02/20/2001 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2001
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to charter schools; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to reimbursement of certain student loans; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 37(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"An Act repealing the termination date of changes made by ch.
87, SLA 1997 and ch. 132, SLA 1998 regarding child support
enforcement and related programs; repealing the nonseverability
provision of ch. 132, SLA 1998; repealing certain requirements
for applicants for hunting and sport fishing licenses or tags,
and for certain hunting permits, to provide social security
numbers for child support enforcement purposes; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 101
SHORT TITLE:CHARTER SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/02/01 0225 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/02/01 0225 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
02/12/01 0303 (H) EDU REFERRAL WAIVED
02/20/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 10
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE:STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0033 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0034 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/17/01 (H) EDU AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
01/17/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/17/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
01/31/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/31/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/07/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/07/01 (H) Moved CSHB 37(EDU) Out of
Committee
02/07/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/09/01 0279 (H) EDU RPT CS(EDU) NT 3DP 4NR
02/09/01 0279 (H) DP: PORTER, WILSON, STEVENS;
NR: GREEN,
02/09/01 0279 (H) GUESS, JOULE, BUNDE
02/09/01 0279 (H) FN1: (EED)
02/20/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 41
SHORT TITLE:CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT/SOC SEC. #
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0046 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0046 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
01/10/01 0047 (H) FN1: ZERO(REV)
01/10/01 0047 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/25/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/25/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/15/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(HES)
02/20/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on HB 37.
BETH NORDLUND, Special Assistance
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on HB 37.
DOUG LETCH, Staff
to Representative Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 428
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 37.
SEAN REILLY
1106 C Street
Juneau Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
LOIS PETERSON, School Library Media Coordinator
Libraries, Archives & Museums
Department of Education and Early Development
344 West 3rd Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 37 for the recognition of
librarians as certified teachers.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 West 7th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 41.
RANDY LORENZ, Staff
to Representative Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the proposed amendment for HB 41.
JOHN MALLONEE, Data Processor Manager
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 West 7th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 41.
SHARRON O'DELL, Staff
to Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 41.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Members present at call to order were Representatives Dyson,
Wilson, Coghill, Stevens, and Cissna. Representative Kohring
joined the meeting as it was in progress.
HB 101-CHARTER SCHOOLS
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear testimony on
HOUSE BILL NO. 101, An Act relating to charter schools; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR DYSON stated his intention to open the hearing on HB 101
but not to act on it today. [Chair Dyson asked later in the
meeting whether anyone was available to testify, but there was
no response. HB 101 was held over.]
HB 37-STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear testimony on
HOUSE BILL NO. 37,"An Act relating to reimbursement of certain
student loans; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was CSHB 37(EDU). In the packets, but not adopted as
a work draft, was version 22-LS0287\J, Ford, 2/16/01.]
Number 0195
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, speaking as the sponsor of HB 37,
stated:
Public education is truly at the crossroads. We're
demanding more of our students, such as the exit exam,
and we're trying to raise student achievement, while
at the same time we are facing an all-time shortage of
teachers, especially in rural Alaska. As you know,
the Alaska Student Loan Forgiveness Program ended in
1980 and has succeeded in encouraging many students to
return to Alaska as teachers. Today there is no
incentive in the Alaska Student Loan Program that
would encourage Alaskans to return home after
finishing their education and becoming certificated
teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS continued, stating:
As you also know, other states are doing their best to
attract and retain teachers. They are using a wide
variety of incentives such as higher salaries, signing
bonuses, a down payment on homes, mortgage subsidies,
as well as student loan forgiveness. You may have
heard, Broadner's Alaska Legislative Digest of
February 2, 2001, it included a couple of very telling
charts. The first one was the percent change in
average teacher salary from 1989 to 1999. It showed
that in current dollars the U.S. average was 37.3
percent, while in Alaska it was 12.2 percent. A
second chart showed the percent change in average
teacher salary from 1989 to 1999 in constant dollars,
and this chart showed the U.S. average at 2.8 percent,
while in Alaska it was minus 16 percent. Clearly,
we're headed in the wrong direction.
