Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/06/1995 01:00 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
MAY 6, 1995
1:00 P.M.
TAPES
SFC-95, #66, Side 1, (000-575)
SFC-95, #68, Side 1, (000-575)
SFC-95, #70, Side 1, (000-575)
SFC-95, #70, Side 2, (575-end)
SFC-95, #68, Side 2, (575-end)
SFC-95, #72, Side 1, (000-500)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 1:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-chair Halford, along with Senators Phillips, Sharp,
Rieger and Zharoff were present. Co-chair Frank arrived
shortly after the meeting began. Senator Donley was unable
to attend.
Also Attending: Senators Duncan, Green, Salo, and Taylor;
Representative Hanley; Dennis Poshard, Director, Charitable
Gaming; Jim Nordlund, Director, Public Assistance; Duane
Guiley, Director, School Finance, Dept of Education; Carl
Rose, Executive Director, Alaska Association for School
Boards; Vernon Marshall, Thais Thomas, John Cyr, Willie
Anderson, Claudia Douglas, NEA-AK; Sheila Peterson, Special
Assistant to the Commission of Education; Mike Greany,
Director, Legislative Finance Division; Lucy Bikulcs, Rod
McCoy, Lucy Hope, and Lela Ayers, Teachers; Tom Wright,
Legislative Aide to Rep. Ivan; Tom Anderson, Legislative
Aide to Rep. Martin; Portia Babcock, Legislative Aide to
Senator Green; Lorna Ramert, Legislative Aide to Rep.
Hanley; Terri Lauterback, Legislative Legal Services;
Sherrie Gore, Alaska Women's Lobby; Pat Ladner, Alaska
Aerospace; and Kent Dawson, Representing Usibelli Coal
Mine.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 78 PUBLIC ASSIST. DEMO PROJECT & DECREASE
Representative Hanley gave testimony to the committee.
Work draft 9-LS0392\U was ADOPTED. Four amendments were
ADOPTED.
SCSCSHS 78 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of committee with
individual recommendations and 25 fiscal notes (see
pages 6
and 7 for details).
HB 217 EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF TEACHERS
Discussion was had with various members of NEA-Ak, the
School Board, various Senators and teachers. SCSCSHB
217 (FIN) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with the adoption of
amendment #8 by Senator Rieger. The bill passed out
with a "do pass" recommendation, and a fiscal note
for the Department of Administration at $315.5;
and a zero fiscal note for the Department of
Education.
HB 44 GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORG'NS
Tom Anderson, Legislative Aide to Rep. Martin spoke to
the
committee on HB 44. SCSCSHB 44 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT
of
committee with the ADOPTION of Senator Frank's
amendment. The bill had a "do pass" recommendation and
a fiscal note from the Department of Revenue for $46.5
($19.2 revenue).
HB 315 FINANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTS
Testimony was given by Pat Ladner and Kent Dawson. CSHB
315 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of committee with
individual recommen- dations and one zero fiscal note
from the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development.
SB 71 DEEP FREEZE CLASSIC
Senator Sharp offered an amendment which was ADOPTED.
CSSB 71 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of committee with
individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note from the
Department
of Revenue.
HOUSE BILL NO. 78
"An Act relating to the maximum amount of assistance
that may be granted under the adult public assistance
program and the program of aid to families with
dependent children; proposing a special demonstration
project within the program of aid to families with
dependent children and directing the Department of
Health and Social Services to seek waivers from the federal
government to implement the project."
Representative Hanley was invited to join the Committee. He
stated that HB 78 was his version of the welfare reform
package. He briefly went through the bill. He stated that
the first section of the bill relates to child enforcement
division, giving them tools to allow for collecting more
child support enforcement. It actually reduces the amount
of money to be paid to AFDC since the extra child
obligations come in and supplant AFDC payments. He noted
that this may be imposed on Alaska, on a federal level,
since it is part of the contract with America; and is
involved in the package that the House sent to the U.S.
Senate. The next major section dealt with minors with
children. Requiring them to live at home with certain
exceptions. This section was originally in the governor's
bill and also in Senator Green's bill. He noted that he
incorporated this into his bill as it was passed out.
Basically, a minor who has a child, would have to live at
home with their parents, unless there was an abusive
situation or a few other exclusions included in the bill.
Senator Sharp MOVED to ADOPT SCSCSHB 78 (FIN), version "U".
No objections being heard, the working draft was ADOPTED.
Rep Hanley continued through the bill. He stated that
section 8 is a court rule change. In an attempt to equalize
the situation dealing with a minor mother required to live
at home with her parents, there is also a requirement for
the minor father which requires his parents to take monetary
responsibility.
Rep Hanley, in referring to Section 10, involves a report
that is required for the Child Support Enforcement Division,
requiring information dealing with occupational and driver's
licenses. Section 11 makes reference to the waivers in the
bill. Whereby the state is required to request waivers from
the federal laws to implement some of the demonstration
projects that are in the bill. Section 12 starts with the
waiver process. It also takes away some of the
disincentives to work and provides incentives. Currently,
under federal law a recipient of AFDC is allowed to keep
only $50 of their earnings after the first three months.
This bill changes that figure to $200, plus one-third of the
remaining amount, which provides an incentive for the
individual on AFDC. The state keeps two-thirds, which
actually helps to offset the amount of money that the state
is spending on the AFDC program. It also allows the
combined equity in a motor vehicle used by the family to be
raised from $1500 to $5000. There is a section dealing with
the waiver for two parent family, whereby the law provides a
100 hour limit per month. Section 13 concerns the workfare
issue. This section deals with exemptions but also says
that if a person is able- bodied, there is a requirement of
15 hrs a week of paid employment or 21 hrs of uncompensated
community service work, if assigned by the department. The
reason being there may not be any volunteer services.
Section 14 was originally in the governor's bill, it is an
AFDC unemployed parent project that sets up a 2 year self-
sufficiency development program. Section 15 is self-
employment project. It allows individuals on AFDC to save
money and not have that count against them, if they are
going to use it to establish a business. Section 16 is
called a diversion project. It allows the department the
flexibility to give individuals a one-time lump sum payment.
The dollar amounts are listed on page 28, lines 3-26. The
intent is to find those individuals and give them the one
time assistance. They would not be eligible for the AFDC
payments.
Co-chair Halford stated that the bill has received extensive
hearings in the Senate under a senate bill.
