Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/15/2000 03:56 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2000
3:56 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Carl Morgan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 336
"An Act increasing the eligible maximum amount for quality school
grant funding for school districts; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 224
"An Act requiring a public employee labor organization
representing employees of a school district, regional educational
attendance area, or a state boarding school to give notice before
striking."
- MOVED CSHB 224(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
"An Act relating to coverage of children and pregnant women under
the medical assistance program; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 336
SHORT TITLE: QUALITY SCHOOL GRANT FUND INCREASE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/04/00 2092 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME-REFERRALS
2/04/00 2092 (H) HES, FIN
2/04/00 2092 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
2/04/00 2092 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/04/00 2092 (H) REFERRED TO HES
2/15/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 224
SHORT TITLE: PERA: NOTICE BEFORE STRIKE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/05/99 1180 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/05/99 1180 (H) HES, L&C
5/06/99 1214 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGAN
5/07/99 1247 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
1/25/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
1/25/00 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
2/03/00 (H) HES AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/03/00 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
2/08/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/08/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/08/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
2/15/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 260
SHORT TITLE: MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM COVERAGE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/10/00 1887 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/99
1/10/00 1887 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/10/00 1887 (H) HES, FIN
1/10/00 1887 (H) REFERRED TO HES
1/27/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
1/27/00 (H) <Bill Postponed>
2/08/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/08/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/08/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
2/15/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RICHARD CROSS, Commissioner
Department of Education & Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 336.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West Eleventh Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 336 and HB 224.
JOHN CYR, President
National Education Association-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 336; testified on
HB 224.
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher
for Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 224.
LARRY WIGET, Executive Director
Public Affairs
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 224.
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 Fourth Street, Suite 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 224.
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 100601
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 260.
NANCY WELLER, Medical Assistance Administrator
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110660
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 260.
JANICE TOWER
Alaska Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics
7645 Griffith Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 260.
LEILA WISE
PO Box 244034
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260.
GEORGE HIERONYMOUS, Executive Director
Beans' Cafe and Kids' Kitchen
PO Box 100316
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 260.
MICHELLE SCHUMACHER
PO Box 2282
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 260.
LAUREN CARLTON
PO Box 198
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260.
RUTHE KNIGHT
PO Box 3218
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 260.
PATRICIA MACPIKE
409 Monastery Street, Number 3
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 260.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
[The minutes for HB 297 and the Alaska Mental Health Board Review
of the U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health are found
in the 3:10 p.m. minutes for the same date.]
CHAIRMAN FRED DYSON reconvened the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee meeting at 3:56 p.m. Members
present were Representatives Dyson, Green, Brice, Kemplen and
Coghill.
HB 336 - QUALITY SCHOOL GRANT FUND INCREASE
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as House
Bill No. 336, "An Act increasing the eligible maximum amount for
quality school grant funding for school districts; and providing
for an effective date."
Number 0036
RICHARD CROSS, Commissioner, Department of Education & Early
Development (EED), came forward to present HB 336. He explained
that HB 336 changes existing law to increase the eligible amount
school districts are to receive for quality school grants from
$16 to $52 per student. The cost of this increase is
approximately $7.6 million. The fiscal note on this bill shows
zero dollars, and the reason for that is there is $7,552,300
increase in cost. This amount has been placed in the Governor's
budget as a part of the foundation formula. In making a
comparison to the Governor's budget, the fiscal note is zero, but
the department is not trying to hide the fact there is a real
cost associated with this bill of approximately $7.6 million.
The reason for asking for this increase is to deal with short-
term needs that school districts are going to face as a result of
the process of implementing the Quality Schools Initiative,
specifically the high school graduation qualifying exam.
COMMISSIONER CROSS noted it is anticipated that school districts
are going to have to implement extra tutoring, summer school
programs and different kinds of remediation for students who
don't meet the expected higher standards. The idea that school
districts are going to be able to immediately adapt to this
without any additional resources is an unrealistic expectation.
What was anticipated in the budget for the foundation formula was
$19.9 million more than the EED is now telling the committee that
is needed next year. The reasons for that is some declining
school enrollment, some of the federal money received, PL-874
[Federal Law Title VIII, Public Law] funds are greater than
anticipated and local communities are going to have to share more
of the burden for education because the assessed valuations went
up. When the assessed valuations go up the required local effort
goes up and therefore the state share goes down. The districts
are struggling across the state to deal with this $19.9 million
loss.
COMMISSIONER CROSS cited the levels of funding from other states
on school reform: Washington - $113 per student; Connecticut -
$128 per student; Louisiana - $256 per student; Minnesota -
$82.74 per student. Much less is being asked for in HB 336. He
urged the committee to move this bill along in the process so the
school districts can receive the needed funding as a result of
significant school reform.
Number 0408
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why the money is put in this component
of the formula rather than the base student level.
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered that this particular component is a
grant program that school districts apply for, and it was chosen
to make sure that it was directed at the needs school districts
are going to have as a result of the testing that will be done.
The EED is not asking that each district do the same thing. The
school districts will be asked to tell the department what they
will do with the money, and EED will approve it assuming it is a
strategy that is directed at improving student performance.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the local school districts are
going to be told what to do with the additional money or will it
be left up to the local school districts to decide.