Number 0359
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that this indicates that Alaskan
teacher salaries are becoming less and less competitive in the
face of a national teacher shortage.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that in this past year there
were unfilled positions across the state in math, special
education, and speech pathology. For the 1999/2000 school year,
1,335 new teachers were hired in Alaska. On the first day of
school, 84 teaching positions were still unfilled; some remained
unfilled for several months. Districts were forced to hire
unqualified teachers on emergency certificates and teachers with
minimal qualifications. He said this bill would forgive 10
percent a year, up to a total of 50 percent, for Alaskans who
return to teach in Alaska. Forgiveness will only be given if an
Alaskan student has returned home and taught for a year. He
clarified that this is a credit on the student loan, not a
reimbursement.
Number 0489
CHAIR DYSON asked if there is any incentive for someone who gets
a commercial loan or uses his or her own funds, instead of
getting a state loan.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS replied that someone could only receive
forgiveness through the state loan program, not through a bank
loan.
Number 0665
CHAIR DYSON asked what the present forgiveness rate is.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS replied that there is no forgiveness
rate.
Number 0740
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
came forth and stated that there is not, in the Alaska Student
Loan Program (ASLP), a forgiveness benefit under the contracts
that are currently being issued. There are some existing
benefits from the pre-1988 loans that are still paid out as they
are claimed. The only programs that have some forgiveness
benefits are those such as the Alaska Teacher Scholarship Loan
Program, which requires that the student have graduated from a
high school in Alaska and have been nominated by a rural school
district in Alaska; the student would then have to teach in a
rural or Bush school to receive the benefits under that program,
which are 100 percent forgiveness of debt.
Number 0821
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how the contract [under HB 37]
would prove the [teacher's] employment time.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that the person would have had to
teach one year in an Alaskan school district to be able to apply
for forgiveness. It takes a period of six years for the person
to be forgiven the whole 50 percent.
MS. BARRANS replied that teachers who want to receive the
benefit are required to file and claim that benefit. The EED
could verify a person's employment as a teacher in Alaska.
Number 0908
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked, if this bill passes, whether a
teacher teaching this year would qualify [for the forgiveness].
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he does not believe so. The
person would have to start teaching the next school year, since
it takes effect July 1, 2001.
MS. BARRANS remarked that the in latest version of the bill,
page 2, line 11, states: "This Act applies to loans entered on
or after July 1, 2001". She said that unless current borrowers
continue to borrow in the next loan year, they would not have a
loan that qualified for a benefit.
Number 1020
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked: If a person has one more year of
school, applies for a loan for that last year, and then teaches
for a year, could he or she, two years from now, get the last
year of school [loan] forgiven?
MS. BARRANS answered that the last year's loan would be subject
to up to 50 percent forgiveness if the person taught for a total
of five years.
CHAIR DYSON asked when the loan recipient starts making
payments.
MS. BARRENS, replied that the repayment period begins six months
after the separation from school. In response to a comment by
Representative Dyson, she explained that because the borrower
would only receive up to 50 percent forgiveness, he or she will
still have to repay the other 50 percent balance on his or her
loan. Therefore, the individual should get the full benefit
available if he or she teaches for all five years.
CHAIR DYSON asked how 50 percent was decided upon as the right
percentage of forgiveness.
Number 1160
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS explained that he had hoped that the
legislature would be willing to pay the bill of 50 percent and
didn't think they would be willing to pay 100 percent.
CHAIR DYSON stated that there is a crisis in getting and keeping
special education teachers in Alaska. He asked if that was a
problem in Representative Stevens' area [Kodiak] and if the
crisis with special education is disproportionate to the other
education categories mentioned [math and speech pathology].
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS responded that there are particular
problems throughout the state in special education and math. He
stated that this occurs in his district as well as every other
area in Alaska.
Number 1241
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the possibilities of
refinancing the loans were for instance, if someone started
teaching but wanted to combine the first two years of the loan
with the last two years.
MS. BARRENS stated that the commission has the statutory
authority to offer consolidated loans; however, it has not
developed a product to do this. The financial implications and
the implications on the legislative willingness to finance any
forgiveness benefits that could accrue to someone through a
refinanced loan would have to be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that this is up to a GF (general
fund) number that's decided by the finance committee at the end
of the day.