Senator Green was invited to join the committee. She began
on page 13, with the senate changes to the bill. The
section deals with ineligibility assistance, making it clear
that upon conviction of welfare fraud, the recipient is
ineligible for welfare benefits. She moved on to the
section dealing with benefits for children going on welfare,
page 14, line 6. She noted that it would not impact
medicare or food stamps, but cash benefits only. Another
change on page 14, line 18, notes that a person is not
eligible to receive benefits for more than a total of 60
months. There is a five year time limit unless the person
is permanently, totally, or physically disabled. There was
considerable discussion regarding the needs for the parent
in this situation. There was language developed to amend
this portion. A motion was made to adopt a conceptual
amendment on page 14, line 20. No objection being heard,
the conceptual amendment was ADOPTED into the work draft.
Senator Green advanced into section 4, stating the ratable
reduction of 1.7% is included in this version. In section
6, she noted the time limit on benefits were changed.
Section 12 deals with a two-tier system which she explained.
Section 14 which deals with the AFDC unemployed parent
project, provides for coordination within 2-years for self-
sufficiency. The last revision is in section 26, dealing
with the effective date.
Senator Zharoff asked what the process for teen mother would
be under this system? Rep Hanley responded that teen mother
would have to live at home with their parents, unless there
was an abusive situation or some of the other exceptions
provided in the bill. That was a proposal by the governor's
office and Senator Green, that he incorporated into the
original bill, which is still in the current version.
Senator Zharoff asked for clarity on the various time
limits. Ms. Babcock responded that there is a five year
time limit that applies to everyone including those on AFDC,
those not permanently totally, physically or mentally
disabled. Even if a recipient enters into a two year
program, the five year limit is still imposed. If a
recipient goes into a workfare, training, or jobs program
and put on the 24-month time limit, once a job is found,
after the 24-month, then the recipient has an 84 month
period whereby you are not eligible to go back on AFDC. If
the 84 month lapses and the recipient wants to go back on
AFDC, they would have three more years left on the 5 year
limitation. The time limits are not retroactive, it becomes
effective March 1, 1996 if not prohibited by federal law.
Senator Zharoff asked for an explanation on the ratable
reduction.
Ms. Babcock responded that the ratable reduction is 1.7%,
similar to the House bill, that came out of finance and went
to the floor. Page 15, lines 1-12 indicates the impact which
is $102 to $100; $452 to $451; $821 to $806 and $514 to
$505. The average is $15 month less with 1.7% ratable
reduction.
Senator Rieger asked for explanation on language on page 2.
Ms. Babcock responded that the language refers to non-
custodial grandparents, and their obligation to support the
grandchild, in the same way a parent would insofar as their
income is concerned.
This is in the case where both parents are minors and living
with the parents.
Senator Zharoff asked if money could be set aside from the
PFD and saved until the child was 18? Ms. Babcock stated it
could be done, but it is currently not being done. There
were questions at the table concerning encouragement of
people to move to Alaska because of the good benefits.
Co-chair Halford MOVED to change all time limits to March 1,
1996. No objection being heard, the conceptual amendment was
ADOPTED. Section 23 would indicate that only Section 21 is
immediate. No objection being heard, the conceptual
amendment was ADOPTED.
Senator Zharoff MOVED to adopt a letter of intent. The
motion failed. With this, he then asked to adopt the
original CSHB 78. A motion was made to rescind the "U" work
draft. The motion failed by a show of hands. All opposed:
Co-chair Halford, and Senators Rieger, Sharp, Phillips.
Those in favor: Senator Zharoff.
Senator Zharoff moved to adopt a conceptual amendment which
deleted those portions in section 3, and added to the CS.
After some discussion, he amended his motion to include the
deletion of all of Section 3. By a show of hands the
amendment FAILED. Senator Zharoff was in favor, and Co-
chair Halford, along with Senators Sharp, and Rieger were
opposed. Senator Phillips abstained. The motion failed 3
to 1.
Senator Zharoff moved to remove the ratable reduction of
1.7%. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In favor
was Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-chair Halford, along
with Senators Rieger, Sharp and Phillips. The motion failed
4 to 1.
Senator Zharoff moved for the removal of the Time Limits on
Benefits under Section 6, starting on page 16, line 31. By
a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In favor was
Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-chair Halford, along with
Senators Rieger, Sharp and Phillips. The motion failed 4 to
1.
Senator Zharoff moved for the removal of portions of Section
12. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In favor was
Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-chairs Halford and Frank,
along with Senators Sharp, Rieger and Phillips. The motion
failed 5 to 1.
Senator Zharoff moved to delete subsection (e) and (f) on
page 23 of section 13. By a show of hands, the amendment
FAILED. In favor was Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-
chairs Halford and Frank, along with Senators Sharp, and
Rieger. The motion failed 4 to 1.
Senator Zharoff moved to change years in Section 14, page
24, line 4. Changing 2 years to three years and 24 months to
36 months. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In
favor was Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-chairs Halford
and Frank, along with Senators Phillips, Sharp and Rieger.
The motion failed 5 to 1.
Sherri Gore, representing the Alaska Women's Lobby testified
in support of the House version of the bill. She stated
that the committee has adopted a new approach which
encourages abortions and limits those who are caring for
totally disabled children. She asked to exempt parents of
the totally disabled.
Senator Phillips expressed concern about the parent caring
for the totally disabled and indicated that additional
language was needed to amend this area. Senator Phillips
MOVED to adopt new language on page 14. No objections being
heard, an amendment to an earlier amendment was ADOPTED.
Senator Sharp MOVED to adopt SCSCSHB 78 (FIN) with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes
as listed. No objection being heard SCSCSHB 78 (FIN) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do pass" from Co-Chair
Halford and Senator Sharp. Senators Rieger and Phillips
signed "no recommendations" and Senator Zharoff signed "do
not pass". The accompanying fiscal notes are noted below:
No Dept Date Amount
2 DH&SS (PA-Elg. Deter.) 5/7/95 170.4
3 DH&SS (PA-Admin) 5/7/95 283.0
4 DH&SS (PA-Data Proc.) 5/7/95 972.4
5 DH&SS (Ak. Work Prog.) 5/7/95 - 0 -
394.5
FY-97
6 DH&SS (Child Care) 5/7/95 - 0 -
152.0
FY-97
7 DH&SS (AFDC-Ratable Red.)5/7/95 (1,610.7)
8 DH&SS (PFD Hold Harm.) 5/7/95 (226.9)
9 DH&SS (FYS Central) 4/4/95 113.9
10 DH&SS (Med. Asst. Claims)5/7/95 40.0
17 DH&SS (EMS Training) 3/10/95 1.5
23 DEC (Palmer Lab.) 2/17/95 -0-
24 DH&SS (Med. Facilities) 5/7/95 (116.7)
25 DH&SS (Med. Non-Fac.) 5/7/95 (107.7)
26 DH&SS (AFDC) 5/7/95 (317.9)
27 DOLabor (Mech. Insp.) 3/30/95 & 5/2 53.7
28 DOLabor (Safety & Health)3/30/95 & 5/2 36.1
29 DC&ED (Banking/Corps.) 3/24/95 & 5/1 29.1
30 DC&ED (Occ. Licensing) 3/24/95 & 5/1 83.5
31 DC&ED (Ins. Operations) 3/24/95 & 5/1 26.0
32 DOR (Child Support) 4/4/95 & 5/2 519.4
33 DOE (Teacher Cert.) 3/24/95 & 5/1 20.8
34 DPS (Driver Services) 4/3/95 & 5/1 222.8
35 DOLabor (Wage & Hr. Admin) 5/2/95 -0-
36 Courts 5/5/95 80.8
NEW DH&SS (Hearings/Appeals) 5/7/95 -0-
65.6
FY-97
The meeting RECESSED at 2:00 p.m.
