02/04/2004 01:32 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2004
1:32 p.m.
TAPE(S) 04-4
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Fred Dyson, Chair
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 201
"An Act relating to home care and respite care; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 201(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 277
"An Act relating to the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education; relating to the Alaska Student Loan Corporation;
relating to bonds of the corporation; relating to loan and grant
programs of the commission; relating to an exemption from the
State Procurement Code regarding certain contracts of the
commission or corporation; making conforming changes; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 239
"An Act relating to the required number of days in a school
year."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 201
SHORT TITLE: HOME & RESPITE CARE: CRIMINAL RECORDS
SENATOR(s): JUDICIARY
04/28/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/28/03 (S) STA, HES
05/15/03 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
05/15/03 (S) -- Meeting Postponed to 5/17/03 --
05/17/03 (S) STA RPT 3DP
05/17/03 (S) DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY, DYSON
05/17/03 (S) STA AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
05/17/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
05/17/03 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/04/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 277
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS
SENATOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/23/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/04 (S) HES, FIN
02/04/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 239
SHORT TITLE: LENGTH OF SCHOOL TERM
SENATOR(s): DYSON
01/12/04 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (S) HES
02/04/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Virginia Stonkus, Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 201.
Mr. Brian Hove, Staff to Senator Ralph Seekins
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 201.
Mr. Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Research and Legal Services
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented technical information on SB 201.
Ms. Diane Barrans, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE);
Executive Officer,
Alaska Student Loan Corporation (ASLC)
3030 Vintage Blvd.
Juneau, AK 99801-7109
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 277.
Mr. Rick Williams, Chief Enrollment Officer
University of Alaska
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 277.
Mr. Ted Malone, Director of Financial Aid,
University of Alaska
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 277.
Mr. Wes Keller, Staff to Chair Dyson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 239.
Mr. Kevin Sweeney, Legislative liaison
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 239, with reservations.
Mr. Tim Steele
Anchorage School District (ASD)
PO Box 196614
Anchorage, AK 99519-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 239.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-4, SIDE A
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.
Present were Senators Green, Wilken, Guess and Chair Dyson.
Senator Davis was excused due to family illness. He announced
the committee would hear SB 201, SB 277, and SB 239.
SB 201-HOME & RESPITE CARE: CRIMINAL RECORDS
MS. VIRGINIA STONKUS, Division of Public Health, Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS), testified that the department
was in support of the bill and that she was available to answer
questions. She noted fiscal notes from both DPS and DHSS.
MR. BRIAN HOVE, Staff to Senator Ralph Seekins, testified that
SB 201 solves a problem that occurred during the prior
administration. He referenced home care providers Title 47,
noting that AS 12.62.035(a) was repealed; SB 201 corrects that
gap.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN mentioned that 201 is somewhat of a Revisor's
Bill.
CHAIR DYSON inquired about the practical applications of SB 201,
asking, "What difference does it make?"
MR. HOVE responded that the bill allows home care providers to
access certain records available through public law. He said
Jerry [Luckhaupt] would speak to the bill's technical
applications.
CHAIR DYSON asked if home care providers' ability to perform
criminal background checks would be inhibited without this bill.
MR. HOVE responded he understood this to be so.
CHAIR DYSON asked if SB 201 originated in [Senate] Judiciary.
MR. HOVE explained that Senator Seekins was the primary sponsor;
the bill came through [former] Senator Robin Taylor's office,
the prior chair of Judiciary.
CHAIR DYSON clarified that Version H, which was before the
committee, was from Judiciary, not Senator Seekins.
MR. HOVE confirmed this was correct.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Research and Legal Services, testified that the
revisor discovered the problem in statutes and contacted the
Judiciary chair who decided to sponsor the bill rather than
making it a technical amendment to the Revisor's Bill. Home
health care providers and nursing facilities, before being
issued a license and before allowing employees to work, are
required to perform certain background checks of employees; that
refers to a statute that was repealed in a governor's bill about
five years ago. Basically this leaves no direction regarding
which convictions employers are allowed to check. There is also
a federal law requiring home health care providers and nursing
facilities to perform background checks, thereby giving them
access to federal records. Mr. Luckhaupt continued that he
looked to the federal law, Public Law 105-277, noting that it
requires certain criminal records of employees to be checked.
Right now, checks are being required under a state statute that
doesn't exist; this doesn't make much sense.
CHAIR DYSON referenced the letter from James Crawford included
in the committee packet.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that as assistant revisor, he was
pointing out the problem that existed.
CHAIR DYSON asked if Mr. Crawford was suggesting that the
Legislature provide a more substantive solution than what Mr.
