools.  Charter schools were an item in SB 61 during            
 the Eighteenth Alaska Legislature.  This bill allows school                   
 districts, teachers and parents the space to be creative.  It                 
 allows the charter schools to utilize existing school facilities,             
 new facilities, and/or the option of leasing adequate facilities              
 owned by private enterprises within the community.                            
 SENATOR SHARP said a geographical application has been done to                
 assure fairness statewide in that one area does not come in and               
 take up the total allocated 30.  There are 30 suggested for the               
 pilot program which lasts up to the year 2005.  The sun sets at               
 that time.  The allocation is pretty straight forward on the second           
 page of the bill.                                                             
 Number 289                                                                    
 SENATOR SHARP continued that all charter school proposals must be             
 submitted to the local school board for consideration.  Upon their            
 approval by the school board, they then must be forwarded to the              
 commissioner of the DOE for review and compliance to state law.               
 All staffing of charter schools must be done on a volunteer basis,            
 with the principal or administrator of that charter school having             
 the right of final approval of all staff selection.                           
 SENATOR SHARP said Section 3 of the bill concerns the funding of              
 charter schools.  Section (a) of 3 reads that a local school board            
 shall provide an approved charter school with an annual program               
 budget.  The budget shall be not less than the amount generated by            
 the students enrolled in the charter school less administrative               
 costs retained by the local school district, determined by applying           
 the indirect cost rate approved by the DOE.                                   
 SENATOR SHARP said the amount generated by students enrolled in               
 charter schools is to be determined in the same manner as it would            
 be for a student enrolled in any other school within the school               
 district.  No more or no less funding would be available to the               
 school district.  This is just an option that could be considered             
 by the school board upon presentation of the proposal.                        
 Number 379                                                                    
 SENATOR SHARP said the exciting thing about charter schools is that           
 they provide the opportunity to get children involved with teachers           
 on something that may bring them together in an atmosphere that is            
 more focused on education.  There have been areas in other states,            
 particularly in Wisconsin and New Jersey, that found it worked                
 exceptionally well.  Charter schools worked primarily in those                
 areas in which the proposals were made for the existing school                
 buildings within the district.  Normally, the older buildings were            
 SENATOR SHARP said the charter school concept was incorporated with           
 the parents and the teachers who volunteer.  The enthusiasm was               
 therefore, a lot higher and more focused on the agenda of the                 
 charter school.                                                               
 Number 432                                                                    
 SENATOR SHARP found an interesting paragraph that reads, "This                
 Administration will work to free local districts from regulations             
 and mandates which restrict parents and educators from exploring              
 innovation."  That paragraph was from Governor Tony Knowles's State           
 of the State address.                                                         
 SENATOR SHARP thought that was a good challenge.  He noted his                
 school district is the one that requested that SB 88 be pushed, and           
 his community really feels that there are some opportunities                  
 present.  There are also restrictions in the bill on what is                  
 allowed.  The school board has total control.  The school has to be           
 non-secretarian in nature, and meet all other state laws as                   
 overseen by the commissioner of the DOE.                                      
 Number 487                                                                    
 SENATOR SHARP also wanted to point out that the Fairbanks North               
 Star Borough District wrote a letter of support.  The DOE notes               
 that the State Board of Education, at the last meeting, voted                 
 unanimously in support of the concept of SB 88.  There are a few              
 other letters of support in the bill packets.                                 
 SENATOR SHARP stated there is a very small fiscal note from the DOE           
 for $2,000 for taking care of sending information back and forth              
 between the school districts if the activity is there, and to cover           
 forms that the DOE may require processed.                                     
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she was very concerned that the schools are              
 going down in value, teaching ability and other aspects.  She has             
 often said that she does not want to detract from those concerns by           
 passing legislation such as this.  That is her fear.  If charter              
 schools are implemented, motivated children, parents and teachers             
 will work together.  That is fine.  But she fears that such schools           
 are going to jeopardize the attention that should be given to the             
 students the current school system is producing.                              
 Number 585                                                                    
 SENATOR SHARP understood that concern.  But the opportunity to                
 stimulate parents and teachers is prevalent.  Most of the interest            
 in Senator Sharp's community comes from the teachers who want to be           
 involved in a school in which they can have more freedom, challenge           
 the students and challenge themselves.  They dislike the total                
 regimentation that is applied school wide.  The specs of the bill             
 allows the school boards to relax some of the textbook requirements           
 as long as state standards are met for education.                             
 SENATOR SHARP felt if some experimentation was not done in an                 
 attempt to find out what works, the system is eventually doomed.              
 However, he conceded that there are different situations in                   
 different districts.  His grandchildren go to very good schools.              
 However, some of the teachers are very committed in that particular           
 school.  Many teachers would like to be challenged somewhere else             
 as they advance in their careers.  They would like a chance to                
 experiment and see if something else will work better.  This may be           
 their opportunity.                                                            
 Number 658                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that in Section 1 of the bill says that there           
 will not be more than ten charter schools in the Anchorage area.              
 She asked how many charter schools were in Anchorage at the moment,           
 and if the bill was retroactively mandating the total number of               
 charter schools in Anchorage or if those would be added schools.              
 SENATOR SHARP said the only community that he is aware of that has            
 pursued charter schools doggedly is in Anchorage.  It seems to have           
 worked well in different areas.  SB 88 encourages other school                
 districts to consider the options.  There are many reservations,              
 especially in the district in Senator Sharp's area.  The people are           
 unsure they will have the power to create their own school.                   
 Perhaps the bill will allow those people to relax concerning the              
 standards and regimentation of the schools.                                   
 SENATOR SHARP reiterated that he has heard good things about some             
 of the efforts made in the Anchorage alternative schools.  He                 
 thinks the bill is portioned out so one area could not take all the           
 options from the bush area and begin four or five schools.                    
 Number 737                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the schools in Anchorage are called                 
 "alternative schools," they are not charter schools.  There is a              
 polar school, and it is very loose.  The students are allowed to              
 vote on the academic focus, therefore, the focus for the month of             
 January was cross-country skiing.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that was the crux of his question to                
 Senator Sharp.  He wanted to know if Senator Sharp was aware of any           
 charter schools in the state that meet the criteria he is                     
 establishing with the bill.                                                   
 SENATOR SHARP said he was not.  But he does know there is                     
 excitement out there about the possibility of charter schools.  The           
 bill incorporates some fine tuning by everyone who testified in the           
 other body.  Those wishes were accommodated without making the bill           
 too heavy on one side or the other.                                           
 Number 830                                                                    
 CHRISTINE CASLER testified via teleconference that SB 88 is                   
 essential for districts to implement updated teacher practices                
 supported by educational research, and to allow parents choices               
 when their children do not learn well in traditional settings.  The           
 bill would also alleviate extensive waiting lists for alternative             
 programs which now exist in some districts.  Finally, the bill                
 would begin to restore community confidence in education and bring            
 about real change to the status quo which industry and community is           
 MS. CASLER continued that SB 88 can bring about real hope and                 
 change in education for everyone. She urged HESS Committee members            
 to pass SB 88 so education can get exciting for everyone.                     