End Tape #66, Side 1
Begin Tape #68, Side 1
The meeting RECONVENED at 3:45 p.m. Present were Co-chair
Halford, along with Senators Phillips, Rieger, and Sharp.
HOUSE BILL NO. 217
"An Act relating to employment of teachers."
Senator Sharp MOVED to adopt the Cramer version work draft
dated 5/5/95, 9-LS0821D. No objections being heard, the
draft was ADOPTED.
Tom Wright, Legislative Aide to Representative Ivan was
invited to give testimony to HB 217. He stated that there
were two changes in the Senate CS as compared to the House
version. The first change occurs on page 4, line 29,
Section 8. He stated that he understood that this was
included in SB 132. The second change occurs page 3, line
14, Section 5. He read the language, "where the basic need
of a school district is determined under AS 14.17.021 (b),
and adjusted under AS 14.17.225 (b), decreases by 1% or more
from the previous year."
Co-chair Halford responded that this was a substantial
restriction. He asked if it was not in the House bill. Mr.
Wright noted that at one time it was in the House bill and
it read 3%, which was changed in the House Labor and
Commerce Committee, to financial emergency as verified by
the commissioner.
Mr. Wright was asked to give a complete overview of the
bill. He stated that Section 1 addresses the tenure issue
and it is a statute conformity with Section 2 changing two
year to four years. Section 2 is the actual change of tenure
from two to four years. One of the changes made on the
House floor, is that a teacher has to be continuously
employed for a period of four years, not four full school
years, but from the date they start, the clock begins as to
their acquisition of tenure. In this section it discusses
that districts shall provide a non-tenured teacher a written
evaluation, and if necessary develop a plan for improvement
and cooperation with the teacher, established mentors, and
appropriate administrators. Section 3 refers to the layoff
provision that is in Section 5. Section 4 speaks to the
reasons for not retaining a tenured teacher. He said, that
deleted was the removal of unnecessary reduction of staff,
occasioned by a decrease in school attendance. It was felt
that it was not fair to nonretain a teacher just because of
a decrease in school attendance. Section 5 contains the
layoff provision. He specifically mentioned that a school
district may place a tenured teacher on layoff status, but
only after the district has nonretained all nontenured
teachers. This can happen only if the district needs to
reduce the number of teachers because of a decrease in
school enrollment, or because the basic need of a school
district (determined under AS 14.17.021(b) and adjusted
under AS 14.17.225(b)) decreases by one percent or more from
the previous year. A nontenure teacher is not entitled to
layoff rights under this section. Another new provision
adds, that if a teacher is on layoff status and is offered a
contract with another school district, it will not effect
the layoff status for the three year period for that
teacher, if not rehired by that school district. Section 6
and 7 deal with judicial review. After the hearing in Labor
and Commerce, and discussions with NEA and the school board
association, this was compromise language that was agreed
upon, that if a tenure teacher is nonretained, they have the
option of either going directly to superior court or the
school board for a hearing. They then have the right to go
to superior court if the decision is not favorable to that
person. This establishes a one-time record, not a de novo
trial. Section 9 was added and is similar to the language
as that in SB 132. The initial proposals exchanged by both
parties will be opened to the public. Section 11 through 18
is the retirement incentive program, referring to school
districts and employees. Section 19 says that the
amendments made by Sections 1 and 2 of this section, only
apply to teachers first hired after the effective date.
Section 20 says that Sections 11 and 12 are repealed July 1,
1997.
Co-chair Halford asked Senator Green to bring the committee
up to date on the bill. She responded that there was
agreement with Representative Ivan's office. She spoke to
the layoff provision, stating that the basic need of a
school district determined under AS 14.17.021(b), and
adjusted under AS 14.17.225(b), decreases by one percent or
more from the previous year. Senator Duncan inquired as to
the basic difference between the House and Senate bills?
Co-chair Halford responded that the major difference in the
House bill, is that layoff provisions were at the discretion
of the commissioner; in the Senate, they follow the
provision of "after a one percent reduction". Senator Green
defined "basic need". "The basic need of the school
district is determined by multiplying the area cost
differential by the number of instructional units in the
district and multiplying that by the unit value."
Claudia Douglas, President, NEA-AK has great concerns with
this bill. She began with Section 1 and the four year
provision, which the organization is in disagreement with.
Section 2, the acquisition of tenure from 2 to 4 years. It
states that the nontenure teacher will be provided with an
evaluation, if necessary. The organization has questions
about the establishment of the mentor program. Is the
school district going to work in conjunction with an
association, or with the teachers in the school, or the
district? Vernon Marshall interjected that another problem
involves the language that says, "the district shall provide
a nontenure teacher a written evaluation". In a four year
probationary experience, the teacher would receive a single
evaluation. It is important that administrators begin
working immediately with new teachers and that the
evaluation experience be applied beginning in the first
year, and again in the second year, leaving the last two
years at the will of the district. Senator Rieger testified
that he does have an amendment that speaks to this very
point. Co-chair Halford stated that he was in agreement.
Ms. Douglas proceeded into Section 3. She stated that this
section is unacceptable. Mr. Marshall indicated that the
organization is in opposition to anyone loosing their tenure
in a layoff situation.
The concept is not supported. He stated that in Section 4
there is a loss relative to the causes for loss of tenure.
Under the cause provisions, the district has opportunity to
nonretain a tenured teacher because of a decrease in school
attendance. It is recognized as a diminishment of rights to
a tenured teacher. Mr. Marshall reiterated that Section 4
will repeal the cause for nonretention of a tenured teacher
due to a decrease in school attendance. This particular
section is being traded for the layoff provision. He stated
that it is a diminishment of rights. In the layoff section,
under subsection (a), the bill nonretains nontenure teachers
and lays off tenured teachers. NEA-AK recommends adding a
provision that would allow the district to place a nontenure
and tenured teacher in layoff status, using language that
would provide a tenured teacher an opportunity to have a
hearing. The problem with percentages is that you cannot
prescribe a percentage that fits all school districts. This
is the reason that financial emergency is important. It
would allow the commissioner of education to verify the
necessity for layoff, and give the employee an opportunity
to an informal forum to have their case heard. Discussion
was had with Senator Rieger regarding the language change.
