Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/11/1994 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
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Tom Brice (excused)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Rep. Mark Hanley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 84: "An Act implementing certain recommendations of
Alaska 2000 to improve the state's education
system; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 409: "An Act relating to the maximum amount of
assistance that may be granted under the adult
public assistance program and the program for aid
to families with dependent children; proposing a
special demonstration project within the program
of aid to families with dependent children and
directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to seek waivers from the federal
government to implement the project; and providing
for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
TERRY CRAMER, Attorney
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward St., Ste. 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Phone: (907) 465-2450
Position Statement: Answered legal questions on CSHB 84
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association/Alaska
114 Second St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-3090
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to CSHB 84
SHEILA PETERSON
Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey
Department of Education
801 10th St., Ste. 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-2803
Position Statement: Answered questions on CSHB 84
JAN HANSEN, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Phone: (907) 465-3347
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 409
PUDGE KLEINKAUF
4201 MacInnes
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Phone: (907) 561-7113
Position Statement: Testified on HB 409
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 84
SHORT TITLE: IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 135 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 135 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/22/93 135 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93
01/22/93 136 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/18/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/26/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/26/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/31/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/31/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/04/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/11/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 409
SHORT TITLE: AFDC DEMO PROJECT AND DECREASE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY,Therriault
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/28/94 2176 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/28/94 2177 (H) HES, FINANCE
02/11/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-16, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m., noted
members present and announced the calendar. He brought CSHB
84 to the table.
HB 84 - IMPLEMENT AK 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAIR BUNDE stated that Terry Cramer, from the Division of
Legal Services, was available for questions and referred to
the committee substitute (CS) version 8-GH1033/X (version X)
of CSHB 84 and indicated that it would be the working draft.
REP. G. DAVIS explained that the CS was the result of his
proposed amendments from the committee's last meeting and a
subsequent meeting with Chair Bunde. He said his initial
concern was the initiation of a tenure review committee that
would include teachers and administrators. He said the CS
proposed a committee of no less than three and no more than
five members.
(Due to operator error, approximately 15 minutes of
testimony was erased. For continuity, the tape numbers will
not indicate the erasure. There is a prolonged pause on the
tape indicating the lost testimony. Transcription for the
lost testimony has been recreated with notes from the
meeting. There will be no tape numbers used for this
particular time.)
REP. G. DAVIS indicated that in Section 7, line 21, a
teacher may apply for tenure when the teacher has been
offered a fourth consecutive full-year contract with the
same school district. He also said that the section
allowing for public comment was removed and that a parent
could always personally address an administrator.
(Rep. Nicholia and Rep. Kott arrived at 3:13 p.m.)
REP. VEZEY asked Ms. Terry Cramer to explain the catalog
revision system for subparagraphs.
Number 100
TERRY CRAMER, Attorney, Division of Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that the old system
used sequential letters and the new system uses a selection
of random letters to protect confidentiality of the
amenders.
REP. VEZEY suggested the use of a computer random numbering
system.
CHAIR BUNDE opened the meeting to public testimony on
CSHB 84.
Number 120
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education
Association/Alaska (NEA/AK), testified in opposition to CSHB
84. He stated that, although he has concerns pertaining to
peer review within the legislation, the NEA/AK could support
the tenure amendment. He said the CS would strengthen the
evaluation of probationary teachers by providing for the
creation of a nontenured teacher evaluation program. He
said the system would be "bargained" since the process would
be the only meaningful way teachers can impact decision
making.
MR. MARSHALL suggested that there be individual improvement
plans for probationary teachers, requiring two formal
observations and two evaluation sessions. He said that
under the evaluation process there would be a preobservation
and evaluation conference, a visit by the evaluator to the
teacher's instruction site, and a post observation
conference to discuss the instructional content observed.
Resulting from the evaluation, an individual improvement
plan would be developed by the administrator and the
teacher.
MR. MARSHALL stated that he was opposed to peer evaluation.
