Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1995 02:08 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
March 21, 1995
2:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 65: "An Act establishing a loan guarantee and interest rate
subsidy program for assistive technology."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 216: "An Act establishing the Alaska education technology
program; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 257: "An Act relating to student loan programs, interstate
compacts for postsecondary education, and fees for
review of postsecondary education institutions; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
DANIELLA LOPER, Administrative Assistant
Representative Porter's Office
Room 118, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4930
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 65.
EARL CLARK, Staff member
Southeast Alaska Independent Living (SAIL)
9163 Parkwood
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-9665
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 65.
STAN RIDGEWAY, Director
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Department of Education
801 W. 10th
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6932
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 65.
JOE SHEARHORN, Officer, Northrim Bank;
Chair, Alaska Banker's Association
3111 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 562-0062
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 65.
JANIE LEASKE, Vice-president, Community Development;
Director, Community Reinvestment Act
National Bank of Alaska
Northern Lights Boulevard & C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 267-5700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 65.
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
Representative Pete Kott's Office
Room 432, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 216.
VICKIE KELLY, Representative
Craig Schools
P.O. Box 800
Craig, AK 99921
Telephone: (907) 826-3274
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
CHICK BECKLEY, Director of Technology
Aleutians East Borough School District
P.O. Box 429
Sand Point, AK 99661-0429
Telephone: (907) 383-5222
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
TESS LANUM, Vice-President
North Star Parent-Teacher Association (PTA)
P.O. Box 3165
Kenai, AK 99611
Telephone: (907) 776-5575
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
SKIP VIA, Teacher and Technology Specialist
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
P.O. Box 25128
Ester, AK 99725
Telephone: (907) 479-4934
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
SUE HULL, Representative
Alaska PTA
1630 Washington Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-5729
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 216.
CAROL MEARES, Legislative Chair
Fairbanks District Council PTA
P.O. Box 9
Fairbanks, AK 99725
Telephone: (907) 479-3247
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
LARRY WIGET, Director of Government Relations
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
Anchorage, AK 99510
Telephone: (907) 262-2255
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
KAREN JORDAN, Technology Coordinator
Juneau School District;
Representative, Alaska Society for Technology Education
11575 Mendenhall Loop Road
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-1803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
KATHI GILLESPIE, Representative
Anchorage School Board
2741 Seafarer Loop
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-5335
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
DR. JOE McCORMICK, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, AK 99801-7109
Telephone: (907) 465-6740
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 257.
GILLIAN HAYES, Executive Assistant to Dr. McCormick
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, AK 99801-7109
Telephone: (907) 465-6740
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 257.
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 257.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER, Davies, Brice, Brown, Mackie,
B.Davis, Finkelstein, Kubina, Kott, Elton, Foster, Ivan, Robinson,
Nicholia
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 37 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 37 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 38 (H) L&C, HES, FIN
01/26/95 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BRICE,BROWN,MACKIE
01/26/95 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS,FINKELSTEIN
01/26/95 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
01/27/95 162 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT, ELTON
01/30/95 180 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER, IVAN
02/06/95 256 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON
02/10/95 321 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NICHOLIA
02/22/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/95 464 (H) L&C RPT 4DP
02/23/95 465 (H) DP: KOTT,ROKEBERG,SANDERS,MASEK
02/23/95 465 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
03/09/95 690 (H) SPONSOR: PORTER
03/09/95 690 (H) FIRST COSPONSOR: DAVIES
03/21/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 216
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Brown
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 530 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/21/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 257
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS/LOANS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/95 742 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 742 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/21/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-24, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 2:08
p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Davis and Rokeberg. A quorum was present to conduct
business. The day's calendar was read. Representative Brice
joined the meeting at 2:09 p.m.
HHES - 03/21/95
HB 65 - ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEES
Number 050
DANIELLA LOPER, Administrative Assistant for bill sponsor
Representative Brian Porter, presented the sponsor statement on his
behalf. She said HB 65 is a bill that will help people with
disabilities. It refers to people with disabilities, not people
who are on Medicaid or Medicare, and not very wealthy people with
disabilities. Of those, it affects those who want to work.
Therefore, the bill will affect about 60 percent of the people with
disabilities in this state. Those are people who need assistive
technology in order to work.
MS. LOPER explained the program creates a tie between the banks and
people with disabilities. A communication is established whereby
a person with a disability can go to the bank and apply for a loan.
This person is usually in the middle-class socioeconomic range,
although they may not necessarily have enough money to guarantee
the loan. Therefore, the person would go to the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and explain they are applying for
a loan for, for example, a lift that can be attached to a car.
MS. LOPER continued that the person with a disability will explain
to the DVR that they can pay off the loan, but they need a
guarantee. The DVR would, therefore, guarantee 90 percent of the
loan.
Number 210
MS. LOPER said a study was conducted in 1993 and the default rate
was found to be 5.2 percent on this type of loan. That is about
the best rate possible. The banking association also is
complimented by this bill because banks have to meet the provisions
of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Banks must reinvest into
the community. Each bank is rated on that.
MS. LOPER said therefore, HB 65 helps the banks and people with
disabilities who want to work. She had various people waiting to
testify on the attributes of this bill.
Number 319
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Loper wanted HESS Committee members to
entertain the amendments to the bill so there would be a complete
working document. He numbered the amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE moved amendment number one.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
MS. LOPER explained that amendment one contains the wording for the
descriptive term used for people with disabilities. "Handicapped
people" and "handicapped individuals" are terms that are outdated
and offensive. The term that is used today and is supported by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is "a person with a
disability." It is important that the word "person" is used before
the word "disability."
MS. LOPER said the amendment has changed the verbiage in the bill
to reflect those terms.
Number 412
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if she was saying that on page 1,
line 13, after the word "enabling," on line 14, item (1), the words
"handicapped individual" will be replaced with "a person with a
disability."
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG inquired about page 2, line 30. He
said the word "handicapped" is used to describe a disability.
MS. LOPER said the reason is because by statute, that must be done
in order to comply with the statute. An entire chapter would have
to be changed in the statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if a particular title or chapter in
the Alaska State Statutes was being referred to.
MS. LOPER said a particular title was not being referred to, but
there are other words and sections in the statute books that use
the word "handicapped." Therefore, in order to reflect the change
in this particular bill, a definition had to be given.
Number 490
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed surprise that the word
"handicapped" even exists in the body of statutes at this late
date.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said perhaps political correctness is late coming to
Alaska.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said there is a wording problem. On page 1, line
14, the amendment deletes what has just been added. She said that
on line 14, the words "handicapped individual" are being replaced
with "a person with a disability...to obtain or maintain
employment."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the sentence on line 13 will continue to read,
"best suited for a person with a disability to (1) a person with a
disability to obtain or maintain employment."
Number 567
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if that was a redundancy that was
necessary in statute.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said perhaps it would be changed in the
regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the words are being stated in Section
(b), but then to go under subsection (1), it sounds redundant.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said "appropriate assistive technology that is best
suited for (1) a person with a disability." Co-Chair Bunde read
the whole section: "(b) Subject to (c) and (d) of this section,
the agency may use money in the fund established under this section
to guarantee 90 percent of the principal amount of a loan or to
subsidize the interest rate of a loan guaranteed by the agency for
appropriate assistive technology that is best suited for..." Co-
Chair Bunde now added "a person with a disability."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said while it sounds redundant, if the whole section
is read, it is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said it still sounds redundant when one
continues to read.
Number 664
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the term of art in the disabled
community is a "disabled person." However, in this bill the term
"person with a disability" is used. He asked if the bill was
attempting to form a word of art for statutory language.
MS. LOPER said the term of art, and even the term used through the
ADA is "a person with a disability."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said "disabled person" is proper
terminology.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there is a semantic problem. "Disabled person"
has connotations that "person with a disability" does not have.
The person has a disability, as opposed to the entire person being
described as "disabled." It is putting a very fine point on the
term.
Number 720
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is familiar with dealing with these
issues as the former chairman of the ADA Commission in Anchorage
for three years. There is no stigma in being a disabled person.
There is about a "handicapped person," and that is the issue here.
He was simply wondering if there was a reason for all this, because
he can see that the language changes would be more economic if they
were done differently. However, he would not belabor the point.
MS. LOPER said in the committee packet, there is a letter from the
Disability Law Center of Alaska. Both this letter and the director
of the DVR said the term "disabled person" was never to be used
again. The desired term is "person with a disability."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee felt the amendment as
proposed was redundant.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the committee was comfortable with the
amendment, and expressed the desire to move on.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE removed his objection to the movement of amendment
one. It was therefore passed.