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered that the districts will be asked to
use the money for improving student performance, which may
include summer school programs, extended day programs or other
remediation programs. The districts are not being told what must
be done with the money, but the districts need to direct the
money towards the same kinds of purposes that the original $16
was directed toward. It is a grant program; in order to receive
the money, the grant does have to be approved by EED. There are
strings attached.
Number 0612
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked: If the student number had gone up
from last year, would the commissioner be asking for more money
because there were more students to educate? He said there
aren't as many students now, so the funding is going down.
Representative Green wondered if now the commissioner wants to
use that money to do something else; he asked if that is a kind
of "shell game."
Number 0631
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered that he didn't believe it is. Some
of the reason that the $19.9 million is available is due to
declining student enrollment but also to an increase in federal
funds and an increase in local effort. Districts that have
required local effort are going to have to go to their assemblies
and ask for more money to make up the state's share in order to
perform the same level of service. It isn't all tied up in
student enrollment. Some dramatic and radical school reform is
going to cause school districts to have to make significant
changes to meet the needs of all the students. Under these
circumstances, an increase in funding is needed.
COMMISSIONER CROSS explained that districts are going to find
that many of their students will not meet the high standards.
The school districts are going to need to implement some short-
term and long-term strategies in order for those students to be
successful, particularly because those students haven't had the
advantage of third grade, sixth grade or eighth grade
assessments. The tenth graders who will be taking this test in
three weeks have not had the advantage of that forewarning.
COMMISSIONER CROSS stated that without respect to increasing or
decreasing enrollment, the EED would be there asking for a fairly
modest amount of money to address an immediate need so students
can be successful. The larger factor in determining whether or
not the Quality Initiatives and the high school graduation
qualifying exam is going to be determined is not initially on how
the students perform but on how the adults and policy makers
behave in reaction to student performance. School districts will
need to recognize that some immediate short-term and long-term
changes must be made to the way business is done at schools in
order for all of the students to be successful. The EED believes
that $7.5 million is a very modest way to give the school
districts the opportunity to make the significant changes needed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Commissioner Cross why these changes
haven't been implemented in the past.
Number 0886
COMMISSIONER CROSS replied that he cannot do anything about what
did or didn't happen in the past, but now it is evident that
significant changes are going to have to be made. A significant
number of the sophomores are not going to meet the standards.
That is not a reason for panic; that is a reason to realize that
in those students' junior and senior years of high school they
are going to have to be involved in activities that are
significantly different than what is being offered to juniors and
seniors right now if they are to be successful and meet those
standards. The EED is asking for an opportunity to give students
the tools and opportunities, whether it is extended day program,
summer school program or other strategies that districts might
identify.
Number 0982
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented the standards have been talked
about all the time he's been here, over 23 years. Now he is
hearing something needs to be done, and money is the answer. He
isn't sure that is necessarily the case, and he is concerned what
is going to be done for these students other than money.
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered it is time to move on and do
everything possible to make sure the students meet the standards.
He thinks if that can be done, it will be something everyone has
hoped for.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN commented that these standards have to
adapt to what is going on in the world, and today's world is
dramatically different than it was 23 years ago. People must
recognize that difference and adjust the standards accordingly.
By creating the qualifying exam and benchmarks, a very systematic
effort is in place to ensure that the students will meet the high
standards that are needed to compete in a high-tech world. This
bill is looking at recognizing how much students need to know to
get a high school diploma today. It seems to him people need to
be prepared for that. A number of parents are going to be upset
when their children don't do well on the exam and the school
district isn't going to do anything for them. There won't be
summer school or tutoring, and that would be a gross injustice to
the children. This money is prepared for next year's budget. He
wondered if a tenth-grade student fails the exam, how long will
that student have for remedial work to be brought "up to speed."
Number 1204
COMMISSIONER CROSS replied this year's sophomores will have two
more years before graduation. The law states that students can
take the test after they normally would be scheduled to graduate
for three more years. Hopefully the district would be able to
get them there in two years.
Number 1227
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Commissioner Cross what school
districts will do if the state doesn't provide any additional
funding to accommodate the students who fail to meet the
standards, for example special needs students.
COMMISSIONER CROSS said all he can tell the committee is in
states that have implemented successful reform and gotten
improved performance have provided additional resources in order
to have that change occur both on the part of the student and the
district.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN concluded that the money is needed to
ensure success.
COMMISSIONER CROSS replied he believes that additional resources
are necessary to get effective change and be successful.
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Commissioner Cross if the need for
this money is time limited: that after the first four or five
years of students having problems, the system will shake out,
reform will be made and there won't be a need for this additional
money.
COMMISSIONER CROSS said whether or not there is going to be
additional resources needed for education in the future, it is
reasonable to predict that there will be additional needs for
resources. The department isn't saying that this is the only
type of resource that districts need. This bill identifies a
particular need that in the short term will be more urgent than
in the long term, but it is difficult to say that three years
from now the school districts should be able to absorb it within
their existing budgets. It is going to depend on what kind of
programs are necessary.
Number 1391
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that this leads back to his
original point about the need not to have it in a grant line
where school districts have to apply and be answerable back to a
centralized department but rather to put it within the base of
the student level and to increase that level, which obviously
needs to be increased.