 Number 895                                                                    
 KATHY FUNT testified via teleconference from Gustavus in support of           
 the bill.  The idea of site-based management is a fairly new one,             
 and it will involve parents and community members.  When those                
 entities are involved in the schools, changes can be made.  It is             
 important to have parents and communities involved and accountable.           
 Such involvement would also be very beneficial to the children.               
 She would like to see SB 88 pass, so the communities can give it              
 a try.                                                                        
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE assumed there was only one school in Gustavus.                 
 MS. FUNT said yes, and that she and other community members were              
 wondering what would happen in the case of a small, single-site               
 community if a charter school is started.  She was concerned about            
 people who move to the community and do not like the idea.  She               
 wondered what kind of problems might arise.                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Ms. Funt had addressed his concerns exactly.              
 If a charter school is begun where only one school exists, those              
 who are not inclined to be part of that charter school do not have            
 choices.  Co-Chair Bunde said that is something to keep in mind.              
 Number 979                                                                    
 ANNIE MACKOVJAK testified via teleconference from Gustavus that she           
 believes SB 88 provides a welcome alternative to the now-existing             
 public schools, but still is within the public school framework.              
 It would allow a school to try innovating teaching techniques, or             
 even to apply old techniques, such as Montessori methods.                     
 MS. MACKOVJAK said her husband is from Cleveland, Ohio.  He went to           
 a Cleveland Aviation high school.  High schools in Cleveland could            
 also focus on science, vocational skills, music or art.  She                  
 cautioned, however, that charter schools should only be started for           
 educational reasons.  As Alaska grows, it should be leveraging                
 educational opportunities.  The existence of charter schools is one           
 way to accomplish that.                                                       
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked what Ms. Mackovjak thought about the                     
 possibility of a group of parents deciding they wanted an                     
 agricultural school in Gustavus, while the other parents wanted a             
 fishing based school.  He asked if majority would rule in that                
 MS. MACKOVJAK said she did not have an answer to that question.               
 She is supporting SB 88 statewide, not only for her area.  She sees           
 charter schools as a potential problem in small areas.                        
 Number 1069                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Senator Sharp if there was a limit on the               
 number of students a school would have to have.                               
 SENATOR SHARP answered that there was no limit on the number of               
 students.  The bill is fairly loosely structured to allow as much             
 space as possible for the school board and the people who want to             
 propose a charter school.  The situation is that the school board             
 should make sure the economics are there so two schools could                 
 function within a small school district.  If not, Senator Sharp               
 would assume that the school board would not approve of a charter             
 SENATOR SHARP said if a proposed charter school has a good proposal           
 in an large area, that would probably not harm the economics                  
 because the schools would be operating in separate little towns or            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Senator Sharp what happens if there is a small           
 student body, and one group of parents wants to establish a charter           
 school.  If new parents move to town, they will not have options.             
 Co-Chair Bunde noted that the minimum in state law for establishing           
 a school now is eight students.  The former commissioner of                   
 education was trying to raise that number to ten.                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE foresaw that someday the legislature will study                
 small schools to see if they should stay open at all.  If a student           
 body consists of 16 students, and those students are divided into             
 two schools, are those schools then subject to closure?                       
 SENATOR SHARP assumed that the economics of having instructors in             
 both schools would not allow the school board to even allow a                 
 charter school.                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that was assuming the school board would make             
 good, economic decisions.                                                     
 Number 1176                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that the bill has a ten year trial time.                
 SENATOR SHARP stated that assuming it takes two years for anyone to           
 even get a proposal together and considered, and the maximum                  
 contract can only be for five years with a possible extension to              
 ten years, the sunset date on the bill is still in ten years.  This           
 is strictly a limited project.                                                
 Number 1203                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG addressed page 4, Section 5.  That section            
 refers to teachers' employment agreements.  He asked if there was             
 any requirements for certified teachers, or if teachers were to be            
 recruited within the district.  He asked from where teachers were             
 being recruited.                                                              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE believed that all the same regulations that apply to           
 other public schools apply to this bill.  Charter schools are                 
 simply a facet of the public schools.  There must be certified                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the bill provides for an                   
 SENATOR SHARP said if the school board has a collective bargaining            
 agreement, it must abide by the existing structure of that                    
 agreement.  SB 88 would not allow the school board to circumvent              
 any agreements that are currently in place.  However, the proposal            
 put forward to the school board for a charter school will, in all             
 likelihood, nominate a principal to be in charge of that school.              
 That person has the right, upon selection, to select the staff of             
 that school.  No teacher can be forced against their will, it has             
 to be voluntary.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was more concerned about "Aunt                
 Gertrude" having a position created for her in the school.  He was            
 also concerned that there could be a mix between exempt and non-              
 exempt teachers.                                                              
 SENATOR SHARP did not think there would be any exempt teachers.               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the bill says exempt teachers can be           
 hired if there is an agreement between the district and the                   
 bargaining unit.  Therefore, there can be exempt teachers.  He                
 again asked if there would then be exempt and non-exempt teachers.            
 SENATOR SHARP conceded that there could be both exempt and non-               
 exempt teachers if there is an agreement.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said therefore, that Aunt Gertrude could be           
 hired as long as she is certified.                                            
 SENATOR SHARP said that was right.  The teacher has to be certified           
 according to state regulations.                                               
 Number 1341                                                                   
 LYNN JENSEN testified via teleconference from Gustavus.  She asked            
 what recourse applicants would have if they were denied the                   
 opportunity to become a charter school.  She asked if there would             
 be a recourse, or if the denial would be the final word.                      
 SENATOR SHARP answered that at the present time, it was the                   
 consensus of the Senate committees that the school board should               
 have total responsibility to avoid any problems of fragmenting the            
 community and the school system as such.  The school board is                 
 elected and responsible for all schools in that district.  The bill           
 does not seek to isolate charter schools from responsibility.                 
