Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/27/1996 03:04 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT HOUSE & SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 27, 1996
3:04 p.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Caren Robinson
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
None
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Disapproving Executive Order No. 97
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Disapproving Executive Order No. 97
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 373
"An Act relating to educational benefits for family members of
deceased members of the armed services."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to the duty-free mealtime for teachers in certain
school facilities."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act relating to the commissioner of education and the
commissioner of fish and game; and providing for an effective
date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 512
"An Act establishing English as the common language and related to
the use of English in public records and at public meetings of
state agencies."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HSCR 3
SHORT TITLE: DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER 97
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/21/96 2833 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/21/96 2833 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SSCR 3
SHORT TITLE: DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER 97
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/21/96 2491 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/21/96 2491 (S) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
02/27/96 (S) HES AT 3:00 PM CAP. ROOM 106
BILL: HB 373
SHORT TITLE: EDUC FOR FAMILY OF DECEASED MILITARY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,BARNES,Mulder,Foster,Kott,Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2364 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2364 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2364 (H) HES, FINANCE
01/26/96 2548 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
01/31/96 2586 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT, IVAN
02/13/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 93
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/95 69 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/18/95 69 (H) HES, FIN
02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT TERM OF COMMRS OF EDUC. & FISH/GAME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/13/95 337 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/13/95 337 (H) FSH, HES, FINANCE
02/14/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/14/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/15/96 2774 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 1DP 3NR
02/15/96 2774 (H) DP: G.DAVIS
02/15/96 2775 (H) NR: OGAN, ELTON, AUSTERMAN
02/15/96 2775 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (FSH/ALL DEPT'S)
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 512
SHORT TITLE: ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Barnes
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2729 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education;
and Executive Officer, Alaska Student
Loan Corporation
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2113
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HSCR 3 and SSCR 3
ERIC FORRER, Representative
University Board of Regents
Postsecondary Commission
176 Behrends Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1847
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HSCR 3 and SSCR 3
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant
Representative Terry Martin
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 373
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 93
PERCY HOUTS, Superintendent of Schools
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
520 5th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-2000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 93
WILLIE ANDERSON
NEA-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3080
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 93
JOSHUA DONALDSON, Legislative Secretary
Representative Gene Therriault
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 179
CHRYSTAL SMITH, Legal Administrator
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 179(FSH)
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 532
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of HB 512
RAYMOND TORREON, Director for Alaska
U.S. English
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 833-0100
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 512
LYNN STIMLER, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska
P.O. Box 201844
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 258-0044
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 756500
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-5827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
MALINDA CHASE
P.O. Box 82960
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 474-5827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
ELEANOR LAUGHLIN
316 Wedgewood G35
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 451-7170
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
NASTASIA WAHLBERG
P.O. Box 60505
Fairbanks, Alaska 99706
Telephone: (907) 474-6431
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
REVA SHIRCEL, Director
Education Department
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue, Suite 600
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
MISHAL TOOYAK GAEDE
P.O. Box 81188
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 457-4720
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
NEA-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 512
SAM KITO, JR., Lobbyist
P.O. Box 1350
Sultan, Washington 98294
Telephone: (360) 793-0442
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 512
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-16, SIDE A
Number 008
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the Joint House & Senate
Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committees to order at
3:04 p.m. House members present at the call to order were
Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Rokeberg, Davis, Brice and
Robinson. Senate members present at the call to order were
Senators Green, Leman, Miller and Ellis. A quorum was present of
both House and Senate members to conduct business. The first order
of business was HSCR 3, Disapproving Executive Order 97 and SSCR 3,
Disapproving Executive Order 97.
SENATOR JUDY SALO joined the meeting at 3:05 p.m.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE opened the meeting for public testimony.
HSCR 3 - DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER 97
SSCR 3 - DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER 97
Number 128
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education; and Executive Officer, Alaska Student Loan
Corporation, said when she testified before the committee last
month, she spoke about the history of the Commission and the
various functions it has performed over the past 22 years. She
described how the current functions, primarily management of the
operations and finances of the Alaska Student Loan Program, are not
well-served by the existing configuration of two boards --
especially when the designated members are particularly susceptible
to special interest influences, sometimes to the detriment to the
loan fund itself.
MS. BARRANS said this past week, she met with groups at AMBAC, the
Alaska Student Loan Fund's bond insurer, as well as staff at Moodys
and Standard & Poor's credit rating agencies in New York City. In
anticipation of the upcoming bond issue, she provided for them an
overview of the pending legislation and a servicing and operational
status report. Their reaction to her update was uniformly quite
positive. When reviewing the Executive Order and the related
comments by Bond Counsel to the Loan Corporation, Ken Vassar, they
were pleased to see that we in Alaska are continuing to refine our
focus on the financial well-being of the loan fund.
MS. BARRANS pointed out that in his January 10 letter commenting on
the Executive Order, Mr. Vassar noted that this reorganization
would be "beneficial to the corporation's efforts to finance the
student loan program through the sale of its bonds and beneficial
to the student loan program generally." Mr. Vassar has been bond
counsel to the corporation since its creation and therefore his
comments are particularly valuable. While not an insider to the
management of operations, he has been a consistent and objective
observer over time. He goes on to add "The existence of two,
separate state agencies with identical staff and possessing powers
and duties relating to the same program is confusing. Even the
members of the commission and the members of the corporation have
been confused as to the boundaries of their respective powers and
duties." Additionally, he adds "consolidation will also eliminate
the inefficiencies of having two entities that must transact the
same business with each other." Mr. Vassar provides examples of
the inefficiency and reiterates that "it would improve the
efficiency of the entire process to have the same entity
responsible for these interwoven procedures." Ms. Barrans said Mr.
Vassar will be in town for a corporation meeting tomorrow afternoon
and would be available to answer questions regarding his
experiences with the commission and corporation.