COMMISSIONER CROSS said he is not here to argue against general
increases. He is here to argue there is a specific identified
need. He believes the success of this year's sophomores depends
on some resources being available for programs that are targeted
to help them, and that is what is being asked for in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that hindsight is 20-20. During
the debates on SB 36 when the $16 was established, he was led to
believe that the $16 was going to cover the needs of school
districts coming through the exit exam. The legislature passed
SB 36 a year after the exit exam was passed, and at that time he
thought the $16 was low.
Number 1471
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this goes with a regular annual
appropriation, and then this particular bill would only affect
that one appropriation.
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered no, this would become a part of the
public school foundation formula and would become calculated
every year for districts depending on their adjusted ADM [average
daily membership].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what is the intended life of the
quality schools grant.
Number 1505
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered that the quality schools grant, as
contemplated in the rewrite of the public school foundation
formula, was intended to be an integral part of the formula. It
was the intent of the legislature to have a certain part of
increase funding for education targeted for a specific purpose.
An additional $7.5 million is being asked for in HB 336 for
specific purposes that districts identify, as opposed to the
general operation of their school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the grant is a better vehicle
than going directly to the foundation formula.
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered that the grant ensures that the money
is targeted to specific programs that are identified by the
district and approved by the EED. It gives the legislature
assurance that the types of changes that need to occur in order
to ensure that students meet high standards, there are programs
in place, and that the money isn't being diverted and used for
some other purpose.
Number 1585
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he doesn't understand why HB 336
doesn't have a "shelf life" on it. He wondered why it isn't said
that this is needed for a certain period of time, but after that,
the regular formula should be sufficient.
COMMISSIONER CROSS said there are two answers to that. First,
the money was put in the Governor's budget for the next fiscal
year. The legislature considers foundation funding and the
amount of money that is appropriated for it on an annual basis so
all aspects of the foundation formula are considered from year to
year. Second, students are going to need more time on task in
school whether it is through summer school or extended day
programs. In most countries, students spend more time on task
than in the United States. Those programs are going to cost, and
that cost is not going to go away.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that doing it this way is
questionable to him, especially what is already being paid at
what he considers a pretty sizeable foundation formula. He asked
Commissioner Cross to explain the relationship of PL 874 to this
particular grant.
Number 1684
COMMISSIONER CROSS explained that the correct terminology for PL
874 is Title VIII Impact Aid. Federal Title VIII Impact Aid is
money that the districts receive "in lieu of taxes." It is money
for children who live on military bases or Indian lands where
there is no property tax paid. The state takes that amount into
account when it determines how much state aid is going to be
given to districts. This year the state will receive more impact
aid than was anticipated. It doesn't decrease the effort
required on the part of school districts, but it does decrease
the resources that the state provides under the formula to
districts. The school districts still have the same job to do
but more of the money received is federal and less state.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to a comment made about more
countries requiring longer periods of time for their students to
be on task. He assumes that is required because of the demands
of a high technological world and wondered if that is correct.
Number 1763
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered that's correct. When he started
kindergarten, only half of the students in this country were
graduating from high school. Today all the students need to meet
extremely high standards in order to be successful. It is going
to take more time on task. This bill will be an opportunity to
identify where the students are starting to fall behind in
certain area, and what skills are not being acquired as the
third, sixth and eighth graders are tested. The tests will show
whether the skill is actually occurring between those grades, and
if not, it can be fixed. For many students that will mean more
time on math in order to get those skills within the time frame,
and that will take additional resources.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that teachers know whether or not
their students are measuring up or not. He wondered why has it
waited until the students are sophomores to find out, where did
the system go astray and how is this going to allow students to
learn in two years what they needed to learn in ten.
Number 1926
COMMISSIONER CROSS answered the simplest answer is because the
assessments in three weeks are going to show things that weren't
known before. The standard fare doesn't work for all students.
The school districts have to figure out what to do with those
students in order to make them successful. He is asking for the
opportunity to let the schools keep moving in that direction.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the $7.5 million is based on.
COMMISSIONER CROSS replied that there is nothing magic or
scientific about the $52 per student which adds up to the $7.5
million. The department is trying to provide a modest but
significant enough increase for schools to be able to implement
programs successfully.
CHAIRMAN DYSON advised Commissioner Cross to have a sunset or
one-time or two-year limit instead of putting it into law
forever.
Number 2065
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, came forward to testify in favor of HB 336. He
associated himself with many of the comments previously stated.
He pointed out there is an educational dilemma. With the
standards and quality initiatives, there will be accountability
which will require some things done differently. Simultaneously,
operating expenses are struggled with. The Governor's bill is
the accountability and quality part of the solution. There still
is an operational problem because there are diverse and
tremendous needs. Not all have been met as a result of the
foundation formula. The world is changing at a great rate, and
it is a different place than what it was. If students can't
read, write and compute, they'll not be able to take advantage of
many technological changes today.
MR. ROSE commented that the decisions made today will impact the
children tomorrow. Rather than to just argue the point of how it
will be paid for, what bill should move, or what should be
addressed, he asked them to take a broader look in terms of where
the state is, what the responsibilities are going to be to the
students, and how are the students going to be helped to get them
get where they need to go. He referred to Commissioner Cross'
strategy to look at benchmarks and ensure progress and identify
areas of weakness and the third, sixth and eighth grade levels.
The school districts are looking for strategies to help those
students be at grade level in terms of performance. In the long-
term, students coming through those benchmarks will not have a
problem with the exit exam which seems to be the major problem
right now.
MR. ROSE believes it is a short-term problem. The students are
not going to fare well this year, but the good news is that the
students will succeed in time if the districts meet the
responsibilities to get the students the things needed to meet
the benchmarks. Operational resources are needed as well as the
ability to deal with the quality initiatives. He is concerned
about the issue of responsibility to the students. He urged the
legislature to do the right thing. The AASB supports the
Governor's bill as one of the tools that is needed.
Number 2293
JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association (NEA)-Alaska,
came forward to testify in favor of HB 336. The NEA believes the
Governor's Quality Schools Initiative is going to cost local
school districts money; the $16 is not enough. However, he is
optimistic. Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) scores in Alaska
are higher than ever, and more than half of the students in
Alaska are scoring in the top 50 percent on standardized tests
which is better than the national average. Schools are doing a
good job, but of course schools could be doing things better. It
is true some of the students will not do well on the qualifying
exam or the benchmarks. The question though is what is to be
done with those students. He also remembers what was done 25
years ago with those students; there were meaningful jobs for
those students to support their families. Those days are gone
and that is the problem.
TAPE 00-14, SIDE B
Number 2260
MR. CYR noted that this money will help. It is needed as well as
other money.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Cyr if this is a temporary fix or
is it something to be added to the school funding formula in
order to bring the students up and keep them there.
MR. CYR believes changes are going to be made in the way business
is done in education, and that will probably take long-term
resources. Putting money into K-12 education is a good
investment. The state has to be clear about what it wants
schools to do, and the people in the schools need to be held
responsible for that. There will be some changes looked at over
the next few years.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he truly believes that most legislators
would gladly spend the money if they knew it would work. Many
legislators are concerned that if this amount is paid and there
still is trouble, more money would have to be paid later; it is
going to take something more than money.
MR. CYR said the schools are a measure of the society and many
problems come through the doors which are never going to be
cured. The ills are too great. A large portion of students are
not being served now as well as they could be, and that will cost
more. He doesn't know what the appropriate level is, but some of
the right things are being done to get there by looking
critically at the system rather than just giving out the money.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:49 p.m. to 4:54 p.m.
CHAIRMAN DYSON closed public testimony on HB 336. [HB 336 was
heard and held.]
Number 2161
The committee took another at-ease from 4:54 p.m. to 4:59 p.m.
HB 224 - PERA: NOTICE BEFORE STRIKE
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill
No. 224, "An Act requiring a public employee labor organization
representing employees of a school district, regional educational
attendance area, or a state boarding school to give notice before
striking." [HB 224 was sponsored by Representative Kohring by
request.]
Number 2111
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher for Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward to present HB 224. House Bill
224 amends the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) to require
that school districts receive a three work days' advance notice
before a strike can be called by a union representing district
employees. Since 1990, when PERA took effect, there have been
three labor strikes. Prior notice was provided on two cases. In
January 1999, the Totem Association of Educational Support
Personnel called a strike at 10:40 p.m. on Thursday. The strike
began the following morning. The district had no time to provide
sufficient notice to parents to enable them to make alternate
arrangements for the care of their school-aged children. This
action caused significant and undue disruptions to the families
and placed the children at safety and health risk.
MR. LORENZ shared what the Anchorage Daily News reported:
Anchorage parents of public school children woke up to
an ambush Friday morning. School district office
workers and teacher aides voted ... Thursday night to
strike, then ... called the strike for Friday. The
decision came too late for the evening news. ... Many
parents didn't get the word until Friday morning. That
left them scrambling for child care and seriously
disrupted work and transportation schedules.
Parents who have paid attention knew a strike and
school closing were possible. They didn't expect to
learn of a strike at the school doors or bus stop, or
while they were getting their children ready for
school. While the union's timing got the community's
attention, it in no way got community support. ... The
union would have served its own cause and the community
better by giving Anchorage parents a weekend's warning
in time to make child care, work and transportation
arrangements. Blindsiding thousands of families Friday
morning served no one's interest.
MR. LORENZ noted that in May 1999, Representative Kohring
received a letter from the Anchorage School District requesting
this legislation. He told the committee that the AASB
[Association of Alaska School Boards] also supports legislation
which would require and/or their bargaining agencies to give the
school district a 72-hour advance notice when a strike will
occur. The reason is unannounced strikes will undermine public
confidence in the public education system and not serve the
community well. The safety of school children would be
compromised in the event that school employees walk off their
jobs without adequate notice.
MR. LORENZ said HB 224 will require three work days' advance
notice but will not grant undue advantage to the districts.
Employees will retain the full use of the strike weapon while
protecting families and their school-age children from
unnecessary risk. Opponents of this bill will argue that this
will never happen again. However, the precedent has already been
set. He encouraged the committee to pass HB 224. It is a matter
of child safety, not union rights.
Number 1971
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN pointed out that when there is a school
closure for snow, parents are only given one day's notice. He
asked Mr. Lorenz why the bill specified three days' notice.
MR. LORENZ answered that the Anchorage School District requested
the three-day notice in order to make arrangements for the
children and to get the notification out.
Number 1918
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that he takes great umbrage with the
statement that this is a bill to address child safety issues;
it's not. The Anchorage School District, school boards and
administrators that are negotiating throughout the entire process
know there is the potential for a strike. If they fail to make
the appropriate arrangements, it is their fault, not the fault of
the employees who go on strike.
