Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/29/1999 03:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 6 - CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is House Joint
Resolution 6, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to state aid for education.
Number 1926
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that he has provided a copy of the comments
from the law firm Josephson and Associates regarding the
constitutionality of the proposed constitutional amendment. He
found the comments somewhat interesting, but he doesn't believe
that if this amendment was adopted it would not be a violation of
church and state separation provisions since similar vouchers have
been incorporated at the municipal level around the country.
Number 1980
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HJR 6 from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s).
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that there is a $1,500 fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. The $1,500 fiscal note does not
come close to reflecting the cost of such a program to the school
systems.
Number 2060
CHAIRMAN KOTT echoed the concern of Representative Croft. However,
from a legal standpoint he doesn't find anything ... From a public
policy standpoint he has problems with it, but it clearly meets the
intent of the constitution. It would require a lot of convincing,
however, before he would vote for it on the House floor.
Number 2099
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he is in favor of the concept,
but how it is accomplished and carried out is a huge issue.
Nevertheless, the House Judiciary Standing Committee has done its
job and has met its responsibilities.
Number 2133
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated there was a lot of discussion in regards to
the funding, the provisions of any subsequent legislation, and the
parameters placed on private institutions.
Number 2164
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it would be relatively
impossible for the electorate to consider the amendment without
seeing an outline or design of the statutory backup in order to see
the ramifications.
Number 2206
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted it would be a massive change to the state
education system. Really, the jury is still out on those
communities who have tried a voucher system; he is not convinced,
therefore, it would work at this point. Until he is convinced
otherwise, he would not be supporting a voucher system.
Number 2246
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she's not convinced that the language
in the proposed constitutional amendment is what she would like.
She doesn't have a problem with a prohibition on direct funding to
a religious school, but she has a problem with a child not having
some money to go somewhere else to school. She disagrees with the
idea of having a statute outlined beforehand because one can't be
passed unless the constitutional amendment has passed.
Furthermore, the funding of education should consider every
schoolage child in a district. How the money is spent is the next
issue. She said, "I don't think that the whole amount of money
divided by the kids would go with the kid, but I think a certain
portion of it would. Maybe a thousand or fifteen hundred bucks or
something would do that. And, I wish that I had more confidence in
charter schools, but I think they're limited pretty much by the
statutes that we've provided. Charter schools might provide the
information that we need that would eliminate a lot of private
schools. But somehow or another I do not believe that the public
schools fully support all of the needs of all of the kids and they
need to have some options and we should be helping to give them
that option."
Number 2416
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated certainly there could have been legislation
crafted to accompany the resolution, which could have included an
effectuation depending on the passage of the resolution.
Nevertheless, the House Judiciary Standing Committee did its best
with the information available, and from a constitutional
standpoint...
TAPE 99-46, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, "...I mean we've had a lot of
hearings on other pieces of legislation that don't rise to this
level of concern, so I'm not comfortable that it does. I'd much
prefer to be able to flush that out, understand it better."
Fundamentally, she further stated there is enough money to fund
education, but the legislature is not doing it and this would not
help any.
Number 0049
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he understands why a parent would want
to send his/her child to a different school. But he wouldn't want
to be charged anymore than what he is being charged now. "Whether
or not I select then to send my child to somewhere else I don't
know that it's necessarily the right thing to do to say instead of
funding there I want you to fund him at my choice. There I'm
having a real fundamental problem and so I will support moving it
from here because I agree with you [Chairman Kott] it does stand
the gaff of the legal portion. I have a lot of problems with it."
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a roll call vote. Representatives Green,
Rokeberg, James and Kott voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against the motion. The
motion passed by a vote of 4-2. House Joint Resolution 6 was so
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|