Legislature(1999 - 2000)
11/24/1999 09:10 AM Senate PRI
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
COMMISSION ON PRIVATIZATION AND DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Anchorage, Alaska
November 24, 1999
9:10 a.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cowdery, Co-Chair
Senator Ward, Co-Chair
Representative Brice (via teleconference)
Senator Al Adams (via teleconference)
Tom Fink, Former Mayor of Anchorage
Emil Notti
Mike Harper, President, Kuskokwim Corporation
Kathryn Thomas, Former Chair of Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
George Wuerch, Alaska Municipal League
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Allen, Former Mayor of Fairbanks
Don Valesko, Business Manager of Public Employees Local 71
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Reports from the following Privatization Subcommittees:
Department of Education
Department of Health, Education & Social Services
Department of Public Safety
Department of Fish & Game
University
PREVIOUS ACTION
See Commission on Privatization minutes dated 7/20/99, 8/16/99,
9/20/99, 10/28/99, 11/04/99, 11/10/99 and 11/18/99.
WITNESS REGISTER
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Commission Director and
Legislative Assistant to Representative John Cowdery
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and presented information
on behalf of the commission and various subcommittees.
JIM HICKEL, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Department of Education
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Subcommittee on DOE's
recommendations.
RICH KRONBERG, Member
Subcommittee on Department of Education
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regarding
the education recommendations.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Member
Subcommittee on the Department of Education
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regarding
the recommendations from the Subcommittees' on DOE and DHSS.
BOB COGHILL, Member
Subcommittee on Department of Education
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regarding
the education recommendations.
KAREN REHFELD, Director
Education Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-8651
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regarding
the education recommendations.
MIKE LAPE (ph)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regarding
the education recommendations.
ANNALEE McCONNELL, Director
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
PO Box 1100200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-4660
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on DOE's budget recommendations.
FRED ESPOSITO, Director
Alaska Vocational Technical Center
Department of Education and Early Development
PO Box 889
Seward, Alaska 99664-0889
Telephone: (907) 224-3322
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided clarification with regard to the
food services of AVTEC.
MIKE TAURIANAN, Co-Chair
Subcommittee on the Department of Health & Social Services
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Subcommittee on Health &
Social Services' report.
JANET CLARKE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110650
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0650
Telephone: (907) 465-3082
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information with regards to the
Subcommittee on the Department of Health & Social Services'
recommendations.
SARAH SHORT, Member
Subcommittee on the Department of Health & Social Services
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered additional comments regarding the
Subcommittee on the Department of Health & Social Services'
recommendations.
DEBORAH LUPER, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented DPS subcommittee report.
DEL SMITH, Member
Subcommittee on the Department of Public Safety
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to DPS
subcommittee findings.
MEAD TREADWELL, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented ADF&G subcommittee report.
GERON BRUCE, Member
Subcommittee on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on ADF&G's management role for
shellfish and groundfish fisheries; addressed time line for
department's response to recommendations.
CHERYL FRASCA, Chair
Subcommittee on the University of Alaska (UA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented UA subcommittee report.
WAYNE JENSEN, Member
Subcommittee on the University of Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question on amortization.
ANN RINGSTAD, Legislative Assistant
Legislative Affairs
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regard
topics related to the University's recommendations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-16, SIDE A
CO-CHAIR COWDERY called the Commission on Privatization and
Delivery of Government Services meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
Members present were Representatives Cowdery and Brice; Senators
Ward and Adams; and Commissioners Fink, Thomas, Harper, Notti and
Wuerch. Marco Pignalberi, Commission Director, was also present
as was Representative Dyson. Commissioner Allen and Valesko were
not in attendance.
APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
CO-CHAIR COWDERY announced that the commission should have a copy
of the November 10, 1999, minutes for approval.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH moved that the commission approve the minutes
from the November 10, 1999, meeting. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
OLD BUSINESS
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Commission Director and Legislative Assistant
to Representative Cowdery, informed the commission that comments
from the Department of Environmental Conservation are in the
commission's packet. He noted that the Court System's response
to computerization efforts was being passed out.
NEW BUSINESS - Reports by Subcommittees
[Most of the information contained in subcommittee reports will
be available at the commission's web site at
www.privatizealaska.org.]
Subcommittee Report on the Department of Education
CO-CHAIR COWDERY announced that the commission would first hear
from the Subcommittee on the Department of Education. Co-Chair
Cowdery commented that he liked how the subcommittee report on
DOE was organized because it was very understandable. He
commended the subcommittee for its work.
JIM HICKEL, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Department of
Education, pointed out that the first page of the report lists
the subcommittee members that remained throughout the process.
However, there were several others who helped the subcommittee
early on. The second page of the report is an introductory
letter which reads as follows:
Dear Senator Jerry Ward, Representative John Cowdery,
Commissioner William Prosser & State Commissioners:
On behalf of the subcommittee members on
Education, we are honored to have served you
and appreciate the opportunity to submit to
you our recommendations.
The Subcommittee on Education has spent
fourteen weeks investigating the budget,
policies and procedures of the Alaska
Department of Education. We have sought ways
to both improve this system and to privatize
in those areas which will result in a cost
savings to state government.
Special recognition should be given to Karen
Rehfeld from the Alaska Department of
Education for her cooperation, diligence and
thoroughness in supplying us with the
necessary documentation and personnel to
conduct our investigation and to complete our
task responsibly and on time.
Although there were numerous recommendations
discussed, we submit only those that passed
the scrutiny of the subcommittee and were
ratified by a majority vote.
I hope that sufficient time is spent by each
of you in reviewing these recommendations.
These recommendations take into account those
functions of the Department of Education
which should be transferred to the private
sector or to local government; which agencies
should be consolidated or made more
efficient; which functions should be
performed by the Federal Government; and
which functions should be altogether
eliminated from State Government.
We sincerely hope that legislation is
introduced as needed to implement these
recommendations. Thank you for your work as
Commissioners on the Privatization and
Delivery of Government Services Commission
and for entrusting us as advisory to you in
the matter of education in Alaska.
Sincerely,
James W. Hickel
Chairman of Education Subcommittee
MR. HICKEL referred to the first section of the report, which
lists the general recommendations made by individual subcommittee
members. Following the general recommendations, the report
reviews the 12 [agencies] within DOE which were investigated by
the subcommittee. The subcommittee felt that it would be easier
for the commission to review all the recommendations and the
subcommittee's rationale for those recommendations first and then
to review the department's response or comment regarding those
recommendations. The third section of the report, numbered 1-11,
reviews each of the Budget Review Units (BRUs) the subcommittee
addressed. Mr. Hickel specified that the subcommittee did not
review those departmental areas already privatized.
MR. HICKEL turned to General Recommendation 1: "Recognizing that
charter schools are public schools that are effective tools in
improving educational choice, we recommend that the legislature
enact revised charter school laws that provide for educational
choice by: (1) doubling the number of charter schools allowed in
Alaska; (2) extending the contract period from five to ten years;
and (3) require school districts to give a full accounting of
monies they receive for each charter school." He informed the
commission that currently, the legislature has allowed 30 charter
schools. He noted that this recommendation was passed
unanimously by the subcommittee. He turned to General
Recommendation 2, which says that the legislature should review
the unincorporated school districts. The subcommittee felt that
such a review would result in savings as well as a better
handling of business management. He pointed out that General
Recommendations 3-5 were not mentioned because those
recommendations failed. General Recommendation 6 suggested that
some variation of the voucher system be considered. The
subcommittee felt that Alaskan voters should decide how their
children are educated. Mr. Hickel turned to General
Recommendation 7, that the legislature require evaluation of its
paperwork requirements for teachers and school districts. The
subcommittee found that the paperwork [for teachers and school
districts] is overwhelming; teachers are being distracted from
the true purpose of education with all the paperwork. Perhaps, a
task force should review that issue alone.
MR. HICKEL continued with General Recommendation 8, which
suggests that the state explore incentives to private business to
provide computer and other interactive technology to school
districts. There are several reasons to support such a
recommendation. Furthermore, the subcommittee felt that placing
more technology in the classroom can be accomplished without
spending more state revenue. General Recommendation 9 relates
that all students, even those enrolled in private schools, should
meet the same performance requirements in reading, writing and
arithmetic.
MR. HICKEL turned to General Recommendation 10, which says that
the legislature should fund schools by having a separate
education budget or providing forward funding. This
recommendation is paramount because students should be a
priority. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to leave
administrators and districts to put programs together based on
the amount of funding appropriated. He noted that many of the
subcommittee members are in the education business. General
Recommendations 11-13 failed. Therefore, Mr. Hickel moved on to
General Recommendation 14, which proposes that the Teacher
Certification Program be moved to the Division of Occupational
Licensing. He pointed out that the Division of Occupational
Licensing is already in place and there does not need to be
another division to do that. He mentioned that the Division of
Occupational Licensing would be more efficient. The last general
recommendation, General Recommendation 15 proposes that part of
the Gun Safety Legislation should be to encourage gun safety
education.
MR. HICKEL explained that the remainder of the report addresses
the 11 BRUs the subcommittee felt most important to target. As
chairman, Mr. Hickel appointed subcommittees of the subcommittee
to work on the 11 BRUs. Those groups made recommendations to the
full subcommittee. The goal was to make things more efficient in
this area.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH returned to the recommendation regarding the
review of the unincorporated school districts. He asked if the
subcommittee had spoken with those firms which contract with
districts to operate the district.
MR. HICKEL answered that he did not recall such discussion.
RICH KRONBERG, Member, Subcommittee on Department of Education,
informed the commission that one of the other subcommittee
members, Don Evans, manages school districts in the state as
Commissioner Wuerch described. Therefore, this subcommittee
member has detailed knowledge of such.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH inquired as to the reaction of the other
subcommittee members in regard to Mr. Evans' success.
MR. KRONBERG explained that when there was discussion of
consolidation it was strictly in terms of consolidating the
business terms. There was no discussion regarding who would
perform the consolidated functions.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH referred to page 3 of the subcommittee's
recommendations. In reference to teacher certification, part of
the subcommittee's rationale identifies that Alaska is one of the
few states without reciprocal provisions for teachers [from other
participating states]. He found this point surprising.
[MR. HICKEL] stated that Alaska seems to require even more than
some of the certification requirements of the more stringent
states. Furthermore, some things do not overlap from state to
state.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH commented that some states must have
certification requirements comparable to Alaska.
MR. KRONBERG interjected that this situation has changed within
the last couple of years. He explained that the State Board of
Education has required that all in-state teacher preparation
institutions should comply with the standards for the National
Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).
Currently, Alaska has reciprocity with those states that have
teacher preparation standards which meet NCATE standards.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON turned to the issue of charter schools. He
informed everyone that there is legislation in the House Finance
Committee which would extend the contract period for charter
schools. Representative Dyson then inquired as to why the state
should test students educated in private schools when private
schools receive no public funding.
MR. KRONBERG replied that the subcommittee dealing with this
issue felt that there is a public interest in education whether
the education is provided by a public or a private school.
Therefore, the public has an interest in seeing that students
meet certain standards which should apply to all students. Mr.
Kronberg specified that the discussion on this matter was not in-
depth nor was there lots of data.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON turned to the recommendation of a separate
budget process for public education.
MR. HICKEL said he did not know how it would be handled.
However, schools should be funded first versus receiving funding
a month before school is supposed to start.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON understood the recommendation to not only
recommend forwarding school funding, but to also have separate
school funding.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Member, Subcommittee on the Department of
Education, spoke via teleconference from Fairbanks. Ms. Moss
explained that currently there is an operating budget, a capital
budget, and a mental health trust budget. She indicated that
this recommendation would create an additional budget for
education, resulting in four budgets. The hope behind this
recommendation was that the politics that occur during the end of
session would not hold up education funding to the last minute.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented that he appreciated that.
However, he expressed concern with the notion that education
would not have to compete with other services the government is
required to provide. Representative Dyson asked if the
subcommittee's recommendation was to take education out of fiscal
competition with other public services for public dollars.
[MR. HICKEL] replied, "I don't think necessarily, no."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE informed everyone that in the past [a
separate education budget] has occurred which allowed [education
funding] to occur much earlier. With regard to vouchers,
Representative Brice asked if there was any debate in terms of
quality control of education or the possible savings to the state
under a voucher system.
MR. HICKEL answered that there was brief discussion of that. He
explained that the discussion revolved more around parental
choice in education versus cost savings.
