Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/12/1993 03:00 PM HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
           HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES                         
                       STANDING COMMITTEE                                      
                         April 12, 1993                                        
                            3:00 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair                                                
  Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair                                                     
  Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair                                                  
  Rep. Al Vezey                                                                
  Rep. Pete Kott                                                               
  Rep. Harley Olberg                                                           
  Rep. Bettye Davis                                                            
  Rep. Irene Nicholia                                                          
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  Rep. Tom Brice                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  SB 71:    "An Act relating to emergency medical service; and                 
            repealing obsolete references to the Statewide                     
            Health Coordinating Council and health systems                     
            PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS                             
  HB 85:    "An Act relating to the public school foundation                   
            program; and providing for an effective date."                     
            HEARD - HELD TO TIME CERTAIN                                       
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  MARK JOHNSON, Chief                                                          
  Emergency Medical Services Section                                           
  Division of Public Health                                                    
  Department of Health and Social Services                                     
  P.O. Box H                                                                   
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616                                                    
  Phone:  (907) 465-3027 work                                                  
  Phone:  (907) 463-5807 home                                                  
  Position statement:  Testified in support of SB 71                           
  ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant                                      
  Sen. Loren Leman                                                             
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 113                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  (907) 465-2095                                                       
  Position statement:  Testified in support of SB 71                           
  DONNA EMERSON                                                                
  3 Crab Cove                                                                  
  Funter Bay, Alaska 99850-0140                                                
  Phone:  (907) 790-3888                                                       
  Position statement:  Testified in support of HB 85                           
  MIKE WILEY                                                                   
  Kenai Peninsula Borough School District                                      
  P.O. Box 618                                                                 
  Seward, Alaska 99624                                                         
  Phone:  (907) 224-5563                                                       
  Position statement:  Testified in support of HB 85                           
  DEBRA SHUEY                                                                  
  P.O. Box 3867                                                                
  Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                       
  Phone:  (907) 262-9368                                                       
  Position statement:  Testified in support of HB 85,                          
  DUANE GUILEY, Director                                                       
  Division of Education Finance and Support Services                           
  Department of Education                                                      
  801 W. 10th St., Suite 200                                                   
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894                                                    
  Phone:  (907) 465-2891                                                       
  Position statement:  Testified in support of HB 85                           
  HARRY ROGERS, Superintendent                                                 
  Valdez City Schools                                                          
  P.O. Box 398                                                                 
  Valdez, Alaska 99686                                                         
  Phone:  (907) 835-4357                                                       
  Position statement:  Questioned changes in HB 85                             
  STEVE YEATS, Director                                                        
  Curriculum and Instruction                                                   
  North Slope Borough School District                                          
  P.O. Box 169                                                                 
  Barrow, Alaska 99723                                                         
  Phone:  (907) 852-5311                                                       
  Position statement:  Questioned changes in HB 85                             
  DENNIS WETHERELL, President                                                  
  Mat-Su Talented and Gifted Association                                       
  P.O. Box 876862                                                              
  Wasilla, Alaska 99687                                                        
  Phone:  (907) 745-2007                                                       
  Position statement:  Wanted TAG kept under special education                 
  FRAN TALBOTT, Supervisor                                                     
  Gifted and Talented Coordinator                                              
  Anchorage School District                                                    
  225-500 N. Muldoon Rd.                                                       
  Anchorage, Alaska 99506                                                      
  Phone:  (907) 337-4277                                                       
  Position statement:  Wanted TAG kept under special education                 
  LARRY WIGET                                                                  
  Legislative Liaison                                                          
  Anchorage School District                                                    
  4600 DeBarr Road                                                             
  Anchorage, Alaska 99508-3195                                                 
  Phone:  (907) 269-2255                                                       
  Position statement:  Wanted TAG kept under special education                 
  LINDA OKLAND                                                                 
  2702 McKenzie Dr.                                                            
  Anchorage, Alaska 99517                                                      
  Phone:  (907) 346-1964                                                       
  Position statement:  Wanted TAG kept under special education                 
  MAUREEN KNIGHT                                                               
  10424 Loudermilk Circle                                                      
  Anchorage, Alaska 99517                                                      
  Phone:  (907) 346-1964                                                       
  Position statement:  Wanted TAG kept under special education                 
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  SB  71                                                                
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)LEMAN,Ellis,Taylor,Duncan,                             
  TITLE: "An Act relating to emergency medical services; and                   
  repealing obsolete references to the Statewide Health                        
  Coordinating Council and health systems agencies."                           
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/27/93       170    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/27/93       171    (S)   HES, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE                   
  02/26/93       503    (S)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE                               
  02/26/93       503    (S)   HES, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE                   
  03/08/93              (S)   HES AT 02:15 PM BUTROVICH                        
                              ROOM 205                                         
  03/08/93              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/09/93       688    (S)   HES RPT  3DP 2NR                                 
  03/09/93       688    (S)   FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)                               
  03/09/93       688    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                          
  03/10/93       723    (S)   L&C REFERRAL WAIVED                              
  03/15/93              (S)   FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  03/22/93       895    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  7DP SAME TITLE                      
  03/22/93       895    (S)   LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN                        
  03/22/93       895    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS                           
  03/22/93       895    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES                         
  03/22/93              (S)   RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/22/93              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/23/93       912    (S)   RULES   2 CALENDAR 1NR                           
  03/23/93       913    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/23/93       913    (S)   FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
  03/23/93       914    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED Y11                    
  03/23/93       914    (S)   THIRD READING 3/24/93 CALENDAR                   
  03/23/93       916    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  TAYLOR, DUNCAN,                   
  03/23/93       916    (S)   KERTTULA, LITTLE, ZHAROFF                        
  03/24/93       929    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSSSB
  03/24/93       929    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1                        
                              UNAN CONSENT                                     
  03/24/93       930    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN                        
  03/24/93       930    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                   
  03/24/93       930    (S)   (S) ADOPTED FIN  LETTER OF                       
  03/24/93       933    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  LINCOLN                           
  03/24/93       931    (S)   PASSED Y20 N- CSSSSB 71(FIN) AM                  
  03/24/93       934    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/26/93       775    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/26/93       775    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                     
  04/07/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/12/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  BILL:  HB  85                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM                                
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  TITLE: "An Act relating to the public school foundation                      
  program; and providing for an effective date."                               
