Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/15/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 250: CENTRALIZED CORRESPONDENCE STUDY Number 039 DONNA EMERSON, a parent with children enrolled in Centralized Correspondence Study (CCS), testified via teleconference from Funter Bay in support of HB 250. She said her children have used CCS for six years and that she liked the service. While CCS formerly served mostly elementary students, half of the students are at the secondary level, she said, and need more money for counseling and vocational education. (Rep. Brice arrived at 3:21 p.m.) CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Emerson if any of her children were secondary students. MS. EMERSON answered no, but her son would enter middle school in the fall. Number 085 REP. TOOHEY noted that her son had graduated through CCS and by the time he had gotten to secondary school study he did not need counseling. She said that many students might be in a similar situation and that she would have to consider the bill carefully. (Rep. Kott arrived at approximately 3:26 p.m.) Number 111 CLAUDIA WALTON, A MOTHER WITH CHILDREN IN THE CCS PROGRAM, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of HB 250. She said she had testified on other bills dealing with CCS and she believed the program deserved to have funding for CCS secondary students based on the regular secondary student formula. She said HB 250 was a good bill. She said she was proud of CCS, as it allowed students the option to work at their own paces and to have more jurisdiction about their own educations. It also gets parents more involved in a role as volunteer teachers, she said, and accomplishes many of the goals of the Alaska 2000 effort. She said many parents have expressed a desire for more options in CCS programs, including full-time and part- time instruction, as it is a cost-effective program. She noted the trend toward educational options, and said she had heard Alaska Pacific University was offering summer high school courses. She asked the Legislature to make the CCS program more accessible, as it saved the state money. Number 198 CHAIR BUNDE asked a clarifying question as to whether Ms. Walton lived in Anchorage, but still enrolled her children in CCS. MS. WALTON answered yes. CHAIR BUNDE noted that the state was providing duplicate educational services to her children, both the CCS and the available local school district, and that CCS therefore did not save state money. He noted, however, that he did not mean to say CCS was not a good investment for the state. Number 210 REP. TOOHEY asked if the state were to provide secondary school funding for CCS secondary students, and then face a need to cut the CCS budget, whether Ms. Walton thought funding would be cut to cities like Anchorage. MS. WALTON said it was possible. She noted that about half of the approximately 1,000 CCS students were in the Anchorage-Eagle River area and she would hate to see the program cut. Another 100 CCS students each lived in Juneau, Fairbanks and Kenai, all in areas with local school districts, which she said showed that many people were opting out of their local school districts. Number 230 JUSTIN WALTON, A CCS STUDENT, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of HB 250, saying CCS, while not generously funded, provides courses not available in regular schools, such as Russian and Japanese foreign languages. He said the bill would provide funds for extra courses, teachers and support materials. He said he would like to see CCS get more money so he could take German, pilot ground school and guitar classes, which are not currently offered. He also said more funds would allow for more teacher visits to homes. Number 251 CHAIR BUNDE noted that having several different language programs in one city duplicated costs. He asked if CCS students could take classes part-time in local school districts. MR. WALTON answered no, that a student must be enrolled full time in a local district in order to take electives such as German. He said he could, however, take part-time college courses. Number 262 REP. TOOHEY noted that CCS programs started 40 years ago or more to provide education to Bush children with no access to local schools. She said the program had, for good or ill, strayed from its original intent. She encouraged Mr. Walton to seek a student loan for a summer German course at the University of Alaska-Anchorage. Number 274 REP. G. DAVIS asked if it would not be nice, and simple, to amend HB 250 to allow CCS students to attend regular schools for vocational education or other courses. MR. WALTON agreed. He said the local school board would not allow that to happen. REP. G. DAVIS said that there might be simple solutions. Number 291 MR. WALTON said there were many people that would benefit from such legislation, and he offered to work with the committee members. CHAIR BUNDE invited Mr. Walton to give his address. MR. WALTON gave his address as P.O. Box 221166, Anchorage, Alaska 99522-1166. Number 314 REP. TOOHEY asked if anyone was present from the CCS program. CHAIR BUNDE, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 250, said it might be better to present the bill before having department representatives speak to it. He noted that HB 250 was introduced at the request of CCS, and dealt with funding of the program. He said CCS was originally set up to provide educational services to Bush residents. Originally, students went to school by mail until eighth grade, then families moved closer to regular schools. He said the state did not fund CCS secondary students at the secondary level, but he