Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 01:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 1999
1:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to the possession, manufacture, use, display, or
delivery of controlled substances while children are present."
- MOVED CSHB 180(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to state aid for education.
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the repeal of regulations by the legislature.
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 180
SHORT TITLE: DRUGS WHERE MINORS ARE PRESENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COWDERY, Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/07/99 671 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/07/99 671 (H) JUD, FIN
4/22/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/22/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/26/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 6
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Coghill
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/99
1/19/99 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 17 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/05/99 146 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL
3/16/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/16/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/23/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/23/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/23/99 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/01/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
4/01/99 (H) MEETING CANCELED
4/10/99 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
4/10/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/10/99 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/12/99 724 (H) HES RPT 1DP 4NR
4/12/99 724 (H) DP: COGHILL; NR: GREEN, MORGAN,
DYSON,
4/12/99 724 (H) WHITAKER
4/12/99 724 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
4/12/99 724 (H) REFERRED TO JUD
4/26/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SJR 3
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Kelly Tim, Phillips;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Harris
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/99 43 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/21/99 44 (S) STA, FIN
1/28/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
1/28/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
1/28/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
2/01/99 125 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1DNP
2/01/99 125 (S) DP: WARD, PHILLIPS, MACKIE;
DNP: ELTON
2/01/99 125 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S. STA)
2/05/99 164 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/11/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/11/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
2/11/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
2/11/99 227 (S) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/16/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/16/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/16/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
2/16/99 256 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 4NR 1DNP
2/16/99 256 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL; NR: GREEN,
2/16/99 256 (S) PETE KELLY, WILKEN, LEMAN; DNP: ADAMS
2/16/99 256 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV)
3/15/99 (S) RLS AT 1:40 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/15/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/16/99 564 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/16/99
3/16/99 570 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/16/99 571 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD
Y14 N4 E2
3/16/99 571 (S) THIRD READING 3/17 CALENDAR
3/17/99 585 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 3
3/17/99 585 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, PHILLIPS
3/17/99 586 (S) PASSED Y14 N4 E2
3/17/99 586 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/17/99 587 (S) RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY UNAN CONSENT
3/17/99 587 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO
3/23 CALENDAR
3/23/99 650 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION
3/23/99 651 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5
3/23/99 652 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/24/99 544 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/24/99 544 (H) STA, JUD, FINANCE
3/24/99 562 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HARRIS
4/08/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/08/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/08/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/08/99 687 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR
4/08/99 687 (H) DP: JAMES, COGHILL, WHITAKER, OGAN;
4/08/99 687 (H) DNP: SMALLEY, KERTTULA; NR: HUDSON
4/08/99 687 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/11/99
4/08/99 687 (H) REFERRED TO JUD
4/26/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
PETER TORKELSON, Researcher
for Representative John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6848
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in Version H and answered
questions on behalf of sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 6.
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher
for Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 6.
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Member
Anchorage School Board
P.O. Box 670772
Chugiak, Alaska 99567
Telephone: (907) 688-2308
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6.
BETTYE DAVIS
Address not provided
Telephone: (not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 6.
JOHN CYR, Representative
NEA-Alaska
1840 South Bragaw Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 274-0536
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 6.
KARLA FEELEY
2118 South Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-4435
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6.
JOSEPH L. STORY, Representative
Seventh Day Adventist Church
1507 Davidoff Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 966-2654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6.
MELINDA BROOKS
P.O. Box 873796
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-3860
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 6.
KERMIT REPPOND
1616 Selief Lane
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-6593
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6.
SHERRI JACKSON
P.O. Box 220612
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 248-0995
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
THERESE SYREN, Teacher
Lumen Christian High School
750 East Fireweed
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 272-7692
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6.
NICK BEGICH
16419 Marcy's Street
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 694-1277
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on SJR 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-41, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:25 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Green, James, Murkowski, Croft and
Kerttula. Representative Rokeberg arrived at 1:35 p.m.
HB 180 - DRUGS WHERE MINORS ARE PRESENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first item of business is HB 180,
"An Act relating to the possession, manufacture, use, display, or
delivery of controlled substances while children are present." He
noted that it had been heard by the committee previously.
Number 0057
PETER TORKELSON, Researcher for Representative John Cowdery, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. He
explained that a new work draft, Version H [1-LS0188\H, Luckhaupt,
4/22/99], corrects drafting errors brought up in the previous
committee hearing. This bill represents what the sponsor would
like to say on the issue, Mr. Torkelson told members, but he is
also open to the will of the committee regarding penalty provisions
or other matters that may need to be addressed.
Number 0112
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired about the changes from Version G to
Version H.
MR. TORKELSON pointed out that probably the most substantive change
is on page 2, line 18, which in Version H reads, "(c) Endangering
the welfare of a child in the first degree under (a)(1), (2) or
(4)". Subparagraph (4) references the new section in the lines
just above that, defining it as a C felony. The drafting error
hadn't specified to which penalty it applied. Version H also makes
the phrase "displayed, or delivered" consistent throughout, so that
it says "used, manufactured, displayed, or delivered".
