Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/09/2004 11:01 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 289-EXTENDING THE SPECIAL ED SERVICE AGENCY
Number 0050
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 289, "An Act extending the termination date of
the special education service agency; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0128
JACQUELINE TUPOU, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on SB 289 on behalf of Senator Green,
sponsor of SB 289. She told the members that SB 289 is a sunset
bill which deals with the Special Education Service Agency
(SESA). This agency was created by the legislature in 1985 to
help remote school districts provide necessary services that are
required of them from the federal government. For instance, if
a school district has one blind child or one deaf child, instead
of having to hire those specialists and duplicate services the
SESA agency will come in and help to provide services to those
children. She explained that this would help the school
districts avoid costly residential programs that would be
required. Ms. Tupou pointed out that there are letters of
support in the members' packets from every school district in
the state. This bill would extend the sunset of this agency
another nine years, she added.
Number 0221
CHAIR GATTO asked Mr. Robinson to comment on the extension of
the sunset date and the reason for the long extension of the
SESA.
Number 0420
CHRIS ROBINSON, Executive Director, Special Education Service
Agency, testified in support of SB 289 and answered questions
from the members. He explained that the last authorization of
the agency was for a nine-year period. In the 1994 performance
review of the agency, the fourth since it was created 1986, it
was recommended that either a ten-year period or the removal
from the sunset provision be implemented, he said. The
legislature decided to go with a nine-year authorization that
comes to an end in June of this year. Mr. Robinson pointed out
that the current performance review has recommended a four-year
period of authorization, which is the statutory maximum under
the sunset law as it is written.
MR. ROBINSON said the agency's perspective of the four-year
authorization has three downsides. One is immediate and
profound and that is the agency's ability to recruit very scarce
specialists into the organization. All but two hires since the
agency was formed have been out of state hires, he explained.
He told the members that it is not realistic for SESA to
persuade a highly trained and experienced specialist in a low-
instance disability to come to Alaska with an indefinite and
short-term future. Mr. Robinson said that the agency can only
be effective to the degree that the positions are filled.
MR. ROBINSON told the members that second recommendation of the
performance review is long-term in nature. The recommendation
is to expand upon the funding, activities, and the influence of
the agency. He stated that a four-year authorization would
degrade the agency's ability to pursue those recommendations.
MR. ROBINSON spoke to the third recommendation by saying that
the statute establishing SESA requires specialized reporting
requirements from the agency to the Department of Education and
Early Development. One of those reports is the state's single
audit report which is an annual independent audit that meets the
requirements of the state's Single Audit Act. He summarized his
comments by saying that the agency has asked for the same period
of reauthorization as provided by the legislature.
Number 0507
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that he is supportive of the
agency. He asked why not delete the sunset date. He questioned
why there is a zero fiscal note because he is sure this agency
costs money.
Number 0617
MS. TUPOU responded that initially there was a lot of discussion
about removing the sunset provision. She explained that there
would be many logistical details that would need to be
addressed, such as how the agency would incorporate itself into
other departments and the authority structure that would exist.
It was decided to put forth a nine-year authorization and work
on legislation which would remove the sunset in the future, she
said.
CHAIR GATTO suggested that there is nothing preventing
legislation coming forward at any time which would eliminate the
sunset provision.
MS. TUPOU replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what agency SESA is in now.
MR. ROBINSON responded that the statute created SESA as a public
organization. He characterized the agency as semi-autonomous.
He explained that SESA is a public corporation similar to the
Alaska Railroad. Mr. Robinson told the members that there is an
administrative connection with the Department of Education and
Early Development, but a separate board of directors that under
statute is the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special
Education. On one hand there is the funding stream in the
statute that comes through the Department of Education and Early
Development budget unit, but on the other hand the governance is
through the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special
Education is technically through the Department of Health and
Social Services. Mr. Robinson summarized that it is small, but
complex. He told the members that SESA agrees with the sponsor
that there are issues related to removing the sunset that the
agency would like to be proactive in addressing. He said that
there needs to be a plan with respect to accountability and
reporting relationships prior to the sunset provision being
removed.
MS. TUPOU reiterated that the removal of the sunset provision
will be addressed at a later time.
Number 0834
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that by agreeing to a nine-year
sunset, the agency will be autonomous as it is now. He pointed
out that the governor can restructure the agency through an
executive order. He told the members that he does not see a
substantive downside on removing the sunset provision.
Number 0911
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 289, Version A, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for purposes of amending the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his motion to move HB 289 out of
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved conceptual Amendment 1 which would
continue the SESA and remove the sunset date.
Number 0940
CHAIR GATTO objected. He stated that he believes it is SESA's
intention to specifically deal with that issue later. He told
the members he would like to defer to the agency's preference.
Number 0992
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she supports SESA and would
support removing the sunset provision. However, she would like
to know how this action would affect the agency.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that Mr. Robinson told the
members that the agency would like to come to the legislature
with a plan before proceeding with the removal of the sunset
provision. He commented that is why he would oppose the
amendment.
Number 1024
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he has still not heard a
substantive reason why the sunset should not be removed. The
idea of a plan was put forth, but not knowing what it is, or why
it is important, is not a valid argument, he said.
CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Robinson how this amendment would effect
SESA.
Number 1076
MR. ROBINSON replied that there are a number of alternatives in
terms of the removal from sunset. The simplest one would be
where the date would simply be stricken and it would not then
address any of the structural features, funding, or
administrative relationships of the agency. That would all
remain the status quo, he said. Mr. Robinson explained that
there have been discussions that include some administrative
relationships with the administration that do not exist
currently. He told the members that the primary reason the
sponsor and SESA agreed with this approach had to do with
timing. The procedures relative to the sunset performance
review did not wind down until the middle of February with the
release of the report. He reiterated that the decision to go
with the status quo was one of timing.
CHAIR GATTO commented that he sees Representative Gara's
interest in this, but he told the members that he is reluctant
to over rule the sponsor's desire to maintain a restriction when
it is unlikely anyone would object to a sunset and moving
forward.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara and Kapsner
voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Gatto, Seaton,
Ogg, Wilson, and Wolf voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed to be adopted by the House Special Committee on Education
by a vote of 2-5.
Number 1258
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report SB 289 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 289 was reported out of the
House Special Committee on Education.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|