MR. LORENZ responded that as a result of the word not getting out
to the parents, children were left at the bus stops with no bus
service, or students were dropped off at the school doors without
anybody there to let them in or let them get out of the weather.
Normally, if the weather is bad and schools are closed, parents
know it the night before because they can see it, or it is
advertised on the radio. When it came to this strike, however,
the talks had been going on for a long time, and parents had no
way of knowing when they woke up that morning that there was
actually going to be a strike.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that it becomes a failure of the
administration to take the appropriate action when it was known
that a strike was a strong potentiality. Once again, it is not a
question of child safety; it is a question of lack of
preparedness by the school district that causes the negotiations
to go so far.
Number 1832
LARRY WIGET, Executive Director, Public Affairs, Anchorage School
District, came forward to testify. He stated that the Anchorage
School District does support a three-day work day advance notice
before a strike can be called. As evidenced by testimony by the
sponsor of the bill, written testimony provided to the committee
from the Anchorage School District, and articles and editorials
that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, their primary concern
for this legislation is for the safety of the students, by
allowing parents to provide a safe environment for students in
the unfortunate event of a strike.
MR. WIGET said in terms of the Totem strike that happened last
January, the district notified parents as soon as the district
became aware of it. The parents in Anchorage watched the 10 p.m.
news, but no indication was given then that a strike would be
called. At approximately 10:40 that evening, the district
received a call; that was after the news that the parents and
community were watching to find out the status of the next day's
activities. The district respects the right to strike and
believes that this law does not provide an unfair advantage in
labor negotiations. The district is not seeking an unfair
advantage. However, children should not be placed in an unsafe
situation, and the parents should have the opportunity to find
alternate means for their children; many parents work and
arrangements need to be made.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked: If child safety is the issue, then
why doesn't the school district negotiate in good faith with its
employees and make the appropriate preparations just in case?
MR. WIGET replied that is making an assumption that the school
district doesn't.
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Wiget why a three-day notice is
needed.
MR. WIGET said in discussions with the administration, that group
felt three days would provide fair and adequate notice for
parents to make alternative arrangements.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if those discussions include school
district employees that are represented by collective bargaining
organizations.
MR. WIGET said the discussion was held by the administration.
Number 1641
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Alaska Association for School
Boards (AASB), came forward to testify in support of HB 224. The
AASB has had a position on this for over five years. He was a
school board member in 1974 when the issue then was "meet and
confer" laws, and there was no finality. He shared some history
about the "meet and confer" laws and binding arbitration.
Somewhere in between those two resulted the legal right to
strike. The legal right to strike has been successful in many
cases in bringing the pressure that was required to get the
agreements finalized.
MR. ROSE noted that the job action may be between labor and
management dealing with salary and benefits. He said, "I don't
believe, and I don't think anyone here will say, that you're
striking the community or you're striking students. I believe
you're striking the school district." With 72 hours as the
ultimatum, the public pressure will be brought to bear in 72
hours for an agreement, or there will be consequences. He
believes it will be good for communities, and it's good for
children because parents and schools can prepare for their
safety. The pressure is on the people at the table to come up
with an agreement, or consequences will be recognized. His
counterproposal is that school districts should be given a 72-
hour notice of implementation of contract if they can't meet in
agreement. He is concerned about the issue of public confidence.
Number 1458
JOHN CYR, President, National Education of Alaska (NEA)-Alaska,
came forward to testify. He shared some history of negotiations.
He referred to the question about the health and safety of
children; if it were about the health and safety of children,
school districts would make those kinds of accommodations a long
time before that final hour. If school districts were concerned
about the health and safety of children, they wouldn't be hearing
about "we'll give you 72 hours before we implement." He stated:
What we would be hearing is if there's a strike, then
we're real concerned, and we'll agree to keep the
schools closed until the strike is settled. I may be
paranoid, but I've watched too many strikes, and I've
watched too many school districts enter into situations
where they try to hire replacement workers. This is
about strike breaking. This is about tilting the
playing field. I don't think that's fair. We have a
system that works. That's what this is about. This is
punitive. It's about punishing one group, that quite
frankly, they [NEA-Alaska] don't even represent, but
they [support staff] are folks who work in schools.
And if this happens here, it will happen in other
places.
I just don't think we need to do this. This is a bill
whose timing is poor, that changes the way the game is
played. If we're going to change the way the game is
played, then I would suggest that we look at some
amendments, [that] we look at keeping schools closed if
there is a strike, to keep students safe. If we don't
want to do that, I would suggest that we move those
folks who work in the schools in the same
classification as other public employees whose services
are too important to have them go out on strike and
give us binding arbitration. There are some ways to
handle this if there is legitimate concern. But I
don't think that is what this is about.
Number 1237
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Cyr if the replacement workers
generally meet the qualifications of the striking workers. He
would expect that bringing on replacement workers would cause a
greater child safety issue than the proposal that has been put
forth.
MR. CYR answered that there is no way that a school district can
hire replacement workers who are as qualified as those people who
are in the classroom. The school district is hiring warm bodies
without any checks, or they are going out of state to find
qualified people.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Cyr when the schools would be shut
down.
MR. CYR said if the school district wishes the union to give
notice, the union would have no objection to giving notice if the
school districts will agree that they won't use that period of
time to hire replacement workers. The schools would remain
closed for the period of the strike to keep the students safe.
Number 1118
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Cyr about giving notice only 24
hours before the strike begins.
