Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/06/2024 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB55 | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS for HOUSE BILL NO. 55 (L&C)
"An Act relating to allocations of funding for the
Alaska Workforce Investment Board; and providing for
an effective date."
9:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ASHLEY CARRICK, SPONSOR, offered a brief
recap of the bill. She explained that the bill would extend
the Technical Vocational Education Program (TVEP)
allocations for one more year. The ten recipients of the
program administered technical and vocational education to
approximately 8,000 Alaskans per year. The distribution was
typically between about $10 million and $12 million and the
proposed distribution for the coming fiscal year would be
around $13 million.
9:12:11 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 to CSHB
55(L&C), 33-LS0360\H.1, A. Radford, 4/30/24 (copy on file):
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "2025"
Insert "2026"
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He
understood that the TVEP program had existed for over 20
years and there had been some discussion of improperly
dedicated funds, but he did not think the allocation was
improper. He relayed that the funds could always be
reappropriated in other ways or for other purposes. There
was a broad consensus that the program needed to move to
competitive grants. The sponsor noted a willingness to
accept an amendment that would sunset the program in 2026
to give more time for the recipients to make other
financial arrangements if the recipients did not win grants
back under a new program. He was offering the amendment to
extend the sunset to 2026.
9:13:41 AM
Representative Stapp was not in support of the amendment
There had been concerning testimony regarding the audit of
the TVEP program and he thought he thought 2025 was an
appropriate sunset date. He thought there were other
programs that needed an extended sunset and would impact
more people than TVEP.
Representative Hannan was in support of the amendment. The
awardees had been following parameters that had been put
into statute by the legislature. The audit highlighted that
there was a conflict in statute and it needed to be
changed. She thought a two-year extension was appropriate
because it would take time to fix the conflict. She hoped
that the legislature could change the sunset date extension
once again in a year and enact a new statute, but she was
not certain that it could be accomplished in one year. She
was in favor of a two-year extension but hoped it would
only be one year before a new competitive grant program was
established.
Representative Galvin commented that she agreed that the
issues needed to be dealt with urgently and understood the
reality of how much time it took to get things done in the
legislature. She was hopeful that it would finish in a year
but did not want to lose opportunities for building the
workforce.
Representative Tomaszewski stated that he was in opposition
to the amendment. He suggested not kicking the can down the
road. He wondered if the House Finance Committee would be
facing the same problems in two years and would be making
the same decision to extend it another year or two years.
9:18:02 AM
Representative Cronk agreed and did not think it should be
extended. He thought that it was time to get it done.
Representative Carrick commented that the amendment would
strike a balance between the original bill and the results
of the audit. The results of the audit were not released
until December of 2023 which gave the legislature little
time to react and put forward a sponsor substitute. She was
concerned that if the legislature made no changes in the
current year, the same problem would occur in the future
and there would not be enough time to make the necessary
changes. She had worked hard to find consensus around the
bill and she was committed to continue her work. There were
many ways the program could be structured and many ways to
administer a competitive grant program.
9:20:37 AM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, emphasized that the policy decision was
completely under the purview of the legislature. She stood
behind the conclusions of the audit and the Department of
Administration (DOA) was not recommending there be a direct
payment to specific training providers. She did not think
direct payment was the right way to effectively manage TVEP
or met the needs of Alaska and it would be incredibly
difficult to switch mechanisms. She thought the Alaska
Workforce Investment Board (AWIB) could provide more
details and she understood that the board already had in
place a grant program that was administered effectively.
Representative Galvin thought that changing the date did
not seem like it would be sufficient. She asked why the
process seemed to be time intensive.
Representative Carrick responded that the board did not
currently have the staff to also administer TVEP as a
competitive program. The underlying statute for TVEP
provided for a competitive process, but it did not provide
the level of structure to effectively bring in new
recipients. She explained that AWIB needed more structure
and more staff. The program would be set up for significant
challenges if the program was sunsetted in the current
year.
Co-Chair Edgmon commented that there were seemingly
compelling points on both sides of the issue. He thought
that the audit was not ordinary and seemed like a letter of
concern to management. He asked why the board could not
take action for the next legislative session and redo the
one-year extension. He supported the two-year extension but
also thought it seemed like too much.
Ms. Curtis responded that she presented the audit to AWIB
and the board was fully aware of the content and the
conclusions of the audit.
Co-Chair Edgmon understood that it was not Ms. Curtis' role
to tell the legislature how to make a policy decision or
make recommendations to the legislature but he wondered if
she could tell him if it was within the realm of
possibility that the board could fix the issue in one year.
Ms. Curtis responded in the affirmative.
9:24:36 AM
Representative Carrick responded that she agreed and it was
also a legislative problem. Both entities needed to do the
work together to fix the problem.
Representative Tomaszewski noted that Ms. Curtis had two
recommendations. He understood that the first
recommendation was to repeal the program and start over
with a fairer grant application program. The other
recommendation was to resolve the underpayments for seven
of the recipients. He asked if any action had been taken to
address the underpayments.
Ms. Curtis replied that she understood that no action had
yet been taken.
Representative Stapp thanked Ms. Curtis for her hard work.
He thought it was ironic that all of the problems with TVEP
were also experienced by the state's correspondence school
program for homeschooling. He thought it was not long ago
that legislators did not want to extend the homeschool
program for one year. The committee was debating about
whether to give the TVEP program a two-year extension
because it could be minorly disruptive to 10 grant
recipients, while the extension for homeschooling would be
disruptive to 22,000 students. He thought the same
political pressure would exist in two years and the program
needed structural changes. He asked if Ms. Curtis would
agree that the program needed structural changes.
Ms. Curtis responded in the affirmative. The audit directed
the recommendation to the legislature for consideration.
Representative Josephson commented that the allocation for
the correspondence program was not the same as the TVEP
allocation because correspondence was a constitutional
issue and TVEP was not.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
9:27:27 AM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Hannan, Galvin, Ortiz, Foster
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Cronk, Stapp, Coulombe, Edgmon,
Johnson
The motion FAILED (5/6).
9:28:20 AM
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to report CSHB 55(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 55(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with five "do
pass" recommendations and two "no recommendation"
recommendations, and with one previously published fiscal
impact note from the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, three new fiscal impact notes from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, one new
fiscal impact note from the University of Alaska, and one
new zero fiscal impact note from the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development.
9:29:04 AM
AT EASE
9:53:02 AM
RECONVENED