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/22/93       138    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/22/93       138    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                     
  01/22/93       138    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE  (DOE)  1/22/93                     
  01/22/93       138    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/18/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/18/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/23/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/23/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/22/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/25/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/25/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/01/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/01/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/05/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/06/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/06/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/12/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 93-62, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m., noted                  
  members present and announced the calendar.  He brought                      
  SB 71 to the table.                                                          
  SB 71:  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM                                    
  REP. TOOHEY asked if there were a committee substitute (CS)                  
  version of the bill, but then withdrew her question.                         
  Number 047                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY asked which fiscal note the committee would use                  
  in considering the bill.  She noted that various fiscal                      
  notes listed had put the cost of the bill at no money, at                    
  $40,000 and at $100,000.                                                     
  Number 054                                                                   
  OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, testified in Juneau on SB 71,                 
  saying his department supported the April 6, 1993, fiscal                    
  note and pointed out that the state Senate had passed the                    
  bill with a zero fiscal note.  He said his division believed                 
  it needed money for the patient care information system,                     
  "which was changed from a shall to a may."  He said the                      
  division would like money to pay the estimated cost for                      
  certification teams to visit Alaska hospitals to verify                      
  their qualifications as trauma centers.                                      
  (Rep. Vezey arrived at approximately 3:11 p.m.)                              
  CHAIR BUNDE said there had been talk of removing the $40,000                 
  from the grants line in the fiscal note and moving it to the                 
  general fund line.                                                           
  MR. JOHNSON said Ms. Kreitzer had made that suggestion.                      
  Number 081                                                                   
  PRIME SPONSOR OF SB 71, said Sen. Leman had recommended the                  
  change in funding in order to pay for the emergency room                     
  nurses who did the abstracting for the patient information                   
  system.  She also recommended adding $100,000 in the grants                  
  line.  She said that the sponsor would feel comfortable with                 
  amending the fiscal note in the House Finance Committee.                     
  Number 099                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS MOVED that CSSSSB 71 as amended be passed from                 
  committee with the HESS fiscal note.                                         
  REP. KOTT OBJECTED and asked for an at-ease at 3:15 p.m.                     
  CHAIR BUNDE called an at-ease and returned the meeting to                    
  order two minutes later.                                                     
  Number 110                                                                   
  REP. KOTT distributed copies of a proposed amendment, which                  
  would have the effect of ensuring that the Alaska Council on                 
  Emergency Medical Services would have three consumer                         
  members, and that no more than one member would come from                    
  the same one of the four federal judicial districts, to                      
  ensure geographical distribution.                                            
  REP. VEZEY pointed out that the judicial districts were                      
  archaic political boundaries and asked why the state would                   
  want to perpetuate the use of such obsolete and arbitrary                    
  REP. KOTT said he was offering the amendment on behalf of                    
  the sponsor, and invited the sponsor's representative to                     
  address the question.                                                        
  MS. KREITZER said use of the judicial districts was a simple                 
  way to ensure representation from different areas of the                     
  state to address concerns by regional EMS offices that the                   
  council might over-represent Anchorage and under-represent                   
  Bush areas.                                                                  
  Number 159                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY pointed out that the Second Judicial District                     
  included 12,000 people in Nome and Kotzebue, and asked why                   
  that district should be guaranteed a seat on a board                         
  representing half a million people.  He said he did not like                 
  to perpetuate the use of obsolete political boundaries in                    
  state law, and said there were other ways to ensure                          
  geographical diversity.                                                      
  MS. KREITZER said the amendment resulted from requests from                  
  EMT organizations and regional Native corporations.  She                     
  said Sen. Leman was responding to constituent concerns, and                  
  she believed the amendment would ensure effective                            
  representation from across the sate.                                         
  MR. JOHNSON said he believed the judicial districts were                     
  used because similar language was in an emergency medical                    
  services law passed in 1977, and that the continued use of                   
  those boundaries reflected constituent concerns.                             
  REP. OLBERG said that regional representation was                            
  appropriate in many instances.                                               
  Number 196                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said the issue was not regional representation,                  
  but how such regions would be defined.                                       
  REP. TOOHEY noted the requirements for the board's makeup;                   
  including two physicians with emergency room experience; one                 
  registered nurse; three members active in pre-emergency                      
  hospital emergency care, at least one of whom lived off the                  
  land or marine highway; one emergency medical service                        
  administrator; and one Native health care facility                           
  administrator.  She said the makeup of the board already                     
  included sufficient opportunity for representation from non-                 
  urban areas.                                                                 
  Number 216                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY noted that the existing statute once called for                   
  four of the board's members to each come from separate                       
  judicial districts, but that provision had been deleted.  He                 
  repeated his opposition to using judicial districts for                      
  purposes of ensuring broad geographical distribution of                      
  council membership.                                                          
  REP. TOOHEY noted that the bill, starting at page 5, line                    
  29, required the governor to consider geographical                           
  distribution in making appointments to the council.                          