MR. CYR said the union sees no need to give notice. He would
prefer 24 hours to three days. He doesn't know why the school
district needs it at all if they do a good job of informing their
constituents. Recently, in Ketchikan, the union just went out on
strike, and the district was told on Friday if there wasn't a
contract settled by Monday, the members would be on the street.
The district agreed to close the schools and then late Sunday
evening announced that the schools would be open. The district
put the students in the same kind of position that Anchorage
accuses the Totem union of doing. Neither situation is right.
Number 0986
CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that he has learned some new perspectives.
He said:
When you had said before that this bill would tilt the
game, all I could think of was you were saying in order
for the bargaining unit to prevail, the public has to
have a lot of discomfort and because of their
discomfort put a lot of pressure on the administration
to either come to the table or agree. Now I'm not so
sure that you're against this bill just because it
decreases the public discomfort.
MR. CYR answered:
Quite honestly, anytime there is a strike, there is a
failure on both sides. Any union that leads its folks
out into the street has done a disservice to the folks
it serves. It happens. Unfortunately, because we are
public employees and we work with kids and in schools,
it is markedly different than shutting down the coal
mine, if you will. If there was some other way to do
it, it would certainly meet my needs.
Number 0896
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, came forward to testify in support of HB 224. He
also shared some strike history. The ACSA supports this bill to
protect the children and to protect the teachers from negative
public relations if notice isn't given.
Number 0760
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the parents are not really a
part of the long process of negotiation. He asked Mr. Hargraves
if he viewed this as a way to involve parents in the process.
MR. HARGRAVES said that could be a fallout result, but that is
not what he is after. If the school district starts considering
a lockout or implementing other types of actions, then they also
need to make the announcement to the unions.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Hargraves if the three days' notice
would primarily be a time to increase pressure to get back to the
table and solve the problems, or would it be as Mr. Cyr suggests,
a time for the school district to hire replacement workers in
order to break the strike and break the union.
Number 0645
MR. HARGRAVES said he believes districts could use it both ways.
The pressure that the district can bring against the teachers'
union is not his concern. He is advocating for advanced notice.
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced that the committee would take an at-ease
to figure out what would be the best course of action to take
that would address everyone's concerns. The committee took an
at-ease from 5:32 p.m. to 5:40 p.m.
Number 0539
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
changes page 2, line 28, from "three days" to "24 hours".
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was any objection. There
being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move HB 224, as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kemplen, Coghill,
Green and Dyson voted in favor of moving the bill.
Representative Brice voted against it. Representatives Morgan
and Whitaker were absent. Therefore, CSHB 224(HES) moved from
the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee by a
vote of 4-1.
HB 260 - MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM COVERAGE
Number 0280
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill
No. 260, "An Act relating to coverage of children and pregnant
women under the medical assistance program; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0262
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner, Department of Health & Social
Services, came forward to testify in opposition to HB 260. She
informed the committee the Denali KidCare program will reach its
first birthday March 1. The legislature enacted the program
about two years ago, and it has only operated for one full year;
that is a pretty short time to talk about changing it. Denali
KidCare offers more children in working families health care
coverage, it covers pregnant women, and it is a streamlined way
of government doing business in signing up children. If the
coverage went away today, approximately 7,000 children and about
800 pregnant women would lose their coverage. The program has
turned out to be cheaper than the department thought. It roughly
costs the state around $472 in general funds a year, about $40
per month.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE informed the committee the federal government
is paying 72 cents on the dollar for this service, and this
program is authorized for ten years. The state is only in the
second year of the program, and the state part of Denali KidCare
is financed through savings in changing the Medicaid match.
Money was freed up for use toward more health care coverage. If
HB 260 were to pass, Alaska would be the only state in the nation
without a child health insurance program. She discovered in
talking to private insurers and business people, there is a hole
in the market.
TAPE 00-15, SIDE A
Number 0011
COMMISSIONER PERDUE explained the national Child Health Insurance
Program was launched to provide health insurance access for the
person working in small business or part-time who didn't have
coverage. Alaska has a more extensive problem because many more
people are either self-employed or are in very small businesses.
She has not heard of a private sector solution that would meet
this need for insurance. She concluded by expressing her
opposition to HB 260.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked how reducing the qualifying level from 200
percent down to 133 percent makes Alaska a state without a child
health insurance program.
Number 0154
NANCY WELLER, Medical Assistance Administrator, Division of
Medical Assistance, Department of Health & Social Services, came
forward to explain. Under federal law, children up to the age of
six are required to be covered at 133 percent of the federal
poverty level. Children over the age of six up to the age of 18
are being phased in one year at a time to 100 percent of the
federal poverty level which is the mandatory level for those
children 6-18. The 16 year old children are now being phased in
this year and in two years mandatory coverage at 100 percent of
the federal poverty level for children up to age 18 will be
complete. Therefore the child health insurance program would
only include children ages 6-18 at the 133 percent level under
the proposed committee substitute. The new fiscal note shows
only 2,738 children would retain coverage on the Child Health
Insurance Program of the 7,000 expansion children that are
currently covered under Denali KidCare.
Number 0257
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if it was accurate to say if this bill were
to pass in its present amended form, there would be an insurance
program in Alaska that continued at the level that the federal
government had before, so there is still a program going on,
there just isn't the supplementary coverage provided by the state
in Denali KidCare.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE replied that she didn't know if that would be
accurate. She said Alaska's state health insurance program would
be the puniest in the nation, and all the pregnant women would
lose their coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Commissioner Perdue if that would put
many unborn babies at risk if they were no longer covered.
Number 0374
COMMISSIONER PERDUE replied absolutely. At any one time about
1000 pregnancies were covered, and many of the pregnant women now
covered were foregoing prenatal care until later in their
pregnancies. She believes prenatal care is the most cost-
effective health care investment anyone can make.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Commissioner Perdue if she thought
some of those pregnant women might resort to abortions if they
were not covered.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE remarked that she can't say what people's
personal decisions would be, but lack of coverage gives them less
options. She reminded the committee that the year the
legislature enacted this law for pregnancy coverage, the public
funding for abortion was eliminated. That was part of the
discussion at the time. This bill would certainly foreclose
every option.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN mention that the Center for Families made
a presentation in the Children's Caucus today, and they
emphasized it is important to implement prevention services for
children because those services are the most cost-effective
techniques available. He wanted to confirm that is what Denali
KidCare does.
Number 0550
COMMISSIONER PERDUE answered it does that, and it also helps with
catastrophic events. If people don't have insurance or are only
covered for catastrophic coverage, it is often a choice for the
family between going for the checkup and getting the last week
out of the paycheck. More children show up at the emergency
room, which is the most expensive care, because the emergency
room takes a credit card; usually people have to write a check at
the doctor's office. She emphasized that it is not that parents
are irresponsible; it is that they don't necessarily always have
the money when the illness arises.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE noted the other issue is if people were to
try to buy the preventive coverage, the people whose children are
very sick would be attracted to the pool because those people
really need the coverage. The premiums go up because those
people are attracted to the product. That has been the
difficulty of having small pools of people in the private
insurance settings. Therefore only the catastrophic coverage
gets offered.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said it was reported to him that a family of four
would qualify at the present 200 percent level if their income
was under $41,000. With permanent fund dividends (PFD,) the
income would be up to $48,000-$49,000. He asked if it was
correct that the PFDs were not counted in the income to qualify.
Number 0674
MS. WELLER answered that it would depend on when people applied.
Coverage is based on the monthly income unless people are
seasonally employed in which case the income is annualized.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if it is the Administration's position that
a family with a $48,000 annualized income is the working poor
that can't afford health insurance for their children.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE answered generally, yes. Those individuals
are not thought to be destitute, but the goal is to try to
provide access for parents to get health insurance for their
children and/or pregnancy and to act responsibly. Sometimes the
choice is quitting a job and going back on welfare. In some ways
that is the most responsible thing to do if the children need
health coverage. The problem is responsible parents cannot
access the coverage, and the goal is to try to get as many
children as possible covered.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Commissioner Perdue if it is her position
that 200 percent is exactly the right number.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE answered it is unfair to count the PFD as
extra income because it is not counted for a lot of other things.
The decision has been made in this state that the PFD does not
disqualify people for things. She believes that 200 percent is a
good level. It is a medium level compared to other states. Many
states are way above 200 percent in this program. It is not out
of line for what is going on in the nation.
Number 0873
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL disagreed that the 200 percent level is
where people really become needy.
Number 0949
COMMISSIONER PERDUE summarized by saying she does understand the
philosophical issue; it was debated two years ago when the
legislature passed this bill. She deeply resents the concept
that these parents are somehow not responsible. She believes the
parents are doing responsible things. She does not believe
someone could take a PFD and turn it into health insurance for a
child; it would only buy a couple of month's worth of coverage.
The message should not be sent out that these parents are somehow
not doing right by their children by getting this health coverage
or that pregnant women are not somehow doing right by getting
this coverage.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said if he implied that, it certainly was not his
intention.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that was not his intention.
Number 1006
COMMISSIONER PERDUE emphasized that this is not welfare. This is
health coverage for children whose families are working, and they
cannot access it easily in the private market.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the threshold is one where someone
either is or is not covered, or is it a sliding scale.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE answered that it is not a sliding scale.
Number 1061
JANICE TOWER, Alaska Chapter of the American Academy of
Pediatrics, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
dittoed Commissioner Perdue's remarks about why this bill should
not pass. She testified on behalf of the Alaska Chapter of the
American Academy of Pediatrics which is an organization of 63
pediatricians and pediatric sub-specialists from across the
state. In 1998, the legislature passed HB 369 by 26-8 and 14-5;
that authorized the Denali KidCare program. Representatives
Green, Kemplen and Brice each voted in favor of this bill. The
legislature is to be congratulated for having passed one of the
best bills ever devised for children and expectant moms.
MS. TOWER stated that HB 260 is a step backwards to the twentieth
century. Since Denali KidCare was launched last March, there has
been a 27.6 percent increase in the number of children in the
Fairbanks North Star Borough who now have health insurance
through this program. Similarly, the Kenai Peninsula Borough can
be proud that there's been an increase of 55.3 percent in health
insurance enrollments through this program. She pointed this out
because she understands that at the last hearing there was
testimony from Kenai opposing this program. It is unfathomable
that something so successful can be looked upon as undesirable.
She sincerely hopes this will be the last that is heard about
rescinding this valuable program and that more monumental
decisions that benefit children and families will be made this
session.
Number 1182
LEILA WISE testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said
it sounds like Representative Coghill and other members of the
committee believe that Denali KidCare represents some kind of
socialized medical program; she doesn't see it that way. One of
the ways she looks at it is as a subsidy to business to allow
businesses, whether big or small, to pay their employees small
amounts of money and fail to provide health insurance. She urged
the committee to look at the bill in other ways. It is not just
the 28 cents on the dollar that the state provides for health
insurance for low income children and pregnant women.
MS. WISE stated that anytime pregnant women are covered with
health care or deafness in children can be avoided because their
ear infections were treated is important. She is interested in
preventing incidences of fetal alcohol syndrome or cocaine
babies, and she is also interested in mental health care. The
dollar investment in preventing and treating mental health issues
will prevent greater costs later. The small amount of money paid
for this program now is well worth it.
Number 1341
GEORGE HIERONYMOUS, Executive Director, Beans' Cafe and Kids'
Kitchen, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. The Kids'
Kitchen program feeds underprivileged children in Mountain View,
Fairview and the Muldoon area. A number of those children are
now covered with this program that would not have had coverage
before because their parents made over the 100 or 133 percent.
By the time a single mother with three children pays for clothes,
school costs and everything else, she can't afford to pay for
insurance for her children. Bean's Cafe offers insurance for the
employees, but if one of the employees want to insure their
children, it costs $400 a month, not the $40 a month that the
state pays. Not many people making $25,000-$35,000 can afford
another $400 a month.
MR. HIERONYMOUS noted that preventive care is very important. He
sees what happens without the preventive care every day at Bean's
Cafe. He can't serve corn on the cob because a number of the
people did not have dental care when they were young, nor have
dental care now. The children need to have their dental, health
and mental problems taken care of early. He opposed HB 260.
Number 1423
MICHELLE SCHUMACHER testified via teleconference from Homer. She
told the committee that her son was born with a tumor in his
head. Had he not been covered by Denali KidCare, she and her
husband might have waited to have his head examined. After many
tests, it was discovered that the tumor was rapidly growing
further into his brain. She is happy to report that her son had
surgery and now has a clean bill of health. She and her husband
are so thankful for the Denali KidCare program and can't stress
that enough. If it weren't for Denali KidCare, her family would
presently be seriously in debt. Now she and her husband have
health insurance through their jobs. She once again thanked
Denali KidCare for the health of her son. She urged the
committee to help the children by not passing this bill.
Number 1486
LAUREN CARLTON testified via teleconference from Homer. She is
pregnant, is on Denali KidCare now and is grateful for the
program. She feels strongly that Representative Coghill is
missing the whole point of this program. It's not just for the
lower income people. This program was to fill a gap that the
private sector has not filled even though there has been great
economic growth in the country. Yet the private sector hasn't
found a way to make insurance available to everyone that needs it
other than catastrophic insurance.
MS. CARLTON read in the newspaper on February 7, where
Representative Coghill states that he doesn't think the
government should be the supplier. She would like to know why
people pay federal income tax, sales tax or property tax if
people don't get something out of it that would really make a
difference. The Denali KidCare program is making a huge
difference to a lot of people. It is not a handout; it is a way
for people to get insurance. An income of $40,000 (prior to
taxes taken out and social security) for a single parent who has
two or three children is not a lot of money these days in Alaska.
She also noted that the federal government has guaranteed this
program for ten years. She feels frustrated that all this time
and energy is being spent on removing something that is a good
thing.
Number 1639
RUTHE KNIGHT testified via teleconference from Valdez. She has
listened to all the previous testimony, and one thought going
through her head is the possibility that many of the children
that will need more time on task in school [as a result of
failing the benchmarks or high school graduation qualifying
exam], wouldn't need more time on task if they had adequate
prenatal care.
MS. KNIGHT has seen the Denali KidCare program help many families
throughout the state of Alaska. It is one of the few pieces of
legislation that has really helped the people in Alaska. There
are many resource industry families that have never been able to
have health insurance for their children, and this last year
those families got that. More children are getting preventive
care so they don't have to have the treatments they would have
had if the prevention hadn't been there. It is way too soon to
do anything with the original legislation that was passed in
1998. It needs to run for at least ten years. She believes cost
savings will be seen in many difference places that probably
haven't even been looked at. She urged the committee not to
touch the original legislation, and she opposed HB 260.
Number 1752
PATRICIA MACPIKE testified via teleconference from Sitka. She
works with emotionally disturbed children and her child is
covered by Denali KidCare. It dismays her to be considered part
of the working poor because she works very hard with emotionally
disturbed children. Some of the people in that field cannot be
paid enough. She challenged the committee to work with
emotionally disturbed children one day.
MS. MACPIKE pointed out that parents who work seasonally have
difficulty finding health insurance for their children. Her
husband works seasonally for the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game; his position has been downsized due to funding cuts. It
costs $586 a month for continued coverage of the state insurance
during the off season for her husband and daughter. If the
deductibles are included, it is quite costly and almost not
effective. They just hope no one in the family gets ill. She
wondered if the legislators are covered by state health insurance
when they are not in session. She noted that the cost of living
and the cost of health care are continually increasing. Along
side that comes the cost of education. She and her husband both
have degrees, and it did not come cheap. They only have one
child by choice because between the costs of education and health
care, they can only afford one child. She opposes HB 260. [HB
260 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1906
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Committee meeting was
adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|