Number 813
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved amendment two, and Co-Chair Bunde
objected for discussion purposes.
MS. LOPER said she was reviewing the legislation and found a
loophole on page 2, line 6. This is the part of the bill regarding
who is able to receive the loan. Page 2, line 5, says, "the loan
is made to a person with a disability or a member of the person's
family." Ms. Loper felt that may be a loophole. Therefore, she
worked with Legislative Legal to close that loophole to make sure
that if a child needs a parent to drive them somewhere and
assistive technology is needed, the parent can receive the loan.
MS. LOPER said the amendment inserts, "to obtain assistive
technology for the handicapped or disabled person within the
limitations of (b) of this section." She was wary of the bill
saying that a member of the person's family could receive a loan.
She feared it would be a 16-year-old boy getting loans for a new
car instead of for his grandmother's assistive technology.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the word "handicapped" is used in the section
just discussed.
MS. LOPER said that will be changed to reflect the passage of
amendment one.
Number 914
CO-CHAIR BUNDE removed his objection, and amendment two passed.
Before the HESS Committee was a Committee Substitute (CS) for HB
65.
EARL CLARK, Staff member, Southeast Alaska Independent Living
(SAIL), and former client of Vocational Rehabilitation, spoke in
support of HB 65 for very personal reasons. After Mr. Clark left
the university, he thought it would be relatively easy for him to
get a job. He found out the real world is more cruel than the
university. He found it was very difficult to get a position, and
he felt it was because of his disability.
MR. CLARK said after three years he went to the DVR. He was
assessed and it was determined that a piece of assistive technology
and training in that technology would be very helpful. This
technology was a computer and it was determined that he needed
skills in this area. The DVR bought Mr. Clark a computer, he was
trained in the use of that computer, and he was subsequently
successful in obtaining a job.
MR. CLARK thought his experience in using assistive technology
through the DVR probably changed his life. Assistive technology
was there for him when he really needed help. It has been very
valuable for him.
Number 1060
MR. CLARK thinks HB 65 is a bill that is concerned with loans. It
is not a handout. It is for people who can work and perhaps need
assistive technology to work--to get a job or to continue working.
This bill will be very helpful to people who are disabled. He
asked that the committee pass the bill.
MR. CLARK added he is familiar with semantics and the nature of
language due to his previous position. There is a disabled person,
meaning the total person, and a person with a disability. One
could have a disability that is a very small part of the person.
However, a disabled person implies that the total person is
disabled.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said a disabled car and a car with a disability are
two different things.
Number 1154
STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director, Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation, said the assistive technology loan program would be
funded strictly by federal funds. No state general funds would be
used to capitalize the loan fund. There are roughly 4,000
individuals with disabilities in the state who could benefit from
these types of loans. Fifty-eight percent of people who are
employed who need technology cannot get it because they need a loan
to get technology.
MR. RIDGEWAY said of these people, many people who are experiencing
new disabilities are pretty much tapped out. If they go to a bank
to apply for a loan, they are usually turned down. Therefore, in
cooperation with the banking institutions, this legislation would
allow banks to loan money to people who would otherwise qualify
except for the fact that they have no money.
MR. RIDGEWAY said the interest rate could be bought down, or the
loan can be guaranteed up to 90 percent. The funding would come
over the next three or four years at $100,000 per year through the
federal technology grant program.
Number 1226
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted there is a $5,000 cap on the loan. She asked
who is going to approve the loans.
MR. RIDGEWAY said he envisions the program working in the following
way. A person would go to bank. This would usually be a person
who is working with an independent living center or another state
agency. If there were no other way for a person to get assistive
technology through another source, then he or she would apply for
a loan. The person would then be directed to any financial
institution. They would go through the loan process and apply for
a loan. If the bank would approve the loan, it would then contact
the DVR office. The office would keep a running total of the
amount and the guarantee.
MR. RIDGEWAY said the loan would then be applied to the guarantee,
and the bank could make the loan. If there were a circumstance
where the loan could not quite be paid back because of the interest
rate, the office could then do an interest buy-down.
Number 1286
JOE SHEARHORN, representative, Alaska Banker's Association (ABA),
testified via teleconference that the ABA would be in favor of this
legislation because it would help banks make loans to people who
need this type of lending facility. The ABA does feel the 90
percent guarantee would be important in this case.
MR. SHEARHORN added that the ABA is available to help draft
regulation for the implementation of this legislation if necessary.
The ABA and representative banks have a lot of experience working
with similar loan guarantee programs such as the Small Business
Administration Loan Guarantee Program, which is a very active
program in Alaska. Any extent the regulations for this legislation
could be patterned after this type of loan guarantee program would
be helpful in that the system for the Small Business Administration
Loan Guarantee program is already in place and working.
Number 1359
JANIE LEASKE, Vice-president of Community Development and Community
Reinvestment Act Officer, National Bank of Alaska, testified via
teleconference on behalf of the Executive Vice President of the
National Bank of Alaska. She provided some of the background
information on the CRA. This is federal legislation passed in the
late 1970s that encourages financial institutions to meet the
credit needs of their communities with special emphasis on low and
moderate income individuals in communities.
MS. LEASKE said this federal legislation pertains to banks but not
credit unions. On behalf of the National Bank of Alaska, Ms.
Leaske voiced support of HB 65. It is her understanding that
similar programs have already been implemented in 42 other states.
In a brief review of the materials provided by the DVR and the
Department of Education (DOE), a 1991 study estimated that there
were about 20,000 persons with disabilities in Alaska.
MS. LEASKE continued that of this number, as Mr. Ridgeway
previously discussed, about 3,500 would meet the loan criteria in
Anchorage and Southeast Alaska. An additional 800 reside in rural
communities.
Number 1435
MS. LEASKE said lending representatives from her bank have reviewed
the draft legislation summary and the material provided by the DVR
and DOE, and feel that the legislation fills an unmet need. She
volunteered her organization's assistance to HESS Committee members
for the passage and successful implementation of this program. Her
bank has a network of 51 branches serving 28 communities, and it
has an existing system to assist in public funding and programs in
the rural areas of the state which are often more difficult to
reach.
MS. LEASKE offered her assistance to HESS Committee members in
reaching other financial institutions as well. In the Anchorage
area, the National Bank of Alaska has established an informal CRA
officers group composed of representatives of the six local banks.
These are Bank of America, First Interstate, First National, Key
Bank, Northrim and National Bank of Alaska. Several of those banks
have branches across the state, and Ms. Leaske would be happy to
coordinate a meeting to help draft regulations once the legislation
is enacted.
Number 1484
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would pass her offer to volunteer on to Mr.
Ridgeway, who may be intimately involved in the drafting of
regulations to this effect.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said he was approached by a person with
a disability this summer. She was concerned about insurance to
make repairs on a wheelchair. Representative Davis said apparently
there is not much of a problem obtaining insurance for this type of
equipment. He asked if there were any protections available to
persons with disabilities from people peddling poor assistive
technology.
MR. RIDGEWAY said he is not aware of any such protections.
However, there are a series of independent living centers
throughout the state, and there is a lot of assistance for people
with disabilities to insure they are receiving quality equipment.
If the persons with disabilities are aware that programs are in
place to help them, some of those problems may be alleviated.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he wanted to bring that up in case it was
a problem. From the research he has done, however, it does not
seem to be a large problem. He thought if it was a problem,
perhaps it was something that should be addressed.
Number 1587
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said there was a "lemon law" for liability for
assistive technology. She thinks there is some kind of list of the
better equipment. If someone has a defective piece of equipment,
they can get their money back.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assumed that one of the goals for the centers for
independent living is to help people buy appropriate assistance.
He closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved CSHB 65 with individual recommendations
and accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections, and the
bill was passed from the HESS Committee to the next committee of
referral.
HHES - 03/21/95
HB 216 - ESTABLISHING ALASKA EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Number 1645
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this is the first time this bill is being
heard, therefore it is not the intent of the chair to move the bill
today. Testimony will be taken.
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant for Representative Pete Kott,
provided the sponsor statement on the representative's behalf. HB
216 establishes the Alaska Education Technology Program in the
state of Alaska. This is not a new concept to the state
legislature. In previous years there have been similar pieces of
legislation introduced for this purpose. The major difference
between this bill and previous legislation to that effect is that
this bill seeks to eliminate most of the bureaucracy that was
present and required through the review and qualifying process used
in previous bills dealing with this topic.