  Number 235                                                                   
  MS. KREITZER repeated that regional EMS corporations still                   
  feared that a governor might not appoint members                             
  representing rural interests.  She said broad representation                 
  had been important from the start.                                           
  REP. VEZEY suggested looking at maps of the judicial                         
  MS. KREITZER said that the wording of the amendment allowed                  
  lots of leeway for many services within those districts to                   
  have members on the board.  She repeated that she believed                   
  judicial districts were a suitable way to accomplish the                     
  Number 265                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG noted that it was possible to interpret the bill                 
  such that the governor could appoint all members of the                      
  board from one area if he so desired, and that the amendment                 
  would prevent that from happening.                                           
  CHAIR BUNDE suggested an amendment to include three consumer                 
  members to the board, one each from an area not connected by                 
  land or marine highway, an area not connected by land                        
  highway, and an area not connected by marine highway.                        
  However, he did not formally make such a motion and                          
  abandoned the attempt.                                                       
  REP. NICHOLIA voiced support for Rep. Olberg's comments.                     
  She said there were Alaska Native hospitals in Anchorage and                 
  Fairbanks, and the Bush areas needed ensured representation.                 
  She voiced support for the amendment.                                        
  CHAIR BUNDE repeated that the issue was not regional                         
  representation, but how such regions would be defined.                       
  REP. VEZEY repeated his opposition to the amendment.                         
  CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on the amendment.                    
  Those voting yes were:  Reps. G. Davis, Kott, Olberg, B.                     
  Davis, Nicholia, Toohey.  Those voting no were:  Reps.                       
  Vezey, Bunde.  The motion PASSED 6-2.  He announced that the                 
  committee was now considering the bill as amended.                           
  REP. TOOHEY asked whether, if CSSB 71 were passed, it would                  
  pass with a zero fiscal note.                                                
  Number 328                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE answered that that would be up to the committee.                 
  REP. TOOHEY MOVED passage of the bill with a zero fiscal                     
  REP. B. DAVIS said there was already a motion on the floor.                  
  Number 328                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said the motion on the floor included "a fiscal                  
  note with numbers on it," and that if Rep. Toohey wanted to                  
  pass the bill with a zero fiscal note, it would be necessary                 
  to vote down the current motion and then propose a different                 
  Number 330                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS asked the routing of the bill.                                 
  CHAIR BUNDE answered that once the bill left the HESS                        
  Committee it would move to the House Finance Committee.                      
  REP. G. DAVIS said, concerning the issue of fiscal notes for                 
  the bill, that the Finance Committee would protect the                       
  state's financial interest when the bill went to that                        
  CHAIR BUNDE noted that the motion on the floor was to pass                   
  the bill with a fiscal note from the Department of Health                    
  and Social Services indicating a cost of $99,200 for FY94.                   
  He called for a roll call vote on the motion.  Those voting                  
  yes were:  Reps.  Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, Kott,                      
  Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia.  Those voting no:  None.  The                    
  motion PASSED 8-0.  Chair Bunde noted that the bill passed                   
  to the House Finance committee along with a letter of intent                 
  from the Senate.  He then brought HB 85 to the table.                        
  HB 85:  PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM                                     
  CHAIR BUNDE noted that the meeting was being teleconferenced                 
  to Anchorage, Kenai/Soldotna, Valdez, Barrow, Seward and                     
  Funter Bay.                                                                  
  Number 340                                                                   
  CORRESPONDENCE STUDY), testified via teleconference from                     
  Funter Bay in favor of HB 85, and its provisions for funding                 
  for CCS.  She noted that half of CCS students were secondary                 
  students, but were counted only as elementary students, and                  
  said the state must provide such students the best possible                  
  educational opportunities.                                                   
  Number 404                                                                   
  DISTRICT, testified via teleconference from in support of                    
  HB 85.  He said he was speaking for himself, but said he                     
  knew that the school board supported the bill.  He said that                 
  five of the district's 35 sites were off the road system,                    
  and two could at times only be reached on foot.  He pointed                  
  out that the district did not have the large economies of                    
  scale as larger districts did.  He said that the district                    
  faced financial hardships because it was at its budget cap                   
  and needed relief.  He said the district was interested in                   
  getting the Area Cost Differential (ACD) formula changed, as                 
  rural schools cost more to operate.  He urged support of                     
  HB 85 as an issue of fairness.                                               
  Number 430                                                                   
  DEBRA SHUEY, PARENT OF A CHILD IN THE CCS PROGRAM, testified                 
  via teleconference from Kenai in support of HB 85.  She said                 
  she lives in a remote location on the Kenai Peninsula and                    
  her son has been receiving an excellent education through                    
  his four years in the CCS program.  She spoke in favor of                    
  extra funding for secondary students.                                        
  Number 452                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY said her son attended CCS schools from eighth to                 
  twelfth grade.  She asked what was the difference between                    
  elementary and secondary schooling in CCS.                                   
  MS. SHUEY said she believed it cost more to teach secondary                  
  REP. TOOHEY said she did not know why it costs more.                         
  Number 462                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said CCS secondary schooling cost more than                       
  elementary schooling because it required more courses and                    
  electives.  He said the foundation funding formula equalled                  
  13 secondary students per incremental unit, while the                        
  elementary school formula required 17 students.                              
  REP. TOOHEY asked why the request for more money for                         
  secondary CCS students was only coming now.                                  
