Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/01/1998 03:08 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
April 1, 1998
3:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 36(FIN) am
"An Act relating to public schools; relating to the definition of
a school district, to the transportation of students, to employment
of chief school administrators, to school district layoff plans, to
the special education service agency, and to the child care grant
program; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED HCS CSSB 36(HES) FROM COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 36
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS, Taylor, Halford, Wilken,
Torgerson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/13/97 24 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/97
1/13/97 24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/13/97 24 (S) HES, FIN
2/12/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/12/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
2/27/97 542 (S) COSPONSOR(S): HALFORD
3/14/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/14/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
3/17/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/17/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
3/19/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/19/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
3/21/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/21/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
5/05/97 (S) HES AT 3:15 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
5/05/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
5/06/97 1712 (S) HES RPT 1AM 3NR
5/06/97 1712 (S) AM: WILKEN; NR: GREEN, LEMAN, ELLIS
5/06/97 1712 (S) FISCAL NOTES (DOE-2)
11/12/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
1/23/98 (S) FIN AT 8:45 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/03/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/03/98 (S) FIN AT 6:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/24/98 (S) FIN AT 8:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/26/98 (S) FIN AT 8:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/26/98 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/27/98 (S) FIN AT 4:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/28/98 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/02/98 2705 (S) COSPONSOR: WILKEN
3/03/98 (S) FIN AT 8:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/03/98 (S) FIN AT 4:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/04/98 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/04/98 (S) FIN AT 4:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/06/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/09/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/09/98 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
3/09/98 (S) FIN AT 4:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/09/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/10/98 (S) RLS AT 1:15 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
3/10/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/10/98 2805 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1NR 1DNP NEW TITLE
3/10/98 2806 (S) DP: SHARP, PHILLIPS, PARNELL,
TORGERSON
3/10/98 2806 (S) DONLEY NR: PEARCE DNP: ADAMS
3/10/98 2806 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DOE)
3/10/98 2806 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (LABOR, REV)
3/10/98 2808 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1 OTHER REC 3/10
3/10/98 2809 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/10/98 2809 (S) MOTION TO ADOPT FIN CS
3/10/98 2810 (S) FIN CS Y14 N5 E1
3/10/98 2810 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/10/98 2811 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/10/98 2811 (S) AM NO 3 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/10/98 2811 (S) AM NO 4 WITHDRAWN
3/10/98 2812 (S) AM NO 5 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
3/10/98 2814 (S) AM NO 6 FAILED Y4 N15 E1
3/10/98 2814 (S) AM NO 7 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
3/10/98 2815 (S) AM NO 8 NOT OFFERED
3/10/98 2815 (S) AM NO 9 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
3/10/98 2816 (S) AM NO 10 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
3/10/98 2817 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/10/98 2817 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 36(FIN) AM
3/10/98 2817 (S) COSPONSOR: TORGERSON
3/10/98 2817 (S) PASSED Y12 N7 E1
3/10/98 2818 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE ADPTD Y18 N1 E1
3/10/98 2818 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/11/98 2829 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
3/11/98 2830 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12 N8
3/11/98 2830 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE ADPTD Y18 N2
3/11/98 2831 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/13/98 2613 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/13/98 2613 (H) HES, FINANCE
3/21/98 (H) HES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/21/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
3/25/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/25/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/01/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed Amendment 11.
DAVID TEAL, Senior Analyst
McDowell Group
416 Harris Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6126
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed Amendment 11.
RICHARD S. CROSS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-8678
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 36.
DANIEL VANMETER, Student
Togiak School
Togiak, Alaska 99678
Telephone: Not Provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
COLYN ISAACSON, Student
Togiak School
Togiak, Alaska 99678
Telephone: Not Provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
JEANINE KENNEDY, Executive Director
Rural Alaska Community Action Program
731 East 8th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 279-2511
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
JIM CHALIAK, Representative
Yup'ik Immersion Program
P.O. Box 2271
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-4179
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
CHARLENE SAUNDERS
P.O. Box 140
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3265
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
ROBERTA GILLOTT, Teacher
P.O. Box 140
Dillingham, Alaska 99675
Telephone: (907) 842-1316
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
MAC CARTER, Board member
Yukon Flats School District
P.O. Box 30009
Central, Alaska 99730
Telephone: (907) 520-5999
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
ROGER LIEBNER, Representative
Soldotna High School Parent Teacher Association
207 Corral Avenue
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-1339
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
RAY GRIFFITH, Superintendent
Southeast Island School District
P.O. Box 8340
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9658
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
GILBERT GUTIERREZ, Member
Nome School Board
P.O. Box 306
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-4364
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
ROGER JACOBSON
Box 634
Tok, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 883-4260
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
STEVE CATHERS
P.O. Box 570
Unalaska, Alaska 99685
Telephone: (907) 581-3151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
SAM TOWARAK, Assistant Superintendent
Bering Straits School District
P.O. Box 225
Unalakleet, Alaska 99684
Telephone: (907) 624-3611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
ARTHUR LAKE, Tribal Administrator
Native Village of Kwigillingok
Kwigillingok, Alaska 99622
Telephone: Not Provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
BESSIE TITUS
Minto,
Alaska 99758
Telephone: (907) 798-7112
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
JANICE (INDISC.)
Hughes,
Alaska 99745
Telephone: (907) 889-2293
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
DAVE JONES, Director of Finance
Kodiak Island Borough School District
722 Mill Bay
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-9278
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
JIM FOSTER, Superintendent
Skagway School District
Box 297
Skagway, Alaska 99840
Telephone: (907) 983-2960
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
MOSES KRITZ, Mayor
City of Togiak
Box 83
Togiak, Alaska 99678
Telephone: (907) 493-5829
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
GINGER JENKINSON, Representative
Anchorage Council of Parent Teacher Associations
3940 Twilite
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-4901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
BARB ANGAIAK
P.O. Box 1233
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3459
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
TOM RICHARDS, JR.
P.O. Box 73433
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 452-2316
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
KIMBERLEY A. STRONG, Representative
Village of Klukwan; and ANS Grand President
for the Alaska Native Sisterhood
Box 286
Klukwan, Alaska 99827
Telephone: (907) 767-5586
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
JOHN KUNIK, Member
Copper River Against Bureaucracy
Box 83
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-5515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
BRIAN BERGERON, Student
Ketchikan Gateway School District
2428 2nd Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-0524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
BARBARA DALKE
Box 6039
Mentasta Lake, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 291-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
BOB CHRISTAL, Superintendent of Schools
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Telephone: (907) 269-2111
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
SYD WRIGHT, Retired School Principal
P.O. Box 624
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
OLGA SUTTON
Box 52
Togiak, Alaska 99678
Telephone: (907) 493-5829
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
BILL FERGUSON
P.O. Box 576
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-4912
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
CRISTINA SCHNEIDER
P.O. Box 80883
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-3389
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
DIANE GUBATAYAO
P.O. Box 5915
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4350
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
NORA DAVID
Box 6004
Mentasta Lake, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 291-2312
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
ELIZABETH BACOM, School Board Member
Petersburg School District
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
JOE ALEXIE, Representative
Togiak Natives, Limited
Box 86
Togiak, Alaska 99678
Telephone: (907) 493-5146
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
DARIO NOTTI
P.O Box 2179
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3072
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
REVA SHIRCEL, Director of Education
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 First Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
JANE BROWN
Box 92
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-5520
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
HANNAH RAMISKEY
428 Tower
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6648
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
PAUL FROST
Togiak,
Alaska 99678
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
SURAIYA JOHN
General Delivery
Mentasta Lake, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 291-2336
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
SHERYLE CHARLIE
Minto,
Alaska 99758
Telephone: Not Provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
JANICE KVERNVIK, Member
Petersburg School Board
P.O Box 1221
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-4566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
CHRISTINE COOPCHIAK, Representative
Togiak Health Clinic
Togiak, Alaska 99678
Telephone: (907) 493-5511
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
CATHY SAMPSON-KRUSE
P.O. Box 287, Number 3042
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-5916
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
DIANA CAMPBELL
2071 Lakeview
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 452-7768
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
JOHN THOMAS, Superintendent
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District
Pouch 2
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2118
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 36.
GORDON KRON
Box 627
Tok, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 883-5771
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
JOHN CYR, President
NEA-Alaska
114 2nd Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
LUCY CROW
P.O. Box 567
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2535
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
CYNTHIA HENRY, Legislative Chair
Fairbanks North Star Borough School Board
P.O. Box 70785
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 474-0034
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
TILLI ABBOTT, Principal
Hoonah City Schools
P.O. Box 592
Hoonah, Alaska 99829
Telephone: (907) 945-613
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
KARL GREENEWALD, SR., Representative
Huna Totem Corporation
P.O. Box 202269
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 243-3940
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
JOANN MCDONALD
P.O. Box 1001
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-6072
POSITION STATEMENT: Dario Notti read her testimony into the
record.
LINDA DEMIENTIEFF
102 Antoinette Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 451-6601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
CHRIS CAMPBELL, Member
Ketchikan School Board
601 Main Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-1477
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
ROBERT MCCLORY
162 Shoup Road
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-1477
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
SANDY JOHN
Tok,
Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 883-5355
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER
Kwigillingok,
Alaska 99622
Telephone: Not Provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
REBECCA GAMEZ, Director
Employment Security Division
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 25509
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5509
Telephone: (907) 465-2711
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
MIKE NOEL, Info Services Manager
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-4881
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
CYNDEE SIMPSON SUGAR
P.O. Box 1574
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
VELETA MURPHY
270 Ester Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 455-9075
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
PAUL SUGAR
P.O. Box 1574
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
DEBORAH VOGT, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0400
Telephone: (907) 465-2300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
BOB MEDINGER
P.O. Box 1063
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-4486
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
SHIRLEY DEMIENTIEFF, President
Fairbanks Native Association
229 Second Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-3318
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
BILL WILKERSON
Kwigillingok,
Alaska
Telephone: (907) 588-8629
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
GLEN MARUNDE
Box 192
Tok, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 883-4601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
CARL WILLIAMS
P.O. Box 2073
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2958
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
DENA IVEY, Representative
Fairbanks Chapter of the Alaska Native
Brotherhood and Sisterhood
P.O. Box 80164
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 456-2471
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
STEVEN BURKE
P.O. Box 943
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-5277
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
JOHN PECKHAM
P.O. Box 8394
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6047
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for CSSB 36.
PATRICIA OKSOKTARUK
648 Rebecca Street, Number 3
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 458-7343
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
KAREN KALLEN-BROWN
P.O. Box 84056
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 457-7270
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
MARGARET WILSON
548 Aquila
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-7798
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 36.
DON SHIRCEL
1150 Euriophorum Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 474-8044
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 36.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-37, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Green,
Dyson and Kemplen. Representatives Porter and Brice arrived at
3:09 p.m. and 3:11 p.m., respectively. Representative Vezey was
absent.
CSSB 36(FIN)am - PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING
Number 0052
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the committee would be hearing CSSB
36,(FIN)am, "An Act relating to public schools; relating to the
definition of a school district, to the transportation of students,
to employment of chief school administrators, to school district
layoff plans, to the special education service agency, and to the
child care grant program; and providing for an effective date."
The committee would consider amendments first and then begin to
take public testimony. The meeting was being teleconferenced to 20
sites to allow for public input.
Number 0138
CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated the committee would begin with discussion on
Amendment 2. Representative Porter had moved Amendment 2 at the
previous meeting and Representative Kemplen had objected. Chairman
Bunde explained Amendment 2 would basically institute a local
contribution in areas of the state that currently do not make a
local contribution to their schools.
Number 0241
REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN noted that a question had been
raised at the previous meeting regarding the impact of this
proposed amendment on individuals in urban areas who were working
in the Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs). He asked if that
issue had been resolved.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said, "I believe as the application of the amendment
is anticipated and there will of course be regulations that have to
be developed to get this amendment, or the whole bill, into action,
but that anyone who was domiciled outside an REAA would not be
subject to this tax, only those people who are not -- any Alaskan
resident who is domiciled outside the REAA. The thought being that
someone living in Fairbanks is already paying taxes to support
their school or any of the other urban areas. It's only the REAAs
where local support is required."
Number 0338
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to page 2, line 17 of the amendment
which states, "For purposes of AS 43.42.020, an employer has a
business situs in the unorganized borough outside of a home rule or
first class city if, at any time in the calendar year, an
individual performs services in the unorganized borough outside of
a home rule or first class city as an employee of that employer."
He asked for an interpretation of that section.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said, "I believe what that's saying is that you are
doing business in an REAA if you meet this description and if you
employ persons as you do that business, they would be subject to a
tax to support their schools." He asked Mike Ford if he had
additional comments regarding the amendment.
Number 0424
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal
and Research Services, said the tax is imposed if compensation is
received for services performed in the unorganized borough. For
example, an Anchorage resident, performing services and receiving
compensation for those services in the unorganized borough, is
subject to the tax. There is a credit provision, however, that
allows the individual to recover that amount paid, assuming the
individual already contributed to schools in an area other than the
unorganized borough.
Number 0464
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if for example a heavy equipment
owner/operator from Fairbanks who accepts a job in an REAA for the
summer, would be taxed on the compensation received.
MR. FORD said, "Correct. In the unorganized borough."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE interjected, "Not if he lives in Fairbanks."
MR. FORD said, "Well no, he's compensated for services performed in
the unorganized borough."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said, "And he would be exempt from taxation if he
was ..."
MR. FORD said, "Not technically true. He would be subject to the
tax but he has a credit against the tax for which he could apply.
So it's not an exemption, but a credit."
Number 0537
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked how much the credit would be.
MR. FORD said it's a credit up to the amount of the tax paid by the
individual.
Number 0551
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated, "It's a credit up to the amount of tax
you've paid. You have a guy doing electrical finish work who might
hit three different REAAs in a day. Say he pays $1,100 on his
property tax at home - probably a fifth or sixth of that goes to
schools, say $200 or $300 goes to schools - he's credited the $200
or $300, correct? After that credit, he no longer can apply for
it."
MR. FORD said that was correct.
Number 0617
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said in the example given, hypothetically
that same $300 would be deducted from any of other taxes.
MR. FORD confirmed that.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out the wages of a nonresident working in an
REAA would be subject to the tax, as well.
MR. FORD said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked "Is that like Slope workers, where their
domicile may be paying taxes for a home they own, wherever that may
be, is it only Alaskan taxes that are deductible or any school
tax?"
MR. FORD responded the way it's currently structured, it's only if
a person pays taxes to a city and borough school district in
Alaska.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN inquired if it's up to the individual to
make a claim for reimbursement.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if there were reporting obligations
for the employer.
MR. FORD said employers are required to report the amount of tax
collected on forms prepared by the Departments of Labor and
Revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN affirmed that any business doing business in
the REAAs will be required to complete additional paperwork.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out the impact would be minimal; this would
be added to the quarterly reports already required for other state
reporting.
Number 0770
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was further discussion on
Amendment 2. He announced a motion was before the committee to
move Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN objected.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Dyson,
Porter, Green and Bunde voted in favor of adopting Amendment 2.
Representatives Brice and Kemplen voted against it. Representative
Vezey was absent. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of
4-2.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said Amendment 3 will not be offered.
Number 0910
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to adopt Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected.
Number 0924
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said Amendment 4 speaks to concerns raised by the
Department of Education at the previous meeting.
MR. FORD explained the department was concerned with the usage of
certain terms in the legislation and Amendment 4 is just a clean-up.