MR. KRONBERG recalled the conversation surrounding vouchers as
not including any discussion of cost savings. He informed the
commission that he and Jeff Walters, another subcommittee member,
had prepared a minority report on this specific issue. He noted
that Representative Brice should have copies of that report.
There are constitutional questions surrounding this issue. Mr.
Kronberg stressed that the voucher issue is not about parental
choice, but rather who is paying for parental choice. Currently,
private schools do not have the same levels of accountability as
public schools. He explained that the voucher issue is the issue
of the use of public funds without public accountability.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if the subcommittee reviewed the voucher
system from the Florida legislation he had requested.
MS. MOSS replied no.
CO-CHAIR WARD stated that the information from Florida would
resolve some of the comments regarding not saving money. He
indicated that the system in Florida is fairly new. Therefore,
by the time the Alaska Legislature is in session there should be
a better understanding as to how the Florida voucher system is
working. Co-Chair Ward informed everyone that in Florida all
students are tested.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH noted that he had visited family in Florida
when that [voucher system] passed. He informed everyone that it
[the voucher system] is based on income and there has to be a
threshold of qualifications.
BOB COGHILL, Member, Subcommittee on Department of Education,
referred Representative Brice to General Recommendation 9, which
speaks to the quality expected of the private and public schools.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY inquired as to whether the minority report was
discussed with the full subcommittee.
[MR. KRONBERG] replied no.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked if the minority report was generated from
the minority within the subcommittee or did the full subcommittee
deal with it all.
MR. WALTERS explained that this materialized after the final
recommendations came through.
COMMISSIONER FINK inquired as to the group that Mr. Walters is
associated with.
MR. WALTERS clarified that he is with the Fairbanks Education
Association.
COMMISSIONER FINK inquired as to the percentage of correspondence
students who are part of the Alyeska Central School.
MR. KRONBERG answered that he did not have that information.
KAREN REHFELD, Director, Education Support Services, Department
of Education and Early Development, deferred to Mike Lape (ph).
MIKE LAPE (ph) estimated that 10-15 percent of correspondence
students are part of the Alyeska Central School.
SENATOR ADAMS commented that he would not debate the voucher
system because he did not believe that it would work in rural
Alaska. He indicated that there should be some population
stipulations. Senator Adams said, "One of the recommendations is
that the federal government should get out of K-12 [education];
what about the funds that we [the state] presently receive that
has to do with maybe PL8874, special education money for maybe
our handicap children no matter where they live or bilingual
programs. Why did you guys make this kind of statement here?"
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER explained that the statement was made
because federal funds given to the state seem to be mandates on
the state, which cost additional funds. Therefore, the federal
government should be a 50/50 partner when making demands on the
state. Furthermore, such a recommendation would better localize
education and provide the states more power. "The federal
government ought to put their trust in the state legislatures for
funding education as they see fit in their states." He noted
that the funding issue was not addressed. Furthermore, "we"
would not recommend walking away from federal funds.
SENATOR ADAMS expressed concern with that because it would hurt
education in the long run. Senator Adams asked if the
subcommittee reviewed student transportation costs because he did
not believe there is accountability in that area.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER replied that was not addressed.
SENATOR ADAMS informed everyone that presently in his large
community [Kotzebue] some school districts bus their own students
while others contract that out. He indicated that there is a
cost factor [with student transportation] that should be
reviewed.
MS. MOSS returned to the issue of the federal government being
involved in the education business. Personally, she felt that it
is a Tenth Amendment issue. No where in the U.S. Constitution
does it give the federal government the authority to control
education. The Tenth Amendment gives that right to the states.
MR. KRONBERG pointed out that the minority report also responds
to those issues.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON expressed concern about special education.
Those special education teachers with whom he has spoken, have
said they are overwhelmed with paperwork. He wondered if there
are any national advocacy groups that are attempting to lessen
the paperwork.
MR. KRONBERG noted that he represented the state [education]
association on the national board of directors for four years.
He assured the commission that he was a strong advocate for
paperwork reduction in the Reauthorization of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Mr. Kronberg believed the
stated purpose of the law, to reduce paperwork and create more
control, did not happen. Therefore, those in Washington, D.C.,
need to review what they have done. Clearly, there is a
disproportionate impact on the delivery of special education
services due to the federal mandate. With the passage of the
initial legislation, Congress agreed to provide 50 percent of the
funding to implement the mandate. However, the federal
government has never provided more than 10 percent of the
funding. Usually the federal government has provided less than
10 percent of the funding. Although the minority report does not
agree with the conclusions of the subcommittee with regard to the
federal role in education, we [the minority] agree that education
is an under-funded mandate that has created huge problems for
local school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that the net result of more
accountability is more paperwork. He indicated the need to be
wary that an unintended consequence does not result.
Representative Dyson encouraged everyone, from school board
presidents to administrators, to pursue a reduction in paperwork,
especially that paperwork which is overlapping.
MR. WALTERS mentioned that during his attendance at last year's
conference of the National Education Association this issue was
discussed and remains a topic of concern.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to [General] Recommendation 7,
which asks that another process of evaluation and accountability
be established.
MR. HICKEL continued with the Subcommittee on the Department of
Education's report. He referred the commission to the second
tab, labeled Teaching and Learning Support. This section moves
through the specific BRUs as set out by the department. He
explained that of the full subcommittee, there was a smaller
subcommittee that focused on these issues. That smaller
subcommittee made recommendations to the full subcommittee. Mr.
Hickel informed the commission that Recommendations 1 and 2 were
tabled. Recommendation 3, which suggests the adoption of a
process to update the benchmark and exit exam material in a
manner consistent with that expectation, was ratified by the
subcommittee. The subcommittee believed that the development of
benchmarks and exit exams is reasonably expected to be more
expensive than the updating of that material. Therefore, it was
felt that this was a good way to save time and money.
MR. HICKEL turned to Recommendation 4, which expresses the need
to further review the administrative cost of each component.
"While this recommendation was directed at Teaching & Learning
Support, there was a general consensus that administrative costs
should be kept at a minimum and that more review of those costs
for all departments and divisions of state government should be
made. Administrative costs reduce the amount of money delivered
directly to the school districts." Mr. Hickel believed that this
recommendation would reoccur as it applies to several areas of
state government. Such a recommendation could be relevant in
Recommendation 5, which recommends that all elements of a single
program should be located in the same place in the budget. He
expressed frustration with the difficulties of the current
budget.
CO-CHAIR WARD inquired as to the department's response to
Recommendation 5.
MS. MOSS said that response was not included in the report, but
would be forthcoming. She deferred to Ms. Rehfeld.
MS. REHFELD answered that the department has proposed several
structural changes that would make the budget easier to follow so
that the BRU and division structure is aligned. That is being
proposed in the next fiscal year cycle. Ms. Rehfeld pointed out
that the confusion stems from the specific programs that relate
to child nutrition services which had three different components
related to the same program. That is also being consolidated in
the next year's budget cycle. She noted that a big portion of
the budget is the K-12 support programs which, in past years,
have been considered formulas to the school districts. That
includes the public school funding program which has always been
in a separate BRU. She explained, "That's an area where people
talk about if they were going to fund education separately, they
would list the K-12 support programs out and put it in a separate
appropriation bill. Its been visually presented that way.
Certainly, that could change if the governor and the legislature
choose to fold those grant funds into the other portions of our
operating budget."
CO-CHAIR WARD surmised then that the department would be
providing further details with regard to how this would be
accomplished, besides the three [changes] mentioned.
MS. REHFELD stated that the department, in its FY 2001 budget,
has proposed structure changes to consolidate those components to
make it easier to follow in our [the department's] budget. She
agreed that there were more proposed changes than the three
already mentioned.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH commented, "It kind of sounds like the
prerogative isn't yours, that you're looking for someone else to
make the decision on organization. Which way is it?"
MS. REHFELD pointed out that the department, during its annual
budget process, does prepare recommendations which are submitted
to the Governor's office. She indicated that the Governor's
office is generally supportive of the department's request to
change the structure.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH asked if Annalee McConnell was still on-line
and could respond to the Administration's willingness to accept
those changes. There was no reply indicating that Ms. McConnell
was not on-line.
MR. HICKEL mentioned that the second section of the report refers
to department comments. In many cases, the department welcomed
the subcommittee's recommendations; still, there were cases in
which the department had concerns.
MS. REHFELD clarified that the department is not proposing moving
the major formula programs into other areas of the budget.
However, programmatically within the agency several changes are
being recommended. These changes should make the department's
budget easier to follow.
TAPE 99-16, SIDE B
ANNALEE McCONNELL, Director, Office of Management & Budget (OMB),
Office of the Governor, commented that she could try to
reschedule her other obligations to be available to the
commission today.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH informed Ms. McConnell that DOE has stated
that it will be submitting recommendations changing the
organization of the budget. Such a recommendation would seem to
need approval from the Administration. He asked if that approval
would come from OMB. He also asked if the department's changes
would meet with a willing reception.
MS. McCONNELL noted that statewide there is a new automated
budget system; however all departments were not using that new
automated budget system since the system was in the pilot stages.
She explained that certain aspects of budget structure, in terms
of the units of the budget, would need to come through OMB. Ms.
McConnell stated that she would be happy to discuss those. With
regard to recommendations that relate to OMB, we [OMB] have made
a number of efforts over the last several years to simplify some
of the budget's structure. However, there is still a great deal
of legislative interest in keeping with some of the old styles.
She agreed that there is room for improvement and offered to
review the proposals from DOE.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said that it would be helpful to receive some
comments from OMB regarding DOE's budget recommendations.
MS. McCONNELL commented that some of the suggestions were
broached in prior years, such as following the state
organizational structure. She expressed willingness to try
things that were previously attempted. She pointed out that many
of the recommendations relate as much to the legislative process
as to the executive branch process. With regard to schedules,
there are schedules in statute as well as the internal schedules
used by both the legislature and the executive branch. Ms.
McConnell did agree that it would be helpful to have more lead
time for the review of the material. She also expressed the need
to have more lead time in the legislative process. Further
public attention would be useful with regards to the different
types of funds ...
MR. PIGNALBERI understood that Ms. McConnell was interested in
discussing some of the issues in the Governor's subcommittee
report. He asked if the commission could make an appointment
with Ms. McConnell in order to address the budget format issue
during the deliberative meetings of the commission.
MS. McCONNELL was amenable to that. However, she reminded the
commission that the budget, which fills her schedule, is due for
release on December 15. Still, she offered to be available for
further discussion of the budget process.
MR. PIGNALBERI indicated that the commission would schedule Ms.
McConnell for December 1, 1999.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the [subcommittee] considered
blurring the lines between secondary education and postsecondary
education. He noted that many high schools offer college
credits.
There was indication that discussion on that matter did not
occur.
MR. HICKEL continued with Recommendations 6 and 7, which he noted
were agreeable to the Department of Education. Therefore, he
said he would not discuss those recommendations unless there were
questions. He informed the commission that the pages following
Recommendations 6 and 7 are backup.
MR. HICKEL turned to Tab 3, Executive Administration, which has a
few recommendations. The first recommendation in this section is
to privatize services provided by Alyeska Central School. Those
who support the recommendation said that there are several
private sources already available. Also several school districts
offer home school curriculum. Therefore, it seems redundant for
the state to provide services that are available in the private
sector. He informed the commission that there are already as
many as 30 providers in both the public and private sector. The
second recommendation in this section recommends that all
elements of a single program should be in the same location
within the budget. This recommendation relates to the previous
recommendation regarding the need for the budget to be easily
understood. Mr. Hickel noted that the third recommendation
failed. The fourth recommendation, which has already been
discussed, in this section recommends that the federal government
should "get out" of K-12 education.
MR. HICKEL continued with Tab 4, Alyeska Central School, which
only recommends the closure of Alyeska Central School. The
responsibility for providing correspondence study should transfer
to those school districts that already have correspondence
programs. Mr. Hickel moved to Tab 5, Commissions and Boards,
which houses two recommendations. He noted that Recommendations
1 and 2 under this section were not adopted by the subcommittee,
and therefore are not included in the report. Under Tab 4,
Recommendation 3 recommends that the state keep alternate
teaching certification available for interested residents of
Alaska. He believed that presently there is not alternative
accreditation, although there seems to be discussion in that
area.
MR. KRONBERG agreed with Mr. Hickel's representation of Tab 4,
Recommendation 3.