  Number 471                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said funding through the foundation formula has                   
  always been higher for secondary schooling than for                          
  elementary schooling.  He said CCS has been funded only at                   
  the elementary level since 1988.  He said there was a                        
  significant change in 1988, when the educational unit value                  
  rose from $42,184 to $60,000, and other changes were made in                 
  state educational funding.                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that, historically, students attended CCS                   
  schooling through their elementary years, then went away to                  
  cities with high schools when they attained secondary school                 
  Number 488                                                                   
  testified via teleconference from Valdez on HB 85.  He                       
  referred to Section 1, paragraph 8, of the bill concerning                   
  the ASPI.                                                                    
  CHAIR BUNDE noted that the provisions for the ASPI did not                   
  change in the CS version of HB 85.                                           
  MR. ROGERS stated that development of the ASPI began a year                  
  ago.  He said most Alaska school districts would support the                 
  ASPI as it existed in draft form, but the validation process                 
  had resulted in changes which had not been approved by the                   
  original ASPI committee.  The first change concerned the                     
  grouping of school districts.  He said he had received data                  
  showing that the grouping was based on the 1988 McDowell                     
  study, but he said that it was actually based on non-                        
  personnel costs, which represented about 15 percent of                       
  budget for most school districts.  He said personnel costs                   
  were already figured into the ASPI.  He said in some cases                   
  the group average completely negated the effect of earlier                   
  data.  The second change was the sparsity factor, which he                   
  said added a multiplier for multi-site districts of from two                 
  percent to 20 percent.  He said it recreated the problems of                 
  single-site school districts.                                                
  Number 530                                                                   
  NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, testified via                           
  teleconference from Barrow on HB 85.  He said he wanted to                   
  see the changes made in the ASPI be returned to the ASPI                     
  committee for consideration and concurrence.                                 
  MR. GUILEY responded to Chair Bunde's invitation to answer                   
  questions raised by the two previous testifiers.  He said                    
  the commissioner of the DOE had met with superintendents who                 
  were in Juneau the previous week, and he said he wanted the                  
  original committee to look at the final ASPI calculations,                   
  at the grouping, at the sparsity factor, and at averaging of                 
  the groups in an attempt to reach consensus and to determine                 
  a final ASPI index.  He said groupings, according to the                     
  most recent version of the ASPI, were based on the 1988                      
  McDowell study update, which led to some slight                              
  modifications to the groups.  He said the rationale for                      
  averaging within the groups was to overcome the different                    
  levels of negotiated contracts and smooth out the labor cost                 
  differences within a certain geographical area.                              
  Number 551                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG asked what had prompted the DOE to make the                      
  change in the ASPI in a preliminary draft when there had                     
  already been a draft version.                                                
  MR. GUILEY answered that the department had found that the                   
  committee had reached certain conclusions early in its work                  
  and was unwilling to endorse any further changes in the                      
  index until it could see how such changes would affect the                   
  final results of the index calculations on their local                       
  districts.  The DOE therefore had to produce some figure                     
  showing the financial effect of the ASPI, he said, which                     
  resulted in the draft index.  The ASPI committee would not                   
  endorse specific groupings of districts, he said.  The DOE                   
  did, however, use some recommendations on grouping offered                   
  by an educational consultant working with the department on                  
  the committee to calculate the initial draft ASPI.  The DOE                  
  then had a draft ASPI which could be used for comparison                     
  with the Area Cost Differential.  The preliminary draft ASPI                 
  was the most recent calculation of the index, based upon                     
  specific grouping, which had not yet been endorsed by the                    
  ASPI committee, he said.                                                     
  Number 572                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG asked if the ASPI committee had yet had the                      
  chance to discuss the preliminary draft ASPI.                                
  MR. GUILEY said the committee last met in November, 1992,                    
  and had not had the chance to discuss the preliminary draft                  
  TAPE 93-62, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  GIFTED ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference from                        
  Anchorage in opposition to CSHB 85.  He expressed                            
  disappointment that funds for TAG were cut and that the only                 
  change from the original bill was that the cuts were phased                  
  in over three years instead of being made immediately.  He                   
  said the mandate for TAG was cut immediately by cutting the                  
  program free from special education.  He said the bill                       
  removed from school districts the incentive to use money                     
  aimed at TAG for that purpose.  He said the funding cap was                  
  unfair and appropriate, as some school districts might have                  
  more than 4.5 percent TAG students, and he suggested instead                 
  that the DOE should develop standard criteria to prevent                     
  abuses of the TAG designation.  He questioned the reason for                 
  a change in the weighting formula and said the department's                  
  proposed 0.012 weighting formula, combined with the 4.5                      
  percent cap, would result in less funds for school districts                 
  with more than 2.16 percent TAG students, and more funds for                 
  those with higher percentages.  He recommended a weighting                   
  factor of 0.025.                                                             
  Number 061                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE invited Rep. B. Davis to question or comment on                  
  the points Mr. Wetherell raised.                                             
  REP. B. DAVIS responded,  "I have no question of him.  I'd                   
  like for administration to speak to the questions that was                   
  asked.  It was my understanding that I was not taking it out                 
  of the special-ed line.  I'm looking at Section 12 now.  It                  
  did say that it would repeal it.  And, if that's what that                   
  does, I would be willing to change that, but I'd like to                     
  hear Mr. Guiley speak to that first."                                        
  Number 070                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said repealing Section 12 did not change the fact                 
  that gifted children would still be identified as                            
  exceptional children within the state definition of                          
  exceptional children.  He said that the bill would merely                    
  separate TAG children from special-ed children in                            
  development of educational units.  He said Individual                        
  Education Plans (IEP)s would still be required for gifted                    
  children, but plans of service would not.  According to Mr.                  
  Guiley the state board was trying to reduce the                              
  administrative burden of TAG programs so as to allow more                    
  money to be spent on educational of the program, not on the                  
  administrative costs.  He said most TAG programs were over-                  
  funded under the existing formula and most school districts                  
  spent less than two-thirds of their TAG funds on TAG                         
  programs.  The State Board of Education believed that                        
  reducing the weighting factor would reduce the over-funding                  
  and was not aimed at eliminating TAG programs state-wide, he                 
  MR. GUILEY said that the rationale for establishing the 4.5                  
  percent cap was that, in the last 12 years, no more than 4.3                 
  percent of the state student population had ever been                        
  identified as gifted and talented.  He said the board felt                   
  the cap was adequate and in line with the national average.                  
  He also pointed out that 38 other states did not fund TAG                    
  educational programs under special education and that Alaska                 
  would simply be following the lead of most other states by                   
  funding TAG students as a separate component within the                      
  revenue generation structure instead of classifying them as                  
  special-ed students.                                                         
  Number 109                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY asked whether the TAG program would be able to                   
  provide funding in a case in which more than 4.5 percent of                  
  a school district was truly qualified as TAG students.                       
