Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/21/1995 03:04 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 1995
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
BRIEFING:Impact Aid and Local Revenues, by Duane Guiley,
Department of Education.
HB 28:"An Act relating to the possession of weapons within the
grounds of or on the parking lot of preschools,
elementary, junior high, and secondary schools or while
participating in a school-sponsored event; requiring the
expulsion or suspension of students possessing deadly
weapons on school grounds; and relating to school lockers
and other containers provided in a public or private
school by the school or the school district."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 94:"An Act relating to the management of public schools by
a private agency."
HEARD AND HELD
WITNESS REGISTER
DUANE GUILEY, Director of School Finance
Department of Education
Goldbelt Building
801 W. 10th Street, Second Floor
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-8679
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefed HESS Committee members on Impact Aid
and Local Revenues.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for and provided sponsor statement
for HB 28.
HELEN MEHRKENS, Health Education and Health Program Coordinator
Department of Education
801 W. 10th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-8730
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Court Building, Room 717
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor testimony for HB 94.
MIKE FORD, Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 404
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 3867
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Listen only.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W. 11th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: POSSESSION OF GUNS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE, Rokeberg, Green, Toohey, Kott,
Elton
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 28 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
01/18/95 75 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
01/20/95 104 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
01/27/95 161 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT, ELTON
02/14/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/21/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/95 69 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/18/95 70 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
02/09/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/21/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-8, SIDE A
Number 052
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services (HESS) Standing Committee to order at
3:04 p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Rokeberg and Davis. Co-Chair Bunde announced that a quorum
was present and read the calendar.
HHES - 02/21/95
BRIEFING ON IMPACT AID AND LOCAL REVENUES
Number 098
DUANE GUILEY, Director of School Finance, Department of Education
(DOE) introduced fellow staff member Eddie Jeans, Project
Administrator, who does the calculations of federal disparity and
presents the information to the U.S. Office of Impact Aid annually
and negotiates any changes in the DOE's disparity trust
calculations with that office.
MR. GUILEY had provided the HESS Committee members with two
handouts. One handout referred to basic need and the DOE's
disparity formula, and the other contained the actual calculations
of the DOE's federal disparity for 1993. Mr. Guiley said that
basically, under the federal law, disparity is the recognition of
difference in either revenue or expense available to support each
student at individual school districts within each state.
MR. GUILEY continued that the methodologies and procedures had been
established in regulation prior to October 1994. When the federal
law was reauthorized in October 1994, the definition of disparity
and the procedural calculations were moved into federal law. The
disparity limit and the year of data to be used to measure
disparity was also changed within the federal law. Prior to October
1994, disparity had been set at a maximum of 25 percent, and it
used current year data to determine whether or not a state was in
compliance. Under the new federal law, the 25 percent applies to
fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997, and then it is reduced to 20
percent in fiscal years (FY) 98 and 99. The federal law further
provides that the data a state will use is from two fiscal years
prior.
MR. GUILEY explained that the law took effect in October 1994,
which was partly into FY 95 and then stated that 1993 data would be
used to determine if the DOE was in compliance in 1995. So the
1993 data was used twice, once for FY 93 and once for FY 95. In
1996, that data will be the first data used for a 20 percent year,
which is 1998. There is an exception in the federal law, which
says that if a state substantially revises its funding formula and
submits that revision to the U.S. Secretary along with preliminary
or estimated data that shows the state intends to keep disparity to
a maximum 20 percent limit, and further provides an assurance that
if based on audited data after the year ends the state is not
within the 20 percent disparity limit, the state will refund any
amounts deducted from districts that received impact aid.
MR. GUILEY said that if the state is willing to provide that
application to the U.S. Secretary, then the U.S. Secretary can
allow the state an exception from the two year data rule and allow
current year data to be used under the new formula.
Number 350
MR. GUILEY continued that there is the possibility of either
maintaining disparity at less than 20 percent during FY 96, or in
fact having a new formula in place to be implemented for FY 98 and
therefore, disparity can go up as high as 25 percent in FYs 96 and
97 and not be out of compliance in FY 98.
Number 379
MR. GUILEY said that disparity is calculated differently in the
state of Alaska than in other states because this state's method of
distributing revenue to school districts is based on an
Instructional Unit (IU), not based on a per-student standard. If
the DOE is successful in a reauthorization of the federal impact
aid to have a section put into the law to allow the DOE to use the
IU formula, Alaska's disparity will be measured based on the IU,
which is the relative value of each IU at each of Alaska's 54
districts and Mt. Edgecumbe. DOE is allowed to ignore the top 5
percent of the wealthiest Ius, and the lowest 5 percent of the
poorest units. Disparity is therefore measured based on the 90
percent of the units that are left. Disparity is measured based on
revenue and not expense because the Alaska law does not control
expenditures, it only controls the method of distributing revenue.
MR. GUILEY said that unique to the state of Alaska, the actual
disparity standard is the difference in revenue available to
support each IU at each of the 54 districts and Mt. Edgecumbe
within the state based upon local, state and certain federal
revenues.
Number 470
MR. GUILEY showed HESS Committee members one of the handouts which
showed that one adjusted IU is worth $61,000. The potential
sources of that $61,000 include state foundation aid, federal
impact aid, and in the case of city and borough districts, the
required four mill local contribution. Those are the three sources
that contribute to the $61,000. Basic need, under the state law,
is simply the total number of units multiplied by the area
differential unique to that district, multiplied by the unit value.
The unit value is set in statute at $61,000.
MR. GUILEY said current statute allows city and borough districts
that have resource to tax, to contribute an amount in excess of
basic need which is not to exceed 23 percent of the basic need
calculation. Or, based on unit value, that is another $14,030.
This is on top of the minimum state aid, the federal impact aid and
that four mills minimum local contribution. He said that some
people have come to think of local caps as being four mills plus
two mills equals six mills, but they are confusing two issues.
MR. GUILEY explained that the four mills comprises the minimum
local contribution, the 23 percent of basic need accounts for the
allowable excess. Also included in state law is for those
districts that have extreme tax wealth, if they first reach 35
percent of basic need before they reach four mills, they will
contribute 35 percent, as a minimum, and then they are allowed a
two mill excess. So it is a combination of the two ideas that
brings people to the six mills figure, but the six is not set forth
in statute.