Number 0972
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was further objection.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON inquired why "state share of public school
funding" was less acceptable than "basic need of each district."
MR. FORD said the amendment is an attempt to fine tune the terms so
there isn't any confusion between what "state share" versus "state
aid" means. In determining the amount of money a district gets
under the formula, it's important to be consistent in the use of
the terms. He explained this actually gets closer to the existing
system in terms of having "basic need." He agrees with the
department's recommendation to tighten up the language.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said hearing no further objection, Amendment 4 was
adopted.
Number 1039
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 5.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained this amendment speaks to the concern
raised by the Department of Education regarding transition
language.
MR. FORD said this language is in existing law. It doesn't appear
in the bill, but the department favors including this language
which provides a transition period for calculating the local
contribution in case other city and borough school districts are
formed.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE added it is preemptive language in the event there
are new boroughs formed; there are none contemplated, however.
Number 1082
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned the impact of the transition
language.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said there is no impact because there are no new
boroughs being formed, but if a borough were to form in the future,
this is the mechanism under current law as to how the borough would
transition into the foundation formula.
MR. FORD said that was correct. If any new borough or school
district is formed, the actual practical effect would be to
increase the amount of state money and give a break on the local
end for a 3-year period.
Number 1115
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented, "We have impacted individual
schools and there has been almost a tendency to want to move
schools together to form a different or at least a different
looking school district. Would that apply the same way or would
that not be considered a new one, just a revised one?"
MR. FORD responded if it is a city and borough district, not an
REAA, then this would apply.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said hearing no objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
Number 1159
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 6.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said Amendment 6 addresses concerns expressed by the
Department of Education to include "intensive student count".
Number 1180
MR. FORD suggested inserting "the" before "intensive student
count".
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said that was a technical amendment. Hearing no
objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
Number 1236
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 7.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained Amendment 7 addresses the Department of
Education's expressed concern regarding the 20 percent special
needs. The department's concern was that if a district did not
offer one of the programs, for example, a gifted and talented
program, the district may not qualify for the 20 percent.
MR. FORD said this amendment should address the department's
concern because a report will be required only on the services
provided.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out it requests that districts provide a
report to the state to alleviate parental concern about special
needs funding not being properly spent.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was objection to Amendment 7.
Hearing none, Amendment 7 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE welcomed Senator Wilken and announced the committee
would temporarily skip Amendment 8 and go on to Amendment 9.
Number 1313
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 9.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted Amendment 9 addresses the Department of
Education's concern regarding the definition of "Eligible Impact
Aid".
MR. FORD pointed out the existing formula has a definition of
eligible federal impact aid which is not included in the proposed
legislation. This amendment adds the definition and revises
citations to comply with federal law.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was objection to Amendment 9.
Hearing none, Amendment 9 was adopted.
Number 1362
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 10.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted Amendment 10 addresses the Department of
Education's concern regarding funding for the Special Education
Service Agency (SESA).
MR. FORD said this amendment revises the way in which money going
to the agency is calculated and provides a transition provision to
ensure SESA doesn't lose funding for FY 99 because of the effects
of the change.
Number 1497
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked for an explanation of the $15.75
figure in the amendment.
SENATOR GARY WILKEN replied, "It's the equivalent -- it's being
deleted -- the calculation has been a function of defining special
education students and in order to make this more simple, we're now
making the allotment a function of average daily membership (ADM),
so the $15.75 is to average daily membership as the $85 is to the
special education students federal classification. So it's revenue
neutral and if in the future one needs more or less, then we can
address the $15.75 as a function of ADM. It's much more clear to
the people involved."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted this speaks to $15.75 per student instead $85
in a different formula.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was objection. Hearing none,
Amendment 10 was adopted.
Number 1558
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 11.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that Amendment 11 deals with the
department's concern to clarify intent in the transition for small
schools.
MR. FORD said he believed the problem was with schools that had
less than 10 students and so by altering this formula, those
schools will be consolidated with the school in the district with
the highest ADM, which affects the funding calculation for that
district.
Number 1596
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked for an explanation of the new
subsection.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Eddy Jeans to come forward.
Number 1675
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance Section, Education Support
Services, Department of Education, explained this language sets the
minimum size for schools at ten and simply states that if a
district has a school serving less than ten students, those
students will be counted in the largest school in the district.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned why those students wouldn't be
included in the smallest school.
MR. JEANS said the purpose of placing the students in a school with
the highest ADM is those students will not generate the larger
dollars that are associated with operating a small school.
Number 1711
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented it would perhaps disadvantage the
next higher school by moving them into a higher category and
lowering their adjusted student count.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN inquired if it would be to the benefit of
those smaller schools.
MR. JEANS said, "I wouldn't say that this benefits small schools.
Schools serving less than ten students are counted in the largest
school therefore generating less dollars per student."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained taking a school with 8 students and
consolidating it with a school of 23 students, would cause the
student count to jump to the next category resulting in the
combined school having less money than schools in the 20-30 student
category.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN inquired why a school of less than ten
wouldn't be counted with the school in closest proximity rather
than the largest school.
Number 1853
DAVID TEAL, Senior Analyst, McDowell Group, explained, "If you're
using an example of a school with 8 students, right now the minimum
count for any school is at 39.5 or 40 kids, so if you had a school
with 8 students, they would actually be counted as 5 students each.
And if you count those students in a larger school, say 100 kids or
200 kids or something ...."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE interjected because of the multiplier they are
counted as if there were ....
MR. TEAL continued, "Yes, there's a size formula that takes every
school and gives them an adjusted student count. The minimum
student count is 40 and so that each student would have been
counted as five students. If you put them into a larger school
they might be counted as 1.5 students or 1.6 or something like
that. So that clearly you do get less money if you're going to
count them, I guess -- it doesn't make schools close -- my opinion
on that would be the way it was, if I understand it correctly, was
you just don't count schools of fewer than ten. So all you're
doing now is, I think, giving some local choice in saying you don't
actually have to close that school of fewer than 10 students but
you're not going to get funded at a level of 40 students; you're
only going to get 15 or so funding for them, which is what they
would get if they were in a larger school."
Number 1922
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked, "Is there a difference between the
ADM of that school that (indisc.) with the highest ADM and another
school. What practical effect does that have of having them
grouped with the school with the highest ADM versus someone with a
lower ADM?"
MR. TEAL replied, "The funding is per student. Let's just say that
you got $5,000 per student, if you counted them as a school
independent of all others - you had 8 kids and they were counted as
40 kids at $5,000, you'd get $200,000 for that school. If those
students were grouped in with a larger school, there again they're
now counted as say 1.5, you're now going to get 12 student count at
$5,000 [which] is only $60,000. So the effect is a loss of
$140,000. Those numbers are just kind of pulled out of the air,
but that's conceptually what happens."
Number 1979
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "So if we have eight students and
they're going to be counted as the highest, will it make a
difference which sized school they go into? In other words, do
they then have a split formula or do they become part of the mass
of the bigger school?"
MR. TEAL said it's the biggest school.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I understand that. But I mean, say
they went into a school that had 30-75 - Case A and Case B - they
go into a school of 250-400, do they still go in -- either place in
the count, they are counted at the highest level, something like
750 ...."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if he was correct that about half of the
schools have 200 or fewer students?
Number 2018
RICHARD S. CROSS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education,
said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated, "So we are talking about, when you say
you're going from a school of 10 to the highest in that region, the
highest that they would likely go would be counted in a school of
200. Is that correct?"
MR. CROSS said, "Not necessary so, because some of our very large
districts have very small schools, like Kenai for example."
Number 2036
MR. TEAL said, "Here's an example. In Haines there's Mosquito Lake
School with 8 students, they would now be funded as if they had 40
students and they would be included in Haines Elementary with 194
students and would be counted as 1.08. In other words, basically
nine students. So the loss could be substantial and as Mr. Cross
said if the school were even larger than that, the multiplier could
fall further than that."
Number 2058
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if the economic impact would possibly
be less if a school of less than ten was grouped with a closer
school in the district.
MR. TEAL remarked, "It could never be worse. I mean, that's all I
can say."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Let's go back to the hypothetical then
that the largest one would be 250 and that would be 1.08 for those
8 students - going into a school of say 30 to 75 now - would they
go in at 1.08 and the rest of the students in that 30 to 75 would
be 1.49 or ...."
MR. TEAL said they would just be counted as additional students in
the larger school.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out the proposed language states
"highest" as opposed to larger. He said, "And so in that district,
they may have a school that's 250 and would they be counted at that
rate - 1.08 or the school that is -- they're going into a different
school. In other words, they're not going into the highest school,
they're just ...."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE clarified that students aren't necessarily
physically moving; the funding for those students would be counted
as if they had moved physically to the largest school. He
explained it doesn't mean that a school of ten or fewer students
has to close, but if the school stayed open there would be
considerably less money.
Number 2151
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there were further questions.
Number 2159
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to amend Amendment 11 by
deleting "highest" and inserting "lowest".
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected.
Number 2169
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, "The idea is the higher the ADM, the
lower the amount of state contribution. He agreed that a school of
ten students is probably too small, but that count should be
potentially at the highest amount for those kids, even if they are
going into a neighboring school. He said, "I think what you're
talking about is turning a small school -- or reducing the funding
for a small school to reflect the needs that are being funded for
a larger school."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained, "I think we're comparing two different
things. If a school of fewer than eight students, if the students
were to pick up and physically move to the next largest school,
wherever it be, they would be funded at that level because they are
now students of that school. What we're saying is, if you have the
eight students or four in one case of a school with four students,
if you wish to remain where you are as a separate school, you can
do that, but it's like you can fly if you can find wings."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested perhaps the language should reflect
the closest school, not necessarily the largest school due to a
potential annexation of a small school from a large district and
the problem of children being transported long distances.
Number 2261
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted the problem with putting it at the
lowest is that it's a disincentive to remain as an inefficient
school. Whereas, if it's put at the highest, which is actually the
lower funding, there is an incentive to either get larger or move
to a larger school.
Number 2279
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER added, "If a smaller school decides to merge,
they can merge with any school that they want to. Then their
funding is commensurate with whatever size that newly added to
school has. If it is the next biggest, then it stays - it might
even not be affected depending on how their numbers worked out.
The disincentive of not merging is provided by saying that if
you're going to stay with that little inefficient school, you're
going to get the least amount per student, not the next best."
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN commented, "Then if I understand correctly
from the comments of the prior two speakers, is that there's
implicit in this language, an incentive mechanism for a merging of
schools -- an incentive for small schools to merge into the larger
schools, is that correct?"
CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented only if the school has ten or fewer
students. There's no impact on a school that has ten or more
students. A school of four merging with a school of ten would be
funded at the highest level. However, those two schools can stay
independent if they so choose, but there's a ....
TAPE 98-37, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN BUNDE ... very strong economic incentive not to.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained, "I would just suggest that the
intention of the amendment is to say that if the decision is to
merge, maybe -- and maybe I'm not even getting to it with this,
maybe there's some other language we need to look at -- if the
incentive should be to go to the nearest school -- and this doesn't
do it and maybe I should withdraw that and then withdraw the lowest
and then go to the closest. So what we don't do is have a group of
kids at community A being moved to community F if they want to make
that they should go to community B if community B is viable."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted there is nothing that would preclude that from
happening. If students from community A move to community B, they
become students of B and are funded at that level.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said this is a disincentive not to stay at
community A.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted there was an amendment to Amendment 11 that
would change line 9 from "highest ADM" to "lowest ADM".
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN maintained his objection.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Brice,
Dyson and Kemplen voted in favor of the amendment to Amendment 11.
Representatives Porter, Green and Bunde voted against it.
Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 11 failed by a vote of 3-3.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was further discussion on Amendment
11.
Number 0109
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out Section 38 of the proposed
legislation refers to the "largest" school in the district whereas
Amendment 11 refers to the "highest" ADM. He asked if there was a
difference?
MR. FORD said he didn't believe there was a difference.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out there is a difference between the
largest school district and the highest ADM school.
MR. FORD thought it was a technical change.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted that Amendment 11 was before the committee.
He asked if there was objection.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN objected.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Brice,
Dyson, Porter, Green and Bunde voted in favor of the amendment.
Representative Kemplen voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 11
passed on a vote of 5-1.
Number 0162
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 12.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained Amendment 12 updates the base student
allocation on page 21, lines 13 and 14.
Number 0182
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that a comma should be placed between
the 3 and the 8.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said he was correct. He asked if there was
objection to Amendment 12. Hearing none, Amendment 12 was adopted.
Number 0202
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 13.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained Amendment 13 allows a portion of the
quality schools which the Governor has expressed concern about. It
allows the implementation of performance standards, which is in
addition to the graduation requirements.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was objection. Hearing none,
Amendment 13 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the committee would begin taking public
testimony which would be limited to three minutes because of the
number of people signed up to testify.
Number 0334
DANIEL VANMETER, Student, Togiak School testified in opposition to
SB 36. He informed the committee of the progress that's been made
in the Togiak School; e.g., test scores are up, the majority of
seniors have college plans for the first time in years, fifth
graders are starting pre-algebra and others. He said this is not
the time to send the message that rural students' education isn't
as important as urban students. Kids across the state deserve an
equal chance for a good education and denying a good education
could have severe economic and social consequences.
Number 0398
COLYN ISAACSON, Fifth Grade Student, Togiak School, thanked the
committee for allowing her the opportunity to participate in the
legislative process. She said if educational funding is decreased,
she may have to go to a boarding school when she reaches high
school because the school district could not maintain a high
school. She pointed out the U.S. Government supports public
education as a basic right and the Alaska Constitution mandates an
adequate education. The students of Togiak are asking they not be
made to choose between an adequate education and their families.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted this is not an attempt to take education away
from children, but it's an attempt to change things a bit and if
more efficiency can be achieved in the school system, there
hopefully will be more money available for the schools.
Number 0482
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the Togiak school was one school for
grades 1-12.
MR. VANMETER replied it was one school, K-12 with 262 students.
Number 0514
SENATOR WILKEN pointed out the Southwest Regional School District
currently receives $9,700 per student whereas the Anchorage School
District gets $3,900 per student. Under the proposed legislation,
Southwest Regional School District would receive $8,747 per student
and Anchorage would get $4,000 per student.
Number 0583
JEANINE KENNEDY, Executive Director, Rural Alaska Community Action
Program RurALCAP, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
said RurALCAP is a nonprofit organization with central offices
located in Anchorage, and its main function is to administer Head
Start and early Head Start programs in 32 communities statewide and
is not affected by the education funding formula. Senator Phillips
has stated the proposed legislation will achieve simplicity, equity
and accountability; however, the Board of Directors of RurALCAP
believes the real issue is that urban schools are needing and
demanding more money for their operations, while rural schools are
saying that current funding is inadequate to cover their needs.
Senate Bill 36 is not simplicity, equity and accountability. If it
were, the legislature would approve an increase in funding for
education in both urban and rural areas of the state. This
legislation proposes to take money from one area of the state and
give it to another. In short, the proposed changes in the
educational foundation formula are nothing more than a
redistribution of existing dollars in a fashion that is rapidly
creating divisiveness among Alaskan citizens. She suggested the
existing foundation formula be kept in place until a formula that
is more fair and equitable can be developed.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted the legislature had been studying formulas
across the United States and the majority of states believe that a
per student formula is a far more effective and fair way to
distribute the money.