MS. BARRANS concluded that they are convinced the consolidation
under Executive Order 97 provides for stronger, more focused
management of the Loan Fund and they respectfully asked that the
committee not disapprove it through the Resolution. Members of the
legislative body may elect to amend the statutes through the bill
process. She was looking forward to working with any of the
committee members on such an initiative. She stated however, at
this point, it is critical that the entities which can positively
or negatively impact our bottom line, that credit rating agencies,
the insurer of the bonds has the highest possible comfort level
that we are working cooperatively and continuing to move in the
right direction.
Number 416
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said speaking for himself and he believed for the
House and Senate HESS Committees, it would be their goal to
continue to work toward this consolidation. He added that
statutory changes would be needed to achieve that.
Number 453
SENATOR JUDY SALO said when they dealt with the issues in SB 123 as
well as the items in this Executive Order, she thought that these
were all part of a package to make the whole loan fund more
financially stable. She asked if that was true.
MS. BARRANS replied that from an administrative perspective, all of
these changes are pieces of what is necessary to move the fund to
a financially stable existence. She said having a single entity
that administers both the financial side as well as the operational
side is a big part of that.
SENATOR SALO said the reason she asked the question is that she had
some problems with portions of SB 123. She felt it was sort of a
hard hit on students who were taking out the loans and profited
from this program over the years and there were a couple of places
where the increased costs were significant. But in combination
with decreasing the administrative costs and becoming more
realistic about those costs, that's what sold her. So, she was
happy to hear the committee's commitment to address the concepts in
this Executive Order.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded that he was cautious to speak for himself
and for the House HESS Committee, the wheels are already in motion
to begin to deal with it. He emphasized that it would require an
extensive statutory change.
Number 600
ERIC FORRER said the question before the committee concerns the
status of the Governor's Executive Order that changes the governing
structure of the postsecondary education agency. He commented he
is one of the University Board of Regents representatives to the
Postsecondary Commission. He sat on the commission for two years
and is now chair of that commission. While two years is not that
much, he said it did give him a bit of the history and the flavor
of the commission's operations, including at some meetings, as much
as a full day of student appeals. His arrival on the commission
coincided with the hiring of a new agency director, the initiation
of a new management style and the creation of a new internal
organization. Upon that director's departure for a job in
Washington, he wrote the commission a position paper, in which he
was able to refer to a Division of Legislative Audit report from
December 1994, which pointed out the Alaska Student Loan Program
Fund is not self-sustaining and is in a state of financial
deterioration. The report also noted that the current role of the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education does not reflect its
statutory mandate. The outgoing director also wrote "Over the past
20 years, our education policy changes in Alaska have definitely
resulted in the obsolescence of the ACPE's original role." Mr.
Forrer said he was quite interested in the financial deterioration
part of the assessment, and at the last meeting of the Student Loan
Board, he asked the managing director of Smith Barney, a New York
debt security firm, what that deterioration amounted to. The
answer he gave, which got the nod from other financial advisers in
the room, was that of the 480 million general fund dollars invested
by the state in the student loan fund, some 260 million dollars
remain. He was shocked at the notion that the commission of which
he is chair, has been living with a set of statutes, rules and a
political environment that enabled 45 percent of such a huge
investment to be lost. His initial reaction was and remains that
the second half of this fund is not going to disappear on his
watch.
MR. FORRER said the upshot of his experience is that he has
cooperated with the Governor's Office in the creation of the
Executive Order and he urged the committee to let it stand. He
noted that if the committee denies its passage, it will be one of
the most expensive political gestures the state has endured. The
connection between the structure of the commission and the
management of the fund is that the commission as it is currently
structured is a very blunt tool for rigorous management. It is a
difficult environment in which to muster sustained political will.
It suffers from lack of authority and it is fatally subject to the
relentlessly self-serving lobbying of private sector interests that
have arrayed themselves around the fund. Consequently, the public
policy governing the fund is structured at least in part, by
interests for which the fund was never intended in the first place.
He was not accusing the proprietary schools of doing anything
except engaging in self-preservation, but their vision has a very
close horizon. How this group can make arguments for a structure
that results in a loss of millions of dollars annually to the fund
upon which they depend is beyond him. He explained that when the
fund loses its ability to sell bonds and the state loses the equal
access aspects of the loan fund, the first crowd at the table
begging for fresh money will be the private interests that take
such a keen interest in influencing the statutes and regulations.
The arguments that should be made to counter their positions have
a constituency that is as wide as the entire state, but at any
given moment, is only a few students deep. There is no well-
connected lobbyists for the united future student borrowers of
Alaska, there is only the agency itself, himself, and the committee
members who have the authority to help rescue this investment of
public dollars for the state's future. He urged the committee to
let Executive Order 97 stand and to use subsequent clean up
legislation to achieve more finely directed goals.
Number 863
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON referenced Mr. Forrer's comment that
he had worked with the Governor's office and asked him to explain
how they reached the conclusion to go in the direction taken in the
Executive Order.
MR. FORRER responded that anyone who has paid attention to
postsecondary in the past, would come to the same conclusion; that
is, it needs significant structural change and the two bodies
existing simultaneously is confusing and serves no purposes. He
began to question what could be done to solve this problem and what
are the things that drive the postsecondary education; that is to
say the legislation that created it. It turned out to be a bigger
can of worms than what he realized. For example, two regents are
there because of the statutory language that states post secondary
oversees the university's budget, which has never occurred and on
and on. He wasn't certain who actually came up with the proposal
to move in the direction of the Executive Order.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it becomes a question of the cart before the
horse. It would require some serious statutory changes, which Mr.
Forrer had alluded to, and whether there's an Executive Order that
goes halfway and then statute, or just statutory change is a policy
call. Co-Chair Bunde assured Mr. Forrer that he shares the
concerns about the financial stability of the loan.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was further public testimony.
Hearing none, he opened the meeting for discussion.
