Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/03/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB34 | |
| HB151 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB157 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to instruction in a language other
than English; and establishing limited language
immersion teacher certificates."
2:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR, explained that the
bill related to teacher certification. He noted that
identical legislation had been offered in the previous
legislature. He added that some legislators may recall very
similar legislation two legislatures back, which passed by
a 40-0 vote. The bill would create a limited teacher's
certificate for teachers in the field of immersion language
education. He stated there were two sides to the topic. The
first was world language education, which he believed
people in Southcentral Alaska were very familiar with. He
elaborated that the Anchorage School District (ASD) had a
diverse, nationally leading program of immersion language
education from Japanese to French to Russian. The second
side of the utility of the limited certificate was Native
language education. He highlighted a Yupik immersion
language elementary school in Bethel. He relayed that in
the Yukon Kuskokwim (YK) region there was substantial
interest in starting other Native language immersion
programs around the state. He added that the ASD recently
launched a Yupik language immersion program as well.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins relayed that HB 19 spoke to
many of the unique challenges associated with launching and
maintaining immersion language programs. He added that the
programs were nearly universally popular with parents,
educators, school board members, and districts. He stressed
it was very difficult within the current certification
system to be able to recruit and certify teachers. The bill
provided flexibility in the ability to recruit and certify
fluent teachers in the languages. He relayed that districts
were desperate for the solution proposed in the bill and
had been asking for it for years. He hoped the legislature
could act and deliver on the promise and demand from
teachers and educators on immersion language education.
Representative Josephson stated that the country had many
lawfully admitted non-citizens who spoke Spanish, French,
German, and Japanese, for example. He asked if the bill
would allow them to obtain a teaching certificate that
would enable them to teach math, science, history, and
other topics.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that it depended. He
explained the answer was no if the person was teaching in
the English language, while the answer was maybe if the
person was teaching in their "target language" such as
Yupik or Russian depending on the regulations promulgated
by the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED), which were regulatory powers given to the agency in
the legislation. He relayed it would be up to the state
board and the Board of Education in order to promulgate
whatever sideboards they saw fit in terms of what could be
taught. He stated it was conceivable that the entities
could see the option as appropriate and if so, the answer
to Representative Josephson's question would be yes.
2:25:44 PM
Representative Josephson believed there was a dearth of
fluent indigenous language speakers for some languages in
Alaska. He did not believe it was the case for the Yupik
language. He shared that he had lived in the Yupik region
for three years. He remarked that the committee had
recently heard a bill from Representative Andi Story that
existed partly because of the concern. He asked if it was
currently difficult to find suitable candidates in Alaska
to teach classical language programs such as Spanish,
French, and German. He used his alma mater, West High in
Anchorage as an example.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that a Japanese
class at West High would not fall under the category of a
language immersion program and would fall outside the
parameters of the bill. He could not speak to traditional
foreign language classes, which were treated differently
than immersion language programs.
Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Wool had joined
the meeting earlier.
Representative LeBon provided a scenario where a high
school offered traditional language courses such as
Spanish, French, and German, in addition to a non-
traditional language such as Chinese. He asked if the
student taking Chinese as a substitution for the other
languages would receive equal credit if the school district
required a language credit for graduation.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins asked for a repeat of the
question.
Representative LeBon complied. He asked if an immersion
language course would be considered an elective that was
not part of the language requirements for graduation. For
example, he asked if a student would still need to take
Spanish to meet the language requirement for graduation.
2:29:30 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins provided context about
immersion language programs. He explained that the programs
typically started in elementary school in kindergarten. For
example, first graders were in a mostly Japanese language
environment and often tracked through middle school. He
explained that immersion programs typically tapered off at
the end of middle school when students were fully fluent in
the target language (e.g., Russian, Japanese, Yupik). The
elaborated that in high school there may be some
maintenance of the language, but they were already fully
fluent and were in a normal high school curriculum. He did
not know what the ASD did when students entering high
school were fully fluent in Japanese. He assumed that
because of a student's completion of a Japanese program in
their elementary and middle school years that their foreign
language requirements were satisfied for graduation.
Co-Chair Merrick shared that as a mother of a freshman at
Chugiak High School, many of the kids from the Spanish
immersion class attended the high school and she believed
some of their required courses were taken in the foreign
language.
Representative LeBon shared that his daughter had been in a
Japanese immersion program beginning in elementary school
through middle school. He explained that her high school
did not have Japanese and she had taken French to fulfill
the graduation language requirement. He shared that she had
received a university degree in Japanese studies. He was
trying to ascertain whether students would receive credit
towards the language requirement for graduation. Under a
scenario where credit was received, he asked about the
standard for proficiency required to earn the credit. He
wanted the option available in schools for students to
learn a language that may not traditionally be offered, but
if the state was granting credit for a foreign language
towards graduation, there had to be standards and
proficiency met.
2:32:44 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins thought it was a decision
made at the school district level how any given district
chose to accord credit for completion of an immersion
language program.
Representative LeBon agreed that school boards measured and
decided the question. He stated the easy answer for a
school board was to provide the traditional language
classes and make immersion an elective or after school
program, not credited toward graduation.
2:33:47 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked the bill sponsor for bringing the
legislation forward. He spoke the effort to do what was
possible to help preserve Alaska Native languages. He
understood that the bill did not address the specific goal.
He cited language in the sectional analysis (copy on file)
stating that "a person may only receive a limited language
immersion teaching certificate if they demonstrate
instructional skills and subject matter expertise
sufficient to assure the public that the person is
competent as a teacher." He considered the language to mean
that a person would have to prove they had the ability to
be a teacher and that they could teach some of the
different subject matter skills in the language. He asked
where the proof would be shown in the process. He asked how
it would take place.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that the specifics
would be promulgated by DEED. The bill provided directional
guidance codified in statute for the agency to build out a
regulatory structure. He thought it may be helpful to the
committee to "game out" what certification contemplated by
the bill would look like. He elaborated that if a teacher
was identified to teach an immersion language program
(e.g., a Tlingit language program in Juneau or Ketchikan or
an Armenian program in Anchorage) the district would
communicate they wanted the teacher, and the school board
would have to affirmatively vote to sponsor certification
of the teacher. He used Representative LeBon's former
experience on the Fairbanks School Board as an example and
explained that the board would have to vote to approve the
teacher. He elaborated that approval would subsequently be
required by the State Board of Education. He relayed there
were many hoops and checks the process had to go through.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins expounded that throughout the
process with the superintendent and school board sponsoring
the application for licensure and the approval on the state
level the questions on a person's instructional skills and
subject matter expertise would be adjudicated at each of
the levels along the way. He believed there would be ample
review. He elaborated that if one of the reviewing entities
along the way did not feel good about the licensure
application, they would say no. He stated that how the
standard would be adjudicated was a very relevant process.
2:38:01 PM
Representative Wool asked how often the process would take
place once approved. He asked if an application would be
approved for a period of one year or longer.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that the initial
certificate would be valid for one year as shown on page 2,
lines 17 and 18 of the bill. He stated there may be the
option of extension or renewal; it would be up to DEED to
determine the issue in regulation.
Representative Wool believed there was currently a similar
fast-track certification process for indigenous languages
for non-certified teachers.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins agreed. He elaborated the
specific teacher licensure was known as "type M" for
indigenous language in a non-immersion format. He explained
that the real focus of the bill was on immersion language
programs where elementary and middle schoolers were fully
immersed in all subjects in the target language. He relayed
that the existing type M licensure section also included
vocational and technical education. For example, if a
person was a skilled welder and the district thought they
would do well teaching classes, they could bring the person
in to teach. He believed military, arts, and science or
education existed under the type M section.
2:40:20 PM
Representative Josephson referenced schools that were
broadly considered to be extremely successful such as the
Rilke [Schule German] School in Anchorage. He asked for
verification that a student could graduate with a high
school diploma from Rilke.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins believed Representative
Josephson was accurate.