acknowledged that secondary students cost more to educate. He said he did not like the idea of having teachers visit CCS students at home, but said the bill might fund somewhat closer teacher contact. Number 344 REP. OLBERG asked whether the committee had not earlier considered a bill requiring local school districts to provide home schooling for exceptional children. CHAIR BUNDE said that was correct, but HB 250 did not deal with exceptional students, but with normal students. REP. OLBERG asked whether students taking CCS classes received no services from local school districts. CHAIR BUNDE answered no; though, as Rep. G. Davis had said, it would be nice if local school districts could serve CCS students. Number 369 DARBY ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF CCS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE), testified in Juneau in support of HB 250. She said the DOE supported the bill as a way to fund secondary education equitably. She said the program employs 24 certified teachers. She said the state funding plan for CCS assumes that all of the students are elementary students, and provides 65 percent of the educational unit funding for the 1,100 students in the program. She said that since 1979 enrollment has increased by 70 percent, and that with 1,100 students, the program would rank as the 15th largest district among the state's 54 districts. She said 790 students are from areas represented on the HESS Committee; 51 percent from Anchorage, Mat-Su and Fairbanks, with half of the students at the secondary level. She said the CCS spent $2,600 per student in FY93, making it a highly cost-effective program. She said maintaining a quality secondary program would take more money to pay for lab equipment, textbooks, warehouse storage, counseling, academic student activities, printing and material development, telephone costs, and other expenses. She said families selecting the CCS as a secondary school deserved equity. The bill would make three basic changes: 1) It would formally acknowledge CCS as a school and rename the program the "Centralized Correspondence School." 2) It would allow the school to carry over funding from year to year. 3) It would allow the state to count secondary students under the secondary formula. The bill carried a fiscal note showing the need for an additional $351,400 per year for the CCS program and would assume a 10 percent increase in enrollment each year. She said the funding change was essential for maintaining the existing secondary program, and to provide options to help more students graduate. Number 418 CHAIR BUNDE asked clarifying questions about the growth in CCS enrollment. MS. ANDERSON answered that the student population grew by 17 percent in FY93, but she could not break out the percent change for elementary and secondary. She also addressed questions raised during the teleconferenced testimony. She said local school districts could contract with CCS to provide extra or advanced courses to students, and that 24 schools, plus the Mt. Edgecumbe boarding high school in Sitka, had such contracts. She said she preferred that students attend their local school districts, but the CCS program tried to provide a good education if the students selected CCS. Number 432 CHAIR BUNDE asked if local school districts allowed reciprocal arrangements, allowing CCS to contract with local districts to allow CCS students to take courses. MS. ANDERSON answered no, because CCS has not worked hard for that arrangement. She said that funding for the program was tight, and CCS did not have as much flexibility as school districts, though she would like to find some way to make it possible. Number 441 CHAIR BUNDE said that while he supported the idea of CCS, he did not like the idea of funding duplicate services, especially when more students seemed to be opting out of local school districts. MS. ANDERSON said a CCS program study a year previous had showed that its students often included transients and dropouts, and that it was rare for a student to go from kindergarten to 12th grade in the CCS program. CHAIR BUNDE asked if the CCS administrators had demographic information on the students they served. Number 456 MS. ANDERSON answered yes, but as they had only recently begun computerizing their records, it might take a few more years to get good demographic information. REP. TOOHEY asked for a simple list of where the CCS students lived. MS. ANDERSON said that that information, current as of March, was included in the DOE position paper on HB 250. Number 473 CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Anderson about CCS graduation rates. MS. ANDERSON answered that 34 students graduated in 1992, and all but three of the students who left CCS in 1992 either moved to private schools or returned to public schools. She said she would provide more complete graduation information later. Number 484 REP. G. DAVIS asked if the CCS had a central office. MS. ANDERSON said that the entire program was based in Juneau, where 24 certified full-time teachers worked and where the program stored its supplies. Number 490 REP. TOOHEY asked about enrollment. She asked how the CCS program's $2,600 cost per pupil compared to that of other school districts. MS. ANDERSON answered that the statewide average expense per student was approximately $7,000. Number 500 REP. TOOHEY expressed fear that, because CCS was evolving into an optional program, it might find its budget severely cut. MS. ANDERSON answered that that would be a legislative decision, but as long as Alaska was progressive and offering the option of home schooling, it was necessary to look at