Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/03/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB34 | |
| HB151 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB157 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 3, 2021
1:34 p.m.
1:34:17 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Laddie Shaw, Sponsor; Josh Walton, Staff,
Representative Laddie Shaw; Representative Ivy Spohnholz,
Sponsor; Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Sponsor;
Representative Sara Rasmussen, Sponsor; Crystal Koeneman,
Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Lynn Kile, President, Vietnam Helicopter Pilot Association
- Alaska Chapter, Anchorage; Reid Madganz, Self, Kotzebue;
Natasha Singh, General Counsel, Tanana Chiefs Conference;
Norm Wooten, Director of Advocacy, Association of Alaska
School Boards; Sondra Meredith, Administrator, Teacher
Certification, Department of Education and Early
Development.
SUMMARY
HB 19 LIMITED TEACHER CERTIFICATES; LANGUAGES
HB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 34 NAMING VIETNAM HELI. PILOTS' MEM. BRIDGE
HB 34 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal note: FN1 (DOT).
HB 151 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR COVID-19
CSHB 151(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "no recommendation" recommendation and with one
new zero fiscal note from the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development.
HB 157 APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR
HB 157 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 182 EXTEND FISHERY RESOURCE LAND. TAX CREDIT
HB 182 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act naming the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots' Memorial
Bridge."
1:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LADDIE SHAW, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill. He shared that the topic was close to
his heart as he had served two tours in Vietnam. He relayed
that as a certified helicopter pilot, he was honored to be
invited to be part of the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots
Association. He noted that the idea for the legislation had
originated with Representative Cathy Tilton, who had
graciously offered to have him carry it. He acknowledged
the work done on the bill by Representative Tilton's staff.
He read from prepared remarks:
The photo that I'm passing around was taken September
20, 1970, nearly 51 years ago. I talked about these
helicopters being a lifeline to my generation. That
helicopter is hovering, it had no place to land,
typical of the delta and the jungle of Vietnam. That
day I lost two of my teammates. That helicopter is
medevacing three of my fellow teammates that were
wounded. Truly a lifeline. In salute to those helo
drivers, I would like to make note of a communication
between Ghost Rider 172 and Ghost Rider 174:
Red Hat 6, this is Ghost Rider 172. I'm sorry I
won't be there to assist you any more today, my
helicopter has been shot and I personally have
been gut shot. I have to leave you now. Hang on,
good luck.
The radio transmission from the 189th assault
helicopter company pilot to an Army captain and his
unit fighting the 66th North Vietnamese Regiment, 27
February 1968.
Ghost Rider 172 was hit 20 times in a heavily armed
area deep in enemy territory. The aircraft made a
forced landing causing moderate damage to the aircraft
and to crew members. Ghost Rider 174 had an engine
failure and crashed eight miles south. Ghost Rider 172
was of a total loss, fortunately with negative
injuries to the crew. Over 12,000 U.S. military
helicopters spent 7.5 million hours in Vietnam flying
2 million missions. A total of 5,086 choppers,
literally 42 percent were destroyed by enemy fire.
Vietnam truly was the introduction of the helicopter
operations in wartime.
1:39:22 PM
Representative Shaw continued to review the bill with
prepared remarks:
Many of those helicopters were not only destroyed by
enemy fire, they were also destroyed by bad weather,
mechanical snafus, and other bad hands that war
routinely deals with those who are sent to fight it.
The total among those who flew for a living: 2,000
pilots killed, 2,700 crew chiefs dead. On April 18,
2018, a memorial marker was unveiled at Arlington
National Cemetery just outside of Washington, D.C. to
honor the young men who gave their lives flying and
maintaining the helicopters flown in Vietnam; it was
an event three years in the making. I was 22 years old
in that picture.
This monument is 22 inches high, 21 inches deep, and
32 inches wide. It was placed in Section 35 along
Memorial Drive, not far from the tomb of the Unknown
Soldier. As a Vietnam veteran, I want to express my
gratitude to the members of the Vietnam Helicopter
Pilots Association for their leadership on this issue.
For so many reasons, we need to remember the courage
and the selflessness of our comrades who paid the
ultimate price in service to our country, and I hope
we won't take three years to provide this small honor.
1:41:51 PM
JOSH WALTON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LADDIE SHAW, explained
the bill. The bill would rename bridges 1124 and 1889 that
span the Matanuska River heading northbound and southbound
at mile 30.4 of the Glenn Highway as the Vietnam Helicopter
Pilots Memorial Bridge. He referenced photos of the bridge
in members' packets. Members' packets also included
background on the roles that helicopters and helicopter
pilots played in the Vietnam conflict. He shared that it
was the first war to use helicopters in a significant way.
He noted their effectiveness had been proven in the
conflict. He elaborated that the packets contained an
academic article and contemporary articles highlighting the
heroism of the Vietnam helicopter pilots and some of the
challenges they had faced in being recognized post-
conflict. He relayed that the bill had the support of Lynn
Kile, President of the Alaska chapter of the Vietnam
Helicopter Pilots Association. He added that the sponsor
had received a letter from the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs Commissioner Torrence Saxe, offering his
department's support for the legislation (also included in
members' packets). He thanked the committee for its time.
Co-Chair Merrick acknowledged the many courageous things
Representative Shaw had done in his lifetime. She thanked
him for sharing his personal story.
1:44:18 PM
Representative Thompson thanked Representative Shaw for his
service.
LYNN KILE, PRESIDENT, VIETNAM HELICOPTER PILOTS ASSOCIATION
- ALASKA CHAPTER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that he is a Vietnam veteran. He shared that the
organization in Alaska had about 85 pilots and crew
members. He noted that according to the national database,
there were likely 300 more pilots and crew members in
Alaska that had not yet been reached. He thanked the
committee for taking up the historical and memorial
opportunity. He thanked Representative Shaw and noted that
his story was one of many. He stated that it had been a
difficult time and the bill was a small token of
recognition. He relayed that he had listened to various
committee hearings on the bill in the past several years
and he had been overwhelmed by the positive response and
touching comments.
Mr. Kile highlighted that Alaska is an aviation state with
a large military population. He elaborated that many of the
returning helicopter pilots and crew members from Vietnam
were instrumental in all aspects of building, maintaining,
and implementing the state's aviation, transportation, and
logistics infrastructure. He stated that the individuals
had learned a valuable skill in the jungles of Vietnam and
had brought the training home to Alaska. He highlighted
that from logistics to medical evacuations, the bill was an
opportunity to complete the honor, which other committees
had already seen to be a worthy cause. He emphasized that a
sign on a heavily traveled route in view of the Gold Star
Peak would show a small token of thanks to individuals who
were instrumental in building Alaska and to memorialize
others who did not return. He noted that Vietnam veterans
did not receive a very honorable return. He relayed it was
an opportunity to honor their contribution and sacrifice to
the country and Alaska. He underscored that the honor was
worthy of the individuals' legacy and a historical reminder
of the dedication of the landmark on the Matanuska bridge
in their honor. He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to speak.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Kile for his service to the
country.
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
1:47:58 PM
AT EASE
1:49:24 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Representative Johnson for passing
out co-sponsor sheets to members.
HB 34 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[Note: HB 34 was taken up again at 1:54 p.m. and reported
from committee. See below for detail.]
1:49:46 PM
AT EASE
1:51:51 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter requested to take up HB 34 again
and report it from committee.
1:52:13 PM
AT EASE
1:54:12 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act naming the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots' Memorial
Bridge."
1:54:32 PM
Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Rasmussen had
joined the meeting.
Representative Carpenter MOVED to REPORT HB 34 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 34 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
note: FN1 (DOT).
1:54:48 PM
AT EASE
1:56:04 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to unemployment benefits during a
period of state or national emergency resulting from a
novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak; and
providing for an effective date."
1:56:08 PM
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0704\I.3 (Wayne, 4/26/21) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 8, through page 2, line 3:
Delete "To the extent consistent with federal law, an
insured worker who is otherwise qualified to receive a
benefit under AS 23.20 (Alaska Employment Security
Act) may not be disqualified for failure to comply
with AS 23.20.378(a) because of conduct by the insured
worker or the employer of the insured worker related
to an outbreak of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-
19), including conduct involving
(1) providing care, including medical care, to one or
more persons;
(2) preventing or limiting the spread of COVID-19; or
(3) preventing or limiting economic loss or harm.
(b)"
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 2, line 6, following "AS 23.20.375(a).":
Insert "in this subsection, "insured worker" has the
meaning given in AS 23.20.520."
Page 2, line 11:
Delete all material.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
[Note: the following discussion through 1:57 p.m.
inadvertently addressed Amendment 2 (not yet offered).]
Representative Rasmussen explained that the amendment
repealed the additional benefit date to September 6, 2021
to align with the current federal date for extended
unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. She stated it would
cover the state through the tourist season. She recognized
the tourism industry would continue to be greatly impacted
by the aftereffects of the pandemic. She believed the
amendment was a compromise given that many businesses in
Anchorage were uncomfortable expanding the UI benefits.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson asked if the amendment would
shorten the period of the benefits from the end of the year
to September.
Representative Rasmussen answered that the amendment would
align with the federal UI extension date of September 6,
2021.
Representative Josephson requested an "at ease."
1:57:57 PM
AT EASE
1:59:08 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Rasmussen apologized and relayed she had
inadvertently been describing Amendment 2 in her previous
explanation. She clarified that Amendment 1 would delete
the work requirement exemption from the bill. She believed
her office had worked with the bill sponsor's office on the
language in the amendment.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion. He
requested time to look at Amendment 1.
1:59:41 PM
AT EASE
2:00:15 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon,
Ortiz, Merrick
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Josephson, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (7/3). There being NO OBJECTION,
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wool was absent from the vote.
2:01:37 PM
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
LS0704\I.2 (Wayne, 4/21/21) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 28:
Delete "Section 1 of this Act is"
Insert "Sections 1 and 2 of this Act are"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete all material
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Rasmussen explained that Amendment 2 would
repeal the additional benefits date to September 6, 2021
and aligned with the federal extension for UI benefits.
Representative Wool asked if the amendment sponsor would
consider splitting the difference and shortening the
extension date to December 6 instead of September 6. He
thought extending the state assistance several months would
help bridge the gap after federal assistance ended in
September. His proposal would give extra dependent
assistance for three additional months instead of going to
March 31 [2022].
Representative Rasmussen stated that she did not support
amending the amendment date. She shared that she had heard
from close to 50 businesses in the Anchorage area, mostly
in retail and hospitality. She was concerned that extending
the benefits through the holiday season would make it even
more difficult for businesses to find employees. She
remarked that November and December were very busy months
for retail and hospitality. She wanted to have something in
place for people who were struggling, but she did not want
to impact job positions in the $15 to $20 per hour range.