MR. GUILEY continued that therefore, 23 percent is the allowable
excess that he was speaking of. Twenty-three percent correlates
closely with disparity but does not mean that is what the state's
disparity is. Over the last several years the state's disparity
has ranged from about 23.4 percent to 19.25 percent. Throughout
the life of this current formula, which came into effect for FY 98,
the excess local contribution allowed began at 21 percent. Then it
increased to 23 percent based on pressure to want to contribute
more at the local level. So while the local contribution cap has
been at 23 percent, the actual disparity has exceeded 23 percent.
MR. GUILEY said that part of the reason for this is that the local
cap does not control, or, as an example, transfers into the general
fund from other funds. It only controls the amount of excess local
contributions that can happen. So there are other activities that
take place at the school district level that are outside of this
cap.
MR. GUILEY presented the final page of his handout. It showed that
the total value, including the excess local on the unit basis of
$75,030, is what is controlled within state statute. So the DOE
simply makes a comparison of the top end unit value with the low
end unit value. The difference is calculated and then the
disparity is calculated from that figure. The low end unit value
is normally set by the Regional Education Attendance Area (REAA)
districts, or those districts that do not have access to local
taxes. The high end value traditionally is set by one of the city
and borough districts that has access to local contributions.
Number 697
MR. GUILEY presented one more document which was a copy of the
actual disparity calculation for FY 93.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for examples of top and bottom end districts.
MR. GUILEY answered that in 1993, the top end was Ketchikan, at
$75,025. The low end district was the lower Kuskokwim school
district at $ 62,621.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any school districts that
actually made the $61,000 figure.
MR. GUILEY answered no, all districts are above the $61,000 figure
because of local interest earnings and other revenues outside of
basic need.
Number 745
MR. GUILEY said that the final two-page document containing the
actual disparity calculations that are presented to the federal
government along with several pages of backup material shows that
the DOE accounts for the actual foundation payments, any
adjustments that come from the audit, and other state revenues.
The calculations also account for each of the local revenues
including in-kind contributions or the valuation of services that
are not purchased but are provided by the city and borough to the
school district. These figures help in the calculation of the
subtotal of the local revenue.
MR. GUILEY continued that also looked at are federal revenues,
including the deductible portion of the impact aid and other
federal revenues. These figures are used to get a total which
includes transfers into the general fund from other funds.
MR. GUILEY showed HESS Committee members a column on his documents
which showed the FY 93 audited total revenues. Another column
showed the adjusted units. Under the federal law, the DOE is
allowed to exclude any costs that are associated with unique
geographic factors, with special needs students, or with any other
factor that relates to the state's unique profile of students.
MR. GUILEY said that in the state of Alaska the unit formula is
such that if those things such as area differentials and special
needs students are ignored, the actual disparity tends to increase
because the urban districts then have less units over which to
spread their local dollars. Mr. Guiley reminded the HESS Committee
members that the relative value of a unit was being measured.
Therefore, if a fixed pool of local dollars is used, as the number
of units goes down, the relative value of each unit goes up.
Because the state law controls basic need, the local municipality
controls the excess local contribution.
MR. GUILEY explained that in the REAAs where they have no access to
tax, there is access to certain things such as interest earnings,
facility rentals, disposal of assets, etc., which potentially
transfer in from other funds which increases their unit value above
the $61,000.
MR. GUILEY referred back to his handout. He said the DOE is
allowed, under federal law, to exclude the wealthiest five percent.
In 1993, the calculations showed there were 11,806.51 Ius. Five
percent of that number allows the DOE to exclude 590.33 at the top
and the bottom. The units are ranked in value sequence from the
most wealthiest or expensive unit to the poorest unit. The DOE
then subtracts from the top until they hit the number of 590.
Number 900
MR. GUILEY continued that when the calculations reach the district
of Ketchikan, all of Ketchikan's Ius cannot be excluded because the
590 figure would be exceeded. Therefore, Ketchikan sets the high
value figure in 1993. The same process is repeated from the
bottom. In rank order, Ius are subtracted until 590 is reached.
They reached Lower Kuskokwim, which has 565 units by itself. Of
course, all of their Ius cannot be eliminated. Thus, Lower
Kuskokwim set the bottom figure in 1993.
MR. GUILEY explained that the top and bottom figures are compared,
the difference is calculated, and that difference is set in a
percentage. In 1993, this number cannot exceed 25 percent. This
particular year's figure was 19.81 percent. A preliminary figure
has been calculated for 1994, which is 20.15 percent. The
preliminary number for 1995 is 20.66 and is based upon projections
because the fiscal year is not yet over.
MR. GUILEY said that once again, there is a general trend toward
rising disparity because of the push for more local dollars due to
the IU value being held at $61,000. With no increase in state aid,
and with loss of buying power, there is more pressure on the local
government to contribute more to schools. As those local dollars
come in, it increases disparity. At the same time, interest
earnings and other earnings in the REAAs are being held at lower
levels as compared to other years. Therefore, disparity is
generally on the incline.
Number 985
MR. GUILEY said the DOE must submit by March 1 to the federal
government, the state's 1994 preliminary data to be used for the
state's new disparity. The federal government is presently trying
to draft regulations on how the new law is implemented. The
federal government is building regulations while the state is
trying to decide how the state's data is submitted. Therefore, Mr.
Guiley said the HESS Committee members may have some questions he
cannot answer because federal regulations are not even out for
public comment.
MR. GUILEY concluded by saying that a memo was sent out to all
school districts in November 1994 indicating that possibly the DOE
would be going forward with regulations that would restrict local
contributions in order to stay in compliance with the federal
disparity standard. Alaska Statute 14.17.025 provides for the DOE
to promulgate such regulations if necessary to stay in compliance
with disparity standards. At the present time, the DOE is not
recommending to the state's Board of Education that the state go
forward with such regulations. Rather, the Administration is going
to rewrite a formula and have it in place by FY 98 that would in
fact be in compliance with the 20 percent disparity standard.
Therefore, the DOE would not have to restrict districts' ability to
contribute now at the 23 percent limit, which is set forth in
statute.