MR. MOURANT said education technology is very important to the
students and the general public in Alaska. Every day in the
Capitol Building and every day in the lives of the legislators they
experience such technology. Mr. Mourant is certain that many
members of the HESS Committee have Personal Computers (PCs) at
home. They may spend time on the various computer networks that
are available worldwide, and on the Internet as well. These
systems can be used to share information and retrieve valuable
knowledge.
Number 1746
MR. MOURANT continued that HB 216 establishes the criteria for the
education technology fund, and then, in Section 2, requires that
performance of programs granted money under this program are part
of the annual report card on education in the state of Alaska.
MR. MOURANT said Section 3 defines the legislation and lays out the
process, the criteria and the information that must be contained in
the grant application package that is submitted to the DOE. This
is a matching grant program. Besides public schools in Alaska,
public libraries are also eligible for grants under this program.
Number 1783
MR. MOURANT said the program will be funded through the earnings of
an education technology fund. Representative Kott plans on
introducing an appropriation for the bill to create an education
technology fund. The earnings of that fund will be available as
grant money on an ongoing basis. It will be an ongoing source of
funding for schools and for public libraries to use in their
pursuit of higher technology.
MR. MOURANT has contacted the Department of Revenue (DOR), Treasury
Division. This division manages the investment for such a fund.
Based on the information from the Chief Investment Officer, it is
reasonable to project that if the principal of the fund is $10
million, the anticipated earnings based on projections for the next
five years would range between $750,000 and $900,000 per fiscal
year for a $10 million endowment.
Number 1843
MR. MOURANT said a fiscal note from the DOR was included in the
bill packet. That is for $16,500 to manage the fund. That is the
standard small fund management fee that the Treasury Division
receives to manage a small fund that is part of the general fund in
an investment portfolio. Also in the packet is a zero fiscal note
from the Department of Administration which will be affected only
because of access through various networks through their system.
MR. MOURANT continued that there are two fiscal notes from the DOE
in the bill packet. The first note is from Education Program
Support, Basis Education and Instructional Improvement Unit to fund
a position to review the grant applications received from around
the state and to make certain all the elements of the grant
application are present. HB 216 does spell out what the grant
application must consist of. DOE will make sure all the required
elements are present.
MR. MOURANT said a fiscal note is also included from State Library
Operations. It rightly anticipates that public libraries around
the state will see an opportunity to upgrade their services to the
general public through this program. Mr. Mourant has spoken
several times with the DOE and his office will continue to work
with the DOE on the fiscal notes and the role of the department.
Number 1910
MR. MOURANT said Representative Kott, after looking at the fiscal
note from State Library Operations, thought it made an excellent
grant application for the program once it is adopted because it
will serve a very useful and important role in the process.
MR. MOURANT wanted to show HESS Committee members a document which
indicated the matching fund requirements for communities. These
are based on full-value average daily membership (ADM)-type
calculations. In that regard, Anchorage and Juneau would be in a
30 percent match scenario.
Number 1940
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there would be any entities that would have
zero matching funds.
MR. MOURANT said no. He said although the rates may vary, he
calculated that Galena, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake and Nenana will all
be at 5 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said she supports this program, but
she is a little skeptical because currently on the books is a
Children's Trust Fund that is nothing without anything in the
trust. She asked if another appropriation bill was going to be
introduced that would request $10 million for the Education
Technology Program.
MR. MOURANT said that HB 216 is not an appropriations bill. There
will be an appropriation introduced that is either a stand-alone
bill or it will be introduced through another mechanism available
for appropriation. Mr. Mourant said Representative Kott has not
finalized his decision on the size of the appropriation. It will
be as large as $20 million, but all calculations have been based on
a $10 million figure.
Number 2002
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON also asked how this will work for the
department if the appropriation does not get through to put money
into the endowment fund. If this bill was to pass, would the DOE
get the money to set up a program that will not happen?
MR. MOURANT answered that if the appropriations bill did not
happen, he would see no reason for the department to conduct an
unfunded program. He thought the legislature, as they deal with
appropriations bills, would not fund the fiscal notes if they did
not fund the fund. That would eliminate the problem for the
department.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HESS Committee members would study HB 216 until
it sees the appropriation bill to have a better idea of the
results. The HESS Committee would like to make sure it is not
simply doing a paperwork exercise.
Number 2042
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reiterated that she thinks this is a
wonderful program, and she would love to see it set up. She would
also love to see the Children's Trust Fund funded. However, when
the legislature is seeking to cut education to the level it is, and
the Governor has requested $18 million to improve Alaska's
education system, it is difficult to support this kind of action at
this time.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE shared her concerns. He said he would love to be
able to fund an education trust, period.
Number 2070
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said on page 5, concerning the ADM,
participating share, there is a big gap between the 30 percent and
the 5 percent. Representative Rokeberg asked if that was
intentionally done in order to assist bush areas.
MR. MOURANT said that is not the concept in mind. Actually, little
consideration was given to altering the percentage allocations
based on ADMs that were in previous legislation. If the committee
in its wisdom chose to change those percentage allocations, Mr.
Mourant suspects the bill's sponsor would have no objections.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that those provisions be studied
before the bill is returned before the committee. It seems like a
large gap.
Number 2110
VICKIE KELLY, Representative, Craig Schools, testified via
teleconference that the parents and community in Craig have made a
strong commitment to providing technology for Craig's children.
Over the past five years, the school board has supported the
addition of technology in the educational program at Craig schools.
The role of technology in the lives of Alaska's children is an
essential part of their development to be contributing members of
society, both now and even more so in the future.
MS. KELLY said all children from preschool through college are
using technology to assist in their educational endeavors.
Technology is playing a very vital role in providing educational
opportunities in rural Alaska that would not otherwise be
available. Through technology such as video conferencing and on-
line communication the people of Craig are able to provide a link
for their students to communicate and experience some of the
diversity not only of Alaska but with the rest of the world.
MS. KELLY continued that these are experiences and knowledge that
are vital to the success of Alaska's children. She strongly
supports HB 216 regarding technology and education in Alaska
schools and urged the committee's support as well.
Number 2159
CHICK BECKLEY, Director of Technology, Aleutians East Borough
School District, testified via teleconference from Cold Bay. He
supported HB 216. To him, this bill is more than just an
educational issue. He sees the bill as something that benefits all
Alaskan communities because the infrastructure that is developed
through these tools will benefit every community. Most schools are
used as community centers, and the schools are a logical focus for
technology development. Therefore, when this sort of technological
effort is coordinated, the entire state benefits, not just the
educational community.
MR. BECKLEY continued by saying that as early as 1981, technology
was an entity in education. Alaska led the nation in the
implementation of educational technology. Alaska seems to have
dropped that ball in the last few years as the state has taken its
eye off the vision. In this current atmosphere where it seems
fashionable to see government as the enemy of the public, Mr.
Beckley suggested there are projects and visions that cannot move
forward without the support of government. This is one of those
initiatives and efforts.
Number 2227
MR. BECKLEY added the superintendent of Fairbanks North Star
Borough has noted how different Alaska has been since the building
of the Alaska Highway in 1942. This ended the isolation
experienced by many rural areas and Alaska in general. Mr. Beckley
suggested that the same challenge is being faced today in the realm
of technology. Many states around the country are taking state
initiatives to build these infrastructures.
MR. BECKLEY said Alaska also needs to lead in this regard.
Individual districts or regional efforts, while well-meaning and
well-directed, oftentimes send conflicting messages to
telecommunications providers. Efforts are duplicated, and
resources are not as effectively used as they would be if efforts
were coordinated in a bill of this sort.
MR. BECKLEY said today, Alaska faces heavy challenges. Mr. Beckley
welcomes looking toward the legislature and the Governor of Alaska
and responding favorably to them. Mr. Beckley thanked HESS
Committee members for the opportunity to speak.
TAPE 95-24, SIDE B
Number 024
TESS LANUM, Vice-President, North Star PTA, testified via
teleconference that she is a parent concerned with the quality of
education for children in Alaska. She voiced support for HB 216.
The benefits of an educational technology program in Alaska would
be tremendous. She has seen evidence of the benefits that
technology can bring in her school at North Star.