Number 1000
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE questioned the statement on the fiscal
note stating the estimated savings reflected in Executive Order 97
will not be achieved in the manner proposed by the Governor. He
said there is no back up documentation in the packet to
substantiate that statement and asked if there was any information
available.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said as he previously mentioned, the Executive Order
only makes half of a step and significant statutory change is
required in order to achieve the needed efficiency. He added that
it's going to take legislation which overhauls the entire post
secondary system, instead of just limiting the number of people.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the bill was currently in the
drafting stage.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded the bill was presently being drafted and
he would make it available as soon as it was available to him. He
anticipated it to be an ambitious, cooperative and perhaps lengthy
goal to write the applicable statutes.
Number 1116
SENATOR MIKE MILLER moved to pass Senate Special Concurrent
Resolution 3 out of the Senate HESS Committee with individual
recommendations. An objection was raised. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked
for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were Senators
Green, Miller and Leman. Voting against the motion were Senators
Salo and Ellis. CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that action on the
Resolution disposes of the issue of Executive Order 97 and it will
be passed to the Senate Secretary.
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass House Special Concurrent
Resolution 3 out of the House HESS Committee with attached fiscal
notes. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected and raised a point of
question relating to procedure. He explained that it is normal
procedure for the House HESS Committee not to pass a bill out of
committee on the first hearing. Given the impact of this Executive
Order, he felt it would be appropriate to hold it over until the
next meeting.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted the House HESS Committee has moved bills out
of committee at the first hearing on several occasions, and that it
was his wish to do so with HSCR 3.
Number 1203
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked for a call of the previous question.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out that when bills had passed out of
committee at the first hearing, it had been done with a consensus
of the committee.
Number 1235
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the
motion were Representatives Vezey, Rokeberg, Davis, Toohey and
Bunde. Voting against the motion were Representatives Brice and
Robinson. C0-CHAIR BUNDE announced that House Special Concurrent
Resolution 3 had moved from the House HESS Committee. The action
on the Resolution disposes of the issue of Executive Order 97 and
it will be passed to the House Clerk.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the joint meeting of the House & Senate
HESS Committees at 3:23 p.m.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reconvened the meeting of the House HESS Committee
at 3:25 p.m.
HB 373 - EDUC FOR FAMILY OF DECEASED MILITARY
Number 1330
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin,
said he would respond to the questions raised at the last hearing
on HB 373. Regarding the definition of Alaska Naval Militia, he
provided committee members with a copy of AS 26.05.030(c) which
states "The Alaska Naval Militia consists of units authorized by
the governor, organized, equipped, trained, and administered as
prescribed by state and federal law and regulation, and manned by
personnel who are (1) members of the United States Naval Reserve or
the United States Marine Corps Reserve and (2) enlisted, appointed,
commissioned, or warranted under the laws and regulations of the
United States." He furnished committee members with a memorandum
from Wendy Redman of the University of Alaska, which addresses the
costs of a typical "full-ride" scholarship at the University of
Alaska. He pointed out the cost is approximately $2,000 more than
the fiscal note denotes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for an approximate number of students who
might take advantage of this opportunity next semester.
MR. ANDERSON said he was guessing maybe two or three.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if past history gave an indication of the
number of students per year who might take advantage of this
program.
MR. ANDERSON replied there had been four in the last five years.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned the amount of the fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted for the record it was $13,600.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he didn't understand what this
legislation was changing.
MR. ANDERSON explained that it was being changed to include room
and board and an extra stipend of $200. He pointed out that while
it is not a significant amount, it was felt that it would complete
the package more so than just tuition, which was the current
statutory allowance.
Number 1511
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 373 out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
HB 93 - TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME
Number 1570
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Prime sponsor, explained that
current statute allows for duty-free mealtime for teachers.
Specifically, it states "Each governing body shall allow its
teachers in school facilities with four or more teachers a daily
duty-free mealtime of at least 30 minutes between 11:00 a.m. and
1:00 p.m." She explained the Fairbanks North Star School District
has indicated that deleting "between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m."
would make it easier for them to manage the play time, etc. It was
her belief this doesn't even belong in statute; it should be part
of the negotiation of the union agreement with the school district.
She commented she would elect to repeal it; however, in deference
to some members of the House HESS Committee who felt strongly that
the duty-free time should be left in statute, she had no problem
with that if the specified time could be deleted.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if it would create a hardship on the people
who were watching the children during the lunch break.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said this was to allow more flexibility in the
scheduling. For example, it would allow a teacher to take a lunch
break after 1:00 p.m. or before 11:00 a.m. It's not to take the
duty-free mealtime away, but just to allow for a greater spread of
time.
Number 1674
PERCY HOUTS, Superintendent of Schools, Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District, testified from Fairbanks via
teleconference. He indicated they have some problems in that with
classes currently starting at the high schools between 7:30 and
2:15, the lunch time ends up at 10:30. In some of the larger
schools, they actually run three lunch shifts and as a result,
students and teachers are eating lunch outside that 11:00 a.m. and
1:00 p.m. time frame and supervision becomes difficult. It was his
understanding in the past there had been an agreement with the
union to have the duty-free lunch at a different time. He pointed
out the problem with that is there is no authority to appeal the
state law, regardless if there is an agreement with the agreement.
With the increases in population they are looking at the
possibility of starting the school day at 7:00 a.m. and ending at
7:00 p.m. The deletion of the specified hours would allow them the
leeway to meet the needs of their district.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the problem was with mainly secondary
schools or if they were experiencing scheduling problems in the
elementary schools as well.
MR. HOUTS said it was predominately the secondary schools. The
only time problems experienced with the elementary schools is
having to double shift.
Number 1769
WILLIE ANDERSON, NEA-Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 93. He
noted he had a letter from the Fairbanks Education Association
substantiating the testimony of the superintendent of the Fairbanks
North Star Borough School District which indicated they had been
able to work out their difficulties with the scheduling of the
duty-free lunch in their high schools. Therefore, there is no need
to change a law that will affect every school in the state. One of
the issues raised by the superintendent is the lack of a provision
in the law which allows for a variance based on his interpretation
of the law. If the legislature determines the legislation is
necessary, he said NEA would propose an amendment to Section 1 that
would insert the language "or between such other hours as the
governing body and the union representing teachers in a school
district may specify." That would provide for the permissive
language; however, it is his belief the permissive language isn't
really necessary.