Luckhaupt was proposing.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that Mr. Crawford was pointing out that
the reason this couldn't be included in the Revisor's Bill was
because the Legislature's intent was not known. The section had
just been repealed. Because there was no way to discern the
Legislature's intent in this area, when the governor's bill was
adopted four or five years ago, Mr. Crawford's letter to the
Judiciary Chair at the time was basically [indisc.].
CHAIR DYSON confirmed that the bill was basically a response to
the problem. He said he assumed that Judiciary would do a good
job of reviewing the judicial aspects, while this committee's
focus should be on the safety and health of the homes.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said that Public Law 105-277, a copy of which was
in the committee packet, requires home health care providers and
nursing facilities to perform background checks on employees
within five days of their going to work. Federal law requires
that the employer review the criminal history record and make a
hire/fire decision, so the onus is on the employer to make a
decision.
MR. LUCKHAUPT remarked that several other states have gone this
route in the past few years, noting a brochure from Wisconsin's
attorney general on this subject and mentioning both Wyoming and
North Carolina. He said that home health care provider agencies
and nursing facilities have a specific law that does not apply
to any other group; it gives those employers specific access to
these criminal history records. He said he understood that DPS
would like to make an addition to the bill, and he didn't have
any problem with that. He said that in addition to Public Law
105-277, DPS wants to refer to [Alaska's] own criminal history
record AS 12.62, so that these employers could access both state
and federal databases.
MR. HOVE said the CS [committee substitute] tacks AS 12.62 on to
Public Law 105-277 and is Version I.
CHAIR DYSON asked if [Senator Seekins's] office approved of the
CS and received non-verbal confirmation that this was the case.
SENATOR GREEN questioned whether this would be above the normal
standard. She asked if this took Alaska to "where we should be
in the securing of employees" for these facilities.
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that this was correct. He explained
that this was simply "plugging in federal law" - that federal
law requirements are not currently reflected in Alaska's
statutes. Employers are being required to perform background
checks based upon a state law that no longer exists; this leaves
a lack of direction. Citing this federal law appears to answer
the question, "What is required?"
CHAIR DYSON told members that he had a concern that was slightly
off subject, and mentioned that providers who serve vulnerable
folks have raised the question of perpetrators who perpetrated
their crimes while they were juveniles. Because of there being
no access to juvenile records, he asked if it were true that
there would be no way to access that information if, for
example, an applicant at 18 or 21 years of age had done
horrendous things.
1:46 p.m.
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that this was true in most instances.
He explained that juvenile offenses are not crimes, per se, and
in most cases those offenses wouldn't be in federal, FBI, or in
most state's databases. He said he wasn't sure how to get to
those records and suggested that LeeAnn [Lucas] might have
further information about how the state compiles or keeps track
of that information. He confirmed that dealing with the
delinquency area is problematic because of it not being treated
as criminal in the usual sense. He said if a person is 16 and
commits certain heinous crimes - murder, sexual assault, or
things like that - he/she is automatically treated as an adult.
For most other crimes, the Legislature has chosen to say, "These
people don't have the criminal capacity to commit a crime."
CHAIR DYSON stated that this information shouldn't impact the
committee and asked if there were any further questions,
testimony or discussion of SB 201. He asked for the wish of the
committee.
SENATOR GREEN said she would move the CS after distribution.
MR. HOVE explained the change would add AS 12.62 to all four
sections of the bill.
CHAIR DYSON asked if there was objection to adopting Version I
[23-LS0118/I, Luckhaupt, 2/3/04] as the CS and the working
document.
CHAIR DYSON, upon seeing and hearing no objection, announced
that the working document was the CS for SB 201, Version I. He
asked for the wish of the committee.
SENATOR GREEN moved that CSSB 201(HES) with individual
recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note(s) be moved
from committee.
CHAIR DYSON asked if there was any objection. Seeing and
hearing none, it was so ordered.
1:50 p.m.
SB 277-STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS
The committee took up SB 277, at the request of the governor.
MS. DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education ("Commission"), and Executive Officer of
the Alaska Student Loan Corporation ("Corporation") testified
that the objectives of SB 277 were five-fold. She referred to
the sectional analysis in the committee packet and said she
would provide a brief description. She outlined the objectives
as follows:
1. To broaden the scope of the Corporation's bonding
authority [indisc.] and to balance the general benefit
of the state. This change is requested to ensure, as
the ASLC has the capacity to return contributed
capital to the state, that it will have a variety of
means to do so and will be able to select the most
effective and efficient means.
2. To reconstitute the state's student grant program
to better focus on Alaska's workforce needs, and to
enhance the Commission's current outreach and early
awareness initiatives.
3. To provide the Commission with greater flexibility
in offering loan consolidation options to existing
borrowers. Current statutes limit the way in which
the Commission can offer consolidation. Certain
customers who have borrowed under the older Alaska
Student Loan program, which has been discontinued, and
its successor program, the AlaskAdvantage supplemental
education loan program, cannot consolidate across
programs.