 Number 1380                                                                   
 DAVID CORNBERG testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that he            
 is an independent education consultant involved in education                  
 reform.  Charter schools is yet another attempt to do better with             
 what is available.  He wanted to make three points in support of              
 the bill.  First, there are no hard and fast predictive models that           
 show if a program is implemented today, school systems will be                
 better in 2005.  In addition, there are no models that show what              
 will not work.                                                                
 MR. CORNBERG felt the important thing about SB 88 from the                    
 standpoint of reform is that it be given a chance.  He strongly               
 urged just giving charter schools a try, and in the course of doing           
 so, refining Senator Sharp's bill.                                            
 MR. CORNBERG said his second point refers to the federal charter              
 schools initiative.  That initiative comes under the Improving                
 America's Schools Act.  That initiative is currently funded at $6             
 million.  He spoke with a Washington, D.C., contact that day and              
 the contact said the President has requested $20 million for next             
 year for that initiative.                                                     
 Number 1452                                                                   
 MR. CORNBERG continued that no school in a state that has no                  
 charter school legislation can apply.  So, as long as Alaska has no           
 charter school legislation on the books, it cannot apply for that             
 federal initiative.  Therefore, Mr. Cornberg strongly urged that              
 the bill be passed at all levels and be put on the books to get the           
 state into a position to apply next fall for some of that money.              
 That money will help fund the charter school initiatives in the               
 Number 1473                                                                   
 MR. CORNBERG said his third point regards the concerns with                   
 dividing the community.  Mr. Cornberg has lived in some very small            
 communities.  Apart from the financial concerns, 16 students                  
 dividing into two schools will put everyone out of business.  The             
 fact is that society is a democracy.  In a city with 500 residents,           
 there is only one mayor.  People have to look at that.  If a                  
 democratic constituency decided for a charter school, the people              
 would have to live with that.  Small communities are democracies,             
 and democracy applies to education also.                                      
 MR. CORNBERG strongly urged HESS Committee members to pass SB 88.             
 Number 1505                                                                   
 CATHERINE PORTLOCK testified via teleconference from Anchorage.               
 She asked for the support of HESS Committee members for SB 88.  She           
 said charter schools can provide models for improved education at             
 no additional cost.  There is overwhelming evidence that children             
 have diverse learning styles and educational needs.  When a program           
 is well suited for the child or allows for student differences,               
 students attend more and learn more.                                          
 MS. PORTLOCK said when parents are given choices for their                    
 children, they become more involved in their children's education,            
 which leads to greater academic success and satisfaction with the             
 system.  Rather than bleeding resources from other programs,                  
 charter school programs have breathed new life and new ideas into             
 public schools across the country.                                            
 MS. PORTLOCK added parents are with their children, rather than               
 leaving education to the schools or taking their children out of              
 the public schools and trying to home-school.                                 
 MS. PORTLOCK added that teachers' needs are not often considered,             
 but certainly charter schools can work with differences in teaching           
 philosophies.  When teachers feel they are valued and appropriately           
 placed, they will be more effective and more committed.                       
 Number 1560                                                                   
 MS. PORTLOCK said public support of the school system is eroding at           
 the same time that funding is becoming scarce.  Parents and                   
 teachers are demanding proof of improvement in school performance,            
 but are resistant to change.  Schools need to be provided for those           
 changes, for parents, children and teachers to feel that the school           
 system is there for them.                                                     
 Number 1599                                                                   
 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards            
 (AASB), said the AASB is on record in support of SB 88.  Much of              
 the testimony that has already been given substantiates the need              
 for charter schools.  The AASB sees, in SB 88, opportunities for              
 communities to become involved.  The criteria is set forth.                   
 Communities will be empowered to address areas of need.  If                   
 criteria is satisfied, communities can put together a proposal and            
 bring it before the local board.  A local determination is made,              
 economics are examined, and compliance with laws and regulations              
 are satisfied.                                                                
 MR. ROSE said if an opportunity exists, perhaps the school district           
 does not see it.  But if a community member does identify and can             
 create that kind of support in a program and proposal, it would be            
 very encouraging.  What is contained in the bill meets all the                
 concerns of the AASB.  The AASB sees tremendous opportunity for               
 creativity and enthusiasm, and empowerment of communities.                    
 Number 1662                                                                   
 LINDA SHARP testified that she has lived in Alaska since 1971.  She           
 is the parent of two children.  One is in her third year of public            
 schooling in Anchorage, and one who will be eligible for public               
 school next year.  She suggested that charter schools are exactly             
 what exist in Anchorage as alternative schools.  The alternative              
 schools began in 1972, with Chugach, and went onto Stellar, the ABC           
 Program, the Montessori, and then the expansion of the Chugach                
 concept.  Language immersion programs also grew out of the                    
 alternative school system.                                                    
 MS. SHARP said there are 13 alternative schools at the elementary             
 level currently operating in Anchorage.  Ms. Sharp said the desks,            
 kids, teachers and the money are all included in any school                   
 district.  Charter schools are not going to take any money or other           
 resources out of the district.  Charter schools will not bring in             
 any more children.  Charter schools are merely an innovation with             
 what is currently in the district.                                            
 MS. SHARP said charter schools let parents, teachers and                      
 communities propose innovations.  Ms. Sharp presented handouts to             
 HESS Committee members concerning education.  She also had met a              
 member of the Hispanic community that had been lobbying for charter           
 schools.  He believes charter schools will help the 20 to 30                  
 schools in Anchorage that score very low on education tests.                  
 Number 1752                                                                   
 MS. SHARP presented a list of Anchorage School District (ASD)                 
 elementary schools and their scores.  The 30 lowest scoring schools           
 are schools that have no alternative program in them at all.  They            
 contain the traditional programs that are defined.  All the                   
 alternative schools are well into the upper one-half of the scores.           
 MS. SHARP presented some information from "Educational Digest."               
 Many articles, but not all, suggested that charter schools are the            
 best solutions.  Vouchers and other ways of solving challenges for            
 schools are not as good.                                                      
 MS. SHARP said her child was accepted, through the lottery system,            
 to an alternative school this year.  In Anchorage, the alternative            
 schools are so popular that there are long waiting lists.  Over               
 2,000 children are waiting for access into those schools.  Most               
 parents have to be fairly resourceful, because those schools are              
 not located in enough places yet around Anchorage.  Therefore,                
 parents must drive twice a day to drop off and pick up their                  
 Number 1800                                                                   
 MS. SHARP said the alternative school her child is attending used             
 to be the lowest scorer.  It also had the highest incidence of                
 violence, the highest teacher turnover, and the greatest                      
 dissatisfaction.  Two years ago, an alternative program was                   
 introduced to the school.  Now, about 150 parents are taking their            
 children to that school.  Not all the children are in the                     
 alternative program, but the $15,000 raised by the PTA has gone to            
 every teacher in the school in equal amounts.  Every child has                
 benefit from that money.                                                      
 MS. SHARP said the PTA meetings have 30 to 40 parents attending.              