MR. HICKEL moved on to Tab 6, Alaska Vocational & Technical
Center, which includes several recommendations. On page 44,
Recommendation 1 recommends encouraging the legislature to pass
HB 142 "An Act relating to the education credit for the fisheries
business tax and the fisheries resource landing tax; and
providing for an effective date." Such action would make the
Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) a qualifying recipient
of cash contributions provided for in AS 43.77. He explained
that last year AVTEC returned $140,000 in cash contributions
because of this dilemma. That is a tragedy.
SENATOR ADAMS asked if the municipality of that area would lose
the money. He pointed out that normally the fish tax money goes
to the locality where that tax is taken.
MR. HICKEL said, "I believe, Senator, that they would." He
recalled that the subcommittee discussion resulted in the feeling
that the area where AVTEC is located should take care of that
facility, which has been highly neglected. "If that community
were to lose those funds, those funds would still stay within the
community because they would be within the school."
MR. HICKEL returned to Tab 6 and moved on to Recommendation 2
which states, "The Department of Education should hire a grant
writer in the Division of Teaching and Learning Services that
will focus on locating and obtaining funding sources other than
state funds for Mt. Edgecumbe and AVTEC." The subcommittee feels
that too much money is being spent in both locations and still,
both locations are neglected. There are many grant funds which
could be captured to take care of some of these. Recommendation
3 states that AVTEC should be given the flexibility to determine
leasing and maintenance provisions for its motor pool fleet. Mr.
Hickel explained that AVTEC, a vocational school, is training
people in maintenance areas. Therefore, he indicated the need to
let those people perform the maintenance or at least be allowed
to bid on that maintenance. Recommendation 4 states,
"Maintenance for state motor pool vehicles should be contracted
out by competitve bid. If a state agency has the capability of
providing those services, that agency shall submit a competitive
bid for the services to be contracted, but shall do so apart and
separate from the agency soliciting the bid." Recommendation 4
was ratified for the purpose of seeing whether there would be a
cost savings.
MR. HICKEL continued with Tab 6, Recommendation 5, which states,
"AVTEC should explore the possibility of obtaining funding from
the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to expand family housing
facilities." Mr. Hickel informed the commission that AVTEC has
gained a good reputation statewide and has had to turn students
away due to inadequate family housing facilities. Recommendation
6 recommends the privatization of the food services of AVTEC.
Mr. Hickel explained that AVTEC has been utilizing food services
students to provide food services. However, recently the format
of the food services training program was changed. Currently,
one cook and two food service workers are employed. This change
will require AVTEC to hire additional food services employees
next year. Therefore, AVTEC is exploring the possibility of
privatization of those services.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that he would have hoped that
Recommendation 6 regarding food services would have been moving
towards students doing the work as suggested with the maintenance
services in Recommendation 4.
MS. MOSS recalled that Mr. Esposito concurred on these
recommendations. However, she requested that he speak to this
issue.
FRED ESPOSITO, Director, Alaska Vocational Technical Center,
Department of Education and Early Development, agreed that we
[the department] concurred with the recommendations. The
curriculum changes to the food services program have not occurred
yet. Furthermore, AVTEC is trying to explore whether it is
appropriate to remove teachers and students from the
responsibility of the production of foods. The cost to contract
out the food services is also being reviewed.
MR. HICKEL said, in explanation of the maintenance
recommendation, that those students are trained in maintenance,
and therefore should be given the opportunity to bid the
maintenance in the community. On the other hand, the food
service industry is going to have to expand and hire employees.
Therefore, it should be put out to bid whether the bid ends up
going to an in-house entity or to a third party.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE maintained his view that the focus should
remain on student employment and training, especially since one
of AVTEC's purposes is to get people involved in these
industries.
MR. HICKEL turned to Tab 7, Mt. Edgecumbe Boarding School, which
only has one recommendation that survived the scrutiny of the
subcommittee. That recommendation, Recommendation 3, reads:
Because Mt. Edgecumbe High School has significant
facilities and maintenance issues due mostly to the age
of the campus, and because the potential exists that
Mt. Edgecumbe may be asked to expand its enrollment to
serve Alaska's immediate and/or future educational
needs, this sub-committee recommends that the
legislature provide funds to meet the deferred
maintenance needs of Mt. Edgecumbe High School.
Mr. Hickel commented that this recommendation is not really in
the spirit of the subcommittee's focus, as it is supposed to be
saving the state money. However, the subcommittee wanted to
bring this issue to the commission's attention because this
facility is in need of care.
MR. HICKEL continued with Tab 8, State Facilities and
Maintenance. There are no specific recommendations for this BRU
as this was covered in those recommendations for the department,
AVTEC and Mt. Edgecumbe. Therefore, he moved on to Tab 9, Alaska
Library and Museums, which has one recommendation which reads as
follows: "The executive branch libraries should be managed by
the State Library and further that no executive branch library
should be established or ended without State Library oversight."
He explained that investigation into this area revealed that
libraries have closed without any oversight. Such almost
resulted in tragedies with arts and archives. Therefore, there
should be some control at the state level.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if the subcommittee received the information
regarding Orange County's privatization of all its libraries.
MR. HICKEL said that he did not recall such information.
MR. HICKEL continued with Tab 10, Alaska Postsecondary Education,
which contains two recommendations. The first recommendation
recommends that the student loan program be privatized by being
contracted out to a private lending service. The state nor DOE
should be in the banking business as appears to be the case in
this area. Mr. Hickel explained that there was review of the
original amount of money provided for lending, the amount of
money available, and the delinquency of loans. Review of those
reveals that the program [Alaska Postsecondary Education] has
cost the state several million dollars. The program could be
better managed by banks. The second recommendation under Tab 10
states:
It is recommended that all loan programs of the State
be submitted to review with one of two conclusions
being sought: (1) consolidation within a single
department of state government, such as Revenue, where
staffing is trained in accounting and fund management;
or (2) provision to management by banks through an RFP
process.
MR. HICKEL moved on to Tab 11, Division of Early Development,
which contains several recommendations. Recommendation 1
recommends the elimination of the Division of Early Development
from DOE and the consolidation of it with the Department of
Health & Social Services and its existing programs. This
function really belongs in the Department of Health & Social
Services. Recommendation 2 recommends that the Children's Trust
Grant Program be transferred to the Office of the Governor, Board
and Commissions. He continued with Recommendation 3 which
states: "When federal funding for a federally mandated program
established in the State of Alaska falls below the 50 percent
funding, the service shall be considered unessential at the state
level and passed on to the option of local governments for
funding." The subcommittee felt that, in several cases, the
state is getting abused by the federal government because it
passes legislation that does not work in Alaska. When the
federal government passes legislation, the state government is
often forced to come up with the funds to make the program
happen. Therefore, Recommendation 3 resulted.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH expressed concern that some of these federal
mandates are in public law and the state has to do them anyway.
For example, he assumed that the local government must provide
special education programs regardless of the funding provided by
the federal government. He asked if that is correct.
MR. HICKEL commented, "I don't think that that's the spirit of
the recommendation. The spirit of the recommendation is not to
always take the carrot from the federal government."
COMMISSIONER WUERCH surmised, then, that those discretionary
[programs] should be tied to the funding, while those that are
not discretionary must be performed.
MS. MOSS suggested the need for legislative action in the form of
a resolution to Congress. The resolution could state that Alaska
does not want these federally mandated programs if the federal
government is not going to provide the funding. This is
especially true in education. If the legislature adopted a
resolution requesting the federal government dissolve DOE, then
there would not be these federally mandated programs. Such
programs would then be designed at the state level.
MR. HICKEL noted that there is no intent to neglect things the
federal government felt important, but rather to handle it at the
state or local level. Mr. Hickel continued with Recommendation
5, under Tab 11. Recommendation 5 recommends that the Alaska
State Legislature treat all state receipts as general fund money,
unless the receipts are the result of inter-agency receipts.
MS. MOSS explained that through the years to legislature has
changed its budget process. At one time, there was the general
fund and other funds. A few years ago SB 55 was passed. That
legislation transferred more funding from the general fund to
what is classified as other funds. She stated that with SB 55,
the programs that were moved out of the general fund would amount
to about $59 million. Ms. Moss speculated that what is being
requested is truth in funding in order to return to the old ways,
which would lessen the confusion with the budget process.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY reiterated his appreciation to the subcommittee.
MR. HICKEL commented that he would like to note a special thanks
to Ms. Moss for assembling the report.
Subcommittee Report on the Department of Health & Social Services
CO-CHAIR COWDERY announced that the commission would next hear
the report from the Subcommittee on the Department of Health &
Social Services.
COMMISSIONER FINK commented that he has read the [reports], and
therefore would prefer the subcommittee make an opening statement
and only comment on those areas the subcommittee wishes.
MIKE TAURIANAN, Co-Chair, Subcommittee on the Department of
Health & Social Services (DHSS), informed the commission that
Kathy Andress, Co-Chair, Subcommittee on the Department of Health
& Social Services, is also on-line. He noted that subcommittee
members Ms. Moss, Sarah Short, and Clyde Lorenz are also on-line.
JANET CLARKE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Health & Social Services, announced that she worked
with the subcommittee.
MR. TAURIANAN commented on the overwhelming nature of the review
of this department. He noted that the subcommittee is presenting
a draft report, which barely scratches the surface. The
subcommittee developed several premises, with which everyone did
not agree, that are included in the cover letter. Mr. Taurianan
said that as a society, we have various organizations for those
needing help. Therefore, the state should probably be the last
resource that people in need of help should use. Those private
and civic organizations, et cetera are most appropriate to help
[such people].
MR. TAURIANAN informed the commission that there are several
areas which the subcommittee did not have time to address, but
should be addressed. He specified:
And that is in the area of delivery of services, how
much overhead. What percentage actually going to help
individuals who are in need of help and what state
services are being provided that otherwise, if the
state was not doing it, would not be met. What
services are encouraging people to get on their feet
and leave the system? ... On the other side of that,
what state services are encouraging people to remain in
the system, promoting single-parent families, teen
pregnancies, substance abuse? What are being used for
nonessential purposes or destructive behavior?
MR. TAURIANAN explained that the subcommittee created a
privatization hierarchy in which things that the state would
continue to perform would be given a zero. While those areas
which were completely privatized were given a four. The state
contracts would fall in between zero and four. He reiterated
that the subcommittee did not have the time to apply those to the
various tasks that the state is doing. He noted that the
department representatives were most helpful, specifically Ms.
Clarke and Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Taurianan offered to answer
questions and noted that some of the recommendations, such as 4
and 11, are similar.
MS. MOSS pointed out that these recommendations were passed
through subcommittees of the main subcommittee. She interpreted
that to illustrate a double interest to accomplish them.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH commented that the Division of Family & Youth
Services (DFYS) has been the center of media reporting for the
last year-and-a-half. Did the subcommittee feel that DFYS would
overcome some of its problems or is it inherent in the nature of
the division's mission that there will be continued strife?
MR. TAURIANAN answered that he believed some strife is
inevitable, given the nature of this area.
SENATOR ADAMS interjected that things cannot be so general with
references to the entire division. He expressed the need to be
specific. Perhaps, it can be said that the areas of child
enforcement and foster care had problems.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH said that he could hardly identify a part of
the division that has not been the subject of critical media
reporting at one time. Commissioner Wuerch clarified that he was
interested in whether the subcommittee felt that the division's
current structure should continue or was there discussion that it
should be restructured.
MR. TAURIANAN identified Recommendation 2 which refers to the
need for an independent oversight board for DFYS. Several
oversight responsibilities are listed there.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH surmised that in general, the subcommittee
felt that it could work with the division's current structure.
MR. TAURIANAN indicated agreement.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH referred to Recommendation 6: "Increase the
ability of tribal organizations to contract with DFYS by
providing child welfare services and assist in educating
caseworkers about cultural differences." He recalled that this
issue had been reviewed a few years ago and not much has been
accomplished. He asked if any obstacles were uncovered in
relation to moving ahead with this recommendation.
MR. TAURIANAN deferred to others on the subcommittee.
MS. MOSS informed the commission that she voted against
Recommendation 6 because of her experience with village councils
on this issue. Within villages there are separate groups of
people who are a clan. If a person has difficulties with his/her
child and that person is not in power, sometimes that person does
not receive a fair hearing with the council. Ms. Moss stressed
that personalities become involved in decisions which affect
children and their families for their entire life.
SARAH SHORT, Member, Subcommittee on the Department of Health &
Social Services, agreed with Ms. Moss regarding Recommendation 6.
"But this is why we have suggested not only that we look at using
the Native entities to work with the social workers, but have
those Native entities work with other non-Native entities to
protect against nonaction and protect those children in those
'clan' settings." She pointed out that the Native entities have
many more financial resources than "we" do. Furthermore, the
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) laws are not being complied with
[in] DFYS. There is also much intervention [from DFYS] that is
based on the lack of cultural knowledge of the caseworkers. She
informed the commission that 54 percent of the children in
custody are Native children. She stressed the urgent need to
address this issue. Ms. Short felt that this issue could be
addressed by working with [the Native entities], their funding,
and their resources in order to reduce state costs and increase
community involvement while still working with the state to
protect against that other interest.
MS. CLARKE informed the commission that DHSS supports
Recommendation 6. The department works with many tribal
organizations and ICWA workers. The department understands that
funding and resources may be a barrier for additional tribal
involvement in certain cases.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON informed the commission that Legislative
Budget & Audit has performed a few audits, which audited more
than the financial side to this issue. In response to
Commissioner Wuerch, Representative Dyson explained that Kansas,
in its efforts to privatize child protection services, found that
the for-profit and nonprofit organizations for this type of work
were practically nonexistent. He commented that this would be
even more difficult for Alaska. Kansas had to develop its own
organizations. Furthermore, the people trained to do such work
are difficult to find.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that three years ago much of the
law in this area was changed. Those changes eliminated some of
the barriers to getting children in permanent placement. For
instance, a training school for social workers was created for
Alaska. That program should create more experienced and
culturally sensitive individuals. He informed the commission
that last year there was an effort to take 400 children out of
state custody and into permanent placement. Removing those
children from the state rolls will allow other workers to
concentrate on other cases.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that the law says that DFYS has to
investigate every reported case of harm, some of which are
spurious, duplicative, and involved in custody disputes.
TAPE 99-17, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that there would be more headlines in
the next few days about additional problems. He concluded that
there is reason for some optimism, as the department appears to
be making a good-faith effort on many fronts. However, there
are still some horrendous tragedies out there. He pointed out
that the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), which
collects money from so-called deadbeat parents, is in another
department, the Department of Revenue.
MS. SHORT explained that she is an adult foster child and an
advocate. She has studied this extensively for the last year and
considers it her life. Working on this subcommittee took a lot
away from what she really does: assisting people, "constituents
of all of yours," who need the help of human service agencies.
Referring to legislative audits 06-4586-98, 06-4595-99 and -98,
she indicated those show how agencies supposedly help families.
In particular, she cited the legislative audit dated January 26,
1999, and then stated:
I don't understand this; maybe it's because I'm a lay
person. But when these people need help and you save
money that is specifically supposed to go to helping
the families, and you come in ... just over a million
dollars under your budget, and you put that into [a]
retirement incentive program, I'd like to know how that
helps. That is misappropriation of funds. You guys
gave it to them for more caseworkers. They left 21
caseworker positions open. And investigating these
reports (indisc.), which are statutorily required ...,
they're not doing it.
MS. SHORT recounted how when her own sister was murdered, and her
18-month-old niece was placed in foster care with a 78-year-old
couple for two-and-a-half years, she herself had to fight to
bring her niece home. She questioned why the state keeps
children who don't need to be kept, rather than offering families
in-home services that would be cheaper and more efficient
emotionally, mentally and physically. She suggested that can be
done by working with churches, community action groups, schools,
educators and mentors. There was a mentor system tried about 16-
17 years ago, she noted, which was expensive but effective. Ms.
Short advised commissioners, "If you don't solve the initial
problems in these families, you are creating and feeding the
system."
MS. SHORT emphasized the need for change, characterizing the
system as a "ladder" that needs to be a "tree" instead. When
foster parents report grievances against caseworkers, she noted,
they are grieving against the people that they employ. What
happens? They get their licenses shut off. That has happened to
several people whom she could either name or keep anonymous, and
she urged the commission to talk to these people. There is child
abuse out there, she cautioned, "but you can't deal with it and
solve it if you continuously spend all your resources on
investigating faults and reports of harm, and spinning your
wheels."
MS. SHORT restated that the current system isn't working, not
just in Alaska but also nationwide. However, it is more
prominent in Alaska because of isolation. Referring to a scandal
in Washington, she indicated such events occur in Alaska but are
less out in the open. Ms. Short urged the commission to
seriously think about the current "ladder" system and about
involving more of the community, whether through privatization or
some other way. She emphasized the need for some external review
of agencies. She also pointed out that no board, commission,
department or division in Alaska consists of beneficiaries of
these services. She then concluded:
These are forced services. They're paid for with my
money, and I want them efficient. I want them
protecting those children out there, and they're not
doing it. And the abuse is not just happening out
there in public; it's happening in the agencies all the
time. Who is accountable for that child?
[AS] 47.10.960 says there's no duty or standard of care
created under Title 47. You know what? There's a duty
or standard of care created here, and by you guys, for
me as a parent to take [care] of that child. Why am I
going to let that child go to the state, who's not
accountable, who's not responsible, and who I can't
protect myself from, as a parent, when they take my
child? [AS] 47.10.960 needs to be repealed or needs to
be amended, so that's part of the problem right there.
Thank you.
CO-CHAIR WARD noted the need to make sure all members receive a
copy of the three audits brought forth by Representative Dyson.
He also requested that Ms. Short provide a suggested outline for
organization, and that she work with Co-Chair Cowdery's staff or
his own to ensure that the format is understandable. He pointed
out that this is all about citizens' committees relaying
messages. If information is on a piece of scratch paper, that is
fine, Co-Chair Ward added, but it needs to be submitted.
MS. SHORT mentioned the citizens foster care review panel, then
said the CASA [court-appointed special advocate] program is
organized pretty well except for one thing: the program reports
to guardians ad litem (GALs), who in 50 percent or more of the
cases never meet the children. Ms. Short questioned why the
state pays for that. She also asked, "If they don't meet the
children, how can they go to court and tell me what's in that
child's best interest?" She said it is ridiculous, a waste of
money. If CASA workers had to report directly to the courts and
could "make their own opinions," she indicated the state would
find some good help. Ms. Short noted that CASA workers are
educated volunteers who care; they go through a screening
service. She recommended having the Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA) train them. She concluded by alluding to the CASA system
as a tree branch instead of a ladder, which protects the state,
social workers and families.
MR. PIGNALBERI asked the subcommittee chairman, Mike Taurianan,
to clarify Recommendation 13, which read:
We recommend that your department looks into finding
ways to incorporate some programs that are offered,
with the intent of making them into ... loan programs.
MR. TAURIANAN deferred to other members, suggesting perhaps Kathy
Andress could comment. He indicated that recommendation had been
included in his absence.
MS. MOSS spoke up, explaining it was an amended recommendation
that had originally asked that the medical assistance program be
turned into a loan program. It goes back to the philosophy of
public assistance: "We don't mind helping people when they're
down and out, but should it really be just a giveaway program?"
She asked whether there wouldn't be a little more compassion and
a little more self-esteem, if it were treated like a disaster
loan under the Small Business Administration (SBA). She, then,
recounted how after her home was flooded in 1991, she didn't have
to ask for a handout but obtained a loan with the SBA on which
she makes monthly payments; with that money, she got her house
back in order. Ms. Moss restated that it is a philosophical
message.
MR. PIGNALBERI asked Ms. Moss to review Recommendations 13 and
15, suggesting that they are redundant.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER pointed out that Recommendation 15, on
medical assistance, is similar to Recommendation 19, regarding
ATAP [Alaska Temporary Assistance Program].
MS. CLARKE recalled that this was adopted by the subcommittee so
that there is a recommendation to look at other programs funded
in the department - in addition to medical assistance or ATAP -
that could be loan programs. It is more than just medical
assistance.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER explained that Recommendations 13, 15 and
19 are similar, adding, "Basically, we're saying: for those who
are physically able to work and provide for themselves but are
down-and-out at the time, make it a loan program rather than an
outright grant program or welfare program, where they can get
back [on their feet]."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked: What about people who have a mental
illness?
MS. MOSS indicated the conversation was that someone who is able
to provide for himself or herself would get a loan. She assumed
that mental illness is considered a medical disability, and for
someone with a medical disability, that is a whole different
story and would be treated differently.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE voiced his assumption that they don't want
the word "physically" injected there, then.
MS. MOSS suggested that is something the commission may want to
address.
MS. CLARKE pointed out that making these into loan programs will
require a change to federal law. For that reason, the department
believes these recommendations are not practical. She stated her
belief that the subcommittee had wanted to bring the issue up to
the full commission.
MS. MOSS said that is true. In the subcommittee's discussions,
they recognized that federal law would have to be changed.
However, they felt they had to start somewhere and possibly plead
to the legislature, again, to send a resolution to Congress about
reversing the whole welfare program and government system of
"enabling people to be failures."
MR. PIGNALBERI asked Ms. Clarke to send him an e-mail about what
other programs should be included in Recommendation 13. He noted
that it is not supposed to apply to medical assistance because
there is another recommendation on that, nor is it supposed to
apply to ATAP for the same reason.
MS. CLARKE affirmed that she could do that, although it would
only be speculation on her part. She isn't sure what the
subcommittee had in mind, she added, except there are other
programs that the department administers.
MR. PIGNALBERI suggested that because of the excellent
cooperation between the subcommittee and the department, Ms.
Clarke's speculation would be fine with everybody.
SENATOR ADAMS asked Ms. Clarke to also note in her e-mail which
areas need federal law changes and "which area needs to comply
with that, state law changes, or one or the other."
MS. CLARKE assented, adding that they had attempted to do that in
the department's response to the recommendations.
MS. MOSS advised commissioners of a couple of changes on
recommendations where the wording in the report was not as it was
passed. First was Recommendation 14, the summary portion of
which read:
Implement a state statute giving medical providers the
flexibility to decide whether or not to pursue
collection of questionable debts.
She explained that there should be a comma after "debts" after
which the following phrase should be inserted: "but Medicaid
would still pay the reduced amount". Next was Recommendation 12,
the summary portion of which read:
Consider efficiency that could be gained by eliminating
duplicated services through possible privatization.
MS. MOSS indicated Recommendation 12, as worded in the draft
report, was not voted on by the subcommittee. Rather, it is a
consolidated recommendation from the subcommittee on public
health that in no way corresponds with this one. That
recommendation failed, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked whether Ms. Moss was saying
Recommendation 12 had failed.
MS. MOSS affirmed that. She restated that the recommendation
voted on wasn't this recommendation. She offered to read [the
language of the recommendation that the subcommittee voted on].
MR. PIGNALBERI reminded listeners that the commission would
update its website (www.privatizealaska.org) with the final
version of the subcommittee report. He offered to ensure that
everybody's notebook was updated as well.
MS. MOSS emphasized that there was no Recommendation 12.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER indicated the subcommittee would fine-
tune this, resolve some questions and clarify some language for
the commission. [The final subcommittee report reflects the
necessary revisions and renumbering.]
MR. PIGNALBERI pointed out that the Department of Education and
the Department of Health and Social Services are the biggest
components of the state budget, and these subcommittees had
worked numerous hours. He expressed gratitude that these
citizens had come forward and put in the work they did. He also
thanked the representatives from those two departments for the
wonderful amount of work they had done.
Subcommittee Report on the Department of Public Safety
CO-CHAIR COWDERY invited Deborah Luper to present the
Subcommittee Report on the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
DEBORAH LUPER, Chair, Subcommittee on the Department of Public
Safety, first thanked the subcommittee members, who she said were
outstanding. She pointed out that their decisions regarding
recommendations were reached by consensus. There was no dissent
on any recommendation and all members thought those
recommendations probably need to go forward.
MS. LUPER explained that the subcommittee considered each BRU
separately and made preliminary recommendations following each
one, which is the format for the report. They found that
approximately 32 percent of DPS's budget is already privatized,
which members believe is outstanding given that law enforcement
is traditionally a government function. However, in reviewing
the different BRUs, the subcommittee made several small
recommendations. For example, on page 10 they recommended
further efforts to privatize repair, maintenance and annual
inspections of aircraft, where feasible. That area was reviewed
rather extensively. Although most of that work is already
privatized, members felt a little more probably could be done.
MS. LUPER next referred to page 13, noting that recommendations
here relate to making the department more effective. For the
report, the subcommittee looked at the Criminal Investigations
Bureau and then, more specifically, at the crime lab. They felt
state-of-the-art technology such as DNA testing is vital to
successfully pursuing criminal investigations although it would
affect a different department as it would save on judicial costs.
Legal cases with solid evidence tend to be pled out or to end in
less expensive court trials, which subcommittee members believe
to be in the best interest of the state overall.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY confirmed that Del Smith was on teleconference,
then requested that he add any comments he might have.
MS. LUPER continued, reporting that the subcommittee encourages
the legislature to consider these recommendations when
contemplating the budget. For example, the state crime lab has a
DNA specialist position right now, a scientist funded by the
federal government. The future of that funding is uncertain.
However, the state crime lab already has the equipment necessary
to do DNA testing, which the subcommittee found valuable to DPS
in pursuit of criminal investigations. Ms. Luper provided a case
in which DNA testing was helpful.
MS. LUPER moved on to page 15, noting a small recommendation
regarding the Narcotics Task Force. As a member of the Civil Air
Patrol, she told commissioners she had learned - for at least
last year - that nearly one-half million dollars went back to the
federal coffers. She explained that there is a counter-narcotics
fund through which pilots such as herself are trained to assist
law enforcement personnel in counter-narcotics efforts. Ms.
Luper believes it is a shame the funds were sent back rather than
being utilized as much as possible. It is something worth
looking into, although she understands that the state already
utilizes other funds.
MR. PIGNALBERI asked whether that is something over which DPS has
control.
MS. LUPER explained that the Civil Air Patrol is an auxiliary of
the United States Air Force. Although its primary function is
search and rescue, funds are set aside specifically for counter-
narcotics operations. In order to use those funds, DPS must make
a request to the Civil Air Patrol. In talking with the gentleman
who oversees much of that fund, Ms. Luper found them anxious to
utilize it and to see more activity from law enforcement
regarding that.
MR. PIGNALBERI suggested the department needs to ask the Civil
Air Patrol for more help so that the Civil Air Patrol can tap
into its funds to provide that help.
MS. LUPER agreed and then drew attention to the major
recommendations section. Of the three major recommendations,
probably the most significant cost savings would be in the
vehicle acquisition and maintenance section, which the
subcommittee found exceedingly expensive for DPS. Ms. Luper
noted that the Fairbanks Police Department has arranged a leasing
program though Seekins Ford Lincoln Mercury whereby they have no
overhead in terms of acquiring vehicles, they don't have to put
down a huge sum of money, they have monthly payment arrangements
and they have first priority for repairs and maintenance. She
understood from the Fairbanks Police Department that the program
has resulted in significant savings.
MS. LUPER reported that DPS pays a large monthly fee that covers
normal repair and maintenance; however, "dings," dents and major
work are extra. When the program began, most costs including
fuel were covered by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT/PF). As time went on, however, DPS has been
asked to assume more and more expenses. The subcommittee found
the costs exorbitant. For example, Ms. Luper discovered that a
simple tire changeover requires two DOT/PF personnel and costs
hundreds of dollars; in contrast, she can have her truck's tires
changed for about $40 in Anchorage. Subcommittee members believe
the state would be better served by acquiring vehicles through a
lease program. Ms. Luper expressed certainty that any number of
current private vendors in Alaska would be available to do that.
MS. LUPER pointed out that the one exception, in terms of
maintenance, is in rural areas that lack private maintenance
facilities. The DOT/PF already has maintenance facilities out
there and thus she encouraged the legislature to continue to
utilize DOT/PF in those areas.
MS. LUPER next addressed Appendix C, the fleet assignment and
usage section. She explained that while sitting there, she had
made notations. Page 9 indicates that B Detachment of the Alaska
State Troopers has 31 police interceptor units, of which 20 have
60,000 miles or more on them; many have well over 100,000 miles.
Noting that the report was printed October 22, she explained that
she had included units with 50,000 to 59,000 miles, which already
have or will soon have 60,000 miles. Looking at different
detachments' of police interceptor units, she found over 50
percent had more than 60,000 miles on them. Although maintained
well, these vehicles are in constant and sometimes very
aggressive use. Therefore, they will need to be replaced in the
very near future. Now is a good time to consider moving to the
private arena in vehicle acquisition, she concluded.
MS. LUPER returned attention to the recommendations section of
the report. The subcommittee had considered DPS's work regarding
patrol and enforcement in federal waters; they found it very
interesting in light of the federal government's subsistence-
related takeover of fisheries management. The department
provides virtually all of the patrol and enforcement outside the
three-mile limit on behalf of the federal government, at no
reimbursement. This covers shellfish, including king crab, Ms.
Luper noted, and represents a large portion of the state's
economy; it is an extremely valuable area for enforcement. The
subcommittee recommends that the legislature request
reimbursement, from the federal government to the State of
Alaska, for costs associated with that patrol and enforcement.
Referring to Appendix B, Ms. Luper explained that she had asked
the department to provide a rundown of last year's costs from
which it was discovered that for fiscal year 1999, it [the costs
associated with the patrol and enforcement outside the three-mile
limit] was nearly one-half million dollars.
CO-CHAIR WARD said he hadn't realized that. He had been under
the impression that the United States Coast Guard did a lot of
the policing outside of the three-mile limit. He asked whether
that is the Coast Guard's responsibility.
MS. LUPER replied that [the Coast Guard] patrols and enforces for
other things; they don't concentrate on fisheries, most
specifically, the shellfish fisheries. That responsibility has
been placed in the State of Alaska's lap, but it is unfunded.
Specifically, the subcommittee recommends that the department be
reimbursed through something such as a reimbursable services
agreement so DPS can be reimbursed directly for those costs.
[Subcommittee] members fear that the federal government might
reimburse the state, but those funds would be sent somewhere
other than DPS.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER, noting that the Subcommittee on the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game would report next, suggested
it might be beneficial to see whether the Subcommittee on ADF&G
had reviewed this since many of its members are involved in
fisheries beyond the three-mile limit.
MS. LUPER agreed to try to remain until that report. She then
discussed the final recommendation, regarding computer systems
and information delivery. It was determined that DPS and the
state would be best served by consolidating and improving
computer systems to provide additional information that could
assist in making DPS more efficient. That issue arose in the
last days that the subcommittee met, she noted, and therefore she
is not as familiar with that issue. However, subcommittee
members who worked on this extensively have assured her such a
change would be advantageous for everyone. Ms. Luper
acknowledged that this recommendation moves towards making the
department more efficient rather than privatizing [a function].
MS. LUPER turned to the appendices. She explained that she had
asked the department to provide a list of contracts that are
already going to the private sector, [which is found in] Appendix
A. Since that list was provided just a few days ago, she
couldn't explain what each contract is for and thus she suggested
that Deputy Commissioner Smith could do so.
DEL SMITH, Member, Subcommittee on the Department of Public
Safety, spoke via teleconference and noted that he didn't have
the document before him. He explained that the contracts
requested specifically by Ms. Luper are ones DPS has with any
number of people, including instructional contractors; these are
formal, signed contracts that have somebody perform a particular
function. Above and beyond that, however, DPS obviously spends a
substantial amount of money with the private sector. For
example, many items are just billed to the department, including
utilities, rent for space and so forth. Information provided by
Ken Bischoff (Director, Division of Administrative Services, DPS)
earlier that year indicated the department had spent about $30
million in the private sector.
MS. LUPER turned attention to Appendix D, the memorandum from Mr.
Bischoff dated September 20, 1999, just noted by Deputy
Commissioner Smith; she suggested the information may be helpful.
The memorandum states that approximately 32 percent of the
department's budget is currently expended in the private sector.
Not specifying what the documents are, Ms. Luper noted that
"number 3 and number 4" are also attached. She explained that
the October 1996 report mentioned under "number 2" in the
memorandum is a comparative study of owning, chartering and
leasing aircraft by DPS; it is the most current report the
department could provide. Since then, Ms. Luper believes DPS has
acquired a second King Air aircraft. In reading the report, she
noted, it is obvious that those are extremely valuable for
patrol-and-enforcement activities; transporting SWAT [Special
Weapons and Tactics Team] and SERC [State Emergency Response
Commission] teams; prisoner transport; and other duties. Ms.
Luper believes the second King Air aircraft was acquired by DPS
since the 1996 study; a major portion of its use is allocated to
the Office of the Governor at a reimbursable rate.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked whether the navigational maintenance and
repair is done in-house or by the private sector.
MS. LUPER deferred to Deputy Commissioner Smith.
MR. SMITH explained that DPS has aircraft mechanics on the
payroll. However, the [maintenance and repair of the]
electronics is done for DPS by private sector people. Those are
highly specialized, technical kinds of repairs and the department
wants to make sure they get the best assistance. An exception is
minor electronics work.
CO-CHAIR WARD noted that this report says the operational costs
for Bell Helicopter (ph) are $300 an hour, compared to some $600
in the private sector. He asked if that includes prorated
capital costs. Co-Chair Ward indicated that when he had called
local helicopter companies, that cost wasn't $600 an hour.
MR. SMITH explained that when DPS wants to rent a helicopter, it
is on a so-called wet lease, ready to go anytime they want it,
which obviously escalates cost to some degree. Although he
himself couldn't address the specifics, the department did hire a
person to go out and touch base with everybody and to come up
with that 1996 report. There probably are places where, at any
given time, one could pay less. However, when Alaska State
Troopers must respond, the need is immediate. For a wet lease,
ready to go 24 hours a day, he believes those figures were
accurate, at least in 1996.
CO-CHAIR WARD acknowledged that a verbal conversation over the
phone is a lot different from a contract.
MR. SMITH agreed, then pointed out that DPS charters helicopters
on an as-needed basis, such as in search-and-rescue situations
where there are no assets. An example was the incident [the
previous summer, near Juneau] where several helicopters crashed
on a glacier; in that case, the department had to charter
helicopters because it ran out.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH thanked Co-Chair Ward for his question,
saying it is germane to any of these cost comparisons. He
directed attention to page 32 of the 1996 report; at the bottom,
it clarifies that the state estimates its costs per hour without
including the capital costs of the aircraft and some other
issues, he said, including travel, contractual service, supplies
and equipment. He suggested they are comparing apples and
oranges because the government estimates its cost strictly as the
operating budget cost, without amortizing capital investments.
He cautioned that the numbers should be looked at critically.
MS. LUPER replied that to be fair to the department, a large
portion of its aircraft fleet was acquired through seizure. Game
guides and hunters using Super Cubs to engage in illegal activity
are a great source; about half of the department's Super Cubs
were acquired that way, and the other half were purchased.
However, she believes all of the department's helicopters were
purchased. The first King Air aircraft was purchased for about
$1.2 million, to her belief. The second was acquired from a
federal source, paying $700,000 or $800,000 to bring it up to
speed.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH agreed the state benefits in large measure.
However, if the aircraft or item weren't kept for in-department
use, it could be sold to create a revenue stream for other
services. He emphasized the need to look at the market value and
amortize that cost as a true cost of doing the service. He then
thanked the subcommittee for its thorough report.
MR. PIGNALBERI recalled that early in the process the commission
had requested - from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
he believes - a report on the number of aircraft used statewide
by all the agencies. The commission had provided that to one
subcommittee, which he believes was the DPS subcommittee. As it
wasn't included in the subcommittee's materials, however, he
suggested finding out where that report was.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER indicated his belief that the
Subcommittee on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
had it.
MR. PIGNALBERI said he didn't believe the ADF&G Subcommittee had
it, because ADF&G has its own air force, as does DPS. Therefore,
the notion of cross-utilization between departments arises so
that with efficient management fewer aircraft would be necessary.
He clarified that he was bringing that to the commission's
attention for later deliberation.
SENATOR ADAMS asked Deputy Commissioner Smith whether the state
is over-policing areas where the responsibilities belong to
municipalities. He cited the Matanuska-Susitna area as an
example, noting that in some parts of rural Alaska there is no
DPS activity.
MR. SMITH suggested he'd have to dance on the head of a razor
blade here. He then answered that he doesn't know that the
Alaska State Troopers are over-policing anywhere in the state.
Instead, he would argue that there aren't nearly enough troopers
and they are stretched thin in most places. He acknowledged that
they do police fairly heavily outside of Wasilla and Palmer as
well as the City of Fairbanks; they run almost a municipal police
department in those areas because of the population growth and
the call load. Clearly, if municipalities expanded their
boundaries and took those in, then DPS could reassign troopers.
He reiterated that they aren't over-policing, although they are
policing areas that arguably could be part of municipal
jurisdictions, but currently are not.
MS. LUPER expressed appreciation to DPS, saying the subcommittee
had enjoyed excellent cooperation.
MS. SHORT spoke up. Not a member of the DPS subcommittee, she
recalled that her own subcommittee was asked to look at
interagency receipts along with the Department of Health,
Education and Social Services; she said it seems many
privatization subcommittees are doing the same thing. She
cautioned that interagency transfer costs money because of
required personnel, and it opens up more possibilities for
misappropriation of funds. Direct payment, a much better idea,
probably ensures that money goes where it is supposed to, Ms.
Short concluded, and it cuts back on staff.
TAPE 99-17, SIDE B
Subcommittee Report on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
MEAD TREADWELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G), advised commissioners that the
subcommittee had met virtually every Tuesday since its formation.
They had excellent cooperation from the department, and Mr.
Treadwell believes there was a representative membership from the
community. The subcommittee includes commercial and sport
fishermen as well as various private sector people such as Pat
Simpson, head of Scientific Fisheries Systems (ph), which does
software and other research for the fishing industry. Mr.
Treadwell himself is vice-chairman of the Prince William Sound
Oil Spill Recovery Institute in Cordova, at the Prince William
Sound Science Center, which conducts privately and publicly
supported research. Members of privatized hatcheries are also on
the subcommittee.
MR. TREADWELL highlighted important findings in the written
report. Of the total $111 million budget that the legislature
appropriates for ADF&G, direct general funds are $30 million
"plus a few of these program receipts." Close to $71 million
comes to the state from various forms of revenue collected in the
commercial fishing industry, and about $49 million comes from
hunting and sport fishing. Therefore, there is already a major
private revenue source, of sorts, coming into the state from
activities managed by ADF&G.
MR. TREADWELL pointed out a conclusion reached fairly early on:
although perhaps pencil sharpeners, airplanes and boats can be
rented rather than purchased, the state really can't delegate the
management responsibility for the fish and game that it received
under the statehood compact. While the subcommittee had looked
at ways to improve the science which supports that decision-
making process and so forth, they felt it would have been very
difficult to actually put authority into a contractor's hands for
management of any particular fishery.
MR. TREADWELL next addressed existing privatization practices.
With the legislature's support, a tremendous number of
privatization initiatives had been adopted by the department over
the past decade, probably the most notable being privatization of
state-owned hatcheries. There have been retail sales of fishing
and hunting licenses for many, many years; a revenue source for
people in that business, it is something with which ADF&G works
well. He noted that there is new legislation to contract with
private boat owners and processors for test fisheries; the
subcommittee would discuss a recommendation regarding that. In
addition, for a long time there has been contracting with private
and institutional boat owners for research platforms.
Furthermore, there has been contracting with local Native and
fishing organizations to conduct salmon stock assessment
programs. With the impending subsistence regime, Mr. Treadwell
suggested there will be federal contracting to some of those same
organizations for management efforts. There is also contracting
for aircraft.
MR. TREADWELL noted that the subcommittee had made nine basic
recommendations after looking at a number of different
initiatives; for almost all, they had some recommendation. He
expressed gratitude for Pat Simpson's work, including contacting
others and reviewing "privatization experiences" in New Zealand,
the Great Lakes region and New England. Mr. Simpson works
nationally and internationally in supporting fisheries management
around the world, he noted. Initially, Mr. Simpson's hypothesis
was that some research management could be privatized. However,
that often produces very different results, bringing into
question the scientific method at one end or another. Sometimes
just changing the kind of boat used for stock assessments can
dramatically change the way a fishery is managed, for example.
Consistent results lead to consistent management. Therefore,
there was a concern. Mr. Treadwell suggested perhaps Mr. Simpson
may want to speak to this.
MR. TREADWELL reported that the subcommittee did recommend that
ADF&G do something like what the federal government does: issue
so-called task order agreements to a private contractor to help
assist agency activities in a certain area of the department.
These task order agreements would allow more and more small
things - which otherwise would have to go through a request for
proposals (RFP) process - to be contracted out. This might help
the cause of privatization with which the commission is
concerned, Mr. Treadwell suggested. However, the subcommittee
wasn't sure whether legislation would be needed to do this.
SENATOR WARD requested an example of a federal task order
agreement with a private contractor.
MR. TREADWELL replied that in Antarctica, NANA [Regional
Corporation] had just won a contract to help provide support
services for the research activity there. The contract is broad
enough so that if in the middle of the contract the federal
government decides a building is needed, for example, NANA can be
directed to build it. By having a master contract that allows
task ordering, a contractor may "invest in ownership" in a
certain area, which can smooth out the privatization process.
MR. TREADWELL returned to the report, pointing out a second
recommendation that the subcommittee had discussed fairly
thoroughly: research plans and partnerships. There is something
major happening in the marine research area, he said. Although
the legislature has not been directly involved in most cases, the
commission should be aware of the whole picture. Washington has
finally appropriated a perpetual endowment of about $160 million
from the Dinkum Sands settlement to support North Pacific and
Bering Sea research in the marine environment; that is to be run
by about an 18-member board for the North Pacific research board,
which includes federal and state agencies and some private
institutions like the Sea Life Center in Seward.
MR. TREADWELL continued. The Exxon Valdez trust, the result of
the billion-dollar settlement, has come down to a research fund
of about $115 million; Mr. Treadwell indicated there was a report
in last week's newspaper about that. Very quietly in Washington,
he added, there was a measure that allows them to invest at much
higher rates than previously. As for the Prince William Sound
Oil Spill Recovery Institute, with which he is involved, it has a
$23-million endowment established by Congress. That endowment
has been supporting marine research and oil spill technology
research in Prince William Sound and the Arctic. In addition,
two major emergency appropriations measures, for Norton Sound and
the Bering Sea, have brought close to $14 or $15 million, which
can be used for basic research efforts.
MR. TREADWELL expressed the subcommittee's concern that ADF&G
probably doesn't have the money necessary to perform the
scientific work needed to track all of the fisheries. However,
they would not recommend that the legislature direct ADF&G to
take money from the endowments to pay for that. They do
recommend, however, that the legislature encourage - and that
ADF&G go through - a sustained planning process to have a
research plan for several different geographic areas of the state
and to get those other funding sources onboard. Scientific
research on Steller sea lions, for instance, may require a number
of transects over the next five years, and the department might
use that for fisheries management. Close to $300 million is
available to support marine science; however, Mr. Treadwell
indicated, the subcommittee can't say that it would lower the
amount which the legislature needs to appropriate to maintain
Alaska's resources. Scientists and managers from all Alaska's
regions need to get together to figure out what programs are best
and what sources will pay for those.
MR. TREADWELL noted that he had gone over this with Molly
McCammon, Executive Director, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council, who had said, in essence, "I'm not going to make up
department budgets, but we are willing to help fill in the gaps
that the department isn't able to do." Likewise, the Spill
Recovery Institute had met the previous Monday in Cordova, with
similar results, Mr. Treadwell indicated. He added that the
North Pacific board hasn't met yet.
MR. TREADWELL emphasized that this is a major opportunity. Day
in and day out, ADF&G collects data and advises the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game on what kinds of catch limits to
set; it also has an enforcement function regarding those rules.
The subcommittee found, in some divisions, that sometimes as much
as 70 percent of the budget is devoted to applied research, as
opposed to the more theoretical research that universities may do
to prove the biology. At the same time, the subcommittee found
there may be ways to break down some barriers that exist,
institutionally or otherwise; that could result in sharing and,
hopefully, much better management.
MR. TREADWELL pointed out that the foregoing had resulted in the
subcommittee's second recommendation. They leave it to the
commission to decide whether legislation or oversight is needed.
Mr. Treadwell passed along a point he had made to Senator
Torgerson at a meeting recently in Palmer. That point is in
regard to his belief that the legislature has never had together,
at one hearing, leaders of all these major funding institutions
for marine research in Alaska, of which the state is a party.
State input basically comes from the executive branch, not the
legislative branch, he added.
MR. TREADWELL drew attention to the third recommendation.
Funding for new fishery development opportunities was contained
in HB 198, enacted recently. This is a self-taxing mechanism to
fund development of dive fisheries, based on the value of the
product harvested. The legislature will have to decide in the
next year to earmark those funds to go to their intended purpose.
He suggested someone from ADF&G can explain that further. He
referred to this an attempt that the legislature made for
privatization in the last couple of years, noting that it will
have its first major test this year. He indicated the
subcommittee supports that going forward.
MR. TREADWELL turned attention to the fourth area discussed:
electronic data collection and reporting. Noting that he was a
member of the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF) for
five years, Mr. Treadwell recalled the great frustration there
because ASTF had helped to pay for an electronic fish ticket
system that the department hadn't used. It turned out that
several other entities - supported either by private funds,
Community Development Quota (CDQ) user groups, or ASTF - have
developed ways to automate fish ticket information. It would be
much easier to collect that information electronically in some
cases, and it would help to result in better fisheries management
in other cases. When fishing against a quota, for example,
knowing how much has been caught may make a difference. Right
now, that process is done by hand, with data entry. The
subcommittee recommended that ADF&G move quickly to resolve legal
issues because a fish ticket is a legal document. Mr. Treadwell
concluded, "We have the technology. We're suggesting that this
privatization commission help put a head of steam behind making
that happen." He cautioned that the subcommittee couldn't
provide a specific estimate; if five people were doing data entry
in Western Alaska today, for instance, they didn't know whether
five would be needed tomorrow. He suggested those are the kinds
of questions that the commission may want to ask as they move
forward with this kind of recommendation.
MR. TREADWELL next discussed privatization of fishing license
sales. The department now offers license sales online using a
credit card, with licenses then mailed to the purchasers.
However, a person can go to the post office online and buy stamps
to be printed at home. The subcommittee suggested there may be a
similar way to provide a more automatic online system for fishing
licenses.
MR. TREADWELL reported that the subcommittee also had examined
revenues raised by ADF&G from "collector duck stamps." Although
the department's own chart shows wild fluctuations, there has
been a big market nationwide. The subcommittee suggested
possible expansion of this program. The legislature has
authorized the department to issue collector stamps for both
ducks and fish, Mr. Treadwell noted. It would both promote
Alaskan wildlife and earn revenue for the department.
MR. TREADWELL turned attention to so-called stream watch programs
and citizen assistance and enforcement, noting that the
subcommittee had a lot of discussion about those. Currently, the
stream watch program is "kind of a privatized program" run by a
private nonprofit group with the department. There is a 1-800
number for use by people who see fish and game violations. Much
of the sport fishing in Alaska occurs in areas where people can
carry cellular telephones, Mr. Treadwell pointed out. It may be
desirable to generate a new set of trained "stream watch
volunteers" who can notify the department of their whereabouts
when out fishing, for example, to help stretch ADF&G's
enforcement dollars and supplement, in advance, an enforcement
effort by the department.
MR. TREADWELL also reported that the subcommittee saw many
opportunities for cooperation in chartering out boats.
Basically, many entities don't share their plans ahead of time.
Again, the idea is for geographical plans. For example, what are
the University of Alaska, the Sea Life Center, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) doing? People need to know what
kind of platform requirements exist in an area, whether it is
Prince William Sound or the Bering Sea. The subcommittee
encouraged sharing and doing research planning ahead of time, as
well as more chartering out of private vessels.
MR. TREADWELL next discussed the recommendation to improve
enforcement by use of retired officers and better fine settlement
policies. He mentioned union agreements and that enforcement is
a public safety issue. Several subcommittee members had looked
at how to use retired officers to supplement existing officers in
enforcement. In trying that previously, the state had apparently
met roadblocks with the union or with safety requirements, for
example. A cadre of dedicated people, who have spent their
careers in this business in Alaska are interested in being
involved. If there is a way to sort through the problems, the
subcommittee believes budget dollars may be stretched further,
whether in ADF&G, through an interagency appropriation to DPS, or
directly to DPS.
MR. TREADWELL referred to an earlier discussion and noted that
seizures are a major source of capital for the Department of
Public Safety in certain areas. Noting the subcommittee's
recommendation of legislative review of the policy regarding
fines, he said this basically comes down to the attorney general
and the department to ensure that fines and settlements for fish
and game violations go back into helping to support management.
MR. TREADWELL addressed the final area: contracting out
protected areas where economic savings would be achieved. This
is a chicken-and-egg problem, he said. Currently, the state
manages places where tourists go under certain permit processes;
examples are Pack Creek and McNeil River for bears, and Round
Island for walrus. Theoretically, this could be chartered out to
private or nonprofit corporations, which might actually help to
develop these areas a little better for tourism. In discussions
with the department, members heard the opinion that there isn't
enough money to support private entities there. Mr. Treadwell
countered by saying, "If no one owns it, no one cares." If they
were to find a concession arrangement that works, he suggested, a
concessionaire may be interested in helping to develop an area so
that it does support itself. Although an Alaskan, he himself has
never been able to get to McNeil River because he hasn't won the
permit lottery; that is a general concern about privatizing a
public resource.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked Mr. Treadwell to comment about enforcement
relating to the three-mile limit. He requested clarification as
to whether ASTF gave a grant for ticketless fish for the
commercial harvest.
MR. TREADWELL explained that a few years ago an entrepreneur, an
inventor in Homer, developed an electronic fish ticket system; a
condition of the ASTF grant was that there be discussion with
ADF&G. That particular grantee was rather frustrated because he
was never able to get his system adopted. Mr. Treadwell further
stated:
They also supported another software company. They
were supported by a CDQ group .... As you know, the
CDQ groups, they've got quotas from the feds, and
they've got to know what their contracting boats are
catching, because if they go over their quota, they get
clobbered. So, they needed a much better system of
information than the government had, to find out how
much fish had been caught. So they developed another
piece of software. And I think what we're saying is
that we know of at least those two pieces of software,
plus one other government effort that did it; and the
department has yet to get around the legal impediments
that they see to adopting any one of these things. We
recommend an open system, so that any entrepreneur that
comes up with this -- you know, the government says,
"Give us the information," rather than saying exactly,
you know, it has to be on paper, because if they do
that, any of these entrepreneurs may be able to make it
go.
CO-CHAIR WARD expressed curiosity about the legal impediments.
MR. TREADWELL answered that ultimately, to his belief, there is a
requirement for a hard copy or signature by the person who caught
the fish, as well as the signature of the buyer. It is the legal
document on which the fish tax is based.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked whether the subcommittee had looked at the
three-mile limit and enforcement relating to ADF&G.
MR. TREADWELL replied no. He mentioned a "large kind-of-mind-
share component" of the department where they work on federal
fisheries issues or offshore fisheries issues, which don't tend
to take a huge amount of money out of the budget. The state
definitely puts in some general fund money to help things happen
outside the three-mile limit, Mr. Treadwell pointed out. He
personally would advise, by all means, going for a reimbursement.
However, one must remember that one real gain that the state got
from the so-called Magnuson Act [Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act] was that Alaska's governor gets
to appoint seats on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC), which extends the state's jurisdiction. Mr. Treadwell
emphasized that the state definitely should play a role.
Although it could take the position that those are federal waters
and the federal government should pay for everything, the state
has really been given a chance to speak up regarding management.
That [ability] has made a big difference in inshore, offshore,
allocation and quota decisions. "We shouldn't shirk that
responsibility just because it goes outside of three miles, is my
other reaction," he concluded.
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Member, Subcommittee on the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, announced her presence via teleconference from
Juneau, adding that she is with the Pacific Seafood Processors
Association. She also noted the presence of subcommittee member
Amy Daugherty, as well as Tom Gimmell (ph) of the United
Fishermen of Alaska (UFA).
GERON BRUCE, Member, Subcommittee on the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, speaking via teleconference, noted that he is the
ADF&G contact for the subcommittee. He concurred with Mr.
Treadwell that the state plays a major role, particularly
regarding the shellfish fishery for which the actual management
has been delegated by NPFMC to the state. The state already
receives some federal funds for shellfish and groundfish
fisheries in that area. Although it doesn't manage the latter,
the state has a very active role in influencing policy.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked when ADF&G plans to submit its response to
the subcommittee's recommendations.
MR. BRUCE said he thinks it will be fairly soon. He offered to
provide oral comments on a couple of recommendations.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY responded in the negative.
MR. PIGNALBERI pointed out that this report is somewhat unusual.
He called attention to extra work done by subcommittee members,
who had submitted their own treatises and papers as appendices.
Eight papers were written independently, some including specific
recommendations at the end. Furthermore, in the preface to the
report, the chairman had taken pains to say these individual
recommendations were not voted on by the full subcommittee but
were additional contributions by members. Mr. Pignalberi
suggested the commission owes these people, for their work, at
least some review. He requested that Mr. Bruce also distribute
those recommendations to appropriate ADF&G personnel for a timely
response.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked when the department was made aware
that the commission needed a response.
MR. BRUCE answered that, to his recollection, he first became
aware yesterday when he e-mailed the draft report to the
commission staff, who then requested written comments for this
session. He had offered to provide some oral comments this day
and to get something more formal in writing as soon as possible.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY emphasized the desire for comments in writing by
the next week, if possible.
MR. TREADWELL offered to accept some responsibility, explaining
that he had been traveling extensively. He suggested the
department had been focused on helping the subcommittee come up
with fact-based recommendations.
CO-CHAIR WARD echoed the request to have ADF&G personnel respond
to recommendations in both the total report and all eight
individual papers.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY thanked Mr. Treadwell, then announced a short
lunch break.
Subcommittee Report on the University of Alaska
CO-CHAIR COWDERY reconvened the meeting at an unspecified time.
He invited Ms. Frasca to present the report on the University of
Alaska, whose three main campuses are the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF); the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA); and
the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), in Juneau.
CHERYL FRASCA, Chair, Subcommittee on the University of Alaska
(UA), came forward, introducing Wayne Jensen, who had
participated in the subcommittee's efforts. She referred
commissioners to the cover page of the report, which lists UA
subcommittee members as herself, Jan Fredricks, Wayne Jensen, K.
Wayne Price, Tom Wilson and Nancy Usera. She pointed out that
although there were additional subcommittee members, those listed
were participants in developing and finalizing the
recommendations. Appendix G, a memorandum from Wendy Redman to
Mr. Pignalberi, provides information on what the three primary
campuses have done over time; however, the rest of the report
focuses on possible future changes in the delivery of services.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY confirmed with Ann Ringstad that she was still
online in Fairbanks.
MS. FRASCA commented on the great cooperation from the university
in terms of talking about what could be done differently, and she
noted that UA is open to any opportunity to save money. The
subcommittee had talked with Dr. Bird (ph) from Charter College
regarding opportunities for private-sector delivery of academic
instruction. As a result, all of the subcommittee's
recommendations deal with support activities that allow the
delivery of instruction, rather than instruction itself. Ms.
Frasca drew attention to Appendix A and a matrix prepared by the
university; "IH" stands for "in-house" and "OS" stands for
"outsourcing." The matrix provides a snapshot of potential
opportunities to outsource activities currently done in-house.
Recommendations on page 2 of the report follow the matrix.
MS. FRASCA addressed the first area of potential outsourcing, the
selling of books. As a pilot program, the Juneau campus sold
about 50 percent of its books over the Internet this last year.
Previously, UAA performed an evaluation regarding privatizing
management of its bookstore, especially the Internet and e-
commerce aspect. Although UAA decided it wasn't cost-effective
at that time to outsource management of the bookstore, they
scheduled a review for 2001. The subcommittee concluded, given
technology and the rate of change, that it is appropriate to do
that review sooner rather than later. This is a primary area
where students might be able to get quicker service in obtaining
books, hopefully at less cost.
MS. FRASCA emphasized that what is done by UAA won't necessarily
be followed by UAF or UAS. The campuses are independent in these
evaluations. Therefore, it is important that the statewide
administration encourage each campus to undergo these kinds of
evaluations.
MS. FRASCA turned attention to utilities, noting that UAF owns
and operates its own heating and water systems. The subcommittee
felt that a full evaluation would be appropriate regarding
possible private-sector delivery of service, especially since
utilities have become deregulated. Although there hadn't been a
consensus as to whether it is a good idea, people in Fairbanks
brought this to the attention of [subcommittee] members. The UAF
plant staff has been very helpful in bringing information
forward, and Wayne Jensen, who is involved with Energy Masters
(ph), was also helpful in discussing utility-related options.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked about amortization on UAF's existing
facilities. Could it be transferred, for example?
MS. FRASCA said the subcommittee didn't get into that part of it,
then requested confirmation.
WAYNE JENSEN, Member, Subcommittee on the University of Alaska,
specified, "Not from a standpoint of amortization of the asset.
But they do own the asset. It could be sold."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out the associated concern of
liability, given the research at the university and the fact that
it acts as the "parent" of thousands of students, being
responsible when the lights go out, for example. Another issue
is that they are developing experimental technology using the
power plant. When injecting those considerations into the
debate, he suggested the private sector may start to believe it
is getting too complicated. He stated that the university has
some weird utilities, with strange responsibilities.
MS. FRASCA returned to the report, noting that UAF owns its
telephone system, which is another area for potential
outsourcing. As for grounds maintenance, all campuses do that
in-house, although UAF uses student labor for much of that work.
The university's response, when the subcommittee suggested
possibly contracting with the private sector, was to emphasize
the large amount of land that needs to be maintained. Still, the
subcommittee felt that shouldn't prohibit inquiry into levels of
interest in private-sector maintenance of the grass, parking lots
and so forth.
MS. FRASCA discussed housing. Although UAA had tried to solicit
private management of its new student housing, through a "request
for interest" process, they hadn't received satisfactory
responses from private management companies. Therefore, they
have farmed out portions. For example, food service is under a
private-sector contract, although Ms. Frasca couldn't recall
whether janitorial service and maintenance are. The Juneau
campus (UAS) actively rents out housing during the summer,
generating about 50 percent of the full year's revenue from
nonstudent activity, thereby keeping down costs during the rest
of the year for the students. The subcommittee suggested that
the university explore more fully the potential to also do that
at UAS and UAF.
MS. FRASCA next addressed garbage collection and removal. As UAF
currently does that in-house, the subcommittee suggested that
they explore outsourcing that. Although UAF has not seen a lot
of interest from their informal inquiries, they have not gone
through a formal process.
MS. FRASCA turned attention to printing, pointing out an
interesting discussion under Appendix B regarding so-called
managed competition. In-house personnel do some but not all of
the printing, trying to compete with the jobs that can be done
through outsourcing in terms of quality and costs. Ms. Frasca
said they seem to be doing a pretty good job on the printing side
with their current mix of in-house production and outsourcing.
MS. FRASCA indicated the final item of the matrix is janitorial
service. Because UAS does janitorial service in-house, she
suggested that might be an opportunity for private-sector
services. She noted that the matrix has been a good tool for
both the subcommittee and the university.
MS. FRASCA pointed out that temporary labor is another potential
area. Along with the university, the subcommittee had discussed
using private employment services for temporary nonstudent labor.
Although they have done that a little in the past, the university
will evaluate whether they can do more in the future.
MS. FRASCA turned attention to leased vehicles, noting that this
subject has arisen with other subcommittees as well. Appendix C
compares UAF-purchased vehicles and those leased from automobile
dealerships. Through attrition, UAF has moved to a vehicle pool,
she indicated, whereas formerly departments had their own cars;
they believe their arrangement is less costly than privately
leased vehicles would be. Although there is a question of
whether the comparison is apple-to-apple or apple-to-orange, the
subcommittee did explore it.
MS. FRASCA next discussed campus security. The subcommittee
recommended going to an outsource; Appendix E is a memorandum
which speaks to that issue. Ms. Frasca noted that the
legislature gave the university authority a couple of years ago
to commission officers so they could have full power on campuses.
MS. FRASCA pointed out that Appendix F includes collective
bargaining agreement language.
TAPE 99-18, SIDE A
SENATOR ADAMS asked if there is a dollar amount of savings in any
one of these.
MS. FRASCA replied no. She explained that was not done because
an evaluation of the potential private sector capability to
deliver the service would have to be performed. Some of the
smaller campuses may not even have a private sector available to
deliver the service. She noted the short time frame.
SENATOR ADAMS asked if any of the university campuses have
performed a savings analysis on any of these.
MS. FRASCA answered that she was not aware of such, but deferred
to Ms. Ringstad.
ANN RINGSTAD, Legislative Assistant, Legislative Affairs, said
that has not been done statewide for the purposes of this
exercise. However, each one of the campuses have went through
cost comparisons. For example, the book store at the Anchorage
campus went through a comparison of the cost of performing its
services in-house versus [in the private sector]. The option of
e-commerce was also reviewed. She noted that [the Anchorage
campus] is evaluating that on a periodic basis.
MS. FRASCA mentioned that she did have a copy of the Anchorage
campus analysis which she offered to provide to Mr. Pignalberi.
MR. PIGNALBERI wondered if Mr. Jensen (ph) would want to offer
additional comments. Mr. Pignalberi pointed out that the
subcommittee spent most of its meeting addressing the power plant
issue, which is the large item. He explained that when the
university was being built up, the local utilities of Fairbanks
were not large enough to handle the load from the university.
Now there are two electric utilities in Fairbanks which can
handle the university's load and those companies are interested
in seeing the plant privatized. Although that analysis is more
complex than what the subcommittee could handle, it is a topic
that needs discussion.
SENATOR ADAMS commented that perhaps, the university should not
outsource or privatize any of these services if there is a lot of
student employment. He asked if that information is available
for any of the items listed.
MS. RINGSTAD responded that she did not have that information.
She felt that Senator Adams' had a good point because many of the
programs are tied to student employment and student classes.
Such ties make it difficult to disseminate the information.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY surmised that if the students are utilized by
the university wouldn't those students also be used by the
private sector.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said that was discussed. It was felt
that the university could put into the Request for Proposals that
students continue to be employed in the delivery of these
services. Furthermore, the students are a reduced cost, which
would potentially help the private sector come in at a reduced
cost. She explained, "For the most part, what we went through,
they weren't necessarily instructional-related activities. So in
terms of students being in a teaching capacity ... it didn't seem
to be an issue with the kinds of functional areas we were looking
at."
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if UAF is producing enough power so that it
could sell its excess power.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said that he believed that the UAF does
have some excess power. However, regulations do not allow the
university to sell that excess power on the open market. In
response to Co-Chair Cowdery, he clarified that the university is
on the statewide grid. He pointed out that regulations do not
require someone to purchase that excess power. He noted the
potential for an "arm's length" negotiation between two entities
to exchange power.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY stated his assumption that if the Copper Valley
area went down, the grid system would utilize the university's
surplus power.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER indicated that the university power
system would probably have difficulty meeting the requirements
physically. Therefore, a narrow area would have to be isolated.
If the university went down, Golden Valley could and does back up
the university.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH commented that the framework of this
discussion is troubling. He explained that functions such as the
book store, food service, and utilities are being viewed in the
cost sense versus the profit sense. He inquired as to why the
university is not working from the economic model which
emphasizes the need to make a profit. He asked if this is merely
a terminology issue or is there a difference in thinking.
MS. FRASCA informed the commission that the university's grid
does not include food services at the University of Alaska -
Anchorage (UAA), which does make a profit. She noted that those
are managed by the private sector. Such privatization or
outsourcing is discussed in the last memorandum attached [to the
report].
COMMISSIONER WUERCH reiterated the need to adjust the framework
of thinking to view these as revenue/profit centers. If [the
state] cannot perform these services without making a profit,
then [the state] should not be performing these services.
COMMISSIONER FINK noted that he had attended some of the
subcommittee's meetings during which the subcommittee attempted
to "zero in" on the number of campuses. He did not believe there
would be any substantial reduction in costs if the large number
of campuses are maintained with the small populations. He
recalled requesting a comparison of the budget as different
campuses came on-line. Commissioner Fink said that he was
convinced that there is a correlation between the additional
campuses and the increase in costs. Furthermore, he indicated
that such a disbursement of campuses will not allow the creation
of a top-quality university. He inquired as to how many campuses
there are in the University of Alaska system.
MS. RINGSTAD informed the commission that there are three main
campuses in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. She estimated the
total, in addition to the extended campuses, to number 23.
COMMISSIONER FINK commented, "I think we broke the bank when we
first opened the Bethel Community College." He noted that he was
in the legislature at that time. He recalled that during that
time the University Board of Regents fought the opening of that
extension of the university. All the extension campuses
eventually became colleges with buildings and full-time
instructors. Commissioner Fink likened the current university
system to a community college. He suggested that reducing the
number of campuses would change that.
CO-CHAIR WARD requested that Ms. Ringstad provide the commission
with the information requested by Commissioner Fink, a cost
comparison of the budget as different campuses came on-line.
MS. RINGSTAD agreed to provide that information as well as a copy
of the budget. Only a very small portion of the university's
budget goes to the extended campuses, which give back so much.
She felt that it was a question of money as well as policy.
CO-CHAIR WARD commented that he did not disagree. Although
matching dollars with students is not a fair analysis, it does
provide a starting point.
SENATOR ADAMS indicated agreement with Commissioner Fink's
comments, with the caveat of closing the Anchorage campus as well
as the extended campuses. Therefore, there would be one central
university in Fairbanks. He further suggested that Alaskans
living in Anchorage and the areas of the extended campuses could
be given free scholarships to education in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out that the idea behind the
university is to provide education, not to turn a profit. He
explained that there may not be as much of a profit in book
stores and food services because that is generally the only
access to those services that students have. He commented that
students do not make a tremendous amount of money.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE turned to the issue of having a university
system which is parallel to a community college. When the
community colleges were merged with the university, the
university's mission then included providing those services of
the community college. Representative Brice stressed that one
would be pressed to find better education on the West Coast than
that provided in some of the areas of the Alaska system. He
provided the following examples of stand-outs in Alaska's
University system: the teaching program at the University of
Alaska - Anchorage, the engineering program at the University of
Alaska - Fairbanks and the Arctic sciences and research performed
at the university. Representative Brice said, "So, I think what
we need to do is stop looking at the university as some kind of
'Golden Calf' to go slaughter. What we need to be doing is
looking at it [the university] as a ... investment that's going
to ensure the safety and the surety of this state's future."
COMMISSIONER FINK thanked Senator Adams' for his support. Many
in the Anchorage area would like to see the Anchorage campus
disconnected from the University of Alaska, and allow the
Anchorage campus to become the state university.
COMMISSIONER NOTTI stated that first there must be a decision
with regard to what the university is. Is it a school of higher
learning or is it a trade school? He eluded to the need to
concentrate on one area.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if the subcommittee reviewed the utilization
of the land held by the university. For instance, was there
review of placing that land in the private sector. He mentioned
that the Governor vetoed additional land going in.
MS. FRASCA informed the commission that the subcommittee did meet
with the land folks and there was discussion with regard to
having more land and the result of that in terms of increased
revenues to the university. [The university] cautioned that it
would be approximately a 20-year horizon before significant
amounts of money are realized. With regard to the issue of
selling individual lots to individual Alaskans, the report
briefly addresses the university's current practices with their
land and timber sales.
MR. PIGNALBERI explained that the report includes information
from the University Land Office which specified that the
university land sales have a 70 percent successful conversion
rate as compared to the state's 30 percent successful conversion
rate. The reason for that is the university's preparation and
marketing. Therefore, other state agencies could learn from the
university on this issue.
CO-CHAIR WARD interjected that the university could also be given
more land.
MS. FRASCA, in closing, commented that the university was
cooperative. The university was eager to find ways to save money.
Ms. Frasca encouraged dialogue to continue at the top level in
order to encourage the campuses to do it [review how to save
money].
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked if any commissioner had any comments.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH informed the commission that the meetings
scheduled for December 7, 1999, and December 17, 1999, are days
which the assembly will be meeting. Therefore, he said he has to
give priority to the assembly meeting on those days.
Commissioner Wuerch stated that he would attend the commission's
meetings if the assembly work session does not lapse into the
morning.
SENATOR ADAMS inquired as to the dates the commission would take
up the recommendations from each agency. He suggested that each
commissioner should have the ability to bring forth
recommendations that are different than the subcommittee.
However, he requested that knowledge of such recommendations be
provided so that appropriate time could be allowed to debate that
issue.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY pointed out his understanding that the
subcommittees' reports may be adopted, may be partially adopted,
or receive additions or changes from the full commission.
AN UNIDENTIFIED COMMISSIONER announced that he had planned on
making recommendations that he had not yet heard.
SENATOR ADAMS explained that he hoped the process could be
expedited. "I'm going to use an example of DEC which has 24
recommendations. And I'm going to say that I object to
Recommendations 7, 8, and 13. If nobody else has any objections,
everything else except those three. And I can ... at least
debate those three that I say my reasons why we shouldn't accept
them as a commission."
MR. PIGNALBERI said that he needed to know what approach would be
taken. He noted the need to have a departmental representative
available during discussion of the corresponding recommendations.
The departments have indicated that they want to be present
during their corresponding recommendations.
MR. PIGNALBERI informed the commission that he would provide the
commission with a master list of recommendations by department.
He pointed out that earlier the commission had discussed
following the method of only acting on recommendations that
commissioners make a motion to adopt and those recommendations
that do not receive a motion would not be acted upon. He
reiterated the importance of knowing the procedure because the
departments want to be involved. Therefore, he suggested
determining the process today.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH stated that he shared Senator Adams'
concerns. He identified the following goals of the commission:
to establish the top issues, to preserve the body of knowledge in
a form that is useful in the future, and to impart judgement on
that body of knowledge. Furthermore, there should be the ability
for the commission to introduce initiatives. He believed those
endpoints could aid the staff in guiding the commission.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY agreed that there would be some additions and
deletions during this process.
CO-CHAIR WARD commented that it is a good direction. He
expressed the need to have the full commission analyze each
recommendation. He stressed that, in his opinion, each
commissioner will have the ability to submit any recommendation
for the full commission to consider.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH explained that he was outlining a management
by section. He did not believe that each recommendation needs to
be reviewed again. The commission should be able to identify
recommendations which it feels are really good. Those
recommendations in the middle could be passed on in the body of
knowledge.
CO-CHAIR WARD surmised then that Senator Adams wanted to identify
those recommendations that are extremely bad, while Commissioner
Wuerch wanted to identify those that the commission wants to
highlight.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that he believed Commissioner Wuerch
had a good idea. Once the commission receives the list of 400 or
so recommendations, the commission can vote for or against
specific recommendations that each commissioner has from the 400.
Those can then be brought back before the commission. He liked
that process because it would allow those recommendations without
any interest to fall aside. Furthermore, the debate could then
be directed to the recommendations being voted on.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH interjected that if the commission went
through the recommendations and determined those that it wanted
to consider, then the recommendations would be pared down
considerably. The other recommendations would not be voted down,
but would just merely not be taken up.
MR. PIGNALBERI surmised then that there would be however many
recommendations with the option of a "yes" vote, a "no" vote or
no action.
SENATOR ADAMS explained, then, that the commission would submit
the whole [report] with the commission's report on top.
Therefore, what was left out would remain in the reports.
Senator Adams pointed out that on this 11-member commission it
will require six votes to pass a recommendation.
MR. PIGNALBERI clarified that there are still four reports that
he does not have. Therefore, those will not be available by
Monday. He requested that the commission inform him of the
sequence of departments.
SENATOR ADAMS suggested waiting until all the recommendations are
complete before compiling the recommendation list.
[COMMISSIONER FINK] understood then that the most important
recommendations could be brought forward by the commissioners.
Therefore, he assumed that Co-Chair Ward would be bringing
forward some recommendations.
CO-CHAIR WARD informed the commission that he had two things he
wanted highlighted. He stressed that the commissioners'
recommendations should take at least an equal footing with those
recommendations from the citizens.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH turned to the aforementioned desire to have
the departments present during the debate of the corresponding
recommendations. He proposed having the commissioners provide a
list of their top recommendations to Mr. Pignalberi. Therefore,
that list could be provided to the departments in order to have
the appropriate departmental person available during that
discussion.
MR. PIGNALBERI suggested that the commission determine which
departments it wanted to take up first. He suggested only taking
up three of the departments.
COMMISSIONER FINK recommended that the larger ones, such as DHSS
and DOE, should be before the commission earlier.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH commented that perhaps some of those minor
recommendations will not be nominated for discussion.
CO-CHAIR WARD pointed out that a commissioner could make a
recommendation that creates a lot of debate.
COMMISSIONER FINK said that he did not believe there were many
recommendations today that saved money.
There being no further business before the commission, the
Commission on Privatization and Delivery of Government Services
was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|