MS. LANUM said North Star is part of the reduced site class grant
which has been received, and it has enabled her school to implement
its own technology plan. The school has integrated technology as
a learning tool, and she has already seen a significant impact on
student learning. Ms. Lanum also extended an invitation to the
committee to visit her school and see first-hand the benefits of
technology in the classroom.
Number 123
SKIP VIA, Teacher and Technology Specialist, Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District, testified via teleconference. He thanked
Representatives Kott and Brown for sponsoring this much needed
legislation. He said the need for this bill has been very
eloquently outlined in the findings and purpose of the bill. He
asked HESS Committee members to pay attention to that section of
the bill.
MR. VIA thought the ability to access information resources on
worldwide networks is one of the most powerful delineators between
the "haves" and the "have-nots" in the information society. This
bill speaks well for the need to develop equity in schools and to
bring all schools up to a standard that will allow children and
teachers to understand and utilize technology effectively as a part
of everything in the learning process.
Number 193
MR. VIA concluded by hoping HESS Committee members will consider at
some point how this bill is to be funded. It sounds to Mr. Via
like it is going to be funded through an endowment, and the
endowment's earnings will be used to fund the program. Mr. Via
suggested that a different premise be considered as a mechanism in
which an amount is put in every year for five years. He suggested
$10 million a year for five years be given to establish a fund that
would pay directly to school districts to implement the programs
that are outlined in this bill.
MR. VIA fully supports this legislation and the principle behind
it.
Number 272
SUE HULL, representative of the Alaska PTA, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks that technology has been one of the
top five priorities of her district for at least three years.
Parents across the state are concerned about technology.
Conversations that have taken place at conventions or conferences
have indicated this.
MS. HULL continued that from a parent's perspective, technology has
become, in many ways, the new inequality in schools. There are
schools in which students have access to the kind of training that
will open doors for them in the future. Children in schools where
that opportunity is not available actually may have the hardware
and equipment, but do not have the access to the kind of training
for teachers that would enable them to take advantage of it.
MS. HULL said the Alaska PTA is very interested in proposals such
as HB 216.
Number 325
MS. HULL wanted to make two points. This is a crucial investment
for the future. She reiterated previous testimony and said
technology is the way to level the playing field geographically for
Alaska and will enable Alaska to participate in the future.
Technology is very important for students to prepare for the
future.
MS. HULL'S son is in the seventh grade. As they were waiting to
testify, she and her son talked about the difference between
students who come from schools where there is a technology program
that enables students to get proficient in the skills for using the
Internet, for example; and her son who came from a different school
where computers were available but teachers are not trained well
enough to use them. Now that her son is in the middle school, it
may be awhile before he gets access to that kind of training.
MS. HULL said that kind of training is not really available at her
son's middle school and high school. This is a problem, and she
discussed the need for some kind of summer camp or something. Even
that is still only a program that would be available for a small
portion of the population.
Number 413
MS. HULL'S second point was that this inequality is something the
state cannot turn its back on. Great care must be taken to
administer the funds for this program. She cannot tell from
reading the bill exactly who would be making the decisions to
determine which grants will be funded. She cannot tell whether the
department will make the decisions or the legislature.
MS. HULL thought it is important to look at those determinations
and to be sure decisions are removed to the greatest degree
possible from political considerations. She also suggested
prioritizing grants so they will be given to those most needy.
MS. HULL said this sends a clear message that this is something
that is important to Alaska in terms of preparing students to face
the future.
Number 470
CAROL MEARES, Legislative Chair, Fairbanks District Council PTA,
said Alaska is in need of a comprehensive technology bill that will
enhance technology training statewide and provide the equipment
necessary to get the job done. The state needs to look at four
areas of support in order for technology education to be successful
in Alaska resulting in business employment opportunities.
MS. MEARES said first, a statewide network infrastructure must be
developed. Computers are no longer just for word processing and
spreadsheets. They must be hooked up to other computers for two-
way communication and information exchange. Second, adequate
equipment in schools must be provided to connect to this
infrastructure so Alaskan children can keep up with the ever-
changing world.
MS. MEARES said there are some very exciting exchanges going on in
some of the Fairbanks Elementary Schools between students and other
networks worldwide. Expanding opportunities need to be available
to students statewide. Ms. Meares would like to see the
distribution of funds stay out of the legislative arena, like has
been said previously, and placed under the authority of the DOE.
Ms. Meares does not think money should be appropriated the way it
is done with the education capital projects where projects are
funded according to names on a list.
MS. MEARES said instead, the opportunity for grants must be made
available for more schools. Some sort of grant program would
distribute the money more equitably.
Number 556
MS. MEARES spoke on her third point. She felt adequate staff
training was needed for the technology education program. This is
crucial to the success of this program. A school could have all
the computers it could ever want, but if teachers do not know how
to use the computers, they will not use them and neither will the
students. Staff training will ensure that the equipment does not
sit in the corner.
MS. MEARES continued with her fourth point. She said significant
resources are needed to make all these plans happen. She suggested
a considerable sum of money be allocated over the next five years.
She asked HESS Committee members to consider that the goal is to
provide equal access statewide.
MS. MEARES said Alaska has a unique opportunity. Considering the
possibilities, technology hooked into a statewide network
infrastructure could provide endless business and employment
opportunities for the rural and urban populations. No longer will
a person need to live close to a business to be employed by that
business. Instead, there is a potential for a new Alaskan cottage
industry.
Number 600
MS. MEARES said the state needs to provide adequate computer access
to students of all ages. Her experience has been that children
have had excellent opportunities for technology education at the
elementary level, but it diminishes at the secondary level. This
is partially due to the lack of adequate equipment, and partially
due to the inadequate equipment of the staff to the program mainly
due to lack of training.
MS. MEARES said she is not a "tekkie," (technological whiz)
herself, but she can see the writing on the wall. To compete in
the advancing world, children must be computer literate. The
comprehensive technology education bill will help Alaska achieve
this goal of computer literacy for all Alaskan students.
Number 640
LARRY WIGET, Director of Government Relations, Anchorage School
District, testified via teleconference that he is also the former
supervisor of Instructional Technology. When he first came to the
district, he was responsible for the Library Media program. The
Anchorage School District (ASD) does support the establishment of
the Alaska Education Technology program and urges the passage of HB
216.
MR. WIGET said increased awareness by teachers, students and
parents is creating a demand and a need in schools for access and
training in the use of educational technology. Furthermore,
students are growing up in an information age that is rapidly
becoming the communications age. The Global Information Highway
and the skills to communicate over it, as well as access to the
rich store of information on it must be available to Alaskan
students. This is being done in other states, but unfortunately,
it is not being seen as necessary in such a vastly diverse and
rural area such as Alaska.
Number 708
MR. WIGET said the technology available to students in the ASD and
probably other districts around the state as well is inadequate and
outdated. The majority of ASD students are not being trained and
do not have access to technology they will encounter when they
enter the work force or higher education.
MR. WIGET said the district budget cannot provide adequate funds to
meet existing or future district instructional technology needs or
eliminate the present inequity among schools in providing access to
technology, information resources and communication. In fact, the
entire district level instructional technology budget for the ASD's
47,609 students is only $13,000 next year.
MR. WIGET said instructional technology is a priority of the
district. The ASD had a technology committee which was in the
process of developing a comprehensive district-wide technology
plan. However, given the costs of technology and the constraints
of the budget, the ASD, as well as other districts and libraries
around the state, are unable to fund instructional technology.
Number 760
MR. WIGET continued that proposed legislation will establish a
technology endowment fund. It will not meet all technology needs,
but it will raise the foundation for future monies to be set aside
for technology needs statewide. It recognizes the importance of
technology to the future of Alaska. It also recognizes the need
for planning, and the need for local commitment to technology by
requiring a matching grant. It is a starting point in meeting the
instructional and communication technology needs for all Alaskans.
He urged HESS Committee members to pass HB 216.
Number 796
KAREN JORDAN, Technology Coordinator, Juneau School District, said
she was representing the Alaska Society for Technology Education.
This is a 500-plus member organization throughout the state
consisting of educators, many of whom have testified today. These
people are interested in seeing that Alaska is not left behind as
technology is implemented across the country and throughout the
world.
MS. JORDAN said she is not going to reiterate why technology is
important for children. Much testimony has already been given on
that topic. It is important, and the state must figure out a way
to implement it.