Number 1060
MR. GUILEY said that districts had been put on notice in November
by memo in the event that those regulations were available for
public comment. At the present time, they are not recommending
that to the Board of Education. This does not mean they will not
have to make an emergency regulation at a later date, after there
has been a discussion with the board. The board's first meeting is
February 27 and 28.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Representative Brice joined the
meeting at 3:08 p.m., and Representative Robinson joined the
meeting at 3:18 p.m.
Number 1097
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated for the general public's information that the
highest cost per adjusted unit school district in the state of
Alaska is the North Slope at $133,056, and the least expensive is
the Denali district at $61,581. Obviously, this is why there is a
disparity formula. In other states in the U.S., this formula was
used, Co-Chair Bunde thought, to punish some school districts who
lived in various parts of the state.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Guiley how single-site schools impact the
disparity problem.
MR. GUILEY answered that the second wealthiest unit in the state --
St. Mary's was used as an example at $91,833 -- was partially the
result of St. Mary's receiving a single-site supplement which is
outside of the foundation formula. The federal definition is a
very simple one of which revenue must be included. The definition
is any state aid, no repayment of which is required, that is
available for current operations, must be included. So because the
single-site supplement is coming outside of the foundation law, and
does not carry Ius with it, it again raises the relative value of
IU in the single-site districts. So a number of the single sites,
in a relative basis for a unit value, are up toward the top of the
list. This includes such districts as St. Mary's, Hoonah, Galena,
Yakutat, Klawock, Kake, Wrangell, Petersburg, etc. They tend to be
higher because other state revenues must be included in the
calculation.
MR. GUILEY continued that when the 1993 disparity was run, assuming
those single-site supplements were not there, the disparity was
actually lowered about .25 percent. When the 1994 preliminary data
was run without the single-site supplement, there was no change in
the actual disparity. It did make a difference in the relative
placement in the units on the list. But the actual disparity was
unchanged. The DOE has not yet run the 1995 preliminary figures
without single-site factors. It has only been run based on
people's budgets which includes the single-site supplement. Mr.
Guiley is not sure whether it would affect the 1995 figure or not.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that the meeting was on listen-only
teleconference with Anchorage.
Number 1250
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked what was being done with the money
for Adak. Was it simply not being counted in the 1993 figures?
She also asked if she was correct that there is no funding for
Adak.
MR. GUILEY answered that Adak school district is in a unique
situation in that they have projected about 150 students this year.
Under the current state law, they are allowed to receive 75 percent
of the state aid they received last year based on the number of
students enrolled. When the Adak military base was closed and the
district realized it would have no students, the superintendent
wrote a letter to the commissioner asking the commissioner to
withhold all state aid. Presently, the Adak district is existing
solely on federal impact aid. Whether or not the amount of state
aid which the district is eligible for is included in calculations
which the disparity figures are calculated, will depend on the
final outcome of the year.
Number 1309
CO-CHAIR BUNDE admired Mr. Guiley's ability to have such a command
of the disparity process. He recalled the difficulty a previous
Administration encountered when it tried to rewrite the formula.
He asked Mr. Guiley how, if changes are not made, impact funding
would affect the funding for schools in the HESS Committee members'
districts.
MR. GUILEY said that basically, one of a number of different
scenarios will be realized if a new formula is not in place for FY
98. One option is to go to the U.S. Congress and request some
relief from the new 20 percent disparity standard, and hope to
extend the 25 percent. Meanwhile, the state would continue to move
forward working on a formula that might be in place in 1999, if not
in 1998.
MR. GUILEY continued that under the current state law, if there is
not a new formula in place and the state is obligated to continue
using the existing formula, the DOE would ask the legislature for
an increment in general fund revenue to support the foundation
program. Based upon FY 95, that amount would be about $43 million.
Based on their FY 95 projection, that amount would be about $35
million. Therefore, using the budget amount for FY 96 as an
example, if that were the number in 1998, the DOE would be asking
the legislature for a general fund increment of $35 million to take
the place of the loss of impact aid in the formula.
MR. GUILEY said that if the legislature did not grant that amount,
under the current state law the IU value would be prorated. That
would result in a proration of the unit value of just less than
$3,000, or about $2,850.
Number 1400
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the original $61,000 amount would be
deducted $2,850.
MR. GUILEY answered that Co-Chair Bunde was correct. The figure
would drop to about $58,250. That would be the new estimated
prorated value for FY 98 if there is no new formula in place, or if
the state does not get relief from U.S. Congress, and if the
legislature decides not to fund the increment. Of course, there
are a number of unknowns, including the value of impact aid in
1998. Under the current law, the entitlement value, or the
reauthorized law, for the state of Alaska is about $44 million.
Currently budgeted for FY 96 is $35 million, because the U.S.
Congress has chosen to short-fund the program.
MR. GUILEY continued that the DOE recognizes the impact aid one
year after it is received by its districts, so the DOE knows in
advance the amount of money available. Mr. Guiley wondered what
the amount would be in 1997. There are already estimates that in
President Clinton's new budget, the impact aid is reduced another
26 percent. The state's deduct rate on impact aid is about 60
percent of total receipt. Therefore, with a 26 percent reduction
a the federal level, 60 percent of that would be a general fund
increment again. At the same time, the DOE would be asking for an
increment of growth in student population, which averages two to
two and one-half percent per year.
Number 1477
MR. GUILEY summarized that the unknowns are what will the value of
the impact aid deduct be, whether or not the state can get any
relief from congress, and whether or not a formula can get through
the legislature next year. If a formula does not go through next
year, there is some doubt whether or not the DOE could actually
submit by March 1, 1997, this substantially revised formula that
would meet the approval of the U.S. Secretary based on the
preliminary data, to allow the state to move forward to current
year data and not use the two-year-old data.
MR. GUILEY said that right now, it appears the state will be over
the 20 percent disparity standard in 1996 if something does not
occur. Mr. Guiley reiterated that currently, the figure is 19.81
percent, 20.15 percent was calculated for 1994, and the preliminary
figure for 1995 is 20.66 percent. The percentage is going up.
MR. GUILEY added that is not to say the legislature could not step
in, in the middle of the year in 1996, and say something needs to
be done now to control disparity. The legislature could do
something through the foundation law. If something is done through
the law, it will be subject to less challenge in the federal court
and in the federal arena as far as impact aid appeals. If changes
are done outside the law, such as through a supplemental such as a
single-site supplemental, there is more occurrence of challenges.
Currently the DOE is defending those at the federal level.
Number 1541
CO-CHAIR BUNDE summarized for the HESS Committee members. There
are three options. The state can expect a miracle from Congress,
that it rushes to provide Alaska with special considerations. Co-
Chair Bunde felt that the possibility of this was pretty low. Or
the state could come up with an increment of $40 million in the
face of declining budgets and budget cuts. Or the foundation
formula can be changed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a big job is cut out for the state, because
there is really only one option. He thanked Mr. Guiley for the
briefing.
HHES - 02/21/95
HB 28 - POSSESSION OF GUNS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
Number 1640
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this bill addresses a problem which
unfortunately has not gone away since the bill was last seen.
There is an added complication and incentive to address the bill
this year. This year, the state of Alaska is required to address
this issue or the state stands to lose federal funding. In light
of the previous briefing, the state cannot stand to threaten any
more federal educational funding.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act was
passed by Congress. It requires that certain conditions be met
before the state receives federal education funds. The purpose of
HB 28 is to put the state of Alaska into compliance with the
federal mandate and to address a growing problem in Alaska. This
problem is students who bring guns to school.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE summarized the bill. He said the possession of a
deadly weapon on school grounds, in the parking lots adjacent to
schools or while participating in a school-sponsored event will be
prohibited. However, a person can obtain permission from a chief
administrative officer of a school to carry a prohibited weapon on
school grounds to make allowances for school rifle teams and that
sort of thing. The restrictions do not apply to sworn law
enforcement officers of course.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this bill requires a one-year expulsion or
suspension of a student that possesses a weapon on school grounds
and that is to bring the state into compliance with the federal
mandate. In addition, the bill requires an annual report to the
DOE regarding the number of students expelled and the types of
weapons involved.
Number 1728
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that in researching this bill, it was found
that schools are not always interested in providing accurate
information about such incidents because it makes the school look
bad. To Co-Chair Bunde, this is an attempt to sweep the problem
under the rug in some cases.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE continued that the legislation also allows school
lockers to be searched to determine compliance with school
regulations and state and federal laws. The policy on locker
searches must be posted prominently throughout the school. These
are random searches. The school is not allowed to target a
particular student or group of students. The lockers are public
property and the students are using them. In many schools the
students share lockers so this is not necessarily a personal issue.
Number 1800
CO-CHAIR BUNDE also said that he found out, through research, that
lockers were the center of criminal activity in many Lower 48
schools. Lockers were where many dangerous and deadly weapons were
kept, as well as contraband. It was also where law abiding
students were being robbed. Some school districts have removed all
lockers, resulting in considerable drops in theft and violence.
Other schools require see-through back packs. Fortunately, Co-
Chair Bunde did not think Alaska was at that level. But there are
problems that must be addressed regarding guns in schools, and this
bill will go a long way toward solving Alaska's problems.
Number 1837
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked if HB 28 was exactly the same bill
which passed the HESS committee last year.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE answered no, not exactly, because the requirements
of the federal law were now addressed.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for a motion to adopt the Committee
Substitute (CS) for HB 28.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS so motioned. There were no objections
and the CS was adopted.
Number 1890
HELEN MEHRKENS, Health Education and Health Program Coordinator for
the Department of Education, said that part of her duties is to
coordinate the Safe and Gun-Free Schools Act which is a federal Act
which comes to the DOE and to the schools in Alaska. Related to
that is the Gun-Free Schools Act mentioned by Co-Chair Bunde. She
has been working with districts for several months in an attempt to
get the districts in compliance with that Act.
MS. MEHRKENS continued that Co-Chair Bunde has already identified
the major components of the federal bill. One is that if the state
is going to continue to receive $90 million in elementary and
secondary education act funds, which are the primary grant funds to
school districts in this state, districts must come into compliance
with the federal Act which requires school districts to expel
students who bring weapons to schools. This uses the federal
definition of a deadly weapon.
Number 1930
MS. MEHRKENS said there is an opportunity for schools, on a case by
case basis, to waive that expulsion after the case has been looked
at using a hearing process. The DOE wants to state that it is in
favor of compliance with the federal mandate and the DOE hopes HB
28 will be passed. This is not only because of the threat of
federal funding, but also because many schools are already in
compliance with the expulsion mandate, and the DOE finds that
everyone is in favor of whatever it takes to make schools a safe
place for students.
MS. MEHRKENS offered to answer questions. The DOE has been in
constant contact with Co-Chair Bunde's staff as well as the staff
at the federal DOE for the most recent interpretations. The
federal DOE staff has a list of Alaska DOE's questions that they
will be answering soon.
Number 1976
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS remembered that last year, when the bill was
discussed, there was a question in the villages of what exactly was
school property. In a lot of villages, there are no boundaries
from surveys. A lot of children will run their snowmobiles, etc.
down the streets. If they have rifles and are going hunting, there
is a possibility the children will cross school grounds. He asked
Ms. Mehrkens if that issue had been addressed.
MS. MEHRKENS answered that question has been already asked by two
districts, but has not yet been addressed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE recalled that discussion from last year. His
original bill required the gun to be unloaded and in a case. The
current federal law simply states that person will not have a gun
on school property. HB 28 was amended previously to make
exceptions for rural schools; however, upon reflection Co-Chair
Bunde feels that people pretty much know where school property is.
There is no free lunch, and if the districts want federal aid, a
person must find out where school property is and keep guns off of
it.
Number 2039
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked how the bill would affect a
school like Juneau in which there is a shooting range in the bottom
of the school.
MS. MEHRKENS answered that was one of the biggest questions across
the state. In fact, the DOE built many of those ranges.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE interjected that HB 28 does allow for the school
administrator to grant permission for such activities. This is
also through the federal policy.
MS. MEHRKENS said the federal requirements are concerned about
students bringing guns to school. It is not particularly concerned
about adults, although that is important to people also. Actually,
the federal definition of "weapon" has an exclusion in it for
sporting, recreation and cultural purposes. Those are reasons why
a school administrator can allow students to bring guns onto school
property. That is understood to mean rifle and gun safety classes,
the Junior ROTC programs, etc.
