Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/16/1999 09:01 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 27(HES)
"An Act relating to school records and driver license
records of certain children."
Senator Loren Leman testified to this bill, which he
sponsored. It came about after he heard from a mother who
suspected her minor daughter was driving with a suspended
license. When she tried to find out from the Division of
Motor Vehicles, she was told that the privacy protection in
the law prevented them from releasing that information to
her without written permission from the child. Senator
Loren Leman believed parents ought to have the right to
access to this information.
He then explained that as the bill progressed, his office
learned that state law did not require a school to
guarantee access of parents to their child's school
records. He noted that it was common for some school
districts to provide that information, there was no
requirement in state law. Therefore, this requirement was
added to the bill.
The Health, Education and Social Services Committee made
changes to the bill and Senator Loren Leman requested the
Division of Motor Vehicles to comment on those to clarify
the intent of the committee.
The first change eliminated the five-dollar fee for parents
who requested the child's drivers license record.
Currently, there was no fee charged to law enforcement and
Senator Gary Wilken offered an amendment in HESS to do the
same for parents.
The second change allowed the DMV and schools to refuse to
release the minor child's address if they believed it could
jeopardize the child's health and safety.
Senator Loren Leman shared that the issue raised by DMV was
whether an insurance company could claim they were the
guardians of the child and avoid paying the fee. That
would jeopardize the finances of the division since they
currently processed many requests from insurance, which
generated substantial program receipts. The intent was to
not let someone other than the parent or guardian to obtain
records at no charge.
Senator Lyda Green had understood that there were federal
requirements that school records be provided to a parent or
guardian upon request and wondered why this portion of the
bill was necessary. Senator Loren Leman believed that was
correct and this bill would make state law consistent.
Senator Lyda Green asked if the state failed to follow
through with this bill, would federal funds be withheld.
Senator Al Adams shared Senator Lyda Green's feelings that
Section 1 was unnecessary. The federal Family Education and
Privacy Rights applied to the academic records and excluded
health and counseling records, which he felt was a private
matter. He said that parents shouldn't be guaranteed access
to records such as birth control counseling. In order to
adopt this state law, the same exclusions that were in the
federal law must also be made.
Senator Lyda Green asked why the school records were
included in the bill. Senator Loren Leman repeated his
explanation that while drafting the driving records access
bill, they asked the Legal Services Division if there was a
statute granting parental access for school records and was
told there was none. This provision would allow non-
custodial parents as well as custodial parents to have
access.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration testified. She said the
department understood Senator Loren Leman's desire for
parent's to have access to their child's driving records.
She said parents currently could get a copy of the record
with written release from the minor child.
She spoke to the division's concerns to make sure this
would be strictly related to a parent walking into the DMV
wanting a copy of their minor child's driver's records. She
wanted to ensure that this would not spill over into
insurance companies because they had a request for a
family's records for the purpose of writing a group policy.
There was a $5 charge for every copy of driver's records
unless it is from law enforcement or for judicial records.
Also state and federal employers, under the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Act were required to have a copy of an
employee's driver's records and were therefore exempt from
the fee.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if it was her concern because
the language was unclear. Juanita affirmed and said it
could be interpreted by the insurance industry as an
exemption for them when they requested records on behalf of
a parent for the purpose of writing an insurance policy.
She commented that the requests for driver's records for
purposes other than law enforcement, insurance companies
and state and federal employees were only five to ten per
year. She anticipated this would have no fiscal impact on
the division. However, if insurance companies were
exempted from the fees, the fiscal impact would be
substantial.
Co-Chair John Torgerson had trouble understanding why the
language wasn't clear. He didn't see where the insurance
companies would have grounds to argue they didn't have to
pay the fee. Juanita Hensley responded that she just wanted
to clarify the issue and make sure it was on the record.
Senator Gary Wilken referred to proposed Amendment #1 and
asked if the language on page 2 line 2 eased the division's
concern. Juanita said it was still vague because the parent
was still requesting the child's driving record through the
insurance company. Senator Gary Wilken said he thought it
seemed very clear to him that it would apply to the parent
or guardian. Juanita Hensley argued that the parent was
still requesting the child's driver's records but through
the insurance company.
Co-Chair John Torgerson disagreed with the argument.
Senator Gary Wilken stated that the intent was to make sure
a parent could be exempted from the fee so long as state
agencies were not charged.
Senator Al Adams asked for clarification if it was the
intent to charge parents for the records. Juanita said
there would be no charge and since there were so few
requests, this would not impact the division's revenues.
Recess 9:36AM / 9:37AM
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of
School Administrators, spoke to the parental requests. He
testified that from practical experience, it had never been
a problem and that the parent's request always prevailed.
Most school districts had a policy covering the matter.
More importantly, he stressed the federal Family
Educational and Privacy Rights Act set forth the statutes
that school districts followed. Therefore, he thought most
of the concerns were covered with that statute. SB 27 was
not a problem according to Darroll Hargraves, but he did
want to bring the federal statute to the attention of the
committee. He concurred that parents should have the right
to access school and driving records of their miner
children.
Co-Chair John Torgerson requested Darrell Hargraves read
the proposed Amendment #1 and to stand by to comment on
those changes.
Senator Gary Wilken moved for adoption of Amendment #1.
Co-Chair John Torgerson explained that it would make it
mandatory to release information to a school district about
a miner's alleged commission of an offense that was
punishable as a felony or involvement with a deadly weapon
if that miner was transferring to the school district.
He explained that this amendment was a result of requests
from principals in his district with concerns about
students expelled from a school for commission of a serious
crime who could then enroll in another school district
without a requirement the new school district be notified
of the circumstances.
Senator Lyda Green asked if there was a provision where
confidentiality covered a student who committed this
serious of a crime. She supported the transfer of the
information to the school, but wanted to prevent the
information from reaching non-relevant school staff. She
wanted to shield the information from reaching everyone at
the school. Co-Chair John Torgerson was unsure and thought
there probably was some privacy protection. His intention
was to let the school know so they could determine whether
or not to let the child enroll in the school. He noted that
if a child was convicted the information would be public.
Darroll Hargraves said that would present a problem because
sometimes volunteers opened the mail. However, it was
important that information about crimes committed by
certain students be given to the school. If the intent was
to notify a receiving school that a child has been found
guilty of a heinous crime, that was to be commended, he
added.
Senator Gary Wilken said his wife had been on the school
board and it was a problem of communication between law
enforcement and the school districts that was worked out
the district level. He suggested the committee look at the
language dictating how public safety must communicate with
the district to ensure confidentiality. He thought it was
with the superintendent of schools and that was were the
shield of confidentiality was protected. He supported the
amendment.
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill and the amendment
held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|