MS. JORDAN had a few points she wanted to make. But first,
however, she wanted to provide HESS Committee members with some
background. The Juneau School District (JSD), a year and a half
ago, did pass a bond initiative of almost $2 million to fund
technology in Juneau's schools. This provided a system, it
provided equity, and compatibility. In the past, in the 1980s, one
computer could be bought at a time with "hot dog sales" or some
other type of fund raiser. This computer was then put into a
classroom and it was a wonderful addition.
Number 875
MS. JORDAN said now, computers are used to connect to an
infrastructure, and to connect to a network system where people can
communicate and compete worldwide. This is where community members
can have access to this type of technology. Things are on a much
larger scale. There is definitely a need for a coordinated effort
throughout the state.
MS. JORDAN said people do not like bureaucracy, but they do like
coordination. In this particular effort, it is important that
there is some type of coordination. This bill does address all of
those considerations. It addresses the need for the DOE to set up
grants and collect them and make sure everything is in place. The
fiscal notes probably support some coordinated technical oversight.
The bill does support some training efforts.
Number 900
MS. JORDAN said the issue of equity is an important one. In
Juneau, there is complete access to the internet throughout all
schools. The JSD has purchased computer networks and has installed
them. All the library systems have been automated, and computers
and software is in the schools.
MS. JORDAN said schools in Anchorage have not passed the bond
initiative, and their schools reflect that. Many rural districts
do not have that funding avenue. This is something as a state
that we have to figure out how to do statewide. The North Slope
Borough is the other district that has a district-wide network.
Sixty-three percent of their budget is funded by the borough. They
are exempt from the local cap laws. They too have received local
funding, but again, other districts do not have access to that kind
of money.
Number 949
MS. JORDAN said there are many other efforts HESS Committee members
have probably already heard about with the state government and
health care and libraries. There are many avenues for creating a
statewide information network. What is going to happen is that the
schools will end up being islands. Connections will come right up
to the door but there will be nothing in the school to connect to.
The statewide telecommunications network will be created for all
these other entities, but students will not have access to that.
MS. JORDAN said coordination is necessary for a smart investment.
If money is going to be placed into this program, it does make
sense to have a statewide, consolidated, coordinated effort to
cover it. This is an economic issue, and it is a community-
building issue.
MS. JORDAN realized that HESS Committee members were reticent to
pass a bill that currently does not have any money in it. However,
she would rather see the bill pass without an appropriation than
nothing.
Number 1011
MS. JORDAN explained there are other federal funds the state could
get to put into the program in the future. There are also matching
grants coming from the Department of Commerce and other areas such
as private donations. There are lots of efforts nationwide that
are focused on getting technology into the hands of kids in the
communities. A fund and a mechanism needs to be set up for
implementing the program.
MS. JORDAN encouraged HESS Committee members to pass the bill to
the next committee of referral to begin the process. The bill has
a long road through committees, and in that process the bill can be
modified.
Number 1045
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY informed Ms. Jordan that she just spent the morning
in Senate Finance, and they will not accept a bill that does not
have a fiscal note.
Number 1062
KATHI GILLESPIE, representing the Anchorage School Board, testified
via teleconference. She said parents have been the funding
mechanism for technology for the last years; most likely, they have
been the most reliable source of funding for technology. The PTA
has been largely responsible for putting computers in the schools.
For a few years, money could be allotted from the operating budget
of the ASD, and the PTA could also put some money into that budget.
This was on a competitive grant basis.
MS. GILLESPIE said therefore, some schools got some "seed money" to
start their programs. However, by and large the computers that are
in the schools are due to the parents raising the funds to make
technology happen. Ms. Gillespie was not saying that was
inappropriate, and she assured HESS Committee members that parents
will continue to help in such a manner.
Number 1105
MS. GILLESPIE continued by saying however, such a system is not
equitable and it is very difficult to see the disparity between
schools where parents have the capability to raise money to assist
technology education and schools where this is not done. In some
schools, many parents will not be able to raise money, and they are
not conducting fund raisers in order to get computers in their
schools.
MS. GILLESPIE reiterated Ms. Jordan's remarks by saying some
schools are, in fact, islands. The ASD has not been able to
provide that kind of equitable exchange. The district and parents
are just trying to put the basics into the schools in order for the
children to learn how to do word processing. Then there are also
schools that have absolutely nothing.
MS. GILLESPIE is concerned, as a parent from south Anchorage, about
the lack of continued technology education in the upper levels of
schooling. There are elementary parents who are very concerned
with putting computers into the schools, so there are a lot of
elementary schools which have been able to put in some computers.
That all ends in Junior and Senior High.
Number 1155
MS. GILLESPIE said it is a shame to see the progress that
elementary children have made drop by the wayside when they reach
high school because parents have mostly gone back to work and they
are not available to conduct fund raisers for technology.
MS. GILLESPIE said parents are still willing to help, and she
thinks taxpayers would be willing to put up matching money.
However, parents need a fund they can count on from the state. She
knows that money is tight, but it is not going to get any better.
MS. GILLESPIE hopes funding can simply be started, perhaps as an
endowment for technology. Then if there was a windfall, that money
could be placed into the fund. Or if people wanted to make sure
technology was in the schools and the libraries they could protect
the fund a little bit and not have to compete with other items in
the operating budget year after year.
Number 1198
MS. GILLESPIE's feeling is that technology is very important for
Alaska's children, but it is going to be a really tough sell when
comparing it to plant size or other considerations when the state
must downsize. She hopes the committee will pass this through, she
thinks it is a good idea. Speaking as a parent who sold a lot of
wrapping papers and candy bars during fund raisers, she certainly
hopes she can count on the HESS Committee members.
Number 1236
KAREN CRANE, Director of Libraries, Archives and Museums, DOE,
testified that the department and DOE Commissioner Halloway support
the intent of this bill to extend educational technology and
training for school districts and public libraries. The
commissioner is particularly supportive of the bill's recognition
of the need to initiate the local planning process and to develop
partnerships.
MS. CRANE said the DOE has some comments that is hoped will
strengthen the legislation. The bill requires a considerable
planning effort on the part of school districts and public
libraries. The grant submittal or the proposal must include a
comprehensive plan, a description of the technology to be
purchased, a proposed budget, a description of site preparation,
security, technical and maintenance support.
MS. CRANE said however, the bill does not outline how the proposals
will be evaluated and by whom. It is apparent that some education
and technical expertise will be needed to fairly review the grant
requests. The same is true of the library submissions. Some
library expertise is needed to determine which proposals offer the
best long-term investment and plan for service.
Number 1291
MS. CRANE said a similar bill introduced last session included the
appointment of an educational technology committee to review and
approve grant funding. Committee members were to have demonstrated
expertise in education, libraries, telecommunications and
technology. The DOE believes this mix of experience and expertise
is really necessary in order to make the best long-term decisions
for the state.
MS. CRANE recalled that a number of the speakers referred to a
coordinated effort. The DOE thinks a statewide coordinated effort
would be better served with a committee or at least some
designation of the department and the experience levels within the
department making these decisions. The DOE would also suggest that
the bill include a provision for pooling district or library funds
in order to make bulk purchases of technology or to provide
training.
MS. CRANE said over the long term, the DOE has the potential to
save money. Ms. Crane has some concern with the matching formula
as it is applied to libraries. The department is certainly
supportive of the matching requirement, however there is no
relationship between school district budgets and public library
budgets.
MS. CRANE said for example, under the terms of this bill, Anchorage
and Fairbanks public libraries, with budgets of $7 million and $2
million, respectively, would be required to match at 30 percent.
The Pelican Public Library, which has a total annual operating
budget of $21,000 would be required to provide a 40 percent match.
Skagway Public Library would be required to match at the 50 percent
level. For libraries, the DOE would prefer to see a different kind
of match level, preferably based on their total operating budget.
There are also a number of other ways this could be determined.
Number 1371
MS. CRANE said the bill introduced last session also included a
provision which allowed the commissioner to waive all or a portion
of the required share for an REA or a publicly funded library. The
commissioner certainly supports the matching requirement, but there
may be some instances in which the REA or library is unable to
provide the share. In such a case, some provision for a lower or
a waived match should be made.
MS. CRANE said the department certainly agrees with the need to
assist schools and libraries in providing educational technology,
and the DOE would like to work with the committee to make sure the
goals of the bill are realized.
MS. CRANE also wanted to point out that it was suggested that the
State Library's fiscal note would make a good grant application.
However, under the terms of the grant it says publicly funded
libraries which meet the terms of AS 14.56.310 for grants are
eligible under that statute. The State Library manages those
grants. The State Library would not be eligible under AS
14.56.310.
Number 1418
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a number of important points have been brought
out. One he shares is a concern for ragged textbooks and the lack
of construction paper in the classrooms. It is hard to imagine
that the state would have $10 million a year to go into a
technology fund, as important as technology is.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE was sure the sponsor of the bill would not mind him
suggesting that the bill's sponsor would be very interested in the
concerns that have been expressed as far as tweaking and
strengthening the bill. Until there is an appropriations bill and
the source of the funds is known, the bill will be held. Public
testimony was closed.
HHES - 03/21/95
HB 257 - POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS/LOANS
Number 1474
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HB 257, Postsecondary Education Programs and
Loans, is a bill needed to modify the student loan program to make
it more viable.
DR. JOE McCORMICK, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), asked HESS Committee members to
think of HB 257 in three parts. Part one contains provisions that
have been put into the bill to improve customer service. Part two
are provisions that strengthen financial stability. Part three
contains technical amendments that would improve overall program
administration.
DR. McCORMICK said improving customer service, or Section 1, raises
a long-overdue issue, which is loan limits. Since 1984, the
University of Alaska alone has raised its tuition 250 percent. The
most recent increase occurred at the last Board of Regents meeting.
The loan limits in this program have not been raised since 1981.
Section 3 protects borrowers, by requiring more rigid requirements
for schools to demonstrate sound financial capabilities before they
are allowed to participate in the Alaska Student Loan Program
(ASLP).
DR. McCORMICK said Section 4 sets the borrowing limits for students
at a dollar maximum. Currently the law provides a number of years
maximum. This penalizes part-time students. These are students
who work and go to school, and who typically would take more than
five years to get a degree. However, these people could not get
loans beyond the fifth year under the current laws. Therefore, the
ACPE would like to simply convert the maximum the state is willing
to allow a student to borrow to a dollar amount and eliminate that
problem.
Number 1568
DR. McCORMICK continued that Section 6 seeks to extend the terms of
repayment from 10 to 15 years. In Section 12, the ACPE seeks to
extend the period before a loan goes into default from 120 days to
180 days. This will allow two more months for a borrower to work
with the ACPE in trying to come up with a revised repayment
schedule. In this way, the borrower can avoid going into default,
having his or her credit ruined and all the other ramifications of
default.
DR. McCORMICK said Sections 16, 17 and 21 would allow a student to
take out a loan at the same time the family borrows on their
behalf. The brown briefing document given to HESS Committee
members contains a portfolio analysis in the back. HESS Committee
members could find a chart that reflects that about 32 percent of
the ACPE portfolio are students who go out of state for their
education.
DR. McCORMICK said many of those students go to colleges that cost
in excess of $20,000 a year in tuition. Under current Alaska law,
that student can get an Alaska student loan for $5,500. If he/she
does so, his/her parent cannot also borrow under the family
education loan program.
Number 1619
DR. McCORMICK explained that these sections would correct that.
The parent could then borrow $5,500, and the student could borrow
$5,500. In that way, at least they would be half way toward paying
the tuition of $20,000.
DR. McCORMICK reiterated the second objective of HB 257: To
increase the financial soundness of the ASLP. Section 5 eliminates
a drain on the fund from interest-free deferment period. It has
been estimated the ACPE experiences approximately $4 million in
lost revenue as a result of this. Sections 9 and 13 clarify
existing language in the statute that says the state will pay that
interest during deferment periods subject to appropriations.
Number 1649
DR. McCORMICK stated the state has never paid that subsidy, but it
has always been in the law that it has the authority to do that.
DR. McCORMICK continued by explaining Section 14 allows the ACPE to
raise the origination fee from the current 1 percent up to a 5
percent maximum. This is arranged so if the ACPE charged a 5
percent fee on a $50 million group of loans, that would generate
$2.5 million annually that the ACPE could use to offset losses due
to death, disability and default. For example, last year the ACPE
paid out over $6.8 million in forgiveness benefits.
DR. McCORMICK said Section 17 would deny loans to incarcerated
individuals because of their inability to pay. There was an
amendment in the bill packet. The Department of Corrections (DOC)
was present to testify as to a clarifying amendment. The ACPE
supports that amendment. The amendment will avoid complicating a
court case in which the DOC is currently involved.
Number 1693
DR. McCORMICK said Section 19 gives delinquent loans second
priority for wage garnishment behind child support.
DR. McCORMICK moved onto Objective Three for HB 257: Improving
overall program administration. In current law, the ACPE must send
a certified, registered letter to the borrower prior to his/her
going into default. This is an unnecessary expense. Section 8
eliminates the requirements for a registered letter. It simply
says the borrower "shall be notified by mail" prior to going into
default.
DR. McCORMICK said Section 15 reduces the residency requirement
from two to one years. The courts ruled the two-year residency
rule unconstitutional. Therefore, the ACPE was cleaning up the
language to reflect that the residency requirement is one year.
DR. McCORMICK explained that Section 20 simply brings the teacher
scholarship program in line with the ASLP in terms of all these
changes. Section 24 clarifies an issue. If, by some reason, a
student receives a loan when they are not a student, as has
happened on a rare occasion, that is an illegally obtained loan,
and the ACPE can demand payment in-full on that loan and not go
through a 10-year repayment plan.
Number 1750
DR. McCORMICK said Section 27 contains technical, cleanup language
to bring the statute in compliance with other sections of the bill.
DR. McCORMICK said HESS Committee members may have seen the article
in the previous Sunday's edition of the Juneau Empire that referred
to a Division of Legislative Audit report. Dr. McCormick wanted to
speak on that report. The report says under a given scenario, the
loan fund could lose from $40 million to $60 million by the year
2011.
DR. McCORMICK said that report, taken in its full context, simply
confirms what has been known for some time about the loan program.
It is not actuarily sound. However, legislators must be mindful of
the fact that when the loan program was originally created, it was
not created to be actuarily sound. That must be taken into
account.
Number 1783
DR. McCORMICK continued that the way the program operates today
does not cover all the costs associated with the program. There is
an in-school period in which the ACPE does not charge interest. At
the same time, interest is being paid to the bond holders. The
ACPE does not charge interest during the deferment period. This
bill asks that the ACPE be allowed to do that.
DR. McCORMICK said the ACPE absorbs all losses due to death,
default and forgiveness on the loans. There is no revenue stream
to cover that. Therefore, the ACPE by and large agrees with the
findings of the report, and with the recommendations the report
makes.
Number 1810
DR. McCORMICK asked HESS Committee members to keep something in
mind when they read about the potential for a $60 million loss in
that report. That is a loss after the state of Alaska cashes in an
equity of $200 million to $220 million. That is after all bonds
have been paid; all student loans have been retired; all losses to
the loan fund from default, death, disability and forgiveness have
been accounted for; and then lastly and most important, the state
has provided over $900 million to 184,000 Alaskans. What the state
has to show for that is a potential loss of $60 million.
DR. McCORMICK said given all that has been provided over a 30 year
period, this is a pretty good program. It is worth the attention
of the legislature. The ultimate goal of the ACPE is to ensure
that this program survives in the future and can be used by future
generations of Alaskans.
DR. McCORMICK noted that in order to do that, the ACPE is assuming
there would never be any general fund support to the ASLP.
Therefore, the ACPE must move the program toward an actuarily sound
operating basis. That is what this bill does.
Number 1870
CO-CHAIR BUNDE offered an analogy with the loan as a five gallon
bucket with a pinhole in it. It is dripping, and there is no
danger of going dry but the drip needs to be addressed.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY was very encouraged by Dr. McCormick's talk. She
agreed for the need to make the program sound. She recalled that
Dr. McCormick referred to $6.6 million in forgiveness for death or
injury. She asked if there was any way a small insurance policy
could be written on the loans. She asked if larger lending
institutions have such loan guarantees or insurance policies in the
event of death.
Number 1897
DR. McCORMICK said an insurance premium could be purchased. The
problem is that the premiums would be very high. It would not be
realistic. Dr. McCormick referred HESS Committee members to page
20 in their briefing book, regarding the student loan forgiveness
volume over time. The important thing about that chart is to look
at the year 1991. It looks like 1991 was the peak. That is when
the most is paid out. The figure is going down gradually.
DR. McCORMICK estimates that the ACPE will pay out not more than
$12 million to $16 million more in forgiveness. The audit report
stated that there are only about $150 million left that is even
eligible for forgiveness. Of that $150 million, the ACPE does not
estimate more than $12 million or $16 million will actually qualify
for forgiveness. Therefore, actuarily, the amount will continue to
decrease. Dr. McCormick cannot predict, however, when the figure
will reach zero.
Number 1953
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Dr. McCormick to describe for the
committee what happens if a loan under the forgiveness program goes
into default. He asked if that event would accelerate the loan and
do away with the forgiveness program.
DR. McCORMICK said the promissory note signed by borrowers prior to
1987 states that if the loan goes into default, the forgiveness
provision is lost. Forgiveness is for loans that are in a current
or deferred status. If the student had applied for forgiveness at
that time, it would be granted.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the default provision is strongly
enforced.
DR. McCORMICK said currently, it is being strongly enforced.
Number 1991
CO-CHAIR BUNDE had previously served on the Postsecondary Education
Commission. Co-Chair Bunde directed committee members to page 22,
regarding the default rate, in the packet handed out by Dr.
McCormick. Co-Chair Bunde said it is not coincidental that Dr.
McCormick's tenure began in 1993, and the default rate decrease
began in 1994. It was pointed out that the state began this
program when Alaska was never going to run out of money. It was a
giveaway program.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE was at the University when people would take out a
3 percent student loan to buy their car, and pay for their tuition
in cash because the loan program was such a good deal.
Additionally, half of the loan would be forgiven. It was a
wonderfully generous program, and people often did not take their
obligation as borrowers seriously.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he has listened to some of the testimony in
which people appeal being placed into default. Some of these
people have loans that were issued as far back as 1977. Suddenly
they are aware they are having problems with their credit rating.
Number 2034
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assured HESS Committee members that those in default
are now taking their obligations to repay the state more seriously.
He said the bill and the ASLP could be tightened up even more by
asking for credit checks and co-signers. However, that would
really inhibit the number of people who could have access to the
loan.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE supports what the ACPE is doing--trying to make the
program actuarily sound without unduly limiting access to the
loans.
Number 2050
DR. McCORMICK asked Representative Rokeberg to look on page 21 of
the budget briefing document. The top chart was a student loan
repayment volume. That is something that must be monitored very
closely in a loan program. HESS Committee members could see the
actual total dollars collected in 1994, $62.9 million, is on an
upwards trend. That is a rapid trend, not a gradual trend. That
is very encouraging in terms of determining the viability of the
program.
DR. McCORMICK directed the attention of the HESS Committee members
to right below that chart, which regarded the Student Loan
Collection Agency recovery chart. That showed the actual dollar
amount in millions that is being collected from students who have,
in fact, defaulted. He asked HESS Committee members to not be
misled by the term "default." This does not mean the student is
not paying or will never pay. It only means that the ACPE has not
quite got to him/her yet. Those the ACPE has contacted are paying
at the shown rate.
DR. McCORMICK said page 20 shows the one very unique aspect of the
ASLP that is different from any other student loan program in the
country. That is the ability to garnish permanent fund dividends
(PFDs). The chart shows, in millions of dollars, the amount
collected each year since 1987 from the PFD. That is a very viable
source of loan repayments from defaulted borrowers.
Number 2115
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the garnishments were separate
from the collection recoveries.
DR. McCORMICK answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said page 6, Section 14 reminds him of the
price of stamps, going up in small increments constantly. He asked
what the sense was in raising costs little by little, and why not
simply raise costs less frequently and by larger amounts.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the standard student loan is $5,500 for
a year, and currently the origination fee is 1 percent.
DR. McCORMICK said therefore, the origination fee on $5,500 is $55.
TAPE 95-25, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked from what amount the loan level was
being raised.
DR. McCORMICK answered that the loan levels were being raised from
$5,500 to $8,500 for undergraduates attending colleges and
universities that offer degrees. The graduate amount is being
raised from $6,500 to $9,500.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Dr. McCormick and the Chair were
comfortable with that level. He said that is a major increase.
DR. McCORMICK agreed. He said he would not be comfortable with
that level of borrowing except for the fact that the risen loan
levels have been limited only to degree-granting institutions at
the college and university level. Repayment is far greater at
those institutions. More importantly, those students who attend
those institutions also qualify for federal aid. Therefore, the
chance they would borrow the maximum amounts are somewhat
diminished.
DR. McCORMICK said the increases are in-line with current borrowing
levels in other federal programs that students have available to
them.
Number 106
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Dr. McCormick if he knew what the
tuition and costs, excluding room and board, are for the University
of Alaska Anchorage or Fairbanks.
DR. McCORMICK said the school catalogs estimate around $9,500 for
9 months for a single student living off-campus. However, he could
be off by about $1,000 a year. He said that includes room and
board.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if that included the new tuition increase.
DR. McCORMICK said the resident undergraduate budget, including
tuition fees, room and board, books and supplies, and
transportation for a student living on-campus is $9,100 for 9
months. For a student living off-campus, the amount is $14,000.
That is a considerable difference. Those figures are for the
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The figures for the
University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) is $8,300 for on-campus, and
$9,900 for off-campus.
DR. McCORMICK said the figures for the University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA) are $13,000 for 9 months following spring for a
full-time student living away from home.
Number 272
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he shares the concerns of Representative
Rokeberg. Students can, conceivably, graduate from college with a
$40,000 debt. Graduating from college now with that large a debt
by going to school in the Lower 48 is the price of doing business.
However, Co-Chair Bunde hopes there is a very clear message being
sent to students that this is a business transaction, not a
giveaway. Students should only borrow what they absolutely need.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Dr. McCormick if the ASLP is able to
provide loans for all applicants during the fiscal year.
DR. McCORMICK answered by saying historically, the program has been
able to provide all qualified applicants with a loan. The program
processed and funded all eligible applications. The ACPE
anticipates another sizeable jump, if this bill passes, in the loan
volume for next year. That would go into the calculations of the
ACPE to determine how much additional bond money should be issued
in 1995.
DR. McCORMICK said those numbers are being worked on now. The
underwriter and financial advisor of the ACPE are working with the
ACPE, making assumptions on the volume of the loans if the bill
passes and if it does not pass.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why there would be a jump.
Number 400
DR. McCORMICK answered that if the loan amount is increased, that
alone will increase the loan volume somewhat. In addition, the
University of Alaska system has grown every year for the last five
years. It has seen an increase in student population. If
enrollment increases are assumed, along with increases in loan
amounts that students can borrow, an increase in the actual lended
dollars can be anticipated.
DR. McCORMICK said the part the ACPE cannot calculate with any
degree of certainty is how much that will be.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said last year, in the continuing attempt to make
the loan program more actuarily sound, a bill was passed that
pegged the interest rate to the cost of borrowing money. This is
because in the past the ACPE was charging students 8 percent
interest. If one factors in 5 years of interest-free money, the
state was borrowing money at 6 percent and charging only 4 or 5
percent. Therefore, some progress is being made.
Number 491
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern about the cumulative
totals a person can borrow. A person can borrow up to $79,000 in
graduate school. That is a lot of money. He asked Dr. McCormick
to explain again about the "family" provisions of the bill.
DR. McCORMICK replied under current law, there are two types of
loans in the ASLP. This is in Section 16 of the bill. An
undergraduate can borrow $5,500. There is also a provision in the
law that the parent of that child can borrow $5,500 under the ASLP
rules and regulations. However, that parent cannot borrow for
their child at the same time a child borrows for an ASLP.
DR. McCORMICK said therefore, the current law reads that one or the
other has to take out the loan. HB 257 is advocating being more
responsive to parents, students and the higher cost of tuition.
Where the total cost of education will justify it, the child and
parent can both borrow $5,500 for those families that have children
at a high-cost school. That is what Section 16 does, is allow that
to happen.
Number 649
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the reason there are two different loans is
because a parent is a more secured borrower, they are able to
borrow money at a lower interest rate. The student has a higher
interest rate. Some parents choose to put the loan in their name
rather than have the student apply for the loan. Other young
people are not so closely connected with their family, and have to
do it on their own.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wanted to know what happens if a person has
two children in college. He asked how much the parent could then
borrow.
DR. McCORMICK said the limit is the cost of attendance. If the
student is going to UAF, and is single and living on-campus, and
the cost of attendance certified by the institution is $9,000, if
the student borrows $5,500 under the ASLP, this provision would
only allow the parent to borrow $3,500 because the loan could not
exceed the total cost of attendance.
Number 709
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the ASLP was going to loan the
entire cost of an education.
