Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/05/1994 03:00 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 388 - STATE POLICY ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT Number 118 JAN HANSEN, Director of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, indicated that she did not have a CS document before her and it was then brought to her attention that her concerns were actually addressed by the CS. Number 126 CHAIRMAN HUDSON determined, after some discussion with the staff, that CSHB 388, dated 3/18/94, did not include the amendments. The changes were then referenced at the following locations: page 1, line 10; page 1, line 12; page 1, line 13; page 2, a wording change on line 18; page 2, line 20; page 2 (f) on lines 22-24; and (h) on page 3. Number 147 CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Hansen if she was satisfied with the changes between HB 388 and the CS for HB 388. Number 150 MS. HANSEN responded that she was satisfied with the changes, and in particular referred to the changes made to section (e) which resolved the problem that was of concern to the Division of Public Assistance. Number 157 CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if someone from Community & Regional Affairs would speak to the bill. Chairman Hudson then asked Robert Krogseng to present the CS to HB 388. Number 165 ROBERT J.KROGSENG, Legislative Aide, Rep. Jerry Sander's Office, said the suggested changes were intended to coincide with changes that were made to Senate Bill 255. His understanding was that the Job Training Council spent over one year drafting this bill and the requirements, and this was an attempt to put those efforts into law. He said the council's comments have been made available to committee members and should be in the packets. Number 179 CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked, for the record, if the CS was crafted with the guidance of the chair of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee to be in compliance with the Senate version. MR. KROGSENG said he thought this was correct. CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if he had seen the amendment that was delivered. MR. KROGSENG was not sure if he had seen the amendment to which the chairman was referring. CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2, lines 25-27, and said this essentially deletes the first sentence of (g). He asked Mr. Krogseng for a response to the amendment. MR. KROGSENG said that he was not involved in the original crafting of this bill. He stated that he did not have any problems with the amendment, and noted that it appears to leave the supervisory responsibility, but takes the planning and monitoring responsibilities away from the council. REP. SITTON questioned the rationale for this amendment. Number 230 ARBE WILLIAMS, Special Assistant, Department of Labor, said she was not representing the Job Training Council, but was present to ask that the amendment be accepted as proposed, to delete the sentence, "to plan, monitor and coordinate the program systems..." She stated the administration felt that with the inclusion of ten state departments, a number of programs are not addressed by the council, and the council's membership only includes the membership of two departments. She added that the Department of Labor was one of those departments, so she was not saying that they are not represented. She expressed the administration's concern that the responsibilities assigned to the council could not be fulfilled because membership was not broad enough. REP. SITTON asked who would be the designee if this amendment were adopted. Number 248 MS. WILLIAMS responded that the administration felt this issue should be addressed separately as it was not properly addressed under the council. She said the governor was committed to coordinating state training efforts and can work within his cabinet to ensure that those programs are coordinated. She said a coordinated report by the council would not be inappropriate, but requiring the council to plan, coordinate and monitor programs that are not in their purview may be counterproductive. Number 257 REP. SITTON commented that he was trying to be supportive of the Department of Labor, but thought the governor could essentially accomplish this item as a matter of policy. He said the fact that ten departments are involved in human resource development is mind-boggling and needs to be addressed. He said he is concerned with who is in charge and what is being accomplished. Number 266 CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2 of the work draft and said the bill had expanded and now includes a great deal more than it did previously. He said his understanding is that the Department of Labor is saying that the governor shall use the council as the recognized state job training coordinating council, and they are simply removing that because of the implications relating to other departments. Number 279 DEBRA CALL, Alaska Job Training Council, testified via teleconference and said the need for a state policy was a point well-taken. She said this was the council's first attempt and it has been under development for five or six years, although the efforts have been more concentrated during the past year. She said there was a need, in light of the budget crises, to have a state policy to provide direction. She stated that the council was advisory to the governor and does plan, monitor, and coordinate certain programs. She said there needed to be an entity in charge of delivering a report and actually being able to give advise to the governor that will produce some results. She mentioned that the council was composed of a variety of members, including Jan Hansen in today's meeting, members from the private sector, the oil industry, and others who share the vision of Alaska having a world-class work force. She concluded her remarks by suggesting that the sentence be modified to include "...as identified by the federal government", but she advised that the sentence not be eliminated altogether. Number 323 REP. PORTER said, "if they don't, there isn't anybody else that can." He asked if line 26 could be changed to use the word "may". Number 332 MS. WILLIAMS said this modification would be fine and the governor would determine if this was the appropriate method or if another method like a mini-cabinet would be preferable. She said the administration had asked for this sentence to be deleted to clarify that the council does not function for those ten departments. She said the council does not fully address issues like economic development or business proposals because those programs do not have full representation on the council. Number 345 CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he understood that this legislation involved not taking the full measure, and that keeping the language under (g) and leaving this up to the governor's discretion indicated that the purpose was to create an overall coordinated effort, which meant that over time, the council would be able to work with various departments, the university, and other outlets to try to pull together a common plan. He said the change from "shall" to "may" still maintained a strong statement, but leads in the right direction. REP. GREEN posed a question about what needed to be in statute that could not be done by regulation. He asked if the problem was that this pertained to various departments. Number 365 MS. HANSEN said she might regret her comments, but perhaps could shed some light by responding to Rep. Green's query. She said it was her opinion that this could be done by regulation. She offered some background information, given that she was a member of the council as well as part of the administration, and said it was a desire of the council to have a stronger human resources development policy adopted by the state. She stated that this was the current draft of a statement of policy, and it had been through many permutations. She said from the administration's perspective there was some problem regarding the idea of coordinating state agencies to achieve the goal of a successfully trained, competitive, Alaskan work force. She said those are goals that can be set as a policy statement by a mini-cabinet or an executive order or by regulations or by a policy within statute; there are many options. MS. HANSEN said she would like to respond a little more specifically to Ms. William's statement regarding the proposed modification that the governor "may" use the council. She pointed out that this may be problematic because the council was required to be used by the governor for certain coordination activities in order for federal monies to be made available for those activities and that, in fact, this bill brings in departments that go beyond the required activities of the council. She said the council must review certain plans in her department and other departments as well, and from that perspective, in order to get federal monies, the governor must use the council as the coordinating entity for those functions. She wanted to point this out so as to not create a conflict. She said the concern is that it is beyond the current purview of the council to have planning and monitoring authority for all of the departments that are mentioned in the first section. She said she could not offer an immediate suggestion, but was trying to point out areas of concern. REP. PORTER asked about the intent to eliminate the words "plan and monitor" based on his understanding of Ms. Hansen's testimony that the council is required to "coordinate". Number 420 MS. HANSEN responded that the council has a responsibility to plan and to some degree monitor within the purview of those programs over which it has federal responsibility. She said there must be a way of wording that would resolve this concern. Number 427 REP. GREEN referred to section 1 and asked if he understood correctly that if there was just regulation, then the other departments would have the option of voluntary interaction, and therefore statute was necessary. Number 431 MS. HANSEN responded that this was not actually what she intended. She said, in fact, it was the position of the administration to coordinate among all of these departments whenever necessary whether it be for economic development, job training, educational components or whatever. From her perspective, the administration performs this function of "cooperating and coordinating." Number 441 REP. GREEN said he was not being argumentative but he did not quite understand why the statute was necessary. Number 444 MS. HANSEN responded that a statute was not required, but would elevate this to a greater (indiscernible). She said the coordination that was being requested does not require a statute, but placing it as policy in statute gives it greater visibility, and it was her understanding that the council's desire was to have it as a more publicly established policy. Number 454 REP. HUDSON asked, "But you are doing it anyway?" MS. HANSEN replied, "Yes, from my perspective, as part of the administration, I think that we are doing it, and of course we can do it better and more. But I believe it is being done." REP. SITTON referred to page 2, line 9, and asked about the reference to "public officials" and wondered if this was applicable to local school boards. MS. HANSEN replied that this was an excellent comment and she did not have a response concerning what was intended. Number 466 CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2, line 26, and asked about the substitution of the word "may" for "shall". He said he did not understand how this fails to assure compliance with federal requirements. He said it was not that the governor would not use the council to comply with federal law; the governor would have to do that, because that law would precede anything in a public policy of this nature. But, he continued, this rewording might result in the governor's use of the council as a coordinated effort to develop a more specific plan. He stated, for the record, that this committee would not do anything to preclude the governor's responsibility of using the council in compliance with federal law or regulation. Number 489 MS. HANSEN said this was going a little beyond her purview. She was trying to assist in informing the debate and wanted to raise this as an issue for discussion. Number 497 MS. CALL said even though she respected Ms. Hansen's opinion on coordination, one problem she has seen is the lack of an over-riding policy in Alaska, and a policy is necessary because Alaska is facing a budget crises. She added that she had no problem using the word "may". She said she represented a company and an industry that hire from outside the state and she questioned why there continues to be hiring from outside when Alaska has an excellent university system. She added that Alaskan industries other than oil need to be developed and this document addresses the fact that now is the time to develop some goals and objectives for the next ten years. Number 516 REP. PORTER moved that the committee adopt CSHB 388, dated 3/18/94 J. CHAIRMAN HUDSON, hearing no objections, stated that CSHB 388, dated 3/18/94 J, was properly before the committee. REP. PORTER moved that on page 2, line 26, the deletion of the word "shall" and replacement by the word "may". CHAIRMAN HUDSON, hearing no objection to that amendment, declared the amendment adopted. The chair then withdrew the amendment that had been prepared. Number 523 VINCE BARRY, Director, Education Program Support, Department of Education, said the department disagreed with the idea that the council should plan, coordinate, and implement these programs. He said he wanted to make it very clear that the department supports the concept of a comprehensive policy, and he pointed out that currently the ten departments and the university do collaborate on dozens of activities. He suggested, as an example of a possible comprehensive policy statement, that this committee direct the ten departments and the university to plan, coordinate, and implement their programs. He said, "as soon as you give it to some entity, you are involved in a program, as opposed to a policy." He added that this was simply too phenomenal of an undertaking for one single entity. TAPE 94-32, SIDE A (NOTE: TAPE 94-31, SIDE B, BROKEN) Number 001 CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2, section (g), and said that the governor's power and responsibility was, in effect, being maintained by this legislation. Number 014 MR. BARRY pointed out that this was not as simple as it seemed because the Department of Education and other departments were not members of the council, so if the council were to become the entity, other issues would then be created. He reiterated that a policy statement was included in Section 1. Number 027 CHAIRMAN HUDSON mentioned that perhaps the council could be expanded to include the Department of Education. He said the current language leaves the selection of a coordinating entity as being discretionary with the governor and he asked Mr. Barry if he felt very strongly about "planning, moderating, and coordinating through the council." Number 041 MR. BARRY restated that this would be an impossible task under these circumstances. He said he found it difficult to imagine all the reports that would be necessary to bring the information into a meaningful format. He said he did not mean to be disrespectful, but other than paying lip service to the fact that people need to be trained and educated, he did not want to be misleading and say that passage of this legislation "would effectively bring things together." Number 055 CHAIRMAN HUDSON said there seems to be a need for a coordinating aspect between the different departments, possibly similar to the Telecommunications Information Council (TIC). He added that he really was not sure, but possibly the council was not the right entity for this function. Number 068 REP. GREEN referred to page 3 and read, "the council shall submit a report every year to the governor and the legislature, and every four years there will be an audit" and expressed his concern that this does seem to be a major job, and yet there was a zero fiscal note. Number 077 MR. BARRY said as soon as you insert any entity, even if it is a benign approach, then you are off of the policy issue. He said that deleting the issue on lines 25-27 allows this to be a comprehensive policy relating to human resources and development in the state. Number 098 REP. PORTER said he did not have a problem with the legislature stating a policy and making suggestions for implementation; indeed that was the role of the legislature. He pointed out that the council has better access to private sector involvement than other departments and this facilitates the coordination of job training. He said his interest was in training pertaining to private jobs rather than training pertaining to public jobs. He mentioned that the council already has this set up and coordinated. He added that perhaps the role of the council would be expanded, and this would be fine. He asked, "What would we have if we took this statement out?" He said, "We would have a policy, but with no direction at all." He concluded by saying he was comfortable with reducing the language to "may" but stated this was the work of the council. Number 119 CHAIRMAN HUDSON said that a slightly amended CS was before the committee. He asked if there was any further discussion. Number 123 REP. SITTON said he agreed with the idea of having a unified work policy, but his personal view was that this piece of paper did not accomplish anything, that the governor already has the power to gather together the commissioners and the university, and that this was simply "clogging up the lawbook and will not accomplish anything in the end." Number 131 CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked for the wish of the committee. REP. PORTER emphasized that a year and a half of work had gone into this. CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that HB 388 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|