what would benefit such students. Number 514 REP. TOOHEY noted that the program had its roots in the University of Nebraska's correspondence schooling program, considered the best in the country. She asked how much the University of Alaska would charge for such a home schooling program if the state did not fund it. MS. ANDERSON said that it would be difficult to answer, as the University of Nebraska had switched to a computer- assisted program, making teaching costs about $90 per course, plus the material costs. She said there were other university home-school programs. She said the question was whether Alaska felt CCS was a relevant public school option. She said she found CCS helped students stay in school and graduate. Number 530 CHAIR BUNDE observed that the program was providing a remedial educational service. He asked Ms. Anderson to address the fiscal note and what the extra money would be spent on. MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS program had earlier addressed secondary students by using materials and courses from out-of-state programs, such as the University of Nebraska program. Over the years, however, Alaska has developed Alaska-based curricula and hired teachers, which has resulted in higher completion rates. The CCS counselors provide the same type of career and curriculum counseling offered at local schools, she said. With the increase in secondary students and the resulting demand for secondary school courses, the CCS program would face a shortfall of approximately $300,000 in running the existing program, she said. CHAIR BUNDE asked a clarifying question on what the additional funds would be applied toward. MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS would not hire more teachers and counselors. CHAIR BUNDE asked whether it had been less expensive to provide the CCS program through the University of Nebraska. MS. ANDERSON indicated yes, but a reporter had once said that while the program had begun as a way to provide schooling to those who needed access to any education at all, it had evolved into a program presenting a variety of means of access to education. REP. OLBERG asked whether the CCS program spent $2,600 per student. MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS program calculated that it spent $2,600 per student, both elementary and secondary, based on the current formula. REP. OLBERG asked how much would be spent on each type of student under the changed funding program. Number 575 ALEXANDER DOLITSKY, A CCS TEACHER, answered that the program would receive 35 percent more money for a secondary student, or about $3,000 per student. REP. OLBERG asked again how much would be spent on each type of student under the changed funding program. MS. ANDERSON clarified that the only change in funding would be that the secondary students would be counted as secondary students, but the CCS program only receives 65 percent of the amount allocated per student under the foundation formula program. Number 566 REP. OLBERG asked whether 24 teachers showed up for work in a building in Juneau each day. MS. ANDERSON answered yes. She said the home teacher was the primary teacher working with the certified teachers of the CCS program. She said the 24 teachers' work includes responding to telephone calls, listening to reading cassettes from elementary students to check up on reading skills, and other such activities. REP. OLBERG asked if the teachers traveled. MS. ANDERSON answered that the teachers did not routinely travel, but they did travel to administer testing and to train home teachers. TAPE 93-66, SIDE B Number 000 CHAIR BUNDE asked how often CCS teachers traveled to train home teachers and testing. MS. ANDERSON answered that teachers performed testing once per year, and that the testing took place in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. She said training was done in Anchorage and Juneau. She added that state law required that students in the program that are tested must go to a local site where teachers can administer the tests in person. CHAIR BUNDE asked whether a student from Selawik would travel to Anchorage to be tested. MS. ANDERSON answered no, a student from Selawik would not be included in the fourth, sixth and eighth grade testing sample because the state would only accept students who are tested on-site. She said the tests were the Iowa Basic Test of Basic Skills. CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was necessary for someone from Juneau to go to Anchorage to administer the tests, and whether there were not qualified people in Anchorage and other cities. MS. ANDERSON answered that there were qualified people all over the state, and that the DOE was considering alternatives such as having such tests performed by such local people. She said, however, that a parent outreach committee had advised the program administrators that the testing was one opportunity for students to meet with their teachers, and that the testing visit offered an opportunity for individual conferences with their teacher. CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that travel was a large target for budget reductions and the state was trying to get more work done by teleconference. MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS tries to use electronic mail as much as possible, that parent outreach conferences are done by teleconference, except for one on-site meeting in Juneau for which the CCS tries to secure federal funds. CHAIR BUNDE commented that parents could visit their neighborhood teacher as well. Number 042 REP. OLBERG noted that students in Anchorage had the option of visiting with their teachers every day if so desired. CHAIR BUNDE stated, "If it seems like we're obstreperous, it's only because we are. I've found sitting on this side of the table it's more difficult to make decisions about state dollars than when I sat on that side of the table." Number 051 REP. VEZEY asked how many other state-approved correspondence study programs existed in Alaska other than the CCS program. MS. ANDERSON answered that 22 of 54 school districts offered local correspondence study programs, which were funded 100 percent. She said those 22 districts buy $100,000 worth of instructional material each year from the CCS. REP. VEZEY asked if there were other correspondence study programs. MS. ANDERSON said that any local district has the option of using any other correspondence material, available either by satellite, or from the University of Nebraska or North Dakota, or other sources. Number 066 REP. VEZEY asked again if there were other correspondence study programs. MS. ANDERSON said that home schooling was a third option. REP. VEZEY observed that there were at least three correspondence study programs in the state. Number 073 REP. VEZEY asked how much it would cost the state to make the funding changes outlined in HB 250. MS. ANDERSON answered that the changes would cost $351,000. REP. VEZEY asked whether the CCS program currently funding level for secondary students was about $1.5 million per year. MS. ANDERSON answered that that was the approximate figure. REP. VEZEY observed that the difference was about 20 percent. MS. ANDERSON said the CCS total budget was about $3.2 million per year, with half of that for elementary students. REP. VEZEY said that it was interesting that local school districts received full funding for both elementary and secondary students for their correspondence schooling programs, but the state CCS can only get 65 percent of the formula funds for the students it served. MS. ANDERSON answered that local school districts receive full funding for correspondence programs because teachers visit correspondence students' homes more frequently than do the CCS teachers. She said local school districts were looking for new ways to serve students in special circumstances. Number 105 REP. VEZEY said he asked his questions because he was confused about unhoused students. He said he believed that the state statutes allowed local school districts to include their correspondence students in their Average Daily Membership (ADM) tallies and, therefore, to collect full funding for those students under the foundation formula program. MS. ANDERSON said it varied by district, but some districts might have students in their school buildings for part of the year. Number 119 REP. VEZEY asked what the practical effects would be on the CCS program if it were renamed as a school, as HB 250 provided, and whether the extra money would be eaten up in overhead. MS. ANDERSON said changing the name from study to school would help clarify the program's purpose and nature, which would be helpful as the program applied for federal grants. She said the money would continue services and would not be eaten up in overhead. REP. VEZEY asked about the CCS program's status within the Department of Education. MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS was a division of the Department of Education and was one of three state schools, the other's being the Mt. Edgecumbe boarding high school in Sitka and the VoTech Center in Seward. Number 138 REP. VEZEY asked why 65 percent of the elementary funding level was better than 65 percent of the secondary funding level. MS. ANDERSON said that 65 percent of the elementary funding level was acceptable several years ago, but as more secondary students began to participate in the in-state program, it became necessary to spend more on secondary students to provide them the same opportunity for a good education. REP. VEZEY commented that it was interesting that the CCS program educated elementary students for 65 percent and secondary students for about 53 percent of the cost of educations in a normal schools. CHAIR BUNDE noted that the bill was aimed at raising the secondary students to the 65 percent funding level. He clarified that the bill would set funding for secondary students alone at 65 percent of the normal funding level for secondary students and set funding for elementary students alone at 65 percent of the normal funding level for elementary students. He noted that public schools received more money for secondary students than for elementary students. He further observed that the CCS spent less on education because they had no physical plants. REP. VEZEY said the foundation formula did not fund schools' capital needs, which were addressed through a separate funding mechanism. Number 175 CHAIR BUNDE asked about the pupil-teacher ratios in the CCS. MS. ANDERSON answered that the ratio of students to teachers was about 50-1 for elementary grades, and up to 300-1 for physical education, which had the highest ratio. Number 180 REP. TOOHEY asked Ms. Anderson to amplify on her comments on the high pupil-teacher ratios for physical education (PE). MS. ANDERSON answered that the CCS program provided a PE course out of a believe that PE is an important part of being an accredited school. She said the PE class was taught in conjunction with the home teacher, considering a student's home and physical education opportunities. She said there are some video courses, on jumping rope and other activities. She added that about 150 of the program's students were pregnant and the PE courses take that into account. She said that Alaska's students rank low in the nation on scales of physical fitness. (Rep. Nicholia departed at 4:13 p.m.) Number 205 REP. OLBERG announced that he had calculated the average pupil teacher ratio as 42-1. Number 208 REP. KOTT asked what the financial benefit to CCS might be of being treated as a school district in terms of financing. MS. ANDERSON said she did not believe there would be any significant financial benefit because the program's funding was based on the foundation formula program. She said the financial record-keeping, reporting and operations would become more like those of a regular school district. She said the CCS would not be another single-site school district. REP. KOTT asked if the CCS program would be allowed to retain 10 percent of unreserved funds from its left-over operating funds at the end of the year, as do most school districts. MS. ANDERSON answered yes; the bill would have that effect, although it had never before had such holdover funds. REP. KOTT asked if CCS would be in the position to create reserve accounts as are held by other districts. MS. ANDERSON said such reserves had been allowable, but she did not foresee that CCS would take advantage of that option. She noted that the Mt. Edgecumbe school had the option for reserve accounts, but had not done so. Number 236 REP. KOTT referred to teacher salaries and that the CCS contract was up for renegotiation in June 1993 and asked the average pay for the 24 CCS teachers. MS. ANDERSON answered that the average pay for the teachers was about $42,000 per year, about $10,000 per year less than other teachers. She said the contract negotiations were almost completed. Number 260 CHAIR BUNDE thanked Ms. Anderson for her time and invited other witnesses to the table. Number 263 ALEXANDER DOLITSKY, A SOCIAL STUDIES AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGE TEACHER WITH THE CCS, testified in Juneau in support of HB 250. He said the CCS program was an effective, credible program. He said he was a correspondence student at the Kiev Pedagogical Institute in Russia and he was accepted at five Ivy League universities when he arrived in the United States. He said CCS was not necessarily an alternative or supplement to normal schooling, but a valid educational system that could be appropriate to some students and parents. He said he has traveled to Anchorage at his own expense and met with some of his 200 students, and welcomed the opportunity to meet in person with them. He said the 24 CCS teachers do a good job. Number 306 CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Dolitsky to describe a typical working day. MR. DOLITSKY said he worked from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., as any state worker. He said he graded papers and lessons, answered phone calls, and had daily audio conference with his Russian language students. He said he attended two or three meetings a week. He said he and his colleagues worked and communicated together with ease when necessary. He said different students and lessons took varying amounts of time and attention. He said he achieved good success with his students. (Rep. Brice returned at 4:20 p.m.) CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Dolitsky about his success rate in teaching Russian language. MR. DOLITSKY responded that all of his students completed their Russian courses, while the completion rates in other classes averaged about 78 percent. Number 331 REP. TOOHEY asked why the fiscal note for HB 250 projected the cost of the bill to be $351,000 in the first year, but $566,000 in the sixth year. MS. ANDERSON said the DOE assumes a 10 percent annual increase in enrollment. While the program historically had not experienced such growth, in the last five years the department had seen a steady increase and believed the projected 10 percent annual growth was a conservative estimate. CHAIR BUNDE noted that the growth in secondary-age students was over 8 percent in 1992. Number 350 JACK PHELPS, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REP. PETE KOTT, testified in Juneau on correspondence schooling. He said he had been involved in the home schooling community in Alaska for almost 10 years, and offered some comments on the CCS program. He said CCS is an important part of the state educational program and is one way of fulfilling the state constitutional mandate to provide a quality education to every child in the state. He said different students require different programs and it would be inappropriate to eliminate CCS as a redundant program. He offered clarification of some issues. He said that of the three correspondence school options in Alaska, only the local school district-provided correspondence program would allow its students to be counted in the ADM for foundation formula funding purposes. He said it was a legitimate question as to whether the legislature should fund local district correspondence programs at 100 percent, while funding the state CCS at only 65 percent. He suggested investigation into the relative costs of normal local district educations and local district correspondence programs. He warned that reducing or eliminating correspondence programs would exacerbate the problems with unhoused students. He also said that a cost-benefit analysis would reveal the advantages to the state of correspondence programs. Number 398 REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Phelps if his children had used the CCS program. MR. Phelps answered no, that his children had used private correspondence programs. Number 407 REP. TOOHEY noted that her son had graduated through CCS and attended the University of Washington, largely through his own motivation. She asked Mr. Phelps why he had used a private correspondence school, instead of publicly funded alternatives. MR. PHELPS said that he chose the private program for the type of education and its flexibility, and that he paid for his childrens' home schooling himself. CHAIR BUNDE noted that it was unlikely that the committee would get to HB 85, and that Duane Guiley of the DOE could depart or remain if he wished. MR. PHELPS said he had a hard time understanding the benefit of treating the CCS program as a school district, as called for in HB 250. He also questioned whether that change was solely for status' sake, if, as Ms. Anderson testified, there would be no financial impact of such a change. He said there was a potential for escalating costs. He also said he had found a technical error in the bill on page 2, Section 5, line 23. He said the language in HB 250 changed the way local district correspondence programs were dealt with in the state compulsory attendance statute by calling them a school. Number 453 REP. VEZEY asked a question on the calculation of ADM. He said Title 14, chapter 17, paragraph 41, of Alaska statutes could be interpreted to mean that students who were in district correspondence programs and other students not regularly attending would be counted in the ADM of the largest funding community in that district. MR. PHELPS said paragraph (D) of the statute which Rep. Vezey had cited specified district correspondence students, and said that the paragraph did not apply to CCS students, who are treated as being enrolled in a state, not program, district. He said he believed the law was applied fairly consistently. Number 471 REP. VEZEY said he did not know, but he could read the statute, and that sometimes the numbers on unhoused students did not add up. MR. PHELPS said it was important to differentiate between students enrolled in CCS and in district correspondence programs. REP. VEZEY said that his reading of the statute in question might also mean that students enrolled in private correspondence schooling programs might be counted in a local school district's ADM. Number 479 CHAIR BUNDE said that he read the statute to mean that CCS students were regularly attending school and by definition, therefore, were excluded from ADM calculation. He invited a DOE staffer to clarify the issue for the committee. Number 488 DUANE GUILEY, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EDUCATION FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, testified in Juneau concerning HB 250. He said that students enrolled in private school or in private correspondence could be included in a local school district's ADM calculation if they are enrolled in a class at that district. He said there were many students enrolled in a few local district classes, but it was up to local district policy as to whether such students would be included in the ADM calculation. He said the state could not deny any child free access to public education. He said AS 14.17.022, providing for CCS funding, prohibits double counting if a student is also enrolled in a local district correspondence program. Number 508 CHAIR BUNDE ended the teleconference portion of the meeting. REP. TOOHEY asked a clarifying question on what Mr. Guiley had said, asking if there could be "double-dipping." MR. GUILEY answered that students enrolled in private school or home school programs received no state funding, but if such students were also concurrently enrolled in a local district, it was possible that the student could be included in that district's ADM calculation. REP. TOOHEY asked a hypothetical question. If a family in Talkeetna was home-schooling their child through the CCS process, but then enrolled the child in a local school for a few elective classes, would that child be counted in the local school district's ADM? MR. GUILEY answered that that was possible. He said that, under statutes, a child could not be concurrently enrolled in both a local district correspondence program and the CCS program. He said the law did not address whether a child could also be enrolled in a regular local district school. CHAIR BUNDE said it was not relevant to ask whether a student could be concurrently enrolled in a local school and the CCS. He said he would encourage local districts to ferret out double-dippers. Seeing no one who wished to testify further, he CLOSED public testimony on HB 250 and asked the will of the committee. TAPE 93-67, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIR BUNDE MOVED to pass HB 250 from the HESS Committee on to the House Finance Committee. Number 010 REP. VEZEY said the lack of response to the motion by the chair indicated that the other committee members shared his feeling that he had been presented with a lot of new information on the bill, and that it would be inappropriate to vote on the bill at that time. He said he liked many aspects of the bill, but was uncomfortable with others. Number 030 REP. TOOHEY said she did not want to jeopardize CCS, which she believed was a good program. She said there were questions that required answers. CHAIR BUNDE said the comments of the other two committee members had solidified his questions, and he withdrew his motion. He announced that HB 250, along with HB 85, would come before the HESS Committee again at 3 p.m on Tuesday, April 15. REP. TOOHEY asked if it would be possible for the committee to get together and discuss HB 250 before then. CHAIR BUNDE said that it would be more appropriate to discuss the matter in a committee meeting. He then ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|