Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/06/1995 01:00 PM FIN
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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.