Representative Josephson hoped the Rilke School offered
physics and calculus. He asked how the school hired a
German proficient person for the [teaching] positions. He
asked if instructors had to prove they were proficient in
math and science in addition to German.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that it would be
valuable to hear from the ASD director of the world
language program who had been a strong advocate of the
policy in the proposed and past legislation. He noted that
the director had been through every travail and tribulation
to try to keep the immersion language programs staffed.
Additionally, staff and leadership at Fronteras [Spanish
Immersion Charter School} in Wasilla had shared many
anecdotes. He stated that education leaders trying to keep
and expand the programs, mostly in response to demand from
parents and students, were sometimes forced to resort to
creative and non-ideal means to keep good teachers in the
classroom. For example, there could be indefinite or long-
term substitutes who had expertise in language and another
subject as well. He added that schools often recruited from
the countries in question for world language programs. For
example, teachers were recruited from Columbia to teach
Spanish programs but if there was not the time to get the
teacher certificated, they may teach as a substitute. He
noted his answer was a composite of anecdotes he had heard
over the years. He stated that the situation was kind of a
nightmare and the individuals involved could speak more
authoritatively on the topic.
2:43:19 PM
Representative Wool stated his understanding that as
students progressed along their educational career that
some classes in an immersion school such as physics,
chemistry, and calculus may be taught in English.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins agreed. He recalled that
most immersion programs began with a blend between the
target language and English. He believed that as students
got older and progressed through subsequent grade levels,
the proportion of English relative to the target language
increased. For example, as students entered middle school,
an increasing portion of the day was in English versus the
target language as fluency got closer to being achieved. He
believed he recalled previous testimony on the legislation
that in the immersion language programs, superintendents or
principals try to get the fluent teachers to optimize or
maximize for their fluency. He believed Russian fluent
teachers typically were not teaching English in a Russian
language immersion program because it was the value add to
the program.
Representative Wool recalled speaking to someone on his
local school board after learning about the legislation. He
relayed that the person had told him they were having
difficulty finding a Spanish or French teacher. He noted
that the legislation was for an immersion school. He
believed there was a current shortage of language teachers
in both immersion and non-immersion schools. He surmised
the bill would not address the shortage. He asked for
verification that a person from a foreign country who was
teacher certified could not apply for a job as a Japanese
teacher in a non-immersion school. He asked for
verification that the bill only applied to immersion
schools and not traditional high schools that may also need
a foreign language teacher.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that Representative
Wool's statements were correct, broadly speaking. He
highlighted that the title of the bill indicated that it
focused on immersion programs. He did not expect the State
Board of Education would approve someone to work as a
normal Spanish language teacher at a non-immersion school
[as a result of the legislation].
2:48:01 PM
Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony.
REID MADGANZ, SELF, KOTZEBUE (via teleconference), shared a
personal story about his upbringing. He had been raised in
Kotzebue after his parents moved from the Lower 48. He
relayed that he had left the state to go to college and had
returned five years later. He shared that he had worked as
staff in the legislature upon his return. He had moved back
to Kotzebue and was learning Inupiaq and felt very lucky to
be among those who would help revitalize the language. He
was talking with friends around the state about their
experiences with the education system in the early stages
of an effort to help schools better serve students,
especially in rural Alaska.
Mr. Madganz relayed that his statements represented his
experience, particularly as a former student in Alaska's
public schools and working on Native language
revitalization. He spoke primarily from the rural Alaskan
perspective. He read from prepared remarks:
HB 19 directly addresses what I've come to understand
as the most important barrier to greater academic
success for rural Alaska students. That barrier is not
the size of the school, it's not the inherent
intelligence of our children, it's not whatever is
going on in the community outside the school walls,
it's relevance or more accurately, the lack of it. I
was talking to a friend here in town earlier this
winter, an elementary school teacher whose curriculum
on transportation was instructing her to teach about
subways. To teach elementary kids in Kotzebue who have
almost certainly never seen a subway, some of whom may
never see a subway. Meanwhile, if she wanted to teach
them about snowmachines in her transportation unit,
she would have had to draw on her own experience to
build that lesson. Is it any wonder then that we see
students lose interest in school, then lose interest
in learning, then be seen as only one of the
underwhelming statistics that we're all aware of when
it comes to rural Alaska education? It's a process I
saw repeated in classmate after classmate as I went
through school here in Kotzebue.