MR. ANDERSON noted that in Anchorage there was some double shifting
in the late `70s or early `80s because of an asbestos problem.
This law was in effect at that time, and there wasn't a problem
accommodating that situation. He concluded there is no reason to
change this law to accommodate two or three school sites where the
scheduling of a lunch hour which may occur at 10:30 a.m. or 1:15
p.m. because an agreement has been reached with the district.
Number 1904
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern with the first sentence
of the second paragraph in the February 27, 1996, letter from the
Fairbanks Education Association which reads "The Fairbanks
Education Association has agreed with the Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District that in some situations, lunches outside
the 11:00 - 1:00 window are appropriate." Representative Rokeberg
asked if that was because the union and the school district have
agreed to break the law.
MR. ANDERSON said he interpreted the law to read that a lunch
period would be between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Absent some
agreement other than that, it is his understanding that a law can
be enhanced in a union agreement. That is an enhancement of the
law to meet the needs of the children in the school district.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said enhancement means going outside what
the law stipulates.
MR. ANDERSON responded you can improve upon a situation, but you
can't diminish a situation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that HB 93 would be held in the House HESS
Committee for another hearing.
HB 179 - LIMIT TERM OF COMMRS OF EDUC. & FISH/GAME
Number 2009
JOSHUA DONALDSON, Legislative Secretary to Representative Gene
Therriault, read the following sponsor statement: "House Bill 179
is intended to change the term of office for the commissioners of
Education and Fish and Game so their terms do not exceed the term
of the governor who appointed them. House Bill 179 is needed to
avoid a situation in which an outgoing commissioner's contract must
be honored by an incoming administration.
"The Alaska State Constitution provides the power for the governor
to appoint each principal department head. The Department of
Education and the Department of Fish and Game are unique due to the
involvement of their respective boards.
"The principal head of the Department of Education is the Board of
Education. The Board of Education appoints its principal executive
officer. The board has the right to dismiss the commissioner, if
a dismissal is deemed necessary. House Bill 179 would eliminate
the present 5-year term as specified in current statute.
"The Commissioner of Fish and Game is appointed by the governor
from a list compiled by the Board of Fisheries and the Board of
Game. HB 179 clarifies that the commissioner does serve at the
pleasure of the governor and eliminates the reference to the
commissioner of Fish and Game being approved to a 5-year term.
"The Alaska State Constitution grants the governor the power to
appoint department heads. House Bill 179 reaffirms this
constitutional right."
Number 2080
CHRYSTAL SMITH, Legal Administrator, Department of Law, testified
on behalf of the Administration. She said the Governor heartily
supports CSHB 179(FSH). It parallels his efforts in legislation
introduced last year to ensure that the commissioners of the
Departments of Fish and Game and Education are on basically the
same grounds as the other commissioners; that is, they serve at the
pleasure of the appointing authority. In the case of the
Department of Fish and Game commissioner, the appointing authority
would be the governor and in the case of the Department of
Education commissioner, it would be the Board of Education. There
would be no fixed terms that could potentially overlap the
governor's term. She noted that last year, there was a concern
about the Commissioner of Education, who had a contract which would
have gone over the term of the governor. There was a need to buy
that contract out which is not only expensive for the state, but it
puts the incoming governor and his/her Board of Education in a
difficult position. This legislation would make it very clear that
the Commissioner of Education serves at the pleasure of the board;
there would be no fixed term contracts, and the Commissioner of the
Department of Fish and Game serves at the pleasure of the governor.
The recommendation for the position would come through the Board of
Fish and Game, but the governor would make the appointment;
therefore that person would serve at the pleasure of the governor.
Currently, the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game has
a five-year term.
Number 2162
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked where the governor's bill was
currently in terms of the legislative process.
MS. SMITH responded she didn't know where the House bill was
currently, but added the Senate version is in the Senate Finance
Committee. She added that Representative Martin had a similar bill
that apparently got bogged down in the House Finance Committee
toward the end of the legislative session last year.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 179.
Number 2194
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass HB 179 out of the House HESS
Committee with zero fiscal note and individual recommendations.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 512 - ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
Number 2231
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Sponsor of HB 512, pointed out the
committee should have before them a committee substitute for HB
512. He presented the following sponsor statement: "English is
the nation's single shared language that crosses all ethnic,
racial, cultural, and religious lines, and allows diverse Americans
to share their various backgrounds. The bill would simply make
official what is already common practice in the state of Alaska
today, which is to use English in public meetings and with public
documents or records. Public documents include such things as
birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates, and any other
written matter the state provides. He said the intent of the bill
was not to change any practices that are already occurring in the
state, but simply to give official recognition to what is already
being done: That is to recognize English as the common bond which
basically holds everyone together. It is an empowerment tool. If
an individual does not have comprehensive understanding of the
English language, they will not be able to take full advantage of
the social, political and cultural aspects in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that since 1812, with Louisiana
being the first state to recognize English as the official
language, 21 other states have adopted this measure. It is his
hope that Alaska will be number 23. He noted there are a number of
other states that have addressed the matter in their legislative
sessions. The bill does not infringe on anyone's rights in any
way, it does not affect private organizations or private
conversations, it is directed only at state agencies and political
subdivisions of the state. He informed the committee that he has
worked extensively with various organizations to ensure a palatable
product that would be acceptable to all. Representative Kott said
from a financial application, at some point in the future the state
will save an enormous cost by not having to duplicate records in a
number of languages.
TAPE 96-16, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would explain the changes in the
committee substitute if the committee so desired.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Kott for a list of the 22
states that recognized English as the official language.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY pointed out the information was in the committee
packet.
Number 037
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated there is federal legislation moving
through the process that will recognize English as the official
language of the Nation.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said this is an issue that has been creeping up for
some time, but many individuals in the state were reticent to make
the Native community feel that the importance of their language is
not being recognized. She asked Representative Kott to explain how
that fits into this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he believed that as Alaska increases its
commitment to cultural diversity, a commitment to a common bond of
English becomes more essential in maintaining that clear and
precise communication. He pointed out the original bill addressed
the issue of English as the common language; however, he recognized
there are a number of common languages in rural Alaska and did not
want to infringe on that commonality within that particular area of
the state, so the issue was readdressed and it is addressed in the
form of an official language of the state of Alaska. Representative
Kott said those common languages are still recognized and no one's
toes are being stepped on in any way.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referenced the cost savings with regard to
duplication of records and asked Representative Kott if that occurs
now or was he projecting in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded it was more of a future projection in
that he didn't believe the state duplicates any great number, if
any, of the documents referenced in his sponsor statement.
Number 122
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Kott what he is trying
to stop or fix.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the English language has not been adopted
in law; common usage is generally by custom, not by law. This
legislation would put into statute. He believes it is important to
recognize that English is the common bond. He stated there are a
number of applications of languages especially in rural Alaska, but
in order to take advantage of the social, political and economic
tools available to citizens of this state, we need to empower them
with at least the knowledge that English will get a person from
here to there. In looking at some of the job requirements in the
urban centers, he doesn't believe a person will go very far without
a good understanding of the English language. It's being elevated
as an umbrella language that suggests if an individual wants to get
from here to there, the ability to communicate in the English
language is necessary. That's not to say the other languages are
not as important, but English is the overall general accepted
language in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was trying to figure out what is
being gained or lost by passing this legislation. She is under the
impression that most people, no matter what language they speak,
who come to Alaska will quickly figure out they need to learn the
English language in order to get around.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wasn't sure that many of the
individuals who come to Alaska have that recognition. Certainly
American citizens by birth should have no problem, but other groups
coming to the state may not have that idea embedded in their minds
when they come to Alaska.
Number 254
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it is no longer a requirement to speak
English to become a citizen of the United States.
RAYMOND TORREON, Director for Alaska, U.S. English, testified that
U.S. English is a national nonprofit organization that was founded
13 years ago by Senator Sam Hayakawa, an immigrant of Japanese
descent. In response to Co-Chair Bunde's question, currently, the
Immigration and Naturalization System (INS) does not give
citizenship tests in any other language other than English.
However, based on U.S. English's perspective, the INS will start
next year through the Education Testing Service in New Jersey,
giving citizenship tests in as many as 56 different languages. He
pointed out that in Tucson, Arizona in the late 1980s, there was a
citizenship ceremony in another language, and the official who gave
the citizenship ceremony thought it would mean more to the people
taking the oath to become an American citizen if it was done in
another language. He said it is a policy question and any person
in Alaska who speaks another language can ask, request or demand
government documents in that other language. Since Alaska has no
official policy, a bureaucrat may or may not be so inclined to give
the individual that treatment. On the issue of fairness, he
commented that if one ethnic group is treated one way, they should
all be treated the same; if one group is going to be treated
special, then all of them should be treated special; but if you're
going to be fair, treat everyone equally which he believes this
legislation does.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there were federal court rulings
or areas of the judiciary that are forcing the implementation and
adoption of state statutes in order to set out this official
position in terms of language.
MR. TORREON responded most of the case law dealing with the English
language, whether it's official or not, has been in reaction to
statutes. He could not recall one case where a judiciary, circuit
court or a local state court had to rule on discrimination that was
outside of a statute. In other words, he didn't know of any case
that was developed independent of a statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there weren't cases in federal
courts about teaching foreign language in school as the primary
language.
MR. TORREON said as an example, recently in New York City a group
of parents sued the state of New York because they believed their
children were not given a fair chance to learn English. The
children were in a language program that was a little more costly,
but their children were not learning English. Consequently, the
parents sued to have the right to choose whether their child should
be in a certain special program or just the regular programs. The
parents lost that case. He believes parents should have the right
to decide whether their child should be in a special program or
not. In response to Representative Rokeberg's question he said he
wasn't aware of any particular case.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned Texas or the border states in
particular, where schools have been required to teach the Spanish
language as either a primary or fully bilingual basis.
MR. TORREON said one thing to understand with regard to bilingual
education when it refers to Spanish in particular or a couple of
the other ethnic languages in Texas, California or Arizona, those
programs are fully mandated. The grant program is mandated at the
federal level. There is no question of funding, there has been no
question of participation and no question of efficacy on those
programs. They are occurring and it's a $12 billion program at the
federal and local levels.
Number 533
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Torreon to explain the U.S. English
organization and asked if he represented areas other than Alaska.
MR. TORREON summarized that U.S. English is a national nonprofit
organization with 657,000 people. In Alaska, he represents the
nearly 2,000 Alaskan residents who live in Alaska and want this
legislation. His area includes basically all the states in the
West, with the exception of California. U.S. English was founded
by an immigrant, Senator Sam Hayakawa, and is currently chaired by
an immigrant of Chilean descent who speaks five languages. Mr.
Torreon observed that when Marcos was in power in the Philippines,
many people asked why he was never overthrown since he had been a
dictator for 20 years and was hated by everyone. He explained
there are five major dialects in the Philippines, and because the
people all spoke different languages, there was no unity. Only
with the use of English were the dialects able to communicate, and
with people power, Marcos was overthrown. He noted that unity is
the key behind this issue and unity is the bill.