Number 2085
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE remembered that during last session's
discussion, there was great concern about rural schools where there
are wolves, bear, etc., and a weapon is carried for protection. He
remembered that issue was addressed, but those factors are no
longer in the current bill. He asked if those allowances had been
taken out, and if so, is there no leniency with the federal program
for those considerations.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that he attempted to address this issue in
Section 1 (A) and (C) which allows for rural exceptions, however,
he did not know if this is a question that needs to be addressed by
the federal government. Co-Chair Bunde, at this point, interpreted
the mandate to say that the school administrator has the power to
grant such exceptions. It will probably be a formal process,
however. There will probably be some procedures involved in the
exception process. In reference to the question concerning school
boundaries, there is going to be an awareness of those boundaries.
Number 2181
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that in Juneau there is already a gun
policy in place. She does not know what the penalty is for
violating that policy. HB 28 sounds like there would be automatic
expulsion until there was a review.
MS. MEHRKENS answered that the requirement is that the penalty for
bringing a deadly weapon to school is expulsion. There will always
be a hearing and an appeal process. After that year, the student
may go through a type of rehabilitation program which allows them
to be placed back in some sort of alternative setting or else be
placed back in school more quickly. Anchorage currently has such
a program. They have a referral program that puts the student
through behavior and anger management. When the student is judged
to be rehabilitated and safe, they are allowed back into the
school. However, it is quite a long program and it is not an easy
thing to go through.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she recognizes and supports the fact
that guns should not be brought onto school grounds. There also
needs to be serious penalties for that. But she has a fear that
there will be no rehabilitation program present after expulsion and
that society will simply lose these children. Representative
Robinson asked if such allowances for rehabilitation programs are
in the bill.
Number 2253
CO-CHAIR BUNDE answered that the bill does not address the
requirement for alternative programs. That would be up to the
district. Representative Robinson asked if the bill prohibits such
a program, and Co-Chair Bunde answered no.
MS. MEHRKENS said the bill says the school administrator may, on a
case by case basis, reduce or otherwise modify the expulsion or
suspension of the student.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that not all districts in the state have
followed the expulsion policy throughout the Lower 48. This is one
reason why the federal mandate requires the expulsion or
suspension. There have been cases where a student in one district
is expelled, moves down the road to another district, and the
problem is passed on.
TAPE 95-8, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the federal law addresses this
problem, and Ms. Mehrkens answered yes.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division,
Department of Law, stated that Alaska Governor Tony Knowles will be
introducing a bill on youth and firearms. This is an issue of
concern to him. This bill is consistent with the Governor's
approach to the general problem and will be coming out later this
week. She noted that the federal Act specifically requires a case
by case analysis of student's expulsion. The federal government
fully realizes there may be cases where a full year's expulsion may
not be appropriate. This realization is built into the provision
of HB 28.
MS. KNUTH said that in the past there has been concern about the
constitutionality of the locker search provision. She said she
would answer questions concerning this.
Number 113
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Knuth what the problems
were revolving around such provisions and also if she would comment
on the problems with the definitions of firearms.
MS. KNUTH answered that the Constitution of the United States has
a provision that protects people from unreasonable searches and
seizures. The question, therefore, is what is reasonable and what
is unreasonable. In this case, school lockers are the property of
the school which is made available to students. Although there is
some uncertainty whether Alaska would follow the federal
interpretation, it is likely that Alaska will. The way that
provision has been interpreted federally is that if a school
provides notices that the locker is subject to searches for weapons
or contraband, the lockers can be searched. The students do not
have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to weapons or
firearms in their lockers.
MS. KNUTH continued by saying the school is prohibited from using
any other items that may be found in the locker as a basis for any
action against a student. A fear has been the discovery of birth
control in a locker, and whether a student could be expelled for
that if they went to a school which disapproved of such a thing.
The answer is no. Birth control is not a contraband item.
MS. KNUTH said that in respect to searching a student, either in
a pat down search or in the desire to search a back pack or day
pack, there is nothing similar to the consent that you can impute
to students who are using a school locker. The Constitution
applies fully to students for being safe from unreasonable search
and seizures of their persons or possessions. Therefore, it is
possible for a person to bring a gun in their purse or back pack
and the school does not have any more authority than a police
officer would to search a student for no reason at all. At the
same time, if there is any reason to believe that the student does
have a firearm, then there exists the basis for a reasonable search
and seizure. What the government is precluded from doing is acting
randomly and like "Big Brother," and intruding anytime and in any
place.
Number 314
MS. KNUTH said however, when you have information that suggests the
possession of a weapon that is illegal under state law, then there
is a basis for the search to be made.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the administrators of the schools
will now have to take classes in legal evidence, search and
seizure, and constitutional law provisions to define probable cause
and pat down a student.
MS. KNUTH said that in fact, in the Lower 48 there are schools that
have metal detectors at their entries because that is a
constitutional way of finding guns. It is a difficult thing to
become an expert on what is illegal and what is legal. It would
take some efforts to provide that information. However, when there
is a genuine problem, a person must rise to it and see what can be
done. Ms. Knuth feels that in Alaska, particularly in Anchorage,
a point has been reached in which everyone is motivated to try and
deal with this problem.
Number 326
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if a school administrator would have
to abide by the same probable cause standards as a police officer.
MS. KNUTH answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there were provisions in the state
statute which allowed for contraband items.
MS. KNUTH answered that there was nothing pertaining to contraband
items in the statutes. It is a part of the common law in Alaska.
HB 28 is codifying existing law. It is comforting to have it in
the statute. People will feel more secure in what the limits on
the searches are, and the provision concerning notice for searches
is a good one.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was a need for the statutory
provision for contraband to be included in this bill.
MS. KNUTH answered that it was not necessary.
Number 455
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that as someone who has some personal
experience with what goes on in schools, he assured the HESS
Committee members that not only administrators but each teacher is
aware of their legal limitations when it comes to disciplining or
physically touching a child.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that a question had been raised about
what a school administrator can and cannot do as far as allowing
for a special circumstance. He could not find that wording in the
bill and he wondered if there was a specific section that could
point to that.
MS. KNUTH said that she does not have the CS, but she has HB 28 in
front of her. She read page 4, lines 23 to 25: The administrative
officer of a school district may, on a case by case basis, reduce
or otherwise modify the expulsion or suspension of a student under
(A) of this section.
Number 549
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that the student still has to be expelled
or suspended. This does not allow for legitimate reasons for
having the firearm on campus, or for the circumstance in which a
rifle is on a three wheeler for hunting and wildlife protection
purposes and the person crosses school grounds.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that the provision Ms. Knuth just read
does not cover these circumstances. The student must still be
suspended or expelled. This then puts the burden on the student.
MS. KNUTH said that the federal definition of a firearm is very
unusual. It excludes rifles for purposes of competition. Firearm
does not mean any gun. It means the type of gun the federal
government believes should not be on school grounds. In that
manner, they have addressed Representative Brice's concerns. If a
person has a gun he or she is using for the shooting range, he or
she will not be expelled or suspended. Ms. Knuth does not know if
the federal mandate takes into account guns brought for personal
safety from wildlife. That may be something the federal government
may want to address for Alaska. But they dealt with the problem
using their peculiar definition of firearm.
Number 694
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what happens if students share
lockers, and also if there was a type of due process or hearing
procedure before expulsion or suspension.
MS. KNUTH answered that a hearing process is in place for a student
who possesses a weapon and should be expelled. There are due
process provisions. Ms. Knuth did not have any information with
respect to the sharing of lockers. Generally, in other search and
seizure areas, if two people have control over an area, if one
person consents to a search, that is binding for the other person.
In this case, all students will be consenting to the search of a
locker because they are using it on that understanding and on that
condition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was concerned about the possibility of two
students denying a weapon belonged to either of them, and if there
was a procedure in which they could defend themselves.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that each school has a disciplinary policy
which involves the rights of the students. This is not addressed
in HB 28.
Number 794
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noticed that there was a provision for the
referral to law enforcement authorities, and he was concerned that
on page 1, line 10 it talks of misconduct involving a fourth
degree. Representative Rokeberg asked if these were degrees of
misdemeanors.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it was a misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that on page 2, line 22, the word
premises is used. Representative Rokeberg understood the
definition of premises to be an improved property or building, not
necessarily land.
MS. KNUTH explained that the word premises, for the purposes of
this statute, would mean property, improved or unimproved, and
boundaries of that property that is owned by or associated with the
school. The word premises is not limited to the building portion
of the property.
Number 860
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the word "premises" was being
defined in HB 28 for that interpretation.
MS. KNUTH said that there is a common law definition of "premises,"
and she offered to look at Title 11 to see if there was a statutory
definition, as well. It would be very unusual for the statutory
definition to differ from the common law definition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that his use of the word "premises" in
real property law is different, and this caused him concern.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for the pleasure of the HESS Committee. Co-
Chair Bunde motioned that CSHB 28 be moved from the Committee with
the accompanying fiscal notes and with individual recommendations.
There were no objections and the bill was moved.
HHES - 02/21/69
HB 94 - PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Number 955
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES explained that her bill authorizes
school districts to contract with private agencies to manage
schools. She has spoken with many teachers. One of the biggest
problems teachers have is that they are not allowed to teach as
they know is best for their students. They may spend much of their
time writing reports and performing other administrative duties,
and often very little time is spent on teaching.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES has also heard from teachers that they would
like a Reduction In Force (RIF) program, because there are some
that are ready to retire and they are just burned out. She feels
that there is a pool of intelligence in Alaska that might be
spirited into doing other things, providing the legislature were to
allow private contracting of the management of Alaska schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES is not exactly sure whether this law is
necessary. She thinks that such a decision is probably not
prohibited in the current statutes, and she will have to ask
someone about that. However, by putting together HB 94, someone
may be inspired to contract management to schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that the public wants to make our schools
more efficient. They want to make it more effective, they want the
students to have higher academic achievements, they want better
behavior from students. Additionally, people are interested in
better education for less money. It appears that in our efforts to
determine how we can make the government and education better, the
opportunity to contract with private agencies to provide services
is an option we ought to consider.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued that all of the protections that are
in place shall remain. The school board will be the body which
still determines what can or cannot happen in the schools. That
would all be in the contract process. There are some management
companies in the Lower 48 which have provided school districts with
both good and bad experiences. However, Representative James feels
that we have the human resources here in Alaska to solve problems.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated this bill will not change anything if
school districts do not want to contract out. School districts
probably would not want to do this unless someone presented a
sufficient plan. School boards will have the ability to contract
to a private agency as opposed to a nonprofit group, and "private
agency" indicates that people want to make some money and they know
they must work within the confines of the district and the state
budget processes. This is a good step and might open up some good
ideas for education in the state.
Number 1136
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said there is a fear this bill will be a vehicle
for religious schools, and there is a fine line between what people
believe is a religious school and a private school which teaches
religion. She asked how this can be prevented.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that all laws currently on the books
which prevent public schools from being religious would still
apply. No existing rules are being modified. The only thing this
bill allows for is permitting the school district to hire a private
agency, as opposed to hiring the administration and teachers by an
administrative procedure. This means a group of people may come
forward and offer a contract to run such services for a set amount
of money. That contract would have to apply and support all the
existing rules and regulations in place for our education system.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if schools could then be run without union
teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered yes, this would be the only change
because the private agencies would not be required to have union
teachers. The teachers could be union, but it would not be
required. This would be part of the contract.
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the private agency could hire
teachers who are not part of the teacher's union, and what
collective bargaining unit teachers would be under considering they
are still public teachers and they fall under Title 14.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES invited Mr. Ford, who helped draft the bill,
to testify with her. She then responded that it would be a public
school managed by a private industry. She believes the private
industry would be insulated from the requirement of the teacher's
union.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE understood the people within the
administrative organization would not necessarily be union, but
wondered if the teachers in the classroom, considering they are
still public employees, would maintain their collective bargaining
status.
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that teachers would not be public
employees. They would be employees of the private agency which has
a contract to maintain a public school.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that the private agency would not
merely be administrative, it would run everything below the school
board level.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed and noted that the private agency could
also only run any portion of the district, depending on the
contract. HB 94 simply makes it an option for school boards. The
boards would be the creative ones to figure out what would work.
MIKE FORD, Division of Legal Services, agreed with Representative
James. He said there is flexibility attached to the provision at
this time. A private agency could contract at any level. There is
no requirement that union teachers be hired. Non-union teachers
can be hired as long as they meet the requirements of law.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that Mr. Ford just made him very nervous
when he said the agency may contract to run the school board on
down. Representative Brice wanted to know if the school board
could be controlled.
MR. FORD said the school board would not be replaced, only the
management and the administration of the education system if that
was the will of the school board.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for clarification. Teachers would not be
public employees, therefore they would not qualify for the public
benefits, health insurance, retirement, etc. Representative James
suspected that the private agency would have to take care of that.
Those things could be bargained for.
Number 1418
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it was being suggested that this
could give a school board union-busting power.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is not the goal of the bill, but it
is a possibility. The goal should be for better schools. The
people that Representative James visualizes could best run the
schools is the teachers who are already on retirement.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if she meant that those teachers
could simply form an organization to manage the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, yes.
Number 1455
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Representative James was aware of
any special education requirements that a school district may have,
and if it would be beneficial to a school district to contract out
to a private supplier for such special services.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that such a contract would be allowed
under this legislation. Her intent is to make possible any kind of
contracting with a public agency that would achieve the goals that
the school district would be reaching for, i.e., better education,
more efficiency, etc., within the confines of the available funds.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if currently the state law allows the
majority of a school board to make a decision about private
management, instead of going to the voters.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she does not know of any law that would
prohibit a school board from making such a decision, however she
cannot visualize this happening. She also cannot imagine the
school board organizing the management. She imagines the people
would bring this option to the school board's attention. She feels
that most likely, the private agency would approach the school
board as opposed to the school board looking for a union-busting
organization.
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if legally a majority of a school
board in this state could make any decision they wanted to.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that as of right now, the answer was yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that she has received many Public
Opinion Messages against this bill. She asked Representative James
about her basic feelings about this and why there is so much
negative feedback about this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that she has also received those
negative messages, and she has been responding to them. The
opinions are somewhat slanted. She is not proposing that private
industry should come in and take over the schools. She is
proposing that should be an option for the school board, if in fact
the private agency could meet the challenges in a better way. She
is not saying that as soon as this legislation is passed such a
thing will happen. But particularly, in some smaller schools, this
could be an option.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that one of the problems that exists
currently is that teachers have to do a lot of administrative work.
A flatter organization could be made out of the school district, in
which the teachers at the bottom have more authority about what and
how they teach. This will never happen in the existing system.
This legislation is simply to provide an opportunity to make
education less expensive and more efficient and achieve better
academic and behavior standards. Representative James reminded the
HESS Committee members that the private agency would have to follow
all laws that are currently in place.
Number 1616
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said this is a new concept, and that people should
not be afraid of new concepts. Maybe 20 years from now all schools
will be privately run. She commended the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that private management is occurring
everywhere. The nation is in a financial crunch, and so is the
state. The government has to figure out how to meet the needs of
the public less expensively and more effectively. Children cannot
graduate without knowing how to read and write. There used to be
a better system. This has been complicated so now teachers are
actually teaching for less time every day. This is obvious.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if any agencies were waiting in the wings to
take advantage of this, or if this legislation was requested by a
private agency.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the bill was her idea.
Number 1693
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS reminded Representative James that she said we
need to meet the needs of our communities. Representative Davis
felt that we need to provide the opportunity for the community to
meet their own needs. He also asked if such allowances for
private management is necessary and if it is currently allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there is nothing that precludes this
management from happening, but deferred the question to Mr. Ford.
She also said that if it is not outlawed, she assumed that it is
"lawed."
MR. FORD said the problems with regional school boards, REAAs, is
that their powers are set in statute. The language being added by
the bill simply makes clear they have the power to contract
management. There are always discussions when there is a list,
concerning whether the list limits action to the confines of the
list. In this case, the language gives school districts the
authority to contract out. This is to avoid argument, if nothing
else.
MR. FORD said that for municipal school districts, there is simply
not a statute that prohibits them from doing contracting with a
private agency. They could contract management now. However, to
be consistent, Mr. Ford added language to HB 94 that clearly gives
school boards authority.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that some language in the bill refers to
regional school boards.
MR. FORD said Section 2 refers to municipal school districts.
Number 1774
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said some of the smaller schools in the bush
communities are having problems because there are just as many
problems that arise when there are too few students as arise when
there are too many. Students learn from each other. There might
be some interest in some of the regional districts to band together
to create some sort of boarding school which could be managed on a
private basis. This could take in the students from a number of
small schools and offer more educational opportunities to those
students. This just another possibility of how this legislation
could be used.
Number 1809
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how this would affect state standards,
safer teaching certificates, etc., and if the State Board of
Education will have the ability to establish standards for the
private agencies before they could take over a school district.
He was concerned with unqualified people running the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the existing laws which apply currently
would still apply. If a group wants the contract, they would have
to comply with those standards of a public school. The teachers
would have to be certified in the same way.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if there was a section in statute which
related to administrative standards as well.
Number 1864
CO-CHAIR BUNDE answered there are requirements for being a
principal.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said there are more positions than just
principal, such as information officers and funding officers. He
wanted to make sure that those types of people have some type of
knowledge or background.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she did not think it was necessary, but
maybe that is something that should also be fixed.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said there is no certification process for the
private agency, and HB 94 was not going to look at such a process.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that would have to be established by the
local school board, in addition to bonding and other concerns.
This legislation is being introduced to open up possibilities. She
thinks that such factors and caveats may come to light in the
future, but she just wants to provide an option. This legislation
is a tool that could be used if the opportunity arose.
Number 1928
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that there are credentials for
administrators, but credentials for positions such as school
secretary are determined by district.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said there has been a lot of talk about
statewide performance standards lately. He assumes that these
agencies will have to maintain high standards. He asked about
consistency throughout administrations throughout the state, not
that there is a whole lot of consistency at the present time.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that whatever the school district could
do in the hiring and firing of their existing system, they could
still do after contracting with a private agency. The same rules
that apply to their hiring and firing would still apply in
contracting.
Number 1972
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt that students are after a state
certification. There are plenty of rules and regulations in place.
Teachers are certified and would need to be under additional state
law, administrators probably also. There are administrative
certifications, but whether it is required under state law for a
private agency, he didn't know. The curriculum is directed to a
large degree by the local school board. That is the beauty of this
bill, it provides an option, whether it is good or bad.
Number 2044
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Department of Education,
said that as a representative of the DOE she was here to observe
and listen to dialogue to learn about the possibilities available
under this legislation.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
said his organization supports HB 94. However, he was not privy to
all the discussion that just took place. That discussion has
opened some broad parameters that he would like to clear up.
School boards are political subdivisions of the state. The
parameters under which a school board operates are set in statutes,
regulations, funding constraints set by the legislature, local
policies and negotiated agreements. They operate in an oversight
capacity. He appreciates HB 94 because it provides some options.
MR. ROSE continued that he didn't think the options will be
interpreted near as broadly as the sponsor hopes or thinks it might
be, simply because the school boards are a political subdivision of
the state. As such, a school board is required to meet the
requirements of the state. As everyone is aware, four years ago
the legislature adopted Title 23, Public Employees Relations Act
(PERA), which moved labor relations in under PERA. At that point,
there was a lengthy discussion over the ability of school districts
to opt out of PERA, the way many of the municipalities were allowed
to do back in the 1970s. It was decided that the policy of this
state would be that all school districts would fall under the
confines of PERA and move from Title 14, where labor relations was
addressed, into Title 23, PERA.
MR. ROSE thought that when it comes down to the interpretation of
what we will be able to do with the employees in the state, the
rules are already set.
MR. ROSE said he did not interpret the bill as allowing for a
private group to come in and hire new employees.
TAPE 95-9, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. ROSE said that in some particular areas, this bill will help
because the law is not clear. There are two areas, one of interim
superintendencies, and the other is the area which attempts to
consolidate administrative services. First Mr. Rose discussed
interim superintendencies.
MR. ROSE said when there is a separation between a school board and
its superintendent, and it comes in an untimely manner (perhaps
mid-year), the school board must find an interim superintendent.
Any superintendent must be certified. They must have a Type A
teaching certificate, a Type B administration certificate, and a
superintendent endorsement.
Number 066
At 4:35 p.m. Co-Chair Bunde announced that he had to leave the
meeting to make a quorum elsewhere. Because there were some
questions which remained unanswered, he asked Co-Chair Toohey to
appoint a subcommittee to explore the bill. He requested to be on
the subcommittee and suggested that Co-Chair Toohey be on it also.
Number 099
MR. ROSE continued that the position of interim superintendent
requires a certificate with an endorsement for superintendent.
Normally, you cannot find someone who is available mid-year. If
they are available, you may want to question why they are not
employed and why you would want to hire them. On the other hand,
there happens to be a number of people who are available, and they
are retired superintendents.
MR. ROSE said this is where interpretation comes into play. When
a person is utilizing the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) and
receiving benefits, he or she cannot be serving in a position that
requires a certificate as a condition of employment. There is a
conflict there. Mr. Rose thinks this bill would allow someone to
come in and contract for a period of time. The school board will
then have the expertise present while it searches for another
permanent superintendent.
MR. ROSE said the second area this legislation would assist is the
area of contracting services. Pelican, for example, has contracted
services with the Southeast Regional Resource Center. They have
contracted their superintendent services for $30,000. This is
considerably less than the cost of a full-time employee. With the
remainder of that money, they employed a full-time principal on-
site. The principal's duties are to be responsible for the
operation of the school. The functions and operations of the
district and operating the school board are left to the executive
director of the Southeast Regional Resource Center, which for the
record is John Anttonen.
Number 219
MR. ROSE said that relationship is working so well that Skagway is
looking to do the same thing. The problem arose when the
commissioner of the DOE raised the concern that since John Anttonen
had a certificate and was already using it in Pelican, he should
not be allowed to use that same certificate in Skagway. The
Regional Resource Center is a pretty large organization. They have
a lot of talent in there and they also have other people who have
certificates. But the point is that they are providing a service
that allows school districts to exercise their right under the
authority of this bill. This is to hire and contract the services
and allow them to put their money into principalships and dollars
that go back into the classroom.
MR. ROSE continued that the question has to be if it is not just
the Regional Resource Center, who else might be able to provide
that service. These factors must be looked at. Mr. Rose cannot
imagine a school district deciding to go private with all the
constraints he just mentioned. Mr. Rose thinks that someone would
have to come up with a very good plan to suggest that something
like this could work. He looks at these good plans and proposals
as very little more than a campaign. Many things can be promised
on the campaign trail. Many things can be promised when a person
is proposing that they will run a business.
MR. ROSE explained the problem is that at some point there is a
"leaping off point." When a person signs into a multi-year
contract, it is no different than any superintendency. That person
is responsible for that contract for the duration of that contract.
There are a lot of protections already in state law that provide us
with the protections that we need. But this bill does clarify, and
it gives us another option to take a look at private agencies.
MR. ROSE added the Regional Resource Center is kind of a hybrid in
terms of an agency. It is mentioned in statute; therefore, it is
kind of a political subdivision of the state; therefore, many of
their employees qualify for TRS benefits. On the other hand, they
are also a 501-C(3), which is a private nonprofit agency, thereby
allowing them some proprietary interests to competitively bid for
grants from the DOE.
Number 387
MR. ROSE questioned if the bill is clear whether the Regional
Resource Center qualifies as a private agency, however, Mr. Rose
thinks it does, one way or the other. For the points Mr. Rose just
enumerated, he feels that the bill gives some options. He also
thinks the current statutes provide all the protections that HESS
Committee members had concerns about. Lastly, Mr. Rose thinks that
the school board is the one that is probably best qualified to make
determinations as to what is most effective for the operation of
the schools.
Number 437
MR. FORD said the discussion has covered both ends of the spectrum.
The existing law allows one to contract with an agency, and the
current bill just says, "a private agency." Whether it is public
or private, the school board is covered.
Number 461
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that the most recent testimony
should be taken into consideration by the subcommittee. Co-Chair
Toohey said she would take that under consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how many private agency management
options are currently working in the U.S., how long have they been
working, and have they been working long enough to have any type of
fairly definitive outcome.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that legislative research was working
on that information right now.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said if you take away the words "private
management" and think about the type of education, the bill becomes
clearer.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified by saying "Privately managed,
publicly funded."
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY held the bill for further consideration.
Number 571
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked about Co-Chair Bunde's request to be on
the subcommittee. Co-Chair Toohey said that she and Co-Chair Bunde
would comprise the subcommittee until further notice.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY adjourned the meeting at 4:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|