Number 0810
JIM CHALIAK, Representative, Yup'ik Immersion Program, testified
via teleconference from Bethel in opposition to SB 36. He said the
first point is that ongoing materials development is desperately
needed in the district for Yup'ik first and second language
programs. If this legislation passes, the projects and funding
will decrease or be eliminated altogether. Second, major support
from the bilingual curriculum department in the district offices
will either be drastically reduced or eliminated. That support
includes materials development for the Yup'ik programs. Third, a
reduction of instructional aides will negatively impact student
learning as these aides are an integral part of daily, small group,
individual instruction. Lastly, without the monetary support, the
level of student achievement and performance will decrease as a
result of program staff reduction.
Number 1018
CHARLENE SAUNDERS testified via teleconference from Cordova. She
expressed her appreciation for the time and effort that's gone into
the formulation of this legislation. It is her opinion that more
money needs to be put into public education, but it appears this
legislation moves the same monies from one district to another.
People of the state do not want to take from Peter to pay Paul; all
schools deserve full and appropriate funding. She stressed the
needs of her local school district are increasing, the funding is
shrinking and the facilities are falling down. She believes the
only solution is to pass legislation that includes increased
funding.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said that until there's equity in the formula, it's
unlikely more money will be available.
Number 1067
ROBERTA GILLOTT, Teacher, testified via teleconference from
Dillingham. She said based on her experience, she sees that
schools in rural Alaska are struggling to allow students to achieve
their potential. She believes that statistics have been used to
gear this issue; it's been said 30 percent of the students get 20
percent of the funding, but she learned from reviewing statistics
that two dissimilar entities cannot be compared in that way. Rural
and urban school districts are too vastly dissimilar to compare
equally. She noted that while urban areas give financial support
to their local schools, the rural areas don't necessarily have
money to spare so they support their schools with time and effort.
Schools are the backbone of a rural community and breaking that
backbone will ultimately break the state's back because it will
affect not only the schools, but the community as a whole. She
agreed that money needed to be added to the education system; not
just reallocated.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out that in 1996, there was $460 million
earned income in rural Alaska.
Number 1169
MAC CARTER, Board Member, Yukon Flats School District, testified
from Fairbanks via teleconference in opposition to SB 36. He said
to (indisc.) the idea this is fair, equitable and a simple solution
to funding education is preposterous. He believes the legislature
is trying to kill the rural areas and to stop educating children of
the state. He couldn't believe that any committee member would
think for a minute that a child's education or future life is not
important enough to fund education appropriately. The areas
thinking they're not getting the money they deserve should perhaps
look at cutting back on some of the opportunities and extra-
curricular activities that rural areas don't even have the
opportunity or realization to be able to enjoy. The time line for
this proposed legislation is unrealistic. He cautioned committee
members this legislation will pit the urban against the rural
districts.
Number 1292
SENATOR WILKEN reminded Mr. Carter that 517 people in the Yukon
Flats REAA earned $18,601,860 in 1996. That is $35,000 per person
earned income and the highest of all the unorganized areas in
Alaska. This REAA can probably do the most in terms of supporting
education at the local level.
Number 1331
ROGER LIEBNER, Representative, Soldotna High School Parent Teacher
Association, testified from Kenai via teleconference, and strongly
agreed with Jeanine Kennedy's comments with respect to fairness and
equity in funding. He wished to discuss the problems he sees with
the limited teacher certificate provisions in the proposed
legislation. He's concerned about the message being conveyed to
rural areas by lowering the standard of hiring teachers in times of
increased standards throughout the nation. The bill requires
initial regular teachers to successfully complete a competency
exam, new teachers are required to be fingerprinted and given
criminal background checks, complete courses for recertification
and pay certification fees. He said there's a contradiction for
the rural areas in that it appears it doesn't require any
significant measure of skill and training to get this limited
certificate, there's no length of time stipulated to retain the
certificate and there's no background checks identified in this
bill. He noted the committee had just adopted Amendment 13 which
requires a development of standards, yet limited certificates do
not work positively in concert with this initiative. Currently,
all teachers are allowed to teach in any subject area within grade
parameters. With this precedent set, limited certificates will
open the door to allow teaching outside the area of expertise. He
said continuing the funding at the present level in the rural areas
and increasing the funding in those areas that have been most
impacted recently would be a good compromise. He said, "I don't
see where the McDowell Group's recommendation or the area cost
differential being a part of any separate bill, which would be
another measure to accommodate the disparity of funding in the
state." He had hoped the amount of dissention in the state could
be reduced and look at what's best for the children of the state,
not necessarily from an economic standpoint.
Number 1486
RAY GRIFFITH, Superintendent, Southeast Island School District,
testified from Ketchikan via teleconference in opposition to SB 36.
He said Southeast Island School District has 12 school sites and
communities in about a 20,000 square mile area; most of the sites
are remote and transportation and communications are expensive. He
said the success rate of the students is very high and the
graduation rate for the entire district over the last five years
has been 100 percent. Needless to say, the district is proud of
what it is doing. The Southeast Island School District is opposed
to this legislation; if passed in its current form, the district
would probably lose 5 of the 12 schools next year and certainly
would lose them by FY 2000. He said this legislation does nothing
to address the increased cost the district is subject to each year;
in fact, the district would lose 17 percent of its funding by FY
2001. The district is reducing expenditures next year by almost 20
percent and has already eliminated all music and art; reduced
counseling by half; has no vocational education staff; has staffed
all schools except one with principal/teachers instead of
principals. The district believes this legislation was based on a
seriously flawed cost study. If the intent of the legislation is
to establish equity based on the McDowell Group's school operating
cost study, he sees a very serious problem. The bill would create
inequity by creating winners and losers and promises to produce a
very divisive climate across Alaska.
Number 1635
GILBERT GUTIERREZ, Member, Nome School Board, testified via
teleconference from Nome, and categorically opposed this
legislation. He said the comparative analysis between rural and
urban is flawed and the bill is flawed because it is attempting to
override the right to vote for or against an organized borough. He
said the committee is using the issue of educational funding to
implement a political subdivision in order to impose more taxation.
He opposed this bill because the committee was not being honest
with the electorate by wanting to impose a tax on rural areas while
giving the constituency in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau adequate
funding. He is opposed to this bill because it takes money from
the rural areas and shifts it to the urban areas; robbing from the
poor to give to the rich. He has found 11 citations in the
McDowell Study which disclaim the study used any factual data and
it does not take personnel costs into account. The only factual
information statements were that on an average, teacher salaries
are about the same statewide and that maintenance and operations of
school systems in rural Alaska are significantly higher. He
recommended funding the maintenance and operations separate from
the direct educational fund which would provide true equity
funding. He said this bill limits funding for special education
and the gifted programs. This misguided section in SB 36
exacerbates the problem parents have in providing a fair adequate
education for disabled or bright children. He concluded that SB 36
is a stopgap solution; consolidating schools will shift the
responsibility and increase the educational needs to an entity
further removed from the local government. In order to have the
equitable long time funding for our education system, this
committee would be well-served when the members sponsor a bill to
create an educational foundation.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted there had been an initiative for an
educational foundation which apparently the public didn't support
as enthusiastically as necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out the proposed committee substitute
under discussion does not require any organization in the boroughs
of unorganized areas.
Number 1955
ROGER JACOBSON testified from Tok via teleconference and said the
cut to rural education would have little effect on him. However,
what might affect him is if the funding cut is counteracted by the
implementation of property taxes, which he is opposed to. It would
appear the urban majority prefers property tax to an income tax or
sales tax since they no longer enjoy the security of home
ownership. The urban majority likely envies the security of the
rural minority; this envy seeks to impose the Lower 48 (indisc.)
model of property taxation on rural people. Property tax for
residents of Alaska is unnecessary; even urban areas could rescind
property taxes and enjoy true home ownership. Where there is a
will, there's a way. He proposed a state sales tax to fund the
education formula which will pursuantly lower property tax and the
sales tax would increase until finally property tax for residents
of Alaska would cease altogether. If the urban majority wants
fancy schools, let them have those schools, but do not force fancy
schools on the rural areas and then expect rural residents to pay
with their freedom.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted this legislation does not call for a property
tax, but it does call for an employment tax in the rural areas.
TAPE 98-38, SIDE A
Number 0016
STEVE CATHERS testified via teleconference from Unalaska and said
when putting these factors together, it's important to consider
basic common sense. It's easy to look at a classroom setting, look
at the instruction available to kids, the course selection, the
added resources available and to see that rural areas are not
overly funded. He is of the opinion that students have fewer
educational opportunities in rural areas with the current funding
and to cut back on that funding will make that discrepancy even
greater. The belief that rural school districts are getting too
much money and the discrepancy in funding is excessive is
uninformed. He urged the committee to measure that by looking at
what's available to students instead of looking at spreadsheets.
He commented that some areas are net producers for the state and as
part of the fishing community, Unalaska is one of those areas. He
is of the opinion that to take away from the districts that have is
somewhat of a socialistic approach to school funding. He believes
there is a perception that rural programs are not valid programs
and some of the factors that created that perception are related to
differences in culture and exposure. Actually, it's been his
experience that rural programs do a very good job. He recommended
a study be done which accurately measures the effectiveness of
rural programs in terms of educating in spite of obstacles.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was local support for schools in
Unalaska.
MR. CATHERS said Unalaska pays heavily.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Mr. Cathers to explain how Unalaska
contributed locally to the Aleutian Region School District.
MR. CATHERS said Aleutian Region is an REAA and doesn't contribute
except in the same way as other REAAs, but Unalaska as a city
government does contribute. He pointed out that by sharing
administrative services between two districts, efficiency has been
maximized administratively.
Number 0370
SAM TOWARAK, Assistant Superintendent, Bering Straits School
District, testified via teleconference from Unalakleet. He said he
would limit his discussion to two items. First, he said the
committee's action on this legislation will have some economic
consequences on Alaskan businesses. As they continue to look at a
cheaper means of purchasing goods, a door for example, which
previously they ordered from Anchorage is now ordered from an out-of-state vend
out the Alaskan vendor, as well as quality control. Traditionally,
fuel has been purchased from Alaskan Interior vendors, but soon
they may need to look at places like Port Angeles if it results in
lower fuel prices. He said, "Frankly, you can legislate income tax
provisions but this is counter to the need to tax Alaskans." If
new taxes are needed, let's tax everyone at the 3 percent level
with a tax credit for those that paid local property or sales taxes
toward education. He asked Senator Wilken what the payroll is in
Fairbanks and what 3 percent would generate. What is the current
local effort generated by Fairbanks and how much more does
Fairbanks need to contribute.
Number 0523
SENATOR WILKEN responded the people of Fairbanks contribute $17
million toward education.
Number 0618
ARTHUR LAKE, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Kwigillingok,
testified offnet from Kwigillingok, and said Senate Bill 36 is ill-conceived an
a piece of legislation together that will affect all of Alaska. He
said the effects of this bill are enormous in rural areas. He
referred to the amendment regarding schools with less than ten
students and wondered if things were going back to the way they
were before the Molly Hootch case when kids were sent outside the
community to attend school. He said there is no equality in this
legislation and everyone is aware of that except for the people
putting this legislation together. He said, "We're playing
political football with the children of this state and we should
not be. The children are our future and our most valuable
resource." The effects of pitting rural Alaska against urban
Alaska will be felt in urban Alaska because school districts and
people will be losing money, employment, and funds for their
schools. He has serious concerns about the amount of funding being
cut which translates to lost positions, which in turn will effect
local economy.
Number 1026
BESSIE TITUS testified offnet from Minto and urged the committee to
vote against Senate Bill 36 because in her opinion, the current
school foundation formula is not broken; the rural areas are not
over funded when a cost of living allowance is factored in. She
said there is high unemployment, poverty and low income in the
area. She expressed concern with the number of courses available
for students, the lack of athletic programs and that SB 36 does not
factor in the operation and maintenance of the schools. It appears
to her that Alaska is moving backwards into the twenty-first
century.
Number 1087
JANICE (INDISC.) testified offnet from Hughes in opposition to the
proposed committee substitute for SB 36 because of the high cost of
education and maintenance in rural Alaska. The school is on a
tight budget under the current foundation formula and changing the
funding formula would not solve any problems without putting more
money into education. If further cuts were going to be made to
education funding, she wondered how it would be possible for
children to receive a quality education.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the committee would break for dinner and
reconvene at 6:00 p.m.
Number 1209
CHAIRMAN BUNDE reconvened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. He called Dave
Jones to the witness stand to present his comments.
Number 1218
DAVE JONES, Director of Finance, Kodiak Island Borough School
District, said he would be addressing Amendment 11 and making some
general remarks about the legislation. He said the Kodiak Island
Borough School District has nine remote schools; eight of those
schools are off the road system. This year Karluk has nine and
one-half students and under the current foundation formula, that
school would be given a one-year grace period. However, that grace
period does not exist in the proposed legislation and the effect to
the district is a loss of $162,000. When the Department of
Education re-ran the spreadsheets correcting the size table errors,
Karluk was reclassified to the 400 - 750 table which resulted in a
loss of $162,000. A meeting was recently held between the Kodiak
Island Borough School Board and the Karluk Village Advisory Board
to discuss the loss inasmuch as the school board had made a
commitment to Karluk based on the current program that a school
would be operated there through FY 99; however, the proposed
legislation would have a significant financial impact. He would
request a one-year grace period for the districts affected by this,
or as an alternative, adopt the amendment that was previously
discussed which would reassign students to the lowest ADM school as
opposed to the highest ADM school. Mr. Jones said when discussing
educational equity, it's important to consider both financial
equity and program equity and in the fray it seems that program
equity has been swept under the carpet. In conclusion, he said the
Kodiak Island Borough School District believes more funding is
needed to properly educate children statewide, but the funds should
not come at the expense of the rural children.
Number 1383
JIM FOSTER, Superintendent, Skagway School District, testified via
teleconference from Skagway in opposition to Senate Bill 36. He
noted this year Skagway celebrates its 100th anniversary as a
single site public school. Eleven years ago, the city of Skagway
contributed $48,000 to the school budget and the state contributed
about $900,000. Under Senate Bill 36, the city will fund $840,000
and the state will fund $460,000. That's a significant shift in an
11-year period. Another problem with this bill is that it allows
the district to spend $1,300,000, which is $266,000 short of their
needs. He explained it's a small school with a
superintendent/principal, 12 teachers, business manager, secretary
and two custodians which serve 130 students and huge cuts will
have to be made if this legislation passes. The community
willingly supports the school financially and yet this legislation
would cause them to come up short $266,000. He asked what Senator
Wilken recommended that communities like Skagway to do in terms of
meeting their educational needs. He said it's important for the
state to recognize that educational needs of the larger communities
need to be meet as well as those of the smaller communities. He
concluded that he and the community are at a loss in terms of how
to operate with the proposed funding cuts.
Number 1529
MOSES KRITZ, Mayor, City of Togiak, testified that over the years
the needs of the rural communities such as subsistence issues,
housing needs, social and welfare issues and most of all,
educational issues have never been met. He is the product of the
boarding school system many miles away from home. Some of the
children in boarding schools fared in terms of becoming leaders in
their communities, but many turned out dysfunctional. Many turned
to alcohol because they were torn between two cultures - they don't
know about the subsistence way of life and don't know how to
survive in the western society. He talked about his days at the
boarding schools and said currently the education system in the
communities provides a much better education with many of the
children going on to colleges, skill centers, et cetera. With
respect to fairness, he said Alaska is a vast area and some of the
urban legislators have a narrow scope of vision seeing only the
population of their cities and view the rural communities as a
burden. He discussed the various ways the rural communities
support the local economy in the urban areas. He concluded it's
time to be really fair and equally help each other to maximize the
educational system for the good of the entire state.
