Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/2018 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 | |
| HB287 | |
| HB213 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 213 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 287
"An Act making appropriations for public education and
transportation of students; making appropriations
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State
of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve
fund; and providing for an effective date."
9:10:05 AM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that his office had not received
any amendments from committee members.
ARNOLD LIEBELT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON,
introduced himself.
ALEXEI PAINTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
introduced himself.
Co-Chair Foster noted the testifiers were available for
questions.
9:11:23 AM
Representative Thompson stated the bill concept was a good
idea, but he believed it had not been sufficiently vetted.
He thought it was premature to force the legislature into a
three-quarter vote to use Constitutional Budget Reserve
(CBR) funds before the legislature had determined what it
wanted to do with the entire budget. He stated there had
not been many meetings on the bill where the committee had
been able to hear from the entire public. He noted the only
testimony had been invited, such as school superintendents.
He thought the bill usurped the budget process. He asked if
the committee was doing the finance subcommittee's work. He
reiterated that it was a good idea, but it was too early.
He asked for the current CBR balance.
Mr. Painter replied that that the CBR balance was projected
to be $2.146 billion at the end of FY 18.
Representative Thompson reiterated that he was not
comfortable with considering the legislation so early in
the legislative session, which would force a three-quarter
vote [by the legislature].
Representative Pruitt believed the funding amount in the
bill was the same amount proposed by the governor. He asked
for the accuracy of his statement.
Mr. Liebelt replied in the affirmative.
Representative Pruitt asked if anyone had spoken with the
Senate to determine if the amount was a bone of contention.
Co-Chair Seaton replied that he had spoken with members of
the other body, including finance members, who had
indicated they did not plan further cuts to K-12 education.
He stated that the amount in the legislation was the same
funding level as the prior year. He remarked that the other
body had not taken any action on the issue because it had
not received the budget. The charts in member's packets
showed a slight drop in the budget from the preceding year
due to lower than projected pupil enrollment. The FY 18
management plan was estimated to be the governor's number
and the number in HB 287 based on the actual amount funded
in FY 17. The charts showed a slight dip, but it did not
represent a real dip because it was the actual number paid
out based on the precise student count.
Representative Pruitt did not propose cuts to education
either. He believed the only argument for the passage of
the bill was related to expectation there would be a
failure in understanding the amount that would be
available. He stated the committee had heard in a
presentation the prior week that there were several dates
associated with education budgets, including May 15 (pink
slip deadline for nontenured teachers) and May 31 (pink
slip deadline for tenured teachers). He thought the bill
represented an expectation of failure by the legislature to
get a budget passed in 90 days. Yet, the legislature had an
understanding on education. He agreed that the budget could
be planned on the data in the bill. He also believed the
legislature would finish its work in 90 days. He believed
the bill was unnecessary. He thought the bill merely
bifurcated the budget and he wondered was next.
Representative Pruitt questioned whether other items such
as health and public safety would be pulled from the
overall budget for separate consideration. He noted that
the budget would be piecemeal. He added that the
[Department of Revenue] spring forecast, which would
provide a better representation of the state's full revenue
source would not come out until April. He noted the release
date also depended on whether the administration chose to
hold onto the forecast longer as it had the previous year.
He asked what the need for the bill was at present. He
stated that if there was alignment he did not understand
the need for the bill.
Co-Chair Seaton discussed early funding of education in
order for municipalities and school districts to construct
their budgets. He did not believe there was complete
agreement on all budgetary items, knowledge of what the
spring forecast would be, or agreement on the amount to be
taken from the [Permanent Fund] Earnings Reserve Account
(ERA). He did not believe school districts and
municipalities could plan their budgets around the belief
that the House and Senate and the governor all agreed on
what the number would be. He compared the unknown situation
to a scenario where the legislature passed a bill that was
signed by the governor. He noted that signed legislation
was security that had not been provided by the legislature
in the past, which had been a problem.
9:19:15 AM
Co-Chair Seaton continued to address Representative
Pruitt's question. There had always been the insecurity of
leaving the education budget to the last item [to be
negotiated]. He stated that unless a separate bill was
passed with money attached that the governor could sign,
the legislature would not be early funding education.