The goal of HB 19 is to change this dynamic by
supporting the development of language immersion
programs that will offer instruction directly relevant
to the experience of rural Alaska students. We know
from the experience of schools in our own state, like
Ayaprun Elitnaurvik in Bethel, as well as schools in
Hawaii, the Lower 48, and around the world, that well-
crafted immersion programs offering curricula relevant
to their community and students can raise academic
achievement and success across the board in every
subject for students of any race.
So, what is the barrier to this vision? The biggest
one is the lack of teachers. We have teachers with
certifications from universities, we have teachers who
are rooted in their communities and who know or are
learning their language. We have very, very few that
are both. So, for any school district a group of
community members wanting to start an immersion
school, the immediate challenge is how to staff it.
The challenge is so daunting that most efforts never
get off the ground or require to operate outside the
public school system where they struggle to grow and
sustain themselves due to funding constraints.
HB 19 tackles this problem head on, offering a
realistic and pragmatic path to start and maintain the
sorts of immersion schools that have proven so
successful here in Alaska and elsewhere. It recognizes
that the best preparation for providing a relevant
education to our students, especially when that
education is delivered through a Native language, is a
life in those students' communities, not necessarily a
university teacher program in the Lower 48.
HB 19 provides a path for school districts to get
those teachers into our classrooms, those teachers
most likely to kindle the fire of learning in our
students within regulatory parameters established by
the Department of Education and the State Board of
Education.
I want to end with a quick story. Kotzebue has an
Inupiaq immersion school, a tribal school run by the
local tribal government named Nikaitchuat Ilisagviat.
It serves at various times a set of students from
three years old to second grade. It's been in
operation for 23 years and for the best of my
knowledge has never had state certified teachers
because to my knowledge there aren't any state
certified teachers who can speak fluent Inupiaq in the
Northwest Arctic Borough. The students that attend
Nikaitchaut move to public school sometime between
first and third grade. When they do, they lead their
classes by example, examples of respect, behavior, and
leadership. As they move through school, many former
Nikaitchaut students often lead their classes in
academic performance. This is a small sample, but it's
a promise of what we can have more of and what HB 19
can help bring about on a broader scale. Thank you for
your time today and I'm happy to answer any questions.
2:54:39 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
NATASHA SINGH, GENERAL COUNSEL, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs Conference and
the Alaska Regional Coalition, which included four Alaska
Native regional nonprofits and one regional tribe including
the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Kawerak, Inc., Maniilaq
Association, Chugachmiut, and Central Council Tlingit-Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska representing 100 communities and
65,000 Alaskans. She relayed that language diversity in the
state provided enrichment. She stated that world languages
were great for the economy and indigenous languages held
the sciences that developed in this land for over 20,000
years. She elaborated that Native languages are the basis
of Native culture and identity.
Ms. Singh furthered that teaching Native languages had
proven to increase graduation rates and improve academic
achievements. She stated that the bill provided a way to
help elevate and preserve Alaska Native languages. She
urged the committee to pass the bill.
2:57:10 PM
NORM WOOTEN, DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY, ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA
SCHOOL BOARDS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
bill. He shared that the association had a number of
resolutions supporting the preservation of indigenous
languages and by extension, any language native to a
culture. He communicated that he had hosted a number of
foreign exchange students over the years, and he was almost
embarrassed to say that native born Americans were almost
last in being bilingual. He stated that in nearly every
other country, bilingualism was a commonality.