Mr. Marshall advanced through the bill, and said that
Section 6 and 7 could be used in conjunction with the
changes that have been suggested relative to Section 5.
Section 8 addresses a career ladder plan. NEA-AK does not
support this section at this time. It is a costly plan and
ineffective. Ms. Douglas suggested instead, an Alaskan
certification board, which would align with the national
standards board. She suggested considering this as an
incentive. Ms. Douglas asked how the career ladder plan
work? There are many questions and she insisted it needs
study. Senator Rieger reiterated his argument that a good
teacher should be paid appropriately and well in an effort
to retain them. Ms. Douglas said she agreed, but who is
going to make the decisions. She stated that it is
divisive, does not promote people working together, and that
there are other ways to reward good performance. She
suggested moving towards a Certifications Standards Board,
recognizing the work that is being done, either through
portfolios, video tapes, etc.
Senator Phillips asked if she supported his amendment. Ms.
Douglas responded that there were many questions regarding
the process, who pays for it, who decides who those teachers
are going to be.
Senator Zharoff spoke regarding merit pay and the evaluation
process. There were lots of questions in the 60's or 70's,
who is going to do the evaluating, how are people going to
be evaluated, who was going to get how much of an increase,
there was not a clear delineation as to who would make the
final determination. It seemed to cause many more problems.
He supported rewarding excellence, but he stated that the
problems it causes are difficult to escape.
Mr. Marshall moved on to Section 10, the RIP portion of the
bill. He stated that NEA-Ak supports RIP that is included
in HB 270 or SB 137. He made it quite clear that NEA-AK does
not support RIP as part of a tenure reduction package.
Senator Phillips asked NEA to identify their strong
objections to the bill. Mr. Marshall responded that they
were opposed to the four year term. In comparing the state
employee, many can acquire "just cause" standard, from 6
months to 1 year. That provides the burden of proof with
the employer. In this case, there are teachers who prepare
for a minimum of four years to enter a classroom, and now
there is an expectation that they go four more, for a total
of eight years. The other area of concern is layoff. It
would prohibit a school district from using the 1% variable.
Would this law supercede the contract that was previously
executed between the teacher and the school district.
Instructionally, people ought to be in the system for the
duration of the contract. These two sections cause great
concern along with the RIP provision. He noted that
Representative Masek summed it up well by saying, "that it
is difficult to create amendments that will make this bill,
which is tough to deal with, better. Most of the sections
work hand in hand."
Carl Rose, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska
School Boards, testified that the issues to be addressed,
are contained in: acquisition; layoff for purposes of
financial emergency; and nonretention. He stated that this
is a compromised bill that has come through the committee
process. He supports subject-area endorsements, ensuring
quality classrooms. Mr. Rose contacted the Commissioner of
Education. She has stated, that in a period of over 2
years, they could promulgate regulations and reorganize
certification to be able to award endorsements. It was his
intention to have the bill recognize program need as subject
area endorsement with a 2 year effective date clause that
would allow the department to promulgate regulations. That
is no longer in this legislation. Mr. Rose stated that they
do not regulate the revenue, but if they had to do more with
less, they wanted to recognize qualifications and quality,
before seniority. This would ensure that a math teacher was
endorsed in math, etc.
Mr. Rose asked for a 5 year tenure, opposed to 4 years. He
stated that the administrators are being asked to do more
with less. The challenges today include unfunded mandates,
violence in the schools, discipline problems, drug and
alcohol, countless mandates as well as evaluation. He
stated that there are good administrators, and there are
some that are not doing the job. He expressed concern, that
because the administration does not have the time, that a
teacher should be nonretained. He stated that it is unfair
to the new teacher entering the field. He said that the
premature decision could be a career change for a young
professional. The School Board Association agreed to the
four year compromise. A compromise made by the school board
with the agreement of the sponsor was the four full years,
with tenure beginning at the start of the fifth year.
Mr. Rose moved to the area of evaluation. He stated that
evaluation is a local decision. If it is not being done,
school board members should be held accountable. The
Association subscribes to it. If the evaluation needs to be
improved, through current regulation, there is an ability
for enforcement. There is the ability to design the
evaluation at the local level. If they are not getting the
evaluations, Mr. Rose suggested it could be due to: multiply
sights, small rural districts, or the lack of
administration. He asked for special funding to address
that need. He asked that local officials be recognized,
because they are the ones who can be sued, they stand
accountable to the public.
Mr. Rose expressed confusion in the area of tenure rights.
In years past, there have been attempts made to change this
section to include a fifth section to nonretain teachers for
a financial shortfall. The Association has come to realize
that the action is unfair. When a teacher is nonretained,
they loose tenure status, seniority and accrued sick leave.
There is a stigma attached to nonretention. Nonretention is
appropriate for performance, if the performance is
incompetency, immorality, or substantial noncompliance with
law, they should be nonretained. He stressed that this is
not the standard that should be applied to people who are
being effected by a financial emergency. In a financial
emergency, if layoff legislation is created to protect
people as temporary, it protects tenure, seniority, accrued
sick leave and provides them with rehire rights. Currently,
the school board has the ability to nonretain nontenured
teachers. We have to nonretain all of them before we invoke
layoff. Much has been mentioned for the 1% for "Basic Need".
He stated that 3% was the figure. Representative Brian
Porter was very concerned that 3% equated to $7 million in
his district, in which it is too high. Personally, Mr. Rose
did not feel there should be a percentage. There are elected
officials that do their business in public, they present
their budgets to the Dept of Education as well as their city
councils and boroughs. That is the public that should be
doing the examining. If a school district were to lay
people off while there is sufficient money in the budget, it
would create a real problem. That is the public process.
People at the local level take this responsibility. They
can and will be sued. He stated that there is an entire
layer of government at that level.
Mr. Rose commented on the "Basic Need" section. He stated
that basic need is the product of all instructional units
times the district's area cost differential times the unit
value as established by AS 14.17.056. Alaska Statute
14.17.021(a) indicates that to arrive at state foundation
aid, the required local contribution under AS 14.17.025(a),
and 90% of the eligible federal impact aid for that year is
subtracted from basic need. At the suggestion of the Dept
of Education, the school districts utilize basic need.
Mr. Rose said that the problem with nonretention, is the
expense. The Association is not in favor of removing
protection from employees. Due process rights should be
observed. The teacher has a choice to have a local hearing
and appeal to superior court for review of that record, or
go directly to superior court. The Association considers it
fair, the teachers have a choice and their rights are
protected. He expressed agreement with Senator Rieger in
his idea on career paths. On page 5 of line 2, a school
district may establish teaching positions that have
instructional and mentoring responsibilities to other
teachers and allow a reduction in instructional workload for
those positions. He stated that the issue of work does not
work in Tennessee or anyplace else does not concern him.
Alaska is unique, there are some things that can be done.
The state is diverse and if there is a cost associated with
it, does that cost outweigh expenditures that are currently
being made? The school districts will find money by
categorizing what the people want most. There are a number
of unfunded mandates, a number of which the districts may
not be in compliance with. He stated that they just do the
best they can with what they have. Senator Zharoff wanted
to know specifically where the money would come from. He
could only see it coming out of the administration of each
school district. Mr. Rose stated that in the last 5-6 years,
that administration has been reduced across the state.
Mr. Rose stated that the Association supports RIP. It was
not the Association's intention to place it in this bill.
The initial version of this bill dealt with three things:
acquisition, layoff for financial emergency, and de novo.
He said the Association supports the bill and the
amendments. Through the committee process, changes were
made, many of which the Association was not in agreement
with. The end product left everyone in confusion. There
was agreement that the process of negotiating caused a lack
of confidence in the legislation.
Mr. Rose said that when a teacher is laid off, and they
accept a job elsewhere, then if offered the original job
back, they cannot accept it under this bill. They loose
their layoff status. The House adopted an amendment
changing that situation. Representative Finkelstein brought
forth another amendment on the written evaluation, which the
Association supports. Another amendment the Association
supports is the four full years.
Mr. Rose stressed that the Association has gone through the
committee process and has found some agreements with NEA.
Senator Phillips asked what the position is of the PTA? Mr.
Rose responded moving tenure from two years to five years
and open negotiations.
Senator Salo responded to Mr. Rose's position on subject
area endorsement. She expressed concern that the
Association would not support a law which would require
initial new hires to be placed in their area of training.
Mr. Rose stated that he did not believe there was a formal
position on the subject. Subject area endorsements are not
in place now, so it is a local decision. He spoke of a
waiver system, a need for generalists. He suggested using
percentages of time spent in the classroom, or a waiver
system. Senator Salo suggested that this legislation is a
shift in power. She asked how much money was being saved by
this bill. Mr. Rose responded that it is difficult to
determine how much is being saved, but if we have to go
through layout status, use the RIP portion of the bill,
whatever can be done to make dollars available to run the
programs that is what is going to be done. The Association
is not interested in repealing tenure.
Sheila Peterson, Special Assistant to the Commission of the
Dept of Education refreshed the committee on her earlier
discussion of the State Board of Education and their main
concern, which was full funding education. They wanted the
efforts of the legislature to go in that direction. The
testimony between the educators and the educational groups
has gotten more direct in opposition or in support of HB
217. The legislation has created a divisive feeling between
people that are directly involved in education. This is a
concern with the Commissioner. It is her goal to bring
educators together, to work together, promoting education to
ensure that Alaska does have the best education possible.
This bill is bringing a wedge between people that are very
active in education. She wants to work with the excellence
that currently exists in the school districts and to
replicate those throughout the state. In combating this
legislation, it is redirecting positive energy that could be
better spent. This is not only a concern of the department,
but of the administration.
Senator Taylor shared his concern with the triggering impact
of a decrease of 1% in basic need. He asked Ms. Peterson to
explain to the committee what it means in practical terms.
He explained that his assumption is, that it has to be a
decrease in state aide. The decrease would have to occur
with the legislature, not a decrease generated out of
decisions made at the local city or borough level. The local
people would not be triggering the downsizing, it would be
an overall decrease coming out of the legislature. This
would impact every district in the state, as everyone would
be impacted equally under the existing formula.
Duane Guiley, Director, School Finance, Dept of Education,
responded that the definition of basic need in the statute
is the number of instructional units a district generates
for K-12 education, as well as, special eduction, bilingual
education, and vocational education, added together; times
the area differential applicable to that district, times
instructional values set in statute. Basic need is shared
between three revenue sources: local revenue, state revenue,
and federal revenue source through impact aide. The
sponsor's intent in using the basic need language, opposed
to the language for state aide, is to eliminate the
fluxuation of local property values. State aide makes up
for fluxuations in the other two revenue sources to allow
the layoff of a tenure teacher, when the total resources
remain unchanged. As we have inflating property values, the
state aide goes down, but total resource remains the same,
if measured on basic need. In addition to basic need, city
and borough districts are allowed to contribute additional
resources. That is over and above basic need and not
subject to this calculation. Changes in local contribution
in excess of the minimum required, would have no effect on
the right to lay off a tenured teacher. Whether it goes up
or down by any percentage. The statute requires a minimum
contribution in all city and borough districts. It also
requires recognition of federal impact aide. As the two
components of the basic need change, the state aide
component automatically changes to make up for those
fluxuations. That is why the reference is to basic need
opposed to state aide. Senator Taylor asked how it could be
triggered by local circumstances? Mr. Guiley responded
that it could only be triggered by a reduction of revenue
across the state. There would be a possibility in changes
in categorical revenue that would come about by change in
statute that might impact one district more than another, so
that it may not be uniform throughout the state, but again,
it would be a statutory change that would effect all
districts entitled to that portion of the foundation program
revenue. Senator Taylor said that the original bill started
off with a standard that was the old decrease in enrollment,
or, a decrease of revenue. It was not defined. Since then,
there has been an evolution of "basic need", with the local
effort taken out.
Senator Duncan responded that currently there is $61.0, if
the legislature was to appropriate less than $61.0, would it
trigger a layoff? Mr. Guiley responded that if the
legislature funded education less than entitlement, through
a change in the statute to effect unit value, it would
effect all districts equally. If the legislature short-
funded education through simply short-funding the
entitlement and the appropriation measure, then all
districts would not be equally effected, because each year
there is an adjustment in districts for changes in
enrollment. He stated that if the district is in a
declining enrollment mode, or a stagnant enrollment mode,
and if the appropriation was to impact them at greater than
1%, this provision could be effective for that district.
Senator Zharoff asked Ms. Peterson if the department
supports this bill? She responded that the department has
not come to a formal position one way or the other. There
are concerns the way the bill is written and will be waiting
see what the legislature comes up with as a solution.
Rod McCoy, has taught school for 24 years in Alaska. Did
his student teaching in Alaska and is proud of his
contribution. He testified that it is important that a high
public attitude be kept for school teachers. One of the
things he has invested a lot of energy on, as a teacher, is
examining better management structures, where professionals
gather together to make decisions together. It isn't the
pyramid structure that was seen in earlier years. He stated
that there was not anything in this bill that encourages the
restructuring of education. In this bill, he sees a
separation or putting people on different levels, such as
tenured versus nontenure people. This is contrary to good
management. He emphasized the need for the legislature to
restructure schools and make them more viable and
successful. This bill takes away, rather than contributing
to it. The reason it was created, was to solve problems
other than the restructuring of schools, and solve problems
other than those kinds that are being experienced in the
classroom. All teachers will be effected by this bill. He
stressed that this creates a lack in the professionalism,
sense of pride, in the relationship to the administration.
He said this will not promote a one on one working
relationship that is needed to restructure schools. The
tenured people already have a tough time. He has heard all
too often, a good idea expressed and then the person will
say, "I cannot say that because I an not tenured". If it is
set up so that a person has to go 4 years for tenure, there
is going to be an expectation set up, their whole experience
in the field will be to sit still and not speak up, and
hence, not share ideas. Those who first come out of school,
bring good fresh ideas to our classrooms, their nontenure
status will cause them to hold back. He declared that this
bill will prohibit them from speaking up and sharing their
ideas. In turn everyone looses. Teaching is an art.
There is a sincere problem, because teaching is a human
experience. Teaching requires the use of the personality.
He expressed the need of the teacher to integrate the those
skills into the teaching experience. If merit teaching is
put into place, integrity will be lost. Teachers will be
teaching in the style that they think the administrators
want them to teach, just to get the money. He stressed that
there is not any reason why a bill cannot come out of this
legislature that makes education whole. It can happen, but
he warned that the legislators are going to have to spend
the time to talk it over and put their minds together and
create solutions. It can be done and he expects it to be
done. He asked that the legislators not to hurt people in
the process.
Lucy Hope, President of the Mat-Su Educational Association,
expressed concern of the four years to tenure portion of the
bill. She noted that 160 out of 800 teachers in Mat-Su are
nontenure. That means there are 27 schools. Between two and
twelve teachers at each of those schools are nontenure at
this time. In the past three years, the Educational
Association has put together an evaluation process. It was
put together in collaborative manner with administrators,
school board members, teachers, and parents. It is an
excellent process. It requires four observations each
semester, for a total of eight observations each school
year, and two formal written evaluations, four formal
conferences for each year that teacher is on probation.
This is a major time commitment. It is the most important
job an administrator can do since it does directly improve
instruction. There is a mandatory plan for improvement if a
teacher does not meet the instruction at a satisfactory
level. The process is intensive. She expressed her concern
over the increased number of years to receive tenure,
without creating the funding for the administration in the
evaluation process. If the number of nontenure teachers are
doubled, it doubles the time commitment, and the intensity,
which decreases the quality of the evaluation. In a
district that is growing as rapidly as Mat-Su, it would more
than double the workload. Is that what lawmakers want to
achieve? She noted that Mat-Su has something that is
working now, and lengthening the time for tenure is not the
answer. She expressed the importance of mentoring. She
stated that the ability to mentor is already in place.
Mentoring does cost money. The only way to release teachers
to help other teachers is through grants. Her last point
was the Section in the bill regarding bargaining. She
mentioned that she has been on 5 bargaining teams in Mat-Su
for the past ten years. This is an issue for local control.
The community decides what works best for the community. The
outcome has always been the same, no matter how they have
handled it, they have always reached a settlement. The
section in this legislation, is already law. The contracts
or negotiated agreements are public documents.
Lela Aires, teacher for 26 years, stated that she likes what
she does and plans on continuing for many years. She
expressed her feelings toward the lengthening process of
tenure. Tenure is not the problem. She has witnessed it,
in her many years of teaching, and she knows there is a
process that works well. She knows teachers who should not
be teaching, and they are not. Tenure causes emotional
turmoil in school districts and in personal lives. She
asked the committee to consider their actions.
Lucy Bikulcs, stated that teachers agree that teachers
should be terminated if they are not competent. It should
be done through an evaluation procedure. She noted that the
evaluation should be done even before the person is hired.
There is evaluation processes that take place at the
university level, and the student teaching level, by the
university professors and the cooperating teacher. Once
again, there is an evaluation process in the first two
years. Teachers should be evaluated and lengthening the
time before achieving tenure makes it easy for the
administrators to be lax in their evaluation procedures.
They may feel they have more time to make the decision to
nonretain a teacher who may in fact need to be nonretained.
Why drag that out for another 4 years. In Mat-Su there is
an evaluation process in place. Senator Zharoff asked if
she supported merit pay. She said that it could cause
divisiveness and did not support it.
Thais Thomas, NEA-AK Board Member, speaking to the committee
as a teacher from the Anchorage school district, stated
that the bill before the committee is a combination of
ideas. After listening to discussion today, when law is
being written that will eventually require litigation. She
hopes that the bill will end up being trashed. She stated
that tenure does not need to be lengthened. The evaluation
process must be strengthened. The bill does not address
administrators doing their job. She stated that she is a 25
year veteran, and a mentor in the Anchorage school district
for the last five years. Current law states that there is
two years to tenure. Anchorage local has a process that
speaks to evaluation. That process begins each year in
October, with a plan for improvement by January. If the
administration chooses to wait for two years before telling
a teacher they are at risk, there will be two years of bad
practices to undo. It is very difficult for the teacher to
revise their whole process in order to attain tenure. She
noted that the Association develops a plan for improvement
that is measurable. She has participated in the evaluation
process. It is an intense process. She has worked with about
20 tenured and nontenure teachers throughout the years in
this process. About two thirds of the nontenure teachers
were not caucasian. Most of the mentored teachers, who went
through the process were successful and reached tenure. The
results of this process has eliminated expensive litigation
in nonretaining a teacher. Tenure does not need to be
lengthened. Evaluation must be strengthened. She ended by
saying that once a person has gone through the tenure
process, that tenure should go with you wherever you go.
Tenure means, "just cause thereafter to be fired". If a
process is in place, it results in less litigation and
expense to everyone. Senator Zharoff asked that she comment
on merit pay. She noted it is divisive. It is an emotional
issue. She is not aware of any system that has made merit
pay work. There are other ways of recognizing good
teachers, she cautioned.
John Cyr, teacher at Wasilla High and the Vice-President of
NEA-AK, stated that this is the third or fourth time he has
testified on this bill. He was surprised to hear Mr. Rose
speak of this as a compromise piece of legislation. If
anyone is compromised, it is the educators. He stated that
they have not had a chance to sit down at a table in equal
partnership and talk about education and the quality of
instruction and what would improve instruction. This bill
is not about the quality of instruction. This bill is about
money. This bill is set up to save money, because it does
not do anything for education. Every speaker has spoken
about the evaluation process, the lack of the same, the fact
that some administrators do not evaluate well, and therefore
they need more time. The Mat-Su teachers talk about their
evaluation process, in that it is intensive, takes time and
effort, and that those who go through the process are fairly
evaluated. NEA-AK has suggested that there be a bill that
mandates evaluation. That all teachers are evaluated in the
fair, even-handed way, so that no one has to wonder. Nobody
wants bad teachers, so what makes education better. This
bill does not talk about evaluation. Mentoring is great.
Districts are hesitant because the money is not there.
Money is more important than improving instruction. The
layoff provision is clearly an issue of finance. We are
increasing class size, giving districts the potential to
make the buildings less safe, and decrease the quality of
instruction. He stressed cutting the administrators and
examining the money that goes into the classroom
instruction. He suggested language that says, "80-85% of
the dollars that come from the state goes directly to the
classroom". Instead, there is discussion on the 1%
reduction in the amount of funding. He noted that he did
not understand this rationale. The Mat-Su District has a
history of the wholesale laying off of its nontenure
teachers. Every year while the legislature decides how much
money is in the till, the Mat-Su School District pink slips
all its nontenure teachers, because they are uncertain what
is going to happen with the finances. We bargained in that
district, a long section, exactly how that layoff will
occur, how they will be called back, and what their rights
are in our bargained agreement. This is an issue of local
control. If that works in the Mat-Su Valley, certainly we
ought to allow the Mat-Su Valley and any other district the
opportunity to enter into an appropriate agreement. Local
control is one of the issues that we face every year. The
same is true with public bargaining. He stated that the
Association was in agreement on hearings. He said that with
regard to career paths and merit pay, nothing prevents
districts from bargaining career paths and merit pay with
their local associations at the table. The RIP provision is
blood money. He suggested that there be a RIP bill, but
that it live or die on its own merits.
Mr. Cyr said that this bill reduces the quality of education
because what it allows districts to reduce the number of
teachers in the classroom over a 1% reduction in funding.
He says it is wrong to make classrooms larger than they
already are. He noted that he has 165 students and 5
classes. If every student shows up, he does not have enough
desks. He ended by stating that the bill is wrong.
Tape 70, Side 2 End
Tape 68, Side 2 Begin
Senator Rieger MOVED to adopt amendment #8. The amendment
reads, "The district shall provide an evaluation of a
nontenure teacher in each year of employment. For purposes
of this subsection, "evaluation" includes at least two
formal observations and one written evaluation and, if
necessary, shall include a plan for improvement in
cooperation with the teacher, established mentors, and
appropriate administrators." Discussion was had by Senator
Salo and Senator Sharp which eventually changed the language
in the amendment to read, "The district shall provide an
evaluation of a nontenure teacher in each year of
employment. For purposes of this subsection, "evaluation"
includes at least two formal observations and one written
evaluation. Should a plan for improvement be necessary, it
shall be developed in cooperation with the teacher,
established mentors, if any, and appropriate administrators.
Senator Rieger MOVED to amend amendment #8. No objection
being heard, it was ADOPTED. Senator Rieger MOVED to adopt
the amended version of amendment #8. No objection being
heard, it was ADOPTED.
Senator Zharoff MOVED to adopt amendment #1. There was
objection. Senator Zharoff proceeded to explain the
amendment. It took RIP out of the bill. By a show of hands,
the amendment FAILED. Senator Zharoff voted in favor of the
amendment and Co-chairs Halford and Frank, along with
Senators Rieger, Sharp and Phillips were opposed.
Senator Zharoff MOVED to adopt amendment #2. There was
objection.
Senator Zharoff proceeded to explain that this amendment
will reinsert two years instead of four for tenure. By a
show of hands the amendment FAILED. Senators Zharoff and
Phillips were in favor of the amendment. Co-chair Frank,
along with Senators Rieger and Sharp were opposed.
Senator Zharoff MOVED to adopt amendment #3. There was
objection. Senator Zharoff proceeded to explain that this
amendment puts tenure at two years and extend probation for
certain teachers. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED.
Those in favor: Senators Zharoff and Phillips; those
opposed: Co-chair Frank and Senators Sharp, and Rieger.
Senator Zharoff WITHDREW amendment #4.
Senator Zharoff MOVED to adopt amendment #5. There was
objection.
Senator Zharoff proceeded to explain that this amendment
would allow the school district to lay off a nontenure
school teacher instead of flat retaining nontenure teachers.
It provides a hearing and appeal for the layoff decision as
currently provided a teacher when there is a decrease in the
school attendance. It also provides an opportunity for a
tenured teacher to question layoff before a neutral decision
maker. By a show of hands, amendment #5 FAILED. Senator
Zharoff was in favor. Co-chairs Halford and Frank, along
with Senators Sharp, Phillips, and Rieger were opposed.
Senator Zharoff MOVED to adopt amendment #6. There was
objection.
Senator Zharoff proceeded to explain that on page 4 line 7,
insert, "A teacher on layoff status accrues credited service
under the teachers' retirement system (AS 14.25) during the
period of layoff." By a show of hands the amendment FAILED.
Senators Zharoff and Phillips voted for the amendment. Co-
chairs Halford and Frank, along with Senators Sharp, and
Rieger were opposed.
Senator Zharoff WITHDREW amendment #7.
Senator Zharoff MOVED to delete Section 8 on page 4 and 5.
Section 8 concerns career path and merit pay. By a show of
hands, the amendment FAILED. Senator Zharoff voted for the
amendment. Co-chairs Halford and Frank, along with Senators
Phillips, Rieger, and Sharp were opposed.
Willie Anderson, NEA-AK, stated that presently 90% of the
districts in the State of Alaska have layoff procedures for
nontenure teachers with recall rights attributed to them.
The language as it is written in this bill will nullify
those negotiated agreements. Earlier, the committee spoke of
the need for local control. That is a local agreement that
the board and association has entered into. This would
nullify all those agreements. NEA-AK would propose on page
3, line 11,12 and 16, deletion and new language. Discussion
was had on new language. It was determined that the
negotiated right to layoff is determined by individual
contract and that state law could not intervene.
Senator Zharoff offered a Letter of Intent for Section 8,
saying, "It is the intent of the legislature that the
funding for AS 14.20.220 come directly to the administration
services of each school district and not the indirect or
direct funding for the students or building maintenance."
Senator Rieger opposed allocating funds.
Senator Phillips offered a conceptual amendment to prohibit
university personnel, once RIPPED, from reemployment in the
university system. By a show of hands the amendment FAILED.
Senator Phillips voted for the amendment. Co-chairs
Halford, Frank, along with Senators Rieger, Sharp, and
Zharoff were opposed.
Co-chair Frank MOVED to adopt SCSCSHB 217 (FIN) with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
No objection being heard, SCSCSHB 217 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT
of committee with a "do pass" from Co-chairs Halford and
Frank, along with Senators Rieger and Sharp. Senator
Phillips signed "no recommendation", and Senator Zharoff
signed "do not pass". The accompanying fiscal notes were
from the Dept of Education, zero; and Dept of Administration
for $315.5.
End Tape #68, Side 2
Begin Tape #72, Side 1
HOUSE BILL NO. 44
"An Act providing that a political use is not an
authorized use of charitable gaming proceeds;
prohibiting the contribution of charitable
gaming proceeds to candidates for certain public
offices, their campaign organizations, or to political
groups; providing that a political group is not a
qualified organization for purposes of charitable gaming;
relating to what is a qualified organization for the
purpose of charitable gaming permitting; and providing
for an effective date."
Tom Anderson, Legislative Aide to Representative Martin, was
invited to join the committee to testify.
Senator Phillips MOVED to adopt SCSCSHB 44, version "U". No
objections being heard, SCSCSHB 44 was ADOPTED.
Mr. Anderson noted the changes to the work draft. The first
change allows public access to records on charitable gaming
permits. He noted the change on page 3, lines 3-13, which
removed double reporting. Page 5, line 13-15 further
qualifies and defines groups that cannot receive charitable
game monies. Page 6, lines 22-26, a political organization
is defined. The language was provided by legal services, as
a technicality. Finally, Section 14 and 15 allows the public
access to public record, in the Dept of Revenue, Charitable
Gaming, regarding reports by permittees, licensees, and
vendors.
Senator Zharoff asked what charitable gaming has to do with
political parties? Co-chair Halford explained that it
expands the definition of political groups in terms of
campaign contribution prohibition as broad as possible, but
still be a group. It leaves out individual candidates
operating on their own. Otherwise, it broadens the coverage
of the prohibition on contributions.
Co-chair Halford reiterated the changes in the CS work
draft. He stated that the first change proposed in the CS
is to eliminate duplication. The second, is to broaden the
definition of a political organization to include a campaign
committee. The third, is to make all the reports of the
Division of Charitable Gaming public record. This was done
because when they moved to the Dept of Revenue, they ceased
being public records under another provision. They were
public in Dept of Commerce and Economic Development. He
noted the last change, is the definition of net proceeds,
where they may or may not be distributed.
Senator Rieger put forth a technical question regarding
raffles. He noted that in the bill, raffles is referred to
as a form of charitable gaming. On page 5, it says, "that
any portion of the net proceeds of a charitable gaming
activity". Co-chair Halford clarified that raffles are
separately defined in Section 8, page 5.
Co-chair Frank MOVED to adopt an amendment which replaces
the language on page 3, lines 14-17. He stated that the
intent is that it is not the intent to take money out of
their accounts, but rather, to have the books examined. No
objections being heard, the amendment was ADOPTED.
Senator Sharp MOVED to adopt SCSCSHB 44 (FIN) with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Senator Zharoff OBJECTED. The question is, shall SCSCSHB 44
(FIN) MOVE out of committee with individual recommendations
and attached fiscal note? No further objection being heard,
SCSCSHB 44 (FIN) REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do pass"
and attached fiscal note of $46.5 from the Dept of Revenue.
Co-chairs Halford and Frank, along with Senators Phillips,
Sharp and Rieger recommended "do pass"; Senator Zharoff
recommended "no recommendation".
HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act relating to the financing of technological
developments by public corporations of the state;
and relating to the financing of the Kodiak launch
complex, the Fairbanks satellite ground station space
park, and a low-rank coal water fuel technology
project."
Pat Ladner, Executive Director, Alaska Aerospace testified
to HB 315. He testified that the legislation is a
combination of efforts between Alaska Aerospace, Alaska
Science and Technology Foundation, AIDEA, the governor, and
a by-partisan group of legislators. This bill allows Alaska
to enter into a new non-resource high technology industry
without financial risk. The bill itself is to provide a
financing mechanism to construct an orbital launch facility
on Kodiak Island, and a satellite ground station space park
in Fairbanks. Section 8 directs Alaska Aerospace to do a
feasibility study on the merits of a Challenger Learning
Center.
Co-chair Halford referred to Section 6, which says, "subject
to appropriation, the board may award the following grants:
$5 million to AIDEA and $4 million to AIDEA. Mr. Ladner
stated that the $5 million appropriation is a grant from
ASTF. The funds would be extracted from the annual interest
from that endowment. The $4 million would be the same. Co-
chair Frank stated that they are working on a package now to
make it work. It would be handled either in the operating
budget or the capital budget. He believes it is contained
within their authority in the operating budget.
Kent Dawson, Representing the Usibelli Coal Mine was invited
to join the committee. Senator Rieger questioned the
further development of Beluga or Usibelli Coal Mines. Mr.
Dawson responded the cold water fuel facility is a
demonstration project. In order to work, it would have to
be at tide water. Beluga is envisioned to be the most likely
place a plant would be located.
Senator Rieger inquired as to the funding source. Mr.
Dawson responded that the ASTF funds are contingent upon
federal funds. If federal money does not materialize, there
will be no ASTF funds spent.
Co-chair Frank MOVED to adopt HB 315 with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note. No objections being
heard, CSHB 315 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of committee with
individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note from the
Dept of Commerce and Economic Development. Co-chair Frank
and Senators Rieger and Zharoff recommended "do pass". Co-
chair Halford and Senator Sharp signed "no recommendation".
SENATE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to deep freeze classics; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-chair Frank MOVED to adopt the work draft CS for SB 71.
No objection being made it was ADOPTED. Senator Sharp MOVED
to adopt amendment #1. It makes the option that the
Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce can join together with the
Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce and the Fairbanks Convention
and Visitors Bureau, who in fact have been selling tickets
last summer. No objection having been heard, the amendment
was ADOPTED. Co-chair Frank MOVED to adopt CSSB 71 (FIN) as
amended with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal note. No objection having been heard, CSSB 71 (FIN)
was REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero fiscal note and a
"do pass" from Co-chair Frank, along with Senators Rieger
and Sharp. Co-chair Halford signed "do not pass", and
Senator Zharoff signed "no recommendation."
The meeting was RECESSED at approximately 8:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|