DR. McCORMICK said the provision would allow for that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he found that very hard to take.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this is not a new concept. When one could
attend UAA for $5,500, people were borrowing $5,500.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wished someone had loaned him all his money
to go to school.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it used to be that working through the summer
could pay tuition. It is beyond that point now.
Number 763
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it would be conceivable under this
Section to borrow up to $17,000. Dr. McCormick answered yes.
Representative Rokeberg also asked about the final gross amount.
DR. McCORMICK said there is a gross amount a person cannot exceed
in total as an undergraduate. That is around $42,000. The gross
amount for graduate students is around $47,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that was a cap, and Dr. McCormick
answered yes. He said there is no way to get around that cap.
Representative Rokeberg said there are two loans, the family loan
and the student loan. He asked how the cap works in that case. He
said it is conceivable that a student could rack up a $160,000
loan.
DR. McCORMICK said he would have to get back to Representative
Rokeberg on that topic. He knew the cap applied to the student,
but he did not know how it applied to the borrowing parent.
Number 850
GILLIAN HAYES, Executive Assistant to Dr. McCormick, ACPE, asked if
Representative Rokeberg was asking if the family education loan
also has a dollar cap. However, the loan is taken out by another
person. It is taken out by the parent or spouse. That is another
issue in which the family education loan limit would go up to
$37,500.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the bottom line was if a student and a family
member wanted to borrow the maximum, they could borrow an excess of
$70,000. That would include the student cap plus the family cap.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the student can borrow more if they go
to graduate school.
DR. McCORMICK said again that he would like to get back to
Representative Rokeberg on those caps. He is not sure how the cap
numbers apply to the payment of the education loan. He does not
know if they are treated separately or if they are treated
inclusively.
DR. McCORMICK asked Representative Rokeberg to consider something
when looking at the caps and what people borrow. Students are
borrowing money on their future earnings to pay the total costs of
education. Based on the way the program will be administered, they
are not going to be subsidized at all. They will pay the total
cost of loan interest.
DR. McCORMICK shares the concerns of Representative Rokeberg in
some ways. In other ways, the loans are more of a family decision.
They need to decide how much they need to borrow for the
opportunity to attend the institution they have chosen. This bill
provides families with more flexibility to make those kinds of
decisions.
Number 964
CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that currently the state invests
$160,000 a year in each of its medical students. That is after a
four-year graduate degree. The sums being spoken of for graduate
study are calculated. It is a judgement that must be made--will he
or she make enough money to make it worthwhile.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the state must make that calculated
judgement also.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he does not have any discomfort at all, because
the students are responsible for the money. The recovery rate is
going very well.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the parent's loan is backed by any type of
collateral.
DR. McCORMICK said it is not a collateralized loan. However, it is
a loan in which repayment begins within 60 days of the date that
the loan originated. That is a big difference from the student
loan. The student loan repayment will not begin until six months
after they have left school. The borrowing parents, however, must
start making payments within 60 days of the date they receive the
funds.
Number 1055
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY appreciated the bill, and said she is totally
comfortable with it because the state cannot give enough to educate
its children. She stressed to Representative Rokeberg that the
money is a loan.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the delinquency rate.
DR. McCORMICK said it is 19 percent. The rate is decreasing,
however, the current rate is still unacceptable. The rate must
come down.
Number 1093
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said two amendments had been offered. The first
page was called amendment one. He asked Dr. McCormick if that was
different from the second page that concerns people in jail. Dr.
McCormick answered yes. Co-Chair Bunde said he would like to deal
with amendment one first.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that she has a close-out at 4:00 p.m.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if HESS Committee members were speedy, they
could finish the meeting by 4:00 p.m.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved the amendment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. McCormick to speak to the amendment.
DR. McCORMICK said the amendment simply changes the words
"guarantee fee" to the correct term of "origination fee." These
loans are not guaranteed by anyone.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for questions about and objections to the
amendment. Hearing none, amendment one was adopted.
Number 1176
CO-CHAIR BUNDE brought up amendment two, and Co-Chair Toohey moved
the amendment. Co-Chair Bunde objected for purposes of discussion.
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant, Department of Corrections (DOC),
said the amendment to Section 17 is important to the DOC because
the state of Alaska is party to an agreement called the Cleary Fair
Settlement Agreement. In part, that agreement requires the state,
through the DOC, to provide a variety of rehabilitative programs to
inmates. Education is one of these rehabilitative programs. The
good news is that almost none of the inmates have received a loan
from ACPE.
MR. SHRINER said these loans are not unheard of, but they are
extremely rare. This language would not require postsecondary
education to make any loans to inmates. It only means that legally
and constitutionally inmates have access to the same programs of
the state that other individuals have who are not incarcerated.
The amendment also provides a level of insurance which is necessary
in the sense that if the inmates did not have technical access to
the loan program, an inmate could, at some future date, go back
into superior court and allege that the state acted in bad faith
with respect to the Cleary Fair Settlement Agreement in taking away
a right that was available to them at the time the act was entered
into.
MR. SHRINER summarized by saying inmates get almost nothing out of
the amendment. The DOC is concerned that it could end up spending
a lot of money in legal fees if inmates do not have at least
technical access to the loans.
Number 1290
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she cannot understand the last part of the
amendment. She also said that the entire bill assumes that people
are borrowing on their future earnings. She asked how someone
incarcerated for 30 years will pay off the loan.
MR. SHRINER said the language of the amendment would make it such
that an inmate would not be eligible for a loan unless they were to
be released within six months of the time the educational program
was completed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if that applies to the six-month grace period
for all borrowers. Dr. McCormick said the ACPE supports the
amendment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the ACPE was amenable to a small amendment.
He said no one is going to get a job the day they get out of jail.
He asked if the amendment could be changed to say the inmate's
release date is no more than two months after the program is
completed. That gives the inmates four months to find a job after
they are out.
Number 1353
DR. McCORMICK said the six months referred to in amendment two is
the point in time the inmate is eligible to receive a loan. An
inmate cannot receive a loan until he or she is within six months
of a release date.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he had misunderstood the amendment entirely.
He read, "a person's scheduled release date is more than six months
after the scheduled completion date of the career education or
degree program for which the loan was requested."
MR. SHRINER said Co-Chair Bunde was correct, and Dr. McCormick
noted he was mistaken. Mr. Shriner understood the amendment as
referring to a person who has four years to serve, and who wants to
get into a two-year degree program while in prison. If he/she
wants to have the educational program completed by the time he/she
gets out of prison, the person can start borrowing money four years
and six months ahead of his/her release date. If a person has five
years left to serve in a sentence, and it takes him/her four years
to complete the educational program participating half-time, he/she
can start borrowing money four-and-one-half years short to pay the
course fees. That money can be borrowed up until the educational
program is completed, which is six months prior to his/her release
date.
MR. SHRINER said this addresses the concern of Co-Chair Bunde. He
said the terms should be two months of the release date so the
person has four months on the outside to get a job.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said under the current amendment, the person would
have to begin making payments the day he or she is released from
jail. That puts the person into default immediately and undermines
the program.
MR. SHRINER did not see a problem with the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reminded HESS Committee members that she
had to leave the meeting soon.
Number 1437
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the amount of money an inmate is
borrowing would be less than the average borrower. The inmate's
room and board is paid.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE proposed an amendment to amendment two that replaced
the words "six months" with "two months." There was no objection
to the amendment to the amendment. The new intent of amendment two
is to provide the ex-inmate with about four months to find a job so
repayment can begin. Co-Chair Bunde removed his objection to
amendment two, and asked if there were further objections.
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected to the amendment. He said he
would vote against this amendment because he is a member of the
House Budget Subcommittee on Corrections and he has a problem with
the Cleary Settlement and the policy being established.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he shares the concerns, however, the fear of
future litigation will keep him from voting against the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken. Voting "yes" on the amendment was
Representatives Davis, Toohey, and Robinson. Voting "no" were
Representatives Rokeberg and Bunde. The amendment passed.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved HB 257 as amended be passed from the HESS
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He said he is concerned about
the amount of money that can be borrowed, and the family loans. He
is concerned about how those amounts can affect the actuary health
of the ASLP.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted his concern, and said people are not required
to take the loans. Some people make bad judgments, however.
A roll call vote was taken. Voting "no" was Representative
Rokeberg. Voting "yes" were Representatives Toohey, Bunde,
Robinson, and Davis. HB 257 passed from the HESS Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|