4. To clarify the Commission's ability to
administratively issue liens in the collection of
defaulted education loans and to clearly set out the
due process available to a borrower in the event of a
dispute taken on action by the Commission.
5. To provide an exemption from the state procurement
code for certain services related to guaranteeing and
disbursing of education loans. Under the current
business structure for education loans, a lender must
be prepared to do business with the vendors and
services preferred by the institutions participating
in the program. In that case, a low bidder approach
may lead to doing business with an entity not used by
the schools being served.
1:55 p.m.
MS. BARRANS continued the sectional analysis, beginning with
Section 1, saying that this area adds authority and clarifies
the process to issue [indisc. due to paper shuffling] amending
language shown on page 2 of the bill. Section 2 allows
financing of the Education Incentive Grant Program through the
funds of the Corporation, adding it as one of the financial aid
programs that the Corporation can fund. Section 3 has
conforming language adding to the Corporation's ability to use
funds and assets to finance that program. Section 4
specifically broadens the scope of bonding authority for the
Corporation. Lines 23 - 31 allows for additional payment - to
issue bonds to finance state projects, as identified. She
explained that in Section 5 the Commission and Corporation both
feel it's more appropriate for the financial authority to set
the fees and rates associated with the programs. Section 6
makes changes to the current consolidation language in statute;
it removes the limitation of consolidating loans under the old
program and says consolidation can occur when a borrower holds
two or more education loans. Section 7 relates to the authority
for establishing a collection order. New language is on page 5,
lines 3 - 5. Section 8 contains all new language and sets out
the specific due process for those challenging the placement of
a lien through the administrative process. That new language
continues through page 7, line 9.
MS. BARRANS referenced Section 9, page 7, and explained that for
about 20 years, the old state Education Incentive Grant Program
was funded through the general fund. Those funds, partially
because of the small amount of federal dollars that could be
captured, were lined out of the budget in the late '90s, and
grant funds have not flowed to Alaskans through a state-
operating program since then. She then apologized and clarified
that Section 9 contains a conforming change to statute regarding
the trademark name of AlaskAdvantage. Ms. Barrans continued
with Section 10, noting the requirement for immediate repayment
of consolidation loans. Rather than giving a six-month grace
period that normal education loans give, between cessation of
school attendance and the start of repayment, there is no six-
month grace period. Once the loan has originated, repayment
commences within 30-45 days. Section 11 on page 7, contains
conforming changes for the new administrative collection order
authority. Section 12 reflects a trademark name change.
Section 13 is a conforming change that allows for the
consolidation of supplemental education loans. Section 14 is an
eligibility requirement. She said that currently there is a
double standard under the Alaska supplemental education loan
program. If a loan applicant's credit score is of a certain
level, he/she can receive the loan even if there was a prior
default on a debt. As long as it is cleared and the credit
score is met, he/she can receive that loan. However, if there
was a previous default on one of our loans, even if it was
repaid in full, a co-signer is required. This change attempts
to even the playing field; if the applicant meets all other
criteria, a co-signer won't be necessary. Ms. Barrans pointed
out that some changes are "clean-up" rather than substantive.
CHAIR DYSON suggested that she skip through those changes.
MS. BARRANS continued that Section 16 refers to the
AlaskAdvantage education grant program and the following several
sections provide for key changes to that program. The grant
program would be used in Alaska, and presuming there would be
more demand than available funds for those grants, it would
allow the Commission, by regulation, to create a priority system
whereby students enrolled in certain programs of study leading
to employment in critical worker-shortage areas in Alaska would
have first priority for those funds. This creates a fusion of a
needs-based Alaska-centric approach, making it a stronger and
more highly valued program in Alaska. She told members she
would skip to Section 24, page 11, and said the occupational
areas she was recommending as being of greatest priority for
grant funding were set out in lines 19 - 22. These occupational
clusters, pre-defined by the Alaska Department of Labor [and
Workforce Development] are:
· community and social service;
· education, training, and
library;
· healthcare;
· protective service.
She said the second tier criterion was whether there was a
workforce shortage and that obviously there may be a workforce
shortage in some of those occupations but not in others. As
defined on lines 25-28, the Department of Labor would determine
whether there was a current or recurring vacancy rate of 10
percent or greater, as an attempt at defining who could receive
a prioritized grant award.
SENATOR GREEN asked, "Are you sure you want these in statute?
They don't narrow you too much, or open you to, in some ways,
too broad?" She questioned whether the language "severe
shortage" would allow for the ability to respond to an emergency
or a change in circumstance. She asked, "Is this in addition or
is it just part of the defining?"