  MR. GUILEY said there were no current limits on the number                   
  of students that could be identified as TAG.  While the                      
  identified TAG population ranged from none to 18 percent at                  
  various school districts, the state population in whole had                  
  not exceeded 4.3 percent, while the national norm was from                   
  4.5 percent to 5 percent, he said.  Mr. Guiley stated, "The                  
  money would flow based upon the specific formula of 4.5                      
  percent of the K-12 population regardless of how many                        
  students were in fact identified and served.  There is no                    
  categorical spending requirements in our formula, in our                     
  current statute, or proposed in any of the amendments to the                 
  statute that would require categorical spending of dollars,                  
  simply categorical revenue generation."                                      
  Number 130                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS asked whether the cap would prevent a school                   
  district with 12 students from receiving any TAG funding,                    
  and asked how funding would be calculated for such a                         
  district under the formula.                                                  
  MR. GUILEY answered that the formula calls for each district                 
  to receive TAG funding based upon the assumption that 4.5                    
  percent of all students in the district were TAG.  TAG                       
  funding would become another type of instructional unit,                     
  modified by the ASPI, or weighted by the ACD to generate                     
  total revenue available to the district, multiplied by the                   
  $61,000 for the instructional unit.                                          
  Number 148                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS asked how much money a 12-student district                     
  with two TAG students would get under both the current                       
  formula and the proposed new plan.  He said it appeared to                   
  him that the new formula would bring a drastic reduction.                    
  MR. GUILEY answered that the plan reduced TAG funding to $7                  
  million from $11 million, but it was not intended to be a                    
  drastic reduction.  He said the vocational educational                       
  program would at the same time receive a $4 million                          
  increase.  He repeated that the board's intent was to make                   
  as much money as possible available to school districts with                 
  the fewest strings attached.  He said the money could be                     
  used with a maximum of local discretion to meet the                          
  performance standards under development by the State Board                   
  of Education.                                                                
  Number 166                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS asked a clarifying question whether the bill                   
  strengthened voc-ed at the expense of TAG programs, funding                  
  MR. GUILEY said the two bills, taken together, had a zero                    
  fiscal note.                                                                 
  Number 172                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY said that if it cost more to train a TAG child,                  
  then the TAG child would not be trained properly if the                      
  district ran short on money.                                                 
  MR. GUILEY answered that under the current foundation                        
  formula program, TAG students were counted twice, both as                    
  normal students and as TAG students.  The intent of                          
  secondary categories was to provide supplementary funding                    
  for extra educational costs, he said.  He stated voc-ed                      
  students get $240 extra each, while TAG students get an                      
  extra $1,525 each.  The state board decided TAG was                          
  overfunded and voc-ed was underfunded, based on analysis of                  
  local district expenditures and on testimony of how TAG                      
  funds were used in local districts, he said.  He said the                    
  adjustment in funding was based on that belief.                              
  Number 196                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Wetherell if he had any indication                     
  that his gifted children would not be educated as gifted                     
  MR. WETHERELL said his four-year-old daughter was a high                     
  achiever, but the only extra schooling available to her as a                 
  TAG student in the Mat-Su School District was three hours of                 
  TAG instruction a week.  He said that three hours of extra                   
  instruction a week was not adequate.  He said the Mat-Su                     
  borough school districts spent all the TAG funding it                        
  received and allocated an equal amount from assembly funds                   
  as well, but still did not have enough for an adequate                       
  program, he said.                                                            
  AT THE ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT (ASD), testified via                        
  teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 85.  She                   
  said she was disappointed that the bill eliminated TAG                       
  students from the definition of exceptional children and                     
  thus removed it from the state mandate for funding of                        
  special education programs.  She said repeal of AS 1430.315                  
  eliminated the need for school districts to have plans of                    
  service, which she said eliminated the need to identify TAG                  
  students.  She stated that 3.7 percent of the Anchorage                      
  student population was identified as TAG.  She expressed                     
  concern that there would be no requirement that such                         
  students be served as TAG.  She said she and her program                     
  viewed the bill as an attempt to eliminate TAG educational                   
  services from the state.  She said establishing a separate                   
  mandate for TAG would eliminate the administrative burden of                 
  including TAG students in special education and would still                  
  guarantee funding for the programs.  She said she understood                 
  that the DOE was uncomfortable that each school district had                 
  its own means to identify and serve TAG students, but the                    
  answer was not to eliminate the program altogether.  She                     
  said teachers were not taught how to deal with TAG students,                 
  and for the last five years hundreds of teachers have been                   
  happy to take her distance courses on how to deal with TAG                   
  students and they were excited to learn about such students.                 
  MS. TALBOTT commented, "... (unintelligible) ... educators                   
  aware of the needs of these students.  We are fighting the                   
  Department of Education to serve them.  We will all lose in                  
  the long run when these students shut down in class, as they                 
  do, and drop out of high school, as they do." She said TAG                   
  children are 10 percent of drop-outs, as were many of the                    
  nation's brightest criminals.  She said that gifted people                   
  make up 13 percent of prison populations, represent a high                   
  suicide risk, and need attention from the educational                        
  Number 255                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS said that she was growing more confused as                     
  testimony proceeded.  Before introducing the CS, she said,                   
  she asked officials at the Anchorage School District their                   
  feelings on the bill.  She said she wanted to see the TAG                    
  program remain as it was, though she did not think she had                   
  the votes on the HESS Committee to accomplish that aim.  She                 
  said that she then tried to develop a next-best response.                    
  She referred to a letter from the ASD saying that the CS                     
  version would be acceptable to the district.  She wondered                   
  why Ms. Talbott said she opposed the CS.                                     
