Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/2019 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB36 | |
| SB53 | |
| SB43 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to the duties of the Board of Regents
of the University of Alaska."
9:05:39 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for
hearing the bill. He pondered how many college degrees had
been completed by the committee members. He thought the
loss of accreditation by the University of Alaska for it's
teaching program in Anchorage was tragic. He had been
surprised that the president and Board of Regents had not
known of the impending loss of accreditation. The bill
would require that the legislature to twice a year
investigate the accreditation of the University. He
lamented that once accreditation was lost it could take up
to 5 years to gain it back. He relayed that there were 65
accreditations around the University. He said that it was
very important that the Board of Regents and the resident
track the accreditation of the University.
9:10:07 AM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, discussed the
Sectional Analysis for SB 53 (copy on file):
Co-Chair von Imhof asked how the Board of Regents could
have approached Senator Stevens with the issue of
accreditation.
Senator Stevens had not communicated with the Board of
Regents regarding the issue. He thought that the loss of
accreditation had been an error on the board's part. He
discussed teacher accreditation.
9:12:08 AM
Senator Olson asked whether the Universitys accreditation
could have been saved if legislation like SB 53 had already
existed.
Senator Stevens replied in the affirmative. He noted that
the bill required the Board of Regents to report to the
legislature twice a year concerning accreditation.
9:13:12 AM
Mr. Lamkin reviewed the Explanation of Changes: From
Version A to Version U (copy on file):
Section 1 & 2: Conforming Report Recipients
For consistency with other various reporting
requirements of state agencies, both the existing
requirement for reporting on UA teacher training, and
the new UA accreditation report are required to be
submitted to the Legislature (Senate Secretary / House
th
Chief Clerk) by the 30 legislative day. The reports
are subsequently to be presented in a formal hearing
setting to the education committees:
a. The teachers report remaining biennial
(beginning of each new Legislature)
b. The accreditation report being submitted
semiannually, twice per year:
i. By the 30th legislative day (approx. Feb
15); and
ii. On or by July 1st
Section 2: Report Detail
Language detailing report content was amended to align
with common terms used in academia as regards
accreditation, and cross referenced from:
a. a current report submitted to the Board of
Regents, disaggregating report components;
b. the fiscal note, citing existing Board of
Regents policy (P10.06.010).
The intent of the changes in this section is to make
this new reporting requirement fairly align with what
is currently reported to the Board of Regents,
broadening the awareness of such reports to include
the legislature.
Reporting detail calls for particular emphasis on any
potential loss of accreditation in the future.
9:15:08 AM
Senator Micciche wondered why there was not a reference to
meeting the requirements for the Council for Accreditation
of Educator Preparation (CAEP).
Mr. Lamkin stated that the bill was an accountability
measure. It was presumed that the report would necessitate
more scrutiny of the process and the following of
regulation.
Senator Stevens reminded the committee that there were 65
accreditation agencies, and that CAEP was only one of those
agencies. He did not think it was easy for the university
to keep track of all the various accreditations but that
they had a responsibility to do so. He reiterated that
there had been a lack of attention that resulted in the
loss of accreditation.
9:17:50 AM
Senator Micciche referenced Section 1, which was
specifically about teachers. He thought that the bill was
important but wondered what set of standards would be used
to craft the biannual report sent to the legislature.
Senator Stevens was not sure how to address Senator
Micciche's question. He reiterated that the review process
was complicated.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought after reading the accreditation
requirements for the School of Education, there were 5
standards that had to be met in order to meet accreditation
standards. She suspected that in the reporting there would
be a listing of each requirement needed to maintain
accreditation, along with a description of how the
University was meeting those requirements.
Senator Stevens did not want to go overly into detail. He
wanted the bill to result in increased attention to
accreditation. He did not think that the bill needed to get
into the minutia, due to the 65 different accreditation
agencies.
9:21:06 AM
PAUL LAYER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMICS AND RESEARCH,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He said that the
University had the ability to reply with the requests
outlined in the bill. He stated that the University
currently reported annually to the Board of Regents
regarding accreditation. He described the loss of
accreditation as an avoidable tragedy. He noted that there
were problems that the University had not been unaware but
that steps were being taken for quarterly reporting to the
board and to the president of the University. He said that
the different national organizations that did the
accreditation had different requirements and methods of
reporting, some were very specific, and some did not want
their recommendations made public.
9:24:00 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof understood that the University was
looking to get accreditation back for the School of
Education at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA). She
asked how long the process was expected to take.
Mr. Layer responded that an assessment was being done to
determine whether the UAA programs should be reaccredited.
He stated that the University was drafting documentation
about the process and the board would be meeting in April
2019 to make a recommendation. He continued that UA was
also considering whether the currently accredited programs
at the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) and University
of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) could meet the needs of students
in Anchorage who were pursuing teaching accreditation.
Moving forward with reaccreditation of UAA programs would
take a couple of years to compile the necessary data and
demonstrate proficiency. He said that the question was what
to do for students in the meantime who were currently
enrolled in those programs.
9:25:36 AM
Senator Shower had concerns about the loss of
accreditation. He thought it was the duty of the
legislature to investigate the issue. He asked whether Mr.
Layer thought the loss of accreditation would lead to a
more robust focus on requirements.