Number 1740
GINGER JENKINSON, Representative, Anchorage Council of Parent
Teacher Associations, testified from Anchorage via teleconference.
She said the council realizes how difficult it is to understand the
current, outdated foundation formula and applauds the efforts of
the sponsors for attempting to find a simpler, more fair and
equitable foundation formula for the students of Alaska. The
parents and teachers in the Anchorage School District realize what
crowded classrooms are like and for the first time in years,
Anchorage has a chance to lower the class size. It's time for a
change.
Number 1787
BARB ANGAIAK testified via teleconference from Bethel and said all
the children of Alaska need to be provided with an education
supported and funded by the state. As she sees it, the problem is
not that some students are receiving more than others and somehow
the scales must be balanced by shifting money from one district to
another, but rather the problem is there are more students in the
state and more money must be allocated to fund an education for
them. Year after year, districts have struggled to make ends meet
when allocation of funds has not kept up with inflation. She
believes there are some misconceptions about what schools are like
in rural Alaska. She teaches at Kilbuk Elementary School in
Bethel, the largest school in the western part of the state. The
facility was built in the late 1950s and is not modern and doesn't
have many of the amenities that are found in schools in the urban
areas. She discussed the overcrowding and various needs for
maintenance and said many of the rural schools were built with
small populations in mind and have grown well beyond what the
original capacity was intended to be. She said districts have been
asked over and over again to accept the same level of funding as
the year before and are told by people in leadership positions that
schools should be happy to receive the same amount of funding
instead of being reduced. The people of Alaska should not be happy
that the elected officials of the state do not see fit to provide
the children with what they need, even when money is available.
She concluded that more money is needed for the educational system
and requested the committee to vote against this legislation.
Number 1936
TOM RICHARDS, JR., testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
is an employee of a service organization for Interior Alaska
villages, but was speaking on his own behalf. The one issue he
wished to discuss was accountability with respect to funding and
the educational performance standards of school districts. He
commented that certainly, the public deserves accountability, but
accountability is a two-way street and he is of the opinion that
public officials are obligated to consult with the people affected
by their actions. He said Senate Bill 36 has moved too quickly
through the legislative process. He discussed how the education
system as it is today came about, beginning in the mid-1970s with
an agreement between the federal government and the state of Alaska
that no school would be transferred from the federal BIA system to
the state system unless the federal government, state of Alaska and
the community were in agreement. In 1975, he went to work for a
regional nonprofit Native corporation in Fairbanks and at that
time, there were about 14 villages which were BIA schools. Each of
those communities was asked to consent to a proposal to transfer
the educational responsibility from the federal government to the
state government. Likewise, in 1980 when he moved to Bethel, there
were 27 villages that were part of the federal BIA school system
and no transfer could occur unless all concerned parties agreed.
He said there were a lot of promises made by the state of Alaska in
the early 1980s and now the educational system is being ripped
apart in rural Alaska. He expressed his frustration with the lack
of consultation with the rural communities regarding this very
important issue. He pointed out there are hundreds of individuals
in Fairbanks who did not support this legislation.
Number 2131
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted this effort began over four years ago when the
state school board began a two-year review of the foundation
formula; this committee worked on it for two years after that, so
this is the fifth year of work on this issue.
Number 2156
KIMBERLEY A. STRONG, Representative, Village of Klukwan and ANS
Grand President for the Alaska Native Sisterhood, urged the
committee to vote against this bill. One of the major problems she
sees is the incorporation required for a tax base. There had been
another legislative bill which attempted to force rural communities
to incorporate which she had opposed also because it's another
intrusion in the village lifestyle. She explained that Klukwan
runs under the Indian Reorganization Act and is represented by an
IRA Council. She said Klukwan does not have a money base to
support the education of its children, but the residents buy things
in other communities which in turn helps support that education
system. For example, the Haines Borough School District has
economically benefitted from the village corporation. She
discussed the history of the educational system in Alaska and the
hardships suffered by the children who went to boarding schools.
The state of Alaska made promises to educate the children in the
villages, but now the rural areas are being threatened with
cutbacks with this proposed legislation.
TAPE 98-38, SIDE B
Number 0002
JOHN KUNIK, Member, Copper River Against Bureaucracy, testified
from Glennallen via teleconference in opposition to Senate Bill 36.
He said this issue has been rehashed many times over the years in
various forms. Imposition of a 3 mill tax or any tax on property
is not feasible as there's not enough personal property in this
area to tax; less than 1 percent is in private hands in the
unorganized boroughs. He pointed out the high unemployment rates
in the unorganized areas; work is seasonal. There are some
federal and state workers who could probably sustain the employment
tax, although he believed it was illegal under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Alaska State Constitution. He said the 20 mill rate
tax on the pipeline goes directly into the general fund and is more
than enough to make up for the community's local contribution to
education. If a tax needs to be imposed, he suggested a statewide
sales tax. He asked for an explanation of the $14 million
exemption for some residents of Anchorage. Schools in the
Glennallen area have no amenities and as far as he is concerned, no
school in the state needs swimming pools or fancy gymnasiums. He
said the level of education has fallen statewide, nationwide and
worldwide. As a certified teacher, he believes Alaska has too many
teachers teaching out of their discipline and that are definitely
unqualified.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE clarified it was $13 million and the tax rebate in
Anchorage is made up by the taxpayers of Anchorage; it's not state
money.
Number 0166
BRIAN BERGERON, Student, Ketchikan Gateway School District,
testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He said he's had a
great education since kindergarten even though class options have
decreased over the years and the numbers of teachers he's looked up
to has decreased. He talked about how the classes have gotten
bigger and with the budget cuts, the number of teachers has
decreased. He personally began to feel the effects of these budget
cuts in seventh grade. He discussed some of the problems with the
schools in Ketchikan, including old textbooks. He believes the
funding distribution for education should be fair and equitable
with communities paying their share of local educational costs. He
is of the opinion this legislation is inappropriate because money
shouldn't be taken from some communities and given to others.
Number 0264
BARBARA DALKE testified from Tok via teleconference in opposition
to Senate Bill 36. She has reviewed the bill and the amendments
and said there is no equity for rural schools or students. This
legislation pits one class of people against another and will be an
educational tragedy for the rural areas. Rural areas do not have
the same resources as the urban centers and taxing people who are
already living below the poverty level is to be out of touch with
the reality of rural Alaska. This legislation promotes and widens
the gap between the "haves" and "have nots", it is disproportional
and promotes quality of education in one area of Alaska; city and
urban areas over the rural areas. She pointed out some of the
problems experienced by the Mentasta school; e.g., outdated
textbooks, mismatched hand me down encyclopedias from other
schools. This legislation would reduce the staff by 1.5 positions
which will leave the school with unmanageable class sizes. She
concluded this bill is not conducive to education in rural areas.
Number 0422
BOB CHRISTAL, Superintendent of Schools, Anchorage School District,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said the Anchorage
School District believes it is critical that a rewrite of school
funding formula occur this year. He stated, "In our view we do not
view the funding of schools as a political party issue; we view it
as a responsibility of all legislators and the Governor to provide
a fair and equitable way of funding schools in the state." The
Anchorage School District has 38 percent of the students in the
state of Alaska attend public schools; 28 percent of the state
revenues for schools is directed to the Anchorage School District.
The district is not requesting 38 percent of the funds, but expects
to receive more than 28 percent. There are over 48,000 students in
Anchorage; 33 percent are minority students. There are 5,500
Alaska Native students being educated in the Anchorage School
District. One-third of the elementary students in Anchorage have
parents who have incomes that qualify them for free or reduced
lunches in the school. Based on the comments he's been hearing, he
believes there is a misconception that the Anchorage School
District is doing something against children; that is absolutely
untrue. They are simply asking people to take a careful and clear
look about what's fair and equitable for all students in the state.
The district believes that for the last ten years, they have
received inequitable treatment with respect to funding of students.
In the area of standards and assessments, the Anchorage School
District absolutely supports standards and assessments, but those
assessments and standards must be funded if there's an expectation
of doing something different that what's currently being done. The
Anchorage School District believes it is critical for the Alaska
Legislature and the Governor to pay very careful attention to
school funding, and after an equitable distribution occurs, careful
thought and consideration must be given to the amount of increased
funds that should be directed to public schools across the state.
Number 0530
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted there had been some concern expressed
about how categorical funding is determined. Some people assert
the existing approach works fairly well while others feel there
should be a set percentage which in this proposed bill is set at 20
percent. He asked Mr. Christal to comment on his view of the
appropriate approach for categorical funding.
MR. CHRISTAL responded the Anchorage School District has been
supportive of the 20 percent approach with the understanding that
if there are some very intensive needs students, districts should
be given the opportunity to make a case of why additional revenues
should be directed toward those.
Number 0602
SYD WRIGHT, Retired School Principal, testified via teleconference
from Petersburg. He's had 38 years of formal education
responsibility as teacher, principal and superintendent, mostly in
Alaska. He said he's reluctant to testify because after all the
years of observing and participating in the annual battles over
educational funding, he didn't think it made a bit of difference
what he or anyone else has to say. He's witnessed mayors,
councils, superintendents, school board members, and others who
have pled their case, but it's done no good. The bottom line is
substantially more financial support of schools is needed and SB 36
does not accomplish that. He noted that many people won't testify
any more because they feel it's useless. More than one former
Governor has said that schools must have proper funding and have
even explained how to finance it; a combination of a state income
tax and use of the constitutional reserve fund. He recalled the
results of the public survey taken when oil was first discovered
overwhelming supported schools as a first priority.
Number 0797
OLGA SUTTON testified she has seven children going through the
Togiak school system and Senate Bill 36 is unfair because children
in the rural areas are entitled to a reasonable education. She
went to a boarding home school and doesn't want her children having
to leave home to go to school; boarding schools rip families apart.
Number 0844
BILL FERGUSON testified via teleconference from Bethel and
supported the comments of Syd Wright. He recommended the House
HESS Committee conduct a statewide poll to determine what the
public position is on this bill. Over the last couple of months,
he's listened to the testimony from Senators Wilken, Torgerson and
Phillips, as well as the public testimony on this legislation and
what he's heard is rural versus urban, urban versus rural,
splitting the state and using children as pawns in a political
game, overcrowding in the urban areas and so forth. It's
distressing to him that the people of the state are being divided
and the children are the ones suffering. He referred to a comment
that rural areas have a wage base of $475 million that should be
taxed; he assumed that meant all rural areas combined. He said the
wage base in that area is based on a false economy in that it's all
state and federal funds. If educational funding was reduced in
that area by $8 million, which equates to about $56 million in the
end, there would be no way that an educational program could be
supported locally. Children in this state should not be pitted
against each other; funds need to be made available to provide the
best education possible for all children in the state.
Number 1103
CRISTINA SCHNEIDER testified from Fairbanks via teleconference.
She said discussing education is a formidable challenge; how best
to do it, how much it costs, and who is going to pay. She said
it's time to reassess the way the legislature pays for school
funding in light of the state's declining revenues. She admitted
that some school districts have manipulated the current funding
formula to benefit children in their respective district. These
are egregious problems which have been identified and can be
solved. She said this legislation is part of the process of
reassessment and expressed her thanks to Senator Wilken for
bringing this issue to a public debate. While this bill is part of
the process of finding a solution, it is not in itself the
solution. She said this legislation changes the distribution of
funding so dramatically that in the end 21 percent of the state's
children will get only 16 percent of the state's funding for
education. She knows that the state's annual revenues no longer
match the spending and she is willing to pay to dedicated funds and
employment taxes for a service all children deserve. She opposes
Amendment 2 which creates the 3 percent payroll tax. Senate Bill
36 will close schools; some will close immediately while others
will close later. The fact is there will be a $17.5 million loss
to four school districts around Fairbanks; Yukon Flats, Iditarod,
Yukon/Koyukuk and one other district and what could the districts
hope to earn back in a 3 percent payroll tax in those rural areas -
less than one-half of that loss. If schools close, children will
have to leave their families - there will be no choice. She
concluded that more money is needed overall for the educational
system in Alaska.
Number 1323
DIANE GUBATAYAO testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. She
is the parent of four children in the Ketchikan School District and
has for years been advocating for equitable funding for all school
districts. She expressed her thanks to the legislature for
commissioning the McDowell Study and to everyone for their efforts
to fix a broken school funding formula. She said basing school
funding upon the cost of operating a school as opposed to operating
a household makes a great deal sense. In the meantime, Ketchikan
is in a world of hurt; her children do not have access to equal
educational opportunities. She said it is interesting to review
all the spreadsheets that have been produced; one pattern is
consistent no matter how the numbers are crunched by the Department
of Education - Ketchikan comes out on top of all 53 districts in
gaining the most. This should make her happy, but it doesn't
because it takes from others to give to Ketchikan. The
spreadsheets have also pointed out how severely Ketchikan has been
underfunded for the past several years. Last year the Ketchikan
School Board cut $1.2 million from the budget with potentially
another $800,000 being cut this year. The local borough government
funds the school system to the maximum allowed by law; currently at
the 6.8 mill level. She understands this legislation is not
perfect, but she urged the committee to incorporate the McDowell
Study finding into whatever new formula is approved. Additionally,
she encouraged the legislature to add new dollars to education
funding.
Number 1490
NORA DAVID testified via teleconference from Tok. She has five
school aged children attending the Mentasta Lake School. She said
Senate Bill 36 will take away from her children. Mentasta Lake has
struggled to give the children the best education possible with the
money available and now SB 36 would take away some of those funds.
She wants to see the education system in Alaska go forward not
backward.
Number 1533
ELIZABETH BACOM, School Board Member, Petersburg School District,
testified via teleconference from Petersburg. She thanked the
legislature for making education funding a priority this session.
Every child benefits when dollars are spent wisely and fairly on
education. Regardless of where a child is educated, every child in
Alaska deserves a quality education and every district should be
accountable for how its education dollars are spent. Understanding
that the funding legislation currently under consideration is a
work in progress, the Petersburg School Board believes a fair and
equitable education funding bill would build in accountability by
incorporating quality schools initiatives. This would provide a
way to address needed school improvements and the funding to
implement them. School districts are currently working under
numerous unfunded mandates from new professional evaluation systems
to high school graduation assessments aimed at improving student
performance. Districts that are successful in implementing
improvements should be rewarded while districts that are unable to
raise student performance should be assisted. She advised the
committee to implement the cost differential study. Petersburg and
other Southeast Alaska communities do not enjoy the same economies
of scale in operating schools as Anchorage, yet they are placed at
the same level as Anchorage in the current formula. Senate Bill 36
recognizes Petersburg has been underfunded for years; however, it
does not allocate any additional money for schools, but takes money
from other districts and redistributes it. While this legislation
would benefit Petersburg, the potential harm it would do to more
than 20,000 Alaskan students has prompted Governor Knowles to
promise a veto and the affected districts would certainly sue over
the issue. If no new funding formula is implemented this year,
Petersburg will face an even greater deficit next year. The
legislature needs to invest in education to make up for the lack of
inflation proofing over the last 10 years and retain the current
local funding caps. As costs have risen in the Petersburg
District, with no compensating increase of state funding,
Petersburg has demonstrated its commitment to education by
increasing the local contribution to the maximum allowed. Further
transfers of state funding responsibility to local taxpayers need
to be avoided. The districts losing funding under the new formula
should be held harmless. The state should not have to take
resources away from some Alaskan children to give to others. The
Petersburg School Board appreciates the challenge faced by the
legislators in enacting legislation that would be viewed as fair
and equitable by all areas of Alaska. The school board requested
that all funding proposals be evaluated.
