Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/11/2018 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 | |
| HB221 | |
| HB304 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 221 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 304 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 384 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 221
"An Act relating to the duties of the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education; relating to a
statewide workforce and education-related statistics
program; relating to information obtained by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development; and
providing for an effective date."
9:08:05 AM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the bill had been heard on
April 2, 2018 and public testimony has been closed.
9:08:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, SPONSOR, introduced
herself. She reported that failure to pass the bill would
result in a great deal of wasted work and lost
opportunities for the state. She elaborated that the bill
clarifed the authority of the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE) to receive and analyze de-
identified existing data. She stated that the current
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would likely not be
renewed and expired the current fiscal year. The potential
loss of data would result in the destruction of
approximately 10 years of data and difficulty in attracting
additional funding. She reported that about $800 thousand
to $1 million, representing roughly 25 percent of the
federal grant, was invested in developing file preparation
necessary to load the data. A data base without use would
need funding to be reestablished. Cross sector analysis for
outcomes reports would be inefficient and cost 25 percent
more to generate. The bill provided the opportunity for the
legislature to receive data needed to best allocate scarce
educational and training resources. The state would realize
the full potential of the original $4 million grant that
created the "Outcomes Database".
9:11:43 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on
file):
Page 3, following line 19:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) The commission shall provide a method
for an individual whose information is received
under this section, AS 14.42.030(e)(7) and (8),
and AS 23.20.110 to opt out of the individual's
unit record being used for the purposes of this
section."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson reviewed the amendment. She explained
that the amendment offered an opt out provision. The
amendment would allow anyone who objected to their
information being utilized could opt out.
Representative Drummond responded that the adoption of the
amendment would result in a fiscal impact note. She pointed
out that it was not possible to opt out of the data
collection for the Outcomes analysis and much of it was
required by federal law. An opt out provision required the
storage of personal information in order to track
individuals that opted out and halt further tracking, thus
nullifying the de-identified process for the database. The
person that wanted to opt out was required to provide a
full name, signature, date of birth, and social security
number and apply to the Outcomes Database. The database was
not designed to provide data on individuals since the data
was de-identified.
9:13:56 AM
Representative Guttenberg understood the intent of the
amendment but surmised that the data was aggregated and de-
identified and opting out would create an identifier. He
asked whether he understood correctly.
STEPHANIE BUTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, responded in the affirmative. She added that
the identified information would have to be saved to be
removed from the database.
Vice-Chair Gara objected to the amendment because the APCE
stated that the Outcomes Database did not contain an opt
out option and he did not understand the need for the
amendment since the information remained confidential.
Representative Wilson believed people had a right to
protect their information and that people collecting
unemployment were unaware that the data was being
collected.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Gara, Foster
The MOTION FAILED (4/5).
Co-Chair Foster directed Vice-Chair Gara to review the
fiscal notes.
9:17:57 AM
AT EASE
9:20:39 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the fiscal notes. He reported that
the zero fiscal note from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) (FN1 (EED) was
appropriated to the APCE. The second zero fiscal note from
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
(FN2 (LWF) was appropriated to Employment and Training
Services.
9:21:41 AM
Representative Wilson referred to the analysis from page 2
of the DLWD fiscal note where it indicated a cost was
associated with the bill. She read the fiscal note
analysis:
This legislation would allow the department to
disclose data employers submit for mandatory
unemployment insurance (UI) reporting to the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education in support of a
statewide workforce and education related statistics
program. However, 20 CFR 603 prohibits the use of the
UI Administrative Grant to pay for costs associated
with disclosures. Therefore, the requestor must pay
for all costs associated with the disclosure of
permissible records.
The department is unable to estimate costs associated
with these disclosures without knowing the number and
frequency of requests. No change to the budget is
anticipated at this time.
Representative Wilson surmised that there was a cost, but
it was presently unknown. Ms. Butler responded that she had
worked with DLWD and acknowledged that the department was
very careful to ensure it was fully compliant when dealing
with data collection funded through the federal government.
Typically, the ACPE would enter into a Request for Services
Agreement (RSA) and pay for the cost of DLWD's staff time.
She expected the cost to be "minimal." Representative
Wilson preferred that a representative from DLWD answer the
question.
9:24:04 AM
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
had spoken with the department and confirmed that the
requester of the data was required to pay. The Department
of Labor and Workforce Development had sufficient authority
to enter the RSA and charge and collect for the data.
Representative Wilson asked if a fiscal note should have
been generated by ACPE. Ms. Cunningham deferred the answer
to Ms. Butler.
Ms. Butler replied that currently the cost was unknown but
expected that the cost was minimal. She added that the
department entered the RSA process with DLWD annually for
data sharing. Representative Wilson asked where the funds
to pay for the program originated. Ms. Butler responded
that the funds were Interagency Receipts (IA) funded by the
student loan corporation. Representative Wilson asked
whether corporation funding was the interest paid on
student loans. Ms. Butler responded that Representative
Wilson was correct.
Vice-Chair Gara added that both agencies had not requested
additional funding. He pointed out that both department's
fiscal notes stated that they did not anticipate any fiscal
impact from the legislation and both believed they could
absorb the minimal cost.
9:27:05 AM
Representative Wilson stated that someone paid for the
cost. She wanted to make sure that it was on the record
that most of the costs were paid with the high interest
charged to students.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to report HB 221 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 221 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1(CED) and FN2(LWF).
9:28:41 AM
AT EASE
9:31:37 AM
RECONVENED