Number 0211
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked about the decision to make it a Class C
felony.
MR. TORKELSON explained that the sponsor's original intent was that
this language be part of AS 11.51.100; the Class C felony is the
basic penalty that covers that section. However, as the committee
has noted, there are other penalties for varying degrees of
offenses, taking into account whether or not a child was harmed,
for example. They are amiable to amending that section, if it is
the committee's will, he added.
Number 0263
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that he was waiting for an
amendment from Jerry Luckhaupt that would change that conduct to a
Class A misdemeanor. He noted that it gets complicated because of
the various levels for varying physical harm. He and the judiciary
had wanted to amend it to put Class A misdemeanor on page 2, line
19; however, that affects subparagraphs (1) and (2).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt as a conceptual
amendment that the conduct in the new subparagraph (4) be penalized
at a Class A misdemeanor level. He expressed concerned about
amending it specifically at this point because of possible
unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested on page 2, line 18, making that a new
subsection (d), to say, "Endangering the welfare of a child in the
first degree under (a)(4) of this section is a class A
misdemeanor." The remaining subparagraphs would be renumbered to
correspond. He asked whether that would get to the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks so.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked for confirmation that subsection (c)
would be left as it is: (a)(1) and (2).
CHAIRMAN KOTT affirmed that.
Number 0429
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested they wouldn't want to call it
"first degree," to avoid confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that it is still first degree,
because it is all under AS 11.51.100.
CHAIRMAN KOTT concurred. He asked Representative Croft to explain
the proposed amendment.
Number 0463
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told members that Version H, without the
amendment, would place this on the same level of conduct as
"intentionally deserts the child in a place under circumstances
creating a substantial risk of physical injury to the child and the
child suffers serious physical injury" or "leaves the child with
another person who is not a parent, guardian, or lawful custodian
of the child, knowing that the person is a sex offender or has been
convicted of sex offenses, and the child suffers sexual contact or
sexual penetration."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that those are very serious
"endangering the welfare of a child" issues. More importantly, in
(a)(3), a showing is required of actual physical injury, whereas
(a)(1) and (2) regard leaving a child in conditions that everyone
can agree create a substantial risk of physical injury. Leaving a
child, or having a child remain, in the physical presence of
unlawful use is inappropriate behavior; it should be criminalized,
he concluded, but not at the level of leaving the child with a
known sex offender.
Number 0601
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to page 3, suggesting that reckless
disregard is a little different from having somebody just be in the
room.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reported that on page 3, it is a Class A
misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed that if that is a Class A misdemeanor,
the other certainly should be. He asked whether there is a
significant difference between negligently allowing a child to be
there, as on page 2, and reckless disregard, as on page 3.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that is a good question. Section .100,
on pages 1 and 2, is "being a parent, guardian or other person
lawfully charged with the care of". The ones on page 2, continuing
to page 3, are "a person commits the crime if".
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were further questions, and whether
the objection was maintained.
Number 0700
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI withdrew her objection.
Number 0741
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Version H [1-LS0188\H,
Luckhaupt, 4/22/99] as a work draft.
CHAIRMAN KOTT, hearing no objection, noted that Version H was
adopted. He then stated that there being no objection, the motion
to adopt the conceptual amendment, as set forth by Representative
Croft, was adopted.
Number 0775
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move Version H, as amended,
from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
zero fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 180(JUD) was
so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HJR 6 - CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HJR 6,
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to state aid for education.
Number 0828
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Alaska State Legislature, came before
the committee as sponsor of the resolution. He stated,
historically, HB 5 was before this committee which would have
established the framework for an education voucher system. The
committee felt that the framework would not have met a
constitutional muster, and HJR 6 is the result. He noted that the
resolution does not establish a voucher system. It simply asks the
question of whether or not the constitution should be changed. He
mentioned that Article 7, Section 1, says no money shall be paid
from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or
private educational institution. But, the intent of the Founding
Fathers of the state constitution was not to preclude a direct
benefit for individual children in terms of payment for public
dollars. The direct benefit that they were referring to was the
maintenance and operation of schools - the premise of his argument.
He reiterated that this resolution is not a voucher bill; it simply
addresses whether or not to change the constitution. If the voters
agree with changing the constitution, he would follow with
legislation that would put in the framework to provide monies to be
paid towards education choices, such as home schools, charter
schools, private institutions, etc.
Number 1065
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher for Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, came before the committee to further explain HJR
6. He stated the question before the committee today is whether or
not it wants to provide the opportunity for education choices in
the state. It's clear that the Founding Fathers of the state
constitution were inclined to support the individual child, and if
that meant an indirect gain for a private educational institution,
that was not a problem. They just did not want to support the
building or operation of that school. He further noted that it was
a decision of the supreme court in 1979 that linked the words
"direct" and "indirect" together to mean the same thing. The
resolution would go back to the original intent of the Founding
Fathers. It's important to keep in mind that there is a problem
right now with the Delta Cyber Charter School, which has had to
move forward with an injunction to stay open because of this exact
issue.
