Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/09/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB18 | |
| HB62 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 2021
3:01 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 18
"An Act relating to national board certification for public
school teachers."
- MOVED HB 18 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 62
"An Act relating to solemnization of marriage."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 18
SHORT TITLE: TEACHERS: NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, EDC
02/25/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/02/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/04/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 62
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE WITNESSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
02/25/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/04/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 62.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:01:52 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
Representatives Claman, Tarr, Kaufman, Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representatives Eastman and
Vance arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 18-TEACHERS: NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION
3:02:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 18, "An Act relating to national board
certification for public school teachers."
3:03:22 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:03 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.
3:05:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said the committee would take up the
consideration of amendments for HB 18.
3:05:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32-
LS0168\A.1, Klein, 3/6/21], which read:
Page 1, line 5:
Following "certification":
Insert "In this subsection, "prominent location"
includes a school-managed Internet website."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 1 would clarify
that the school's prominent location would include a school-
managed website. He added that the school would be encouraged
to use that website to promote the information encompassed by
the bill, should it pass.
3:05:48 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS spoke in opposition to the proposed
amendment. He conveyed that one of the central purposes of the
bill is to uplift and highlight national board certification and
the excellent educators who attain it. He said one of the key
ideas, although subtle, is to display that physical, visual
recognition. He noted that the idea was in consultation with
superintendents, school boards, and teachers and wasn't meant to
be an onerous, "from-the-top" requirement. He added that the
bill has the support of all those stakeholders. He pointed out
that it's similar to the concept of license plates that
recognize veterans, created by the legislature, for visual,
physical recognition rather than an online registry.
3:07:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered to discuss the idea with
stakeholders when the bill goes to the House Education
Committee.
3:07:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she doesn't disagree with the sentiment
[of the proposed amendment]; however, after speaking with the
bill sponsor, she resolved to stick with his intent to display
physical recognition. For that reason, she said she would not
be supporting the proposed amendment. Nonetheless, she
suggested that in addition to being prominently placed, the
website could also include the information [pertaining to
national board certification].
3:08:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that the proposed amendment
includes a school-managed website, which would not exclude the
information from being displayed at the physical location. She
asked if that is an accurate assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN confirmed [that the physical location
would not be excluded].
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said, as a parent who homeschools her
children, she is often referred to the school's website. She
stated her belief that the proposed amendment would expand the
prominence of [national board certification] recognition. She
stated her belief that as the internet has become an immediate
point of entry to the school system, this could be an asset for
teachers who don't have direct one-on-one contact with students.
3:10:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN echoed the sentiments shared by
Representative Vance. He stated that [the proposed amendment]
would clarify that the "burden" could be made easier. He added
that it would help with communication.
3:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that requiring a physical name
and space may have several unintended consequences. He
considered a future scenario in which a public school might have
an exclusively virtual presence, which would make satisfying
this requirement problematic. He considered a different
scenario in which a teacher did not want his/her name displayed.
He questioned why [physical recognition] is being "[forced]" if
it's a good idea. He suggested allowing the school to choose
whether to display the physical recognition instead of making it
a requirement and, effectively, an unfunded mandate. He said
Amendment 1 would lower that threshold and expressed his
maintained support for the proposal.
3:12:48 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
3:13:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 32-
LS0168\A.4, Klein, 3/6/21], which read:
Page 1, line 9, following "Standards":
Insert "or another organization offering national
board certification"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:13:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 2 would allow
another organization offering national board certification, in
addition to the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS), to satisfy the requirement. He noted that
[the proposed amendment] was drafted without a particular
organization in mind. Additionally, he posited that it would be
prudent to ensure that the legislature would not have to amend
the statute for a future organization.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his opposition to the proposed
amendment. He said it would have no effect on the
implementation of the bill because there is no other entity that
provides national board certification at this time. He further
noted that the organization presently named in the bill has been
providing certification for decades without any emerging
"competitors." For that reason, he said it makes sense to keep
the bill "tight and clean," later adding that there is ample
precedent of naming different nonprofit entities in statute.
3:15:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she felt assured by the stakeholders'
involvement and deep familiarity with the [NBPTS] program and
its associated requirements. She expressed her concern that the
proposed amendment could allow and encourage certification from
an organization with unknown merit.
3:17:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his belief that the proposed
amendment would allow for more local control if a school board
were to choose another certifying board, should one exist. He
stated that times are changing faster than ever, and Amendment 2
could be a concession for the future.
3:17:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that inserting the name of a
private organization into statute is not ideal because it
designates a particular entity. Nonetheless, he said he offered
the amendment as a concession to avoid inadvertently precluding
other private organizations that might benefit teachers and
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection.
3:18:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 2.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed a vote of 3-4.
3:19:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN [moved to adopt] Amendment 3, [labeled
32-LS0168\A.5, Klein, 3/8/21], which read:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "public school shall"
Insert "local school board may require a public
school to"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:20:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noted that local control is the concept
behind Amendment 3, such that a school board could opt for an
emerging opportunity that better fits its purposes as opposed to
the state setting requirement.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS spoke in opposition to Amendment 3 despite
being sympathetic to the spirit in which it was written. He
acknowledged that he is cautious of state requirements and
mandates, noting that he had dialogued with AASB [Association of
Alaska School Boards] and the Alaska Superintendents Association
about repealing a variety of state requirements that were passed
decades ago and had outlived their useful purpose. Nonetheless,
he maintained his support for the "shall" in this legislation
due to close coordination with stakeholders and their expressed
support.
3:22:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his appreciation for the
proposed amendment because it would give authority to local
school boards. He stated his belief that it offers a better
long-term solution than a state mandate. He emphasized the
importance of local control, adding "the school board that is
supportive today may not be, either with someone on that board
changing [his/her] mind or ... after an election." He expressed
his support for Amendment 3 out of deference for future
solutions.
3:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE conveyed her "heartburn" towards requiring
schools, by law, to display something that [schools] would
naturally be proud of. She said the proposed amendment
recognizes school boards as the governing body of schools and
encourages them to prominently display [national board
certification]. She stated her support for Amendment 3 because
it encourages local school boards to choose what's best for
their communities.
3:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that the bill sponsor's uneasiness
with the proposed amendment was influential in her thinking.
Additionally, she questioned whether the benefit would be the
same without recognition. She pointed out that [national board
certification] is a big investment in both time and money,
adding that teachers might see it as a better investment if they
knew their investment would be recognized anywhere in the state.
She speculated that recognition could encourage teachers,
further noting that the goal is to double the number of
[national board certified] teachers. For those reasons, she
said she would not be supporting Amendment 3.
3:26:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she is glad the bill would be heard by
the House Education Committee and expressed her support for the
[bill sponsor's] intent.
3:27:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection.
3:27:39 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Eastman,
and Vance voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 3.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-4.
3:28:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS directed the discussion back to HB 18.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR proposed the idea of the state covering the
cost of [national board certification] to avoid excluding those
who are not financially able but otherwise interested; however,
given the state's current [budget] situation and because the
bill does not have a fiscal note, she expressed interest in
reconsidering her proposal if Alaska's circumstances improve.
She further noted her gratitude to teachers who make these
investments in their profession.
3:29:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN thanked the sponsor for bringing this
legislation forward. He stated that he would be opposing the
bill as it's currently written. He cautioned against inserting
the name of a private organization into statute because it could
open the state up to liabilities in the future.
3:31:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN thanked the sponsor and shared his belief
that the bill is about teachers and giving them the opportunity
to obtain a certification that that would send a positive
message to students and parents about the quality of education
they receive in [Alaska's] schools.
3:31:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he shared Representative Tarr's
perspective that if there is a future opportunity to reimburse
teachers, at minimum for the fees of this credential, it would
be a great step for the state and a tremendous return on
investment. He further noted that it would be consistent with
many states across the country. He opined that it's
extraordinary that two-plus percent of Alaska teachers sacrifice
their nights, weekends, and thousands-of-dollars to become
certified as a matter of professional pride, later adding that
it's worth celebrating and recognizing, which is, in part, what
this bill aims to do. He acknowledged Representative Eastman's
point from a philosophical perspective; however, he highlighted
state precedent in which private nonprofits are written into
law, such as TVEP [Alaska Technical Vocational Education
Program] and VPSO [Village Public Safety Officer] service
provided by the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian
Tribes of Alaska, further noting that all of the concerns cited
by Representative Eastman would apply there too, but it doesn't
impede them from administering the services they provide across
the state.
3:33:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 18 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
3:33:21 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story,
Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting HB 18 out
of committee. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and Eastman voted
against it. Therefore, HB 18 was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
3:34:10 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
3:35:52 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of
marriage."
3:36:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 62. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
3:36:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, prime sponsor of HB 62, said he had no
additional comments other than noting that the bill follows
House Bill 20, which expanded the list of people who could
solemnize marriage to include elected public officials. He
noted that House Bill 20 passed 29-6 in the House and 17-2 in
the Senate in 2018.
3:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 [labeled 32-
LS0272\A.2, Dunmire, 3/8/21], which read:
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 25.05.261(c) is amended to read:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a
duty or obligation on a person authorized to solemnize
a marriage under (a) [(a)(1), (3), OR (4)] of this
section to solemnize any marriage."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:38:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 1 would clarify
that [the legislature] is not trying to compel, coerce, or
legally force anyone to preside over a wedding in Alaska. He
pointed out that Alaska's only requirement is that the person
presiding over a wedding be [at-least] 18 years old and the
proposed amendment would clarify that he/she is not required to
solemnize the marriage.
3:40:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated his opposition to Amendment 1. He
noted that Representative Eastman proposed the same Amendment to
House Bill 20 in 2018, which failed by a vote of 6-29 on the
House floor. He explained that the real impact of this
amendment would implicate judges, who are statutorily required
to set their political, religious, and personal opinions aside
and perform certain ceremonial functions, which the court is
required to do. He recalled Nancy Meade explaining why
including subparagraph (a)(2) would be problematic, as it would
allow a judge's personal opinion to interfere with his/her
official duty. He deferred to Ms. Meade for further
explanation.
3:42:04 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, stated that
the proposed amendment was previously discussed with respect to
House Bill 20. She reiterated that it presents a problem and a
conflict for judges who have an ethical obligation to handle any
case that comes before them. She added that judges do not have
the ability to turn something down or not do a duty because of a
personal belief. Given that Amendment 1 would create that
conflict for judges, she said it would be problematic.
3:43:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned whether anyone other than
judges could be statutorily required to perform a marriage.
MS. MEADE said she could not think of a circumstance in which a
marriage commissioner would be forced to [perform a marriage]
because he/she would have said no to the couple and would not
show up at the court, nor pay $25 to become a marriage
commissioner in the first place.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about individuals who are
"standing" marriage commissioners. He asked whether that exists
or if it's a "one-time thing over and over."
MS. MEADE replied it's almost always a one-time thing, as in a
couple asks somebody to marry them and that person gets a one-
time commission for that couple. She noted that in some
districts, a person could get a longer-term marriage
commissioner appointment; however, AS 25.05.081 states that the
marriage commissioner must solemnize marriages in the same
manner as a district judge or magistrate, so the idea that the
marriage commissioner could be forced to perform a marriage is
theoretical. She stated her belief that it would be extremely
rare for a marriage commissioner to be, somehow, forced to
perform a marriage after expressing disinterest.
3:46:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that the
practical reality of marriage commissioners is that they get
requested to perform a ceremony and have already agreed to it
before obtaining the certificate. He shared a personal anecdote
regarding House Bill 20.
3:48:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained that Amendment 1 would provide
a solution for a problem created in a previous piece of
legislation. He indicated that some are equating marriage with
the idea that it's "just a rubber stamp and anyone should sign a
marriage certificate for no other reason than someone is asking
them to," which he saw as a departure from the way Alaska has
historically viewed marriage. He considered a situation in
which a judge or marriage commissioner expresses a desire not to
marry a couple and said [the legislature] ought to give him/her
the same right that legislators have been provided under
statute. He suggested that Amendment 1 would correct the
disparity in the law created by the passage of House Bill 20.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection.
3:50:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1.
Representatives Claman, Tarr, Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 62 was held over.
3:51:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS made a motion to appoint Representative
Claman as the Vice Chair of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
3:52:48 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:52
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 18 Amendment Packet 3.9.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/9/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 18 |