Assuming there would be agreement on the amount that would
be passed was not the same thing as a passed budget. He
stated that until legislators voted on something it was not
possible to know what would happen. The purpose of the bill
was to take the issue off the table and prevent layoffs or
districts from having to construct two budgets because
things changed in midstream. He stated that if the
legislature wanted to early fund education, they should
early fund it; if not, education should be left in the
regular budget. He believed education should be early
funded. He stated that education funding was vital, and the
bill would fund it at the last year's level.
9:21:12 AM
Representative Pruitt surmised that it sounded like there
was a failure to communicate. He clarified he had not
stated there was alignment on everything, but from what he
understood, there was alignment on education funding. He
did not understand the need to push the bill from committee
at present when it sounded like there had been multiple
conversations with members from the Senate about their
alignment on the topic. He did not understand why they
could not wait a few days to determine whether there was
alignment in the Senate as a whole. He cited May 15 and May
31 as failure dates, which were 30 days after the
legislature was supposed to be finished with its work.
Representative Pruitt remarked the bill would pull $800
million more from the CBR than the estimate provided in the
initial presentations. He stated that it would mean pulling
more money out of an account than was potentially needed.
He stated that on July 1 it would mean pulling $1.2 billion
out of an account that earned 1.86 percent in 2017 instead
of using money from the General Fund, which could be pulled
out over the course of the year. He detailed the General
Fund had made 1.56 percent in 2017. He remarked that the
difference may not seem substantial, but 1 percent of
billions was significant. He thought they were pushing
forward on something without communicating with the other
body. He reasoned that if there was alignment the bill
reflected an expectation of failure. He requested to hold
off on taking action for several days in order for a
discussion to take place with the Senate.
9:23:30 AM
AT EASE
9:26:51 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted there were several questions and that
a slide had been put up on the screen. He relayed his
intent was to hold the bill a couple of days to hear public
testimony on Thursday. He wanted to allow extra time to
communicate any concerns.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that the most important
professionals in the state were becoming demoralized. They
were leaving positions with the University and the
education system because they did not know whether they
would have jobs the following year. He remarked that the
past few years there had been legislators asking for $67
million in education cuts at the last minute. He believed
if legislators were all agreeable that no one would do that
during the current session, they should deal with the
education budget at present. He spoke to the concept of
passing a budget on time. He supported that goal but
pointed out that there had not been a great history of
passing a budget on time in recent years. He did not want
to send pink slips to teachers. He stressed that some of
the best teachers were leaving the state. He reasoned that
when those individuals were lost it meant the state's
education system suffered.
Vice-Chair Gara lauded Co-Chair Seaton for filing the bill
because it reflected a discussion the legislature had been
having for a long time. He spoke about threats that
individuals would lose their jobs. He supported the bill.
He stated that unfortunately with the differing opinions
about a fiscal plan something had not passed. He supported
a fiscal plan. He pointed to decisions made by the
legislature the previous year when the savings account had
been drawn down substantially. He stated that the remaining
sources of revenue were very controversial. He believed the
bill had to pass. He was glad to hear that others did not
want to further cut education. He supported an inflation
adjustment for the losses in education funding. He believed
the bill was something all legislators could agree on.
9:31:28 AM
Co-Chair Foster repeated that he planned to hold the bill
until Thursday for more public testimony. The committee
would hear public testimony during the current meeting as
well.
Representative Neuman thanked Co-Chair Foster for the
opportunity to ask questions. He asked how to prioritize
funding of teachers over state troopers and everyone else.
He spoke about decisions that needed to be made included
what funds to use to fund a budget. He detailed that the
previous year there had been a decision made by the House
Majority not to fund any budgets until taxes and use of the
Permanent Fund Dividend bills were passed. He stated the
legislature could pass a bill like HB 287 and it would
still not matter. He asked about how to utilize the current
fund. He agreed that giving industry and schools an idea of
what the funding would be would be helpful as soon as it
was possible to do so; however, the state was experiencing
difficult financial times and the decisions were difficult.
He thought tying up the available funds in the different
pots of money could be very difficult for the legislature.
He wanted to get more information on the topic.
Representative Neuman spoke about personnel costs - it had
been mentioned that the bill was highly supported by many
members. He was not able to support the bill due to
questions he had. He stated there was no reason why the
Senate and House could not get together early on to give
the education industry an idea of what the funding would
be. He reiterated his thanks for the time to consider the
bill.
Co-Chair Foster reiterated that public testimony would be
reopened later in the meeting and on Thursday.