Mr. Wooten stated that regarding indigenous languages, the
quickest way to eliminate a culture was to eliminate the
language. He detailed that it had come close to occurring
in Alaska in the recent past when many indigenous citizens
were sent to boarding school and prohibited from speaking
their language. He encouraged the committee to support the
legislation and pass it from committee. He thanked the
committee for the opportunity to testify.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Josephson addressed a question to Sondra
Meredith with the Department of Education and Early
Development. He referenced a letter of support from Deena
Bishop, Superintendent of the Anchorage School District. He
noted that at the end of page 1 of the letter she talked
about DEED's program enrollment option. He understood the
program to require candidates to enroll in a teacher
education program at the same time they were teaching.
Additionally, Ms. Bishop referred to "type W" limited
certificates and noted they require teacher preparation
programs. He asked if he should be concerned that everyone
else still had to study education for 1.5 years, but the
class of people addressed in the bill may not have to
fulfill the same requirement.
SONDRA MEREDITH, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER CERTIFICATION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), answered there were some examples in
current statutes allowing for the situation under the type
M certificate including language and culture, ROTC and
military science, and vocational education. She explained
that the aforementioned subjects had been longstanding
allowances in statute. She elaborated that the individual
districts had monitored the skills of the individuals under
the certificates for a number of years to great success.
She believed that while there were traditional pathways [to
become a teacher], the certificate in the bill recognized
there were other ways to gather the skills outside of the
typical university experience.
Representative Josephson referenced testimony by Mr.
Madganz where he talked about education a person gathered
through experience as opposed to teacher training in the
classical sense. He had concern that critics of public
schools could say that teachers are not bred, they are
born. He asked if his concerns were merited.
3:03:18 PM
Ms. Meredith believed everyone had the concerns. She
thought districts had the concerns even with educators who
had gone through the more traditional pathways. She
explained that districts remedied the situations internally
with induction programs, mentoring, and additional
professional development opportunities for teachers. She
believed that should a district utilize the particular type
of certificate, just like with the type M currently being
used, there would be additional supports put in place for
educators that had been sponsored through the certificate.
She advised that everyone should be concerned with making
certain educators working with students possessed the
needed skills. She relayed that the certificate in the
legislation and the type M certificate recognized the
skills could come to an individual in a number of different
ways.
Representative Josephson viewed instruction in indigenous
language very differently than instruction in foreign
languages. He noted much of it had to do with the history
of indigenous peoples the United States.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced Ms. Meredith's discussion of
the similarities between the proposed new way a person
could become a certified teacher and the current type M
certificate process. He asked for verification that the
intent of the bill was to gear people towards immersion
instruction. He believed a person would have to speak the
particular language fluently and would need to be able to
teach complex mathematical and science subjects. He asked
if there may be a difference between the type M certificate
process and the new proposed process under HB 19.
Ms. Meredith answered that it would always be a concern.
She believed that like the type M certificate for
vocational education, there were some very complex things
being taught. She elaborated there was expertise in the
districts that could determine whether the level of
expertise was present in the individual being asked to
provide instruction. She stated that the bill would
recognize the ability of a district to evaluate the levels
of skills in a non-traditional way.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced language on page 1 of the bill
specifying that a person may only receive a limited
language immersion teacher certificate if they demonstrate
instructional skills and subject matter expertise
sufficient to assure the public that the person was
competent as a teacher. He asked if DEED had a vision as to
how the demonstration might take place prior to doing the
teaching. He stated that theoretically a person would not
be teaching prior to having a certificate. He reasoned that
somehow instructional skills would have to be demonstrated
to someone. He assumed the demonstration would be over a
period of time versus a one-hour demonstration in front of
a school board.
3:09:13 PM
Ms. Meredith answered there had been some alternative route
programs in Alaska that she had been involved in. She
shared that part of the application process had included
sample teaching lessons. She elaborated that much of the
interviewing and taking references from other entities
related to an individual's expertise, would fit into the
assurance component. She expounded that potential
additional experiences included working with students
outside of the school system or possibly as a
paraprofessional that had been observed by the district
prior to making the request.