Number 642
LYNN STIMLER, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) of Alaska, testified from Anchorage via teleconference. The
ACLU believes that HB 512 is both unnecessary and unconstitutional
under the Alaska Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. It is the
belief of the ACLU that English only laws, laws that make English
the official or common language and particularly this law that is
restricting government's use of languages other than English in
communication and delivering service to non-English speaking
Americans, violates the constitution. This bill appears simple,
but she warned not to let its appearance be deceiving. This bill
systemically limits the access of language minorities to
governmental services and is constitutionally suspect because 1)
language discrimination is the functional equivalent to national
origin discrimination; and 2) language minorities are a prime
example of a "discreet and insular minority" under United States v.
Caroline Products Company and the Supreme Court has held that they
deserve heightened judicial protection under the equal protection
clause. She noted that in 1991, the Supreme Court observed "It may
well be for certain ethnic groups and in some communities that
proficiency in a particular language, like skin color, should be
treated as surrogate for race under an equal protection analysis."
That case, Hernandez v. New York, is saying that national origin
discrimination like race discrimination is considered inherently
suspect under equal protection principals. She pointed out a
recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case which struck down
Arizona's official English law. The Court of Appeals felt the
government's use of languages other than English in communicating
with limited English proficient residents increased rather than
decreased efficiency and that a law broadly prohibiting the use of
different languages served no significant government interests.
She said that came out on October 5, 1995, and it had gone up once
before and the earlier cite was 42 F3rd p 1217. She shepardized
it, "Barring the government from communicating with non-English
speaking citizens in their language will result in
miscommunications and hinder the implementation of government
policies in Alaska, such as enforcing hunting regulations,
promulgating rules of the National Resources Agency." In
conclusion, Ms. Stimler said the Alaska Supreme Court holding, hel
that our surrealistic society is clouded in such basic values as
the preservation of maximum individual choice, protection of
minority sentiments and appreciation of divergent lifestyles. She
said the ACLU urged the committee to look behind the simple
language of this bill and consider whether the state really wants
to endorse a common language and whether that will help our multi-
racial, multi-cultural system.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there were 22 other states that had similar
laws and asked Ms. Stimler if they had all been struck down by the
U.S. Supreme Court or if they were valid laws.
MS. STIMLER responded she would be happy to research it and get
back to the committee. She said the arguments are First Amendment
rights of the non-English speaking citizens. Also, the First
Amendment rights of the government officials have been analyzed and
a new area that is starting to be looked at is the equal protection
analysis where they hold that language is one of the ways that
people's racial identities are most identified.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said it was her belief that people come to America
to become Americans and to take advantage of what is being offered
as Americans, part of which is to be had under the English
language. She felt strongly that making English the common
language is the right thing to do.
Number 946
MR. TORREON said of the 22 laws that are on the books, some since
1812, none of them have been struck down and only Arizona is in
litigation. He furnished the committee with some background
information on where Arizona is and why it is where it is. He said
Arizona started as an initiative by a group of individuals. After
it was drafted and put on the ballot, U.S. English got involved and
helped with some of the marketing and other various things. The
initiative passed by over 50 percent by the people of Arizona, was
reaffirmed by the Attorney General's Office, and was upheld after
a challenge by the state Supreme Court of Arizona. Only when it
was brought to a circuit court, which has one of the highest
turnover rates in the Nation, was it overturned by a 2 to 1 vote.
It was then by the circuit court head judge called a very unusual
(indisc.) hearing, which means they wanted a review with a panel
larger than the three judges. He said the people of Arizona have
spoken, the Attorney General's Office has supported the people, the
state Supreme Court of Arizona has supported the people, but a
federal court is trying to infringe on the sovereignty of the
state. Following the 2 to 1 vote, the head judge of the circuit
court had another vote, which unfortunately we lost 8 to 6 and it's
going to the Supreme Court. As far as being broad, the ruling from
the circuit court didn't say you can't make English as the official
language (indisc.); what it did say is that Arizona's language in
the initiative could be tightened a little bit so it wouldn't
inflict First Amendment rights.
Number 1074
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 512. Her first reaction to the legislation was
anger and she finds it offensive. She believes that if a language
is going to be recognized in Alaska, it should be the indigenous
languages that were in the state first. She saw no need to make
English the common language and to officially recognize it. With
regard to the 2,000 people that support HB 512, she commented there
are over 83,000 Alaska Native people in Alaska who would like to
have their languages recognized, also.
MALINDA CHASE testified from Fairbanks in opposition to HB 512.
She pointed out she is a resident of Fairbanks but her father's
family is from the village of Anvik on the Yukon River. She noted
that her grandmother was raised in a mission, and to this day, Ms.
Chase hears stories about her grandmother's experiences of not
being able to speak her own Native language at the mission. Her
grandmother still feels mixed up about languages and she represents
a large number of elders in the village. What comes to mind for
Ms. Chase is that the institution is trying to dictate personal
self-expression, as well as group self-expression and identity.
Once again, the government is telling people they don't have the
power to express themselves in the way that is most comfortable,
adequate or to the best of their ability. She echoed
Representative Robinson's question regarding the purpose of this
legislation.
Number 1311
ELEANOR LAUGHLIN testified via teleconference that she is
originally from the village of Nulato and strongly opposes HB 512.
She said the state of Alaska has a diversity of ethnic languages as
well as speakers whose first language is not English. This
legislation would deny those people their right to use their Native
tongue to testify at public meetings and would adversely restrict
the rights of many village elders. Also, it would deny a public
employee who speaks another language the right to explain to
his/her constituents issues that are of concern to them. This bill
is very dangerous and if passed could be open to interpretation
that could eventually be harmful to all speakers of another
language. Ms. Laughlin said this bill has connotations of the
concept of eminent domain and she is strongly opposed to it.
Number 1390
NASTASIA WAHLBERG presented a portion of her testimony in Yupik.
She testified that she was expressing that she has the freedom to
speak publicly in her own language. She said right now they have
the freedom, but this legislation would restrict her rights. She
read the following prepared statement: "This bill, however
carefully worded to avoid conflicts to any existing programs,
businesses, public safety or health, or for individuals providing
translators, infringes on our inalienable rights of freedom of
speech.
