Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/05/2001 01:32 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 5, 2001
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 19(RES)
"An Act repealing the termination date of changes made by ch. 87,
SLA 1997, and ch. 132, SLA 1998, regarding child support
enforcement and related programs; repealing the nonseverability
provision of ch. 132, SLA 1998; repealing uncodified laws relating
to ch. 87, SLA 1997, and ch. 132, SLA 1998; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSSB 19(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 2
"An Act relating to reimbursement of municipal bonds for school
construction; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 11
"An Act relating to the legal age for attending school; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 2 - No previous action.
SB 11 - No previous action.
SB 19 - See Resources minutes dated 1/24/01 and HESS minutes dated
1/29/01.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Juli Lucky
Aide to Senator Halford
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained a proposed amendment to SB 19
Ms. Diane Wendlandt
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Confirmed that Senator Halford's amendment
to SB 19 would not interfere with CSED's ability to comply with
federal requirements
Ms. Barbara Miklos, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W 7th Ave., Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Not opposed to Senator Halford's amendment
to SB 19
Julia Tenison
Chugiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern about the
constitutionality of SB 19
Mary Jackson
Aide to Senator Torgerson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the sponsor of SB 2
Debbie Ossiander
Anchorage School Board
PO Box 670772
Chugiak, AK 99567
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 2
Eddie Jeans
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 2
Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 11
Holly Morris
Staff to Senator Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 11
Loyola McManus
Alaska Association of Elementary Principals
927 Wood Way
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 41 and SB 11
Mr. Vernon Marshall
Executive Director, NEA-Alaska
114 2nd Street
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 11
Mr. Darrol Hargraves
Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 4th, Suite 404
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 11
Mr. David Pfrimmer
North Pole Elementary School
250 Snowman Lane
North Pole, AK 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 11
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-8, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present were
Senators Wilken, Ward, Davis and Green. The first order of
business to come before the committee was SB 19.
SB 19-CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT/SOC SEC. #
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt the proposed CSSB 19(HES), labeled as
Version L, for the purpose of discussion. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
CHAIR GREEN explained that the findings and intent section in SB 19
was removed in the committee substitute. In addition, the sunset
provisions on the sections requiring that social security numbers
be provided by applicants for various licenses, court documents,
and to the Bureau of Vital Statistics, were reinstated. The five
year sunset provision was also renewed on the provisions allowing
the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to enter into
agreements with financial institutions for financial data matching.
She noted the provisions in the bill that were left as is (with no
sunset provision) were those that would be detrimental to the
state, CSED, or the people involved. One example is that the fine
for incorrect employer reporting will remain at $10 instead of
$1,000. She noted Senator Halford has asked the committee to
consider an amendment.
MS. JULI LUCKY, staff to Senator Halford, explained that Senator
Halford has had concerns about the CSED legislation that passed in
1997 and 1998. One concern was the new hire reporting requirement.
Small employers who hire people sporadically might not be aware of
the new hire requirement, therefore Senator Halford wants to
provide protection from liability for those employers for the wages
that should have been withheld. That protection would not apply to
employers who have been served with withholding orders. She noted
the statute would be clarified by adding, to the new hire reporting
section, the phrase, "Violation of this subsection does not give
rise to a private cause of action."
CHAIR GREEN asked for an explanation of "private cause of action."
MS. LUCKY explained that the employer could not be sued by a
private party, therefore the person who is owed the money could not
sue the employer. She clarified that a private cause of action is
not between CSED and the employer.
MS. DIANE WENDLANDT, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
said her understanding of the amendment is that it will address
private liability to a custodial parent or someone else who is owed
child support and might attempt to hold an employer liable, outside
of statutory penalties, which are already in place. The federal
law requires certain statutory penalties, which will not be
affected by the amendment.
MS. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director of CSED, testified via teleconference
and said that as long as CSED remains in compliance with the
welfare reform requirements, she doesn't think the amendment will
do any harm.
MS. WENDLANDT said she doesn't believe the amendment will place
CSED out of compliance.
CHAIR GREEN announced her intention to pass the bill from committee
today. She noted she spent a lot of time going over all of the
provisions of the bill to create the new draft.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt Senator Halford's amendment (Version
L.1). There being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to report CSSB 19(HES) as amended from the
Senate HESS Committee with individual recommendations and its
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
Number 774
MS. JULIA TENISON, testifying via teleconference from Chugiak, said
she would like to comment on the legislation to repeal the law
requiring the collection of social security numbers for CSED.
CHAIR GREEN explained that when the original legislation was passed
in 1978 and 1998, many sections contained a three year sunset
provision. CSED submitted legislation [SB 19] to remove all sunset
provisions, therefore none of the provisions would have been up for
review. The committee has removed three provisions from the bill
so that they will come back for review in five years.
MS. LUCKY noted that she was contacted by Ms. Tenison because she
had some problems receiving a driver's license due to the social
security number requirement. Ms. Tenison does not have a social
security number and has received several tickets for driving
without a license. Ms. Tenison is familiar with the legislation
and has done exhaustive research on the legislation that was passed
in 1997 and 1998.
MS. TENISON informed committee members that she has a case pending
before the Court of Appeals.
CHAIR GREEN asked if her situation is related to child support
enforcement.
MS. TENISON replied, "Only to the extent that the legislation
passed and the name of child support enforcement has reached out
and touched my life."
CHAIR GREEN said the CSED director was asked at the last meeting
about the impact on drivers' licenses. She thought that issue
would have to be taken up with the Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV).
MS. WENDLANDT said her understanding is that there was some
confusion on the part of DMV but it has been cleared up.
Apparently, DMV thought if a person did not have a social security
number, he or she had to obtain one to get a driver's license.
That is not CSED's position. At this point, if a person does not
have a social security number, he or she does not have to obtain
one to get a driver's license.
Number 1052
MS. MIKLOS confirmed Ms. Wendlandt's statement and said she talked
to the director of DMV a few weeks ago. The director assured her
that she sent a letter to all field offices informing them that if
a person has never had a social security number, that person must
sign an affidavit saying so. She was not sure whether Ms. Tenison
has gone back to DMV since that time.
MS. TENISON said she has not. She pointed out her concern about
this law is that when she went to DMV, the office manager was
enforcing this legislation and handed her a copy of a direct quote
from the statute. Ms. Tenison was denied reissue of her driver's
license. Nothing in the law itself allows for correcting a big
error in the law after the fact. That is why she is in court and
does not have a driver's license. She stated the legislature
created a situation that needs to be looked at seriously,
especially the findings and purposes section, because the law is
unreasonable and unconstitutional. She believes the constitutional
issues surrounding this law are very serious and should not be
pushed aside.
Regarding DMV, MS. TENISON said she has not been contacted about
the change in policy.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Lucky to contact the director of DMV and put
her in contact with Ms. Tenison.
MS. LUCKY agreed and informed committee members that Ms. Tenison's
main concern is about the constitutionality of collecting social
security numbers.
Number 1187
CHAIR GREEN informed Ms. Tenison that most people in the room would
have fully agreed with Ms. Tenison 10 to 15 years ago when the
federal government forbade the use of social security numbers for
identification. Now the federal government has reversed that
decision and allows social security numbers to be required. The
new federal directive has changed the constitutionality question.
MS. TENISON responded that the federal law does not mandate
anything - it says states need to do things if they want to
continue to get money. Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (PL
93-579) says a person cannot be required to give his or her social
security number. She said she has done enough research to know the
law has not actually changed, even though the federal government
may say it has.
CHAIR GREEN said she would look into that.
MS. TENISON said if the committee is interested, Senator Halford's
office might be able to provide a copy of the legal research she
has done on the constitutional issues for her case before the Court
of Appeals.
CHAIR GREEN thanked Ms. Tenison, Ms. Lucky, and Ms. Wendlandt and
announced the committee would take up SB 2.
Number 1315
SB 2-MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BOND REIMBURSEMENT
MS. MARY JACKSON, aide to Senator Torgerson, sponsor of SB 2,
explained the measure as follows. HB 281, which passed last year,
was a bonding package that included a number of projects, including
school bonds. The timeframe for that bonding package is from 1998
to 2004. SB 2 predominantly affects the Anchorage School District.
SB 2 exempts Anchorage from the requirement to adhere to some of
the ballot proposition language currently in statute and corrects
an unintended glitch in HB 281.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the Mat-Su Borough ever fell within the
troublesome part of HB 281.
MS. JACKSON replied Mat-Su was included in HB 281 and was the
reason the bill was retroactive to 1998. Her understanding is that
the Mat-Su Borough has taken full advantage of all of the bonds so
it does not have to come back under this program. She explained
that Anchorage put a vote before the voters for 100 percent
reimbursement, instead of a 70-30 split.
CHAIR GREEN asked if all other language is the same.
MS. JACKSON said it is. She pointed out the first revision to the
law is on page 4 and that Section 1 is in existing law.
CHAIR GREEN asked what cost is associated with SB 2.
MS. JACKSON said the fiscal note is zero because it applies to a
previous bond.
CHAIR GREEN took public testimony.
MS. DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Anchorage School Board, stated strong support
for SB 2. She explained that technical language problems prohibited
Anchorage from taking full advantage of HB 281. Anchorage voters
approved $77.9 million worth of school bonds. At the time no one
knew whether any state reimbursement for those bonds was a
possibility. Passage of SB 2 will enable Anchorage to follow suit
with other districts and take advantage of previously apportioned
money.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Ossiander if Anchorage was included in the
conversation about HB 281 last year.
MS. OSSIANDER said it was and that Anchorage lobbied for debt
reimbursement. Unfortunately, at the time, Anchorage did not know
what percentage of debt reimbursement was possible. At the advice
of bond counsel, language was put forth to the voters saying that
Anchorage would attempt to go for debt reimbursement but, if not
available, 100 percent would be paid locally.
SENATOR WARD asked how much money is involved.
MR. EDDY JEANS, school finance manager for the Department of
Education and Early Development (DOEED), said SB 2 only affects the
Anchorage School District and possibly one project in the Northwest
Arctic Borough. Under HB 281, the legislature passed a lengthy
debt reimbursement list. Unfortunately, this will continue to be a
problem in the future as municipalities continue to get voter
approval for projects when the debt reimbursement program has no
authorization for those projects. DOEED will not review and
approve projects for a debt reimbursement program if there is no
authorization. That is exactly what happened in Anchorage. There
was no authorization on the books but Anchorage decided to go to
the voters for approval. Key elements were not on the ballot that
were required by the legislation, such as the amount of
reimbursement from the State, the estimated total cost of the
project, the estimated interest, and the estimated annual cost of
operation and maintenance. DOEED will not review ballot language
if it does not have authorization on the books so Anchorage got
ahead of DOEED.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the Mat-Su Borough came back to DOEED after it
held its election.
MR. JEANS said it did.
CHAIR GREEN asked if it was assumed that Anchorage would qualify
when HB 281 was enacted.
MR. JEANS said that he could make that assurance.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Ms. Ossiander for the projects those bonds will
cover.
MS. OSSIANDER replied SB 2 applies to the bonds that were passed on
April 4, 2000. The projects include:
· Phase 1 Bartlett High School
· Phase 2 and 3 Chugiak High School
· Phase 1 East High School
· Phase 1 Service High School
· Phase 1 Wendler Middle School
· The Denali Elementary replacement project
· District wide renewal/replacement ADA code grades, roof
replacements, Girdwood roof replacement, electrical upgrades
and traffic safety work.
CHAIR GREEN noted an absence of any reference to charter schools.
MS. OSSIANDER said that is true.
CHAIR GREEN asked what it would take to get a charter school on the
list.
MS. OSSIANDER said it would take a bit of a philosophical shift for
the Board. Currently, the Board assumes that charter schools would
deal with their own building needs.
There being no further testimony on SB 2, SENATOR LEMAN moved SB 2
from committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note, if there is one. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
SB 11-COMPULSORY SCHOOL AGE
CHAIR GREEN asked Senator Therriault to present SB 11.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, sponsor of SB 11, explained that SB 11 was
requested by a public school principal in his district. SB 11
simply amends the current statute that says that every child must
begin formal schooling by the age of 7. SB 11 changes the start
date from age 7 to age 6. It does not impact Section (b) of that
statute, which says the child does not have to be in public school
to meet those requirements. A child could be home schooled or
attend an alternative school.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the current statute contains exceptions.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the statute contains a long laundry list of
exceptions. He pointed out that if a child or family has an
emergency situation, such as an illness, Section b(8) provides for
an exemption granted by the district. SB 11 will not impact that
section. SB 11 also provides for optional kindergarten attendance
so that a parent could place a six year old child in kindergarten
or first grade.
CHAIR GREEN asked if SB 11 has any application to the qualifying
date for entry to school. She felt it is important for people to
understand what this bill does not do.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that when a child turns six, the child
would have to be enrolled in school.
CHAIR GREEN asked what would happen to a child who turned six in
February.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the child would enter school the following
school year.
CHAIR GREEN pointed out a child must be five by August 15 for entry
to school in Alaska.
Number 2001
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that the issue he is trying to get at
with SB 11 deals with a small number of people who enroll their
children in the public education system before age 7 but do not
make the children attend, since attendance is not mandatory until
age 7. Teachers must expend a lot of time and energy to keep those
children up to speed with the rest of the class or not advance them
at the end of the school year in the student's first year of
attendance. Most agree there is some stigma associated with being
held back. He believes in providing some flexibility for parents
but once a child is enrolled in first grade, the parent should
ensure that the child attends regularly.
SENATOR LEMAN said he agrees with the problem but not with the fix.
He suggested making the enrollment date the mandatory age so that
students are compelled to attend. He asked Senator Therriault if
he considered any other options.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he did not because the number of children
who fall into this category is very small. He received statistical
information that shows that in 1995, 96 percent of five and six
years of age were enrolled in formal education, with the exception
of children who are home schooled. If home school students are
included, the percentage is about 98 percent, therefore only two
out of 100 children fall in this category.
SENATOR LEMAN said he believes this will only apply to a very small
number of people but those people probably care about government
intervention in their lives. He would be more inclined to support
a fix that solves the problem without overreaching.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said SB 11 does not impact the number of years a
child must be in the education system. It just requires that when
one starts, he or she has to stick with it.
SENATOR LEMAN maintained that he does not read the bill to say one
has to stick with it once one starts.
CHAIR GREEN pointed to line 8, which reads, "shall maintain the
child in attendance, except as provided in (b)." She asked if
current statute requires parents to have their children in school
except for illness or emergency.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he could not speak to each district's
policy. He said he tried to draft the bill narrowly so that it
gets at the issue yet maintains flexibility for parents.
SENATOR DAVIS indicated that she signed on as a co-sponsor to SB 11
because she believes it is high time that the State lower the
mandatory age to attend school. Most states require children to
attend school at age 5. In Alaska, some students enter school at
age 7 without having attended kindergarten or first grade. She
said children mature earlier now and many do not have parents who
will pay for them to attend preschool and get an early start. This
way, those children would not be left at home and would be able to
attend school because it would be mandatory. She said she would
prefer to require mandatory school enrollment at age five.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out the fiscal note is indeterminate
because the expected number of students that SB 11 will impact is
very small.
TAPE 01-8, SIDE B
SENATOR WARD asked when and why age 7 was put in statute.
MS. HOLLY MORRIS, staff to Senator Therriault, informed the
committee that the ages 7 to 16 are in the statute from the Alaska
Compiled Laws of the Territory, 1949. The legislative librarians
found the law goes back to 1913. The statute has never been
reviewed between then and now.
MS. LOYOLA MCMANUS, representing the Alaska Association of
Elementary School Principals (AAESP), testified from Fairbanks.
She believes SB 11 addresses two issues: children who begin school
at age 7 are at a disadvantage because those children are one to
two years behind his or her peers. Those children are at risk of
being physically, emotionally and socially out of sync with their
classmates. Given that the general practice in Alaska is that 6
year olds are in school, SB 11 would provide a more appropriate and
uniform starting point for all children. Second, SB 11 addresses
truancy and enforcement. At the elementary level, truancy is often
a family problem. If a district wants to use the court system to
address school attendance, it could not do so for a six year old.
This sends a message to families that early education is not
important. In 1998, AAESP passed a resolution supporting early
childhood education and mandatory kindergarten in Alaska. AAESP
feels that in light of research on brain growth and development,
and longitudinal studies on early education experiences, this is a
desirable goal. SB 41, by Senator Davis, addresses that concern.
She commended Senators Therriault and Davis for their efforts.
MR. DAVID PFRIMMER, principal of North Pole Elementary School, gave
the following example of the problem, one student missed 75 days of
kindergarten and then 45 or 50 days of first grade. The school
district attempted to withdraw the child but was unable to because
the child was not 7. The child missed 40 days the following year
and at that time the district was able to take the case to court.
With the new truancy law and DFYS intervention, the district was
able to get the child back to school. By that time, the child was
far behind academically, socially, and emotionally. He has met
children who started school at age 7 who are one to two years
behind the rest of their age group and must attend kindergarten.
He noted that students can begin school in first grade but
kindergarten has become more academic so first grade can be
difficult without it.
MS. OSSIANDER, Anchorage School Board, stated support for SB 11.
Education research shows the benefit of early education and more
parents are asking for a full-day kindergarten. She noted with the
new move toward accountability of schools, grade 3 is a benchmark
grade. Children who begin school at age 7 will have a lot of
catching up to do. Children are expected to be reading at the end
of first grade.
Number 2083
MR. VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director of NEA-Alaska, said NEA
supports SB 11 for many of the reasons stated. NEA believes it is
critical that children receive educational instruction before age 7
because they will be expected to have reached a proficient level of
reading, writing and math for the third grade benchmark exam. He
agrees that most six year olds are in first grade programs - SB 11
will establish compulsory attendance at age six. That
standardization makes good educational sense. He thought most home
school parents are attempting to educate their children at age six
anyway.
CHAIR GREEN asked if state law addresses truancy.
MR. MARSHALL replied there is compulsory attendance by law for ages
7 to 16 and some would argue that allows for enforcement but Alaska
does not have aggressive truancy laws. In general, the school year
is 180 to 185 days but there is no minimum number of days of
attendance for children.
CHAIR GREEN asked if other states mandate the number of days of
attendance.
MR. MARSHALL said some states do.
CHAIR GREEN said they must have exemptions.
MR. MARSHALL said those laws are very similar to Alaska's law.
Number 1950
SENATOR LEMAN asked Mr. Marshall to expand on his statement that
most home school parents are attempting to educate their children.
He asked if Mr. Marshall believes the same is true of the teachers
in the NEA or whether he believes they are actually educating them.
MR. MARSHALL said one has to make the attempt to educate and
everyone is doing that. Home school parents have the same goal.
Sometimes those attempts are successful, sometimes they are not.
SENATOR LEMAN questioned whether Mr. Marshall was being pejorative
about home schooling.
MR. MARSHALL clarified that he should have said "an aggressive
attempt." NEA wants students to succeed and will make the attempt
to get them over the bars that are now in place.
SENATOR LEMAN said he believes that most parents feel the same way
about their children.
SENATOR WARD asked if NEA has a list of the age requirements for
school attendance in the other states.
MR. MARSHALL said he could provide that information.
Number 1827
MR. DARROL HARGRAVES, Executive Director of the Alaska Council of
School Administrators, said the Council agrees with most of the
arguments made in favor of SB 11 today. He feels the compulsory
age should be lowered to age 6 because many states have detected
that early education is important. He cautioned that an evaluation
process be put in place to consider exceptional children. School
districts have evaluation processes in place to examine children
emotionally, intellectually, physically, and socially to determine
whether a child is ready for kindergarten. Some children may not
be able to handle all of the information they are expected to learn
by grade 3. He maintained that Alaska's compulsory attendance laws
do not have the teeth in them to make them meaningful. In
organized areas, districts can ask the police for assistance, but
many children in Alaska are truant. Compulsory attendance means
that a district has a policy, but districts are unable to get help
from the state troopers because they are too busy.
SENATOR WARD asked if the states with a lower age requirement have
a mandatory kindergarten provision.
MR. HARGRAVES said some states made changes in the 1960s and 1970s
based on research that showed that children are maturing faster.
Research on brain development has improved. That is the argument
he has heard other states make.
SENATOR WARD asked if those states also mandate kindergarten.
MR. HARGRAVES said he was not certain. He said that most states
encourage kindergarten attendance.
Number 1620
MR. EDDY JEANS, school finance manager of DOEED, pointed out that
AS 14.30.030 says the governing body of a school district,
including an REAA, shall establish procedures to prevent and reduce
truancy. Therefore each school district must set its own policy
and procedures. He believes the compulsory education law has 12
exemptions so any parent who wants to keep a child out of school
will find a way. He felt Senator Therriault's concern is valid.
DOEED funds the students who are enrolled.
CHAIR GREEN said she is unresolved on this issue. She pointed out
that when SB 98 was before the legislature in 1995-1996, the
legislature attempted to tie school attendance to public assistance
but it could not be done. She asked Senator Therriault to work
with Senator Leman on a resolution to the problem and announced
that SB 11 will be held over. She announced that the committee
will hear SB 40 and SB 64 on Wednesday and it will take up the exit
exam the following week. She then adjourned the meeting at 3:15
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|