01/29/1998 03:07 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 1998
3:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 335
"An Act replacing the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act with
the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act; and
amending Rules 4 and 62, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule
205, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 125
"An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund dividends to
the Alaska children's trust; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 148
"An Act relating to the public school funding program; relating to
the definition of a school district, to the transportation of
students, to school district layoff plans, to the special education
service agency, to the child care grant program, and to compulsory
attendance in public schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 335
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM INTERSTATE CHILD CUSTODY ACT
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/20/98 2090 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/98 2090 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
01/29/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 125
SHORT TITLE: PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHILDREN'S TRUST
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Dyson, Davies, Green,
Brice
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/12/97 314 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/97 315 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/06/97 570 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES
03/07/97 594 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
04/30/97 1427 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BRICE
01/29/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 148
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL FUNDING ETC./ CHILD CARE GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/18/97 382 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/18/97 382 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/04/97 988 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
04/04/97 988 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/04/97 989 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/08/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/08/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/24/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/24/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/28/97 (H) HES AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106
04/28/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/30/97 (H) HES AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106
04/30/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
08/25/97 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 205
08/25/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
09/30/97 (H) HES AT 9:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO
09/30/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/27/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
(H) MINUTE(HES)
01/29/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
PATTI SWENSON, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Sponsor Statement for HB 335.
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Section
Civil Division
Department of Law;
Uniform Law Commissioner for the
State of Alaska
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 335.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 125.
NANCI JONES, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0460
Telephone: (907) 465-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 125.
CAROL BRICE, Chair
Alaska Children's Trust
P.O. Box 81016
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-7461
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 125.
CAREN ROBINSON, Lobbyist
for Alaska Women's Lobby
211 4th Street, Suite 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 125.
SHARI PAUL, Special Assistant
Alaska Children's Trust
Department of Community & Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 112100
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100
Telephone: (907) 465-4870
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 125.
JACK SHERMAN, Director
Business Affairs
North Slope School District
P.O. Box 169
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-5311
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to proposed
CSSSHB 148.
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2891
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on proposed CSSSHB 148.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Porter,
Dyson, Kemplen and Brice. Representatives Green and Vezey arrived
at 3:08 p.m. and 3:10 p.m., respectively.
Number 0177
CHAIRMAN BUNDE called an at-ease at 3:10 p.m. to listen to the
statewide teleconference with the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault.
HB 335 - UNIFORM INTERSTATE CHILD CUSTODY ACT
Number 0179
CHAIRMAN BUNDE called the meeting back to order at 3:24 p.m. He
announced the first item on the calendar was House Bill 335, "An
Act replacing the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act with the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act; and
amending Rules 4 and 62, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule
205, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure." He asked Patti Swenson
to come forward to present HB 335.
Number 0252
PATTI SWENSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Con Bunde,
stated that House Bill 335, The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) addresses the problem of interstate
child custody. She emphasized the bill only addresses interstate
child custody, not custody within the state. She commented that
often it is the children who suffer during a custody dispute
between adults. This legislation works in the best interest of
children. This Act revises the UCCJEA by enhancing rules for
custody determinations and by adding new enforcement provisions.
Specifically, it will provide a quick and inexpensive process for
parents to enforce child custody orders and visitation
determinations across state lines, and eliminate the conflicts and
problems which surround interstate custody and visitation orders by
adding uniformity to the law. Soon this Act will be adopted by all
50 states. When it is, parents will not be able to use their
children as pawns in their disputes.
Number 0348
MS. SWENSON further stated this Act will provide uniformity of law.
Without uniformity, the child custody waters will be muddied in
many ways. First, the cost of an enforcement action will be
greatly increased. Second, parents will continue to lack certainty
of outcome in a case and third, the lack of uniformity between
various state laws often turns enforcement of an interstate child
custody or visitation order into a long and drawn out process, in
which one parent can delay visitation or custody indefinitely.
Number 0383
MS. SWENSON concluded this legislation is important for all those
who will be involved in custody disputes. Children will benefit
from the security it will give them and parents will not be able to
manipulate court orders in an effort to gain custody of a child.
She thanked committee members for their consideration of what she
believes to be an important piece of legislation.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Deborah Behr from the Department of Law to
come forward.
Number 0420
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and
Regulations Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, and Uniform
Law Commissioner for the state of Alaska, informed committee
members that she was one of nine attorneys nationwide selected to
be on the committee to draft this Uniform Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act, which she considers to be a drastic improvement in
the law. This Act will make it considerably easier to determine
what state has the ability to modify the order and what state has
the ability to enforce the order.
Number 0463
MS. BEHR pointed out that the goal of the committee was to get a
bill whereby an individual would not have to hire an attorney, but
could go to the court with a "canned form and say I have an order
to see my child; I'm being denied that. Here are the facts. I'm
not involved in any other domestic violence proceeding or whatever.
I want to see my child and the court's obligation is to enforce
that order." Visitation to a child is a very important right and
it should be exercised quickly. When visitation is denied, it has
a dramatic impact on a child.
MS. BEHR noted the people appointed to the committee were very
middle-of-the-road-type people who were aware that if the Act was
drafted to one side or the other, it wouldn't be passed by the
legislature and in the end, would do no good. Domestic violence
groups, family law judges, and fathers' rights groups all observed
the work of the committee.
Number 0548
MS. BEHR said the importance of all states having the same terms is
to ensure uniformity of the rules among the states. She cited a
practical example: "The typical case will be a marriage in Alaska;
people have been here five years; they get a divorce; the custodial
parent moves out of state - maybe to Washington for four months,
moves down to California for four months. What the question is now
is they come in at the end of eight months and the noncustodial
parent says 'I'd like to see the child for Christmas visitation or
holiday visitation; I have a right to it in my order' and the
custodial parent for one reason or another says 'no'. This bill
will answer what court has a right to enforce the order, what court
has an obligation to enforce the order, and what court has the
obligation - if someone has a concern - to modify the order."
Number 0590
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked which court will have that right? It was his
understanding that it would be the court of jurisdiction where the
original custody was determined.
MS. BEHR responded that based on her example, Alaska would make
that decision if HB 335 becomes law. However, she suspects that
under the current law - without this modification - California
would make the decision. She further explained that a parent who
retains the services of an Alaskan attorney, not licensed to
practice law in California, would bear the cost of not only the
services of the Alaskan attorney, but the services of a California
attorney as well to enforce the parental right in a valid court
order. However, if the other parent believes there is a domestic
violence issue, there are ways to bring that to the attention of
the court. She assured committee members that children are
protected.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE acknowledged that Anchorage and Valdez were on
listen-only teleconference.
Number 0655
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN advised that he had introduced a similar
piece of legislation, and the dialogue which took place in trying
to move that bill, indicated there are a number of custodial
parents that will move out of state either from fear of or actual
domestic violence acts. Often times the feeling is they don't have
a strong enough case, and their only protection is to leave the
state. He said, "The complaint is because they either perceive or
in some cases don't have - but they'll make that issue - the
noncustodial parent doesn't have right." He wondered if both those
concerns would be addressed in this legislation.
MS. BEHR responded affirmatively. She said that generally, the
enforcing court has an obligation to respect the order, not modify
the order, and to enforce it. The court can take emergency
jurisdiction when facts are presented that an emergency exists.
The facts presented by Representative Green do not rise to the
level of an emergency order in her opinion. She would advise that
custodial parent to go back to the home state, inform the judge of
the concerns, and then modify the order through the ordinary course
of business rather than deny visitation.
Number 0740
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said his perspective, based on correspondence
received, is that often - as unjustified as it may be - the excuse
for not paying child support is the lack of visitation rights.
Because there would be some uniformity, he wondered if there was a
possibility that unjustified reason would go away.
MS. BEHR advised that the Uniform Law Commissioner Conference, of
which she is a member, came out with the Uniform Child Support Act.
Several years ago when she started doing family law, an individual
could easily avoid a child support obligation by crossing state
lines. Now, however with states banning together, it's difficult
to avoid a child support obligation by crossing state lines. She
is hopeful this legislation will bring about that same kind of
predictability in visitation.
Number 0822
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Following up on my earlier question,
then if the noncustodial parent is denied access to visitation
because of perception - you indicated you would advise the
custodial parent to get this all cleared up in the court of
jurisdiction - but if on the other hand the person fled or whatever
you call it - what recourse would the noncustodial parent have?"
MS. BEHR clarified the situation being discussed was that of a
custodial parent not returning a child for holiday visitation in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN confirmed that.
MS. BEHR indicated the Act has provisions and one remedy is that
the California judge could order the parent to bring the child into
court. If the parent does not comply, the Act contains a provision
to send troopers to get the child. She added this is considered to
be an extraordinary remedy. It is her hope that most parents will
know that the orders have to be followed and they will be held
accountable. The goal is to have the order followed and to get the
order modified if a problem does arise.
Number 0906
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred and page 5, line 1 and asked who is
entitled to be heard in the referenced hearing.
MS. BEHR pointed out this is when the initial custody determination
or when a modification is being made; it's not the enforcement
action. This provision gives notice of opportunity to all persons
who are entitled to notice under the laws of the state. In other
words, it would look to the laws under the state of Alaska which to
the best of her recollection, would be any parent, any person who
has a right to visitation, in some cases, grandparents, and any
custodian.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to page 6, line 9, which establishes
procedures for an Alaskan court to decline jurisdiction, and asked
Ms. Behr if she could further explain that section.
MS. BEHR replied, "Yeah, that's very helpful because I think at
some point -- say you have a one-year-old and there's a divorce, 15
years later, if the -- for example, the contacts with the state of
Alaska are very limited, the state of Alaska could come in and say,
'Look, we are no longer' -- a parent in the California example,
could petition the state of Alaska court in saying, 'This is not
the appropriate place; we have the better information in
California.' The Alaska court is the one that would make that
decision. The Alaska court could look at the information that's
here listed in (b) and decide whether or not it's appropriate to
decline their rights of making this decision. And there's some
interesting things here, like the domestic violence groups wanted
to be absolutely certain on page 6, line 19 - 21, that domestic
violence was one of the first issues that the judge looked at."
The length of time outside the state, the distance between the
courts, relative financial circumstances and other factors go into
a decision of whether Alaska should decline jurisdiction.
Number 1038
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to page 9, line 25, Enforcement under the
Hague Convention, and asked if that was to address international
problems.
MS. BEHR pointed out the Hague Convention controls the United
States' agreements with other countries and essentially allows a
state to enforce a Hague order. There are rare occasions when a
child is taken across international lines by a parent not born in
the United States.
Number 1072
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to page 12, line 16, which sets out the
procedures for an Alaska court to expedite enforcement and asked
Ms. Behr to explain the current procedures.
MR. BEHR replied, "Yes, I would like to talk about that because
this is one of the advantages of this bill because each state has
their own procedure and as I was sitting on this conference and
having people watch us from all over the United States -- Texas has
a habeas corpus proceeding -- what we'd do in the state of Alaska
if I was representing a noncustodial parent and you would go in for
an order to show cause - why the custodial parent was not allowing
visitation - and they do not have expedited requirements that they
go on the court calendar quickly, so the court would take them --
they take them on a quick basis, but this is a clear statutory
mandate that these be treated on an expedited basis. And then the
court proceeding is very limited because the judge in the other
court -- the other state is only to look if there's a valid order,
has it been modified, is there anything in the petition that shows
there's a domestic violence order that was entered or something
like that - and then what is the remedy that that person that's
being denied visitation wants. That's all the court can look at.
So, it should go a lot quicker. What happens now in a lot of child
custody cases where if someone goes into enforcement, is they bring
up what I call the smoke issues -- they relitigate the divorce
issue, they relitigate whatever, and a court cannot do that quickly
on their calendar -- to redo a whole trial. And the goal is the
order is to be respected or - in an enforcement action. That's the
goal of it."