Representative LeBon referenced the same sentence in the
bill as Vice-Chair Ortiz regarding subject matter and
expertise. He provided a scenario where a school district
via a school board was recommending the certification for
an immersion language instructor. He asked if DEED expected
the school district would define whether the language
offered would be considered a substitution for the
traditional languages offered (e.g., Spanish, French, or
German) and whether credit for graduation would be
received.
Ms. Meredith replied that the question asked by
Representative LeBon was more related to the high school
arena. She stated her understanding that most immersion
programs tended to end around middle school; however, it
would currently be up to the school district to determine
whether an indigenous language course would apply towards
graduation credit.
Representative LeBon replied that the answer was what he
expected. He remarked that his daughter's experience had
been Japanese immersion in elementary and middle school. He
elaborated that the language had not been offered in high
school; therefore, she had taken French.
3:12:50 PM
Representative Carpenter looked at page 2, Section (f) of
the bill related to the extension or renewal of limited
language immersion certificates. He remarked that two
different paths were being provided, one for a non-Alaska
Native language and one for Alaska Native language. He
believed the bill addressed cumulative time spent under the
certificate for non-Alaska Native languages limited to a
total of five years. He stated his understanding that the
Alaska Native language certificates may exceed five years.
He asked if the bill addressed concerns about the quality
of instruction when a traditional university degree or
certificate was not required. He wondered if the bill
provided a check and balance or review when a certificate
was renewed. He saw that it was a requirement for non-
Alaska Native languages, but he thought it was something
that could potentially slip through the cracks [under the
legislation].
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins clarified that the section
referred to by Representative Carpenter was in a former
committee substitute. The current version of the bill was
the House Education Committee version I, which did not
include Section (f) - the section had been removed in the
previous committee by unanimous vote.
Representative Carpenter confirmed that the committee was
looking at version B of the legislation.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins shared that the only change
in the updated bill version was the exclusion of Section
(f). He relayed that the previous legislature did not
include Section (f) in the original version of the bill.
The section had been added to the bill in the House Labor
and Commerce Committee in the last legislature.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins responded to Representative
Carpenter's question. He explained the thought behind the
previous inclusion of Section (f) was that it was perhaps a
different set of circumstances for Alaska Native teachers
and immersion programs, but for world language programs the
continual renewal of a limited teacher certificate was not
desired. He thought the situation was very unlikely to
happen for a variety of reasons. He explained that the
limited certificate was a significant pain to go through as
it required numerous checks and hurdles. He elaborated that
the process required being sponsored by the superintendent,
school board, and the State Board of Education and was
initially approved for one year only. He did not believe it
was very bankable for a person to be hanging their
livelihood on such a precarious certification process. He
believed there was tremendous incentive for anyone
certificated through the process to be working toward
traditional certification.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins relayed that he was very
supportive of trying to support immersion programs and the
bill had been crafted from a pragmatic perspective with
what could achieve stakeholder support and support from the
legislature. He was concerned the bill would not go far
enough in terms of the crisis facing Native language
education. The bill reflected that policymaking was a
pragmatic process. He elaborated there were myriad
incentives, and he did not believe a teacher would be
cycling through in that way. He referenced Ms. Meredith's
testimony in addition to conversations he had with DEED
over the years and did not believe DEED would encourage or
countenance someone cycling through in the limited
certificate program for world languages or otherwise. He
believed there was significant agency desire to see
teachers under traditional certification.
3:18:59 PM
Representative Carpenter appreciated the answer. He asked
about the timeframe in which the limited certificate would
be evaluated for recertification.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that the initial
certificate was one year. He explained that a person got an
audition or cameo and if it was a failure there was a
guaranteed review that would occur within one year. The
bill would leave it up to DEED to determine what extensions
or recertifications would look like. He stated that part of
the reasoning for the one-year certificate was to provide a
quick follow up to evaluate how things were going.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the bill sponsor and relayed the
bill would be considered again at a later date.
HB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:20:23 PM
AT EASE
3:20:52 PM
RECONVENED