9:35:01 AM
Representative Tilton echoed comments made by her
colleagues. She wondered about the funding priorities for
the different departments and agencies. She mentioned the
education subcommittee process and questioned whether the
bill put the cart before the horse. She spoke to the
remaining CBR balance and available funding and asked if
figures accounted for increased oil prices.
Mr. Painter replied in the negative. The projections of the
CBR balance at the end of FY 18 assumed the [Department of
Revenue] fall forecast, which he believed used a $56 per
barrel price in FY 18.
Representative Tilton remarked that the projection was at
$56 per barrel, but the other day the price was $70. She
asked if her statement was accurate.
Mr. Painter replied in the affirmative.
Representative Tilton surmised there was an opportunity for
some increased balances in state savings accounts.
Mr. Painter answered that if prices held at $70 for the
remainder of the fiscal year there would be an additional
$200 million in the CBR; the balance would be $2.3 billion
instead of $2.1 billion.
Co-Chair Seaton spoke to an earlier question about whether
the legislation was taking over the responsibility of the
finance subcommittee. The portions included in the bill
were in statute including the Base Student Allocation (BSA)
and pupil transportation, which were not considered by the
finance subcommittee. He clarified that the bill did not
fund the entire education budget including pre-K, teacher
mentor programs, and the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) - those items were still under the
purview of the education subcommittee.
Co-Chair Seaton furthered that the bill also considered
other portions where people were required to receive layoff
notices by state law including boarding schools and Mount
Edgecumbe. The bill funded basic K-12 education, which was
where the agreement resided. He stated there was no
agreement on things like bond debt reimbursement for
schools. The bill addressed the portion of education and
employees that were different than state troopers. He
detailed that state troopers were not required to receive
layoff notices May 15 through June. Troopers may go on
furlough on July 1 if a budget was not finished, but the
bill pertained to the only segment of government where
there was a law requiring advanced layoff notices. The
bill's purpose was to ensure the school districts and
municipalities working to fulfill state law were not
negatively impacted.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified there were four groups within the
legislature (two in the Senate and two in the House). He
elaborated that no caucus had a three-quarter vote within
its membership. He explained that if the items were left in
the operating budget they would need agreement between the
four groups without a vote. He did not know that the option
was a secure way to ensure the funding for education. The
purpose was to identify a funding source and agree or not
agree to fund education early. He explained it would mean
the education funding would be a known amount, which would
be attached to the funds identified in the budget bill. The
way to gain full knowledge and security was to have a vote.
He appreciated Co-Chair Foster reopening public testimony.
9:41:18 AM
Representative Ortiz responded to an earlier question about
whether the bill bypassed the subcommittee. He relayed that
the subcommittee had discussed the issue and had already
heard all portions of the sections included in the bill
with the exception of Mount Edgecumbe. The subcommittee was
scheduled to hear about Mount Edgecumbe the following day.
He relayed the subcommittee had not been bypassed.
Representative Neuman stated that generally the
supplemental budget could get rolled into the capital or
operating budget. He asked if the bill was a standalone
appropriations bill.
Co-Chair Seaton replied in the affirmative. The bill was a
complete budget bill that identified the funding sources.
He explained that if it passed it would go to the governor
for his signature. The bill's passage would result in the
removal of the sections in the general operating budget. He
detailed that HB 287 was an operating budget bill for basic
K-12 education. The bill was a way to fund education early.
Representative Neuman stated that the legislature was
statutorily required to pass an operating budget. He noted
there were ways to interrupt the bill if desired. He
elaborated that the legislature had statutorily required
budgets it had to pass every year. He asked if the bill
would fall under the same statutory requirement.
Co-Chair Seaton answered in the affirmative. The bill was a
portion of the operating budget and would have the same
qualifications as any other.
9:44:10 AM
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that the committee was not really
supposed to talk about what the Senate would do per the
Mason's Manual. He emphasized that individuals impacted by
the legislature's failure to pass a budget on time were
angry. He stated that for three years in a row the
legislature had told teachers they would possibly face $67
million in education cuts. The legislature had an
opportunity to tell teachers they would not face cuts in
the current year. He shared that a teacher friend was
leaving the state because he was fed up with the threats of
cuts and receiving pink slip notices. He underscored that
the state was losing its best teachers. He detailed that
state employees receiving pink slips took the issue
seriously. The bill provided an opportunity to communicate
to the education system that they would not face cuts in
the current year. He underscored that the state was losing
its teachers. The bill was an attempt to ensure that the
best teachers remained in Alaska. He hoped the legislature
could come together in agreement that further cuts to
education were not appropriate.
9:46:25 AM
Representative Guttenberg remarked that the committee had
ample opportunity to have discussions. He requested to hear
public testimony if people were waiting.
Representative Grenn asked about the timing and need to get
the bill passed and to the governor as soon as possible. He
stated that May 15 was the statutory deadline regarding
nontenured teachers. He relayed that the Anchorage School
District had to report its budget to the municipality by
March 1. He believed securing funding by that point would
provide morale for the district to know the legislature was
focused on education as a priority for Alaska. He detailed
that due to years of pink slips the morale was low. He
believed the bill would go a long way in showing the
legislature's support. He supported moving the legislation
quickly.
Representative Pruitt spoke to a comment about an earlier
statement about trying to get the four caucuses together on
a CBR vote. He thought the bill appeared to be trying to
take the CBR discussion off the table at present, which he
viewed as a usurpation of the power of the Minority in some
cases. He recalled a letter written on May 20, 2015 signed
by several members including the co-chairs, which indicated
that five days after the pink slip date for nontenured
teachers they wanted to continue the negotiations with the
Minority caucus to obtain the number of votes needed to
access the CBR instead of using the ERA. He noted that the
ERA would be utilized without the vote of the people for
which they requested.
Representative Pruitt continued that even then there had
been an argument from members of the House that usurping
the power of the Minority was not something they wanted to
go forward with. He believed what he had heard about HB 287
was the desire to get the issue off the table so there was
an ability in the long run to (after $800 million was
pulled from the CBR - more than was necessary based on
prior testimony) go forward without the need or necessity
of having the voices of the people that may find themselves
not in the Majority. He believed the issue should be laid
on the table if it was a concern from the past. He stated
that the House Majority [in 2015] had taken the other
members' concerns into account and had allowed the Minority
to continue to play the role everyone would expect. He
believed it was important to take into consideration. He
reiterated the current discussion seemed like an attempt to
eliminate the House Minority's ability to participate in
the full budget process.
9:50:31 AM
Co-Chair Seaton spoke to the $800 million and reminded the
committee that they were talking about a potential ERA draw
that was unsustainable, which was based on a 6.95 percent
annual return. He elaborated that the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation (APFC) Board of Trustees had adopted the
actuarial amount of 6.5 percent, which was essentially 0.5
percent down in the board's long-term projection in return
on investment. He wanted to make sure the issue was
considered.
Representative Pruitt stated that Co-Chair Seaton had just
highlighted why the issue was challenging. He continued
that the bill tried to put together pieces of a puzzle
without knowing what the puzzle looked like. He explained
that going forward with the bill would make certain
assumptions and force certain things to be the reality when
it came time to put the budget together. It was part of the
reason he believed the budget needed to move forward
together instead of in pieces. He reasoned they did not
know exactly what the revenue or spending pictures would be
all at the same time, which made it very difficult to put
the whole thing together.
9:52:23 AM
Representative Thompson remarked on a statement made by Co-
Chair Seaton that if the bill passed, the sections would be
removed from the full budget. He wondered what would happen
if the legislature decided it needed to add more money to
the education budget for something like pupil
transportation. He reasoned it would mean the need for
another standalone bill. He stated the subcommittee process
had not been completed to determine whether changes would
be needed. He was concerned about pulling the items from
the budget.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that nothing precluded the budget
from having additional money on the topics. For example,
the legislature could choose to add additional pupil
transportation funding if it chose to do so. The bill would
fund the BSA and pupil transportation at the prior year
levels. He explained that the legislature could put
something else in the budget if decided to do so. The bill
would be signed by the governor as the specific amounts,
but nothing prevented additional funds in the operating
budget.
Representative Neuman had heard from the sponsor that the
bill would be a standalone operating appropriations bill
that would be required statutorily just as the operating
budget was. He asked for verification of his understanding.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that the bill had the same
parameters as a supplemental bill. He explained that a
supplemental could change or add additional money. There
was no constitutional or statutory requirement for the
operating budget to be passed as one piece.
Representative Neuman believed a statutory change would
require a three-quarter vote on the floor and a public
vote. Alternatively, he wondered if the bill was an
operating budget bill that was statutorily required. He
believed Co-Chair Seaton had answered in the affirmative.