MS. BARRANS stated that there would be a general fund
appropriation to finance this program. The limitations as to
how far it will go and how many people it will affect will be
based on that fiscal note. If the program were put into statute
and did not receive subsequent appropriations, it would become
an unfunded mandate, but not one that the corporation would put
itself in a position of being liable for.
Number 1359
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this forgiveness would include
school librarians. She stated that one of her constituents
wrote her: "Today's school librarians are certified elementary
or secondary school teachers with endorsements from
approximately 30 additional credits in the field of school.
Each day librarians instruct students and often they're teachers
on the use of reference materials."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that this would apply to any
certificated teacher, which includes librarians.
BETH NORDLUND, Special Assistance, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development, came forth to
discuss HB 37.
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Nordlund to give an idea of the magnitude
of shortages in specific education categories.
Number 1475
MS. NORDLUND said that she could testify only about the overall
teacher shortage. She stated that the Alaska Teacher Placement
Center has a report coming out this month that would give a
better update on the areas of shortage around the state.
CHAIR DYSON asked if she could speak generally about the
problem.
MS. NORDLUND answered that she has heard that science is another
area of shortage. She added that she couldn't give additional
categories because it's dependant on the area. She said there
are serious regional shortages, and that some of the urban areas
are suffering in the area of special education. She added that
there are some regions of Alaska that are having difficulties
hiring teachers all together.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the Alaska Teacher Scholarship Loan is
aimed at addressing the rural student.
MS. NORDLUND replied that it addresses the supply of rural
teachers for the rural areas.
Number 1564
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that the student scholarship
program [Alaska Teacher Scholarship Loan] is wonderful and does
zero in on rural districts, but it requires a student to decide
at the age of 17 to become a teacher.
CHAIR DYSON asked what would happen in the "out years" if this
[ASLP] is successful and there is a glut of teachers and no
demonstrable public need in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that there is a cycle, but it [the
shortage] does seem to be particular bad right now, across the
nation.
Number 1700
MS. NORDLUND referred to the "Resolution of the State Board of
Education & Early Development on Teacher Loan Forgiveness" [in
packet]. She read:
Quality teachers and administrators are a crucial
component for raising student achievement; Alaska is
experiencing a statewide shortage of teachers and
administrators; teacher and administrator turnover is
at best disruptive and at worst disabling to education
reform, an especially acute problem in rural Alaska;
states all across America are going to great lengths
to attract and retain teachers and administrators,
offering a wide variety of incentives; and demographic
trends make it unlikely that Alaska educational
institutions will be able to produce more than one
third of the teachers our schools need each year.
MS. NORDLUND noted that Alaska's educational institutions
currently supply Alaska's public schools with only 30 percent of
the teachers that are needed.
Number 1735
MS. NORDLUND read from the "Public School Funding Formula,
Educational Adequacy' [in packet]:
Many states and outside school districts offer
incentives [such] as: signing bonus, down payment on
a home, mortgage subsidy, and student loan prepayment
programs. Due to limited resources, Alaska school
districts continue to struggle to be competitive with
other states and outside school districts when
recruiting teachers.
MS. NORDLUND stated that as part of the Educational Adequacy
Funding Formula there is a list of teacher incentives offered in
other states.
Number 1795
MS. NORDLUND concluded that the next report that the legislature
will receive from the EED is the Education Funding Task Force
report. There is a concept in the report called Teacher Loan
Assumption, which is a hiring tool whereby a school district
offers to take over a teacher's loan from any accredited loan
[institution] in the nation. For a teacher in Alaska the state
would take over that loan payment of up to $2,000 a year or
$10,000 in total. This is different from loan forgiveness
because it costs more and is an incentive for people to come to
Alaska to be teachers. She added that more than 70 percent of
teachers in the state are from [out-of-state] institutions.
Number 1930
CHAIR DYSON referred to a pie chart from the Alaska Teacher
Placement Organization and asked if there are 1,100 full-time
school vacancies in Alaska.
DOUG LETCH, Staff to Representative Gary Stevens, came forth and
stated that the information on the pie chart was collected from
Melissa Hill, Director of the Alaska Teacher Placement program
at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He stated that the last
total, from early January, showed 136.5 vacancies that hadn't
been filled. The pie chart is referring to the total amount of
teacher positions that are out there.
