Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/22/1999 01:30 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 27-ACCESS TO DRIVING/SCHOOL RECORDS OF CHILD
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought up SB 27 and stated that the prime sponsor
Senator Leman is present to testify.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN said that he introduced SB 27 in response to a
constituent complaint. A mother in Anchorage was concerned that
her minor daughter might be driving with a suspended driving
license. When she contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
she was denied access to that information. The DMV told her that
privacy protections in the law prohibited the state from disclosing
any information about her daughter's driving record.
He stated that others on the committee who have had teenagers are
aware of the responsibilities parents must assume once a child
receives a driving license. The parent must consent before the
license is issued, and then the law holds the parent responsible
for any damage caused by negligence or wilful misconduct while the
child is operating the vehicle.
In the example of the Anchorage mother who called him, SENATOR
LEMAN stated she was denied the information but if her daughter had
been arrested for driving with a suspended license, the police
would have called her, the parent, first.
He said he suspects this provision in state law was unintentional.
The statutes governing DMV include a provision that keeps all
driving records "confidential and private." This makes sense in
relation to adults, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the
parent-child relationship. SENATOR LEMAN referred members to the
statute in the bill packet and pointed out an exception that allows
law enforcement personnel to have access to the information. There
is no such exception for parents, and SB 27 will correct this
problem.
While the legislation was being drafted, he also asked Legal
Services to research another area of the statutes and determine if
there's any provision in state law guaranteeing parents the right
to access their children's school records. He learned there is no
such law. There is a statute (AS 25.20.130) that guarantees a non-
custodial parent the same access to school records that is allowed
for custodial parents but nowhere does the law define what access
rights a custodial parent has.
For that reason, Section 1 of the bill adds a provision that also
guarantees parental access to school records. The Anchorage School
District already has this policy, and it may be the policy in other
school districts in the state, but he said he is not sure. There
is a federal law, also in the bill packets, that denies federal
funding to any educational agency or institution that does not
allow parental access to children's school records. For that
reason, SENATOR LEMAN said he feels it is prudent to state clearly
in the statutes that parents have a right to this information.
SENATOR LEMAN concluded his remarks and said that Mike Pauley,
Staff Aide, would remain to answer questions.
Number 511
CHAIRMAN MILLER referred to the two fiscal notes in the bill packet
and asked Senator Leman about support or opposition, and if there
have been problems with the Administration on the bill.
SENATOR LEMAN replied that DMV says this makes sense and they are
willing to work on it. The only concern relating to school
district records was voiced by the Council on Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault (CDVSA) that the residence address of the child
would be divulged to the non-custodial parent who may have a
judgment or restraining order against him. SENATOR LEMAN stated
that it could be worked out and if it's part of a court order, the
school district shouldn't have to release that information. It
could be a policy established by regulation rather than put in
statute and that would be consistent with the intent of this
legislation. That is the only concern that has been raised.
Number 528
SENATOR ELTON asked Mike Pauley, Staff to Senator Leman, about
residence records in case of a restraining order, and how a school
record is defined. In some districts, a law enforcement officer
may have notes on students or may be keeping a record. Federal law
defines school record as academic records, and there are
exclusions. Is it the Senator's intent to use the federal
definition?
MIKE PAULEY replied it is not defined in the statute and it could
be addressed in regulation or left to the discretion of the
individual school districts. Regarding his first concern, he and
the Senator don't feel the child's physical address is relevant to
their driving or academic records. Both the Department of
Education (DOE) and the CDVSA have expressed concern about this.
This information could be excluded from the child's records either
by regulation or administrative discretion.
SENATOR ELTON stated Anchorage school district provides for the
release of records, but excludes medical and psychological records
of children. Under the broad language in the bill, he is unsure
those exclusions would be applicable or that Anchorage would be
allowed to continue to exclude certain records. He gave as an
example the disincentive for a student to go to the school health
clinic if he has a sexually transmitted disease and that record
could be released to the custodial parent, non-custodial parent or
step parent.
MR. PAULEY responded the bill as it is drafted is merely neutral on
that question. It would not prevent the disclosure of such
information, but neither would it require it. It is a
discretionary matter, and the sponsor would not object to providing
further clarity, but they have tried to state policy in the statute
without trying to "micro manage" or imagine every case scenario.
NUMBER 571
CHAIRMAN MILLER clarified the controversy is in Section 1. He
asked Mr. Pauley to explain again why Section 1 was inserted.
Section 2 speaks for itself.
MR. PAULEY replied that they asked Legal Services to look for other
precedents to guide how the bill should be drafted. Legal
researched existing law on granting parents access to school
records, planning to model the driving records language after it,
and discovered there was nothing directly addressing parental
access to school records. MR. PAULEY reiterated the statute
25.20.130 which states " a parent who is not granted custody has
the same access to the medical, dental, school, and other records
of the child as the custodial parent." The noncustodial parent
having the same rights as the custodial parent seemed odd, leading
them to question what rights parents have. They felt it would add
clarity to state it specifically in the statutes that the
custodial parent has the right to access this information. The
federal law withholds funds to any agency or institution which
denies this access. Section 1 is consistent with federal law and
adds clarity to the existing state law.
Number 591
SENATOR WILKEN said that on Page 1, Section 2(c) it appears that if
the department asks for the records, a fee is not charged, but if
the parent asks, it is. He asked why the difference, and why not
have the department furnish the records to a parent without the
fee.
TAPE 99-05, SIDE B
Number 587
MR. PAULEY replied that in light of the current budget situation,
they tried to generate a bill with two zero fiscal notes and they
succeeded. If the committee wants to remove the fee, the sponsor
wouldn't object, but the Finance Committee might.
SENATOR WILKEN stated it ought to be reversed, with free records to
the parent and a charge to the department. He deferred to CHAIRMAN
MILLER.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if the apparent problem could be fixed by
changing language in Section 1, on lines 4 and 5, to "upon the
request of a custodial parent or a custodial guardian."
MR. PAULEY replied he believes that language change would place
this statute in conflict with the existing one in 25.20.130 that
says just the opposite -- that a non-custodial parent has this
access. The sponsor's intent is not to deny all non-custodial
parents access to that information, because there are only a small
number of non-custodial parents with a restraining order against
them for domestic violence. The concern of staff from DOE and
CDVSA is simply the address of the child. Again, the address is
not relevant to a driving or school records, and it could be
defined that it's not to be included in the accessed information.
He repeated it could be done either through regulation or
administrative discretion.
Number 569
SENATOR ELTON said he applauds the focus of both sections of the
bill and feels parents should have access. He suggested language
saying "access to school education records," which would limit
release of non-academic information including addresses, school
records of a medical or psychological nature, or the log book of a
police officer.
MR. PAULEY again stated the intent was not to "micro manage" too
much. If they state "academic" records, it would have to be
defined and whether or not it includes disciplinary action against
the child. Some people would argue that it does have relevance,
others would disagree. The sponsor does not want to dictate to the
DOE and the school districts how to implement that in the details.
Number 550
MS. MONA MAEHARA, Acting Executive Director, Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, stated the council supports the
sponsor's intention that parents have access to their child's
driving and school records. However, their concern is that these
documents would provide the address for both the minor and the
parent. This information given to parents with restraining or
protective orders against them could endanger the minor and the
other parent. She stated her appreciation of the committee's
understanding of the problem and effort to resolve it. The council
is working with the sponsor's staff, and has been told by DMV that
they can dock the address before they issue the driving abstract.
The council wants to minimize the time and effort placed on school
districts to protect both child and family. She offered to work
with the sponsor and the committee.
Number 527
SENATOR WILKEN moved a conceptual amendment with the intent to
remove any fee being charged to the parent. The text would read:
Page 1:
on line 13, strike the first "or"
add "agency," after "administrative"
strike the second "or"
after "judicial agency" add "or a parent or guardian"
on line 14, strike ";and (2) upon payment of a fee determined by
the
on line 15, strike "commissioner, furnish a parent or guardian of
a driver"
SENATOR WILKEN then read through the proposed language change.
CHAIRMAN MILLER offered it as a formal amendment.
SENATOR KELLY suggested striking the words "without charging a fee"
on line 12. He said it is intent language that the drafters would
pick up.
SENATOR ELTON expressed support for the amendment.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if there was objection to the amendment.
There being none, the amendment was adopted. The Chairman noted
there remain serious concerns regarding Section 1, and said he
would like the section to be redrafted. He requested Ms. Maehara,
Mr. Pauley and Sharon Clark work together on a compromise
committee substitute by Thursday's meeting so that the committee
can move the bill out. There being no further discussion, the
committee adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|