She did not want to make it too difficult for small
businesses to keep their doors open due to lack of
personnel during the holidays.
Representative Wool understood and appreciated the
comments. He was familiar with the challenge in finding
employees. He remarked that Alaska's state unemployment was
one of the lowest in the nation. He speculated that someone
getting a supplemental from the federal government that
expired on September 6 would want to try to find a job. He
expounded that if the person could not find a job and they
had kids at home, the extension to December would give them
an additional $50 above the state amount per child per
week. He did not believe it was a lot of money and it would
help make the transition easier after the federal money
ended. He stated he may move to amend Amendment 2 by
changing the date to December 6.
2:05:16 PM
AT EASE
2:06:57 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wool MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2. He proposed
changing the date on page 2, line 29 to December 6, 2021.
Representative Rasmussen OBJECTED. She relayed that she had
learned that many small businesses in her district were
opposed to a longer extension. She believed the September 6
date in the original amendment was a fair compromise.
2:07:47 PM
Representative Wool provided wrap up to conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. He stated that the additional
federal unemployment payments ended on September 6. He
pointed out that the bill included an extension to March.
He viewed December as the compromise. He stated that
September was the same cutoff as the federal government. He
highlighted that Alaska was one of the lowest unemployment
reimbursement states. He understood the disincentive to go
back to work if someone was receiving too much, but he did
not believe people would be receiving too much after
September 6. He stated there may be people who abused the
system, but he noted there were many people who did not who
had kids at home and were actively looking for work.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster
OPPOSED: Thompson, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen,
Merrick
The MOTION to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2
FAILED (5/6).
2:10:09 PM
Co-Chair Merrick returned to Amendment 2 for consideration.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED to the amendment. He understood
the anecdotal comments some members had been receiving from
their districts; however, the impact of the amendment would
be statewide. He stated the committee had heard in public
testimony there were large sections of the state that could
use the unemployment benefit. He recognized there may be
businesses in certain areas that saw themselves as being
negatively impacted by the benefits; however, based on
testimony, a broader range of people needed the resources
and would continue to need them.
Representative Wool stated that if a person did not have
children, they would lose any federal subsidy to their
unemployment. He remarked that Alaska was at the lowest
reimbursement rate, and he did not believe it was a
disincentive to go back to work. He elaborated that if a
person had a couple of kids, they would receive $100 per
week. He stated it was not a lot of money and would not
prevent people from looking for work. He pointed out that
people looking for work needed daycare for their children,
which was an added expense. As a small business owner, he
was very familiar with the trouble of finding workers. He
noted that pre-pandemic the situation was real, and it had
been worsened by the pandemic. He remarked that adding the
supplemental for a dependent on top of the state's low
unemployment reimbursement only brought the amount up to
what an average state paid. He did not view the money as a
disincentive. He thought extending the benefits several
more months was the moderate approach. He thought September
may be hard for many people.
Representative Edgmon agreed with the comments by the past
two members. He viewed the benefits as a safety net. He
stated that based on the testimony heard from the
department, it had a rigorous eligibility process. He read
from the brochure that once a person opened a claim, they
needed to file every two weeks to receive payments and
actively looking for jobs. He stated that with respect to
the maker of the motion and the reference to businesses, he
believed the businesses were all Southcentral based. He
pointed out that the issue was statewide in scope. He noted
that perhaps schools may not be open in the fall, including
in the Anchorage School District. He surmised that the
issue came down to a personal legislative philosophy. He
stated that if he could help one single mother with
children who could not go to school for whatever reason and
legitimately needed unemployment, he would vote in that
direction. He did not support the amendment.
2:14:21 PM
Representative Carpenter noted that the amendment did not
eliminate help for anyone. He highlighted that the
amendment would reduce the benefit from the high levels
that resulted from the COVID response. He believed it was
necessary to pick a date at some point in time to return to
normal. He remarked that there would always be an excuse,
reason, or justification to continue spending money. He
noted it was a difficult conversation to select a date. He
stated it was hard to predict what the conditions would be
in September, December, or March. He elaborated that it
would be a busy year except for some industries that were
already covered. He did not want to set the busy season
going into the winter with a challenge for employment. He
believed the amendment included the right timing. He added
that the legislature could always come back and readdress
the issue if needed.
2:15:43 PM
Representative Rasmussen provided wrap up on the amendment.
She noted that a single mom who was not working would
qualify for state assistance for many things including
daycare and food. She believed if the concern was that
Alaska had the lowest UI benefits it should be addressed in
a separate bill not related to the Coronavirus pandemic but
related to an intent to permanently raise UI. She stressed
that the situation was not anecdotal. She underscored that
the private sector was struggling, and businesses were
closing because they could not find enough personnel. She
was concerned the benefits would become an additional state
expense when the federal money was gone. She stated the
federal money was available through September 6. She
highlighted that the Alaska tourism season had
predominantly been shut down due to the Center for Disease
Control (CDC) and Canadian decisions on borders and cruise
ships, which had impacts throughout the state. She agreed
with Representative Carpenter about the need to look
towards an end date to get back to normal.
Representative Rasmussen referenced statements made by
others about a mom who could not put her child in daycare.