Number 1983
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, in response to remark made by a staff
member, stated that anyone who is a certificated teacher and is
working in a school district in a certificated position, which
includes librarians, would be able to apply for forgiveness.
Number 2042
SEAN REILLY came forth to testify in support of HB 37. He said
that he went back to school to pursue a teaching degree. He
stated:
A lot of times when a good bill comes aboard, a lot of
people want to hop aboard with it. For example, you
say, "Well, gee, what about some other fields, and
what about people who have gone to school and are
presently in school. "Why can't they jump aboard
also?" Well, as you all know you have to be fiscally
responsible and I think the Representative wrote this
bill [to be] fiscally responsible. Therefore, instead
of putting too many people on the raft and sinking it,
if we just keep hold of the people that address this
bill, we'll do well. Also, I don't think that there
is a friction between whether you address those needs
by forgiveness of loans, as opposed to loan incentive
programs, bringing people in from the other states.
In other words, I think that there are so many
teaching positions that are needed in this state that
not only do we need the teacher scholarship loan
program, not only do we need the loan forgiveness
clause, but we also do need those incentive programs.
Number 2154
LOIS PETERSON, School Library Media Coordinator, Libraries,
Archives & Museums, Department of Education and Early
Development, testified via teleconference that school librarians
play the roll of teacher every day. She stated that there are
more positions than there are qualified school librarians to
fill those positions, so any encouragement for teachers to go
back to school to become librarians should be addressed in the
bill. She stated that school librarians are certified teachers
and have additional training in order to qualify as librarians.
In their contracts they are listed as school librarian or as
"district librarian". Unless the note is made that they should
be considered as teachers, they may be overlooked. She
expressed that she hoped the language would include teachers and
school librarians who are teacher certificated.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that there is no intention to
exclude school librarians, and that he has no objection to
amending this. He asked Ms. Peterson if there are other areas
that have been omitted.
MS. PETERSON said that perhaps it should say: "school district
employee hired under a teacher contract".
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he is concerned because
sometimes people who are not certificated are hired for
positions that are intended for certificated teachers.
CHAIR DYSON asked if line 8 on 22-LS028\C of the bill could be
changed to: "hired as a certified teacher".
MS. PETERSON replied that it would be clearer if it said:
"someone hired under a certified teacher contract".
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he would have no problem with
that, as long as it covers counselors and principals who are
also certificated and have been hired in those positions.
TAPE 01-16, SIDE B
Number 2396
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education
Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska), came forth to testify in
support of HB 37. He said that counselors should also be
included, particularly with all the work that is being done with
standards and testing.
CHAIR DYSON asked if librarians would not be qualified because
of language in the bill.
MR. MARSHALL stated that that was a concern raised by NEA-
Alaska. He said that he thinks it would be clarified if the
bill stated: "employed as a teacher or a librarian or a
counselor".
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if that would also include
principals.
MR. MARSHALL answered that principals may have a teaching
certificate; therefore, the bill perhaps should include
administrators, such as principals.
CHAIR DYSON noted that this could be offered as a conceptual
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that a section of the bill includes
the meaning of "teacher" and asked if that could be
incorporated.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Representative Wilson to read that
section.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON read from version 22-LS0287\J, page 2,
subsection (c):
In this section, "teacher" means a person who for
compensation instructs students in a public or private
elementary or secondary school and who possesses a
valid teacher certificate; "teacher" also includes a
person employed as a public or private elementary or
secondary school librarian.
Number 2279
MR. MARSHALL referred to the applicability section on page 2,
line 11, [CSHB 37 (EDU)]. He stated that, assuming that the
student is in a four-year program and achieves a degree, that
individual is going to be out of school in 2005. The student
will then teach five years and achieve 50 percent loan
forgiveness in 2010. Therefore, NEA-Alaska recommends that a
person who applies for a loan on or after July 2001, or who is
enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate program entered into on
or after July 1, 1997 qualify, for the Alaska Student Loan
Program. He stated that the reason for 1997 is that if a person
is in education now, he or she could have enrolled in academic
year 1997/98. He added that if the individual knew that he or
she was eligible for loan forgiveness in 2001/2002, this might
immediately enhance the teaching pool.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the impact would be if the
[ASLP] did go back and capture [those enrolled on or after July
1, 1997].
Number 2148
MS. BARRANS replied that the GF impact would be considerable.
She stated that Representative Stevens had requested that the
EED look at a slight retrospective application of the benefits
to the individuals who graduated on or after January of 2000.
In FY (fiscal year) '02, the estimated impact would be a $1.4
million GF appropriation, in '03 it would be $1.6 million, in
'04 it would be $1.9 million, and by '07 it would be $3 million
a year.
CHAIR DYSON asked how many education majors are currently in the
University of Alaska system.
MS. BARRANS answered that because the forgiveness doesn't limit
the benefits to people in the University of Alaska, the EED
looked at the entire database of education majors and those that
graduated with education majors. As a result, the estimates are
based on the current number of educators who had loans and are
teaching in Alaska.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the EED's fiscal note is based on the
assumption that a person who is teaching, and who has loans,
would apply and stay teaching.
MS. BARRANS stated that he was correct. It is based on
individuals who are borrowers, have a certain level of debt, and
are teaching in Alaska.
Number 2033
MS. BARRANS noted that if the bill clarifies that other
professionals who are not actually teaching but are certificated
were to be included, there would be an effect on the fiscal
note. She informed the committee that the current version of
the bill states that someone must be employed as a teacher.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the fiscal note includes librarians or
counselors.
MS. BARRANS replied that it does not.
Number 1993
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that the governor's Loan
Assumption Program that will be presented to the committee is
not exclusive of this bill. It may very well assist many of the
same people, he said, but he thinks the cost will be a lot
higher. He remarked that a third of the teachers each year
apparently come from the University of Alaska and that people
have a tendency to stay where they were educated. He stated
that this bill would be a very effective way to bring back the
Alaskans who have gone outside of the state to receive their
education. He concluded by saying he believes that once people
have taught in Alaska for five years, there's a good chance that
they will teach their entire careers here.
CHAIR DYSON passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Wilson, and made a
motion to CS for HB 37, version 22LS0287\J, Ford, 2/16/01, with
an amendment on page 2, line 20, adding "or counselor" after
secondary school librarian.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the sake of discussion.
CHAIR DYSON stated that he would also add on page 2, line 6
after the phrase "if the borrower is a special education
teacher", the phrase "or teaches in a rural school". He then
asked if "rural" is a term that means anything in the state
statute.
MS. NORDLUND answered that it means REAA (Rural Education
Attendance Area).
CHAIR DYSON responded, "or is employed in an REAA school."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that there is a problem with that.
For example, in his district there are urban schools and rural
schools; the latter are considered small village schools and not
part of REAA.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that her school district, Wrangell,
is considered the same way.
Number 1758
MS. BARRANS remarked that there is actually a definition of
rural, used in the Alaska Teacher Scholarship Loan Program, that
describes a community's size and its relationship on road or
rail to Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Juneau.
CHAIR DYSON remarked that the conceptual amendment would raise
the incentive level of the loan forgiveness to 75 percent for
special education teachers and those teaching in rural schools,
as per Ms. Barrans' definition. And it would include librarians
and counselors.
Number 1634
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he thinks this will cause a
significant rise in the fiscal cost beyond what can be handled.
He expressed that there is a teacher shortage, so this should
aim at the teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that he respects what the
amendment says, but fears that once additional elements are
added the bill will become less and less likely to see itself
through the legislative process. In response to Representative
Coghill, he stated that he has amended his thinking and thinks
the bill should aim at teachers, and be as simple and as clean
as possible. He confirmed that he would vote against the
amendment.
Number 1333
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kohring and Dyson
voted in favor of the committee substitute. Representatives
Cissna, Wilson, Coghill and Stevens voted against it.
[Representative Joule was absent.] Therefore, the motion failed
by a vote of 2 to 4.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that the committee's current
version, 22-LS028\C [CSHB 37(EDU)], includes 50 percent
forgiveness, and does not include 75 percent forgiveness for
special education teachers or include librarians and counselors.
