Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/05/2004 03:04 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 289
An Act extending the termination date of the special
education service agency; and providing for an
effective date.
JACQUELINE TUPOU, STAFF TO SENATOR GREEN, explained that the
Legislature established the Special Education Service Agency
in 1986. Its function is to help school districts and infant
learning programs provide required services to children
where there is no local expertise. The Agency provides a
tremendous cost savings to the State for children who would
otherwise have to go into expensive residential programs to
receive the services. Many resources are available for the
school districts throughout the State. She referenced
letters of support from the school districts (copies on
file.) stating that the Agency performs an excellent
function for the State. The bill reauthorizes the Agency
for another nine years, until June 30, 2013.
Co-Chair Williams questioned the 9-year extension. Ms. Tupou
replied that the language parallels previous legislation for
the Agency.
PAT DAVIDSON, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
DIVISION, explained that their most recent audit recommended
a four-year extension. The prior audit recommended, and the
Legislature adopted, either an 8- or 9-year extension. The
Division recommended the 4-year extension in the recent
audit for a couple of reasons. The board members providing
most of the State oversight were not attending the meetings,
and the Division didn't think that State involvement in the
organization was as strong as it had been previously. One
recommendation relates to the additional use of
teleconferencing to provide services to the districts. She
remarked that this would be a definite change in how the
Agency delivers service. The Division thought it would be
prudent for the Legislature to reevaluate the Special
Education Service Agency through the sunset process and
receive comments regarding how well the service delivery is
working.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT questioned how the fiscal note saves
money, and asked if these students are taken out of the
foundation formula into direct delivery, or would be
included in the foundation formula for the districts as
well.
CHRIS ROBINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION
SERVICE AGENCY, replied that students remain within the
school system as part of the school's Average Daily
Membership (ADM) within the foundation program for the
school. He explained that the Special Education Service
Agency (SESA) provides a combination of on-site and distance
supports, to advise a local program for a severely disabled
student. The model utilizes staff already in the school,
keeps the child at home, and avoids residential costs. The
funding to the SESA parallels the foundation funding to the
schools. It's a legislative appropriation through the
Department of Education & Early Development line item budget
now called Special Schools.
Representative Croft asked why the reauthorization extension
is for 9 rather than 4 years. Mr. Robinson replied that the
1995 reauthorization was a 9-yr authorization. He pointed
out that the tenure of education specialists in severe
disabilities as of FY 04 is 9.8 years, and he believes that
it is not coincidental. The longer period of authorization
has given stability to the model to attract and retain
specialists. There are not enough specialists nationally,
and it is difficult to recruit to Alaska. The Agency feels
that nine years would acknowledge it as an integral part of
the special education service system in Alaska. The Agency
must be able to fill the funded positions, and it cannot get
specialists to invest in a move to Alaska with an indefinite
and, under statute, short-term future.
Representative Chenault asked if this program applies to
every school district in the state except the five largest
districts. Mr. Robinson said that is correct regarding
student-specific services with the Low Incidence Disability
Outreach Program. The largest five districts receive
student-specific services in other grant areas including
birth to three, the infant learning program, vision,
deafness, and the federally funded deaf/blind program.
Mr. Robinson explained that the state allocation for general
revenue is prioritized to those districts where the critical
number of kids is insufficient to warrant the district's
expense for a specialist. Representative Chenault responded
that he comes from Kenai School District with schools that
are accessible by boat or airplane. He expressed that his
district feels snubbed by these programs at times. The bill
seems to apply to more rural than urban areas.
Ms. Topou replied that the Agency has many resources
available statewide including workshops, a newsletter, a
website and a library. Student-specific services are
targeted to rural communities with low-incidence
disabilities.
Representative Hawker asked how much of the roughly $2.1
million annual budget is administrative and how much goes to
delivery of classroom services. Mr. Robinson replied that
the student-specific services are the most expensive, and
the Agency uses a variety of other mechanisms to support the
local schools in a less costly way. A lot of its work is not
at a student-specific or classroom-specific level, but it is
topical and generic to provide severe disability education
and intervention training. Using FY 03 as the most recently
audited year, of the $2.089 million general revenue
allocation, the administration line item was $202 thousand.
Representative Hawker commented that the Department of
Education has changed since the Agency was established in
1986. He asked why there is a need to maintain a separate,
discrete agency. Mr. Robinson replied that last fall's audit
was the fifth conducted since 1986. He said the reasons for
maintaining a separate agency are to avoid adding to the
state employee ranks, and to position the Agency to be more
responsive to school district needs in a timely manner than
arguably might be the case if the Agency were part of the
state administration.
Representative Hawker asked if the Department of Education
would agree that it is not efficiently effective. Mr.
Robinson replied that the Department agrees that the Agency
is best positioned outside of it.
Representative Hawker stated that he would be more
comfortable with a shorter rather than a longer sunset as
originally suggested by the LB & A Committee.
Co-Chair Williams expressed agreement with Representative
Hawker, but said that he would leave the decision up to the
Committee.
Ms. Davidson offered that the other alternative is to
request an audit of the Special Education Service Agency
outside the sunset period. If the sunset date were set, the
audit would automatically come up.
Representative Croft pointed out that if the 9-year sunset
date was retained but an audit was requested in four years,
it would allow an opportunity to look at the Agency in four
years and to decide whether to terminate it early.
Representative Hawker expressed that he'd rather see a
shorter window, from an administrative standpoint.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual Amendment
changing the termination date from 2013 to 2008.
Representative Croft OBJECTED.
In response to a question by Representative Croft, Ms.
Davidson clarified that a four-year audit would be ensured
by the House Finance Committee submitting a specific audit
request to the LB&A Committee, to audit the Agency in
accordance with the sunset provisions in Title 466 and
submit it to the Legislature for its review in 2008.
Ms. Davidson explained that the LB&A does statutory deadline
audits first, and then committee requests on a first come,
first serve basis. She noted that by putting in an audit
request with a date, the LB&A Committee would complete and
submit the audit to the Legislature.
Representative Croft asked if the procedure would involve a
letter of intent asking for a sunset audit four years from
now even though the Agency is not sun setting at that time.
Ms. Davidson agreed, and recommended following up with an
audit request to the LB&A Committee.
Representative Croft informed Representative Hawker that
he felt this would be a better approach than the amendment
for a shorter sunset. If the amendment failed, he would
still offer a letter of intent to have a sunset audit done
while the valuable program continued.
In response to a question by Representative Stoltze, Ms.
Tupou maintained that it would be unfortunate to cut the
Agency to a four-year sunset. Mr. Robinson had pointed out
the difficulty of recruiting specialists for the required
services. Additionally, Mr. Robinson identified long-term
goals including video teleconferencing that would take time
to implement.
Representative Joule brought up the four-year recommendation
that showed less involvement with the state board, and asked
how the Agency has taken corrective measures since that
time. Mr. Robinson replied that both the Agency and the
Department of Education and Early Development concurred in
response to the report that the Department needs to be
active in attending board meetings. Two board meetings have
been held since then, and a department designee and a backup
designee have been appointed. The Agency will present by-
laws and recommendations to the Board at its June meeting.
The recommendations will clarify the attendance
contingencies and policies in the event of non-
participation.
In response to a question by Vice-Chair Meyer, Ms Davidson
replied that she recommended a four-year extension because
it is the period of time established in statute for boards
and commissions. Audits look for positive, extenuating
circumstances that warrant a recommendation for extension.
Representative Hawker felt that there was a solid argument
by all that the standard shorter sunset is better. He
maintained his amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
#1.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Hawker, Williams
OPPOSED: Stoltze, Croft, Foster, Joule, Meyer
Representatives Chenault, Fate, and Harris were absent.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5). Amendment #1 was not adopted.
Representative Croft MOVED an attached letter of intent
asking LB&A to do a sunset audit in four years even though
there is a 9-year sunset period. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered. [Note: The Letter of Intent was
rescinded on 4-6-04]
Representative Stoltze thought it more appropriate intent
language would state that this Legislature supports
revisiting through an audit. He pointed out that it's the
prerogative of a future Legislature to actually request the
audit.
Representative Foster MOVED to report SB 289 out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 289 was REPORTED out of Committee with individual
recommendations and with one fiscal impact note.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|