"Based on the premises that we as a people of different ethnic
backgrounds, deserve the right to speak in any language we want
without being restricted in open public forums. We have the
opportunity to use translators for that in place.
"In reviewing the section of Freedom of Speech in the encyclopedia
of the American Constitution, I found some areas that need to be
brought before the state and this committee. Various quotes read
as follows: `Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.' That means that the state should not abridge the
freedom of thought and communication, which are integral to our
individual rights. The fundamental values are `essential to the
development of the individual personality. The right to express
oneself and to communicate with others is central to the
realization of one's character and potentiality as a human being.
Conversely, suppression of thought or opinion is an affront to a
person's dignity and integrity. In this respect freedom of speech
is an end in itself, not simply an instrument to attain other ends.
As such it is not necessarily subordinate to other goals of the
society.' My interpretation of that is that we, as individuals
when speaking in our own native tongues do characterize who we are,
where we come from, and how we choose to speak. However HB 512 is
worded, on the overall, cannot and should not be used as an
instrument to control and restrict speech because it infringes on
our individual character as a people who speak other than English.
"The way to do that is to be accepted and respected for speaking in
our own native tongue. We must live with our diversities of
language and cultures and be willing to tolerate each other. Using
English only is a way to control and restrict the use of language
and character."
Number 1655
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said in response to the last testifier, it
seems that people are not dealing with the facts, but rather
emotions. He reiterated this bill does nothing that is not
currently being done. Native tongues can be used, an interpreter
can be used and minutes will be recorded in English, as these will
be. There is nothing restricting the use of native tongues.
Number 1680
REVA SHIRCEL, Director, Education Department, Tanana Chiefs
Conference (TCC), testified from Fairbanks that she is puzzled by
the introduction of this bill. She questioned the intent of the
legislation and what needs to be fixed. She said the Tanana Chiefs
Conference is committed to the preservation and enhancement of the
11 Athabascan languages within their region and they consider the
introduction of HB 512 to be premature because there has not been
thorough legislative discussion on the preservation and enhancement
of their indigenous languages. House Bill 512 is inconsistent with
what has tried to be done through the linguistic and cultural
activities. She noted that last year during the legislative
session, Tanana Chiefs Conference testified on SB 32 and HB 160,
companion bills introduced by Senator Lincoln and Representative
Nicholia respectively, for native languages to be taught in the
school. With reference to the preservation and enhancement of the
Athabascan language and cultural, their direction comes from the
elders who have stated consistently that respect and adherence to
traditional culture and values are an important part of the
equation which allows Native people within the TCC region to be
able to develop and maintain their self-esteem. The Tanana Chiefs
Conference also supported HB 167 which was introduced by
Representative Nicholia to support the main streaming of the Alaska
Native languages, culture and history into the school because there
is a need for all Alaskans, regardless of who we are and where we
come from, to recognize diversity, to promote and preserve cultural
heritage and to ensure access to the rich legacy of our American
ancestors to all students. In conclusion, Tanana Chiefs Conference
is urging that HB 512 not be passed.
TAPE 96-17, SIDE A
Number 008
MISHAL TOOYAK GAEDE testified from Fairbanks that she is opposed to
HB 512. She said this legislation requests that records accepted
by a state agency for recording or filing must be in English. She
noted that her mother attended BIA schools less than 40 years ago
and was punished, shamed and humiliated for speaking Inupiat. She
said her name is Inupiat and if this bill was adopted and enforced,
she would not be able to even state her name and where she
originated from. She asked how this impacts public records? Her
Inupiat name cannot be translated into English because English is
not common enough to include Inupiat thought, expression or
description. What happens when an elder is giving testimony at a
public meeting on subsistence matters? This legislation states the
elders would be required to a) translate and b) transcribe their
testimony into English. This is not a simple bill; it impacts
blatantly and discriminately.
Number 159
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, testified that
NEA-Alaska wishes to express concern regarding HB 512. First, they
questioned the need for the measure as introduced. For example,
Section 2 of the bill would add a new section to Alaska statutes
declaring that the official language of the state is English. He
commented if that declaration reflects the way Alaskans write and
talk, then there is no need for a statute, because English is
already the language used by most of us. If that declaration is
meant to change the way Alaskans write and talk, it is useless.
Changing the language of any population is not something that can
take place with a simple statutory fiat. Language emerges from the
way people live in their homes, their community halls, their work
places and their recreational activities.
MR. MARSHALL continued that second, NEA is concerned that this bill
will be perceived, however innocent the intentions of the sponsors
may be, as just another stroke or gesture by the English-speaking
majority against minorities whose primary languages may be other
than English. This concern is heightened because of the historical
context in which the bill arises, for we recall how a similar
proposal in California was the cause of divisiveness and bad
feelings.
MR. MARSHALL said third, NEA is concerned that HB 512, as
presented, could operate to repeal Alaska's bilingual education
program through an oblique or "back door" approach. In looking at
the bill, whether Alaska would have bilingual education should
always be a policy question for us Alaskans to decide for
ourselves. But under HB 512, the Congress and President of the
United States might repeal authorization under federal law for
bilingual education and, by doing so, terminate bilingual education
or activities in Alaska as well. If there is a desire to debate
bilingual education, then let us have a straightforward vehicle for
that debate, not an oblique clause in a bill touted as establishing
English as the common language and applying to public records and
public meetings.
MR. MARSHALL said NEA-Alaska is not aware of any problem in Alaska
that requires enactment of HB 512. If there are public meetings in
Alaska at which English speakers cannot participate because the
meetings are held in other tongues, NEA does not know about them.
MR. MARSHALL said fifth, HB 512 sows the seeds of confusion. For
example, would it be permissible to use public funds to engage a
translator at a public meeting attended by persons not fluent in
English? Would a signer, made available to hearing impaired
Alaskans, be considered to be an English speaker, or would the
employment of the signer raise the contention that HB 512 had been
violated? How do the bill's findings, particularly in items 1 and
2 connect with the balance of the bill? Would the bill prohibit a
bilingual teacher in his/her role as a teacher from talking to a
parent in a non-English language since the exemption applies to
bilingual education activities authorized under the federal law?
MR. MARSHALL stated in sum, NEA believes legislation should be
passed, when needed, to solve real problems. They suspect that
declarations about language from political bodies will achieve
little to change language patterns in real life. At a time when so
many forces want to divide us Americans and us Alaskans, a measure
that could be viewed as an affront to some of our fellow citizens
should not be enacted.
Number 473
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she shared Mr. Marshall's concern and
explained they are all reticent to step out because of that
concern. She asked how this issue has been dealt with in states
like Arkansas, Colorado, California, Hawaii, Tennessee, North
Dakota, etc., that all have Native populations.
MR. TORREON said the interesting thing about this piece of
legislation is that in 1995, South Dakota, Montana and New
Hampshire all passed this legislation; no constitutional challenges
and no problems. He pointed out that Montana and South Dakota have
Indian tribes, and New Hampshire has a large French population who
speak only French. He said in each of those cases, the legislation
is designed not to exclude anyone or to force anyone to do
anything. For example, in New Hampshire there was a specific
clause which said that international trade dealing with French-
speaking Canada would be exempted. He commented that in HB 512,
there are very specific and broad exemptions to deal with critical
services; e.g., hospitals, police, etc., so that any critical
service is not affecting the access to the person. This
legislation is not trying to single anyone out, but rather to
create a policy that everyone can abide by; not just the tribes,
but everyone.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was aware of official Fish and Game meetings
held in rural areas that were conducted in native languages and the
English-speaking people certainly didn't understand.
Number 725
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked where all the forms and documents in the
various different languages are? He has not seen them in the
schools or government agencies in his district.
MR. MARSHALL said he was aware of the need for bilingual education.
He referenced page 1, line 16, and said what happens if bilingual
education is struck down on the federal level, is we in effect have
struck down bilingual education in Alaska because it is authorized
under federal law. NEA-Alaska has a problem with that; they feel
there is a very real service and benefit that is provided those
persons who are educated in the classrooms that need and get great
benefit from bilingual education. He pointed out page 2, line 6,
says that meetings of a state agency that are open to the public
shall be conducted in English and asked if there are meetings
conducted in a Native language, does that change this particular
provision. He questioned if the exclusions were in conflict with
very clear statements that are included in the body of the draft.
In answer to Representative Brice's question, he said he didn't
know where these forms were or how much money was being spent to
develop forms in a particular language.
Number 900
SAM KITO, JR., testified that one of the issues he wanted to raise
before the committee is that the sponsors had initiated dialogue
and communication with Native organizations in the state. He noted
there are diverse cultural communities - 11 Athabascan languages,
a number of Yupik dialects, a number of Inupiat dialects, Simsean,
Haida, Tlingit, Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, Jewish, etc., all
residing in Alaska. If a meeting was to take place between an
Athabascan and a Tlingit who spoke their own language, how would
communicate? It wouldn't be in Athabascan or Tlingit, but they
would find a common language to communicate with each other. He
believes there is a common language in the state of Alaska used to
communicate - that common language is English. He noted that first
and foremost, people should be able to communicate in a language of
the community where they are going to get their education.
MR. KITO said secondly, there has been dialogue with organizations
regarding the Findings Section and the ability for communities of
interest to speak their own language. If there's a concern with
language "being authorized by federal", it can be amended to say
state. There is no interference in the ability for communities to
have bilingual education. They can tax themselves in order to
provide the funds for bilingual education in their communities, and
there isn't anything that says the state cannot provide funds to
teach bilingual education. There is nothing that stops individuals
in those communities of interest from learning how to speak the
tongue they were raised in. He stated that when it's taken to the
next step, no matter how proficient you become, when you talk to
someone else who speaks another language and you don't speak that
language, you look for something common. In the Philippines for
example, there is a common language among all the dialects and that
common language is English. He indicated that if people are going
to communicate better, then we in the educational system should
find a commonality for those people to communicate with each other.
He questioned whether we are going to diversify ourselves so much
that when we get into a room, nobody communicates with anybody.
Right now everybody is communicating in the English language and
when you can't communicate in the English language, there is
authorization to use translators, which is being done now. He
remarked that he was the Executive Vice President of the Tanana
Chiefs Conference and said when 11 different cultures or dialects
were in a room they did not hire 11 different translators. They
communicated in the English language and those individuals who
wanted to use their own tongue had a translator and the translation
was put into the record in the English language.
MR. KITO noted the accomplishments in the Findings Section and
suggested communities of interest in the Native community
read them one by one. He pointed out that Article 5 states "The
official language of the state is English. Meetings of a state
agency that are open to the public shall be conducted in English.
Except during a public meeting, this section does not prohibit an
officer or an employee of a state agency from orally using a
language other than English in the scope of employment."
MR. KITO said bilingual education is not going to go away. Local
communities of interest will still have the opportunity to do it.
He noted that the Jewish community, which is a small minority group
in the United States, kept their language because their students
went to school on Saturdays. That's how they taught themselves to
communicate in Yiddish. Mr. Kito concluded that in his opinion no
one is being discriminated against. Communities of interest were
given an input into the Findings Section and had the opportunity to
look at the Exemptions. He admitted there is some additional work
that needs to be done, but people are being brought to the table to
reach a solution.
Number 1370
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 512 would be held for an
additional hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopted CSHB 512, Work Draft 9-
LS1700\F, 2/27/96. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was curious about the number of
states that ended up appealing the law and what the cost was to the
state.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he understood the concern about the cultural
issues and the domination by major English. He mentioned the need
for the International Air Traffic Control System to have a common
language, and that language happens to be English. Co-Chair Bunde
said he would make every attempt to invite all interested parties
to participate in the hearings on HB 512.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the House HESS Committee at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|