Number 1182
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
came before the committee to testify in opposition to HJR 6. He
noted that the association is opposed to vouchers. The issue of
vouchers comes down to choice. The public schools in Alaska offer
a tremendous amount of choice. They are locally controlled and
decisions are made to represent the communities. As a result, the
number of opportunities given to a community come as a direct
benefit from those who represent the school district. This issue,
however, lacks a recognition of the greater purpose. That being,
in a free, democratic society it is critical that there is a
well-educated populous. In that vein, the state has recently
identified standards as an issue to get behind - not only standards
for the students - but performances for professionals and system
accountability. He cited the exit exam as an example. The exit
exam has caused the school districts to exam what they are doing to
ensure that the students pass the exam in the face of limited
resources. He referred to SB 36 and noted that it was suppose to
address equity, quality initiatives, and adequacy. The issue of
adequacy is at the root of trying to expand the scope of education.
He cited that 90 percent of America's kids are educated in the
public system. The capacity of home or private schools is just not
in place to be able to satisfy the need of the electorate required
across the nation. He said, "When I take a look at the issue of
adequacy and how we're to make this turn to satisfy these quality
examinations, curriculum, development, professional development to
meet these standards we do so with very limited resources. To
allow an initiative such as this that would allow monies to be
passed through to privates to individuals. I think, if we want to
do that as a state, we should make a policy decision to completely
fund that effort. But, to take that from the public education
system as we struggle to make the improvements that we need to
make, I think, is a serious error."
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it appears that over the years the state
has gone astray in terms of morality in public education. She
asked Mr. Rose what he thinks is the responsibility of public
education in terms of morality.
Number 1451
MR. ROSE replied the issue of morality is something that is dealt
with at the dinner table. The public schools are an extension of
a community, and if there is a morality problem in a school it is
a reflection of society. It is something that everybody needs to
step up and take responsibility for - parents, community members,
church members, etc. He said, "I don't know that we can look to
our public schools to provide morality for our kids, and I don't
think all of us want that." He noted that the data shows the more
parents that help their children "navigate through the waters,"
that child has a better chance of being successful.
Number 1526
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that, according to her observation of
the public schools, the morality that was taught at home was undone
in the schools. She asked Mr. Rose what sort of obligation does
the school have to at least let the morality that is taught at home
be the morality that guides the child.
Number 1558
MR. ROSE replied the schools are governed under public policies
which are guided by the state constitution, laws, regulations and
negotiated agreements. If anything has been lost, it may have been
lost in the process. Mr. Rose further stated that through the
generations society has changed to the point that interests are put
before the interest of the state as a whole. The problem is deeper
than just saying that morality has changed.
Number 1671
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Rose whether the 90 percent
figure for the U.S. holds true for Alaska.
MR. ROSE replied, he doesn't have a specific number for Alaska, but
it probably is close.
Number 1693
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the resolution is a fore-leader to a voucher
system, and asked Mr. Rose how many states have implemented a
voucher system at this time and what are the results.
MR. ROSE replied, in looking at Wisconsin, the results are skewed.
The country hasn't been involved in a voucher system long enough to
collect data. In looking at public policy, the number of
opportunities for vouchers, charters or alternatives for public
schools are minuscule by comparison. In looking at home schools,
those students are doing extremely well on standardized tests. He
is not trying to discredit home schools, charter schools, private
schools or vouchers; he thinks they do very well, but the capacity
to handle the public's demand is limited. The right thing to do is
to provide appropriate funding for public schools, and to provide
appropriate funding for other alternative schools independently.
But, to expect the public school system to simultaneously improve
while funding other alternatives is a difficult task and one that
limits success for both.
Number 1783
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Rose whether, in his opinion, it's
more important to have overcrowded schools or a lower amount of
funding.
MR. ROSE replied he would choose to build more schools. He
understands the question, but he can't make a choice in that
regard. It's far cheaper to build new schools than to decimate a
system when the outcome of a newly created private system is not
known.
Number 1859
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is concerned because the kindergarten
enrollment is down. He wondered, therefore, whether in a few
decades there would be schools that are under capacity.
MR. ROSE responded the best thing to do is provide a quality system
for who is in Alaska now. He further stated that the best way to
deal with an economic slump is through the public system, even if
it includes double-shifting. He recalled that was an option in the
Mat-Su valley ten years ago. It is not a good option, however, to
look at a private system or voucher system as a means to relieve
the current problem.
Number 1918
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it is a public obligation to ensure that
every single child has the best education available. She further
stated, in reference to goals and exit exams, those types of things
were present when she was in school, which were eventually pared
down. Her main issue is that children shouldn't have to come home
from school and tell their parents that what they have been
teaching them is not what is being said in school.
Number 1976
MR. ROSE appreciated the comments of Representative James, and
noted that the state has recognized that and has decided to return
to a set of standards.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that many children don't see their parents
during the course of a week and aren't getting taught anything.
Number 2019
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Member, Anchorage School Board, came before the
committee to testify on HJR 6. In response to the sponsor seeing
a need for more options and choices for parents, she cited the
following choices and options that are available in the Anchorage
School District (ASD):
- Spanish emersion program;
- Japanese emersion program;
- Open-option schools that are available in all parts of town;
- Back-to-Basics schools;
- ABC schools;
- Montessori schools;
- School-of-the-Arts at West High School;
- Four charter schools, including a family partnership school
where parents design the curriculum and contract with
teachers;
- Individual classes of choice - university classes or classes
outside the district for credit; and
- Correspondence schools;
MS. OSSIANDER stated the school district is open to moving towards
more alternative schools, if a school community as a whole chooses
to embrace that. There are also plans for the construction of a
new Back-to-Basics ABC school in the Anchorage bowl area. In
addition, if the state chooses to move in the direction of a
voucher system, there would be strict accountability standards for
those that receive funding. In addition, in relation to the
current revenue picture, enlarging the pool of recipients for
public education dollars would bring an increased fiscal note.
Number 2161
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he was not aware of the options available
within the Anchorage School District. He referred to a letter that
the committee received indicating that the school district was not
able to meet her son's special education needs. He asked Ms.
Ossiander to respond to the letter.
MS. OSSIANDER replied, in general, special education services are
offered so that the parent component is required and necessary to
move ahead with a plan of service. The parent is a full, equal
partner. The Anchorage School District offers a broad range of
special education services. In fact, many members of the armed
forces request assignments in Anchorage because of the special
education services that are offered. She was not familiar with the
particular case that Chairman Kott mentioned, but she offered to
work with the individual in question.
Number 2226
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, of course, if the state is to provide
education services for every child there would be a fiscal note.
She asked Ms. Ossiander whether she believes that every child is
entitled to that amount of money regardless of where a child goes
to school.
MS. OSSIANDER replied she is coming from a position that strongly
values the public education system. It has been a great leveler in
the country, and has been a great means of upward mobility for some
who might not otherwise of had a chance. Certainly, the door to a
public education should be open to everyone, but if a person
chooses to not take advantage of that door, it doesn't mean that
the public should fund everyone's individual choice to move in
his/her own direction.
Number 2275
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she believes every child should have
his/her education paid for in some way.
Number 2281
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said, as a parent of two children enrolled
in an optional school in Anchorage, she knows how far out the ASD
has gone in terms of providing choice within a public school
system. She asked Ms. Ossiander what the other school districts
across the state are doing in terms of providing a choice.
MS. OSSIANDER deferred the question to others present, who can
answer it better.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI further stated that she hopes the ASD will
continue with these optional programs.
MS. OSSIANDER stated that the school board is committed to
providing choice and options in Anchorage.
Number 2332
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Ossiander what the regulations are
for private or religious schools now.
MS. OSSIANDER deferred the question to other present. Her job with
the school board is to deal with policy issues. In working with
the implementation of charter schools, they have expressed
frustration - and understandably so - with the bureaucracy
required. The steps involved are not broadly recognized.
Number 2379
BETTYE DAVIS came before the committee to testify in opposition to
HJR 6 as a representative of the Association of Alaska School
Boards and the Alaska State Board of Education. In response to
choices, a recent study shows that many school districts throughout
the state provide choices, even the smaller districts. In response
to regulations put on private schools, a teacher does not have to
be certified to teach in a private school. All teachers in a
public school have to be certified. They are paid more because
their salaries are agreed upon by the districts and the unions. In
a private school, there can be two people working for one salary,
but that is their choice.
TAPE 99-41, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. DAVIS continued. She stated most of the people in the room
probably went to a public school. She noted that she would not
have had the education that she has if it were not for the
opportunity to go to a public school. She said: "I can't say that
there would not have been something in place that might of--would
have met some of the needs of people, but all the people's needs
would not have been met and we would not have as many people with
a high school education as we do today had it not been for public
education." Although this resolution does not address vouchers
directly, she reminded the committee members that they let HB 5 go
because they found it unconstitutional. "I say before they bring
to you an amendment then they ought to be addressing why they want
the amendment in the first place and convincing you - the
legislators - that it should be before you take it to the public
and have them voted on something that sounds good." It might not
be in the public's best interest. In addition, why change the
constitution when the framework has not been developed to show that
the state is ready for the voucher world? She noted that no state
has adopted a voucher system statewide. The sponsor indicated,
when discussing HB 5, that he wants a voucher system regardless of
the cost because that is what his constituents want. The sponsor
further indicated a voucher system would be a panacea for charter
schools, but Ms. Davis stated that charter schools are public
schools not private schools. They wouldn't get any more money and
the sponsor should not be saying that. She agrees with charter
schools and believes that they are quite valuable to the larger
school districts. In conclusion, she stated that the time is not
right for a voucher system to be considered given the state's
fiscal gap. Where will the dollars come from to help remediate the
students who do not pass the qualifying exam? "The final thing
that I will say, if we're going to bring vouchers into our state
then some of the regulations that are not there for the private
sector need to be put there. And, if they have to do the same
thing that we did, then they're no longer private except that it's
just a private source because they would have to change the way
they do business also. That mean they'd have to pay their teachers
more; that'd mean that they would have to also meet the needs of
special education children. You know that now in private schools
they do not have to meet the needs of a special ed children. We
are required by law to do that, and even though they might be in
the private sector they can come to us for those services. Did you
not also realize that with some of the new bills that just passed
that anybody in any school system - private or wherever - can come
into the public school system and be enrolled in any class and not
have to wait until we fill the needs for the kids that are in
school for first-come, first-serve. So, there's a lot of issues
that need to be addressed before we go out and put a constitutional
amendment to the public saying that this is going to improve public
education and also give a better chance for those kids that want to
go to private that will not happen."
Number 0217
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Davis whether she thinks there would be any
"cherry picking" if a voucher system was implemented. In other
words, would the cream-of-the-crop move over into the private
schools thereby affecting the socialization process.
Number 0240
MS. DAVIS replied she doesn't see that there would be any "cherry
picking." The sponsor has indicated that the voucher would be
given to those in a lower-income bracket. That's not to say that
there aren't any smart children in a lower-income bracket. She
knows that the public schools are meeting the needs of the children
going on to college. She does not see them leaving the public
schools in mass numbers to get their needs met elsewhere. The
problem is for the regular students who might need more help before
moving on to the next grade. They need after-school programs and
before-school programs, otherwise the state is going to be sued
when the students do not pass the exit exams. Who will give the
school districts the money to meet those needs? she asked. The
parents are not going to sit by idly.
Number 0310
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the parents have the opportunity now to put
their kids into a private setting.
Number 0317
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her personal belief is that the state
should base its funding on every child in a district, not just on
those who are registered at a public school. In addition, the
amount of money allocated for each child should be divided between
fixed expenses and teaching expenses. In a voucher system, the
fixed expenses should not be taken away but only the teaching
expenses.
Number 0366
MS. DAVIS said, she agrees, that every child in the state has a
right to a public education. "However, I do not go to the point
where I would want those children to be counted in the count that
we have to give for the money that you give to us for public
education, if they're not going to have to be accountable for what
they're doing. Why should we give money for public education--for
education and not hold everybody accountable? You're pushing for
more accountability from us. It would have to be the same for
them." In addition she mentioned that the public schools do not
have the money or staff to monitor home schools. The kids who are
in home schools can utilize the public schools as well for subjects
such as art and physical education.
Number 0433
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Davis whether the school system has
failed in mainstreaming children thereby holding back some and not
challenging others. Would the state be better off teaching to a
strata, especially given the new exit exams?
Number 0532
MS. DAVIS replied, she believes, that the state should meet the
needs of all children for a quality education to be successful in
the world. She does not believe that the public school system - in
Alaska as a whole - is watering down its curriculum. The greatest
student in a class can benefit a slower student. Kids learn from
each other. It is not fair to say that the public school system is
not doing its job if a student does not pass an exit exam;
therefore that student should have been in a private school.
Number 0633
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is not convinced that parents send
their children to private schools because of standards. She thinks
it's for other reasons, and the state needs to recognize its
obligation to pay for an education for every child who is of school
age.
MS. DAVIS said at some point the state needs to recognize that all
children need to be educated. She recognizes that parents
withdrawal their children out of the public school system because
of the fear of violence, not necessarily the curriculum. However,
in the private world, a school can refuse a child, whereas a public
school has to take every child that comes to it.
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Davis how important she thinks
class size is in terms of a student's ability to learn. She is
concerned about the overcrowded classrooms and the sharing of
textbooks in Juneau.
MS. DAVIS replied class size is very important. Research shows
that a child is likely to learn more in a classroom with fewer than
20 students. But that takes more money. On the other hand,
sometimes adding an additional person to help the teacher works.
There are a lot of ways to overcome overcrowding. It requires
innovation, such as double-shifting, in order to meet the needs of
students.
Number 0824
JOHN CYR, Representative, NEA-Alaska, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage in opposition to HJR 6. NEA-Alaska is opposed to
the resolution because of public policy and legal issues. In terms
of public policy, there is no achievable difference between the
voucher students in Milwaukee and the public school students. In
fact, according to a study the public school students outperformed
the voucher students in reading and math. In Cleveland, a study
found no significant difference between the voucher students and
the public school students. He cited in 1998 and 1999 about 6,000
Milwaukee students received a voucher worth $5,000 a piece; and
about 3,700 Cleveland students received a voucher worth $2,500 a
piece, but there is no accountability of that money. In Cleveland,
$1.9 million was misspent. He cited $1.4 million was paid to taxi
companies to transport the students. Since 1997, program officials
have uncovered about a half million dollars in taxi fares that were
billed for students who were absent. In 1998, that program was 41
percent over budgeted forcing the state to take $2 million from
public schools to fund that overwrite. The intent of a voucher
system, according to the sponsor, is to fund low-income families,
but according to a special state audit in Cleveland 30, students
who received vouchers came from households with incomes of over
$80,000. He stated that the Permanent Fund Dividend program has
taught, that if money is given to the public it has to go to
everybody, which bring the question of who would really use
vouchers? He cited less than one-third of the public school
children in both Cleveland and Milwaukee actually come from public
schools. There is no evidence that suggests a voucher systems is
cost-effective. The Milwaukee voucher program cost $29 million for
1989 to 1999 for 6,000 students. The Cleveland voucher program
cost more than $9 million for less than 4,000 students. In using
the sponsor's number of $4,000 per student when there are
approximately 12,000 children in private schools in Alaska today,
the math is not that hard to do. The state cannot afford this type
of scheme.
MR. CYR further stated, in regards to the legal issues, no state
has voted to put a voucher system in place to date. In September,
the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the
constitutionality of its voucher program and ruled that it violates
provisions in both state and federal constitutions. In Maine, both
state and federal courts rejected efforts by parents to require the
state to provide vouchers for religious schools. In Vermont, a
state court rejected efforts to expand the tuition program to
include religious schools.
MR. CYR further stated, in response to the issue of small class
sizes, data shows that there wouldn't be smaller class sizes with
a voucher system. It would really pay for those who are already in
a private school. In response to the teaching of morality, things
have changed in the public schools. They are a reflection of the
wishes of the communities. If a community is interested in
teaching a more "moral point of view" the school board would ensure
that it happens. But there is no control over private schools and
whether or not they would teach morality. In response to the issue
of accountability, right now the only thing that private schools
are accountable for is the health and welfare of their students.
The state has no control over the curriculum or standards, and it
shouldn't; they are private schools. But, if public funds are
moved into private schools, then they are no longer private schools
and the public has the right to make decisions rather than the
parents. He urged the committee members not to pass the resolution
out of the committee. He asked that it be held, so that NEA-Alaska
can send written testimony from its legal folks.
Number 1383
KARLA FEELEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She
works with the members of the Education Support Staff Association
and the Fairbanks Education Association. She is the product of
parochial schools through her graduate degree, however HJR 6 is
absolutely the wrong way to go. She urged the committee members to
defeat it. In the U.S., there is a system of free, universal and
public education, which is unique in the world. It's offered free
of charge to any child. It is universal in that it is accessible
to everyone. Public school students cannot and do not turn away a
student, which is a wonderful advantage and foundation for a
democracy. In addition, the schools in Alaska are extremely
responsive to the public. They are the most available public
institution. She cited people vote and play basketball in them as
examples. The school board members are responsive and available.
The schools are what the public has asked of them. If the public
wants something different, then it should ask. Lastly, the schools
are working very hard at providing the very best possible
education, which involves raising standards for students and
teachers. The schools need the support of the legislature and
additional funding, not undermining their method of operating,
which could be potentially millions and millions of dollars.
Number 1574
JOSEPH L. STORY, Representative, Seventh Day Adventist Church,
testified via teleconference from Sitka. The church has seven
parochial schools in the state and, currently, is in the process of
establishing several more schools. The increased funds and
enrollment are very enticing, but there is nothing preventing state
involvement in the curriculum. The testimony has called for a
strong accountability to ensure the same standards for those
schools benefiting from state funding, but he's not sure how that
would affect the moral and religious aspects of education. He is
also concerned about how the standards of dress and conduct would
be affected. In addition, it doesn't appear to him that the
private schools receiving the benefit would have any control over
whether or not to accept the funds. There is also nothing that
would guarantee the funds to students in private or sectarian
schools in a time of budgetary constraint. He cited a scenario in
Canada where funds were cutoff leaving the schools in great fiscal
difficulty. In addition, enabling legislation could eventually
take on other forms that could be problematic. He recognized,
however, that these types of things are hard to pin down. The
position of the church is to neither support nor oppose the
resolution, because it sees the advantages while at the same times
has concerns.
Number 1778
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Story whether there is any
regulation of the church's curriculum now by officials.
MR. STORY replied he's not aware of any. The main
regulation/involvement is in the health and safety issues.
Number 1802
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Story whether part of his concern is
reducing the selection process and putting minimum limits on the
curriculum.
MR. STORY replied exactly.
Number 1862
MELINDA BROOKS testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. She feels
it is inappropriate to consider an amendment to the constitution to
allow for vouchers or tax breaks for kindergarten to twelfth grade
educational purposes at the current time. The state is in a fiscal
crisis. How can you justify this action while you are debating
changes to municipal aid, senior exemptions, veteran exemptions,
PCE [power cost equalization] and virtually every other aspect of
state funding? The state does not have enough money to be
considering a new big government entitlement program. At the local
level, most people feel that their taxes are going to be high
enough. She mentioned that during the welfare debate many people
said that they should not expect a handout from the state just
because they have children, and that they should be responsible for
their own choices. She said, "Providing state funds for private
schools is like taking your kid to McDonald's because he refuses to
eat his dinner. It leaves you vulnerable to even more outrageous
demands." She agrees that the state has an interest in providing
the public an education, but it cannot afford to provide for the
luxury of private schools.
Number 1951
KERMIT REPPOND testified via teleconference from Kodiak. He is
testifying as a parent and as a board member of the Kodiak
Christian School. He is in support of anything that leads to some
type of voucher program. He noted the following assumptions:
- The current system is rooted in the belief that a state
monopoly on education is best;
- That parents are too ignorant of their children's needs
to make good decisions; and
- That public schools are so rotten that they would be
emptied like a fire drill, if the parents were given the
chance.
MR. REPPOND further stated those assumptions are patently false.
It breaks his heart to turn away a student because his/her parents
do not have the money to attend a private school. In response to
the accountability discussion, when a parent hands money over
directly to a school, that school becomes accountable. Right now,
the parents really never see the money. A voucher system would
increase the level of accountability of the schools to the parents.
In response to the leveling discussion, shouldn't the schools be
elevating students rather than leveling/homogenizing them? A
voucher system would elevate all the students. In every other
endeavor in an American system, a monopoly is thought to deliver
inferior goods at a higher price, while competition is thought to
deliver cheaper prices and better goods. In education, however, it
seems that a monopoly is the best way to go. In response to the
issue of the attempt to remove Cyber school computers from private
schools, he commented that the criminal activity in the state must
be low in order for law enforcement to plan raids on private
schools. As a parent of a child who is enrolled in the Delta Cyber
School and a private school, he has seen firsthand how his child's
education has benefited. The students are studying spreadsheets,
word processing, keyboarding, astronomy and Spanish. He noted that
none of the subjects contain any religious (indisc.) that a
reasonable person might consider as an aid to religion. The sites
visited on the Web are unincumbered from any religious
entanglement. If these computers are withdrawn, it will hurt the
students not the school. It may even require additional
expenditures from the local school district in order to provide
supplemental education to the students who do not have access to
the technology. It is inconsistent with common sense and statute
to grant a child who is studying at home the use of a laptop
computer who can access a Cyber school, and to prohibit the use of
the same computer and same Web site if that computer is carried
into a private school. Attorney General Bruce Botelho's attack on
Delta Cyber School in unwarranted and a waste of tax payers' money.
He said, "To think the passage of HJR 6 is some other measure to
restore public sense of the justice department then that's what you
should do."
Number 2395
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Reppond whether he would have any
objection to saying a student can go to a private school of his/her
choice. In other words, a student cannot be refused admission
because of race, disability, or some other criteria.
Number 2452
MR. REPPOND replied, "You need to be careful that we don't get the
idea that we achieve excellence in education by regulation." At
the Kodiak Christian School...
TAPE 99-42
Number 0001
MR. REPPOND continued. Since it is a Christian-based school, the
parents are asked to sign a document indicating that they agree
with the faith which the education is based on. That is what they
are paying for with their own money. If a kid comes in asking to
be instructed in a Buddhist education, that kid is informed
initially that is not taught there. The secret here is choice.
Number 0086
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Reppond whether it would be a
problem for his school for the state to say it can't discriminate
based on race because it's getting state money.
MR. REPPOND replied no it wouldn't be a problem because it already
has those same standards.
Number 0106
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Reppond whether there would be any
difficulty in requiring a minimum level of curriculum because it's
getting state money.
MR. REPPOND replied the problem is a little rule gets bigger and
bigger. The parents are satisfied with the current curriculum.
The current system works. There is no reason to try to duplicate
all of the regulations from the public schools to the private
schools. Right now, the reason there are charter schools is to be
free of the regulations. He noted that what comes out of the
schools should be graded not what goes into them. Regulations go
in and students come out. The Kodiak Christian School would be
very leery of any kind of state control associated with its
curriculum because that is its sacred ground.
Number 0303
SHERRI JACKSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of HJR 6. She is in favor of the resolution because it
would allow for a choice. She has four children and has home
schooled them all. She doesn't think the argument is about the
teachers, but a fear of losing money. In light of that, she agrees
that a commonsense approach is needed to consider what is best for
the children. Those who want to teach their children from a
religious based don't have a choice. "We're just saying, 'Hey,
we're tax payers. We care. Can we now take that tax paying dollar
and put it to where we can teach our child Jesus Christ?' We can
stand on the rock and look forward." Two of her children are
presently enrolled in Galena (indisc.) program. She is allowed
$1,400 a year per child and she gets to choose where to spend the
money. She reiterated those in favor of the resolution are so
because of choice. She doesn't believe that there would be a mass
exitus out of the public schools. She reiterated that everybody
seems to be concerned about money when she is concerned about
morales and the lives of her children. In response to the issue of
"dummying-down," her friends have indicated to her that some
schools in places like Barrow "dummy-down" because it's easier for
a child to get a job for $18 per hour than to stay in the public
school system for an education. She reiterated an amendment to the
constitution would allow for a choice when she is responsible for
her children's education. She sees the public school system as a
huge God when some people want to serve their own God. She agrees
with taking that $1,400 and applying it to any school that she
wants to creating competition and making the administration more
accountable and responsible. In conclusion she stated, "In the
arena for my child going through a Christian school so he can learn
Jesus Christ and he can learn godly principles and he can stand
upon the rock and he's not fearful of humanism hanging over his
head dictating to him what to do, I believe that is tremendously
good for society. And, I don't think anybody can argue that."
Number 0753
THERESE SYREN, Teacher, Lumen Christian High School, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. Her school also has the Cyber
program. The only reason anybody could be against the direct,
educational benefit of the Cyber program for students is because of
the fear between the separation of church and state.
Number 0841
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 3:10 p.m. due to technical
difficulties with the teleconference network and called the meeting
back to order at 3:20 p.m. The technical problem was corrected.
Number 0902
MS. SYREN continued. The only way anybody could be against the
direct, educational benefit for students is the fear of violating
the separation between church and state. She reminded the
committee members that the phrase - separation between church and
state - does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. It was intended
to keep the church and state distinct, which means the state is
meant to be friendly towards religion, but is not meant to adopt
any particular one. Thus, to deny the use of Cyber school computer
programs is taking a big step towards establishing secularism of a
church religion. She noted that under a voucher system the money
would go to the hands of the parents; therefore, it boils down to
an issue of trusting parents or the state to raise the children.
It is clear that the parents are the ones who are suppose to do
that.
Number 1107
NICK BEGICH testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support
of HJR 6. He is the past president of the Alaska Federation of
Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education. He was also an
organizer in the ASD in the mid-1980's that put together the first
coalition of waivers. The idea of choice really gets to the root
of the issue, not money. Those who are vested in the status quo
would like to see it remain the same. NEA-Alaska has several
millions of dollars in dues coming from school districts. He has
not heard a good argument from them why public schools should have
the monopoly or sole franchise for compulsory education in the
state. In Alaska, children are compelled to go to school, but on
the same token they are not given an equal opportunity in terms of
the educational outcome. The idea that money cannot be put to
private schools, under the current constitution, is probably
correct. However, in looking at the state subsidized student
loans, those funds do not necessarily go to public institutions.
In fact, they go to many private schools without any strings
attached because the money flows directly to the students. The
argument that this might cost more is a small price to pay for
those who do not currently receive any public benefit, which they
are entitled to under the constitution as well. In response to the
argument of accountability, he noted that he suggested to the ASD
to adopt a policy that said all public employees' first obligation
is to the public. But, Ms. Ossiander and others indicated that was
too controversial and refused to consider it as a change. They
felt that it would create a conflict between supervisors and
subordinates. In response to measuring up to the upcoming testing
standards, the ultimate accountability is with the parents. If
parents don't feel that they are getting their monies worth things
start to break down. He believes the ultimate accountability
exists in the private schools because it rests with the parents.
He further mentioned that his son was a beneficiary of a Cyber
school program, and the idea that he can be denied access is
logical given the fact that the legislature passed a law that
allows private school students to avail themselves to the
opportunities available to public school students, even though the
ASD opposed that legislation saying it would be an undue burden.
He reiterated this is an issue of protecting the status quo,
educational unions, and establishment, which run counter to the
good of the public.
Number 1424
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the bill would be held over for
further consideration.
SJR 3 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is SJR 3,
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the repeal of regulations by the legislature.
Number 1502
JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin
Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to
present the sponsor statement. He read the following into the
record:
Senate Joint Resolution 3 is a proposed amendment to the
Constitution of the state of Alaska that would grant the
legislature the authority to repeal a regulation adopted
by a state agency that is inconsistent with its enabling
statute. It would allow the people of the state of
Alaska to provide the legislature with the authority to
repeal regulations through a simple resolution.
The public supports the legislature in this matter. They
will find that the most erroneous portions of state
government are application of regulations to their lives.
And, if the legislature can make those regulations more
attuned to the legislative intent, the public will be
more pleased with their government and they will
understand it better. The public will also know that the
policy makers can quickly and efficiently amend those
regulations that they find onerous.
This issue has come before the voters in the past and now
time has come again for the voters to reduce the amount
of time and money spent on legislation. The voters would
have a chance to speak out on this proposed amendment in
the next general election.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill would be held over for
further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1602
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|