He stated that if the bill was like a supplemental that
rolled into another budget or was included in an operating
budget, the legislature could decide to fund it or not (as
had occurred the previous year with other appropriations
bills in the operating budget). He stated that the governor
could decide to fund the bill at a lesser value as had
happened with the Permanent Fund Dividend in the past. He
did not know if it was possible and requested to find out.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that it would be a budget bill
just like the fast track supplemental the legislature could
pass. He did not mean that the legislature could not pass
an appropriation without a statutory requirement. However,
the bill under consideration in the Senate looked at a
statutory requirement that future legislatures to pass
budgets by certain times. He explained that HB 287 was the
mechanism to accomplish the goal in the current year.
Co-Chair Foster recognized that Representative Kawasaki had
joined the meeting.
Mr. Liebelt clarified there was an error on the last slide
of a presentation [slide 8] he had provided ["HB 287
Education and Pupil Transportation: An Early and Stand-
alone Appropriation Bill" dated January 25, 2018 (copy on
file)]. He corrected that the slide should read that
nontenured teachers had to receive notices by May 15 and
tenured teachers had to be notified the end of the school
year.
9:58:10 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony [public testimony
had also been heard the preceding week].
TIM PARKER, PRESIDENT, NEA ALASKA, spoke in favor of the
legislation. He thanked the co-chairs and bill sponsors for
the opportunity to express support. He stated that
educators in Alaska cared a lot about student learning, it
was the driving force that pushed educators. He spoke to
the positive motivation in the classroom. He argued that HB
287 was poised to fix some problems with the particular
situation. He recalled the delay in funding the previous
year and how it had impacted school districts and specific
schools. Districts had handed out pink slips in record
numbers, with the thought that unfortunately the pink slips
would be rescinded, which they had been.
Mr. Parker detailed that between the time they issued pink
slips and rescinded them many of the best and brightest
teachers had left the state. He noted the ramifications of
passing out those slips. He wanted to see the focus on the
necessary things that were important to education. He
mentioned the Alaska Education Challenge and noted there
would be a press conference later in the day with the
commissioner; NEA was trying to lean into things that would
help districts make better decisions about how to increase
and maximize student learning. Delayed funding meant
districts were not focused on what they should be. He spoke
to the importance of providing funding stability. He
reiterated NEA's support for HB 287.
10:01:57 AM
Representative Grenn stated that the Anchorage School
District submitted its budget to the municipality by March
1. He asked if it was a common deadline throughout the
state.
Mr. Parker responded that that deadlines were not all the
same, but it was common for budgets to be submitted by the
districts early and then funding mechanisms were addressed
with their boroughs. There had been discussion about
whether April 1st was the right date. Experts had
communicated that going anywhere after April 1 risked
putting schools in positions of providing pink slips. Due
to the various steps required in the school budget process,
NEA had been told that April 1 was an important date to
make sure the legislature had acted by that time. In past
years education funding had been passed a bit later than
April 1 and districts had managed to avoid pink slips.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that there had been some confusion
on when tenured and nontenured teachers needed to be
notified about layoff. He believed tenured [nontenured]
teachers had to be notified by May 15. He asked if many of
the contracts required that nontenured teachers be laid off
prior to tenured teachers. He surmised that new teachers
were laid off prior to laying off tenured teachers.
Mr. Parker replied in the affirmative. He detailed that
different districts had different contracts, but the net
result was the same in most districts. The other factor was
the number of nontenured teachers versus tenured teachers
in a particular district - it varied by district.
10:05:14 AM
PAUL KENDALL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), did not
believe the past speaker should qualify as public
testimony. He addressed the concept of pink slips. He
thought it was malfeasance or corruption. He stated there
were secret negotiations of public employees. He did not
support unions. He stated that the legislature had stolen
the dividend from residents. He believed the education
industry was corrupt. He thought wages should be cut. He
thought the entire system was mismanaged.
Co-Chair Foster asked testifiers to not disparage other
testifiers and to stick to the legislation.
10:09:51 AM
CHRIS BENSHOOF, TEACHER, FAIRBANKS, spoke in support of the
legislation. He shared that a fellow teacher had routinely
been given pink slips - she had been teaching for 11 or
more years and the routine pink slips were demoralizing.
The uncertainty meant teachers and students were uncertain
about the following year. The uncertainty led to
significant testimony to the local school board - teachers
were concerned about their positions and programs and then
students and families heard about the issues as well, which
caused uncertainty for students. He referenced the Alaska
Education Challenge - one of the commitments was that
schools were safe places for students where safety and
well-being was cultivated.
Mr. Benshoof believed the instability students had to deal
almost annually with was difficult. He shared that the
previous year the district had been asked to create a plan
for how to deal with flat funding. He detailed the plan had
been two to four staff fewer, an increase in parent/teacher
ratio, and a decrease in enrollment. About one week into
that process they had been asked to make a plan b that
would include an additional teacher cut. Ultimately, the
district had been asked to come up with a plan c, d, and e
over the remainder of the year. He was in favor of the bill
and appreciated the committee's time and attention.
10:13:02 AM
JAMES HARRIS, TEACHER, SOLDOTNA, testified in favor of the
bill. He shared that he was the 2017 Alaska teacher of the
year and he had spent most of the year focused on the
issue. He explained that it was an issue for teachers,
students, and communities. The Soldotna School Board had
been faced with developing multiple budgets and
administrators had made multiple plans. He discussed that
the Soldotna High School had numerous initiatives it would
like to offer, but it did not ever know if the ability was
there. The high school did not ever know how many teachers
may need to be cut and whether electives could be offered.
He recalled that two years back the school had not known
whether it could offer AP [advanced placement] classes,
which created instability for students. He believed one
thing that all Alaskans wanted was to provide stability for
kids. He stated that kids felt undervalued - he believed
the current generation of students needed to feel valued.
He relayed that the borough assembly also had to hold off
on its budget because it did not know how much it would be
able to give to help the school district. He thanked the
committee for its work. He supported stability for students
in the long-term.
Representative Guttenberg thanked Mr. Harris for being
teacher of the year and for the efforts he had put into
education.
10:15:29 AM
AMY JO MEINERS, TEACHER, JUNEAU, testified in support of
the bill. She shared that she was the 2016 Alaska teacher
of the year and a mother of three daughters who had gone
through the Juneau school system. She recognized that the
school calendar did not fit neatly into a fiscal calendar
or a January/December timeline. She stated that pink slips
went out in May, but job fairs were held in March. She
explained that teachers booked travel in February for the
March job fairs. The instability played out for students in
many ways. She shared that her youngest daughter was a
senior and had given tours to incoming freshman who were
deciding between the two Juneau high schools. Many of the
questions had been about what courses were offered and what
teachers would be there. All the instability played out in
the spring. She thanked the sponsor for putting the bill
forward and thanked the legislature for the discussion it
was having about education. She hoped the headlines would
read about the positive movement for education going
forward. She thanked the committee for its consideration of
passing an education bill that would stabilize the options
for children.
10:17:33 AM
PATRICK MAYER, SUPERINTENDENT, WRANGELL, spoke in support
of the legislation. He thanked everyone who had a hand in
sponsoring the bill. He stressed the importance of the bill
for the stability of education in Alaska. Early funding
allowed districts to get teacher contracts signed early
enough so they were not lost to other states. He spoke to
statistics suggesting that if teachers were given pink
slips they would leave for jobs in other states.
Additionally, there were fewer job candidates. He shared
that he had been in Alaska since 1982 and believed the
discussion was long overdue. He applauded the committee for
taking the issue on. He urged the committee to support the
bill.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the process of going
through a school district budget. He asked if the delays,
teacher pink slips, and other had a measurable cost to the
school district.
Mr. Mayer answered that the district currently had two
vacant positions in math and art. The lack of budgetary
certainty was causing the district to delay filling the
positions. Other districts throughout the state experienced
the same problem. The issue was especially important in
small districts because they may have access to a smaller
pool of candidates. The issue was a continual concern
throughout its budget drafting process.
10:20:50 AM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony with intent to
reopen it on Thursday afternoon.
HB 287 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:21:33 AM
AT EASE
10:25:29 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 213HFIN CS WORKDRAFT V.R.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 213 |
| HB 287 Anchorage School District - Bishop. Deena - Public Testimony 012518.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| HB 213 Summary of Changes Ver. U to Ver. R.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 213 |
| Sectional Analysis HB 213 - version 30-LS0765-R.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 213 |
| HB 287 PublicTestimonyPiazza20180125.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 NEA-Alaska letter of support HB287.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| HB 213 Response Qs HFIN-DOR re HB 213 2-3-2018.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 213 |