Mr. Layer thought the incident would lead to a more robust
analysis and feedback mechanism. He lamented that
information and concerns for the teaching program had not
been conveyed up through the administrative structure. He
thought there would be more scrutiny and increased
transparency as a result of the process. He continued that
the university was considering how the different programs
reported to the board. He thought reporting to the
legislature would help in the process.
9:28:12 AM
Senator Bishop hoped that the University would take the
lessons learned from the event and move forward with a plan
for it never to happen again. He discussed his experience
in the oil and glass and construction business; where there
would be a "stand down" process after an incident. He hoped
that there would be internal controls and the addition of
checks and balances. He noted that the University used
general fund dollars and should be making all accreditation
information public.
9:30:05 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked whether Mr. Layer wanted to
respond to Senator Bishop's comments.
Mr. Layer thought Senator Bishop's analogy of an industrial
accident was apt. He opined that there had been checks and
balances in place but there had clearly been a lack of
oversight. He assured that committee that steps were being
taken to make sure that loss of accreditation did not
happen again.
9:31:28 AM
Senator Wilson was concerned about the students who might
be relocated from Anchorage. He wondered whether the
University had considered transferring student to a private
entity in the area.
Mr. Layer affirmed that UAA had been working with Alaska
Pacific University (APU), which did not have the breadth of
programs offered by UAA. He reiterated that APU had limited
capacity.
9:32:57 AM
Senator Micciche wondered how the report proposed by the
bill was different than the status quo, if there were not
guidance documents that relayed standards. He referenced
his background in engineering. He thought most often there
were multiple layers of failure at work that resulted in
the loss of accreditation. If the University provided a
report to the legislature, he wondered how the body would
have any reference to act as a check against what the
University provided.
Mr. Layer stated that he was not an expert in teacher
accreditation, and had difficulty assessing what an
accreditor might recommend. He thought it was a challenge
to assess a comment from an accreditor. He recalled a
report with concerns, but it was unclear whether those
concerns were of the caliber that would result in a loss of
accreditation. Most accreditation reviews had comments, but
he found it difficult to assess the severity. He was not
sure how the legislature would assess the report proposed
in the bill. He relayed that all the University could do
was provide the reports from accrediting agencies, when
possible, of quality concerns.
9:36:17 AM
Senator Bishop commented that UAS and UAF had not
experienced problems with accreditation.
9:36:42 AM
Senator Shower asserted that accountability was important.
He asked whether anyone had been held accountable for the
loss of accreditation at UAA.
Mr. Layer wanted to clarify that UAF underwent a successful
review in the previous year, and UAS was currently
undergoing an accreditation review process and self-study.
Mr. Layer thought accountability was a big issue and
reminded that there was new leadership at UAA and in the
School of Education. New reporting would identify a person
as a responsible party for an accreditation review. The new
reporting would require that a person be identified as the
lead for the accreditation review, those names would be
associated with each of the accreditation reviews and
responsible parties would be identified.
9:39:57 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof OPENED public testimony.
9:40:10 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof CLOSED public testimony.
Senator Bishop reviewed FN 1 from University of Alaska, OMB
component 1296. He read from the analysis on page 2 of the
fiscal note:
The University of Alaska estimates that this
legislation would have no fiscal impact on current
operations.
Under current law, AS 14.40.190, the Board of Regents
of the University of Alaska must prepare a report that
provides:
a) the condition of university property; receipts
and expenditures; administration and disposition
of appropriated and restricted funds, including
the unexpended balance of university receipts;
and on the educational and other work performed
by the university during the preceding year. This
report is due annually at the beginning of each
regular legislative session.
b) information on teacher preparation, retention
and recruitment programs and initiatives at the
University of Alaska. This report is to be
entitled "Alaska's University for Alaska's
Schools" and is due no later than the 30th day of
the first regular legislative session. It is
sometimes referred to as the SB 241 Report, after
the 2008 bill establishing the requirement
[Chapter 71, SLA 2008].
This legislation would add a third reporting
requirement by adding a new subsection (c) to AS
14.40.190. The board would be required to prepare a
biennial report on the status of national, regional,
and programmatic accreditations at the University of
Alaska, and describing the efforts being made to
maintain or achieve those accreditations. The report
would be presented to the House and Senate Education
Committees no later than the 30th day of the first
regular legislative session.
9:41:34 AM
SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB053_UA_Accred_Reporting_SponsorStatement_20Feb2019.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB053_UnivAK_AccreditReporting_Research_CAEP Report_Dec2018.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB053_UnivAK_AccreditReporting_Research_CAEP_RevocationLetter_11JAN2019.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB053_UnivAK_AccreditReporting_Research_Existing UA Accred Summary_21Feb2019.pdf |
SEDC 2/21/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 07_SB053_UnivAK_AccreditReporting_Research_BOR Policy_April2014.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 11_SB053_UnivAK_AccreditReporting_Sectional_VersionU.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 12_SB053_UA_Accred_Reporting_ExplainChanges_Version A to U.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 43 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Big Game Commercial Services Board Sunset Review Audit.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Opposition.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Senator von Imhof.docx |
SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 RHAK Letter Senate Finance - Extend Big Game Commercial Services Board.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 CBPL Timeline of Investigations.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 36 Letter of Support APRN 3-4-19.pdf |
HL&C 4/24/2019 3:15:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 36 |
| SB 43 Bunch Testimony.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Additional Testimony Huttunen.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |