Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/27/1995 02:05 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 280 - HUMAN RESOURCE INVESTMENT COUNCIL Number 1160 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that he referred the bill to a subcommittee because he feared, as he was a member of one of the affected commissions, he was more sensitive to the issues. He asked for the subcommittee report on this bill from Co-Chair Toohey, as she was farther removed from this issue. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the subcommittee meeting was attended by Representative Robinson, Representative Rokeberg, Dr. Joe McCormick of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, and Bob Rubadeau of the Lieutenant Governor's Office. Several issues were discussed. The most contentious issue centered on Representative Rokeberg's concern about the size of the committee. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said several attempts were made to reduce the council, unfortunately, due to the federal guidelines, those efforts were to no avail. Number 1255 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he met with Mr. Rubadeau, and testimony was taken at the subcommittee hearing which satisfied some of Representative Rokeberg's concern as to the large size of the council. He had wished to decrease the size of the council, but he ultimately agreed that the Lt. Governor's office had done a very good job of reducing it to as few people as possible. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his other concerns were adequately answered. He previously felt the use of the word "Investment" in the title seemed rather silly to him. However, he learned that was part of federal statute, and the state cannot toy with that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the subcommittee hearing was fruitful, and resulted in helpful language changes which are reflected in the Committee Substitute. Number 1356 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said two amendments were before the HESS Committee. Amendment one referred to page 1, line 4, of HB 280. After the word "needs," the amendment proposes to insert "relating to the membership of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education." BOB RUBADEAU, Special Assistant to the Lieutenant Governor, said Dr. McCormick offered a couple of suggestions at the subcommittee hearing as a representative of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE). The subcommittee members and other members of the HESS Committee studied those suggestions and deemed them to be, at first, fairly minor changes that would allow the ACPE to continue. However, as the amendments were explored further, the amendments seemed to make policy decisions that perhaps the subcommittee had not considered. MR. RUBADEAU explained that what had been proposed in the first amendment, relating to the membership of the ACPE, was that it basically changed the name from the Governor's Commission on Vocational Education (GCOVE) membership, to the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council (HRIC) membership. Only the name was being changed to have a vocational education-based, proactive representative on the ACPE. Dr. McCormick basically felt, as many people do, that a smaller commission would be better. Number 1450 MR. RUBADEAU noted that as policy implications were studied, however, it would take a vocational voice off the ACPE. The commission basically does fund an enormous amount of secondary and postsecondary education opportunities for students within the state. The Office of the Lt. Governor feels very strongly about the importance of vocational education and training to the future of Alaska. The bill reflects that. MR. RUBADEAU stated that by removing the voice from a very important tool of the legislature and the Administration has to influence vocational education and the direction it is going. This would perhaps therefore be a larger policy implication than perhaps simply shrinking a council. He was not sure HESS Committee members wanted to make such policy decisions without further exploring the membership on the ACPE. Number 1494 MR. RUBADEAU said he was not privy to the total membership of the ACPE, but he knew that the commission consisted of regents, members of the University of Alaska, and secondary educators. However, this situation begs the question: Is this a policy decision HESS Committee members want to make in this bill, when this bill is simply trying to emphasize the voice of vocational education in this state? Mr. Rubadeau did not think it was wise to therefore delete that voice from a very important commission. MR. RUBADEAU noted that Co-Chair Bunde was a member of the ACPE, and asked if he would like to speak to the voice that it brings to his commission. Number 1527 CO-CHAIR BUNDE replied that the ACPE does contain proprietary schools and representatives from vocational education, public schools, legislators, and regents. There is a mix, and the ACPE is a miniature version of perhaps what the HRIC aspires to be. Co- Chair Bunde is concerned, as a member or commissioner of the ACPE, that rolling the ACPE member into the HRIC would perhaps undermine that member's ability to provide the service to the state at the previous level. CO-CHAIR BUNDE was also still unsure of the need for the ACPE after the HRIC is established. While the ACPE certifies proprietary and vocational technology kinds of schools, they also are very involved in student loans. Therefore, the ACPE has dual responsibility. Number 1590 MR. RUBADEAU told Co-Chair Bunde that the bill's sponsors were very careful in looking only at the federal programs that were involved in the state. The Lt. Governor's office did not want to undermine the wisdom that past legislators have put into developing the ACPE. It wanted to deal specifically with the federal funding, to get the state ready for the block grant scenario it is rumored is coming out of Congress. MR. RUBADEAU noted that the HRIC has been implemented in other states. Dr. McCormick shared that the state of Texas has incorporated its Postsecondary Education Commission as a very important dual participant in the planning and long-range strategic development of vocational education and training within the state. At this point, this bill does not address the ACPE in any way except, and this was only a recision type of inclusion into HB 280, by saying that anywhere the GCOVE was mentioned, that state statute needed to be amended to reflect the changes in the name. This was because 18 months after the HRIC has been in place it will replace the GCOVE. That is the only relationship the sponsor's office saw at that point. MR. RUBADEAU said, "As far as usurping the power, trying to in any way influence, other than providing a membership to perhaps make that transfer of information more immediate, that was the only reason this was included in the bill." Number 1666 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked who was talking to Dr. McCormick after the meetings of the subcommittee. MR. RUBADEAU indicated that he had spoken with Dr. McCormick two times since the subcommittee meeting. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Dr. McCormick was still in favor of this removal of the HRIC member from his board of directors. MR. RUBADEAU said in further discussion with Dr. McCormick, the sponsor's office looked at the legal implications. Dr. McCormick felt both amendments made very little sense after the implications were studied. Number 1683 MR. RUBADEAU addressed the second amendment. He said the sponsor's office was wondering what would occur if a "meaningful outcome assessment" was added over and above the assessment procedures that are already in place with the Job Training Council (JTC), with the GCOVE, and the UI Trust Fund. If another level of assessment is added that is not in place right now, there is concern that fiscal notes would have to be sent back to the agencies due to the additional workload and possible additional cost of providing the needed data. MR. RUBADEAU said hopefully, the HRIC knows it will have to come up with some way of justifying their work. There is a need to provide some sort of outcome assessment, and Dr. McCormick felt comfortable with the assessment procedures in place. Number 1747 CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that as a member of the ACPE, he asked Dr. McCormick to protect the interests of the commission. Dr. McCormick does not believe that he maintains the concerns that he originally had about the bill. Co-Chair Bunde noted that does not mean that he, personally, is completely at-ease with the bill. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Co-Chair Bunde has had a conversation with Dr. McCormick subsequent to the meeting. CO-CHAIR BUNDE answered yes, and Dr. McCormick said he is no longer concerned about the amendments. He did not feel either amendment was now necessary. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that outcome assessments, unless they are in place, are crucial. The whole program is useless unless the state knows who goes to work after the training. She asked Mr. Rubadeau if he felt assessment programs were in place within the bill. MR. RUBADEAU said yes. Each of the federal mandated work programs and job training programs have outcome-based assessments. Those programs have to provide those assessments to the federal government, showing that they are indeed doing the job that is required of them. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG summarized that an additional outcome assessment may cause fiscal notes to change. Number 1831 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY told Mr. Rubadeau that he thinks the entire proposed HRIC is seriously flawed. There are only four employers on a board of over 20 people. Representative Vezey has watched training program after training program, and those programs tend to be geared toward professional trainers, and not toward employers. Employers have a better understanding than anyone of what is being sought in an employee. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY did not think the HRIC could ever provide a meaningful job training program unless it was employer-driven. Employers are the ones that provide the jobs. Representative Vezey has had some experience with some very successful job placement programs, and those programs are employer-oriented. Employers drive the program. Representative Vezey does not think the council can get educators and people from community service who all have visions of how they think the world ought to be, to tell an employer what they want in an employee. It is the employers that know what is needed in an employee. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said any council that does not recognize that primacy of priorities is not going to work. Number 1889 MR. RUBADEAU asked to direct Representative Vezey's attention to the top of page 4 of the bill. One of the confusions in the bill is because of the recision language. Many people look at the composition of the proposed consolidation council, and they are actually looking at the components of the ACPE. The beginning of the membership on the new consolidated council begins at the top of page 4. There were two major drivers in this bill. One is it had to be private sector-driven. The private sector had to have a majority of the membership on this council. Number two, private sector had to have the chair or the co-chair. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY read that there will be one to four additional members of the private sector, it does not say "private sector employers." It means people who are not employed by the government. MR. RUBADEAU directed Representative Vezey's attention to number (5). It says "four representatives of business and industry...." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY interjected, "Four out of 24." MR. RUBADEAU offered that the bill mandates that there be a majority of private sector members, and this includes employers and organized labor as the drivers on this, and they must form a majority of this board and commission. Number 1946 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY reiterated his point. He said unless the commission is employer-driven, and a small sector of the private sector is employers, it can not be expected to really work. The bill sets up an institution that is really more toward protecting itself than meeting the needs of employers. And that is where jobs come from. MR. RUBADEAU introduced Sarah Scanlon, Vice President of the Northwestern Alaska Native Association (NANA); Chair, School-to- work; and past chair of the JTC; and said she has worked on this legislation for the past three years. She is a private sector member of the school-to-work program. She is a former private sector member of the JTC, and is a private sector employer who feels she has done an enormous amount of work putting together this legislation. This legislation is even private sector employer- driven. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Representative Rokeberg could ask a question, and then Ms. Scanlon could testify. Number 1995 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG had reconsidered some of his earlier statements because he read a letter that arrived for him and all committee members from Janice Tatlow of the Anchorage Mat-Su Private Industry Council. The letter contained recommendations that did not add membership, but asked that the bill more clearly specify who from the private sector is represented. MR. RUBADEAU said he had seen the letter, and he had met with the private industry council. He feels their concerns have been met. Other letters of support have been written by the private industry councils around the state. Those councils feel that, as Representative Vezey has stated, the HRIC should be employer and private sector driven. However, the only partnership opportunities that are possible are between the federally mandated employee training programs and the private sector to develop a long-range, strategic plan for vocational education and job training in the state of Alaska. MR. RUBADEAU said he hopes the HRIC will be able to put together a consolidated plan, that is private sector and employer driven that will meet the needs of Alaska and remove some of the problems that the Department of Labor has found in their surveys about not having Alaskan jobs for Alaskan employees. Number 2058 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Rubadeau would tell him who makes up private industry councils, and also what service delivery areas are. MR. RUBADEAU said service delivery areas are regional organizations within the state of Alaska that accept monies from the unemployment insurance trust fund. One-tenth of one percent of the money that is put up by employees goes to the unemployment insurance fund. That money is directly designated to go to service delivery areas basically for job training and retraining to keep people employable and employed. The service delivery areas are set up to administrate those grants, as well as working with the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and other monies to effectively plan within their regions job training that makes sense. MR. RUBADEAU said the private industry councils are also made up completely of private sector employers within the regions who direct the programs for service delivery areas, JTPA and the jobs program for effective use within their locations. Each one has a different training plan that they have to submit to the state. Number 2106 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the suggestion in the amendment is just to add to the language in HB 280 that would stipulate that there are at least two representatives from the private industry council rather than one under subsection (5). Additionally, on subsection (10) the bill would stipulate that there would be at least one additional member from the private industry councils. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Rubadeau had considered this, and what he would think about that type of amendment. Number 2122 MR. RUBADEAU said the sponsor's office would be amenable to including the private industry councils at any stage in planning. In talking to David Stone, Chair of the Statewide Private Industry Council, the Lt. Governor's office envisions that as it develops the HRIC plan, the regional representation, like the tentacles off a major plan, and the feedback from the regions are going to be directly related to the private industry councils. The Lt. Governor's office feels they are full partners in the planning. The office hopes they will be included in each and every step of developing a long-range plan for vocational education. MR. RUBADEAU stated that in talking with David Stone, he thinks that many of the issues have been addressed. Instead of having a "feeder" from the private industry councils, the Lt. Governor's office wants to make them full partners and satellite planners from the HRIC. Number 2159 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that adding the two amendments to the bill does not change the total number in the HRIC membership. It just stipulates further who would be present. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was still not convinced, after speaking with Mr. Rubadeau and Dr. McCormick that amendment two is a bad idea. He is still in favor of amendment two. He wants to study the issue and the costs involved. Number 2195 SARAH SCANLON, Vice President, NANA; Chair, School-to-Work; appreciated the concern of Representative Vezey. She said the private sector has shared that concern for quite some time. The federal mandates under the JTPA define "private sector" as employers. It is not defined as private individuals within the state or citizens within the state. MS. SCANLON said the concerns have been addressed, and the legislation has been worked on for the last ten years. Last year, the legislature passed this bill. Unfortunately, Governor Hickel vetoed the bill due to agency interference. MS. SCANLON said the whole bill is designed to consolidate the fragmented, messy system currently in place. Everyone recognizes the need to save money. This is an attempt to do that. The efforts for the HRIC have been private sector driven. Problems have been encountered, however, with state agency people because they want to protect their "turf." MS. SCANLON encouraged HESS Committee members to pass HB 280 so the state can have a better system in place for employment and training for the citizens of this state. Number 2243 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said if "private sector" is defined as being private sector employers, that does help. Representative Vezey had never read that definition. Still, the bill stipulates for 5 or 8 out of 21 members of the HRIC to be employers. The HRIC should be comprised of a majority of employers. MS. SCANLON said somehow the bill is not clear, and she understood Representative Vezey's confusion. The HRIC will be comprised of, at most, 14 representatives of the private sector out of the over 21 members. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY admitted that he strongly supports consolidation, but he advocates that the HRIC be employer driven. TAPE 95-44, SIDE B Number 000 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY read lines 16 and 17 on page 4: "...at least one representative from the organization representing the training and employment needs of Alaska Natives...." She asked Ms. Scanlon if she felt one representative was enough. MS. SCANLON answered that there are other places to plug in representatives of the Native organizations, therefore the bill is fine as it reads. In fact, the sponsors of the bill may have had in mind to include the employment training agencies from the Native communities. These are nonprofits who have been out of the picture, and those entities need to be incorporated into this whole investment policy. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked to state for the record that the HRIC would be driven/dominated by private sector employers. He asked to go on and discuss amendment two. He has had some previous experience in public education and as a commissioner with proprietary schools. What those schools purport to do and what they actually do is sometimes different. Therefore, Co-Chair Bunde still favors amendment two. He asked Mr. Rubadeau to speak to that and the possible fiscal impact. Number 119 MR. RUBADEAU said the amendment is very tenuous. His office has worked very hard since January to get a tenuous alliance between all the agencies that were involved and all the private sector volunteers that have served on the commissions and councils that have been proposed for consolidation. If the intent of the legislature is to say that the HRIC will develop some way of reporting whether or not the HRIC is making progress towards its goals, then that can be done and the HRIC would welcome this amendment. MR. RUBADEAU continued that if the legislature envisions with amendment two that the HRIC creates an entirely new vehicle for assessment that is outside of what the federal law requires the HRIC to do anyway, then the HRIC will have to develop a new vehicle and a new data reporting and tracking system. Tracking people who still have a job 12 months out of training may cause the HRIC to go back to agencies and ask them if a new fiscal note is required. If HESS Committee members do not feel that was necessary, then Mr. Rubadeau would bow to the expertise of the HESS Committee members. He would welcome the amendment if a new vehicle is not necessary because the HRIC wants to show that it is doing a good job. Number 230 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Mr. Rubadeau hit on his point exactly. What happens to a person 6 months or 12 months after he or she has completed a program? Rand Corporation released information that indicated that about 72 percent of those who completed training programs go back on welfare. Co-Chair Bunde was not sure of the exact percentage, but the numbers were terrible. Therefore, if the system is not working, the state needs to know that so something can be done to change it. CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt a compromise could be struck. As any state agency, it would be incumbent upon the HRIC to provide the legislature with a yearly update as to what has transpired. In that update, there should be specifics. The state should know that "X" number of people were in "X" number of programs, "X" number graduated and 12 months later, "X" number has a job. The state must know that there is continuing impact from the HRIC. Number 324 MS. SCANLON said the existing programs do have the ability, through existing Department of Labor records, to research when people go to work, how long they have been working, what their current rate of pay is, and connect that information to the training programs to see whether or not there are any measures of success. That ability to make those reports is therefore already possible through the Department of Labor. CO-CHAIR BUNDE thought a legitimate program would have that information available. He doubts the state is asking for a new vehicle. If the program does not have that information available, the HRIC should have the right to say it needs that information and get that information. That is how Co-Chair Bunde envisions amendment two. MR. RUBADEAU said the only word that threw him off in the amendment was the word "outcome." That conjures up an outcome-based assessment policy that perhaps would be ill-defined in some people's minds. It seems to raise and beg more questions than answers. He would think that all assessment is outcome-based. However, including the word "outcome" may not fit into federal legislation. Number 416 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought that during the discussions of the subcommittee, this particular amendment came from Dr. McCormick. It was well-received by the subcommittee, particularly as it related to the idea that the "results" of the activity (as an equivalent word for "outcome") was what he was driving at. That is why Co-Chair Toohey brought this amendment forward. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the amendment was excellent because if in fact the HRIC is required to have these assessments anyway, it is always more reassuring to see it spelled out in the law. He said if the amendment is duplicative from a financial standpoint, the amendment should be adopted anyway. Number 479 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she has worked with the JTPA through the nursing assistant program. She said it does try and track progress two months out of the program. Nothing is going to work unless there is not a carrot that says the trainee has to work or he/she will have to pay for the training. Sometimes, some of the jobs proposed are not fun jobs or glamorous jobs. They are jobs that might bring in enough money to fund a person for adequate living. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said unless employment is stressed, the person may not work. Number 540 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said amendment two is inherent in the whole system. He has worked in three different vocational programs. To annually reapply for funding, the program must fill out a form. You have to write down the base, the graduates, the input and the output of the program. There must be placement, and the program can be sold on that placement. However, if the amendment is added that would be fine because it does not hurt anything. Assessment is inherent in the whole operation. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS approves of the concept. The state has been trying to condense these commissions and committees for many years. The HRIC is a very good approach. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said other programs, like the JTPA, have gotten "bad marks" because there has been a lot of money available. Organizations have sprung up just to get a hold of that money. Therefore, a lot of the instructional programs are useless. There is so much money for these schools, and so many schools and so many graduates, but the jobs are not there. The schools have to gear their training to the available jobs. The HRIC will help solve those problems. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt the inclusion of the amendment will look good, but really assessment is inherent in the whole program. The intent of the new system is to plan for block grants anyway. Number 672 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he has a reasonable sense of the committee's feelings. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved amendment two. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected, due to the fact that Mr. Rubadeau's discussion on the wording is something that needs to be considered at some time in the future. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY suggested a possible amendment to the amendment. The amendment could read, "to a meaningful program of outcome assessments where needed...." CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt "where needed" provided a pretty big loophole. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said JTPA makes assessment an absolute mandate. MS. SCANLON noted that all the federal programs mandate assessment. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that therefore, "where needed" is not needed. Number 736 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he did not want the HRIC to sponsor the meaningful program, he wanted the council to collect reports. Therefore, Co-Chair Bunde suggested that the words "to collect the results of the outcome assessments that effectively measures...." REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it seems there is a consensus among HESS Committee members that they want the HRIC to collect the data on the success of these training programs. HESS Committee members also want the HRIC to report these assessments back to the legislature. The state wants to know what is and is not working. Therefore, she felt the HESS Committee members could provide that direction to the bill. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the chair would accept a conceptual amendment based on amendment two with the understanding that the council will collect and distribute these assessments that the various participants produce. Co-Chair Bunde expressed a wish to create the verbiage that would require that these assessments be provided to the HRIC. Number 872 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the objection was maintained to conceptual amendment two. The objection was not maintained, and conceptual amendment two was passed. When Co-Chair Bunde creates the wording, he will distribute it to HESS Committee members and to Mr. Rubadeau. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved the following conceptual amendment. The amendment references page 4, Section (5), line 9. The amendment seeks to strike the word "one" after "least," and insert the word "two," on that line. Moving down on the same page to line 24, the amendment aims to delete the period after the word "council," add a comma, and add the following words: "with at least one member from private industry councils representing private sector business." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the reason for this is the recommendation of the private industry councils themselves, as well as the concerns raised by Representative Rokeberg and Representative Vezey about the representation of the private sector. From the testimony of the subcommittees and Representative Rokeberg's inquiries about what "private sector" means, the Administration answered that labor unions and other quasi- governmental organizations were "private sector." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG found that a little unusual. Therefore, the thrust of this amendment is to insure a heavier weight toward private business. Number 994 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Rubadeau if this amendment would then increase the size of the council by one, or would it displace someone. MR. RUBADEAU answered that it states in (10) that "at least one" was necessary. Therefore, if there were only one, the added one would be another member of private industry councils, representing private sector business. Mr. Rubadeau said he was very comfortable with the amendment, as it reflected the intent of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved amendment three. Number 1031 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the amendment incorporated line 24 also. Representative Rokeberg had said "with at least one member from the private sector" down on line 24. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wanted to hear from Mr. Rubadeau that he was comfortable with that amendment. MR. RUBADEAU agreed with the amendment. He said it spells out even more clearly the natural relationship that is envisioned with the private industry councils and the private sector. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the objection had been maintained, and it was not. Conceptual amendment three passed. Amendment one was withdrawn. Number 1077 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that on page 4, line 23, after the first time the word "sector" appears, that the word "employers" be inserted. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections, and there were none. The conceptual amendment passed. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY also moved that the section beginning on page 4, lines 2-4 be deleted. He would also amend line 9, after (5), to change the word "four" to "eight." REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG also opposed the amendment because of the lengthy testimony which reviewed the balanced membership of the HRIC. The Administration made a fair case for the necessity of having the commissioner levels and personnel from the state Administration participate in the activity to provide the leadership that is necessary. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON understood that the numbers are also part of the federal mandate, and such coordination is part of the concepts and requirements in meeting the criteria. Number 1253 MR. RUBADEAU said that public sector involvement is very specifically laid out, as it includes memberships from education, labor and the private sector. The amendments offered so far have not in any way changed the relationships between the memberships and the quotas that must be met under the federal guidelines. Up to this point, the amendments have basically specified that the private industry councils will be involved, and private sector employers will be those targeted. However, once the HESS Committee members start to tinker with the total membership, then the mandated percentages are screwed up. MR. RUBADEAU said percentages are very specifically laid out in the federal law that brings $42 million to the Alaska. That money could be jeopardized by not having the proper oversight council. If the federal requirements are not met, the money will not be acquired. Number 1286 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how many elected or appointed government officials are required to be on the council. That is what he just proposed eliminating: The commissioners. The commissioners can certainly sit on the board under paragraph (b) under (10). The commissioners can be nonvoting members. Representative Vezey was deleting the appointed public officials from being voting members of the board, and replacing four of those with four people from the private sector. Number 1327 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there is a federal requirement that at least 15 percent of the members of the council must be public members. Therefore, there must be at least 4 people of the 26. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would not consider the commissioners of the various departments as public members. MR. RUBADEAU clarified. He said the commissioners that are involved are those commissioners that are overseeing the actual delivery of the services. These are where the programs are located. The HRIC is not about the consolidation of programs. JTPA is serviced under Community and Regional Affairs (CRA). The unemployment security trust is under the Department of Labor. GCOVE is under the Department of Education. MR. RUBADEAU said his office is not proposing removing those programs from the line agencies that have been doing a good job at delivering those programs. The bill proposes an oversight committee that shrinks three duplicative oversight committees into one. Those commissioners need to be at the table in order to insure that whatever the strategic plan is that comes out of the process of the oversight committee, it is done at the line agency level. MR. RUBADEAU said his office feels it is very important for the commissioners to be there. That will help bring the partnership of public and private business together. That partnership has to be embodied at the table. The commissioners have to be there to talk about what is best for Alaskan employers and employees, and how to turn the tide and get job training that is meaningful to the state. That is why these commissioners are there. Number 1429 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the commissioners are so important to the council, why does the bill say their designee can be present instead of the commissioner. MR. RUBADEAU said the HRIC will probably meet quarterly. If a quorum must be met, the HRIC commissioners should have that option. However, the commissioners are very committed to the proposed council. There are very important decisions that must be made in the next decade in Alaska on how to wrestle back Alaskan jobs for Alaskans. The commissioners need to be at the HRIC table to make those decisions. MR. RUBADEAU stated that Department of Labor statistics show that one-third of all employment dollars go to out-of-state employees. Those dollars need to be brought back to Alaska. The DOL can help the HRIC do that, and so can the commissioner. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that some major changes were coming down from the federal government concerning how training programs are administered. He said that to speculate that those changes will have the same strings tied to them as the programs that already exist would be extremely presumptuous and probably erroneous. He really thinks that the legislature should wait until it sees what the federal programs look like. Then the state should perform one reorganization, and do it then. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said last year he supported a major reorganization of those programs. But he was not anticipating that the federal government was going to propose major reorganization. He fears that the state of Alaska would just start to get a system in place, and an entirely new program would be passed down to Alaska from the federal government. Number 1497 MR. RUBADEAU said the opportunity under the HRIC, that only 21 other states have taken advantage of, is a 1993 amendment to the JTPA federal program. That is driving what the Lt. Governor's office feels are the block grant scenarios that are proposed. The Lt. Governor's office has studied the five bills that are presently in Congress. All five address the HRIC concept. The Lt. Governor's office feels that the other states are working rapidly to get on-line with this. If the block grant scenarios come down prior to the state of Alaska having an HRIC in place, Alaska will have to work quickly to catch up. MR. RUBADEAU said the state should begin planning now, and do an orderly phase-out of the existing programs to get to the HRIC, which is part of the bill. It is the sunset provision in the bill, so Alaska stands ready, as it should, to benefit not only from revenue streams now but the revenue streams to come. MR. RUBADEAU said this bill represents fore-planning, rather than trying to catch-up after the fact. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Rubadeau if the amendment passes, does that make the entire bill obsolete as far as meeting the federal government guidelines in order to receive funding. MR. RUBADEAU answered that federal government requirements would not be met. CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote on conceptual amendment five. Voting "yes" on the amendment was Representative Vezey. Voting "no" was Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Rokeberg, Representative Robinson and Representative Davis. Number 1611 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved HB 280 as amended with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections, and the bill passed.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|