  CHAIR BUNDE interrupted to note that Ms. Talbott was not                     
  necessarily representing the official position of the                        
  Anchorage School District on the bill.                                       
  Number 271                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS said she assumed that the head of the TAG                      
  program at the ASD was representing the district's position.                 
  She said ASD was not at the 4.5 percent cap and therefore                    
  would receive even more money under the bill.  She said some                 
  school districts receiving TAG funding for up to 16 percent                  
  of their populations would see their funding capped at the                   
  4.5 percent level under the CS.  She said she thought, based                 
  on the recommendation of DOE, that the CS version of the                     
  bill she had requested from bill drafters would still leave                  
  the TAG program under the exceptional guidelines for special                 
  education.  She said that if that were not the case, then                    
  she did not support the CS.  She said, however, that she                     
  believed that the repeal on page 6 dealt with funding                        
  sources and not the inclusion of TAG in special-ed.  She                     
  asked Mr. Guiley if that was correct.                                        
  MR. GUILEY answered that she was correct.                                    
  REP. B. DAVIS asked if that meant that school districts                      
  would not have to use money they received for TAG programs                   
  for that purpose.                                                            
  MR. GUILEY said that was correct, just as it was true under                  
  the current standard.  He said the CS contained no changes                   
  from current law in how school districts must use their TAG                  
  REP. B. DAVIS asked a clarifying question, whether school                    
  districts had to spend TAG funds on TAG program.                             
  MR. GUILEY answered no, they did not.                                        
  Number 292                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS said she did not understand the concern of                     
  those testifying against the bill.  She said she was willing                 
  to delete from the bill the element to which those                           
  testifying had objected, but she wanted someone to explain                   
  what it was that those testifying did not like about the                     
  bill, other than the 4.5 percent cap.                                        
  CHAIR BUNDE invited an official from the ASD to address her                  
  Number 303                                                                   
  DISTRICT, testified via teleconference from Anchorage on                     
  HB 85.  He said Mr. Guiley was correct.  He said the ASD was                 
  concerned that there was no mandate for TAG funding and it                   
  might be hard to see to it that money would be directed to                   
  that aim.  He said he could imagine a school board meeting                   
  at which parents of voc-ed and TAG students tussled over                     
  limited funding, and in which the parents of voc-ed students                 
  would point out that the foundation formula specifically                     
  identified money for voc-ed programs.  He said that the                      
  state was undergoing a philosophical change in how it                        
  allocated educational resources, away from TAG education and                 
  toward voc-ed.  He apologized for the confusing signals from                 
  the ASD.  He said the district saw the change as a                           
  philosophical shift.  He said that he had spoken with the                    
  district's chief financial officer, lobbyist and TAG program                 
  people and said that they supported having the TAG weighting                 
  factor remain unchanged and leaving TAG students included in                 
  the definition of exceptional children.                                      
  Number 335                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said it was obvious that the committee was not                   
  going to come to any consensus on HB 85 that day or possibly                 
  even in the session.  He said he expected it would be                        
  necessary to place the bill in the committee's "to be                        
  addressed file."  He invited testimony to continue.                          
  Number 341                                                                   
  LINDA OKLAND, A PARENT OF A GIFTED CHILD, testified via                      
  teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 85.  She                   
  said she felt strongly that TAG should be maintained in                      
  special-ed and not have its funding cut.  She said people                    
  think TAG is extra instruction for elite children already                    
  doing well in school, but it is actually a necessary program                 
  of instruction for students with handicaps to effective                      
  learning.  She said denying special treatment for TAG                        
  students was as unfair as denying it for dyslexic,                           
  hyperactive or physically handicapped students.                              
  MAUREEN KNIGHT, A PARENT OF GIFTED CHILDREN, testified via                   
  teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 85.  She                   
  said her oldest daughter had been gifted "ever since she was                 
  in utero," and that her youngest daughter had attention                      
  deficit disorder and dyslexia.  She said the two have                        
  succeeded under the special education program.  She said her                 
  gifted daughter would become bored and fall behind if not in                 
  TAG programs, and if the programs were cut, she would put                    
  her daughter in a special school.  She said she did not                      
  believe those in Juneau knew how important it was for                        
  special students to grow to their potential through special-                 
  ed programs.                                                                 
  Number 402                                                                   
  MR. WIGET continued his testimony, pledging to work with the                 
  committee for fair funding for TAG programs.  He apologized                  
  to Rep. B. Davis for confusion from the ASD.  He said a                      
  priority of the Anchorage School Board that year was to                      
  rewrite the foundation formula program to be fairer to the                   
  district, and said the draft ASPI was a good start.  He said                 
  the ASD supported the ASPI with the school grouping                          
  provisions as a more fair plan than the ASPI without the                     
  grouping.  With 38 percent of Alaska children, he said, the                  
  district received 3.27 percent of state education funds, or                  
  30.6 percent under the grouped ASPI.  Mr. Wiget remarked,                    
  "No, Mr. Chairman, or committee members or Department of                     
  Education, we do not expect 38 percent of the funding.  But                  
  we do expect ... equity."  He said the department opposed                    
  changes to TAG education, wanted TAG to remain under the                     
  definition of exceptional children, and wanted weighting                     
  factors for TAG programs to remain unchanged.                                
  Number 437                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said the committee supported equity, too, as                     
  well as getting more money into classrooms.  He asked if the                 
  problem of identifying and funding TAG students might be                     
  more effectively addressed by a separate bill mandating                      
  funding for TAG separately from special-ed.                                  
  MR. WIGET answered yes.                                                      
  CHAIR BUNDE said he hoped that those in the ASD that might                   
  support that separation realized that they would have to                     
  lobby for funding for the separate mandate for TAG.                          