He felt that good teachers would be taken out of the
classroom much too often to attend to the demands of a
tenure review committee. He said that the teacher who is
out of the classroom longer than six weeks is no longer a
peer because of the different sociological pressures of an
observer role.
MR. MARSHALL also felt that there were inherent procedural
problems with the CS. He said there would be problems if a
nontenured teacher applies for tenure in the month of May,
explaining that the school year ends at that time and he
questioned how the review committee would handle such
applications. He also stressed the concern that the
superintendent does no more than forward the recommendations
and materials to the school board and the local tenure
review committee. He also asked if a meeting was held by
the tenure review committee upon receipt of the materials to
consider the tenure application.
Number 150
MR. MARSHALL said, as he understood the proposal, the
recommendations of the review committee would then go to the
school board. The school board would either accept or
reject the recommendations. He inquired as to the length of
time of the entire process. He also questioned why a
teacher, under the proposed legislation, would not be
allowed an opportunity to appear before the tenure review
committee when his/her application and materials were being
discussed. He asked if the reasons for denial of tenure
were subject to any standards of burden on the review
committee or school board to show reasonable cause. He
asked if a nontenured teacher could be excluded from the
confidential deliberations of the review committee. He felt
there were no clear rights of appeal for the teachers who
are denied tenure through the proposed legislation.
(See Attachment 1 for a hand-out from Vernon Marshall of
Alaska Administrative Code pertaining to the purpose, scope,
method, and use of evaluation for professionals.)
Number 167
MR. MARSHALL stated again that the goal was to improve the
nontenured teaching staff. He said that he would support
in-service. He further stated that if there was an
evaluation plan for probationary teachers, he would support
extending the tenure period an additional year. He felt if
after the third year the teacher still had not achieved the
specified standards, then they should seek employment
elsewhere.
Number 338
CHAIR BUNDE said that tenure is not granted until the first
teaching day of the beginning of a teacher's third contract.
He stated that applications should be submitted by teachers
before the end of the school year and that the school board
would have the summer to determine the result of the review
committee.
Number 366
MR. MARSHALL said there may be individuals who apply for
tenure before the end of the school year that are not going
to be granted tenure but would not know that until the
beginning of the next school year.
Number 391
CHAIR BUNDE said that as tenure is structured now, teachers
do not officially receive tenure until the first teaching
day of the third year.
Number 407
REP. G. DAVIS stated the CS was a compilation of most all
concerns of those who have followed and participated in the
process, including NEA/AK. He felt that most of Mr.
Vernon's concerns could be addressed.
Number 459
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Cramer if it is possible to make a
"quick fix" change to page 6, line 12, indicating that the
person who served as reviewer for a teacher who received two
consecutive years of unsatisfactory evaluations may not be a
member of the tenure review committee for the same teacher's
reapplication.
Number 491
MS. CRAMER said that it could be fixed and indicated that
she would change page 6, line 20.
Number 524
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the change was clear to the committee.
Number 526
REP. VEZEY said that "there was nothing in the statute that
prohibits the local tenure review committee from being
different from the committee that does the review." He felt
that the legislation was very permissive.
Number 537
CHAIR BUNDE agreed and indicated that a diligent effort was
made to make the statute permissive. He said the reviewer
is not defined. He said that what was being addressed was
not having the same reviewer on the review committee that
had already reviewed a deficient teacher.
Number 556
REP. G. DAVIS said it would be best to be specific by adding
the additional language.
Number 572
MS. CRAMER asked if there would be a problem if a person who
had found a teacher's performance satisfactory serving in
review of that same teacher again.
Number 575
CHAIR BUNDE said that would not apply.
REP. VEZEY asserted that many of the suggestions Mr.
Marshall proposed are not prohibited by the statute. He
felt the proposal should remain as is.
Number 613
REP. OLBERG asked if the changes taking place would be
offered as an amendment.
Number 617
CHAIR BUNDE said yes.
Number 616
REP. OLBERG stated that he would like to be the first person
to object.
Number 624
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Olberg to speak to the objection.
Number 636
MS. CRAMER, after some discussion, explained the new
language by saying that on page 6, line 18, a sentence would
be inserted after the period that would read: "A person who
served as reviewer of the performance of a tenured teacher
and who found the teacher's performance unsatisfactory, may
not serve on the local tenure review committee that reviews
that teacher's performance."
Number 649
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the language was clear to the
committee.
Number 651
REP. TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 84 (version X) as a
working draft.
Number 657
CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections. Hearing no objections,
CSHB 84 was adopted as a working draft.
Number 661
REP. TOOHEY made a motion to adopt the amendment.
Number 662
CHAIR BUNDE noted Rep. Olberg's objection that was made
earlier and asked for further discussion.
Number 666
REP. OLBERG stated that "this is micro-management at its
worst... assuming that tenure review committees are a good
idea and I don't think they are. We harp about local
control and municipalities having options and then we tell
people how to run their school districts. I think it's
inappropriate and I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the entire
process."
Number 681
CHAIR BUNDE called for the vote.
Rep. Cynthia Toohey Yea
Rep. Con Bunde Yea
Rep. Gary Davis Yea
Rep. Al Vezey Yea
Rep. Pete Kott Nay
Rep. Harley Olberg Nay
Rep. Bettye Davis Yea
Rep. Irene Nicholia Yea
Rep. Tom Brice Excused
Number 706
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the amendment for CSHB 84 was
adopted.
Number 712
REP. B. DAVIS asked what Chair Bunde's intent for the bill
was. She further stated that she did not want it to pass
out of committee because she felt there was opportunity for
more work to be done on the bill.
Number 725
CHAIR BUNDE stated that it was his intention to move the
bill out of committee and asked if Rep. B. Davis would be
able to craft an amendment at that time.
Number 728
REP. B. DAVIS passed out copies of her amendment and said
that her version would eliminate tenure review committees.
She said that she has done research to obtain information
from other school districts in the country that have tenure
review committees as proposed in CSHB 84 and found none.
She felt more time was needed to consider the proposal and
for the school districts to have an opportunity to respond
to the proposed legislation. She said that in conversations
she has had with local school districts they indicated their
disapproval of the tenure process, citing that it was
cumbersome. Rep. B. Davis felt that teachers who were
having problems should be allowed to teach into the third
year and have evaluations again that year.
TAPE 94-16, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. B. DAVIS she felt that the school board should
determine if the teacher should be tenured. She ask for
comments on her proposed amendment and reiterated her desire
that CSHB 84 not move out of committee.
Number 024
CHAIR BUNDE said, "I see a major... two major premise
changes. Of course, one eliminating the peer review part
and that's an area where we as reasonable people will
disagree." There was also a proposed change in the two year
tenure process. He felt that the outcome of the proposed
amendment would be very similar to the tenure system as it
stands currently and from the information he has received
from parents, PTA and school boards, that system is not
working. He reminded the committee that HB 84 was addressed
last session, a HESS Committee meeting was held on it in
September, and also the past two weeks have been spent
reviewing it.
Number 083
REP. VEZEY made a motion to pass CSHB 84 as amended.
Number 087
REP. B. DAVIS stated her objection.
Number 091
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. B. Davis to move her amendment.
Number 093
REP. B. DAVIS stated that she would make a motion and that
the committee could take whatever action they deemed
necessary. She further stated that when the vote for moving
CSHB 84 out of committee comes up, she would object.
Number 107
CHAIR BUNDE stated that Rep. B. Davis has moved to adopt
Amendment 1 to CSHB 84 (version X) as amended.
Number 127
REP. OLBERG objected.
Number 131
CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call to adopt the proposed
amendment to CSHB 84 as amended.
Rep. Pete Kott Nay
Rep. Harley Olberg Nay
Rep. Bettye Davis Yea
Rep. Irene Nicholia Yea
Rep. Tom Brice Excused
Rep. Cynthia Toohey Nay
Rep. Con Bunde Nay
Rep. Gary Davis Nay
Rep. Al Vezey Nay
CHAIR BUNDE, with two yea votes and six nay votes, stated
that the amendment failed.
Number 171
REP. VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 84 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 178
REP. B. DAVIS objected. She felt that not only had there
been a subcommittee meeting on the bill that many people
were not made aware of, but also the information made
available to her in days prior indicated that the meeting
was going to facilitate further discussion on CSHB 84, not
to pass it out of committee. She said, "I believe that my
rights have been violated." She stated that she is a
reasonable person and tries to work with everyone. She then
said, "for you (Chair Bunde) to make the comment that
reasonable people want to have a review committee, as if I
am unreasonable, is unconscionable. And, I reject it, and I
resent it."
Number 222
CHAIR BUNDE stated that it was not his intention to indicate
that Rep. Bettye Davis was unreasonable and stated for the
record that Rep. Bettye Davis has been a "helpful and
reasonable member of this committee." He also asserted that
he felt he had not rushed the legislation through the
committee and that the CS as amended would better suit his
intentions.
Number 267
REP. B. DAVIS contended that she has had nothing on file
from her public opinion messages or any telephone calls that
indicated support for the concepts outlined in CSHB 84. She
said that it would be helpful to her if Chair Bunde could
provide her with any information that would indicate
differently. She felt that the CS was not the majority
desire of the people.
Number 304
CHAIR BUNDE said that he would be happy to discuss the issue
personally at a later time.
Number 309
REP. OLBERG said that he heard Chair Bunde state "that there
was room for reasonable people to disagree, meaning you
(Rep. B. Davis and Chair Bunde) as two reasonable people are
disagreeing."
Number 325
REP. NICHOLIA asked if there was a new fiscal note for
CSHB 84.
Number 328
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the fiscal note would be $4000 and
would need to be adopted with the CS.
Number 344
REP. B. DAVIS asked what the $4000 was for.
Number 334
CHAIR BUNDE referred to Sheila Peterson for that answer.
Number 340
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey,
Department of Education (DOE), responded by saying that the
$4000 would promulgate regulations to implement the
legislation. It would introduce regulations for the tenure
reform, as well as the fund for school improvement
allocating $2000 for each.
Number 359
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further discussion. Being none, Chair
Bunde indicated the previous motion made by Rep. Vezey to
move CSHB 84 out of committee with individual
recommendations, and there was a subsequent objection. He
asked for a roll call.
Number 373
REP. NICHOLIA asked if the committee would receive a copy of
the fiscal note before CSHB 84 is moved out of committee, or
if the legislation would be moved without the new fiscal
note attached.
Number 377
CHAIR BUNDE stated that CSHB 84 would be moved without a
copy of the fiscal note and that it would be attached before
it moves to the next committee of referral. He asked again
for roll to be taken.
Rep. Con Bunde Yea
Rep. Gary Davis Yea
Rep. Al Vezey Yea
Rep. Pete Kott Nay
Rep. Harley Olberg Yea
Rep. Bettye Davis Nay
Rep. Irene Nicholia Nay
Rep. Tom Brice Excused
Rep. Cynthia Toohey Yea
CHAIR BUNDE, with five yea votes and three nay votes, stated
that CSHB 84 as amended was so moved.
Number 413
CHAIR BUNDE brought HB 409 to the table.
HB 409 - AFDC DEMO PROJECT AND DECREASE
CHAIR BUNDE turned the gavel over to Rep. Toohey to chair
the remainder of the meeting.
Number 421
CHAIR TOOHEY stated that Rep. Mark Hanley would be
testifying as prime sponsor of HB 409, and that sites in
Fairbanks and Anchorage would be participating by
teleconference and indicated there were no witnesses in
Juneau.
Number 447
REP. MARK HANLEY, Prime Sponsor of HB 409, stated that he
introduced the bill and was willing to look to all
suggestions pertaining to areas of demonstration and
implementation. He said the intent of the proposal was to
"look at ways to reform our welfare system." He felt the
best way to reduce welfare costs was to reduce the amount of
people receiving assistance as opposed to reducing payments
made to recipients. He stressed the need for a systematic
change that would decrease the number of recipients.
REP. HANLEY explained that a program would be created to
allow people to work or perform community service to
continue to receive benefits. He felt that people who are
working are more likely to obtain a full time job. He cited
benefits for the recipient as being an increase in income
disregards and an increase in the amount of assets allowed.
Also as incentive to continue working, the recipient would
be allowed to keep one-third of earnings for two years as
opposed to current law which allows the recipient to retain
one-third for four months and then after that period no more
than $30. He also mentioned that state payments would be
lower.
REP. HANLEY asserted that HB 409 is a demonstration project.
A control group and a comparison group would be created and
the state would do the research for the federal government.
He mentioned that the Clinton Administration was in the
process of researching the demonstration projects throughout
the U.S. and there were several states that have implemented
such projects. He expressed interest in the results of
their demonstration projects.
Number 586
CHAIR TOOHEY recommended that there be open communication to
keep people aware of the workgroup times. She then stated
there would be a subcommittee meeting the following day,
February 12, at 1:00 p.m. to further discuss HB 409.
Number 512
REP. G. DAVIS asked if there were specific geographic sites
chosen to participate in the control group, citing the Kenai
Peninsula as one that had been mentioned previously.
Number 628
REP. HANLEY replied that the areas suggested by the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) were
Anchorage, Mat-Su, and a rural community. He said it was
not his intent to force the project on a rural community.
He did mention that the areas could be changed.
Number 560
REP. BUNDE asked if there was a general time frame for the
implementation of the concepts contained in HB 409.
Number 578
REP. HANLEY asserted that he wanted legislation passed this
year. He also said he wanted to incorporate any feasible
amendments and also some new ideas he had just been made
aware of.
Number 594
REP. VEZEY asked Rep. Hanley for an overview of the fiscal
note.
Number 700
REP. HANLEY said that contained in HB 409 was a ratable
reduction. He said there was an initial cost to the program
because of administrative costs and the requirements for
providing transportation for childcare. He further stated
that there were costs for monitoring the control and test
groups. He said his intent was not to introduce legislation
that would cost money, and he wanted to provide a way to pay
for it.
REP. HANLEY referred to the net expenditures in the general
fund displayed in the fiscal note. In comparison to the
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, he indicated a decrease in
expenditures for the last year due to the projected
reduction of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) payments.
Number 751
REP. VEZEY asked if there would be no impact on AFDC
payments in fiscal year (FY) 95. He stated that there were
one dollar differences in several categories and wondered if
the decrease was due to inflationary growth of the program.
Number 772
REP. HANLEY asked Jan Hansen if the rate of reduction was
included in the fiscal note.
Number 773
JAN HANSEN, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services, replied that the
rate of reduction was included in the fiscal note. She said
the cost of the project was on the top of the chart,
indicating $451,200, and the bottom of the chart displayed
the net savings from the ratable reduction. She indicated
that, in fact, there was a net savings to the state in
general funds for the first year. She said the savings was
the result of the ratable reduction generating a reduction
of $829,500 and the cost for the first year would be
$451,200, indicating a net gain in the general fund.
MS. HANSEN stated there are no savings for the project in
the first year because of the time it would take for a
waiver to be developed, for its approval, and for the
computer programming involved for a project of such
magnitude.
Number 814
REP. VEZEY said that he misunderstood and said, "I thought
we were changing 47.25.320 to where the maximum that a
person could receive for a dependent child, living with a
non-needy relative, was $451 as opposed to $452."
Number 822
MS. HANSEN agreed with those figures and said that was why
the savings in the first year was actually the total savings
from the ratable reduction, indicated as $829,500. She said
the administrative cost of the project was $451,200 and she
estimated the savings to the state at approximately
$375,000.
Number 838
REP. VEZEY asked if the reduction of federal receipts would
in reality cause a positive fiscal note.
Number 841
MS. HANSEN stated that "because AFDC is both a federal and a
state program, the $829,500 represents the state's share of
the AFDC. In a ratable reduction, when we reduce it, we
would save state GF (general fund) and we wouldn't be
spending federal. And so, the savings here is by ratable
reduction, if we don't even consider the project... there
would be a savings of state general fund from both AFDC and
adult public assistance combined." She said that the
figures were derived from fiscal notes #7 and #8.
MS. HANSEN stated that in fiscal note #7, under the FY 95
column, the ratable reduction would reduce AFDC expenditures
by $1,160,000. He said the reduction represents $526,600
federal, $526,700 general fund, and $106,700 in permanent
fund dividend. She further stated that anytime the payments
to AFDC are reduced, the federal receipts, general fund and
permanent fund are reduced also.
Number 860
MS. HANSEN said the remaining figure of $829,500 is derived
from fiscal note #8, which is the state general fund share
of the adult public assistance ratable reduction. She said,
"it's not half and half on the sheet, federal, because adult
public assistance is 100% GF, so there isn't any federal.
So, when we add the GF reduction to adult public assistance
from this ratable, it is 302.8 ($302,800). When you add
that to the 526 ($526,00) that's the 829 ($829,00) general
fund savings."
Number 908
REP. VEZEY asked, if the hold harmless clause was to be
repealed, would it then not be applicable to the fiscal
note?
Number 919
MS. HANSEN stated that if the permanent fund hold harmless
was repealed, the general fund cost would increase, not the
general fund savings because it is paid out of the permanent
fund itself, and one-twelfth of the AFDC budget comes out of
permanent fund hold harmless.
Number 939
REP. VEZEY said there are no bottom lines in any of the
columns.
Number 943
MS. HANSEN agreed and said that a bottom line could be put
on the chart for each year and the total project.
Number 951
REP. VEZEY said it was unusual for the annual operating
costs to decrease as indicated in FY 99.
Number 957
MS. HANSEN stated that entitlement has been mixed with
operating costs. She said the savings in FY 99 indicate the
reduction of AFDC recipients.
REP. VEZEY said that was opposed to the program not being in
place.
MS. HANSEN agreed.
Number 968
REP. VEZEY said that figure would total $3 million in FY 99,
while the program is increasing at $40 or $50 million a
year.
Number 972
MS. HANSEN said that she was not implying that the AFDC
program overall would have a lower budget in FY 99 than it
has today, but the savings would be generated over and above
what the estimated cost would be if there was no project.
She further stated that the program would continue to cost
more because increased case loads are projected.
Number 988
CHAIR TOOHEY asked how many people would be in the program
and if during the project would there be people dropping out
and people being added on.
Number 995
REP. HANLEY replied that the boundaries of the project will
determine the amount of people participating.
Number 005
MS. HANSEN said Anchorage and Mat-Su were two test areas
that case load sizes and cost estimates were based on for
the fiscal notes. She said that approximately 1000 people
would go into work while still on AFDC, explaining that the
jobs available to the recipients do not provide enough
income to support a family above the poverty level. She
further stated that 1000 families would be working while
receiving reduced AFDC payments because of their earnings.
The number of families leaving the project would be low
because the jobs available would not support their families
above the poverty level.
Number 037
REP. VEZEY said that the mindset is that the average person
receives public assistance for approximately two years and
indicated that the demonstration project is projecting over
five years. He asked Ms. Hansen to address that
discrepancy.
Number 046
MS. HANSEN replied that in actuality it is not the same 1000
people. She said in FY 96 there would be an additional 571
clients working who currently are not working. In Fy 97, it
is projected as an additional 977 clients working.
Number 072
REP. VEZEY stated that as he understood the response, the
figure 1000 indicated additional people that would go beyond
the "normal rotation."
Number 078
MS. HANSEN agreed and said that currently 850 households in
the Anchorage and Mat-Su areas have earnings. In addition
to the 850, it is projected that there will be another 571
households within the demonstration project with earnings.
Number 090
REP. VEZEY asked what the amount of monthly checks would be.
Number 107
MS. HANSEN answered that she was not sure of the volume in
terms of the ratable reduction. She said that currently
there were 12,600 families on AFDC.
Number 113
REP. VEZEY said that was "about 150,000 family weeks a
year... which works out to be about ten bucks a family
month."
REP. HANLEY agreed and said that $11 is listed on the chart.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked for teleconference testimony.
Number 125
PUDGE KLEINKAUF, Concerned Citizen, testified on HB 409.
She reminded the committee that last session AFDC payments
were cut and at the same time the state passed the largest
capital construction bill in the history of the state. She
said that HB 409 would continue to penalize the 25,000
children receiving AFDC by giving them a ratable reduction
for the second year in a row.
TAPE 94-17, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. KLEINKAUF stated that Section 3 would reduce benefits
for adult public assistance by 1.7% above last years cut.
She felt that the committee and state did not realize that
with the proposed legislation the poor families and children
would be paying for the demonstration project.
MS. KLEINKAUF said that waivers cost money and that the
state should not penalize public assistance recipients in
order to pay the cost of waivers needed for the project.
She cautioned the committee that there could be
constitutional problems raised by the use of waivers that
would treat AFDC children differently than other groups.
She reminded the committee of the already established JOBS
program, and that the program could be used to implement
some of the concepts in HB 409.
MS. KLEINKAUF said that the state should offer tax
incentives to businesses to hire welfare recipients,
therefore eliminating them from welfare rolls.
Number 390
REP. BUNDE inquired as to whether Alaska has the highest
welfare payments in the nation, and if the ratable reduction
took place, would they still be the highest payments. He
also asked if Alaska's cost of living was still considerably
higher than the rest of the nation.
Number 431
REP. HANLEY said Alaska does have the highest payments and
there was a 25% adjustable factor in both AFDC and adult
public assistance. In regards to Ms. Kleinkauf's
statements, he believed there would be no constitutional
problems. He said the JOBS training program focuses on
people who are least likely to obtain work and therefore are
trained extensively.
MS. HANSEN felt that by doing the demonstration project,
there would be more support for it in the long run.
Number 537
MS. KLEINKAUF stated that most people are strongly in
support of Section 5 that allows for waivers, and the
problem area was in Section 6 with the workfare concept.
She felt that DHSS should take some responsibility in hiring
welfare recipients off the rolls. She also explained that
women would be better able to get off the rolls if the state
was more strict with child support payments.
Number 607
CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further teleconference testimony.
There was none.
Number 648
REP. VEZEY asked what the methodology to the monthly
payments pertaining to dependent children living with a non-
needy relative.
Number 669
MS. HANSEN answered that the department was asked to come up
with a figure that would equate to the cost of the project
in the most expensive year, which was a 1.7% ratable
reduction.
Number 728
REP. B. DAVIS stated that she was supportive of waivers.
She said, with all the work that needs to be done, it would
be impossible to implement the statute within FY 95. She
conveyed her opposition to what she felt was asking the
poorest of Alaskans to pay for the project through ratable
reductions. She stressed the enforcement of child support
payments to alleviate the welfare rolls. She felt that job
availability was more important than job training.
Number 820
MS. HANSEN thanked Rep. Hanley for taking the initiative
with the proposed legislation. She reminded the committee
that the waiver would allow for a demonstration project,
which means that not everyone can be a part of the control
group. She referred to Governor Hickel's position paper on
welfare reform and said that the position paper cited
factors, that are in the demonstration waiver, as areas that
need to be changed federally so that the state can also
change them.
Number 893
CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further testimony or questions.
There were none.
Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR
TOOHEY ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|