MS. BARRANS replied this had to do with the prioritization of
funds, and involved the Commission's long-term approach to
creating a mechanism to prioritize for these areas. Funds could
be made available under the grant program to any otherwise
qualified grant applicant attending an accredited program of
study in Alaska. She said the scenario suggested by Senator
Green was certainly a possibility; however, she was working from
the reality base of it being unlikely that there will ever be
sufficient funds to grant to everybody. She explained that by
focusing on the already identified long-term worker shortage
areas in the state, there would be a program that, at least for
some years, wouldn't require modification, although she wouldn't
expect the program to fully address the need for teachers, RNs,
LPNs, or nurses' aides.
SENATOR GREEN noted that the group being highlighted was a
narrow group, and suggested that at times a different group
might have a higher priority. She said she thought Ms. Barrans
would prefer to have a floating description of "shortage" and
re-stated her question regarding whether Ms. Barrans wanted to
define this in statute.
MS. BARRANS responded that this had already been discussed
within the agency and her answer to the question at this point
was yes. She said that a number of other industries in the
state could be pointed to as having shortage areas, such as
bankers, engineers or computer scientists. The identified group
focuses on a healthy infrastructure regarding public safety and
well being while weighing in economic factors. Recruiting for
high-end, high-wage jobs such as computer scientists, engineers,
or architects, is different. Candidly, she said there have been
a number of initiatives over the years and the feeling is that
professions having to do with health, safety, and education fall
into a special category - the infrastructure of a community.
She said there was only so much money to go around, and
targeting in this way makes sense.
SENATOR GREEN asked for clarification regarding the pot of money
and the program being defined in Section 24. She wondered if
shortage priority related to a very limited grant program, not
having anything to do with anything else.
MS. BARRANS replied, "No, absolutely not." She explained that
the intention was to keep the costs of other programs low,
competitive, and unilaterally available to every Alaskan.
SENATOR GREEN stated that although she doesn't often disagree
with Ms. Barrans, she wasn't sure she was in agreement with Ms.
Barrans's taking responsibility for determining "what is the
state's highest priority, and if it should be social service,
health, education, protective service." She said she wasn't
sure this was within [Ms. Barrans'] purview.
CHAIR DYSON acknowledged this was a good question, and pointed
out the demonstrable public safety need in rural Alaska and
asked if such training was outside of the availability of this
category of grants.
MS. BARRANS said no, that as long as the program of study was
required for entry into that occupation and was offered through
an accredited institution in Alaska, it would qualify. She
mentioned AVTech, University of Alaska's campuses, Ilisagvik
[College}, Alaska Pacific, and Sheldon Jackson's trooper course
in Sitka as potentially qualifying programs.
CHAIR DYSON remarked that if and when there is a gas pipeline,
there would be a desperate need for quality welders; this
language wouldn't allow the grants to be used for such an
anticipated future need.
MS. BARRANS said she believed the Commission would have the
ability, through regulation, to define a current [need] and to
factor in train-up time, if in fact DOL forecasts an anticipated
shortage in the future that's not a shortage today.
CHAIR DYSON asked, "Which one of these categories under Section
24?"
MS. BARRANS referred to page 11, line 25 and said she believes
that the Commission, through regulation, could define "current"
as meaning anticipated to occur within a six-month or twelve-
month period for example, in which case prioritization could be
considered.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked if the priority list was on page
10, line 26 - 31:
The commission shall give an applicant eligible under
(a) of this section priority for a grant award if that
applicant is, or is about to be, enrolled in a program
of study that is preparatory for employment in a
health, human services, education, or public safety
occupation or profession for which the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development, or another workforce
data source selected as reliable by the commission,
indicates there is a severe shortage of trained
individuals in this state.
MS. BARRANS replied this was correct.
SENATOR GUESS questioned whether welders would be considered
under this part of the statute.
MS. BARRANS responded, "If it appears within one of those four
occupational clusters."
CHAIR DYSON asked about this having to be a profession.
MS. BARRANS said, "or occupation."
CHAIR DYSON said, "A welder isn't a public safety occupation and
is questionably not a profession."
MS. BARRANS said it was unlikely that "welder" falls into one of
the four occupational clusters set aside for prioritization.
2:15 p.m.
CHAIR DYSON asked if these grants would apply to a student at
AVTech.
MS. BARRANS replied absolutely.
CHAIR DYSON referred to the possibility of a student taking a
welding class [at AVTech].
MS. BARRANS explained that students could apply; prioritization
depends on what the pool of applicants looks like for that year,
how much money is available, and whether or not prioritization
is necessary. If there are no worker shortages and
prioritization is not necessary, then money is dispensed on a
needs basis.
CHAIR DYSON said if a huge project need was recognized, the four
categories would have to be satisfied before the first welder
would be taken.
MS. BARRANS replied this would depend on how regulations were
written, as this relies on the Commission to put a lot of the
bones into the structure of the program. The Commission could
allocate 'x' percentage of funds to the prioritization fields
for that year, "and make the others generally available to
applicants."
CHAIR DYSON said he understood what was said, acknowledging that
he wasn't sure it was good public policy to leave it just to the
Commission.
MS. BARRANS concluded [the sectional analysis] by referencing
Section 29, page 12, saying that this would exempt the
disbursing, and guarantee third party from the state [indisc.].
CHAIR DYSON referred to Section 4, page 3, sub-paragraph 3, line
28.
TAPE 04-4, SIDE B
CHAIR DYSON continued that this appears to say that proceeds of
the bonds can be used to finance any kind of state activity
approved by law. He asked if this was a change from current
policy.
MS. BARRANS responded that it was. She explained that the
Corporation would like to achieve the objective in the next few
years, as funds are available, to return the original
contributed capital that the state gave to start up the
Corporation between 1988 and 1992, in cash and assets - over
$360 million [indisc. due to paper shuffling]. This would allow
the Corporation to consider if it was most efficient and cost-
effective to return the capital through the issuance of bonds.
The return being made in FY 05 is based on a bonds issuing of
assets that are free and clear, allowing for the ability to
proceed because of not being pledged to any other indenture
currently outstanding for the Corporation. Even if the assets
continue to be pledged to the indenture, if the additional bonds
can be financed to give the proceeds to the state to use,
typically, as they will be in FY 05 for capital project
expenditures, the Corporation would be able to select that
option.
CHAIR DYSON commented that this was a significant change in
policy. He asked if it said, "up to the limit" of what the
state originally contributed to this fund.
MS. BARRANS said it did not. It does not set a cap. Financial
advisors have identified that about $250 to $260 million could
be returned. This will be less than the $306 [million]
originally used to capitalize the program; however, the
Corporation's annual dividends, paid to the state for the last
four years, is expected to continue in a rather flat, modest
amount. Through FY 05, the Corporation will have returned $22
million in dividends. She said the expectation is that over
time, the total return to the state will be its contributed
capital plus some earnings on the Corporation, but those will be
relatively modest.
SENATOR GUESS referred to Section 4 and asked, "What do we bond
for now?"
MS. BARRANS replied it was to finance the Corporation's
programs.
SENATOR GUESS asked about the included language, specifically
the Corporation's borrowing money or issuing of bonds.
MS. BARRANS replied, "That's how bond counsel recommended it."
SENATOR GUESS commented on the language being "as broad as I've
ever seen language" and questioned whether there was any limit
on bonding for these purposes, or what would stop someone from
bonding again after the $260 million.
MS. BARRANS replied, "The capacity to do so in a way that makes
sense is really what would be lacking." The Corporation issues
bonds at AA rating or greater, and to do that, there must be
minimum levels of cash flow, minimal levels of coverage to issue
bonds at that rating in the financial market. Once the return
of capital has been completed, there will be no capacity to do
that and the Corporation's extra, resulting from regaining
financial health, will be gone.
SENATOR GUESS asked, "What if you need the extra to keep the
health of the Corporation during the time of repayment?"
MS. BARRANS replied that something attractive about a 3-year
phased-in project is that OMB [Office of Management and Budget]
understands that each year the Corporation will run cash flows
ensuring that low-cost loans can be offered that can continue to
be reserved for the benefits on the program and will then ask,
"to what extent funds are available." She said there is always
some flex in the next two annual cycles because of wanting to do
that in real time. The Corporation felt a need to be candid
regarding its long-term objective.
SENATOR GUESS asked, "There's no more excess but there is some
flexibility?" She admitted to being worried about [the time]
when Ms. Barrans would be gone, voicing that this was pretty
broad language and the stopgaps and check systems weren't
included to ensure that bonding past capacity wouldn't happen.
She voiced concern about the potential scenario of the program
not being offered, yet there being a student loan rate increase
due to someone wanting to finance projects in the state and
deciding to use ACPE as that means.
MS. BARRANS replied that she couldn't predict the future but her
observation has been that [student loan] programs have been so
valued over the past ten years that every effort has been made
to secure the financial well being of the Corporation. She said
it was beyond her imagination that someone would close down the
programs, especially as support has been increasing. She
doesn't believe the public or any Legislature or administration
would close this down.
SENATOR GUESS recalled a time when the program wasn't as good as
it is now and stated that she didn't share Ms. Barrans'
confidence. She remarked that the language was even broader
than [AHFC's, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation's] bonding
language, and thought this was fairly irresponsible language.
She asked how much it would cost the Corporation to pay back the
bonds.
MS. BARRANS replied that year one has a $75 million revenue
piece. She said there were two fiscal notes, and a $120
thousand federal match. She said there should be $75 million in
revenue on the ASLC fiscal note for FY 05 and she would get that
[information] to the committee. The overall debt service
expected to pay in principal and interest, over 13 years, will
total about $92 million, she said.
SENATOR GUESS asked if this would impact the dividend paid to
the state.
MS. BARRANS responded that statute is currently structured to
determine the dividend at about $500 thousand less per year.
SENATOR GUESS asked if the state would get $260 million over a
three-year period.
MS. BARRANS confirmed this to be the case, from FY 05 through FY
07.
2:29 p.m.
SENATOR GUESS referenced page 11, lines 1 - 4, and asked for an
explanation of "priority."
MS. BARRANS said the Commission, through regulation, might use
this as a tool to promote positive student behavior. For
example, the Commission could prioritize funds for students who
have taken a designated college preparatory course during their
secondary school program. She said this wouldn't be the
Commission's first priority. One of her concerns as a program
administrator was the importance of having a program that could
be deemed a success. When a state has limited resources
available and chooses to invest funds in a grant program, it's
better if a grant recipient succeeds in what he/she has been
subsidized to do. It's fairly clear that if a student enrolls
in a challenging curriculum during a secondary program, he/she
is better prepared and able to succeed, once postsecondary
objectives are being pursued. Because this has a needs-based
component, in looking at Alaska's 19-year old population, fewer
than 30 percent continue to postsecondary education, and of
those in the lowest income level, less than 1 in 10 continues on
to postsecondary education. Her concern is that if educational
financial assistance is offered to someone who is not only poor
but also under-prepared, this could be putting that person in a
worse situation than he/she was in before.
SENATOR GUESS asked if the lien provision comes after all the
other liens.
MS. BARRANS replied, "First come, first served."
SENATOR GUESS mentioned that she had spoken with President
Therriault about collections, administrative hearings, and liens
that she thinks should be reviewed by Judiciary rather than
being the focus of HESS or Finance.
MS. BARRANS said, "that is existing, we have that authority" and
the due process is being clarified to improve an already
existing authority.
CHAIR DYSON stated that this committee's primary role was to
ensure that what's going on isn't to the detriment of student
loans or grants, and is hopefully an enhancement to it, while
the financial issues are better handled by Finance. He said he
shares Senator Guess's surprise. CHAIR DYSON took public
testimony.
MR. RICK WILLIAMS, Chief Enrollment Officer, University of
Alaska, Anchorage, testified via teleconference in favor of SB
277, especially Section 16. He said there is a real need in the
state to help needs-based students. He said the data on low-
income students reveals that an average of 75 percent of the
students who receive Pell Grants - which are really poverty-
level grants - from the time of application to enrollment
actually go on to class. That is, except for one small group
who are of maximum need, and that statistic is only about 50
percent. He pointed out that even with the maximum amount
given, those students are still unable to afford college. He
said he was probably referring to first-generation students
whose parents haven't been to college, people trying to get a
leg up in life. He said this grant program was a step in the
right direction, especially the targeting of workforce needs in
2009 that the state needs to develop.
MR. TED MALONE, Director of Financial Aid, University of Alaska,
Anchorage, testified via teleconference in support of SB 277,
specifically sections relating to the AlaskAdvantage education
grant program. He said Alaska was the only state in the union
without a state grant program in place. He said Alaska could
significantly enhance its ability to attract students into the
previously enumerated lower paying occupations. As students
accrue more debt, many career choices are based on one's ability
to pay off that debt. Regarding a decision between accounting,
starting at $45,000, or social work starting at $25,000, the
state's offering of an incentive could go further than the
actual dollars; a little bit of grant money could make a
substantial difference, as it could be an encouragement and
incentive for someone to pursue and persist in a service-
oriented field rather than physical labor, for example, whereby
a similar starting wage might be available without involving the
expense of going to school.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the administration had requested that Mr.
Williams or Mr. Mallone testify on this bill.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that his administration didn't know he was
testifying; he had spoken with the Commission and was excited
about this program.
CHAIR DYSON thanked them for their testimony and asked if there
was any further testimony. Hearing none, he took a brief at-
ease from 2:40 - 2:41 p.m. He announced that the bill would be
held in committee until probably early next week.
2:42 p.m.
SB 239-LENGTH OF SCHOOL TERM
The committee took up SB 239.
MR. WES KELLER, Staff to Chair Dyson, presented SB 239,
explaining that the bill redefines the school year,
traditionally defined to be 180 days. If the local school
district agrees to something less than the 180-day school year,
with the approval of the commissioner of the Department of
Education [and Early Development], then a shorter number of days
could be used and this would be consistent with the state's
standards. This maintains accountability by requiring the
commissioner's approval. Included in the committee packet is a
memo from Anchorage School District Superintendent Carol Comeau
to the School Board, requesting that a resolution be passed in
support of this, and also a copy of the Anchorage School Board's
Resolution in support of this. He said that members should have
version A [23-LS1269], and pointed out that page 2, line 3
reflects the change of "different" rather than "of not less than
170 days" and also that the last sentence on page 2 is not
proactive, but rather intends to avoid problems with labor
issues and contracts.
CHAIR DYSON said the bill was submitted at the request of the
Anchorage School District but in subsequent conversations, the
commissioner of the Department of Education wanted this bill as
well.
MR. KEVIN SWEENEY, Legislative liaison, Department of Education
and Early Development, (DEED), said the commissioner and the
department support the overall intent of the bill. With No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the monitoring of state
assessments, the department is better able to look at the
performance of education programs. With that, a case can be
made for flexibility and inputs that school programs have. The
department believes the legislation strikes a good balance of
allowing for creativity while maintaining state and local
oversight. The department would like to reserve judgment on
page 2, lines 8 - 10 in order to hear from local school
districts on how contract negotiations will be impacted. Also,
the commissioner would like to have a clear definition of
implementation. He said the department would follow this in the
legislative process and talk about it later.
MR. SWEENEY referred to page 2, lines 3 and 4, and said the
commissioner would like to have some definition of a minimum
amount of school days. In current statute, page 1, when schools
go to a term of less than 180 days, there is still a minimum of
150 days. The commissioner wants to ensure that some sort of
oversight can be agreed on, that school boards will have to
follow. The commissioner's concern is that one school board's
idea of an equivalent of 180 days could vary significantly from
another's, and there's really no way to prove exactly what 180
days means. The most popular idea is to go to a 4-day week
rather than a 5-day week, and when you do the math, four-fifths
of 180 days is 144 days. He reiterated that it would be good to
include a minimum, and this would be discussed with the sponsor.
He said the commissioner's office had some difficulty with the
statute, and apologized for not bringing this up earlier, but
the department had thought that the 150-day minimum was still
included.
CHAIR DYSON asked how long it would take for [Mr. Sweeney] and
the commissioner to become comfortable with the bargaining
units.
MR. SWEENEY replied that what was needed was to hear if there
were any concerns from the local districts; the department
hadn't as yet heard any concerns. He said they would just
monitor the bill as it goes forward, that there were no
individual concerns but the department was just reserving
judgment.
CHAIR DYSON pointed out that there were no further referrals in
the process, so perhaps the bill would be held in committee
until the department had the information that was needed.
MR. SWEENEY said, "Right now we don't have a concern but we
haven't heard anything, and maybe today we will." As it's
written right now, this could be tough for the department to
implement, he added.
SENATOR GREEN referred to lines [page 2], 8 - 9, and said, "I
would really like to have a good review and really what that
means, in every possible version of who might be interpreting
it." She said this doesn't specify if a school employee is
full-time, permanent, or not. She stated that said some fences
should be built around this, adding that this needs to be
"dissected and diagramed pretty well."
2:52 p.m.
MR. TIM STEELE, Anchorage School District, (ASD) testified via
teleconference and referred to the superintendent's
recommendation and the school board's resolution on this issue
from last year, which he said is still relevant today. He said
the ASD is mainly looking for flexibility, and is interested in
time-banking as a way to comply with NCLB's necessary training
and mentoring pertaining to "highly qualified teachers." ASD
wants to ensure that there is the equivalent of 180 days, and
was looking at this in terms of flexibility, greater planning
time, and having more contact between teacher and student by
moving some of the training and professional development
necessary for NCLB through bank time. Although ASD supports the
concept and hopes it goes through the process, it hasn't been
run by the bargaining unit and he doesn't know what "their take
is on it." He said that from ASD's point of view, the
flexibility is certainly a good idea, adding that the
superintendent is fully in support of increased flexibility.
SENATOR WILKEN voiced that the bill reflects the notion of
"benefit of students, perhaps" whereas the memo [ASD Memorandum
188(2002-2003)] prepared by Jan Christensen, approved by Carol
Comeau, refers to bank time, restructuring of school days to
provide for professional development, and collaboration time for
all staff; this sounds like giving teachers more time away from
students rather than spending time with students. He said the
intent was to streamline government and this concept injects the
idea of keeping track of 15-minute pieces of time that go into a
bank which sounds like the creation of a bureaucratic nightmare.
He asked what was motivating the ASD to ask for this change.
MR. STEELE responded that alternative programs with different
schedules have gotten waiver approval for different schedules
and there are also a number of charter schools that would like
flexible schedules. One student benefit, proven by the middle
school model, is that teachers working together allow for
ensuring alignment of the curriculum. For example, a history
lesson with some English or math tied to it is a reflection of
teachers working together; bank time allows for that
collaborative time. NCLB requires that there be highly
qualified teachers and support staff - paraprofessionals.
Currently substitute teachers are hired during professional
development trainings. Bank time could ensure that the
student's own teacher is there with that contact, which can be
argued as a better option than substitute teachers. Bank time
could be used for professional development, he said.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if professional development was the same as
in-service training.
MR. STEELE said yes, adding that NCLB has certain requirements,
and "highly qualified" is currently being defined.
SENATOR WILKEN asked for comment about banking and keeping track
of 15-minute segments of time and cashing those in for shortened
or alternative days of education.
MR. STEELE said this would be school-by-school, not teacher-by
teacher. The schedule would be set up and the number of minutes
would be extended for classes so that there would be an
additional day per month or so, for in-service
training/collaboration. This would not be a huge record-keeping
issue, he said.
SENATOR WILKEN noted that Superintendent Comeau's letter
indicates that this would be kept track of on a student-by-
student basis in 10 or 15-minute segments.
MR. STEELE responded that his understanding was that this was
not student-by-student, but that a period or a day would be
extended by 10 minutes and then once a month there would be an
in-service day when teachers could collaborate.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if a class would be extended 'x' amount of
time so that when that amount of time reached the equivalent of
one day off, there wouldn't be instruction that day because of
the in-service/professional development day.
MR. STEELE said this was correct, adding that it may be
something like one half a day; it would be built into the
schedule and figured ahead of time.
SENATOR GREEN asked if this was the intention of this
legislation, and if this wasn't a different view of what was to
be addressed.
CHAIR DYSON said no, that his intention was to allow local
districts to craft what would fit a specific group of students
or a school. He wanted to accommodate boarding schools,
regional schools, and the significant interest by rural schools
that kids not be gone a long time away from home. It might be
that kids go to school for 10 days straight or perhaps there
would be longer days, followed by a week off, resulting in kids
not losing contact with their families. He told members that
his children did a time and motion study at their school and out
of the 7 hours at school, the most that was logged was 89
minutes of contact in a day with the teacher, once the time for
announcements, going back and forth to classes, and other
administrative details were discounted. He said he was
interested in schools being flexible, and this has the safeguard
of the commissioner having to agree with what a district does.
CHAIR DYSON said he had not anticipated this banking of time for
professional development, although he does not have a problem
with that, as long as it meets the school board's criteria and
is producing results. He emphasized getting out of the business
of managing inputs and using the approach of managing for
results instead. Managing for the wanted results is managing
for well-educated kids. He said he wouldn't pass SB 239 out of
committee today. He told the committee that he bears some of
the responsibility for not making sure that the bargaining units
had a chance to be active in the discussion at this point and he
apologized. He said he shared Senator Green's concern regarding
the last 3 lines on page 2.
SENATOR WILKEN referred to page 2, line 6 and asked whether
removing the word "approximate" from that sentence would be
detrimental.
MR. SWEENEY said he didn't see a problem with eliminating that
word.
3:05 p.m.
SENATOR WILKEN commented on the school districts' creativity,
noting that in some cases you "give them an inch and they take a
mile" and he cited examples as the kindergarten fiasco of last
year, being embroiled in the correspondence issue in which
schools are skirting the edges of the law and need to be reigned
back in, and [1998] SB 36, in which school districts were on the
very edges of manipulating the instructional unit formula. He
said he was worried that this was like handing someone an
opportunity to manipulate to his/her own benefit rather than for
the benefit of the system; this was something that over time
could get out of hand, "because we trusted somebody." What he's
seen is that some, or all school districts can't be trusted. He
suggested that if someone had a specific plan, such as desiring
"3 - 12's or a 4 - 10", then that plan should be brought to the
Legislature so it could go through the process to either pass or
not; this would also make sure that "this doesn't get out of
control." At the same time, he suggested including a sunset to
allow for returning to it for a "gut check" to see if it's
working or not. He said to open this up scares him and is "bad
law"; he hopes the bill gets worked to avoid getting to some
place that would be better avoided, ten years from now.
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Steele to relay the substance of today's
discussions to Superintendent Comeau and to the [Anchorage]
School Board.
MR. KELLER pointed out that the use of the word "approximate" on
line 6 was also on line 1 and was part of the original language.
CHAIR DYSON said the hearing on SB 239 would be suspended and
would be taken up [at a later date].
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIR DYSON told members that possibly next week he was
interested in scheduling a departmental overview on the
accommodations being made on high stakes tests for kids with
IEPs and whether or not this was consistent with the laws.
CHAIR DYSON announced there was another quick item to be
discussed by the HESS committee. [This took place after
adjournment.]
CHAIR DYSON adjourned the meeting at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|