She emphasized that if there were not any personnel for
businesses, there would not be daycare available for people
to go to. She recalled testimony from an owner of a large
daycare in Southcentral who talked about the difficulty
telling families they could not provide care due to a lack
in staff. She stated it was a double-sided issue. She
reiterated her earlier statements that the amendment was a
compromise and aligned with the federal date.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen, Thompson,
Merrick
OPPOSED: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO OBJECTION,
Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
2:18:28 PM
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 32-
LS0704\I.1 (Wayne, 4/20/21) (copy on file):
Page 1, lines I - 2:
Delete "during a period of state or national emergency
resulting from a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
outbreak"
Page 2, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "For the duration of a state or national
emergency for an outbreak of novel coronavirus disease
(COVID-19), the"
Insert "The"
Page 2, lines 14 - 15:
Delete "DURING NOVEL CORONA VIRUS DISEASE OUTBREAK"
Page 2, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "for the duration of a state or national
emergency for an outbreak of novel coronavirus disease
(COVID-19),"
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Thompson asked to hear from the bill sponsor
about the reason for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, SPONSOR, spoke to the reason
for Amendment 3. She thanked Representative Thompson for
introducing the amendment on her behalf. She detailed that
her office had worked with the amendment sponsor to remove
the reference to the state or national emergency relating
to COVID from the legislation after consulting with the
department and learning the specific language was
unnecessary.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 151(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 151(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development.
2:20:24 PM
AT EASE
2:21:27 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to instruction in a language other
than English; and establishing limited language
immersion teacher certificates."
2:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR, explained that the
bill related to teacher certification. He noted that
identical legislation had been offered in the previous
legislature. He added that some legislators may recall very
similar legislation two legislatures back, which passed by
a 40-0 vote. The bill would create a limited teacher's
certificate for teachers in the field of immersion language
education. He stated there were two sides to the topic. The
first was world language education, which he believed
people in Southcentral Alaska were very familiar with. He
elaborated that the Anchorage School District (ASD) had a
diverse, nationally leading program of immersion language
education from Japanese to French to Russian. The second
side of the utility of the limited certificate was Native
language education. He highlighted a Yupik immersion
language elementary school in Bethel. He relayed that in
the Yukon Kuskokwim (YK) region there was substantial
interest in starting other Native language immersion
programs around the state. He added that the ASD recently
launched a Yupik language immersion program as well.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins relayed that HB 19 spoke to
many of the unique challenges associated with launching and
maintaining immersion language programs. He added that the
programs were nearly universally popular with parents,
educators, school board members, and districts. He stressed
it was very difficult within the current certification
system to be able to recruit and certify teachers. The bill
provided flexibility in the ability to recruit and certify
fluent teachers in the languages. He relayed that districts
were desperate for the solution proposed in the bill and
had been asking for it for years. He hoped the legislature
could act and deliver on the promise and demand from
teachers and educators on immersion language education.
Representative Josephson stated that the country had many
lawfully admitted non-citizens who spoke Spanish, French,
German, and Japanese, for example. He asked if the bill
would allow them to obtain a teaching certificate that
would enable them to teach math, science, history, and
other topics.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that it depended. He
explained the answer was no if the person was teaching in
the English language, while the answer was maybe if the
person was teaching in their "target language" such as
Yupik or Russian depending on the regulations promulgated
by the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED), which were regulatory powers given to the agency in
the legislation. He relayed it would be up to the state
board and the Board of Education in order to promulgate
whatever sideboards they saw fit in terms of what could be
taught. He stated it was conceivable that the entities
could see the option as appropriate and if so, the answer
to Representative Josephson's question would be yes.
2:25:44 PM
Representative Josephson believed there was a dearth of
fluent indigenous language speakers for some languages in
Alaska. He did not believe it was the case for the Yupik
language. He shared that he had lived in the Yupik region
for three years. He remarked that the committee had
recently heard a bill from Representative Andi Story that
existed partly because of the concern. He asked if it was
currently difficult to find suitable candidates in Alaska
to teach classical language programs such as Spanish,
French, and German. He used his alma mater, West High in
Anchorage as an example.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that a Japanese
class at West High would not fall under the category of a
language immersion program and would fall outside the
parameters of the bill. He could not speak to traditional
foreign language classes, which were treated differently
than immersion language programs.
Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Wool had joined
the meeting earlier.
Representative LeBon provided a scenario where a high
school offered traditional language courses such as
Spanish, French, and German, in addition to a non-
traditional language such as Chinese. He asked if the
student taking Chinese as a substitution for the other
languages would receive equal credit if the school district
required a language credit for graduation.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins asked for a repeat of the
question.
Representative LeBon complied. He asked if an immersion
language course would be considered an elective that was
not part of the language requirements for graduation. For
example, he asked if a student would still need to take
Spanish to meet the language requirement for graduation.
2:29:30 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins provided context about
immersion language programs. He explained that the programs
typically started in elementary school in kindergarten. For
example, first graders were in a mostly Japanese language
environment and often tracked through middle school. He
explained that immersion programs typically tapered off at
the end of middle school when students were fully fluent in
the target language (e.g., Russian, Japanese, Yupik). The
elaborated that in high school there may be some
maintenance of the language, but they were already fully
fluent and were in a normal high school curriculum. He did
not know what the ASD did when students entering high
school were fully fluent in Japanese. He assumed that
because of a student's completion of a Japanese program in
their elementary and middle school years that their foreign
language requirements were satisfied for graduation.
Co-Chair Merrick shared that as a mother of a freshman at
Chugiak High School, many of the kids from the Spanish
immersion class attended the high school and she believed
some of their required courses were taken in the foreign
language.
Representative LeBon shared that his daughter had been in a
Japanese immersion program beginning in elementary school
through middle school. He explained that her high school
did not have Japanese and she had taken French to fulfill
the graduation language requirement. He shared that she had
received a university degree in Japanese studies. He was
trying to ascertain whether students would receive credit
towards the language requirement for graduation. Under a
scenario where credit was received, he asked about the
standard for proficiency required to earn the credit. He
wanted the option available in schools for students to
learn a language that may not traditionally be offered, but
if the state was granting credit for a foreign language
towards graduation, there had to be standards and
proficiency met.
2:32:44 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins thought it was a decision
made at the school district level how any given district
chose to accord credit for completion of an immersion
language program.
Representative LeBon agreed that school boards measured and
decided the question. He stated the easy answer for a
school board was to provide the traditional language
classes and make immersion an elective or after school
program, not credited toward graduation.
2:33:47 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked the bill sponsor for bringing the
legislation forward. He spoke the effort to do what was
possible to help preserve Alaska Native languages. He
understood that the bill did not address the specific goal.
He cited language in the sectional analysis (copy on file)
stating that "a person may only receive a limited language
immersion teaching certificate if they demonstrate
instructional skills and subject matter expertise
sufficient to assure the public that the person is
competent as a teacher." He considered the language to mean
that a person would have to prove they had the ability to
be a teacher and that they could teach some of the
different subject matter skills in the language. He asked
where the proof would be shown in the process. He asked how
it would take place.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that the specifics
would be promulgated by DEED. The bill provided directional
guidance codified in statute for the agency to build out a
regulatory structure. He thought it may be helpful to the
committee to "game out" what certification contemplated by
the bill would look like. He elaborated that if a teacher
was identified to teach an immersion language program
(e.g., a Tlingit language program in Juneau or Ketchikan or
an Armenian program in Anchorage) the district would
communicate they wanted the teacher, and the school board
would have to affirmatively vote to sponsor certification
of the teacher. He used Representative LeBon's former
experience on the Fairbanks School Board as an example and
explained that the board would have to vote to approve the
teacher. He elaborated that approval would subsequently be
required by the State Board of Education. He relayed there
were many hoops and checks the process had to go through.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins expounded that throughout the
process with the superintendent and school board sponsoring
the application for licensure and the approval on the state
level the questions on a person's instructional skills and
subject matter expertise would be adjudicated at each of
the levels along the way. He believed there would be ample
review. He elaborated that if one of the reviewing entities
along the way did not feel good about the licensure
application, they would say no. He stated that how the
standard would be adjudicated was a very relevant process.
2:38:01 PM
Representative Wool asked how often the process would take
place once approved. He asked if an application would be
approved for a period of one year or longer.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that the initial
certificate would be valid for one year as shown on page 2,
lines 17 and 18 of the bill. He stated there may be the
option of extension or renewal; it would be up to DEED to
determine the issue in regulation.
Representative Wool believed there was currently a similar
fast-track certification process for indigenous languages
for non-certified teachers.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins agreed. He elaborated the
specific teacher licensure was known as "type M" for
indigenous language in a non-immersion format. He explained
that the real focus of the bill was on immersion language
programs where elementary and middle schoolers were fully
immersed in all subjects in the target language. He relayed
that the existing type M licensure section also included
vocational and technical education. For example, if a
person was a skilled welder and the district thought they
would do well teaching classes, they could bring the person
in to teach. He believed military, arts, and science or
education existed under the type M section.
2:40:20 PM
Representative Josephson referenced schools that were
broadly considered to be extremely successful such as the
Rilke [Schule German] School in Anchorage. He asked for
verification that a student could graduate with a high
school diploma from Rilke.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins believed Representative
Josephson was accurate.
Representative Josephson hoped the Rilke School offered
physics and calculus. He asked how the school hired a
German proficient person for the [teaching] positions. He
asked if instructors had to prove they were proficient in
math and science in addition to German.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that it would be
valuable to hear from the ASD director of the world
language program who had been a strong advocate of the
policy in the proposed and past legislation. He noted that
the director had been through every travail and tribulation
to try to keep the immersion language programs staffed.
Additionally, staff and leadership at Fronteras [Spanish
Immersion Charter School} in Wasilla had shared many
anecdotes. He stated that education leaders trying to keep
and expand the programs, mostly in response to demand from
parents and students, were sometimes forced to resort to
creative and non-ideal means to keep good teachers in the
classroom. For example, there could be indefinite or long-
term substitutes who had expertise in language and another
subject as well. He added that schools often recruited from
the countries in question for world language programs. For
example, teachers were recruited from Columbia to teach
Spanish programs but if there was not the time to get the
teacher certificated, they may teach as a substitute. He
noted his answer was a composite of anecdotes he had heard
over the years. He stated that the situation was kind of a
nightmare and the individuals involved could speak more
authoritatively on the topic.
2:43:19 PM
Representative Wool stated his understanding that as
students progressed along their educational career that
some classes in an immersion school such as physics,
chemistry, and calculus may be taught in English.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins agreed. He recalled that
most immersion programs began with a blend between the
target language and English. He believed that as students
got older and progressed through subsequent grade levels,
the proportion of English relative to the target language
increased. For example, as students entered middle school,
an increasing portion of the day was in English versus the
target language as fluency got closer to being achieved. He
believed he recalled previous testimony on the legislation
that in the immersion language programs, superintendents or
principals try to get the fluent teachers to optimize or
maximize for their fluency. He believed Russian fluent
teachers typically were not teaching English in a Russian
language immersion program because it was the value add to
the program.
Representative Wool recalled speaking to someone on his
local school board after learning about the legislation. He
relayed that the person had told him they were having
difficulty finding a Spanish or French teacher. He noted
that the legislation was for an immersion school. He
believed there was a current shortage of language teachers
in both immersion and non-immersion schools. He surmised
the bill would not address the shortage. He asked for
verification that a person from a foreign country who was
teacher certified could not apply for a job as a Japanese
teacher in a non-immersion school. He asked for
verification that the bill only applied to immersion
schools and not traditional high schools that may also need
a foreign language teacher.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that Representative
Wool's statements were correct, broadly speaking. He
highlighted that the title of the bill indicated that it
focused on immersion programs. He did not expect the State
Board of Education would approve someone to work as a
normal Spanish language teacher at a non-immersion school
[as a result of the legislation].
2:48:01 PM
Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony.
REID MADGANZ, SELF, KOTZEBUE (via teleconference), shared a
personal story about his upbringing. He had been raised in
Kotzebue after his parents moved from the Lower 48. He
relayed that he had left the state to go to college and had
returned five years later. He shared that he had worked as
staff in the legislature upon his return. He had moved back
to Kotzebue and was learning Inupiaq and felt very lucky to
be among those who would help revitalize the language. He
was talking with friends around the state about their
experiences with the education system in the early stages
of an effort to help schools better serve students,
especially in rural Alaska.
Mr. Madganz relayed that his statements represented his
experience, particularly as a former student in Alaska's
public schools and working on Native language
revitalization. He spoke primarily from the rural Alaskan
perspective. He read from prepared remarks:
HB 19 directly addresses what I've come to understand
as the most important barrier to greater academic
success for rural Alaska students. That barrier is not
the size of the school, it's not the inherent
intelligence of our children, it's not whatever is
going on in the community outside the school walls,
it's relevance or more accurately, the lack of it. I
was talking to a friend here in town earlier this
winter, an elementary school teacher whose curriculum
on transportation was instructing her to teach about
subways. To teach elementary kids in Kotzebue who have
almost certainly never seen a subway, some of whom may
never see a subway. Meanwhile, if she wanted to teach
them about snowmachines in her transportation unit,
she would have had to draw on her own experience to
build that lesson. Is it any wonder then that we see
students lose interest in school, then lose interest
in learning, then be seen as only one of the
underwhelming statistics that we're all aware of when
it comes to rural Alaska education? It's a process I
saw repeated in classmate after classmate as I went
through school here in Kotzebue.
The goal of HB 19 is to change this dynamic by
supporting the development of language immersion
programs that will offer instruction directly relevant
to the experience of rural Alaska students. We know
from the experience of schools in our own state, like
Ayaprun Elitnaurvik in Bethel, as well as schools in
Hawaii, the Lower 48, and around the world, that well-
crafted immersion programs offering curricula relevant
to their community and students can raise academic
achievement and success across the board in every
subject for students of any race.
So, what is the barrier to this vision? The biggest
one is the lack of teachers. We have teachers with
certifications from universities, we have teachers who
are rooted in their communities and who know or are
learning their language. We have very, very few that
are both. So, for any school district a group of
community members wanting to start an immersion
school, the immediate challenge is how to staff it.
The challenge is so daunting that most efforts never
get off the ground or require to operate outside the
public school system where they struggle to grow and
sustain themselves due to funding constraints.
HB 19 tackles this problem head on, offering a
realistic and pragmatic path to start and maintain the
sorts of immersion schools that have proven so
successful here in Alaska and elsewhere. It recognizes
that the best preparation for providing a relevant
education to our students, especially when that
education is delivered through a Native language, is a
life in those students' communities, not necessarily a
university teacher program in the Lower 48.
HB 19 provides a path for school districts to get
those teachers into our classrooms, those teachers
most likely to kindle the fire of learning in our
students within regulatory parameters established by
the Department of Education and the State Board of
Education.
I want to end with a quick story. Kotzebue has an
Inupiaq immersion school, a tribal school run by the
local tribal government named Nikaitchuat Ilisagviat.
It serves at various times a set of students from
three years old to second grade. It's been in
operation for 23 years and for the best of my
knowledge has never had state certified teachers
because to my knowledge there aren't any state
certified teachers who can speak fluent Inupiaq in the
Northwest Arctic Borough. The students that attend
Nikaitchaut move to public school sometime between
first and third grade. When they do, they lead their
classes by example, examples of respect, behavior, and
leadership. As they move through school, many former
Nikaitchaut students often lead their classes in
academic performance. This is a small sample, but it's
a promise of what we can have more of and what HB 19
can help bring about on a broader scale. Thank you for
your time today and I'm happy to answer any questions.
2:54:39 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
NATASHA SINGH, GENERAL COUNSEL, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs Conference and
the Alaska Regional Coalition, which included four Alaska
Native regional nonprofits and one regional tribe including
the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Kawerak, Inc., Maniilaq
Association, Chugachmiut, and Central Council Tlingit-Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska representing 100 communities and
65,000 Alaskans. She relayed that language diversity in the
state provided enrichment. She stated that world languages
were great for the economy and indigenous languages held
the sciences that developed in this land for over 20,000
years. She elaborated that Native languages are the basis
of Native culture and identity.
Ms. Singh furthered that teaching Native languages had
proven to increase graduation rates and improve academic
achievements. She stated that the bill provided a way to
help elevate and preserve Alaska Native languages. She
urged the committee to pass the bill.
2:57:10 PM
NORM WOOTEN, DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY, ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA
SCHOOL BOARDS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
bill. He shared that the association had a number of
resolutions supporting the preservation of indigenous
languages and by extension, any language native to a
culture. He communicated that he had hosted a number of
foreign exchange students over the years, and he was almost
embarrassed to say that native born Americans were almost
last in being bilingual. He stated that in nearly every
other country, bilingualism was a commonality.
Mr. Wooten stated that regarding indigenous languages, the
quickest way to eliminate a culture was to eliminate the
language. He detailed that it had come close to occurring
in Alaska in the recent past when many indigenous citizens
were sent to boarding school and prohibited from speaking
their language. He encouraged the committee to support the
legislation and pass it from committee. He thanked the
committee for the opportunity to testify.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Josephson addressed a question to Sondra
Meredith with the Department of Education and Early
Development. He referenced a letter of support from Deena
Bishop, Superintendent of the Anchorage School District. He
noted that at the end of page 1 of the letter she talked
about DEED's program enrollment option. He understood the
program to require candidates to enroll in a teacher
education program at the same time they were teaching.
Additionally, Ms. Bishop referred to "type W" limited
certificates and noted they require teacher preparation
programs. He asked if he should be concerned that everyone
else still had to study education for 1.5 years, but the
class of people addressed in the bill may not have to
fulfill the same requirement.
SONDRA MEREDITH, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER CERTIFICATION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), answered there were some examples in
current statutes allowing for the situation under the type
M certificate including language and culture, ROTC and
military science, and vocational education. She explained
that the aforementioned subjects had been longstanding
allowances in statute. She elaborated that the individual
districts had monitored the skills of the individuals under
the certificates for a number of years to great success.
She believed that while there were traditional pathways [to
become a teacher], the certificate in the bill recognized
there were other ways to gather the skills outside of the
typical university experience.
Representative Josephson referenced testimony by Mr.
Madganz where he talked about education a person gathered
through experience as opposed to teacher training in the
classical sense. He had concern that critics of public
schools could say that teachers are not bred, they are
born. He asked if his concerns were merited.
3:03:18 PM
Ms. Meredith believed everyone had the concerns. She
thought districts had the concerns even with educators who
had gone through the more traditional pathways. She
explained that districts remedied the situations internally
with induction programs, mentoring, and additional
professional development opportunities for teachers. She
believed that should a district utilize the particular type
of certificate, just like with the type M currently being
used, there would be additional supports put in place for
educators that had been sponsored through the certificate.
She advised that everyone should be concerned with making
certain educators working with students possessed the
needed skills. She relayed that the certificate in the
legislation and the type M certificate recognized the
skills could come to an individual in a number of different
ways.
Representative Josephson viewed instruction in indigenous
language very differently than instruction in foreign
languages. He noted much of it had to do with the history
of indigenous peoples the United States.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced Ms. Meredith's discussion of
the similarities between the proposed new way a person
could become a certified teacher and the current type M
certificate process. He asked for verification that the
intent of the bill was to gear people towards immersion
instruction. He believed a person would have to speak the
particular language fluently and would need to be able to
teach complex mathematical and science subjects. He asked
if there may be a difference between the type M certificate
process and the new proposed process under HB 19.
Ms. Meredith answered that it would always be a concern.
She believed that like the type M certificate for
vocational education, there were some very complex things
being taught. She elaborated there was expertise in the
districts that could determine whether the level of
expertise was present in the individual being asked to
provide instruction. She stated that the bill would
recognize the ability of a district to evaluate the levels
of skills in a non-traditional way.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced language on page 1 of the bill
specifying that a person may only receive a limited
language immersion teacher certificate if they demonstrate
instructional skills and subject matter expertise
sufficient to assure the public that the person was
competent as a teacher. He asked if DEED had a vision as to
how the demonstration might take place prior to doing the
teaching. He stated that theoretically a person would not
be teaching prior to having a certificate. He reasoned that
somehow instructional skills would have to be demonstrated
to someone. He assumed the demonstration would be over a
period of time versus a one-hour demonstration in front of
a school board.
3:09:13 PM
Ms. Meredith answered there had been some alternative route
programs in Alaska that she had been involved in. She
shared that part of the application process had included
sample teaching lessons. She elaborated that much of the
interviewing and taking references from other entities
related to an individual's expertise, would fit into the
assurance component. She expounded that potential
additional experiences included working with students
outside of the school system or possibly as a
paraprofessional that had been observed by the district
prior to making the request.
Representative LeBon referenced the same sentence in the
bill as Vice-Chair Ortiz regarding subject matter and
expertise. He provided a scenario where a school district
via a school board was recommending the certification for
an immersion language instructor. He asked if DEED expected
the school district would define whether the language
offered would be considered a substitution for the
traditional languages offered (e.g., Spanish, French, or
German) and whether credit for graduation would be
received.
Ms. Meredith replied that the question asked by
Representative LeBon was more related to the high school
arena. She stated her understanding that most immersion
programs tended to end around middle school; however, it
would currently be up to the school district to determine
whether an indigenous language course would apply towards
graduation credit.
Representative LeBon replied that the answer was what he
expected. He remarked that his daughter's experience had
been Japanese immersion in elementary and middle school. He
elaborated that the language had not been offered in high
school; therefore, she had taken French.
3:12:50 PM
Representative Carpenter looked at page 2, Section (f) of
the bill related to the extension or renewal of limited
language immersion certificates. He remarked that two
different paths were being provided, one for a non-Alaska
Native language and one for Alaska Native language. He
believed the bill addressed cumulative time spent under the
certificate for non-Alaska Native languages limited to a
total of five years. He stated his understanding that the
Alaska Native language certificates may exceed five years.
He asked if the bill addressed concerns about the quality
of instruction when a traditional university degree or
certificate was not required. He wondered if the bill
provided a check and balance or review when a certificate
was renewed. He saw that it was a requirement for non-
Alaska Native languages, but he thought it was something
that could potentially slip through the cracks [under the
legislation].
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins clarified that the section
referred to by Representative Carpenter was in a former
committee substitute. The current version of the bill was
the House Education Committee version I, which did not
include Section (f) - the section had been removed in the
previous committee by unanimous vote.
Representative Carpenter confirmed that the committee was
looking at version B of the legislation.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins shared that the only change
in the updated bill version was the exclusion of Section
(f). He relayed that the previous legislature did not
include Section (f) in the original version of the bill.
The section had been added to the bill in the House Labor
and Commerce Committee in the last legislature.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins responded to Representative
Carpenter's question. He explained the thought behind the
previous inclusion of Section (f) was that it was perhaps a
different set of circumstances for Alaska Native teachers
and immersion programs, but for world language programs the
continual renewal of a limited teacher certificate was not
desired. He thought the situation was very unlikely to
happen for a variety of reasons. He explained that the
limited certificate was a significant pain to go through as
it required numerous checks and hurdles. He elaborated that
the process required being sponsored by the superintendent,
school board, and the State Board of Education and was
initially approved for one year only. He did not believe it
was very bankable for a person to be hanging their
livelihood on such a precarious certification process. He
believed there was tremendous incentive for anyone
certificated through the process to be working toward
traditional certification.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins relayed that he was very
supportive of trying to support immersion programs and the
bill had been crafted from a pragmatic perspective with
what could achieve stakeholder support and support from the
legislature. He was concerned the bill would not go far
enough in terms of the crisis facing Native language
education. The bill reflected that policymaking was a
pragmatic process. He elaborated there were myriad
incentives, and he did not believe a teacher would be
cycling through in that way. He referenced Ms. Meredith's
testimony in addition to conversations he had with DEED
over the years and did not believe DEED would encourage or
countenance someone cycling through in the limited
certificate program for world languages or otherwise. He
believed there was significant agency desire to see
teachers under traditional certification.
3:18:59 PM
Representative Carpenter appreciated the answer. He asked
about the timeframe in which the limited certificate would
be evaluated for recertification.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that the initial
certificate was one year. He explained that a person got an
audition or cameo and if it was a failure there was a
guaranteed review that would occur within one year. The
bill would leave it up to DEED to determine what extensions
or recertifications would look like. He stated that part of
the reasoning for the one-year certificate was to provide a
quick follow up to evaluate how things were going.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the bill sponsor and relayed the
bill would be considered again at a later date.
HB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:20:23 PM
AT EASE
3:20:52 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 157
"An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of
certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities that
expend money in support of or in opposition to an
application filed for a state referendum or recall
election; and providing for an effective date."
3:21:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN, SPONSOR, explained that the
bill would realign reporting requirements for the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC). She explained there was
currently disparity between the recall referendum reporting
requirements and the initiative process. The bill aligned
the timelines in order to provide increased transparency
for the public in all processes.
3:21:57 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN,
provided a sectional analysis (copy on file):
Sections 1: AS 15.13.010(b) Applicability related to
State Election Campaigns. Adds language related to
initiative proposal, referendum, and recall
applications.
Sections 2: AS 15.13.050(a) Registration before
expenditure. Adds language related to referendum and
recall applications.
Sections 3: AS 15.13.065(c) Contributions. Adds
language related to referendum and recall
applications.
Sections 4: AS 15.13.110(e) Filing of Reports.
Rewrites the language related to those receiving or
making expenditures to support or oppose referendums.
This language is identical to the language contained
in AS 15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting
requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative
reporting requirements.
Sections 5: AS 15.13.110 Filing of Reports. Adds a
new subsection (k) for those receiving or making
expenditures to support or oppose a recall. This
language is identical to Section 4 of this bill and AS
15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting
requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative
reporting requirements.
Sections 6: AS 15.13.400(4) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "contributions" to include groups
and referendum and recall applications.
Sections 7: AS 15.13.400(7) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "expenditures" to include referendum
and recall applications.
Sections 8: AS 15.13.400(7) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "group" to include referendum and
recall applications.
Sections 9: Uncodified law. States that this Act
applies only to referendums or recalls that are filed
on or after the effective date of this Act.
Sections 10: Provides for a January 1, 2022 effective
date.
3:24:49 PM
Representative Rasmussen noted that there was a current,
very public recall for the governor. She relayed that the
legislation had support from one of the attorneys involved
in the recall, one of her constituents, Mr. Scott Kendall.
She noted a letter of support included in members' bill
packets. She highlighted there was a legal memo indicating
the legislation should not see any legal challenges
regarding the First Amendment.
HB 157 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the following
morning.
ADJOURNMENT
3:26:31 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:26 p.m.