Number 1156
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Ms. Behr to address page 14, line 6, where a
child would be endangered by the enforcement of an order and page
15, line 5, which speaks to the exceptional remedies in emergency
situations where physical harm could come to the child.
MS. BEHR considers this to be very important. She is aware that
people do not have the money to hire an attorney to keep the order
up to date. She stated, "What we wanted to make sure is if a
parent had an old order that didn't represent the -- the absent
parent just got out of jail for some kind of domestic violence or
whatever -- and the mother can bring -- the custodial parent can
bring this into court, the court on its own can take jurisdiction -
kind of like a CINA action but it's not - they could take
jurisdiction of it and then decide that it was not appropriate to
enforce the order under these unusual circumstances. The expedited
-- the exceptional warrant is to deal with the situation that
Representative Green was talking about where they got a valid order
but the person refuses to cooperate. And that's when the judge can
send the troopers out."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired if in that scenario the person is out
of state, could the court of jurisdiction in that state actually
intervene for the state court of Alaska.
MS. BEHR noted the other state could ask for Alaska's assistance or
Alaska could ask for the other state's assistance. She added that
one of the problems is that people can move from one state to
another very quickly.
Number 1252
CO-CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to page 16, line 1, relating to costs,
fees, and expenses and asked Ms. Behr to address that section.
MS. BEHR remarked that Alaska has an unusual rule for prevailing
party in attorney fees cases; most states do not. This legislation
is designed as an encouragement for other states to take the Alaska
rule which is to award attorney fees to prevailing parties when an
enforcement order is not followed. She commented that it is "an
extra hook" to get people to follow the orders because of the costs
involved. She directed the committee's attention to page 16, line
8, which says that a judge can decide not to award costs, fees, or
expenses if it is clearly inappropriate.
Number 1299
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired if all the states are required to
comply with the provisions, what will the state of Alaska gain by
passing this legislation instead of letting it take its course.
MS. BEHR said, "It's not -- maybe I should be clearer. This is not
an area where Congress will act like they did in child support,
where Congress said -- this is an area where the state -- child
custody is a very parochial state issue -- which is when we
designed the act, we made sure we didn't get into things like
grandparent rights, stepparent rights because each state has their
own thing with what kind of rights they want to give to people and
so in order for us to join this, we have to pass the Act."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN questioned the situation where one state has
adopted the Act and the other has not. He asked, "Does our having
adopted it take precedent in that other state to have them enforce
our orders?"
MS. BEHR responded it would not trump the other state's law, but
the expectation is that other states will adopt it. In the last
week, five states have introduced this legislation which indicates
to her that other states are seeing a need for it. She stated,
"There'll be a transition period. The existing law -- we'll be
able to enforce our orders so you don't have to worry about issuing
an Alaskan order that will not be enforceable; it will be
enforceable. It's just these extra benefits that we have here - we
won't be able to use them with everybody."
Number 1380
CHAIRMAN BUNDE summarized the intent of HB 335 is to reduce the
opportunity or incentive for noncustodial kidnaping; where children
are used in the battle of the ongoing unsettled problems between
the parents.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced HB 335 would be held in the House Health,
Education and Social Services Committee.
HB 125 - PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHILDREN'S TRUST
Number 1435
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next bill before the committee was
HB 125, "An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund
dividends to the Alaska children's trust; and providing for an
effective date." He asked Representative Hudson to present his
bill.
Number 1460
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 125, said the concept of the legislation has been around for
some time. He recalled a few years ago there had been considerable
interest in holding the Winter Olympics in Anchorage, and the
people of Alaska were given an opportunity to help Anchorage secure
the designation as the World Olympic Center by means of a checkoff
on the permanent fund dividend (PFD) application. It was on a
multi-year basis and, of course, ended when Anchorage lost the
designation to the East Coast.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out his interest in trying to do
something for the Children's Trust Fund was sparked, in most part,
because of his participation some years ago on the Blue Ribbon
Commission for Youth. Commission members talked with people from
all walks of life including teachers, ministers, business leaders,
parents and children. Also, Alaska has the unfortunate distinction
of leading the nation in the per capita rate of child abuse and
neglect, a suicide rate four times higher than the national
average, more than 10,000 preschoolers below the poverty line,
over 2,200 school dropouts, and 3,500 children reported as
runaways.
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said over the summer, he had talked with
individuals at the Johnson Youth Center, the Miller House, and the
prison in Juneau to figure out the best way to attack the problem.
He recognized the need for the Division of Family and Youth
Services, as well as the institutional approach to the child abuse,
sexual assault, et cetera, but those approaches are not succeeding.
He looked at the Alaska Children's Trust and saw it as the sort of
"science and technology" approach to tackling the problems
confronting the young people of the state. He explained that it is
basically unfettered with the standard institutional constraints;
it moves more in the direction of allowing the board and the
community, including volunteers, to have a voice in new types of
approaches to preventing child abuse, improving parenting skills,
eliminating the violence, et cetera.
Number 1635
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the Alaska Children's Trust received 56
proposals the first year they had funds to work with, but were able
to fund only 12 projects. Currently, there's approximately $7
million cumulative, in the fund which is set up similar to the
permanent fund, in that all the money goes into the corpus of the
fund, and the grant programs function through the interest. The
Alaska Children's Trust generated approximately $280,000 last year
which funded the grants awarded to the 12 grantees.
Number 1725
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON deemed it was time once again to give the
people of Alaska an opportunity to contribute a portion of their
permanent fund dividend on a uniform basis. The optional $25
checkoff would bolster the $7 million fund and be tax deductible to
those who participate. It could go on indefinitely or it could
sunset at some future date.
Number 1776
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON concluded that he is hopeful this legislation
will not have a "Christmas tree" effect. He pointed out the
attached $22,000 fiscal note from the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division drops down after the first year and comes out of the
contributions. He is getting more and more support for this
legislation and asked committee members for their favorable
consideration.
Number 1846
CHAIRMAN BUNDE acknowledged there were people in the audience who
had signed up to testify. He asked Nanci Jones to come forward to
present her testimony.
Number 1882
NANCI JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department
of Revenue, distributed a summary of Olympic donor checkoff
activity for 1986 through 1989 PFD applications. She explained
that in 1986 and 1987 the donation was $5, increased to $10 in 1988
and 1989 and raised a total of $2.3 million across the four years.
Number 1920
CHAIRMAN BUNDE recalled that three or four years ago, a bill to
provide funds for the state sport, dog mushing, had been introduced
and the division had not been supportive of that legislation.
Number 1937
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked Ms. Jones to explain what all was
involved if this legislation passed.
MS. JONES prefaced her response by saying the forms specialist has
advised that any item or question needs to be placed on the front
of the PFD application in order for the public to recognize it.
Unfortunately, the front of the application is already crowded. In
response to Representative Brice's question, the contract forms
designer would need to redesign the form and the division envisions
the printing would just get smaller and smaller. Also, everything
on the application is explained, so the Alaska Children's Trust
would have an informational page in the booklet, which means it
would share in the cost and postage.
Number 2013
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Jones for her testimony and asked Carol
Brice to testify from Fairbanks.
Number 2018
CAROL BRICE, Chair, Alaska Children's Trust, testified in support
of HB 125 via teleconference from Fairbanks. She said during the
first year of the Alaska Children's Trust, the board had an
opportunity to look at the approach it will take in putting the
millions of dollars into the trust that will be necessary to really
impact the current situation which Representative Hudson spoke to
previously. She said that children are not a cause or an issue;
they are a responsibility that everyone needs to take on. She
stated, "Until we change the climate for our tolerance of
maltreatment and neglect of children, we are going to continue to
have the concern in the way that we have it now, and certainly
we're not proud of our own statistics and some people would argue
that while maybe it's the way we keep our statistics, I think
that's all very beside the point." As long as there is one child
who doesn't have what is needed to reach full potential, there will
be concern.
Number 2106
MS. BRICE said she was unaware of any other way to address the
continued financial dilemma to fund public awareness and programs
that communities can institute to begin approaching the problems,
unless they look at ways to raise huge sums of money which won't
come from individuals or small businesses. She views this
legislation as a means for the Alaska Children's Trust to get a
million dollars a year into the fund so it can begin to consider
the requests for funds being received. She remarked that 57
requests were received prior to the public being totally aware that
a Request for Proposal (RFP) had gone out. Now, many communities
are aware of the existence of the Alaska Children's Trust and their
intent on changing the tolerance for child abuse and neglect and on
consciousness raising by making every individual in the state aware
of and feeling some responsibility for changing what's going on
with children.
Number 2172
MS. BRICE further stated with respect to an ending date, she didn't
envision the need ever going away. Hopefully, the large number of
children in need will go away, but there will always be a need for
prevention. She compared this to the Immunization 2000 campaign to
ensure that children are protected. She commented that prevention
monies have dried up and this is an opportunity statewide to attack
the problem. She concluded, "I just want you to know how
passionately I am pleading for this kind of a bill to at least get
heard outside of this committee so we can begin to do some
consciousness raising."
Number 2232
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Ms. Brice how he could explain to other groups
who feel as fervently about their issue, that they can't have a
checkoff, but Ms. Brice can because her issue is special.
MS. BRICE replied, "I think we are special. I think that's
something we're all going to have to think about individually is
how we'll approach that question. Again, I don't think children
are an issue. Children are a very large percentage of the
population here in the state of Alaska. I'm not sure there would
be another issue that would affect the same percentage of our
population."
Number 2293
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked Ms. Brice to explain the
difference between the Alaska Children's Trust Fund and the Friends
for Children's Trust.
MS. BRICE responded the Friends of the Alaska Children's Trust is
a nonprofit group that was organized for the purposes of
fundraising and distributing information to accelerate the
effectiveness of the Alaska Children's Trust. The Friends of the
Alaska Children's Trust are actually the working office of the
board. The Alaska Children's Trust is basically a fund that is
administered and monitored by a seven-member board of trustees, of
which she is a member. The board's primary job is to find ways of
raising money and to monitor what happens to that money. She
commented the board put a great deal of effort into the proposal
last year, and then evaluating the 57 responses that came in.
TAPE 98-2, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. BRICE continued the board is now monitoring the 12 grantees.
There is a lot of other work that needs to be done, which is the
reason for the Friends of the Alaska Children's Trust.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Brice for her comments and asked Caren
Robinson to come forward to testify.
Number 0035
CAREN ROBINSON, Lobbyist for Alaska Women's Lobby, stated, "The
Alaska Women's Lobby is comprised of citizen activists who, in
1982, formed a lobbying association dedicated to equality. We work
primarily on issues affecting women and children and our members -
we also have steering committee members that are in the three
largest communities - Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau.
"We're here today in strong support of House Bill 125. We believe
that prevention is one of the keys to improving the lives of and
opportunities for our children. One of the primary jobs of the
Children's Trust is to develop and foster prevention strategies.
This bill would allow Alaskans to voluntarily contribute to these
important efforts and help support our families by simply giving
back some of the permanent fund windfall.
"It is a great idea and our members will be among the very first to
check that box. When you ask 'why' and 'this issue' and 'should we
have the Christmas tree approach' and we believe very strongly that
all of us continue to say in this state that the number 1 priority
are our children. And I think that you can hear from us that we
won't be in here asking for anything else. We believe that by
giving us the opportunity to check off and make it easier for us to
donate to a very important cause that it will actually take a lot
of money that is being spent right now, we hope in the future, off
the table. So for a lot of the other very important issues that we
do need to address that you maybe have a little surplus. So, we
ask you today to assist Representative Hudson. Move this bill
forward; get it to the floor; get a vote on it this year; help get
it to the Senate."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Robinson for her comments and asked
Shari Paul to present her comments.
Number 0128
SHARI PAUL, Special Assistant, Alaska Children's Trust, Department
of Community & Regional Affairs, testified in support of HB 125.
She noted the Friends of the Alaska Children's Trust is completely
nonprofit, and as such receives no state funding. Much of their
fundraising comes from seeking donations from the various
businesses. In addition, they've published a book which is now
available in bookstores and the sales go directly to the Alaska
Children's Trust. A fundraiser is planned for April in Fairbanks
for which support is being sought from different hotels in
Fairbanks as well as private businesses.
Number 0171
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed there had been some confusion about
fundraising activities in that people who were asked to donate to
Friends to Alaska Children's Trust thought they were donating to
the Children's Trust. To the extent that differentiation can be
made, he thought it would be helpful.
MS. PAUL responded that's being clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON recalled the expenditures for the Alaska
Children's Trust were to be on the earnings of the Trust not the
principal.
MS. PAUL responded that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON surmised there had been no expenditures from
the principal.
MS. PAUL responded that was correct, also.
Number 0203
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked about the success of the fundraising efforts
by the Friends of the Alaska Trust. He noted the legislature had
appropriated $6 million, so he surmised the trust had generated
about $1 million from private sources.
MS. PAUL indicated that was true, and added that inasmuch as it was
the first year, a lot of time was spent getting word out about the
Alaska Children's Trust. This being the second year, more time
will be devoted to fundraising.
Number 0235
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked what the administrative overhead was for the
Children's Trust.
MS. PAUL replied that it was mostly her salary and paying some
travel expenses for board members. It's actually very minimal;
just under $40,000 which includes printing RFPs, printing public
notices, postage, et cetera.
Number 0275
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Ms. Paul to comment on the Christmas tree
effect.
MS. PAUL echoed Ms. Brice's comments in that children are the
state's precious resource who need to grow up healthy and safe in
order to become productive members of society. It must start with
prevention.
Number 0319
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there were any questions for Ms. Paul.
Hearing none, he asked Ms. Jones at what point did she think it
would no longer be practical to have a checkoff on the PFD
application.
MS. JONES reiterated the current PFD application contains about as
much information as it can and still be read with relative ease.
A checkoff would call for a redesign of the application which is
reflected in the fiscal note; it also assumes the continuation of
a paper-type application. She noted that with the Christmas tree
effect, one option would be for the PFD application booklet to
become an advertising catalog whereby everyone would buy a page.
The division is looking toward the future of information technology
whereby the public will be filing applications telephonically, over
the Internet, et cetera.
Number 0412
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the issue of child abuse and assault
could be elevated and highlighted by its inclusion in the PFD
booklet because it goes to everyone in the state. It would provide
everyone an opportunity to participate in this important issue.
Number 0459
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Representative Hudson for his concern and
sincerity.
Number 0463
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I would suggest -- I doubt that we
could get from Leg Legal the kind of opinion that we'd want as
regard to single subject -- single subject being the Children's
Trust and not anything else -- that might be stretching it, but I
would suggest that we try to create a letter of intent, if that's
the proper vehicle or purpose or whatever -- that basically says
this committee recognizes the vulnerability of this bill and would
ask the rest of the members of the legislature that if they would
like to champion a cause to file a bill -- that this is not
intended to have anything but a vote on this issue in the Senate
and in the House."
Number 0505
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE echoed Representative Porter's statement. He
offered a technical amendment changing the effective date from
January 1, 1998, to January 1, 1999.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was objection to the technical
amendment. Hearing none, it was adopted.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced that HB 125 would be held in committee and
scheduled for another hearing when the letter of intent would be
discussed.
SSHB 148 - SCHOOL FUNDING ETC./ CHILD CARE GRANTS
Number 543
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next bill to be discussed was SSHB 148
"An Act relating to the public school funding program; relating to
the definition of a school district, to the transportation of
students, to school district layoff plans, to the special education
service agency, to the child care grant program, and to compulsory
attendance in public schools; and providing for an effective date."
He said the committee had adopted a proposed committee substitute
at the last meeting. It was not his intention to move the bill out
of committee today as they are still awaiting the cost differential
study, which will be incorporated into the bill. He announced that
Jack Sherman was standing by to testify via teleconference from
Barrow.
Number 0591
JACK SHERMAN, Director, Business Affairs, North Slope School
District, testified via teleconference from Barrow in opposition to
the proposed CSSSHB 148 because of the escalation clause. He
stated a tax rate of 7 mills would be devastating to the North
Slope Borough.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Mr. Sherman if he knew if the North Slope
Borough, Valdez, and Dutch Harbor were still the three wealthiest
communities in the state?
MR. SHERMAN believed that was correct.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced that Eddy Jeans from the Department of
Education was available to address the proposed CSSSHB 148 which
changed the foundation formula from a per unit to a per student.
He anticipated the cost differential study would point out some
interesting changes relating to how money is distributed throughout
Alaska. He referred to the concerns of the North Slope Borough
regarding their local contribution of up to 7 mills and asked Mr.
Jeans if he knew what the millage rate was in Juneau for education
support.
Number 0678
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance Section, Education Support
Services, Department of Education, said he didn't have that
information with him.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if anyone was aware of what the millage rate
was in Fairbanks?
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY believed it was 9 mills.
Number 0724
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Mr. Jeans for his comments on the proposed
CSSSHB 148 and the cost differential study.
MR. JEANS indicated he would refrain from commenting until the cost
differential study was released. He informed the committee that
contrary to what he had indicated at the previous meeting, the
side-by-side comparison of funding formulas would not be completed
until the cost differential study has been released.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE encouraged committee members to solicit comments on
the proposed CSSSHB 148 from their local school board, particularly
once the cost differential study is available.
Number 0819
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed interest in receiving a written
summary of the proposed CSSSHB 148, including the cost differential
study.
Number 0847
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that it was his understanding the
Department of Education, through the judicial process and after
much expense, had reached a settlement with Mr. Gilley,
Superintendent of the Adak School. In light of that situation, he
questioned whether the language on page 8, line 24 and page 9, line
4, needed to be strengthened.
MR. JEANS said the proposed language actually strengthens the
department's position. He noted the current statute basically
refers to "shall maintain the monies and complete financial records
in the disbursement of those funds."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE inquired if the committee should consider
adding language that would provide direction to the department in
the event a problem does arise.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE indicated he would entertain an amendment if
Representative Brice thought the additional language was necessary.
He noted, however, the Department of Education had not indicated
that additional language was necessary, but asked Mr. Jeans to
verify that.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out for the information of committee
members, the counting period for funding is currently in October
with a second counting period in February which has never been
enforced. Schools who thought they would get additional students
and consequently more money, would count in February. Conversely,
schools that thought they had lost students, wouldn't count. He
pointed out that double counting is an expense to the districts and
may not be supported by the school districts. He encouraged
committee members to get feedback from their local school districts
because double counting is required under the proposed CSSSHB 148.
Number 1060
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to page 9, line 20 - 21, and asked
for Chairman Bunde's thoughts on expanding local contribution to
include a Native corporation for example, that might provide
training on certain academic issues to a school district or a
single site school.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE conjectured that question should be directed to the
Department of Education and/or the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if in-kind services were defined?
MR. JEANS stated currently, there is no specific definition. He
added that in-kind services include janitorial, accounting, and
other services; normally, services that a district would have to
purchase. For example, much of the maintenance in the Kenai School
District is provided by the borough. He noted that in-kind
services are subject to an annual review by the independent audit
firms.
Number 1174
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to page 10, lines 22 - 25, and
expressed concern that, by omission, wage and hour considerations
for school bus drivers who have a higher minimum wage are not being
overlooked.
MR. JEANS pointed out the wages are set in statute, so the
department did not feel it was necessary to readdress it.
Number 1242
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the proposed CSSSHB 148 would be heard
again on Thursday, February 5.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1253
There being no further business to come before the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee, Chairman Bunde
adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|