Number 1729
JOE ALEXIE, Representative, Togiak Natives, Limited, said in his
opinion Senate Bill 36 is not a workable solution for the following
reasons: First, it destroys the very nature of its purpose which
is to give to the rural school children the right to have the
highest form of education. If educational funding is cut, the goal
of reaching the best form of education for the rural children will
not be met. The broken funding formula is not the fault of either
rural or urban school children. Second, he believes this is
discriminatory. It is well known the rural schools lack many
things a good school should have. Third, there are laws to protect
children from abuse. By cutting funding, he believes this crime is
a reality, for by not giving or funding basic educational needs is
like a parent not providing the very needs for children.
TAPE 98-39, SIDE A
Number 0002
DARIO NOTTI testified from Bethel via teleconference. He referred
to Amendment 4 and said it appears that school funding is being
changed into a welfare program by deleting "state's share or public
school funding" and inserted "state aid". This takes away the
perception of educating the student and turns it into a welfare
program that can be cut and slashed. He cited from various
sections of the Alaska Constitution and said this legislation seems
like it's not aimed at the good of the whole state; it's a one-sided bill. He
federal government sends out a PILT (Payment in lieu of taxes)
check; therefore, they do share in the cost of the education by
allowing the federal government to establish the wildlife refuge.
He discussed the various ways in which Bethel supports the
Anchorage economy and property tax by ordering various supplies.
He would be willing to pay an income tax equal to what other
residents of the state would pay. He pointed out the cost of
operating a smaller rural school is greater than operating an
urban school.
Number 0407
REVA SHIRCEL, Director of Education, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
testified from Fairbanks via teleconference. She said in the
Indian way, it is a moral obligation to provide adequate education
for the children and every child has that right in the state of
Alaska. The right to an adequate education is guaranteed to all
citizens under the state constitution. She said the 37 federally
recognized tribes of the Tanana Chiefs Conference wish to make
their position known on this proposed legislation. This bill would
move millions of dollars in state aid from rural to urban school
districts with the expectation that rural communities would somehow
be able to finance the loss of funds through the establishment of
organized boroughs. The Tanana Chiefs Conference requests
committee members to carefully consider the ramifications of taking
away the educational resources of any Alaskan children. She said
this state has never in its history taken away from one child to
give to another. Until plans are implemented for long term and
sustainable economic development within rural Alaska, the
legislature must be realistic in their expectations that an
adequate tax base could be generated from newly created organized
boroughs to support the educational needs of rural Alaskan
children. She heard the comments that Anchorage has 40 percent of
the state's students and receives 30 percent of the state's
educational funding. That may be true, but it's important to
remember that the overwhelming majority of the schools are located
in the rural Alaskan communities. She said the spirit of this bill
and its obvious impacts on the future generations of rural Alaskan
children neither addresses the needs or prepares Alaska's children
to enter the twenty-first century together with equal chance and
opportunity.
Number 0637
JANE BROWN testified via teleconference from Glennallen. She noted
that many of the residents in the area are currently in Anchorage
shopping, supporting urban businesses. She pointed out that
residents of the area currently more than pay their way for school
funding - the pipeline is taxed by the state at a 20 mill rate and
the dollars generated go directly into the general fund which more
than pays for the $6 million needed for the Copper Basin. She said
she opposes this bill and the sponsors need to go back to the
drawing board and reassess what the bill is attempting to
accomplish. She said Senate Bill 36 has been amended so many
times, it's almost impossible to keep up with all the changes. She
stated the proposed committee substitute for Senate Bill 36 is
unconstitutional because a dedicated tax cannot be established.
She suggested if the burden of school finance is to be spread
fairly, cap the permanent fund and use the excess dollars to fund
schools. She requested committee members to vote against this
legislation.
Number 0788
HANNAH RAMISKEY testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. She
said she personally pays $2800 in property tax in addition to a 5
percent sales tax on purchases. She does not want to see other
Alaskan children put in the same situation in which Ketchikan's
children find themselves. However, after undergoing several budget
cuts, the Ketchikan School District views this legislation as the
only hope to pull them out of serious budget shortfalls. Since
1993, 32 positions have been cut and supplies cut almost 70
percent, but the number of students has remained the same; without
help, another 8.5 to 11 positions will be cut. She said the
community funds to the cap, administrative costs are among the
lowest in the state, the district accepts the state's
accountability standards or higher and they cannot accomplish any
more without help from the state. She urged the committee to
review the funding inequity in the state and find a good, fair way
to give all of Alaska's children the opportunity for a good
education.
Number 0867
PAUL FROST of Togiak testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
He has three sons attending school in Togiak but has owned
property in Anchorage for a number of years, so he has been
supporting schools in Anchorage through property taxes. He
commented the first part of the school in Togiak was built in 1952,
with a few cubicles added since then. He discussed the great
differences between the school in Togiak and the school he
graduated from in Anchorage and couldn't believe the legislature
was even considering taking funds away from the rural schools to
give to the urban schools. He asked committee members to
reconsider their position of taking educational dollars away from
rural schools and to vote against this legislation.
Number 1070
SURAIYA JOHN testified from Tok via teleconference. She has been
a student at Katy John High School in Mentasta Lake for three
years; prior to that she went to school in Fairbanks. She
expressed her happiness with being back in the village where she
can learn about her culture. She expressed concern that her
younger relatives may not have the opportunity to stay in the
village if this legislation passes. She is opposed to SB 36
because it will strip the children in the rural areas away from
their culture and families. She does not want to see the funding
cut for rural schools and children having to go to schools far away
from their parents. She discussed the effects of the older
generation having to go away to boarding schools and shared
experiences of her grandfather's life at the boarding school.
Number 1259
SHERYLE CHARLIE testified offnet from Minto, reiterating the
testimony of many of the previous speakers. Every child in the
state of Alaska is guaranteed the right to the best education and
programs the state has to offer. Why should one group suffer to
satisfy the desires of another group? She has seven children in
school and wants to see the best for each one. She said both the
young and old have been through a lot and the people in rural
Alaska need support and taking funds away from rural schools or
closing schools is not the answer. The children are the future of
Alaska and it's important the right message be sent to them. She
encouraged committee members to listen to every word that's being
said about this proposed legislation.
Number 1371
JANICE KVERNVIK, Member, Petersburg School Board, testified via
teleconference from Petersburg. She said that Elizabeth Bacom had
previously presented the Petersburg School Board's position on SB
36, but as a parent and grandparent, she's concerned with the
direction of funding for schools. She said each year there have
been promises about school funding and this is the year to do
something; however, the proposed legislation is not the answer.
Rural communities are being pitted against urban communities and
the only fair way to fund schools is to put new money into the
system. She said it's time to fix up the school buildings and get
on with the real job - to educate the future generation. She said
the number of people who supported the National Endowment
Initiative indicates that Alaskans really do care about children
and their education.
Number 1428
CHRISTINE COOPCHIAK, Representative, Togiak Health Clinic, said the
community of Togiak values their students and is proud of them.
She shared some of the accomplishments of students in the areas of
sports, music and academically. She expressed concern that this
proposed legislation would decrease the number of opportunities for
the students, which already are limited due to the cost of living
in rural Alaska. The people of Togiak don't expect to have a lot
of extras, but do want the basics. Further decreasing the funding
will not be eliminating the frills, but it will cut into the basics
like teachers and programs. The biggest fear in Togiak is the high
school program will be eliminated, leaving few good options. This
proposed legislation is not fair to rural communities and rural
children; the state has a responsibility to all the children. This
is not the way for Alaska to be approaching the twenty-first
century - this state should be on the leading edge, not the first
state to backslide.
Number 1570
CATHY SAMPSON-KRUSE testified via teleconference from Bethel in
opposition to SB 36. It is her opinion the Native people are
being attacked by the state of Alaska on all sides: Tribal
sovereignty, hunting and fishing, education and bilingual funding,
Indian Child Welfare Act, et cetera. She said people in the rural
communities would begin their economic sanctions slowly by word of
mouth and letters to store owners advising that they and their
supporters would no longer be willing to spend millions of dollars
in the urban areas. She has been inspired to stand up for her
convictions and requested fair funding for K-12 education, building
and maintenance of schools and additional funding for higher
education.
Number 1754
DIANA CAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to SB 36. Her family has a long history of teaching
Alaska rural children beginning when her grandparents taught
countless rural children how to read and write in their home
villages and made sacrifices to do so. She is somewhat bewildered
though; she's always believed that it's better for adults to
sacrifice for children than children sacrificing for adults. This
legislation would take from the poorest communities and give to the
richest. She acknowledged that rural communities have problems;
poverty, unemployment and low student test scores. Her
grandparents knew that education was the greatest weapon the rural
areas have to combat these problems. With respect to boarding
schools, ironically her mother left home as a junior high school
student to attend school and lived in an orphanage until she
graduated, not seeing her mother again until she was in her
twenties. She knew her language when she left the village, but
didn't know it when she graduated from high school. In conclusion,
she's all for finding smart ways to spend money for education, but
Senate Bill 36 is not a smart way to spend education money.
Number 1850
JOHN THOMAS, Superintendent, Ketchikan Gateway Borough School
District, testified from Ketchikan via teleconference and said he
agreed with the student who said that every student deserves an
opportunity for an equal education. Funding that education is the
responsibility of the state. Many parts of the states, rural and
urban, are not satisfied with the current status of schools.
Ketchikan appreciates the vigorous manner in which the legislature
has addressed this issue this year and the people of Ketchikan are
not talking about the negative effects of SB 36, rather they are
talking about the negative effects of the last ten years under the
current foundation formula. Ketchikan has done everything the
legislature would like to see: Graduation (indisc.), property
tax, sales tax, fund to the local cap, expend 69 percent of funding
on instruction and with all that, you'd think the Ketchikan school
system would be exemplary, but it's are not. Their enrollment is
basically flat and because of that, continuous, drastic reductions
have been made since 1991. Teachers, nurses, librarians,
counselors and administrators have been cut, programs have been
reduced, reduced funds for supplies and materials, and there's talk
of closing a school and reducing or eliminating funding for student
activities. On top of that, the closure of the Ketchikan Pulp Mill
has resulted in a 7 percent enrollment drop. The Ketchikan School
District is not just predicting the consequences; they are
experiencing it. They need help as do other districts. He
supports SB 36, but he also supports continuing efforts to find
sufficient funding so all students can have the opportunity to
pursue a quality educational program. He supported legislative
efforts and encouraged legislators not to stop short of the mark.
Number 1963
GORDON KRON testified via teleconference from Tok in opposition to
SB 36 because it's inequitable. While the larger schools have
indicated they may have to cut nurses, counselors, music, art, et
cetera, due to the cutbacks over the past 10 years, the rural areas
have never even had access to those things. Passage of SB 36 will
widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots". If funding
cuts continue, the larger urban schools will continue to have art
and music programs while rural Alaska will have less of the basic
academic necessities. He urged committee members to give this
legislation serious consideration before taking action.
Number 2044
JOHN CYR, President, NEA-Alaska, said he's struggled with where to
start with his testimony, so he would express his technical
concerns first and finish with the difference between intent and
impact. He said NEA-Alaska has some real concerns with the
technical aspect of this legislation. With respect to the
categorical funding cap for bilingual, he thought the case could be
made for special education children that that distribution probably
falls evenly amongst the population, but he didn't believe the case
could be made that the bilingual student population falls evenly
amongst the population of Alaska. It just doesn't seem logical to
fund bilingual at the same rate across the state when there are
communities which have no bilingual programs while there are others
where the vast preponderance of students are at some level,
bilingual. He said the amendment for the student count is
disturbing. He said the rapidly growing communities will not get
a chance for additional funding without the second count, but will
have to absorb the loss through the course of the year. With
respect to the waiver procedure for minimum expenditure toward
instruction, NEA-Alaska believes that 70 percent of the funds
should go to the classroom, but there's no procedure built in for
a waiver. He predicted that districts will not be able to meet the
70 percent requirement, they will get an automatic waiver and there
will be no change in terms of money being directed toward the
classroom. He expressed some concern with the chief school
administrator language. He explained that currently only the PTPC
has control because they control those individuals with a
certificate. With the proposed language, he wasn't certain what
redress the state has to address situations where there might be
malfeasance. He commented the driving factor in this legislation
is the school size factor - not the McDowell Study or the area cost
differential. He's said, "It's the idea that each school is its
own funding formula, and so that in those communities where you
have, quite honestly, the most efficient schools we can have, a
single school in a single community educating all the kids, they're
penalized. And I think that's an unintended consequence of this.
I think that's something that nobody intended to have happen, and
yet it has happened." A community with 300 or 400 kids and 3
schools actually does quite well under the proposed formula.
However, a community with the same number of students but only one
school loses money. It is important to come to an understanding of
how those schools are funded, because in his view this bill
punishes the most efficient schools.
Number 2199
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that perhaps there are some unintended
results, but under this formula each student in a small school is
counted as five. He asked if that didn't help to mitigate the
impact on small schools.
MR. CYR responded that if Ben Eielson Junior/Senior High School in
Fairbanks for example, was counted as two schools it would gain an
extra $400,000. He pointed out there are a number of schools in
the state that could be split. The way the formula drives and
loads at the front end, it rewards inefficiency.
Number 2247
CHAIRMAN BUNDE interjected that currently schools are being defined
more effectively in order to avoid situations of districts padding
their funding by additional funding communities.
MR. CYR said he was not suggesting the current funding communities
necessarily work and agreed it was something that needed to be
looked at. Finally, he said the difference between intent and
impact is real important and he didn't believe that anyone started
down this path to hurt rural children by wanting to close schools,
by providing less opportunity for rural children, by making sure
that little children in rural Alaska don't have a community school
- they could get it off the Internet or go to a boarding school
somewhere. The state has been there - it didn't work 20-25 years
ago and it won't work now. He noted that a number of districts
would lose tremendous amounts of money and the impact of those
losses won't be felt in administrative offices, but will be felt in
classrooms. He said somewhere something needs to be done to make
sure the children aren't hurt.
Number 2323
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if Mr. Cyr, as the representative for NEA-Alaska, supports
in Alaska.
MR. CYR said there's a need to look at how schools are funded
across Alaska. NEA-Alaska has consistently talked about the need
for a universal tax for schools. His preference would be some kind
of income tax with a back-end write off for people living in the
organized boroughs who already provide for their schools at some
level. He thought it had ....
TAPE 98-39, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. CYR .... "I don't think we just say we're taxing you -- because
quite honestly at 3 percent, there are a number of people out in
the rural areas who are going to pay a lot more money into the
general fund towards education than you would pay if you .... So,
I think there's got to be an equity issue here."
Number 0018
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if NEA-Alaska would have a more positive view
of this bill if it produced a significant increase in the
foundation funding for all schools in the state.
MR. CYR responded, "If you're asking me if I think that I would be
in favor of a bill that provided more money for education for every
child in Alaska - absolutely I would be in favor of that."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked, " From your perspective statewide -- you have
statewide responsibilities from rural to urban and back, would you
say it's more likely that we would have increased funding if we
have local support and we have equity than if we don't?"
MR. CYR said if there was equity of program. He said it's
important not to confuse equity of program with equity of dollars.
If equity of educational opportunity is really looked at and every
child receives the kind of education needed, and parents in
Anchorage, as well as parents in Togiak, believe those schools are
doing a good job, he thought that more money should be made
available for education. He said, "I think rural education - I
think it's a myth if we say rural education doesn't work." Rural
Alaska has been transformed in one generation.
Number 0108
LUCY CROW testified via teleconference from Bethel and said SB 36
is the worst discrimination she's ever witnessed and it will never
work. She urged the committee not to support this piece of
legislation.
Number 0139
CYNTHIA HENRY, Legislative Chair, Fairbanks North Star Borough
School Board, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks and said
the Fairbanks School Board believes the current school foundation
formula is broken and the board extends its gratitude for efforts
on this important issue. She wanted to share the board's
priorities for a new foundation formula. First, the formula should
be made more equitable for the larger districts and all
communities, including REAAs, should contribute to the cost of
education. The rationale for that is the board has long supported
its concept of change to the foundation formula that required all
citizens to participate in the funding of their schools. The
location of a personal residence should not eliminate that
responsibility and under the current system, only those residents
of organized municipalities pay directly to the operation of their
schools. It is the board's belief that when citizens directly
participate in the funding of schools, public scrutiny increases
and school districts and school boards are held to a higher
standard. The board also believes that special education funding
should be determined as a percentage of enrollment. The board has
a fairly long history of supporting this concept and has gone on
record for several years supporting the leveling out of funding
provided for all special needs children. The Department of
Education generated a report recommending funding special needs as
a percentage of enrollment several years ago and the board
supported that recommendation then and supports it now. The
Fairbanks North Star School Board also supports relief from the
impacts of local assessed valuation on state funding. This was an
issue the board felt needed to be addressed. She noted under the
current formula, the district is facing a reduction of $2.3 million
because of changes in the assessed valuation. The board is
supportive of the quality school initiatives and she believed would
be supportive of the earlier amendment which included some of the
quality school initiatives into SB 36. The board believes the
state will need to provide funding for the mandated services that
are required because there are costs associated with some sort of
developmental assessment for kindergartners. She said there's a
large expense in that kind of effort, but the board supports it.
Finally, the Fairbanks North Star School Board believes there
should be a periodic review and adjustments made to the state
foundation formula to cover increased costs, which is part of the
problem with the existing foundation formula. She thanked each
committee member for their efforts in this important issue.
Number 0318
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how close Fairbanks was to reaching the
local contribution cap.
MS. HENRY said, "We would be there or just over if the foundation
formula does not change and our request that's being made this
year, which is approximately $4 million more than last year, I
think puts us at or just over the cap."
Number 0353
TILLI ABBOTT, Principal, Hoonah City Schools, testified she was
born and raised in Hoonah, graduated from Hoonah High School and is
now the principal. Although this legislation would not affect
Hoonah directly, she was speaking on behalf of all rural
communities. She said education is not only a basic right for all
citizens of the United States, but it also should be equitable and
she keeps hearing over and over that someone is going to be left
out. Having gone to college in Anchorage, she knows there are
funding resources available there for education, whereas the people
in the rural communities do not have the opportunities and
resources. As a first year principal, she has become aware of how
much money it costs to operate a school. Take athletics, for
example, which is an important part in rural communities in
building self-esteem; it took about $10,000 to send the basketball
team to Anchorage to compete in the state tournament. She referred
to a newspaper article with a picture of a group of young ladies
from rural areas wearing arm bands in protest of SB 36. That
really made an impression on her, especially when an article
appeared the following day stating the mayor found some $12 million
he didn't know existed. She thought it was sad that the education
and self-esteem of young people depends on legislators. She asked
committee members when they had last spoken with a teen besides
their own or visited a rural school. She extended an invitation to
come walk in the shoes of students and people in rural areas. She
surmised that each committee member had an adequate education and
wanted the same for their children and grandchildren. She said
they are no different than the people in the rural communities who
want the same opportunities. She asked committee members to place
themselves in the position of having to face the possibility of
having to send their children or grandchildren to a boarding
school.
Number 0508
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he understands the McDowell Study does a
more accurate job than ever before on the cost differential of
running education in the various areas of the state. The results
of that study were taken into account in SB 36 in a more accurate
way than ever before. He wondered what he was missing when Ms.
Abbott and others keep saying that Senate Bill 36 doesn't take into
account the cost differential of operating a school in the rural
areas.
MS. ABBOTT replied she didn't believe it took a study, but just
common sense. She said, "I think it really takes you to go into
that school district and look at their books and see how that money
is spent. I think it really takes you to come out to Hoonah and
see that we don't have any frills."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what gave Ms. Abbott the idea that SB 36
doesn't take into account the cost differential in running
education in rural areas.
MS. ABBOTT said discussions with a Senator and a Representative
gave her that idea. She hadn't read all of the McDowell Study,
but the Senator and Representative had really highlighted the fact
there is nothing right about this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented he has lived in Alaska for 35 years
and worked in lots of villages. He's not able to understand the
hostility and anger and the lack of specific information about what
is wrong with this bill, therefore, it doesn't help him re-evaluate
where the problems are. He noted he hasn't heard any outrage about
the schools that have been taken advantage of under the current
formula.
MS. ABBOTT responded when the red flags are raised and there's
rhetoric over and over, it is a legislator's responsibility to go
out and find out how the people are feeling about a specific issue.
Number 0672
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to the administrative costs and Ms.
Abbott's comment about the high cost of sending the kids to the
tournament. There had been earlier testimony about how important
programs like band, wrestling, basketball and the like are in
creating a sense of pride and self-esteem in students, giving them
a strong foundation upon which to be self-sufficient citizens. He
wondered how those costs are accounted for. The McDowell Study
mentions there is a wide variation in the administrative category
and said it appears that certain schools are including the cost of
extra curricular activities in the administrative category. He
asked Ms. Abbott if the expenditures for the basketball team in
Hoonah are charged to an administrative function.
MS. ABBOTT said not to her knowledge.
SENATOR WILKEN observed the Hoonah School District has 270
students, but by adding in the data from the McDowell Study and the
categorical funding, the Hoonah School District actually gets
credit for 504 students under Senate Bill 36. He explained the
student count is brought up to try to make everyone equal.
MS. ABBOTT reiterated that SB 36 does not directly impact Hoonah
and it is not anticipated to, but she's testifying on behalf of the
rural communities up north. She stressed it wasn't fair that
people had to even think about perhaps moving away from families
because of inequities in the funding.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted that Mt. Edgecumbe was strongly supported by
the rural community and many of today's rural Native leaders went
to school at Mt. Edgecumbe.
Number 0991
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what has led Ms. Abbott to think this
bill is going to force people to go to boarding schools.
MS. ABBOTT said the cry from the people in the urban areas is they
are tired of paying taxes while still not receiving the funds they
feel they are entitled to. People in the rural areas are concerned
that funds are being taken from their schools and because of the
lack of funds, schools will be closing immediately.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained students in the smallest schools
would be counted as five students, which translates to five times
more money than a student would get in Anchorage, for example. He
believed there was a point at which it was no longer efficient to
operate a school. Currently, there are several thousand students
statewide involved in correspondence or home schools, and he
believed that option was open to anyone if in the rarest occasion
a school would close. He wondered why people weren't thinking
about either of those options.
MS. ABBOTT responded she would want her child to have the
opportunity to find out what education is all about, including the
ability to learn social skills. She explained that in many rural
areas, the school is the heartbeat of the community.
Number 1138
KARL GREENEWALD, SR., Board Member, Huna Totem Corporation, said he
grew up in Hoonah and went to college in Fairbanks and Anchorage.
He was testifying on behalf of himself in opposition to SB 36. He
said while there are discussions about the possibility of schools
being closed and children being sent to boarding schools, it is
really important to remember that our federal government is
promoting strong family values and guidance. He referenced the
previous comment about some $9,000 per student in rural areas
versus $3,000 some per student in Anchorage and said there is a big
cost of living difference between the rural areas and urban areas.
He pointed out that rural communities make a significant economic
impact on both rural and urban areas and went on to discuss the
economic impact of the two Native Corporations in Anchorage, as
well as the week long Alaska Federation of Natives Conference. He
talked about the importance of rebuilding their Native culture
which was taken away. He said this legislation would have a great
impact on the people in the rural areas and urged committee members
to give it some serious thought.
Number 1618
MR. NOTTI read the following statement on behalf of JOANN MCDONALD:
"Rural Alaska is stretched for adequate funds to educate children.
Now overcrowding has already caused program cuts - music, art,
advanced science and math, no tutors or summer school. Please help
our children and vote no on SB 36. Save rural Alaska. Love and
educate our best resource - our kids."
Number 1748
LINDA DEMIENTIEFF testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She
is a single parent with two children and is also a product of the
boarding school. She finds herself in the same position now as she
was 30 years ago having to explain to the Senate that children in
rural areas did not want to go to boarding schools. She had been
watching the committee on television and was of the opinion this
issue has not been well thought out. She reminded committee
members they are dealing with the lives of Alaska's children and
interfering in their education will affect the entire life of these
children. The legislature has the power to either reverse the
efforts of the people in rural areas without giving any thought, or
to make this good by taking it back to the drawing board and
working with the people in the villages.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted this project has been underway for five years
now.
Number 1938
CHRIS CAMPBELL, Member, Ketchikan Gateway Borough School Board,
testified from Ketchikan via teleconference. She said she has read
the McDowell Study and has been tracking efforts to reform the
school funding issue for many years. She thought the McDowell
Study was the most accurate area cost differential study conducted
to date. Many of the districts that would benefit under SB 36 are
located in Southeast Alaska, including a number of villages. This
points out the inequitable situation that has existed for years
with Southeast communities more than shouldering their burden for
educating students and making do with less. She noted the
Ketchikan School District has funded education to the cap for
years, yet in the last two years 32 positions have been lost as
well as programs. At the end of this fiscal year, the budget will
have been cut by $2 million in a 2-year period. She said much of
the testimony she's heard has been moving and it's true that people
do make choices as to where they want to live. She is concerned
about the impact this legislation will have on some areas around
the state and the issue of boarding schools is a haunting one.
However, the schools in Southeast Alaska do deserve fair equity and
it is her hope that SB 36 will provide the vehicle for an (indisc.)
change.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said given the passage of SB 36, the Ketchikan
School District will receive a 20 percent increase in state
contribution. Considering that's a big increase to the budget he
wondered if the district would have adequate time to efficiently
get that money into the classrooms.
MS. CAMPBELL said the board is prepared to get the money into the
classroom. There is a need for new textbooks, technology,
additional teachers, aides, et cetera.
TAPE 98-40, SIDE A
Number 0001
ROBERT MCCLORY testified via teleconference from Ketchikan as a
parent concerned about school funding issues. He's seen his
children's programs attacked by a seemingly never ending string of
budget cuts, yet the students still have good grades, good work
habits, positive attitudes and good test scores. However, his fear
is that further budget cuts will definitely have an effect.
Obviously he would like to see the local schools in Ketchikan
receive funding; by that he means comparable to all the other
schools in Alaska. He acknowledged the complexity of the existing
foundation formula makes it difficult to sort out the problem, but
he believes the existing funding formula should be replaced with a
formula that people can understand and work with. Some people
think SB 36 is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, but he
sees it differently - he sees it as a simple platform from which
to start providing some equity in funding and identifying which
schools are still in need of additional funding. He believes SB 36
contains other important features like cutting administration
costs, putting a larger percentage of the funding into the
classrooms and asking communities to share in the cost of
education. He asked the committee to ensure this legislation does
not become a political issue which dies from a lack of consensus.
He said it's important not to lose sight that there are really two
issues: the funding formula and a mechanism for funding education
adequately.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented he believes the two issues are
intertwined.
Number 0342
SANDY JONES testified via teleconference from Tok in opposition to
SB 36. She conveyed that people in Mentasta have worked hard to
establish a good education system and if this legislation passes,
the school will have to cut 1.5 teachers or close down the school.
She said, "My father was a product of a boarding home. I, too, was
in a boarding home but I became an alcoholic because I didn't have
the education that the Tok school had." She expressed her
frustration about the legislature making decisions for and taking
away the rights of the Native people of Alaska.
Number 0578
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER testified offnet from Kwigillingok with
suggestions for SB 36. He said, "First we lose the money and next
we will be required to establish municipalities and boroughs in
order to generate money for education. These extensions of state
government will then require property taxes. These taxes will be
paid by the village (indisc.) ANCSA Corporations. Many of these
corporations will become bankrupt and people will be sent to find
their own way as best they can. It's no big secret that Native
Alaska has become a welfare society." He said he's not had a real
job in seven years and there's nothing worse than a healthy able-bodied man ear
people. He said if more money is needed for education, the income
tax should be reinstated. He doesn't want anyone using his
permanent fund dividend.
Number 0798
REBECCA GAMEZ, Director, Employment Security Division, Department
of Labor, expressed concern with the implementation of Amendment 2
in terms of the date. She said the current date of January 1,
1999, would be very difficult for the department to comply with
because of year 2000 compliance issues being dealt with by the
department. An earlier Senate working draft proposed a date of
January 1, 2001, which would be workable for the department. She
explained about one-third of the data processing efforts are going
toward year 2000 compliance and the other two-thirds are being used
to comply with Legislative Budget and Audit requests. She said
currently there are four programmer positions vacant and it's
difficult to fill these technical positions because of the high
demand with year 2000 around the corner.
Number 0913
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked what date would be workable for the
department.
MS. GAMEZ said realistically, the original date of January 1, 2001,
would be the department's preference.
Number 0944
MIKE NOEL, Info Services Manager, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Labor, said if the department is to
accomplish the year 2000 compliance testing in readiness for the
event when it occurs, he didn't think it would be practical for the
department to attempt to accomplish this new task before January 1,
2000.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE inquired how much would be involved in merely
writing the forms for employers to use in collecting the local
contribution.
MR. NOEL replied it would involve more than just writing the forms.
The department would be required to process the forms when returned
by the employers, correlating the information to the wage records
anticipated to come into the system to determine the individual has
had wages paid and now the employer is reporting the taxes on those
wages. This would require substantial programming changes, so it's
a little more complicated.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted the House Finance Committee would address the
fiscal impact of implementing this legislation.
Number 1064
MS. GAMEZ said the department's second concern is regulation
drafting and approval. She explained it is a timing problem in
that the regulations need to be in place before the programming can
occur. She pointed out there are some definition inconsistencies
that could affect employers; i.e., compensation for services,
reportable wages, employer, individual, et cetera. Another area of
concern for the department is the lack of employer input. Also,
based on her interpretation of Amendment 2, a tracking system would
need to be put in place when a worker performs work in an
unincorporated borough setting.
Number 1198
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE inquired how the department would deal with a
truck driver running a haul between Fairbanks and Valdez.
MS. GAMEZ said based on the department's interpretation of
Amendment 2, the truck driver's employer or the driver, if self-employed, would
driving time through the unincorporated areas of the state.
Number 1264
CYNDEE SIMPSON SUGAR testified via teleconference from Bethel that
she was appalled that education funding was being cut in the rural
areas to give to the urban areas. She attended school in Ketchikan
and on the Kenai Peninsula and said the opportunities she had 20
years ago are above what the rural students have today. She
believed when the legislature was speaking of equality, it was in
terms of dollars, certainly not in terms of programs or facilities.
She stressed that "being out of sight is being out of mind" because
until she actually lived in rural Alaska, she didn't think about
rural Alaska. She said there should be a way to help all Alaska's
children; the rural children are being discriminated against
because of where their family chooses to live. She encouraged the
legislature to get back to work for Alaska's children. She
commented on the amount of money her family spent in Anchorage the
past year, and said she would join or possibly lead a group to
boycott spending money in Anchorage.
Number 1414
VELETA MURPHY testified from Fairbanks via teleconference. She
stated she's a property owner in Fairbanks and a former teacher.
She's shocked the state would consider reverting to a system that
removes schools from communities and re-establishes a system which
in the past has forced parents to farm their children out to other
villages or boarding schools. This legislation will impact all
rural children; not just Native Alaskans. In small communities,
the school becomes a cultural as well as an educational center, and
the state will be taking the heart of the community away in these
small communities. As adults, we are supposed to protect and care
for all the children of the state and she certainly could not
support any system that penalizes children for where they live.
Education is a necessity in our world, but it shouldn't cost
children their family. It's unfair and morally reprehensible to
consider taking money from one group of children for another. It's
been agreed that rural education costs more; what's really needed
is more money for all education. She doesn't want to live in a
state that doesn't support education for all. She agrees with many
of the comments that have been made at this hearing and mostly
she's ashamed that everyone can't see that all children are
important and deserve to have neighborhood schools, wherever they
live. She opposed this legislation and urged the committee to do
so also.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE agreed that children are important, but it's also
important that local people support their schools.
Number 1521
PAUL SUGAR testified from Bethel via teleconference in opposition
to Senate Bill 36. He said although he's a rural Alaskan he
understands urban Alaskan's frustration with educational funding
that is based on property taxes. Earlier, he had heard committee
members speaking about people making choices about where they live
and dealing with the consequences. He was reminded that people of
urban Alaska made a choice, through an election, to impose a
borough upon themselves as well as to impose property taxes. He
said there is a very fundamental flaw with Senate Bill 36; an ever-shrinking pi
Number 1669
DEBORAH VOGT, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
testified on the tax issue. She said the tax would create a 3
percent employment tax on all individuals performing services in
the unorganized borough; residents and nonresidents, wage earners
and self-employed. She explained the Department of Labor would
collect the taxes from the wage earners and the Department of
Revenue would collect from the nonresidents, self-employed and
individuals in an organization who don't pay into unemployment
insurance. She said she's confused as to where the legislature is
drawing the taxing power in the legislation. She senses the
legislature is exercising its constitutional power as the municipal
assembly for the unorganized borough and if that's so, it presents
a number of issues that may be worth considering. If, however, the
legislature is exercising the power to levy a general tax, that
raises a different set of issues. With respect to the
constitutional power to sit as the assembly for the unorganized
borough, she said it's not completely clear to her what kinds of
taxes are available to be used in that capacity. The other issue
is that most of the individuals who pay taxes in a municipality or
a borough, have a direct connection with the people who are
imposing tax; i.e., the people paying the tax elect the people who
are imposing the tax. That connection does not exist with the
people in the unorganized borough and this body as a whole. She
thought those issues should be considered.
MS. VOGT said in terms of implementation of the tax, some of the
problem issues that have been discussed include the effective date
of January 1, 1999. She explained the Department of Revenue would
use IRS data in order to verify self-employment income of those
individuals. The department doesn't receive that data, so it would
need to be purchased from the IRS. Both the Department of Labor
and Department of Revenue parts of the tax would be enforced and
administered by Department of Revenue; i.e., the DOR would be
responsible for auditing and enforcing the tax. She observed that
finding some of these self-employed individuals and nonresidents
earning income in the unorganized borough is a problem. Another
problem will be how the employers will determine which REAA to
attribute those deductions to; there's going to be a fairly complex
issue of matching the wages and the taxes deducted from the wages
to the particular area from whence they came, and it will be even
more problematic for individuals who move around; e.g., truckers,
commercial fishermen, construction workers, tourist operations, et
cetera. She didn't think it would be easy to determine how those
funds will be collected and allocated.
MS. VOGT stated, "There are some equity issues to think about - a
municipal resident's contribution ends with the fulfillment of the
local taxes, and then if that individual goes off and works in the
unorganized borough, then he can have a credit for the taxes that
he paid in the unorganized borough that went to education, but
he'll pay additional taxes on wages for any work performed there.
Whereas, his next door neighbor might have the identical job, but
stay home and perform it and he'll just pay the property tax and
not the additional employment tax." Municipal residents who rent
will not pay property taxes and therefore, will be treated
differently from their neighbor if they both work in the
unorganized borough and one pays employment tax and the other
doesn't. The credit provisions are essentially implemented by the
employer - the employee can ask the employer to stop withholding
tax from his paycheck by presenting evidence of the local taxes.
Quite frankly, she didn't see how this was going to work because
that would ask the employer to be familiar enough with local taxes
in other parts of the state to know what parts went toward
education. Another issue with the credits is that nonresidents
also pay local support for schools in their communities and as she
understands the legislation, would not be entitled to a credit. As
a former lawyer, she thought that raises constitutional issues that
should be looked at. The administration of the tax is problematic
in that it's a very labor intensive tax; fiscal notes from the two
departments indicate it would take seven people to administer a tax
that would produce about $10 million to $11 million. By a
comparison, not a single person is allocated to enforce the
cigarette tax; it's absorbed in work performed by people
administering other taxes and that tax produces about $35 million.
MS. VOGT said frankly, the tax would not be an audit priority for
the Department of Revenue and the staff probably would not spend a
lot of time trying to track down nonresidents who worked in the
unorganized borough.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE observed the lack of enthusiasm in the
Administration probably generates additional roadblocks, but he
assured Ms. Vogt it had been addressed from a constitutional and
legal point of view.
Number 2020
BOB MEDINGER testified via teleconference from Bethel. In response
to Representative Dyson, a major flaw in the cost study is the fact
that it's based on Department of Education (DOE) data that reflects
expenses and not the cost of a program and it has nothing to do
with quality education or the quality of a program. If the data
from the study is applied to SB 36, these are the results for the
Lower Kuskokwim based on mostly bad data: Loss of $8 million, 65
teachers are laid off, 115 classified employees, mostly bilingual
staff, are laid off, close two or three schools, and the bilingual
program is completely eliminated. In an attempt for people in
rural Alaska to relate and get a better understanding of the urban
versus rural view he asked what Chairman Bunde would do if his
child's school just closed and there wasn't a bus or a road to get
his child to another school.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE responded he would do what he would do for any
resource that disappeared; he would relocate.
MR. MEDINGER asked Chairman Bunde to assume this bill passed and he
found the language of his home, English, would no longer be the
language in his child's school, what would his reaction be.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE responded he would speak the language of the
dominant culture because that's the only way his children would
survive in the modern world.
MR. MEDINGER asked Chairman Bunde of all the criticisms about SB 36
he had heard this afternoon, has even one of them been justified in
his mind and if so, what would it have been.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE responded that justification much like beauty is in
the beholder. He added that change is frightening for everyone and
this bill involves a lot of change. The thought of communities
being required to make a contribution, when for 20 or 30 years a
community has made no contribution for schools, is going to be
upsetting. He could empathize and understand why people would be
concerned or criticize.
MR. MEDINGER said his question had been if Chairman Bunde finds any
of the criticisms actually justifiable.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted that Representative Porter would like to
answer that question.
Number 2150
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "I find everything - every criticism
that was made by anybody that testified tonight justifiable. The
perception that they have, as very appropriately from their point
of view put out by folks that will be losers, if you will, in this
initial rendition of the formula, have done a very good job in
convincing folks that the folks down here are intentionally taking
money from rural areas and giving it to the urban areas. I guess
I would turn the question around and if you were me from midtown
Anchorage where my constituents are telling me that they are tired
for the last 10, 15, 20 years of being on the short end of this
distribution stick, what you would do if you were supposedly
elected to represent them?"
MR. MEDINGER said it's very simple. The state has $23 billion in
a savings account. He asked how much of that, percentage-wise,
would need to be put into Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai and
Mat-Su to bring up the level of perceived inequity that's needed.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he supported using that fund for the
reason it was intended to be developed; that being the operation of
government. Unfortunately, there were not a lot of other
legislators who agreed with him and in fact, the citizens of the
state couldn't be drawn together to get enough signatures on a
petition to put that on the ballot for a vote. Until it is put on
the ballot for a vote, funds from the permanent fund are not going
to be used for education.
Number 2226
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted the $24 billion doesn't belong to the
legislature; it belongs to 600,000+ Alaskans and it's their choice
as to how the earnings of the permanent fund is spent. From the
day the permanent fund started, he has concluded the earnings were
for operation of government, but as an employee of the people who
sent him to the legislature to represent them, it is his job to
represent their point of view on that issue.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said there were a couple of issues that have
been raised which have caused him to do some rethinking. He said,
"One, the McDowell Study made the assumption that everybody was
doing their educational business somewhat correctly. My own
perception is that there are districts around the state doing an
extraordinary job and have for a long time been into cost
reductions, efficiencies of scale and working at excellent ways of
delivering service. And there's some schools and school districts
around that are utterly irresponsible, incompetent, self-serving
leadership, that are building taj mahals, and building up their
last few years of their teachers' contract for their retirement and
are not being held accountable and are quite irresponsible in how
they've been doing things. Hopefully, the latter category are a
small minority, but indeed, we have started here with the
assumption that everyone is doing their business with equal
excellence and equal efficiency - I think that's not a given - so
what we're doing here is starting out on a basis that's somewhat
inaccurate. And I don't know how it could have been done better,
particularly in the time frame we had. Second thing that I believe
is, that in all of the villages that are predominately Native, I
think we should be working towards funding bilingual education in
all of them in rural Alaska. So those are two criticisms that I've
heard and listened to and tend to believe."
Number 2322
CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out the median household income for Bethel
and for Anchorage is within $1,000 of each other, so at least in
the case of Bethel, it's not taking from the poor and giving to the
rich.
MR. MEDINGER interjected the cost of living is 50 percent higher in
Bethel and the 23 communities around Bethel are among the lowest
economic based per capita income in the United States, not just
Alaska.
TAPE 98-40, SIDE B
Number 0002
CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented that it costs more to live in Alaska than
it does in Arkansas, but he doesn't expect the federal government
will provide a subsidy for Alaskans.
Number 0013
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said one of the interesting things about the
McDowell Study is that it was not intended to be a comprehensive
review of all the philosophical and equity issues that might be
addressed by the legislature in considering revisions to the
foundation formula. The assumption of the McDowell Study was that
categorical funding would be distributed in a manner similar to the
existing allocation in the current foundation formula. With
respect to the geographical area including Bethel, Mr. McDowell
mentioned that 50 percent of the reduction that occurs in those
school districts is because of the changes to the categorical
funding category; specifically the bilingual. The 20 percent cap
placed on categorical funding had significant impacts on the
distribution of money going into the Bethel region. He believed
there should be more discussion on categorical funding issues in
addition to the philosophical and equity issues. He pointed out
the permanent fund is projected to produce over $1 billion after
dividends and inflation proofing which is available for
appropriation by a majority vote of the state legislature. The
people of Alaska need to make their wishes known to their
respective legislators regarding the use of the permanent fund.
Number 0131
SENATOR WILKEN noted that Mr. Medinger is from a district with
3,600 students and the state support this year is $36 million. In
1996, there were 4,900 people in that district who had a total of
$119 million in earned wages. Under the current foundation
formula, the district gets $10,618 per student as compared to
$3,931 for Anchorage. In looking at those numbers, he feels
compelled to ask, "Why don't you help pay for education?"
MR. MEDINGER said, "You're right - I agree, we should and we're
willing to - give us something fair and we will. I also want to
point out one thing. When you look at PL-874 money, of which our
area generates $10 million, that is not counted in the local match.
When you take that PL-874 money that comes in from rural Alaska,
and you match it up as a match in the education funding unit today,
you know we're putting in more money than the property taxes that
are being spent on education in Anchorage, and it's not counted as
a local match. Why is that?"
SENATOR WILKEN said he didn't want to get into the discussion of
PL-874 funds at this time, but those funds are treated the same
across the state. He added the district will be able to keep
dollar for dollar in PL-874 money when it begins to contribute on
its own.
Number 0208
SHIRLEY DEMIENTIEFF, President, Fairbanks Native Association,
testified from Fairbanks via teleconference. She said the
Fairbanks Native Association has not had a meeting since this
legislation became a hot issue, so the comments she's presenting
are hers personally as a private citizen. When Cynthia Henry had
finished her testimony, Ms. Demientieff had asked if the Fairbanks
North Slope Borough School District was supporting SB 36. Ms.
Henry responded the school district was supporting components of
it, but not the whole bill. Ms. Demientieff had added the school
district did not, however, support taking money from rural areas
and bringing it to Fairbanks. She noted that committee members
have been elected by a constituency to be representatives of the
people. Legislators are supposed to be experts to whom the public
should be able to ask questions without being looked down upon or
subjected to sarcastic questions or comments. Her job as a citizen
is to review the paper generated by the legislature to determine if
it's understandable and if it makes sense. In her mind, the
proposed formula is no more clear than the existing foundation
formula. She pointed out that committee members have staff to
research and advise them on the various programs and issues, while
the public can't be expected to understand complex issues such as
the school foundation formula. (NOTE: A portion of Ms.
Demientieff's testimony is missing due to tape malfunction).
MS. DEMIENTIEFF said the school is the community center in each
village. She noted that in Fairbanks education dollars are spent
to support the swimming pool, Herring Auditorium, to pay for
instructors for programs such as dance, crafts and other extra-
curricular activities.
MS. DEMIENTIEFF didn't believe the McDowell Study took into
consideration the extreme cost of living in rural areas. In
summary, she said urban parents would never think about the
possibility of being forced to send their children away to school,
but yet, as an urban parent they're saying it's alright to send
children to boarding schools. She went to a boarding school as a
child and certainly does not want that quality of life for her
children.
Number 0453
BILL WILKERSON testified offnet from Kwigillingok and said he's
spent the past 21 years on the west bank of the Kuskokwim River
teaching in three villages. He stated over the past 21 years, 99
percent of the children coming into those schools have spoken
Yupik, their Native language. Those students have been instructed
for the first three years of school in reading, writing and
speaking Yupik, which research indicates should be done for
students who don't speak English as their first language. These
students graduate from school reading, speaking and writing Yupik,
a language going back thousands of years. The passage of Senate
Bill 36 will mean the history of that language which has been
consistently transmitted along will be ended because the highly
trained, classified teachers who teach these students the first
three years, are from the village and have trained for years.
Sixty-five teachers will be lost, many of whom are the bilingual
teachers who teach the children during those first three years. He
explained these are not certified teachers. He said it's
impossible to hire a teacher from the Lower 48 who can suddenly
walk in and teach the children how to read, write and speak Yupik.
The villages love their bilingual programs; these programs should
be revered, not eliminated. He stated SB 36 is ill-founded and
urged the committee to listen to a Harvard Ph.D. economist
appearing on a radio show the following Wednesday who would attack
three major points of the McDowell Study. He encouraged the
committee to not support SB 36. People in rural Alaska believe
that Anchorage should get additional educational funding if needed,
but not at the expense of the rural areas. He requested the
legislature place SB 36 on the back burner, go back to the drawing
board and draft a bill that will better solve the educational
problems and bring harmony between the rural areas and the urban
areas.
Number 0660
CHAIRMAN BUNDE remarked he hopes this is a process toward finding
more funding, but there must be equity and local contribution or
there won't be any additional education dollars.
Number 0673
GLEN MARUNDE testifying via teleconference from Tok was of the
opinion that Ms. Vogt's testimony, pointing out problems with the
tax, was vital information and should have been presented earlier
when everyone was available to hear her remarks. He presented
three hypothetical situations of working individuals and asked how
the 3 percent employment tax would be applied in each of the three
situations. Inasmuch as the tax goes into the general fund, he
questioned how an individual would go about getting a rebate on
taxes paid. The point he was trying to get across is there are
many inequities and problems created by this tax and tax credit.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if Mr. Marunde favored local contribution for
schools.
MR. MARUNDE said no, he and the people in Glennallen favor a
statewide tax and would like to see legislation introduced
requiring the state to fund education and prohibit property taxes
from being used anywhere in the state to fund schools.
Number 1063
CARL WILLIAMS testified via teleconference from Bethel reminding
committee members that rural Alaska provides the oil, minerals,
fish and natural resources that power the state's economy. He
expressed his frustration with the legislature for drafting a bill
like Senate Bill 36, which is targeted, divisive and does not
address the fundamental program which is that all schools need more
funding. He said targeted legislation is bad public policy and
legislation that pits Alaskan against Alaskan is destructive public
policy. He spoke of welfare reform and the attempt to put an end
to dependency on the government and said there is nothing that
rural Alaskans desire more, but the only way for rural children to
escape the vicious trap is through their schools - schools that
operate in regions where the cost of living and doing business is
50 percent to 100 percent higher than urban Alaska. Even the
McDowell Study could not erase the cost differentials between
regions completely. He offered to provide lodging, food and
transportation to Bethel and to one of the villages in the area for
Chairman Bunde or any of the sponsors of this legislation in return
for a couple days and the promise to come with an open mind and
ears.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated he has traveled extensively in western Alaska
and has a pretty good grasp of village life in that area.
Number 1402
DENA IVEY, Representative, Fairbanks Chapter of the Alaska Native
Brotherhood and Sisterhood, testified from Fairbanks via
teleconference. She said she was fortunate to have received a top
notch public education and believed she would have received the
same quality education regardless of where she was located.
However, Senate Bill 36 presents a real threat to Alaska Natives
and Alaska Native culture, simply by virtue of where an individual
happens to be located geographically. She said Senate Bill 36 is
discriminatory which is (indisc.) to the protections which the
federal and state constitutions guarantees the people.
Number 1472
STEVEN BURKE testified via teleconference from Bethel. He moved to
Bethel from Connecticut about 18 months ago and has three children
in the school system in Bethel. He expressed that SB 36 will
significantly impact his children's educational opportunities,
mostly for the negative and observed the quality of education in
Bethel is certainly not the same as it was in Connecticut. His
daughter is in the Yup'ik Immersion Program and he's disturbed that
one of the consequences of SB 36 will be to eliminate bilingual
education. He stressed the uniqueness of bilingual education in
Alaska should be preserved at all costs. He hoped the committee
would take that into consideration in deliberating this bill.
Number 1549
JOHN PECKHAM testified he has a third grade daughter in the
Ketchikan School District and shares the same frustration as the
other witnesses from Ketchikan about the lack of funding in the
Ketchikan district. He said while there have been many comments
made about winners and losers under Senate Bill 36, he pointed out
there have been winners and losers under the current foundation
program and Ketchikan feels it has been one of the losers.
Number 1609
SENATOR WILKEN noted that in reviewing the data for Sitka and
Ketchikan, the McDowell Group had been astonished at the
administrative costs in Ketchikan. While administrative costs in
some districts were really high and couldn't be explained, they
were unable to explain the administrative costs in the Ketchikan
district because they were so low.
MR. PECKHAM said he believed the school boards have tried to keep
the pupil/teacher ratio consistent, but now the budget cuts are
impacting that also.
SENATOR WILKEN confirmed that's exactly what the board had done and
should be congratulated for keeping things afloat as long as they
have.
Number 1671
PATRICIA OKSOKTARUK testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.
She is from White Mountain and is pursuing a double degree at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks. She urged the committee not to
support SB 36. She said the recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion
released on the Venetie issue has served to heighten tensions
between urban and rural Alaska, and SB 36 only exacerbates this
conflict in ideology. She said as the residents attempt to develop
a cohesive state identity, the greatest challenge before all
citizens is mutual respect and appreciation for urban and rural
Natives and non-Natives. The quality of education must be
maintained for all children across the state. She stated education
funding is like any other service facing minimization which is a
statewide and national trend. Everyone bears the burden of
maintaining and improving this service. Changing the funding
calculation is the right idea, but SB 36 is not the solution. She
said we must, for every child's sake, begin to take responsibility
for education through state employment taxes or a statewide sales
tax. She stated the fact that scholars are coming out of rural
Alaska, despite many obstacles, is a credit to a few outstanding
teachers who served in the rural areas.
Number 1991
KAREN KALLEN-BROWN testified via teleconference from Fairbanks and
said Senate Bill 36 does nothing to solve the problem of the
funding formula or to fix any of the education problems in the
state. Taking money from rural children to give to urban children
will only exacerbate the problems and will not solve any of the
difficulties. As a parent and teacher who has lived, worked and
schooled her own children in both rural and urban Alaskan schools,
she could safely say that children in rural areas do not have the
breadth of educational opportunity available to urban children.
The state should invest in the future by adequately funding all
schools so each child has equal opportunity to an excellent
education, regardless of individual and diverse needs. She said
equality does not always mean the same; it means having one's needs
met so that one has the same opportunity. Rural schools and rural
children are always struggling to have their needs met. She urged
the committee not to pass SB 36. She concluded that a fair
solution to the problem needs to be found - Senate Bill 36 is
simple, but it's not fair.
Number 2097
MARGARET WILSON testified from Fairbanks via teleconference in
opposition to SB 36. She is a product of a boarding school and it
seemed to her the only choice for the people in the rural
communities is to start the boarding schools again. She left her
home at age 11 and never went back. She has spent most of her
adult life in Fairbanks, is a homeowner and her children attend
school in Fairbanks. Her children would be appalled to know any
extra money for their school would come at the expense of the rural
areas. She asked the committee to give careful consideration to
what's being taken away from kids in the rural areas.
TAPE 98-41, SIDE A
Number 0001
DON SHIRCEL testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said
he had heard all the testimony presented this evening and it seems
obvious to him there is a need to change the current funding
formula, but SB 36 doesn't appear to have any less problems or
fewer inequities than the old formula. He strongly suggested the
committee consider the comments of the many different people from
communities around the state and seriously consider working on
another bill that would improve the formula. In his opinion, SB 36
is not an improvement.
Number 0122
CHAIRMAN BUNDE closed public testimony. He stated, "I accept that
this is an issue upon which reasonable people can disagree. I,
however, feel that the area cost differential was a valid study
done by people without any political ax to grind that indicated
that there have been about $26 million incorrectly directed toward
rural areas because the cost of an education out there was not
accurately reflected, that we have after a great deal of study,
attempted to address a foundation formula problem. I think this is
part of a process and I can speak only for me when I say that, and
I've said it earlier this evening, I will reiterate one more time,
that unless the public - the vast population of this state - 65
percent of them who do not have children in school, but still have
an equal right to discuss how education money is spent, the
majority of the folks including those without children in school,
understand that education makes Alaska a better place; that
education is absolutely critical to the success of our children.
However, until they feel there's equity in the way the money is
distributed, and until they feel there's fairness in local support
that there must be change, that people no matter where they live in
the state, have an obligation to support their school system. And
until that happens, they are not apt to invest more money in the
current system. There's been quite a bit of testimony about the
fact that the foundation formula has been flat funded for a number
of years, that it has not been adjusted for inflation - the
legislature did not do that capriciously - we did that because it
reflected the will of the majority of the people. There's a fair
argument that perhaps there was money not well spent and by holding
the formula flat, schools have grown into a more adequate or more
realistic level of funding. I am personally convinced that we are
now at a point where inflation has had a negative impact and we
should have more money in the formula, which is why I support a
process that will, I think, achieve that which is to have local
contribution and to have a fair distribution of the money so that
folks can see a connection between their children attending school
and this foundation money that comes from the state, so people all
over the state, whatever their background, can experience the basic
psychology of ownership of their schools by making a contribution
to it. I think we all know that we appreciate and take better care
of anything that we make a personal investment in. So, with those
ideas in mind, knowing that the bill still has another committee of
referral, that there are some questions about how to achieve the
goal, particularly of local contribution, it's the Chair's
intention to move this bill forward to the next committee of
referral with support of my committee members ...."
Number 0457
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "It's my intent to vote to move this
bill from committee. It is my intent to indicate on the slip that
does that in the choices that we get, that I'm a "no rec" at this
time because I'm fully appreciative of the fact that the bill is
not completed; it needs adjustment in the funding allocation -- in
some elements of the formula that will affect funding allocations.
It's my opinion after hearing what we have heard of it, that the
disparity in the current numbers, as compiled by DOE, is going to
go down based on better establishment of some of these facts."
Number 0515
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move CSSB 36(FIN)am as
amended from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN objected.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said all committee members would an opportunity to
comment.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated, "I do have a number of comments and
a lot of them actually have emerged both from listening to the
testimony but also from careful review of a report that was
submitted to the Honorable Randy Phillips by David Teal, Project
Manager of the McDowell Group, dated March 27, 1998, in response to
a series of questions that were raised on Senate Bill 36. And I
think what he has to say there merits real consideration by the
committee of issues that really belong in the purview of this
committee. And I feel this committee is going to be absolving
itself of its responsibility by moving it on to the Finance
Committee. I think that the Finance Committee is already going to
have a lot of work that it has to do and the burden -- giving them
the burden of producing a solution to this piece of legislation
rightly belongs in this committee. And one of the -- for example,
in this report where he talks about there is a question about the
70 percent/30 percent split, his answer is that 'the consultant
made no recommendation on any split, that while the statewide
average is about 70/30, this average is weighted by a handful of
large districts with large efficient buildings. Most districts
currently spend less than 70 percent on instruction and the range
of splits is very wide from about 50/50 to about 90/10.' So, SB 36
now has that 70/30 split in it - it has significant implications to
some of the small rural schools. There needs to be a different
methodology developed to address this issue in this proposed piece
of legislation to allow the variety of splits that exist here in
our wide expansive state to be shown. And to establish just a
blanket 70/30 split is -- we asked the McDowell Group when he was
presenting his testimony about whether or not it was grounded in
any sort of analytical or quantitative measures, he did say that it
was not and that it was kind of an arbitrary figure. That causes
me significant concern. I think it's a problem that definitely
needs to be addressed."
Number 0721
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN continued, "Another issue that also needs to
be addressed with this piece of legislation is that again, citing
from this report, 'The School Operating Cost Study Questions and
Answers', in response to a question on recognizing the significant
level of indirect funding for children in urban areas which is not
available to rural students, and examples including museums,
libraries, performances and other enriching activities or
facilities, the consultant responds that the study does not attempt
to measure the quality of educational services for equalized
quality; it measures only the instructional staff and district
costs required to provide a basic education. That's all this study
does; that's all that the consultant says that it does - is just
provide numbers so that decision makers can look at providing a
basic education. And really that comes into the question of what
is really our commitment to excellence in education across Alaska.
Because a basic education in the rural areas is really a testimony
for allowing mediocrity for really creating dual standards where in
the rural areas, it's okay to have mediocrity but that in the urban
areas, you can have a quality education. I think this causes some
real policy choices - it's a philosophical issue, but it's also
definitely an equity issue that needs to be addressed."
Number 0839
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN further stated, "Another item that is
brought out in these questions and answers is that the -- in
response to the question of 'instructional cost differences are
unnecessarily arbitrary. The author should have compared their
estimates to those found in the existing literature.' His response
says, 'The legislature may wish to base its appropriation for
education on studies of optimum class size and other measures of
educational need. The study reviewed actual class sizes in Alaska
schools but did not compare them to class sizes in other states.
The intent of this study was to derive revised allocation factors,
not to determine an appropriate level of basic need.' So, that
level of basic need is really a question again of policy, it's a
question of what the legislature is going to do in terms of
quality. What type of quality are we willing to commit ourselves
to for schools throughout the state of Alaska. So, the -- I guess
there's a number of different issues that have been brought up.
The consultant, in his response to the questions that have been
raised, has indicated that these are issues of significant import
for decision makers, who are us, and that we really should be
addressing those here in this committee. And I think for us to
allow this piece of legislation to move out of this committee
without wrestling with these and deriving answers, we're really not
fulfilling our full responsibilities as members of the HESS
Committee. The Finance Committee is already going to be loaded
down with the stranded gas bill, it's going to be loaded down with
subsistence, we're going to give it the foundation formula - you
know, it's just going to be loaded down with complex and in-depth
policy issues, one after another and to load this on to them
without doing our preliminary work to address the issues, I think
is just not right and I feel very uncomfortable about moving this
out of committee in its current shape."
Number 0979
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I actually find myself in agreement
with some of the comments of the former speaker. I also have
concern about this that the person - Deborah Vogt - that talked to
us about the taxing aspects of this that could be quite burdensome
and also the concern that has been brought to my attention that we,
I don't have adequately addressed, that there may be some flawed
data that we're using in doing the tables that we've done and I
would like to pursue that. Albeit those two issues are both
finance issues and I've been one who champions that issues should
be akin to the committees they're assigned to, if it's a finance
issue, it should be in the Finance Committee and so on - policy
should be here. I just have a lot of heartburn with the project
but I won't hold it up. My concern is that I very likely will have
conflicts and not be able to be at the Finance hearing when this is
brought up and so what I intend to do then is to send my concerns
in a memo to the Chair of the Finance Committee."
Number 1050
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented, "I would like to thank Senator
Wilken for taking this on as well as the other senators. It's a
very difficult and very emotional issue. I think it's unfortunate,
but I think the fact still remains that the (indisc.) public
opinion is very poisoned on it - right, wrong or indifferent - it
is. I think that cause has given the political realm that we're
dealing in for the next 40 days causes a great deal of difficulty
in this body. I think there still are a number of issues that need
to be addressed from property valuation through optimum class
sizes, what do we expect to see of our educational system - urban
and rural - that just aren't quite clearly set out in this bill.
I will be the first to admit there needs to be change in the
current system and I think that some form of local contribution is
appropriate, although technically, I think, there are some problems
with the system that we're putting in now. But I think that
unfortunately, not enough debate was on what does it take to
provide -- or what are our educational goals for our schools; what
are we looking for for the children of this state as they go
through their educational process. On the other hand, I don't
think enough discussion was brought about on what are the impacts
that this bill has - we see numbers, we see formulas, we see ADMs
and transition funding, how many teachers are going to leave the
classroom because of this, what is it going to do pupil/teacher
ratios, what's it going to do to various other aspects of
education. I'm sure those issues will be continued - or will be
brought about in future discussions. I think that -- I hope that
as the bill moves, some of those questions are answered, that
hopefully, some of the concerns that are out there can be allayed
and that we have a product in the end that basically leaves no
child behind. Thank you, Mr. Chair and I appreciate the work this
committee has done."
Number 1226
CHAIRMAN BUNDE was compelled to say, "While we can disagree on
policy issues, it's important that we recognize that there's strong
local control in this state as far as people setting standards and
that again, in one or another, this committee has addressed school
foundation formula reform for two years, now."
Number 1241
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON identified himself with the remarks of
Representative Porter.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Dyson,
Porter, Green and Bunde voted in favor of moving the bill from
committee. Representatives Brice and Kemplen voted against it.
Therefore, HCS CSSB 36(HES) moved from the House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1309
CHAIRMAN BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education and Social
Services Committee at 10:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|