 One parent is from the regular program.  The rest of the parents              
 are from the alternative program.  Those parents, according to Ms.            
 Sharp, stand ready to serve any teacher in the building.  Resources           
 are not limited to those in the alternative program.  Parents of              
 students in the alternative program will help teachers in the                 
 "regular" program.                                                            
 MS. SHARP concluded that the program benefits all the teachers and            
 all the students at Anchorage's most needy school.                            
 Number 1840                                                                   
 MS. SHARP presented an article out of the December 2, 1991,                   
 "Newsweek" magazine entitled, "The Ten Best Schools in the World."            
 Schools were identified that unified around a theme such as math,             
 science or art.  When teachers choose where they want to go because           
 of interests and common themes, and when parents choose where to              
 send their child, the parents and teachers are unified and                    
 MS. SHARP felt that charter schools were needed now.  The                     
 indicators are going down.  New schools and wings are opening this            
 year and next year in Anchorage.  This is a perfect time to move              
 those willing to a different end of the school and not feel that              
 they are ousting other people.                                                
 Number 1894                                                                   
 MS. SHARP addressed the opposition to SB 88.  She knows people in             
 Anchorage who plan to lobby against this bill.  Those people like             
 the voucher idea.  Those people are tired of the system and want              
 the system to topple and fail.  They are tired of what is going on,           
 and they want vouchers.                                                       
 MS. SHARP said other people are worried that the best and the                 
 brightest will leave the public schools and attend charter schools            
 although charter schools are still public schools.  She suggested             
 that the best and brightest of the teachers are about 80 to 90                
 percent of the teachers.  There are not that many bad public school           
 teachers.  In addition, teachers who choose to teach in a certain             
 program feel that program is bringing out their own particular                
 MS. SHARP also noted that caucasians are the minority in                      
 alternative schooling programs.  The vast majority of children in             
 her child's new alternative school are not white-European.  These             
 children also come from widely varying socioeconomic classes.                 
 Number 1960                                                                   
 MS. SHARP said SB 88 meekly challenges the status quo.  Charter               
 schools do not entail a huge risk.  SB 88 only entails a small                
 step.  There is a five year sunset provision, and the school boards           
 are in charge.  The AASB is going to oversee the program.  No                 
 radical changes are taking place.                                             
 MS. SHARP said the teacher of the year from Kodiak was just honored           
 because she formed partnerships with the community.  Charter                  
 schools are asking for the chance for partnerships.  When parents             
 are asked to be a permanent part of the table, where curriculum and           
 staffing issues are made, the parents are going to help solve the             
 problems that arise.                                                          
 MS. SHARP noted Governor Knowles has sent his children for eight              
 years to Anchorage's public alternative schools.  Dr. Halloway,               
 Commissioner of the DOE, wrote Ms. Sharp a letter saying the State            
 Board of Education unanimously endorses the program.  Ms. Sharp               
 added the Anchorage branch of the National Education Association              
 (NEA) is not opposed to charter schools.                                      
 MS. SHARP asked HESS Committee members to "reward the innovations             
 and reward the risk takers, and give people that have new ideas a             
 Number 2032                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS wondered why SB 88 was necessary if there are            
 already 13 alternative schools in Anchorage and charter schools and           
 alternative schools were the same, as Ms. Sharp indicated.                    
 MS. SHARP said SB 88 is a very small step in the right direction.             
 There is no money or major incentives given.  SB 88 merely gives              
 the school boards a notice to pay attention and look through the              
 proposals in an up-front way.  Whenever there is a superintendent             
 in Anchorage that favors partnerships and choices, a new one is               
 selected every few years.  At other times Anchorage has a                     
 superintendent and a school board that are afraid.  They don't want           
 to be perceived as spending money in this time of cutbacks.                   
 MS. SHARP stated that a Russian immersion program was voted down at           
 Bear Valley.  The parents were asked two years ago, by the school             
 board, to raise $15,000 with the community for start up costs.  The           
 parents and community did this.  Sixty-seven percent of the parents           
 at the school said they wanted this program.  The superintendent              
 and the school board said "no."  Ms. Sharp asked the school board             
 why the program was not implemented.  School board members told her           
 that they were warned by the legislature that they should not be              
 asking for more money.  The district did not want to look like it             
 was spending more money on programs.                                          
 MS. SHARP said SB 88 gives school districts permission to                     
 investigate these programs.                                                   
 Number 2097                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Ms. Sharp was asserting that alternative             
 schools were the same as charter schools.                                     
 MS. SHARP said there is essentially very little if any difference             
 between the programs currently existing in Anchorage and charter              
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted if there are 13 charter schools in Anchorage,           
 then Anchorage is three above its allotment according to the bill.            
 MS. SHARP understood that there would be no more than ten new                 
 programs implemented.                                                         
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted the bill said the "State Board of Education             
 may not approve more than 30 charter schools to operate in the                
 state at any one time.  It shall approve charter schools in a                 
 geographically bound manner as follows:  Not more than ten schools            
 in Anchorage, not more than five in Fairbanks...."                            
 MS. SHARP said that was not the intent of the bill.  She has been             
 in contact with the authors of the bill, and their intent is 30 new           
 charter schools.  Ms. Sharp was certain it was not the intent to              
 take away three of Anchorage's current schools.                               
 Number 2162                                                                   
 SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Halloway, DOE,             
 said that as Ms. Sharp indicated charter schools are very similar             
 to alternative schools.  However, there are distinct differences.             
 The charter school will set up a mechanism to formally approach a             
 local school board with a charter between parents, teachers and the           
 local school board.  The charter will stipulate the educational               
 objectives and how those objectives will be accomplished.                     
 MS. PETERSON explained that the charter schools will also be more             
 autonomous than alternative schools.  A charter school will                   
 maintain its own financial operations and will have its own                   
 principal who will oversee the charter school's teachers.                     
 MS. PETERSON added that alternative schools currently in existence            
 are not charter schools, and therefore, would not fall under the              
 number that is outlined in the legislation.  When Commissioner                
 Halloway looked at this legislation, she applied her test, "Is this           
 good for kids?"  She came up with a definite "yes."  Charter                  
 schools are a good concept for children.  It will encourage                   
 parents, teachers and communities to work together as an academic             
 policy committee to form a charter school.                                    
 TAPE 95-47, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 MS. PETERSON noted that after the proposal for a charter school is            
 approved by the local school board, the State Board of Education              
 must also approve it.  She concluded that the DOE does strongly               
 support this legislation.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that there may be a school that has               
 four or five children.  That is not even a unit.  Therefore, he               
 asked if there was going to be a proration which would be                     
 calculated on a per student basis.  There is going to be no new               
 money from within the school district.  If the district receives so           
 many units, then Representative Davis understands that funding                
 would be prorated on a per student basis.                                     
 MS. PETERSON asked if Representative Davis was assuming that the              
 local school board would approve a program of four students for a             
 charter school, and asked how much money would be appropriated to             
 those four students.  She answered that at the minimum, it would be           
 four times what an average child would be generating in that                  
 school.  The local school board would have to make that decision,             
 and whether or not it felt that was in the best interest of the               
 school district.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said "plus an approved indirect cost rate."              
 MS. PETERSON said he was correct.                                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that as there are schools in Alaska with four             
 students as the total population, it is possible that there would             
 be charter schools composed of four, six or eight students.                   
 MS. PETERSON stated if that was the choice of the local school                
 board and the State Board of Education, that could be so.  With the           
 State Board of Education overseeing the charter schools program and           
 making the approval, it will be looked at on a statewide                      
 perspective.  If, in the wisdom of the board, it was felt that                
 having a charter school for six children was in the best interest             
 of the state, it would be approved.  However, the board could also            
 not approve such a school if it was not in the best interest of the           
 Number 149                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY could not believe that a charter school would be              
 allowed to operate with four students.  There is a great demand for           
 these schools, at any rate.  Therefore, Co-Chair Toohey relies on             
 the wisdom of the State Board of Education and the school board.              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the school boards approve of 21 schools             
 in the state that have 12 or fewer students.                                  
 Number 207                                                                    
 ROBERT GOTTSTIEN, Member, State Board of Education (SBE), testified           
 in support of charter schools.  He noted that the state is trying             
 to do more with less.  The same struggle is taking place in                   
 education.  Charter schools are a chance to do more with less.  In            
 a sense, if the education community is not given opportunities to             
 experiment, succeed and fail, the foundation formula would need to            
 be raised even more.                                                          
 MR. GOTTSTIEN said schools need to innovate, and learn how to                 
 produce better results.  If the education community is denied by              
 the legislature the opportunity to figure out how to do things                
 better, then the legislature has a responsibility to figure out how           
 to give children the opportunities they are not be allowed to                 
 receive from the schools.                                                     
 MR. GOTTSTIEN believes that charter schools help children in                  
 critical ways.  It is very important to get more parental                     
 involvement in education.  Charter schools are the way to do just             
 that.  More value can be retrieved from education if parents are              
 brought into the process.  Charter schools are different than                 
 alternative schools.  More power and authority is given to charter            
 schools.  Top-down decision making did not work in the Soviet                 
 Union, and it does not work in education.                                     
 MR. GOTTSTIEN said it must be recognized that the failures of the             
 USSR are the same factors that public education is being criticized           
 for.  The USSR did not care about the individual.  It was concerned           
 about the general public.  Public education is in that situation.             
 Alternative schools are trying to get away from that, but public              
 schools have never attempted to try and deal with the discrete                
 problem of every child.                                                       
 Number 370                                                                    
 MR. GOTTSTIEN said the best way to solve the discrete problem of              
 every child is to help bring the parent into the process and to               
 give each teacher freedom to identify and deal with those problems.           
 Hopefully, the parents will be involved as well.                              
 MR. GOTTSTIEN concluded that there are two choices.  One is to                
 continue business as usual, and expect less result for more money.            
 Charter schools and education reform seek to do better and to                 
 create a better value and results.  Charter schools can do those              
 things more economically.  Parents can do what they think is more             
 important for their children.  They do not have to decide on what             
 is good for everyone, and how to solve everyone's problems.                   
 MR. GOTTSTIEN said parents can focus on solving the problems of               
 their own children with the resources that are available.  If HESS            
 Committee members are as conscientious as they appear to be in                
 dealing with the fiscal gap, charter schools are right in line.  If           
 HESS Committee members want to continue business as usual, then               
 charter schools and choices will not be supported, and HESS                   
 Committee members will have to accept an escalating cost in                   
 education that otherwise would not be necessary.                              
 Number 485                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and opened up committee                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt comfortable with the bill.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought the testimony of Mr. Gottstien was               
 right on target.  Alternatives need to be offered, and local school           
 districts need flexibility so problems can be addressed in more               
 unconventional ways.  Latitude needs to be offered and parents need           
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said one can walk into a classroom and see               
 that there is a niche for some of those that do not belong and do             
 not want to be in the organized, structured classroom.  There are             
 alternatives and options, and those need to be provided.  Most                
 districts are offering options to some degree already.  SB 88 is              
 imposing requirements for more parental and cohesive involvement              
 from a community standpoint.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS fully supports SB 88.  When the Education 2000           
 omnibus package came before the legislature, this is one of the               
 first things that jumped out at him.  He can identify with charter            
 schools because of the Kenai alternative schools.  Representative             
 Davis has toured that school, and he knows the people there.  He              
 appreciates them and understands the value of that program in the             
 district.  SB 88 is an extension of the alternative programs, is              
 more detailed and community based.                                            
 Number 635                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON associated herself with the remarks of                
 Representative Davis.  She felt SB 88 was an excellent bill.  A few           
 years back, Representative Bettye Davis came forward with such an             
 idea and it was not well received.  At that point, people were not            
 really open to the ideas.  More parental involvement is needed, and           
 Representative Robinson is very glad that this bill is before the             
 legislature.  She made a motion to move CSSB 88(FIN) out of the               
 House Hess Committee with individual recommendations and                      
 accompanying fiscal notes.                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked to comment first.  She was fearful that the             
 best and the brightest were going to be put in charter schools.               
 She did not want the state to forget that the school system is                
 failing.  But with any luck, the whole system will go to charter              
 schools if they become as good as everyone says they are.  Co-Chair           
 Toohey, therefore, appreciates that possibility and she supports SB           
 Number 707                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was concerned about children with                     
 disabilities and their involvement with charter schools.                      
 MS. SHARP said she has visited the 13 alternative schools in                  
 Anchorage, and those schools welcome children with special needs              
 the same as other children are welcomed.  Those children's names go           
 into the lottery and their names are drawn.  Nothing on the lottery           
 indicates that those children have special needs.  It is the desire           
 of the parents that put them into the lottery for the school.                 
 Those children are dealt with the same as they would ever be.  They           
 still have an individual education plan as mandated by federal law,           
 and those children are served by special educators.                           
 Number 780                                                                    
 MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator Sharp, said SB 88            
 does not intend to discriminate whatsoever.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS directed Representative Rokeberg to the                  
 statement in the bill that read, "The charter school will comply              
 with all state and federal requirements for the use of public                 
 funds."  Representative Davis thought the federal requirements that           
 go along with the title programs would be applicable to charter               
 Number 814                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said everyone is shaped by their own personal                  
 experiences, even though we all try to understand other points of             
 view.  Co-Chair Bunde has worked in public schools and has had                
 family and friends in the schools for 27 years.  He has seen                  
 education fads come and go.                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said where he grew up, 50 years ago they                       
 consolidated schools because it was too expensive to have what                
 were, in essence, charter schools.  Each little community had its             
 own school.  The non consolidated schools could not offer the broad           
 program that the bigger school could.  Therefore, Co-Chair Bunde              
 questions, if not in this year, then in five or ten years, what the           
 costs of charter schools will be.                                             
 Number 869                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said when he first went to work in the Anchorage               
 public schools, the latest fad was to build elementary schools                
 without walls.  That was going to solve the problems of the                   
 educational community.  Last year, funding was given to put in the            
 final wall for those wall-less schools because they did not work.             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Bear Valley Elementary School was                   
 mentioned by Linda Sharp, and that school is in Co-Chair Bunde's              
 district.  Co-Chair Bunde's perception of what went on while trying           
 to establish that immersion program is very different.  There was             
 incredible anger among the parents.  Some felt the program was                
 being crammed down their throats, and others felt they were being             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE recalled that parents were reduced to yelling at               
 each other at the school bus stop.  This type of program does not             
 build community.                                                              
 Number 914                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said one could look at East St. Louis for the                  
 success of magnet schools.  Federal courts demanded that "a ton" of           
 money be put into magnet schools, and those schools failed                    
 miserably.  America is a melting pot and there are two great                  
 facilities for encouraging a melting pot.  One is the draft.                  
 People of all stripes went to the military and learned from each              
 other.  The draft is gone, and now the last remaining facet of the            
 melting pot is the educational system.  Charter schools is going to           
 now fractionalize that.                                                       
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asserted that at a time when people yell about                 
 diversity, charter schools look to taking "all the math people and            
 putting them over here, and all the art people over here."  Co-               
 Chair Bunde has a problem with SB 88 in Alaska, because of the                
 mobile population of this state.  The average Alaskan has been in             
 Alaska five years.  A group of parents get a charter school going,            
 and in a few years, their kids are out of it, or they are out of              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said meanwhile, the people who live in that                    
 neighborhood have no choice, they are stuck dealing with the                  
 inertia of undoing a charter school.                                          
 Number 996                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE agrees that the biggest problem facing schools today           
 is parental involvement.  Therefore, charter schools take the most            
 active parents, those who are most interested and most concerned,             
 and pull them out of the public schools and put them into their own           
 special little world.  This is the wrong way to go.                           
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked about student leaders.  Leaders need followers           
 and followers need leaders.  Therefore, when all the best and the             
 brightest are pulled out, there will be an imbalance.  The area               
 that cannot get the parents together to form a charter school                 
 becomes a dumping ground.  The dullest and the least abled will be            
 placed there.                                                                 
 Number 1038                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that of course teachers like charter schools.           
 Who would not want to teach highly motivated kids.  Parents like              
 charter schools, but what keeps them from getting involved in their           
 current school.  There is incredible inertia out there.  Recently,            
 an alternative school, the incredibly popular Polar School in                 
 Anchorage had a huge lottery.  A group decision determined that the           
 focus of the school for the month of January was cross-country                
 skiing.  Now parents are wondering what monster they have created.            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE previously stated he is willing to be proven wrong             
 on certain topics.  He does not support charter schools, and he               
 will not vote for it.  However, he will not hold the bill in                  
 committee because obviously, the committee likes the bill.                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote.  Voting "yes" on CSSB             
 88(FIN) were Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Vezey, Representative            
 Rokeberg, Representative Robinson, Representative Brice, and                  
 Representative Davis.  Voting "no" was Co-Chair Bunde.  CSSB                  
 88(FIN) passed out of the House HESS Committee.                               
 HB 119 - EXEMPT SCHOOLS FROM CERTAIN DEC FEES                               
 Number 1160                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that since this was the first public hearing             
 on HB 119, he would not ask HESS Committee members to vote on it at           
 this hearing.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA, sponsor of the bill, explained that HB            
 119 would exempt schools from having to pay the Department of                 
 Environmental Conservation (DEC) fees for inspecting kitchens and             
 food programs.  In 1992, the legislature authorized the DEC to                
 charge user fees.  This was a way for DEC to pay for part of their            
 budget.  Fiscal year (FY) 1993 was the first year the DEC engaged             
 in that practice.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA continued that during FY 93 and FY 94, the              
 DEC did not charge schools because it did not want to add to the              
 budget problems of the schools.  Evidently, the DEC subsequently              
 had some legal counsel which advised that it cannot arbitrarily               
 choose who it is going to charge for services.  Therefore, this               
 year, FY 95, the DEC began charging school districts for inspecting           
 kitchens and food programs.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the net effect is a shift of $25,000               
 from schools to the DEC's budget.  The DEC has never charged                  
 schools before.  Representative Kubina felt the school budget,                
 which has not been getting cost of living increases, is more                  
 important than the budget of the DEC.  The DEC is also better able            
 to absorb the costs.                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted that this is a policy decision by the             
 legislators concerning who is going to pay out of what budget.  He            
 feels that the DEC should continue to pay.  Therefore, the bill was           
 Number 1238                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how many visits the DEC makes to a school in            
 a nine month period or each school year.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the DEC makes a minimum of one visit per           
 school year.                                                                  
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she could not believe that the charge would be           
 so extensive for one visit.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted that the charge was for several                   
 schools.  A smaller school district would not pay as much.   The              
 total cost, statewide, is about $25,000.  That is why there is a              
 fiscal note of $25,000 that would, in essence, come back out of the           
 DEC budget.  Representative Kubina asked HESS Committee members to            
 remember that the DEC had not been charging schools up to this                
 point anyway.                                                                 
 Number 1280                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if there are currently other exemptions            
 in this program.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said in the original law, nonprofit agencies            
 were exempted.  He felt that had it been considered at the time,              
 the legislature would have also exempted schools.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if nonprofit organizations included                
 senior citizen centers and pioneers' homes.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he felt the exemptions were for homeless           
 shelters and other such entities.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he would like to see a list of current              
 Number 1345                                                                   
 KIT BALLANTINE, Acting Director, Division of Environmental Health,            
 DEC, said the only exemption from the fees occur if an entity                 
 qualifies as a charitable organization under IRS regulations rather           
 than a nonprofit.  Schools do not qualify as charitable                       
 organizations.  They are therefore not exempt under IRS guidelines            
 and they are therefore not exempt from DEC fees.                              
 MS. BALLANTINE said although the legislation was passed in 1992,              
 the fees were not implemented until late in 1993, because of the              
 regulatory process.  Therefore, the DEC had not been charging any             
 fees until late 1993.  These fees, however, will make a significant           
 difference in the DEC budget.  The $25,000 is much needed.                    
 MS. BALLANTINE recalled that in 1993, the DEC actually had to ask             
 for a supplemental due to a lack of fee collection.  Last year, the           
 DEC actually had to transfer money from another component because             
 it did not collect fees.  Therefore, that $25,000 will make a                 
 difference in the DEC budget.                                                 
 Number 1406                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how many visits the DEC makes each year to              
 MS. BALLANTINE answered that the DEC makes at least one visit per             
 year per school.  The visits and fees would also include any                  
 technical assistance, training of food service staff, spot checks,            
 follow up checks, etc., for schools.                                          
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if a breakdown chart was available per visit.           
 MS. BALLANTINE said the visits depend on the seating and the type             
 of facility.  For example, a large full food service kitchen may              
 serve many satellite kitchens that would warrant a $200 fee.  A               
 small satellite kitchen which only serves food would be charged               
 only $25 to $50.  The fees are determined by the extent of the food           
 service and the number of seats.  Therefore, the scale is sliding.            
 Number 1472                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commented that he has studied situations such            
 as this for a number of years.  He has problems with a state                  
 agency, run with state general fund dollars, suing, fining or                 
 charging another state agency.  It is just money going around in              
 circles, and no good is done.  Last year, the Kenai School District           
 was fined in excess of $200,000 by the Occupational Safety and                
 Health Administration (OSHA).  That money went to the Department of           
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted that although there is some local input,           
 much of the money for that district is state dollars.  The                    
 Department of Law fines and sues other agencies, and it is just               
 moving money from one hand to the other.   This is ludicrous.  He             
 does not know what other method can be employed to discipline or              
 punish state agencies, but there must be another method than                  
 creating a paper trail and money exchange.                                    
 Number 1530                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she would like the DEC to train one person in            
 every school kitchen to do the job of the DEC inspectors.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed with Representative Davis in that the             
 funding exchange is circular.  The school districts get money from            
 the state.  The district must then give the money right back to the           
 state to pay for these inspections.  Representative Brice felt that           
 addressing some of these concerns can alleviate a few school                  
 district problems.  It would be a small step, but it would be the             
 first step in a long journey.                                                 
 Number 1594                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the consequences of this bill                
 becoming law are not all that apparent.  A law was passed in the              
 Eighteenth Alaska Legislature which mandated that the DEC continue            
 to provide these oversight services and continue to charge fees to            
 pay for the services.  If public agencies are exempted from paying            
 these fees, the DEC is put into a position of having to go back and           
 either raise fees where they can or ask the legislature to raise              
 fees on the private sector.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said therefore, a tax would be put on the                
 private sector for a service that is being forced upon it.  No one            
 in the private sector volunteers for these exemptions.  The state             
 says it is going to do something, and those in the private sector             
 are going to pay for it.  The DEC would establish fees by                     
 regulation.  It would be forced to raise fees to remaining entities           
 to cover costs.                                                               
 Number 1644                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE added that as the money rotates, there is also a               
 certain amount of evaporation that takes place.  He said the bill             
 would be held in committee.                                                   
 SB 58 - USE OF THE TITLE "INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST"                             
 Number 1692                                                                   
 AARON TRIPPLER, Director of Government Affairs, American Industrial           
 Hygiene Association (AIHA), said the AIHA is the world's largest              
 association of occupational and environmental health professionals.           
 AIHA has long been involved with the process of title protection              
 for the profession of industrial hygiene.  The practice of                    
 industrial hygiene is an important tool for protecting the health             
 and safety of workers, their families and the community.                      
 MR. TRIPPLER said with an increased emphasis on the environment               
 today, there is the possibility of unqualified individuals                    
 representing themselves to the public as capable of protecting                
 health and safety.  The result could be devastating.                          
 MR. TRIPPLER continued that title protection for the profession of            
 industrial hygiene simply protects that profession and those titles           
 so everyone is assured the individual calling themselves an                   
 industrial hygienist is qualified.  The AIHA is not trying to                 
 exclude anyone from involving themselves in the industrial hygiene            
 profession.  It is only that those unqualified individuals cannot             
 use the term.                                                                 
 Number 1757                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she had been approached this session by the              
 dietitians and nutritionists.  They also wanted a bill to protect             
 the words "dietitian" and "nutritionist."  Co-Chair Toohey                    
 commented at that time that she is a dietitian.  She is a mother              
 and a grandmother therefore, she is a dietitian.  Anytime one                 
 person feeds another, he/she is a dietitian.  Co-Chair Toohey                 
 resents the fact that the someone would restrict her calling                  
 herself a dietitian, a nutritionist or a feeder of people.                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY did not want to besmirch the industrial hygienist             
 profession, but anytime laws are passed that restrict calling                 
 oneself or anyone else a name, the English language is being                  
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she could call herself a doctor if she wanted            
 to, and that is her business as long as she does not do                       
 unprofessional things.  She has a problem excluding the use of a              
 word or a series of words because one group wants to keep their own           
 esoteric membership.                                                          
 Number 1822                                                                   
 MR. TRIPPLER said there are many professions that use title                   
 protections.  Such titles include certified public accountants and            
 waste water treatment operators.  The AIHA does not want to                   
 restrict a person from calling him/herself an industrial hygienist,           
 as long as he/she does not represent him/herself to the public and            
 claim that he/she has the qualifications necessary to assist                  
 someone else by legal standards as an industrial hygienist.                   
 MR. TRIPPLER said a certified industrial hygienist has a degree in            
 the sciences, five years experience, and passes a two day                     
 examination.  There are many consequences that could result from              
 people posing as industrial hygienists.  For example, the schools             
 in the state of New York, a few years ago, were closed down at the            
 beginning of the year because of an asbestos threat.  That threat             
 was the result of the school contracting with individuals who                 
 called themselves industrial hygienists qualified in asbestos                 
 MR. TRIPPLER said the schools eventually had to go back and find a            
 truly certified industrial hygienist to clean up the asbestos                 
 situation.  Therefore, the AIHA is not trying to restrict people              
 from participating in the field.  A person just cannot present                
 themselves to the public as a certified industrial hygienist.                 
 Number 1884                                                                   
 PENNY GOODSTIEN, Representative, Anchorage Branch/Midnight Sun                
 Section, AIHA, said she has been working for 17 years as an                   
 industrial hygienist.  There have been people in Anchorage that               
 have presented themselves as industrial hygienists.  There is much            
 money to be made doing health and safety work.                                
 MS. GOODSTIEN recounted a story in which she was working as a                 
 substitute site safety manager.  A man who was an environmental               
 engineer told people he was also an industrial hygienist.  He was             
 in charge for months, and he put the organization on the wrong                
 respirator all summer long.  Luckily no one was hurt.  Someone                
 could have become very seriously ill.   That man also did incorrect           
 air sampling and did not know what he was doing.                              
 Number 1923                                                                   
 MS. GOODSTIEN said the man called himself an industrial hygienist             
 and everyone believed him.  In addition, Ms. Goodstien has seen               
 people make business cards claiming they are certified industrial             
 hygienists.  That indicates quite a bit of training, and further              
 training must be taken every year by actual certified industrial              
 hygienists.  The charlatans were hired based on the credentials               
 they claimed to have.  There is presently no way to protect the               
 MS. GOODSTIEN feels this is a public health issue more than it is             
 an issue of protecting the industrial hygienist profession.  It is            
 the public who hires the industrial hygienist.  There are cases all           
 over the country in which fraud was prevalent.  In Arizona, a                 
 shopping center spent $2 million to remove asbestos that was not              
 there because a non qualified person identified asbestos.  That               
 person was getting a kickback from the laboratories and making                
 quite a bit of money.                                                         
 MS. GOODSTIEN concluded therefore, it is not only a public health             
 issue, it is an economic issue.                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked her to elaborate on the economic problem.               
 MS. GOODSTIEN said when a business or organization, such as the               
 Arizona shopping center, hires a non qualified person who makes a             
 wrong "diagnosis," and $2 million is spent correcting a problem               
 that does not exist, that creates economic problems.  The shopping            
 center was shut down, stores lost money.  Therefore, not only are             
 there health issues, but people can end up spending a lot of money            
 they do not need to spend.                                                    
 Number 1995                                                                   
 JANET OGAN, Legislative Secretary to Senator Loren Leman, testified           
 on behalf of the sponsor of the bill that SB 58 was introduced at             
 the request of the Midnight Sun Section of the AIHA.  Presently,              
 according to the AIHA, there are 15 certified industrial hygienists           
 in Alaska.  AIHA recommends this legislative and regulatory                   
 language to provide title protection.  The title protection defines           
 titles and definitions used by the profession.  It establishes                
 legal recognition and protects industrial hygiene titles.                     
 MS. OGAN said those titles may be used by only those who meet the             
 criteria outlined in the definitions.  An individual who does not             
 meet the criteria may practice within the scope of the meaning of             
 industrial hygiene so long as the individual does not use the                 
 titles, initials or represents him or herself to the public as an             
 industrial hygienist.                                                         
 MS. OGAN noted that other states have also implemented this                   
 legislation such as California, Illinois and Tennessee to name a              
 few.  Many other states are planning to introduce such legislation            
 this year.                                                                    
 Number 2057                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the bill refers to people who have                  
 graduated from a college or university that is accredited by the              
 Alaska Council on Postsecondary Education.  Therefore, he said a              
 traditional college or university would give such degrees.  He said           
 there must be college programs in industrial hygiene, but                     
 understood that one could also have degrees in biology, chemistry             
 or engineering.                                                               
 MS. OGAN said Co-Chair Bunde was correct.  There is a board exam              
 that must be taken and passed.  A college degree is not the only              
 requirement necessary to be certified.                                        
 Number 2085                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he had a little trouble identifying with            
 the bill, as he has never belonged to a profession that needed to             
 protect its name.  He has either been a ditch digger, which no one            
 wants to admit; or a politician, which no one wants to admit.                 
 JEFF CARPENTER, Member, Midnight Sun Section, AIHA, spoke via                 
 teleconference in support of SB 58.  He added that this legislation           
 will also insure that state or local government agencies do not               
 restrict the practice of industrial hygiene.  The prohibition that            
 occurs in SB 58 has also been done in other states.  However, other           
 states are even more restrictive.  In California, a registered                
 architect must sign off on asbestos abatement plans even though               
 that architect may have no knowledge of asbestos health hazards and           
 work place health hazards in general.  The architect may have no              
 specific training in industrial hygiene at all.                               
 MR. CARPENTER said an industrial hygienist or even a certified                
 industrial hygienist must take their plan to an architect, get a              
 stamp of approval on it, and then proceed with their work.  SB 58             
 would insure that state or local government agencies do not                   
 restrict the practice of industrial hygiene by qualified persons              
 identified in SB 58.                                                          
 Number 2169                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how long the schooling and testing would take           
 for a biologist to become an industrial hygienist.                            
 MR. CARPENTER said he has a degree in biology.  He did not begin              
 his studies in college with the forethought of becoming an                    
 industrial hygienist.  However, he wanted to give something to the            
 community.  As a biology graduate, he needed to gain experience in            
 anticipating, evaluating, recognizing and controlling health                  
 hazards in the workplace.                                                     
 MR. CARPENTER continued that typically, to gain membership to a               
 professional organization such as the AIHA, five years of                     
 professional practice is required in anticipating, evaluating,                
 recognizing and controlling health hazards in the workplace.  In              
 addition to that experience, one must submit references, work                 
 experiences and an application to the American Board of Industrial            
 Hygiene.  A two day certification exam is then taken.                         
 Number 2229                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and asked for the wish of              
 the committee.  Representative Davis made a motion to move SB 58 am           
 from committee with individual recommendations and accompanying               
 fiscal notes.  Co-Chair Toohey objected, and a roll call vote was             
 taken.  Voting "yes" were Representative Davis, Representative                
 Rokeberg, and Co-Chair Bunde.  Voting "no" were Co-Chair Toohey,              
 and Representative Vezey.  SB 58 am passed out of the House HESS              
 TAPE 95-47, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CONFIRMATION HEARING - BOARD OF NURSING                                     
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted the names before the committee:  Belle                   
 Cunningham, Kathleen Kloster and Joe Senungetuk.  He read, "This              
 does not reflect any intent by any of the members to vote for or              
 against these individuals during further hearings for confirmation            
 purposes."  Co-Chair Bunde asked for the wish of the committee.               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved that the names be forwarded to the House                
 floor.  There were no objections, and the names were forwarded.               
 Number 070                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:23 p.m.                             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects