Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
02/26/2019 08:30 AM Senate EDUCATION
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 | |
| SB53 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 26, 2019
8:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes, Vice Chair
Senator Chris Birch
Senator Tom Begich
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mia Costello
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to the duties of the Board of Regents of the
University of Alaska."
- MOVED CSSB 53(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 56
"An Act relating to health education and physical activity
requirements for students in grades kindergarten through eight;
and establishing the Thursday in February immediately following
Presidents' Day as PLAAY Day."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 53
SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
02/11/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/19 (S) EDC, FIN
02/21/19 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/21/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/21/19 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/25/19 (S) EDC WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
02/26/19 (S) EDC AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSSB 53, version M.
MILES BAKER, Associate Vice President for Government Relations
University of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about university
reporting processes for accreditation in the context of the
hearing on SB 53.
DR. KAREN CAREY, Ph.D., Provost
University of Alaska Southeast
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about the university
accreditation process in the context of the hearing on SB 53.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:30:16 AM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Begich, Hughes, Birch, and Chair Stevens.
SB 53-UNIVERSITY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
8:30:30 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SB 53 and his
intent to move the bill out of committee. He noted the proposed
CS and solicited a motion.
8:31:22 AM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt CSSB 53, version M, as the working
document.
8:31:32 AM
CHAIR STEVENS objected for purposes of discussion.
8:31:42 AM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said SB 53 is a reaction to the
recent loss of accreditation by the University of Alaska
Anchorage School of Education. It is designed to keep the
legislature informed.
He explained that Section 1 in the committee substitute would
require that UA's annual statutory report be submitted to the
legislature (Senate Secretary and Chief Clerk) and then
presented to the education committees with scheduling of the
presentation at the discretion of the committee chairs. Section
1 also conforms to the existing reporting requirements in
statute.
MR. LAMKIN said Section 2 is the new reporting section regarding
accrediting for the University of Alaska. It gives more detail
about what the report should contain. It uses common vernacular
to describe what is expected. The committee packets have a
spreadsheet called UA Program Accreditation Summary. He said he
used the column headers in that report, which the university
currently provides to the Board of Regents and incorporated that
language in the committee substitute. The fiscal note cites
existing Board of Regents policy. He said there too he used
terms from the fiscal note in the committee substitute. The
committee substitute gives clear parameters and definitions of
what the report should look like. It aligns to what the
university is doing now but adds specific attention to any
accrediting that could be compromised. The goal is to be
preemptive rather than reactive.
SENATOR HUGHES asked how future education committee chairs will
know that the reports must be presented in person.
MR. LAMKIN responded that the language is crafted to give a fair
amount of flexibility to the legislature. He expressed
confidence that between the Senate Secretary, House Clerk,
committee chairs, and other members, the presentations would be
scheduled.
8:36:34 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said that the bill states that the Board of
Regents "shall prepare and present in person," so it puts the
onus on the Board of Regents, but she wanted it on the record
that if an education chair failed to request the report, the
Board of Regents would be responsible.
CHAIR STEVENS said that for an issue like this, it would be a
joint presentation to the House and Senate Education Committees,
so there would be a double system to ensure it occurs.
8:37:26 AM
SENATOR BIRCH commented on the number of accreditation agencies
and asked if the university pays for membership in the bodies
and how much they pay.
CHAIR STEVENS said it is often a two-year process and a lot of
expense is involved.
MR. LAMKIN added that there is an elaborate network of
accrediting agencies. Dr. Karen Carey can speak to accrediting
issues. He also mentioned possible consideration of a change for
the second date in the bill. August 15 is about six months after
the first report, but it may not align well with the Board of
Regents' meeting schedule.
8:39:33 AM
MILES BAKER, Associate Vice President for Government Relations,
University of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, said the Board of Regents
has a fairly regular schedule and could comply with the bill as
currently written, but June 30 or July 1 would allow the board
time to review the report during the June meeting and before it
was submitted to the legislature. Alternatively, a September
30/October 1 time frame would allow the board to review the
report during the fall meeting.
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether a report that's due in January
would be approved in December.
MR. BAKER said it would be done in the fall meeting, which is
typically in November. The budget is prepared at the fall
meeting so it can be submitted to the governor's office on time.
SENATOR HUGHES said June 30/July 1 would be more evenly spaced
if it's a November report.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if he was saying that it would be easier to
have this report due in October if the board meets in September.
MR. BAKER replied yes; the end of September or the beginning of
the following month.
SENATOR HUGHES said he also stated that July 1 would work for
the Board of Regents. That date would be more evenly spaced.
MR. BAKER agreed that July 1 would work.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if two weeks after a meeting is sufficient.
MR. BAKER said that would be very doable.
8:43:20 AM
SENATOR HUGHES offered her understanding that the Board of
Regents would not be developing the report during those two
weeks. They would approve it on June 15 and it would be
available on July 1.
MR. BAKER said that is correct.
8:43:48 AM
SENATOR BEGICH asked if an amendment was needed to change the
date on page 2, line 22, from August 15 to July 1.
CHAIR STEVENS replied that Senator Hughes would make the motion.
SENATOR BIRCH asked if the meetings are live streamed and a
record made similar to legislative committee meetings.
MR. BAKER answered that the Board of Regents meetings are
streamed live and minutes are prepared and approved at the next
meeting. They are not archived. All committee materials are
released a week in advance and the meetings comply with the Open
Meetings Act.
8:45:48 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked if he had any comments on the fiscal note.
MR. BAKER said the fiscal note is not expected to change in
terms of finances but there may be slight changes to the
descriptions to comply with the committee substitute. The report
will be integrated into the system.
SENATOR HUGHES noted that the fiscal note mentions the internal
processes are annually reported to the board, but it sounds as
though that will be switched to twice a year.
MR. BAKER answered that is correct. As mentioned during the
introduction, UA has established a number of interim steps
between the campuses, the provost, and the Academic Student
Affairs Council, and the Academic Council, all of which will
have this as an agenda item. By the time the legislative report
is prepared, there should be ample information. Any accreditor
feedback from each of those meetings will be reported up the
chain.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if he could answer the question about the
cost of accreditation.
MR. BAKER deferred the question to Provost Carey.
CHAIR STEVENS said every major university goes through that
process and as expensive and time consuming as it is, it is a
very valuable process.
8:48:50 AM
DR. KAREN CAREY, Ph.D., Provost, University of Alaska Southeast,
Juneau, Alaska, said that every accreditation body charges a fee
for the university to be a member of the accrediting commission.
All the universities in Alaska pay a fee as part of the
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. The
university pays a fee for each program to be accredited and for
site visits. It is expensive, but it is absolutely necessary for
the programs to be accredited for the students to be
successfully later.
8:49:54 AM
CHAIR STEVENS said that the Northwest Commission accredits all
the major programs at the university. This entails a lot of time
and travel for the commission and a lot of time for the provost,
the administration and faculty. He said he assumes she would
agree that the process is very important.
DR. CAREY said yes and added that the Juneau campus is getting
ready to go through the Northwest self-evaluation and host a
site visit April 24-26. Nine members of an evaluation team will
visit the campus for three days to review what is in the self-
study. UAS have been working very hard the last year to prepare
the report and to prepare for the site visit. Every program
needs to stay on top of its accreditation to make sure all the
requirements of the accrediting body are met.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if the Northwest team would have any
recommendations during the site visit.
DR. CAREY answered that the team will come to campus to verify
that UAS is doing what is in the self-study. There will be
meetings with student groups, faculty, staff, advisory council,
members of the community, and the Board of Regents. At the end
of those three days, the chair of the evaluation team will meet
with the chancellor and verbally present an overview of what the
team found. Several weeks later UAS will get a written report
with recommendations. That report goes to the 11 members of the
Northwest panel who will vote in June to approve accreditation,
to give partial accreditation, to put impose probation, or to
deny accreditation.
8:53:20 AM
SENATOR BIRCH said he noticed there are 65 accredited programs
and a myriad of agencies and that most have initial
accreditation dates after 1974. He asked how UAS pays for 65
different programs and if she had a rough estimate of the cost.
DR. CAREY said each accrediting body tells the university what
the fee will be for the year. The money is set aside in the
budget so the university can follow through with accreditation.
In the late 60s and early 70s, there was a great push for
programs to demonstrate that they were providing the education
that students needed to be successful in whatever career those
students were going into. Almost every professional field today
has an accrediting body to make sure the programs are meeting
the expectations of what is required in the field, so that
students can be prepared when they complete their education.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if she would agree that some accreditation
bodies are more important than others; the Northwest Commission
is the big one and then there are some programmatic
accreditations.
DR. CAREY replied that the Northwest Commission is the big one.
In order to have any access to any of the federal programs
through the federal Department of Education, UAS must be
accredited by the Northwest Commission. In many cases, other
accrediting bodies are important to employers.
8:56:37 AM
SENATOR HUGHES moved a conceptual amendment to CSSB 53, version
M. On page 2, line 22, delete August 15 and replace it with July
1.
8:56:56 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced that without objection, the conceptual
amendment is adopted.
8:57:16 AM
CHAIR STEVENS opened public testimony and after determining
there was none, closed public testimony. He removed his
objection and solicited a motion.
8:57:42 AM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to report CSSB 53, version M as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note.
8:57:52 AM
Chair Stevens announced that without objection, CSSB 53(EDC)
moved from the Senate Education Standing Committee.
8:57:58 AM
At ease
8:58:04 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Stevens adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee
at 8:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB053_UnivAK_AccreditReporting_BillText_VersionM.pdf |
SEDC 2/26/2019 8:30:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 09_SB053_UnivAK_AccreditReporting_BillText_ExplanationChanges_Version A to M.pdf |
SEDC 2/26/2019 8:30:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 10_SB053_UnivAK_AccreditReporting_Sectional_VersionM.pdf |
SEDC 2/26/2019 8:30:00 AM |
SB 53 |