Number 1228
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to move CSHB 37(EDU) from
committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 37(EDU) moved from
the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
HB 41-CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT/SOC SEC. #
Number 1222
CHAIR DYSON announced that the final item of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 41, "An Act repealing the termination date of
changes made by ch. 87, SLA 1997 and ch. 132, SLA 1998 regarding
child support enforcement and related programs; repealing the
nonseverability provision of ch. 132, SLA 1998; repealing
certain requirements for applicants for hunting and sport
fishing licenses or tags, and for certain hunting permits, to
provide social security numbers for child support enforcement
purposes; and providing for an effective date."
[In packets but not yet adopted was Version F, 22-GH1002\F,
Lauterbach, 2/16/01. As a result of being amended at the
previous hearing, Version F rolled CSSB 19(HES), except for the
title, into HB 41.]
Number 1160
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED), Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference.
She stated that the CS for HB 41, Version F, changes the recent
legislation's sunset provision relating to social security
numbers as well as provisions that deal with the financial
institutional data match program, which is a program CSED has
just begun to implement. She said it also adds some provisions
from the Senate Health, Education and Social Services (HES)
Standing Committee; if an employer did not provide information
on new hire reporting, there would not be a separate cause for
civil action. She remarked that for the most part, CSED has no
trouble with the changes. She noted that the current committee
is asking for the legislation to sunset in two years; although
CSED supports having it be five years, there would be no
objection to the two-year sunset.
Number 1110
CHAIR DYSON stated that he has a proposed amendment of his own
and asked Randall Lorenz, staff, to explain it. That amendment
to Version F, 22-GH1002\F.1, Lauterbach, 2/16/01, read:
Page 1, line 3, following "institutions":
Insert "; relating to child support payments"
Page 5, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 12. AS 25.27.103 is amended to read:
Sec. 25.27.103. Payments to agency. An
obligor shall make child support payments to the
agency if the agency is enforcing a duty of child
support under AS 25.25 or this chapter. The agency
shall disburse that portion of a payment that exceeds
the amount of money necessary to satisfy the obligor's
immediate duty of support in accordance with state and
federal requirements. Unless the obligor indicates in
writing that all or part of the payment should be
credited toward the obligor's arrears, the agency
shall credit a payment received in the last 10 days of
a calendar month against the immediate duty of support
that is due in the next calendar month if the
immediate duty of support for the current month has
been satisfied. The agency shall credit money
disbursed under this section [SUBSECTION] toward
satisfaction of the obligor's duty of support."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 2:
Delete "11 and 14"
Insert "11, 12, and 15"
RANDALL LORENZ, Staff to Representative Fred Dyson, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that presently, if an individual makes a
payment through the employer - for example, during the first
couple of days in February - and then, because of automatic pay
cycles, his or her March paycheck falls around the 25th, 26th or
27th of February, then that's considered by CSED an overpayment.
It would then go towards any back pay to either the state or
federal government, and would not be forwarded to the March
payment, which was the intent. As a result, the individual
learns, in March, that he or she is in arrears for not paying in
March. The problem is that CSED's computers are not forward-
looking to make sure that it has been taken care of prior to
making the state or federal payments. Mr. Lorenz stated that
this amendment, therefore, requires that any payment that comes
in the last ten days of the month be placed towards the next
month's fiscal requirement, if the current month has been taken
care of, unless that individual signs a waiver allowing it to go
to the federal or state arrearages.
Number 0954
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that she thinks that this is an
excellent idea and asked what Barbara Miklos thinks of it.
MS. MIKLOS stated that she doesn't think CSED disagrees with the
intent, but she thinks that there are a few cases where this
becomes a problem. She explained that if there are no
arrearages on the case, then the money is applied to future
payments. She added that arrearages on a case are monies owed
to the custodial parent, not to the state or federal government.
In fact, CSED's new distribution requirements state that the
custodial parent must be paid first. The biggest concern, she
said, is that this is not consistent with CSED's requirements
with the federal government in terms of how it distributes the
money collected. She deferred to Mr. Mallonee to speak to that.
Number 0960
JOHN MALLONEE, Data Processor Manager, Child Support Enforcement
Division (CSED), Department of Revenue, testified via
teleconference. He explained that Title 45, CFR (Code of
Federal Regulations) 302.51(a)(1), states:
For the purpose of distribution in a IV-D case,
amounts collected, except as provided under paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, shall be treated first as a
payment on the required support obligation for the
month in which the support was collected and if any
amounts are collected which are in excess of such
amount, these excess amounts shall be treated as
amounts which represent payment on the required
support obligation for previous months.
MR. MALLONEE said that there is also a (b) to that same section
that states:
If an amount collected as support represents payment
of the required support obligation for future months,
the amount shall be applied to such future months.
However, no such amounts shall be applied to future
months unless amounts have been collected which fully
satisfy the support obligation assigned under section
403(a)(8) of the Act for the current month and all
past months.
MR. MALLONEE stated that this is in contradiction to what the
federal distribution requirement has CSED doing.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked: Currently, when funds come in and
are first applied to the current month, if the individual were
two months in arrears, would the money go to that [back pay]
before it would go forward?
MR. MALLONEE replied that that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the obligor is asked to write a
statement saying that that's the case. He asked if there were
cases in which arrearages would be in contest in such a way that
this be effective in getting the money to the next forward
months.
MR. MALLONEE answered that a case where it might arise is if the
noncustodial parent were contesting what the arrearages were on
the case, and felt that that money was really being paid ongoing
and didn't agree with the arrears.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if having the noncustodial parent
sign an affidavit, or some kind of letter affirming that that
could happen, is just bringing him or her into the loop.
MR. MALLONEE answered that that's all it would do. He added
that he doesn't think that would solve the problem with the
federal requirement because the individual is just telling what
his or her intentions happen to be at that moment, but CSED's
distribution is based on when it collects the money and how the
case appears at that particular time.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that it's her understanding from
the amendment language that the individual would always be
paying forward, so the public money would never get recuperated.
Number 0576
CHAIR DYSON stated that the intent is for the money to go to the
support of the children. Any money that is intended to pay back
obligations would be separate. Chair Dyson asked Mr. Mallonee
when checks would be coming from the employer as opposed to
directly from the obligor.
MR. MALLONEE replied that part of the problem is that the
distribution rules are a little more specific for things that
come from an employer versus those things that come from an
individual. Checks that come from the employer must be
distributed by the distribution requirements within two days of
CSED receiving them. It is somewhat longer if it is paid
individually. He stated that there are times when the
employer's checks could be considered for the prior month.
Number 0460
CHAIR DYSON asked why the employers are sending checks for the
support of children that aren't theirs.
MS. MIKLOS answered that in 1994 or 1996 Congress required from
all states that child support be automatically carried out
through wage withholding. She said she thinks the intent in
having the employer withhold the money, which made a dramatic
increase in terms of child support, was that it would be more
consistent to withholding on federal income tax.
CHAIR DYSON asked: If the employer mails the check on the 22nd
or 23rd and CSED applies that to the month in which it is
received, takes the difference on any overages, and applies it
to back debts, would the obligor get a penalty in interest the
next month when the person isn't paid up to date?.
MS. MIKLOS replied that first of all, this is referring to a
person who is already behind in his or her child support
payments. The penalties would not increase in future months
when the person continues to be behind. If he or she were never
behind, then there would be absolutely no penalties because that
money would be applied to the future.
Number 0305
CHAIR DYSON asked if CSED is using any of the arrearages to
reimburse the state for welfare and ATAP (Alaska Temporary
Assistance Program) funds that have been given to the custodial
parents.
MS. MIKLOS answered yes, some of the money may go to the state
or federal government and some may go to the custodial parents.
Under CSED's new distribution requirement from the federal
government, it is required to pay the custodial parent first for
the arrearages. If the custodial parent is on public
assistance, the state would provide the child support payments.
CHAIR DYSON asked if there is any way to craft this so if the
obligor is behind on child support payments, any overpayments
would go to the custodial parent and the children, and not
reimburse the state for welfare or ATAP until the obligor
authorized money from his or her paycheck deductions or wrote a
check to make up those arrearages that are owed to the state.
MS. MIKLOS answered that child support payments that people pay
now, unless there's an instance of hardship, do include SS
(social security) money to pay back on arrears. Therefore, its
not that CSED doesn't collect the monthly support ongoing. If
the obligors are continually paying on future months and never
paying on the arrears, they will then be gathering more interest
as the money moves along. She added that in some ways this
would work to their disadvantage.
Number 0100
SHARRON O'DELL, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, came forth and stated that in 1999
Representative Kohring's office handled two cases like this,
which were garnishment cases with ATAP debt. In one case, CSED
would not reverse the second payment, stating it couldn't get
the money back from the public assistance office. In the second
case, CSED backed out the posting, re-receipted it, and reissued
a payment to the custodial parent. Because it was a military
check, CSED said it could do that. When CSED applies the second
payment received in the calendar month, because the first one is
received in the beginning of the month and the second is
received in the end of the month, the state robs the kids of the
very support that is says it gives them.
TAPE 01-17, SIDE A
MS. O'DELL stated that there must be some type of mechanism in
place that lets CSED distinguish money that is received that
way.
Number 0102
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked Ms. Miklos if there is a way that
this could be addressed.
Number 0200
MS. MIKLOS clarified that it doesn't matter where CSED gets the
money from, it must always be paid to the ongoing monthly
support first. Child Safety Enforcement Division's position on
whether there's a way to fix the problem has been that the most
important thing is to collect money for the children, although
CSED does believe people have an obligation to pay back the
state. Child Safety Enforcement Division would be interested in
trying to figure out a way for payments that happen to come in
late to be used for the next month. This [amendment] is not the
way, however, because it does not meet federal requirements and
it does not consider the money CSED gets from the Permanent Fund
Dividend Division or the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), which
must be applied to arrears.
Number 0327
CHAIR DYSON called an at-ease at 4:47 p.m. The meeting was
called back to order at 4:48 p.m.
CHAIR DYSON referred to the amendment, 22-GH1002\F.1. Beginning
on line 11 of the amendment, he asked Ms. Miklos how it would
work to delete the language, "Unless the obligor indicates in
writing that all or part of the payment should be credited
toward the obligor's arrears", and to have it read as follows,
beginning on line 9:
The agency shall disburse that portion of a payment
that exceeds the amount of money necessary to satisfy
the obligor's immediate duty of support in accordance
with state and federal [requirements]. The agency
shall credit a payment received in the last 10 days of
a calendar month against the immediate duty of support
that is due in the next calendar month if the
immediate duty of support for the current month has
been satisfied and the moneys will not be used to
satisfy past debts to the state.
Number 0429
MS. MIKLOS responded that there would be some real problems with
the expectation of the federal government in terms of being able
to satisfy not just the debt to the state but also the debt to
CSED. She emphasized the complexity of dealing with the IRS and
the permanent fund, for example.
CHAIR DYSON stressed the intent of keeping the money going to
the kids, and not having money arbitrarily siphoned off to pay a
back debt to the state. He suggested that there could be a
conceptual amendment sent to the drafters, or this could be
postponed until the beginning of the next meeting. He asked Ms.
Miklos what she would prefer.
MS. MIKLOS answered that she would rather wait until the next
meeting, to possibly come up with some language.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA suggested that the amendment state that
the amount required for the future month be satisfied first,
before back payments. In that way, there would be an
opportunity for money to be paid backwards. She asked Ms.
Miklos whether that would work.
CHAIR DYSON stated that he thinks this is on the right track.
Number 0609
MS. MIKLOS remarked that the reason CSED has introduced this
legislation is to avoid a federal penalty. Referring to CFR
302.51, she said the federal government has been pretty clear
regarding what CSED is expected to do with the money.
CHAIR DYSON suggested the language should be crafted to say that
the money is part of what happens every month, so that it
purposely excludes permanent fund dividends or income tax
refunds, for example. He said he is not interested in this
amendment precluding CSED's collection of back debts to the
custodial parent; rather, his concern is with the back debts to
the state that keep money from going to the kids.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING noted that he wouldn't be present at the
next meeting. He commented that normally he'd be reluctant to
vote for extending the sunset date of CSED, but he believes that
Ms. Miklos and her staff have done a good job. He said he would
support this legislation, at least in its current version. He
added that he thinks the issue on social security numbers was
handled better in this committee than in the Senate House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. [HB 41
was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|