  Number 451                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS said she wanted to make sure to clarify a few                  
  points about the CS version of HB 85.  She said that while                   
  DOE and Legal Services had assured her that her CS would not                 
  pull TAG out from under the special-ed program, everyone who                 
  had testified said that it would.  She said she wanted the                   
  record to show that TAG had not been removed from the                        
  special-ed provisions and that the only change in the CS had                 
  to do with the funding source, which could be easily                         
  changed.  She insisted that TAG would remain in special-ed                   
  and had never been removed from the CS.  She said the first                  
  CS left it exactly as it was, and the second CS phased it in                 
  because she did not think she had the votes to leave it the                  
  way it was.  She said the original bill would remove TAG                     
  from the special-ed line, and the CS would retain TAG in                     
  Number 463                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that this was his understanding of the                      
  amendment's intent as well.                                                  
  Number 466                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said Rep. B. Davis was absolutely correct.  He                    
  then pointed out Section 6, line 19, of the bill, dealing                    
  with exceptional children to show how TAG children were                      
  included in the definition of exceptional children and                       
  therefore eligible for special-education programs.  He said                  
  Section 7 just added a new type of instructional unit to the                 
  revenue generation formula, but did not remove TAG children                  
  from the definition of exceptional children in Alaska.  He                   
  said each TAG student would have to have an IEP in place and                 
  there were no changes in the requirements in special                         
  education.  He said the board felt that eliminating the plan                 
  of service might reduce the program's administrative burden.                 
  He stated Section 12 simply repeals the plan of service                      
  requirement, because nothing was done with them anyway.                      
  Number 488                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS said that she believed ASD would gain money,                   
  not lose money, under the CS version.  She said it was not                   
  fair to say that the committee was pitting special-ed                        
  against TAG, and she said that voc-ed has not been given its                 
  fair share of money.  She said allocation of money for                       
  programs would be a local issue to be decided at the local                   
  school board level.  She added that even the first version                   
  of HB 85 would have given the ASD an additional $360,000,                    
  and that with the new adjustments the district would get an                  
  additional $5 million.  She said for the record that there                   
  had never been any intent to take money away from any                        
  district.  She said that, while she wished there could be                    
  enough funding for all areas she wanted, the changes made in                 
  the bill had been made for the best.  She said the bill                      
  takes care of the single-site school district issues, clears                 
  up the legitimacy of some funding sources, and in general                    
  takes care of a lot of problems.  She also pointed out that                  
  while much attention had been paid to the issue of TAG                       
  students, HB 85 contained many more provisions that were                     
  good for the state's educational system.  She said it would                  
  be easy to pass an amendment to the 4.5 percent cap, if the                  
  committee so desired.                                                        
  Number 515                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that he agreed that whatever level TAG                      
  funding was set at, it was still up to local school                          
  districts to decide how to allocate that funding.                            
  REP. G. DAVIS asked which version of the bill the committee                  
  was considering.                                                             
  Number 523                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said the committee was addressing the CS                         
  version, which had been adopted as the committee's working                   
  Number 532                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to encourage the committee to                 
  consider the cost of HB 85.  He noted that it would add $15                  
  million to the education budget, and it was a major                          
  consideration for the committee as to whether it wanted to                   
  endorse such a plan.  He said that while the bill would                      
  address the single-site issue, single-site school districts                  
  was only a $1 million issue.                                                 
  TAPE 93-63, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY commented that it was clear that students did not                 
  fit any one mold.  He also commented that there was a need                   
  for further evaluation of the bill.  He said there were many                 
  interesting comparisons of the ACD and ASPI and such                         
  comparisons might show that the differences were related to                  
  the relative efficiency of individual school districts.  He                  
  was concerned that the ASPI seemed to codify inefficiency,                   
  and that there might be a need for an index placing funding                  
  levels somewhere between those set by the ASPI and ACD.                      
  Number 040                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG said that the Alaska 2000 proposal had                           
  originally carried the assumption of an associated income                    
  tax.  He asked if there was still an income tax associated                   
  with the Alaska 2000 project as an income source.                            
  REP. TOOHEY said she believed it was a school tax.                           
  Number 056                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG asked why it took a fiscal note simply to clean                  
  up school funding.  He said a fiscal note was necessary only                 
  if there were a reallocation of money.                                       
  CHAIR BUNDE observed that the bill seemed to increase                        
  education funding by $15 million, over and above the nearly                  
  $800 million already invested.                                               
  Number 066                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS said the committee was making a mistake to                     
  look only at the fiscal note of HB 85.  She said the bill                    
  would save the state money, despite the fiscal note.  She                    
  said increasing the instructional unit would cost much more                  
  than the $15 million in HB 85.  She said the bill was                        
  reallocating the state's educational funding more                            
  appropriately.  She said some school districts gained and                    
  some lost, but the process was aimed at instituting a more                   
  equitable funding system.  She said the bill was a start                     
  toward resolving educational funding policies.                               
  CHAIR BUNDE said he was not recommending that the bill not                   
  be considered simply because it carried a $15 million fiscal                 
  note.  He said he was making the point that the committee                    
  was not discussing philosophy, but the expenditure of actual                 
  Number 114                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS said he agreed with Rep. B. Davis in part.  He                 
  said it had become apparent over time and through study that                 
  the ACD contained elements of inequality.  More study had                    
  resulted in a new formula, the ASPI, he said.  He predicted                  
  that in a few years similar reworking would have to be done                  
  on the ASPI, and that no funding system could be set in                      
  stone and disregard changes.  He said HB 85 had many good                    
  elements, even with the $15 million price tag.  He mentioned                 
  school districts like the Kenai Peninsula district, which                    
  were at a funding cap and needed relief.  He said much good                  
  work had gone into the bill, and the work would need to be                   
  reviewed again.  He said he wanted the Finance Committee to                  
  get the bill and work on it.                                                 
  CHAIR BUNDE said he wanted to point out that those on the                    
  ASPI committee had not yet seen the final numbers and they                   
  probably would appreciate the chance to do so.                               
  Number 165                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS stated, "I think I understood what your                        
  question was, and I think there's a way we could get                         
  around... I do believe that probably the committee that                      
  looked at this needs to have some time to look at it.  And                   
  if we could pass the bill on and remove the statute part of                  
  it, and let them work on the regulation part is that, if you                 
  can, to get the other input that they need.  And when it's                   
  all finalized we could come back and put it in statute.                      
  That might be one way of getting around that.  I don't ...                   
  I'd like to hear you speak to this, Mr. Guiley, if you think                 
  that would be workable."                                                     
  Number 174                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said that HB 85 gave the DOE the ability to                       
  establish the ASPI through regulation.  If the HESS                          
  Committee were to pass out the bill, the DOE could begin to                  
  establish the index through regulations, he said.  He said                   
  the next step would be to forward the regulations to the                     
  ASPI committee and have them meet to review the regulations                  
  in writing, and that it would be easy to call a meeting at                   
  short order to do so.                                                        
  CHAIR BUNDE asked how long it would take to convene a                        
  meeting of the ASPI committee.                                               
  Number 191                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY answered that the committee could meet within                     
  days or in weeks, as the HESS Committee desired.                             
  CHAIR BUNDE asked if the HESS Committee could bring HB 85                    
  back to the table by Friday (four days later) with response                  
  from the ASPI committee.  He said he was seeking a ballpark                  
  MR. GUILEY noted that there were 20 members of the ASPI                      
  committee, most of them school district officials, plus some                 
  private auditors and education businessmen.  He said he                      
  could call a meeting in a week and get partial attendance,                   
  though some of the vacant slots might be filled by stand-                    
  Number 201                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY objected to the provisions of the bill allowing                   
  DOE to write regulations for the ASPI.  He said he had been                  
  waiting six weeks to get a copy of the ASPI, and he still                    
  considered the index to be in draft form only.  He said he                   
  wanted to wait until the index was in a final form, and to                   
  perform some work on it and possibly propose an alternative.                 
  CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to hear the ASPI committee's                  
  reaction to the draft index.  He noted that the session was                  
  running out of time.  He asked the pleasure of the                           
  committee.  He asked Rep. Vezey whether his concerns about                   
  the bill could be satisfied in the first session of the                      
  REP. VEZEY said he believed HB 85 needed a substantial                       
  amount of work, and that the committee was still waiting for                 
  the DOE to finish its work on the bill.                                      
  Number 224                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG said that he was not sure he and Rep. Vezey                      
  would agree on what needed to be repaired, but that some                     
  fixing was necessary, especially as the bill called for one                  
  school district's funding to rise by 21 percent and                          
  another's funding to drop by 18 percent.  He also said that                  
  his fiscal note showed a $12 million cost, and asked why the                 
  change required any expenditure requiring a fiscal note.  If                 
  the bill was a means of eliminating single-site school                       
  districts, he said, that would be another question, but some                 
  of those answers were not available.                                         
  CHAIR BUNDE said he wanted to poll the committee members for                 
  their views on the bill in light of the amount of time left                  
  to consider it.                                                              
  Number 244                                                                   
  REP. KOTT said the committee was up against a time crunch                    
  and he would like the ASPI committee to study the index.  He                 
  said he would like to see the final numbers from the ASPI                    
  index in a week or 10 days to see which districts gained or                  
  REP. G. DAVIS said he also would like to see the final                       
  numbers from the ASPI index.                                                 
  REP. TOOHEY said she agreed with Rep. G. Davis and Rep. B.                   
  Number 258                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG said he had earlier asked for a breakdown by                     
  district of the dollar impact of HB 85, and still wanted to                  
  see such a breakdown.  He said he was not convinced the                      
  educational funding system was broken, but, if the ASPI was                  
  to be the vehicle of repair, it still needed some work.                      
  REP. B. DAVIS said she did not mind waiting on the numbers                   
  for the ASPI, but noted that the committee might profitably                  
  work on many other elements of the bill which the committee                  
  had not yet addressed and which could be easily addressed.                   
  She said she would like the committee to do more work on                     
  HB 85 while waiting for the final ASPI numbers.                              
  CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would continue to work on the                 
  REP. NICHOLIA said that she agreed with Rep. B. Davis'                       
  comments on the need to address elements of the bill other                   
  than the ASPI.  She suggested the possible need to form a                    
  (sub)committee to work on HB 85.                                             
  CHAIR BUNDE asked a committee aide about the committee's                     
  schedule for the following week.                                             
  LYNNE SMITH, COMMITTEE AIDE, said the committee's schedule                   
  was wide open next week, although the Speaker of the House                   
  had called for all committee business to be completed by                     
  April 20.                                                                    
  CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Guiley when it would be possible to                    
  hear back from the ASPI committee.                                           
  Number 291                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said he could try to arrange a teleconferenced                    
  committee meeting to save time and could report back to the                  
  committee whenever the chair so desired.                                     
  Number 294                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said he would therefore schedule HB 85 to come                   
  before the HESS Committee on Tuesday, April 20, 1993.                        
  Noting the concerns and suggestions of committee members                     
  regarding other elements of the bill, he encouraged them to                  
  be ready to make some progress on those areas as well.                       
  REP. TOOHEY asked if the committee could possibly schedule                   
  the bill before April 20, as there was little other pending                  
  committee business.                                                          
  (Rep. Nicholia departed at 4:49 p.m.)                                        
  CHAIR BUNDE said that was so, but it might be best to do all                 
  of its work on one day.                                                      
  REP. TOOHEY said it might be good to go through the bill                     
  line-by-line and have answers to some questions by the                       
  Tuesday meeting.                                                             
  CHAIR BUNDE announced that the chair of the meeting would                    
  work out those problems.  He ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:50                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects