Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/19/1996 02:09 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 19, 1996
2:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 465
"An Act relating to employment of teachers and school
administrators and to public school collective bargaining."
- MOVED CSHB 465 (HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26
Relating to creation of the Public Inebriate Task Force.
- MOVED CSHCR 26 (HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 512
"An Act establishing English as the common language and related to
the use of English in public records and at public meetings of
state agencies."
- MOVED CSHB 512 (HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 529
"An Act giving notice of and approving the entry into, and the
issuance of certificates of participation in, a lease-purchase
agreement for a centralized public health laboratory."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 540
"An Act relating to health care data and registration of births."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 12
Supporting the collective bargaining agreement between the
University of Alaska and the Alaska Community Colleges' Federation
of Teachers.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 535
"An Act relating to postsecondary education."
- BILL POSTPONED
HOUSE BILL NO. 451
"An Act prohibiting persons from receiving or attempting to receive
duplicate assistance; directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to establish a pilot project relating to identification of
recipients of public assistance; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Relating to rights of public school students.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 465
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER EMPLOYMENT/PUB SCHL BARGAINING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/96 2606 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/02/96 2606 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
02/13/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HCR 26
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC INEBRIATE TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2685 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2685 (H) HES, FINANCE
02/29/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 512
SHORT TITLE: ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Barnes,Green,Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2729 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/27/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/08/96 3042 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
03/12/96 3101 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 529
SHORT TITLE: APPROVE CENTRALIZED PUBLIC HEALTH LAB
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/28/96 2912 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/28/96 2912 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 540
SHORT TITLE: HEALTH CARE DATA; BIRTH REGISTRATIONS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/11/96 3061 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/11/96 3061 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HR 12
SHORT TITLE: UNIV. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2721 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2721 (H) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 535
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/29/96 2962 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/29/96 2962 (H) HES
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/07/96 (H) HES AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 451
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT DUPLICATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/96 2541 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/26/96 2541 (H) HES, FINANCE
02/29/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HCR 30
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT RIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2722 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2722 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
NEA-Alaska, Incorporated
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465(HES)
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of CSHB 465 (HES) and CSHCR 26 (HES)
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Aide
to Representative Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465 (HES) and CSHCR 26 (HES)
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director
Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
P.O. Box 110608
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0607
Telephone: (907) 465-8920
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified CSHCR 26 (HES)
JULIE KRAFT, Director
Member Service
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1325
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 26 (HES)
NELSON PAGE, Chair
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
810 N Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-6100
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 26
ROGER POPPE, Legislative Aide
to Representative Kott
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6882
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 512
IRMA MIRELES
P.O. Box 34326
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 780-4475
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 512
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 529
GREGORY V. HAYES, DrPH, Chief
Laboratories
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110613
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0613
Telephone: (907) 465-3019
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 529
JOHN MIDDAUGH, MD, Chief
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 240249
Anchorage, Alaska 99524-0249
Telephone: (907) 561-4406
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 529 and HB 540
TOM LANE, Facilities Manager
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110613
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0613
Telephone: (907) 465-3019
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 529
GREG HERREFORD, Manager
Juneau Laboratory
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110613
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0613
Telephone: (907) 465-3019
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 529
NOLAN WATSON, Senior Vice-President
McLellan and Copenhagen, Incorporated
1402 3rd Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 624-5300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 529
AL ZANGRI, Chief
Vital Statistics
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110675
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0675
Telephone: (907) 465-3392
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 540
GARREY PESKA, Lobbyist
Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association
P.O. Box 240285
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 364-2244
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 540
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 128
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3793
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HR 12
RALPH McGRATH, President
Alaska Community Colleges Federation of Teachers
2533 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 562-2660
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 12
BILL JERMAIN, Attorney
Jermain, Dunnagan, and Owens
Representing ACCFT
3000 A Street, Suite 300
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 563-8844
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 12
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-29, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Bunde. Members present at the call
to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, G. Davis, Rokeberg,
Robinson and Brice. A quorum was present.
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE announced that the agenda was HB 465, HCR 26, HB
512, HB 451, HB 529, HB 540, HR 12 and HR 30.
HB 465 - TEACHER EMPLOYMENT/PUB SCHL BARGAINING
Number 0154
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 465 would be discussed, an act
relating to employment of teachers and school administrators and to
public school collective bargaining.
Number 190
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 465 ( ),
version 9-LS1586\O, Cramer, dated March 18, 1996, as the working
document.
Number 0233
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE objected for purposes of discussion and
said there had been many proposed amendments to HB 465.
Number 0285
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said CSHB 465, version O, adopts amendments 4, 5, 7,
8, and 9. He said Amendment 4, on page four, line two, deletes
"shall" and inserts "may" to make the language more permissive and
deals with the administrator's evaluation. Amendment 5, page
three, line nine, after "community members," deletes "peers" and
inserts "teachers". He said Amendment 7, page three, line seven,
after "dismissal", inserts "under AS 14.20.170(a);" to add a
statutory reference. Amendment 8, page eight, line eight, inserts
"a teacher who has acquired tenure who is dismissed or non-retained
may waive the post-termination procedures set out in Section C and
within 60 days after receipt of notice of dismissal or non-
retention file an action in the superior court", allowing direct
access to the superior court, rather than going through the
procedure.
Number 0473
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Aide to Representative Ivan, said Amendment
8 was modified by the sponsor, Representative Ivan, but retains the
same meaning.
Number 0487
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the intent of Amendment 8 is that a non-
retained or a dismissed teacher can go directly to superior court
if they chose to do so. He said Amendment 9, on page three, line
22, after "last", delete "no more than one year" and more clearly
define the year by inserting "no less than nine months, no more
than 12 months".
Number 0541
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that Amendment 9 involved the plan
for improvement. He then withdrew his objection to the motion to
adopt CSHB 465 (HES), version O, as the working document. Hearing
no other objection, CSHB 465 (HES), version O, was adopted as the
working draft by the House Standing Committee on Health, Education
and Social Services.
Number 0566
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, Incorporated,
expressed his concerns regarding CSHB 465. He said on page five,
line 13, regarding the stipulation, that failure to receive an
acceptable performance in the teacher evaluation system after the
implementation of a plan of improvement, would serve as a reason to
non-retain a tenured teacher. He said this particular clause
stipulates a process. He said it is important to refer to the
established standards, especially in the evaluation section, as
being the professional performance standards adopted by the
Department of Education (DOE). He said those standards, or
criteria, by which individuals who are teaching in the classroom,
are measured in accordance with the word incompetence.
MR. MARSHALL said his organization does not have a problem with the
utilization of the evaluation procedure or a system to prove
incompetence by showing that an individual is not performing at an
adequate level relative to the professional performance standards
adopted by the DOE. He said a failure to execute a plan of
improvement or not receiving an acceptable evaluation could be
applied to any number of principals in the state. He said,
"theoretically you could have, a person saying while I assume good
performance is 100 percent accountability 100 percent of the time."
He said there should be an acknowledged measure or criteria by
which teachers are judged. He added that plans of improvement
should be developed in accordance with these standards.
Number 0758
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that he was referring to standards that
the DOE developed and he then asked Mr. Marshall if that should be
used as a baseline.
Number 0770
MR. MARSHALL said either the DOE standards could be used, or the
deleted language of HB 465 which involves incompetency. He said
competency will either be shown or not shown, reflected in the
evaluation system or the plan of improvement. He said the plan of
improvement should deal with the issue of incompetency. He said
language could be added on line 18, tying the incompetency standard
to the evaluation and plan of improvement. He said his
organization would like to see people removed for incompetency and
to do this the classroom must be monitored and evaluations must be
done.
Number 0820
MR. MARSHALL said the other section of concern was the reduction in
force, on page five, line 27. He said some work was done on this
same issue in HB 217 which had more specific requirement before a
reduction in force was allowed to happen. He said HB 217 required
a 1 percent reduction in basic need.
Number 0867
MR. MARSHALL said on line 31 and 32, page five, the reduction of
the work force requirement in CSHB 465 is a demonstrated
significant reduction in per pupil expenditure, from one year to
the next. He said this language is broader and more general than
the language in HB 217.
Number 0896
MR. MARSHALL said HB 217 established that non-tenured teachers
would be laid off, or non-retained first, followed by tenured
teachers. He said CSHB 465, on page six, line six, a notice of
non-retention to all non-tenured teachers has to be given and does
not say that you non-retain non-tenured teachers. He said HB 217
referred to the primary and secondary program and tried to reduce
staff at those points.
Number 0962
MR. MARSHALL referred to page six, line two, and said the layoff
plan must identify academic or other programs which the district
intends to maintain. He presented a scenario where the
instrumental music program would be eliminated under the provisions
of CSHB 465. He said there is no notification requirement that,
two years or one year prior to the elimination of the program,
teachers are notified and encouraged to get additional schooling so
that they can obtain an extra endorsement. He said the
notification process is a humane way to retain competent teachers,
even though it might not be the intent of CSHB 465. He said there
should at least be the opportunity for individuals to have an
opportunity to stay in the system.
Number 1041
MR. MARSHALL complicated the scenario, referring to the
instrumental teacher who has received his additional endorsement
allowing him to teach math. He said CSHB 465 requires that the
teacher show experience in the subject area in secondary and
elementary programs, but added that there is an "or" inclusion in
line 18. He said he would hope that if teachers showed themselves
capable to teach one subject, they would be allowed to teach
another subject.
Number 1085
MR. MARSHALL referred to Section D, line 10 to line 23, and said it
appears that CSHB 465 eliminates seniority. He said there is an
elementary, middle school and a secondary set of teachers who can
be listed according to program or academic areas. He said if a
school district moves to lay off staff, there is nothing in CSHB
465 to protect any tenured teacher from possible layoff. He said
to subject all staff from possible layoff seems excessive,
especially when you can limit the layoff based on a seniority list.
He said there is no requirement that non-tenured teachers be laid
off first, CSHB 465 exposes everyone to possible layoff.
Number 1158
MR. MARSHALL referred to another scenario where good teachers, who
the school district would want to retain if there were better
economic circumstances, left the state of Alaska to teach in other
states. He said the language in page six, line 32, would not allow
those teachers to be on the recall list. He said he did know the
intent of CSHB 465, but felt that the term "state" on line 32
should be eliminated.
Number 1240
MR. MARSHALL said the concerns his organization had regarding the
opportunity to appeal directly to the superior court have been
eliminated in language on page seven and on page eight. He said,
in conclusion, districts might want to use the grievance process to
adjudicate a dismissal or a non-retention through binding
arbitration. He said that this scenario would not prevent lawyers
from being present on both sides, but it does give the option to
districts that might want to utilize arbitration. He said the use
of arbitration could result in a quicker and less expensive way to
deal with a grievance issue.
MR. MARSHALL said the provisions of HB 217 should be included in
CSHB 465, as the language is clearer and provides a larger degree
of security to those tenured teachers and does not expose them to
the possibility of layoff.
Number 1354
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that makes two people who would wish to discuss
arbitration. He added that utilizing arbitration would result in
the lost ability to strike in those districts.
MR. MARSHALL said CSHB 465 is relative only to employment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony. He asked Representative
Ivan and his staff, Tom Wright to join the committee in reviewing
the amendments. He asked the committee members, in the future, to
submit amendments in writing to avoid confusion.
Number 1414
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page five, line 15, and said there was
some confusion regarding the definition of "acceptable" and "least
acceptable" performance and added Mr. Marshall's reference to HB
217. He asked Representative Ivan to address that concern.
Number 1435
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said as a result of discussions with Mr.
Marshall he is submitting amendments; Amendments 10, 11 and 12. He
said, in regards to this particular section, Amendment 12 would
modify the language in CSHB 465 to address this concern.
Number 1459
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if everyone had received Amendment 12.
Number 1473
MR. WRIGHT said the language in Amendment 12 is similar, but not
the same as the language proposed by Mr. Marshall and Ms. Douglas.
Number 1486
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON requested that Mr. Marshall be asked
for his comments regarding the amendment.
Mr. Marshall joined Representative Ivan and Mr. Wright at the
witness table.
Number 1515
MR. MARSHALL said his organization had wanted professional
performance standards to be set up in local school district
evaluation procedures.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Amendment 12 was acceptable.
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether these performance standards
would be more stringent in regards to regulations and asked if the
standards would be in conflict with the provision located on page
two, lines 25 and 26.
Number 1567
MR. WRIGHT said two proposed amendments, which are based in (b)(1),
are based on professional performance standards adopted by the
Department of Regulations. He said the local school board has to
use that as a basis for any adopted standards. He said it is a
decision of the local school board or if they want to exceed or
adopt the same standard as developed by the Department of
Regulations. He said the language incorporated in CSHB 465 was
requested by the local school districts.
Number 1587
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the state standard is the minimum
standard, and the local school board can opt to make it more
stringent but cannot decrease the standard. He said the state
standard is addressed in regulations.
MR. WRIGHT said the regulation is in Alaska Administrative Code
04.200.
Number 1613
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Section 3, regarding
performance standards and asked if performance objectives were
defined in the plan of improvement included in this section.
Number 1630
MR. WRIGHT said Section 14.20.149 outlines the evaluation
procedures, known as the professional department standards, and
mentions the plan of improvement. He said, instead of reciting one
specific portion or one subsection, it was left broad and all
encompassing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that it is universal
(indiscernible) to that section.
Number 1665
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 12 to CSHB
465.
Number 1671
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a point of order and said the committee
needed to address Amendments 1,2,3 in that order first. After
committee discussion regarding the point of order, Representative
Brice contended that these first proposed amendments would have
bearing on Amendment 12.
Number 1691
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 12
to CSHB 465.
Number 1699
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page five, line 27, regarding the
reduction in force, and said it wasn't a specific line reference,
but it addressed the whole notion of the reduction in force. He
referred to the inclusion in HB 217 of a 1 percent reduction rather
then a significant and demonstrated reduction. He asked
Representative Ivan to comment on this concern.
Number 1732
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said at this time he could not agree to the
proposed layoff language and said he preferred the language in CSHB
465. He said quality standards must be included in the layoff and
rehire procedure.
Number 1762
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page six, line six, and questioned the
intent of this language. He asked whether all teachers should be
notified about possible non-retention.
Number 1788
MR. WRIGHT said the intent is that before a tenured teacher be
placed on layoff status a notice of non-retention has to be
provided to non-tenured teachers, except when utilizing the quality
standards to evoke non-retention.
Number 1809
MR. MARSHALL said the language in HB 217 states, "after the
district has non-retained all non-tenured teachers," and added that
this language is very clear.
Number 1819
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the language in CSHB 465 only refers to giving
notice of non-retention and does not say that the district non-
retain them before you go on to the tenured teacher. He asked the
intent of the sponsor, whether it was to provide notice or non-
retain the teachers. He said this question does not have to be
answered now, but could be addressed at a later date.
Number 1843
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page six, line 32, where someone in the
state receives an option of being recalled while maintaining their
recall status, while they are currently working another job which
prevents them from breaking their current contract. He restated
Mr. Marshall's concern that if the teacher is currently working in
another state, where they would have to break their contract to
come back to the state, if the language in CSHB 465 could
incorporate these people as well.
Number 1880
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the intent is to give everyone the full
opportunity to regain their former position. He said the
geographic logistics were not included, but said he would concur
that if someone was on layoff status they should not be limited by
geography.
Number 1896
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that even if laid off teachers were in
another state, they could still retain recall status.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said new language could be added so that it
could read another part of the state or another district.
Number 1906
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this geographic language change would be listed
as Amendment 13.
Number 1925
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would go through the amendment
process now that the questions had been addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB
465.
Number 1937
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 1.
Number 1942
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said Amendment 1 reinserts the incompetency
standards that had previously existed within the statutes. He said
the state has legally defined standards and he believed that
Amendment 1 incorporated the language of proposed Amendment 12 with
the inclusion of the incompetency standards.
Number 1987
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he was against the proposed Amendment 1
because of the reversion to the original language. He said this
language leaves the definition open and vague, and subject to
litigation. He said the costs of associated court cases is what
CSHB 465 is seeking to avoid.
Number 2012
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, as it is an issue of people's
livelihoods, standards should be met. He said the application of
a plan of improvement should be subject to a just cause test and
the plan of improvement should also meet this requirement.
Number 2034
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it was important to note that the
proposed Amendment 1 incorporates both the language in CSHB 465 and
the language regarding a failure, after implementation of a plan of
improvement, to receive an evaluation of least acceptable
performance under teacher evaluations. She said Amendment 1 allows
two ways to improve a teacher's performance. She asked for Mr.
Rose's input as the language in the proposed Amendment 1 is a
standard which has been followed and it is wording that most people
understand. She believed that the proposed Amendment 1 made the
language of CSHB 465 stronger.
Number 2070
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
said attempts have been made to remove the standard of
incompetence, for a long time. He said this standard is too low
and that the definition of incompetence is listed in Alaska case
law to such a stringent degree. He said a teacher who ranks a two
on a scale of ten, with ten being excellence and a one being
incompetent, would still be regarded as competent. He said CSHB
465 addresses standards and acceptable performance. He said the
issue of incompetence is so stringent that many administrators are
unable to use it to prove the competency or incompetency of
individuals in the classroom. He said the standards, adopted by
the Department's regulations, allow the local districts the
opportunity to examine a criteria based evaluation "in concert"
with their community. He said this would establish what teachers
are expected to teach and what parents can expect in the classroom.
Number 2138
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the proposed Amendment 1 makes the
language stronger because it gives the school district both
options, either under the provision of incompetency or failure to
meet the criteria set up in the plan of improvement, and asked what
the objection was to providing this option in CSHB 465.
Number 2161
MR. ROSE said the school districts are trying to move to a criteria
based evaluation process in order to provide progressive education
and also to address the quality of education instruction in the
classroom. He said school districts are trying to focus on
performance and quality, but that they are dealing with
protectionism. He said this is a difficult transition to make if
the state is more concerned with the consequences than the efforts
to improve the quality of education. He said the employees should
be protected, but lowering the education standards to protect those
employees causes concern.
Number 2184
A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 1 to CSHB 465.
Representatives Brice and Robinson voted yea. Representatives G.
Davis, Rokeberg, Co-Chair Toohey and Co-Chair Bunde voted nay.
Amendment 1 failed to be adopted to in the House Standing Committee
on Health, Education and Social Services.
Number 2222
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB
465.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 2.
Number 2277
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the proposed Amendment 2 changes the
language from an acceptable level to a satisfactory level, or less
than acceptable level to an incompetent level. He said it re-
defines the definition of incompetence as the inability or the
unintentional or intentional failure to perform the teachers'
customary duties in a satisfactory manner. He said the proposed
Amendment 2 adds clarity to the concerns that were just raised
regarding incompetence.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE mentioned the discussion concerning incompetency.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said proposed Amendment 2 is a redefinition of
that standard.
A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 2 to CSHB 465.
Representatives Brice and Robinson voted yea. Representatives G.
Davis, Rokeberg, Co-Chair Toohey and Co-Chair Bunde voted nay.
Amendment 2 failed to be adopted to in the House Standing Committee
on Health, Education and Social Services.
Number 2293
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 to CSHB
465.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 3.
Number 2302
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the proposed Amendment 3 states that the
evaluating administrator consult with the tenured teacher in
setting clear, specific performance expectations to be included in
the plan of improvement. He said a concern was raised that there
was no specific language of what these plans of improvement will
include. He added that specific language must be included in
statute to prevent situations where unobtainable standards were
established. He said the proposed Amendment 3 would allow for a
working relationship between the administrators and employees to
occur.
Number 2347
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he found it difficult to imagine that a plan of
improvement would occur without including the teacher.
TAPE 96-29, SIDE B
Number 0000
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Section 3 includes a requirement that
observations and the establishment of criteria be found. He added
that it appeared the intent was to include the teacher in
developing the plan of improvement. He asked the sponsor whether
the language of CSHB 465 needed to be clarified.
Number 0073
MR. WRIGHT said his reading of the proposed Amendment 3 is that it
would require the administration to consult with each tenured
teacher within that school district or within that specific school
to set up these specific expectations which would be included in
the plan of improvement.
Number 0086
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the language of proposed Amendment 3
states "with the" and would mean that if a plan of improvement were
needed, a specific teacher would be notified.
MR. WRIGHT said the issue of how a plan of improvement is going to
be implemented can be addressed at a local level. He said there
was language in CSHB 465 which addressees ways in which the tenured
and non-tenured teachers performance can be improved.
Number 0105
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said CSHB 465 clearly states "that's what will
happen."
Number 0110
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the sponsor to point out specific
language where teachers are included in the plan of improvement.
Number 0115
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked the sponsor whether the intent of the plan of
improvement would include the teacher, whether it would be a "give
and take" situation. He said the principal could ask for specific
changes and the teacher could respond to those changes.
Number 0141
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that the sponsor address his
question.
Number 0150
MR. WRIGHT said the plan of improvement under page three, line 20,
must address ways in which the tenured teacher's performance can be
improved. He said the language in CSHB 465 does not specifically
provide language such as that offered in the proposed Amendment 3.
He reiterated that this issue can be addressed at the local level
and concluded that setting clear, specific performance expectations
would be the question asked.
Number 0171
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said CSHB 465 changes the whole standard
for non-retaining a teacher and added that the teacher should be
placed on notice regarding the establishment of a plan of
improvement and what those expectations are. He said the language
of the proposed Amendment 3 might not be exactly right, but there
is nothing in CSHB 465 that sets these goals.
Number 0205
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the issue is, in constructing the plan of
improvement, whether or not the teacher is a part of that process.
He said a good management tool is to include someone in the
discussion in order to get them to improve their performance.
Number 0214
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said CSHB 465 incorporates broad and
specific language and added that he supported the proposed
Amendment 3.
Number 0225
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said he supported flexibility at the
local level. He referred to page two, line 14, which gives some
strong participation by the school board and therefore gives anyone
who participates in the system the opportunity to help develop the
plan of improvement. He said, at the school board level, there is
the opportunity to develop the plan of improvement which should be
detailed in regards to the criteria that will be evaluated.
Number 2136
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the proposed Amendment 3 says that as the
principal develops the plan, they will do it in consultation with
the person who will ultimately implement the plan, the teacher.
Number 0271
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believed that there were going to
be fundamental, minimal standards in the objectives set up, as
criteria, by the school board. He assumed that each plan would be
modified to match the individual failings of a particular teacher
and this individual plan of improvement would not be mentioned in
the basic criteria.
Number 0303
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said his reservation regards the fiscal note
which might be required by the proposed Amendment 3. He said to
meet this criteria might require traveling between villages. He
said he agreed that people, who are going to be put on a plan of
improvement, should be consulted.
Number 0334
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that if a plan of improvement is going
to be developed, the teacher should know about it and there is
nothing currently in CSHB 465 which specifies this requirement. He
said the travel concerns could be avoided by using the telephone or
other methods than person-to-person consultation.
Number 0357
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY withdrew her objection to Amendment 3. Hearing no
further objection, Amendment 3 was incorporated into CSHB 465 by
the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social
Services.
Number 2031
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 6 to CSHB
465.
Number 0402
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her concern had to do with the absence
of language in CSHB 465. She referred to Section 10, regarding
procedures upon notice of dismissal or non-retention. She then
pointed out that, in some original language, it states that before
a teacher is dismissed or before a tenured teacher is non-retained.
She said the language regarding non-retained teachers is completely
absent from CSHB 465. She also expressed concern over the absence
of language that the teacher must be given both oral and written
notification. She asked the sponsor why the language, in both
cases, was eliminated.
Number 0448
MR. WRIGHT said that Section 10, (a) refers to dismissals. He
referred to subsection (b) and said it referred to non-retention.
He said some of the concern regards whether an impartial party
would review the teachers case which could be uncomfortable if it
was reviewed by the school board. He said as a result of this
concern, language was inserted on page eight, line nine, to let the
teacher go directly to superior court. He said, during discussions
with various parties, instead of having an oral notification it was
felt that written notification be given to avoid hearsay. He said
it was felt that having the tapes of the meetings available would
be sufficient and avoid unnecessary expense. He said a transcript
could then be done.
Number 0505
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON withdrew Amendment 6 to CSHB 465.
Number 0529
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 10 to CSHB
465, which clarified the one year period. Hearing no objection
Amendment 10 was adopted to CSHB 465 by the House Standing
Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.
Number 0551
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 11, page
three, line 22, to CSHB 465. Hearing no objection Amendment 11 was
adopted to CSHB 465 by the House Standing Committee on Health,
Education and Social Services.
Number 0564
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 12, page
three, line 22, to CSHB 465.
Number 0570
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected to the proposed Amendment 12 and said
it referred to the standards as being those standards established
under (b)(1) of the section. He asked if "(b)(1)" should be added
to the proposed Amendment 12 to avoid confusion.
Number 0594
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, in his question to the sponsor of
CSHB 465, he was told that it was a universal reference to the
whole section.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection. Hearing no further
objection Amendment 12 was adopted to CSHB 465 by the House
Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.
Number 0599
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred back to Amendment 13 on page six, lines 31
and 32, and said it should read, "provide professional service to
another private or public educational program" deleting "in the
state".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 13 to CSHB
465. Hearing no objection Amendment 13 was adopted to CSHB 465 by
the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social
Services.
Number 0657
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said procedures upon notice of dismissal,
found in Section 10, there is a pre-termination hearing and that it
must comport with the minimum requirements of due process. He
asked if the time between notification and pre-termination would be
immediate. He mentioned a scenario where notification was given 30
minutes before the pre-termination meeting.
Number 0688
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this scenario would not be his interpretation
of CSHB 465.
Number 0696
MR. WRIGHT said, under those circumstances, the people involved
would go to court and that the court would most likely rule the
case in favor of the teacher in that it did not fit the
requirements listed in CSHB 465.
Number 0704
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that there is the understanding,
given the minimum requirements of due process, of the requirement
that a certain amount of preparation time be given.
Number 0718
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page three, line eight, and
asked the appropriateness of having students in this process. He
expressed concern over this provision and said he would be willing
to move Amendment 14.
Number 0748
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said, regarding proposed Amendment 14, that the
student involvement in the process might only want to be limited to
secondary students as most elementary students love their teacher.
He shared the concern over the possibility of popularity contests.
Number 0762
MR. WRIGHT said there was no strong feeling regarding this issue,
either for or against. He then mentioned that there are students
who sit on local school boards.
Number 0782
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said "they're community members too, I
would assume. One of the reasons I wanted to bring this up was
that I think this particular word is being used as an axe against
the whole bill." He made a motion to adopt Amendment 14 to CSHB
465.
Number 0799
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS objected to the proposed Amendment 14.
He said CSHB 465 provides an opportunity, the extent of which can
be left to the local school districts, to allow those students to
be part of the process. He questioned, if this language was
excluded from CSHB 465, whether it would eliminate students from
the process.
Number 0823
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the inclusion of "student" might
prevent the passage of CSHB 465.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said students should be included in the process.
Number 0851
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she had no problem with the inclusion
of students in the process, but added that through community
members and through parents most young people would get an
opportunity to be included in the process.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 14. Representatives
Rokeberg, Brice and Bunde voted yea. Representatives Robinson, G.
Davis and Toohey voted nay. Amendment 14 failed to be adopted to
in the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social
Services.
Number 0892
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHB 465 as amended, with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. Hearing no
objection CSHB 465 was moved from the House Standing Committee on
Health, Education and Social Services.
HCR - 26 PUBLIC INEBRIATE TASK FORCE
Number 0954
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the next item on the agenda was HCR 26,
relating to creation of the Public Inebriate Task Force.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said changes were made to HCR 26. He said on
page one, line six of the CSHCR 26, language was added that mirrors
that of HB 523: State Policy on Sobriety. He said the additional
language comes after the word "treatment" and states, "that can
introduce them to, and help them learn new life skills and social
skills that would be useful to them in attaining and maintaining
normal lives as productive members of society."
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN referred to page two, line 28 and line 30, and
said CSHCR deletes one member from the Senate and one member from
the House of Representatives. He referred to page two, line 31,
and said instead of 13 members to be appointed by the Speaker of
the House and the president of the Senate, the number of appointees
will now total nine members.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN referred to page three, line two, and said a
member from the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse was deleted
and a member from the Deparment of Health and Social Services was
added at the request of the department.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said on page three, to bring the task force
membership to 11 members, in addition to the reduction to two
legislators, four at large members were eliminated including one
member of the Alaska Federation of Natives, one member of the
Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police, one village public safety
officer and one member representing practicing physicians.
Number 1054
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHCR 26, version 9-
LS1666\C, dated March 12, 1996. Hearing no objections CSHCR 26 was
now before the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and
Social Services.
Number 1076
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was only one fiscal note
from the Department of Public Safety.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there is another fiscal note from LAA Services
for $62,700.
Number 1097
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the fiscal note from Administrative
Services was for support staff.
Number 1107
MR. WRIGHT said the fiscal note reflects support staff as well as
travel expenses. He said the fiscal note would be decreased as a
result of the reduction of task force members.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked that language regarding the use of
teleconference be included in CSHCR 26.
MR. WRIGHT said it was in CSHCR 26.
Number 1120
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the intent was to hire one staff
person.
Number 1126
MR. WRIGHT said he could not say for sure, it would be up to
Representative Ivan and the Speaker of the House.
Number 1139
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she believed that existing staff
should be able to perform those duties and mentioned that there was
travel money in CSHCR 26.
Number 1168
DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director, Governor's Advisory Board on
Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, said he supported CSHCR 26 and that
the advisory board wants to take part in this task force. He said
the board recognizes the extent of the process, in regards to
community needs, other agencies and departments. He said the
advisory board is one small part of this process, but an important
one.
Number 1221
MR. DAPCEVICH said the debilitating effect that the public
inebriate has had on communities across the state is being felt
more. He said it is becoming more of a crisis as less money is
available for municipalities to deal with this problem. He said
communities are having to allocate their scarce resources to deal
with this problem. He said the Public Inebriate Task Force is not
going to develop expensive solutions, but may rethink the way in
which the state does business with many of the involved agencies.
He said CSHCR 26 is a way in which the legislature can get the
involved agencies together to work in a collaborative manner to
solve these problems.
Number 1261
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked the reason why $15,000 is being spent on
travel when the state has the ability to utilize the teleconference
system.
MR. DAPCEVICH said he could foresee some travel expense to gather
input from across the state, but said that he could not list
specific details related to that.
Number 1295
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she could understand the need for gathering
input, but pointed out that three of the meetings are scheduled in
Anchorage where the teleconference system can be used. She then
referred to the $42,700 for a legislative administrative assistant,
Range 19A, and asked if there was someone in the department who
could provide that assistance, as the assistant would only be
needed for those three meetings.
MR. DAPCEVICH said he could not speak for the department and added
that the advisory board only has two staff.
Number 1313
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Co-Chair Toohey wanted to rewrite a fiscal
note to which she replied in the affirmative.
Number 1074
JULIE KRAFT, Director, Member Service, Alaska Municipal League, was
next to testify. She read from a sponsor statement, "The Alaska
Municipal League supports passage of HCR 26. Many communities lack
the financial resources to deal with the problem of public
inebriates. Communities are required to detain these people with
extremely limited financial assistance, while faced with ever
increasing costs. The public inebriate problem is a public safety
problem, a medical care problem, and a drug alcohol treatment
problem. This issue will not be resolved from any one single
entity, but everyone must take responsibility to develop a
solution.
A comprehensive plan needs to be developed by those people who have
to deal directly with the issue of treatment and services for
intoxicated persons. HCR 26 will provide the mechanism to do just
that."
Number 1372
NELSON PAGE, Chair, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, was next
to testify. He said he is in support of the proposed task group as
this is an important one for the beneficiaries of the trust as well
as the communities that serve those beneficiaries. He concluded by
stating his support of the resolution.
Number 1424
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHCR 26 (HES) with an
amended fiscal note of $15,000 and individual recommendations.
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected to the motion. She agreed that
the fiscal note seemed large, but suggested that the finance
committee be the committee to address the fiscal note.
Number 1469
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it was a committee's prerogative to write a
fiscal note.
Number 1530
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the finance committee could choose to put the
old fiscal note back into CSHCR 26. A discussion ensued regarding
whether or not the committee should vote on amending the fiscal
note, when it was decided not to take a roll call vote on this
issue, Representative Robinson withdrew her objection to the
motion. Hearing no further objection CSHCR 26 (HES) was moved from
the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social
Services.
HB 512 - ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next item on the agenda was HB
512, an act establishing English as the common language and related
to the use of English in public records and at public meetings of
state agencies.
Number 1591
ROGER POPPE, Legislative Aide to Representative Kott, said changes
were made to HB 512 and are now incorporated in CSHB 512, version
9-LS1700\G. He believed that once the CSHB 512 version was
incorporated into the Basis System, it would remove concerns from
the rural areas of the state regarding this legislation. He
referred to page three, line nine, and said that language was
deleted to avoid confusion surrounding a native corporation. The
inserted new language was "of the state".
MR. POPPE said, when drafting HB 512, Representative Kott operated
under the assumption that there wasn't any activity at the local
level that was conducted in other languages. He said upon
receiving new information that there are some rural areas
conducting all or part of their meetings in native language, the
CSHB 512 was changed so that it does not try to force them to
change that practice. He said this substantive change of CSHB 512
is located on page two, lines 11 through 13, Section B, "where it
says a municipality may by ordinance or resolution elect not to be
subject to (a) of this section. In other words a municipal school
district or regional educational attendance area may, by vote of
the school board, elect not to be subject to (a) of this section,
which in essence is "the whole bill."
Number 1733
IRMA MIRELES read from a statement, "I'm fourth generation American
of Mexican descent, bilingual in English and Spanish. As a member
of the Hispanic community and a member of the state advisory
committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this statement strongly opposing the proposed
HB 512 `an act establishing English as the official language...'
We, Hispanics, have a long history of patriotism and honor being in
this country and proudly serving in many capacities including the
military, since before the Civil War, in spite of years of racism
inflicted on us.
Hispanic names are well engraved in Alaska's history and geography,
and, in Alaska, Spanish is the second most commonly spoken language
next to Yupik. We are one of the fastest growing population and in
Juneau, we number about 1,500 and contribute with sweat of our
brow, taxes and votes. We have strong family values and encourage
our children to learn English and be valuable citizens by being
bilingual. An English only law can lead to a stigma, embarrassing
our children into believing they are second-class citizens when
speaking Spanish. This bill claims that bilingual education would
be protected. Did you know that U.S. English, the real sponsors of
this bill, in their action program state, `Restriction of
government funding for bilingual education to short-term program
only'? We have a little bit of protection here since Alaska
statute does protect it under Article 6. In 1926, Alaska passed a
literacy law as a requirement for voting. The intent of this law
was to keep Alaska Natives from voting. Today, you have HB 512.
Again, U.S. English in their action program state, `Repeal laws
mandating multilingual ballots and voting materials.' This bill
would open the door for similar laws and would be a proponent of
racism. Two of Alaska's biggest industries are tourism and trade
with foreign countries like Russia and Japan. For the Alaska
Visitor Statistics Program, tourist spent over $685.4 million in
goods and services, of this approximately $400 million are from
foreign visitors. It makes no sense to pass this law declaring
foreign languages unwelcome in Alaska. In fact, this proposed law
would amount to the state of Alaska sanctioning bigotry.
The National Education Association (NEA) has stated, `An English
only law would make it more difficult for schools to prepare
students for America's jobs of the future.' Remember, during this
information era, technology and economic opportunity does not stop
within U.S. borders. We must prepare our children for tomorrow, a
world of diversity.
Per 1990 census, English is spoken by 97 percent of the American
people and is universally recognized as `America's Language', yet,
at no time in American history has the U.S. had an official
national language. Research shows that todays immigrants are
learning English faster than previous generations. According to
Juneau Adult Basic Education monthly statistics, they have
approximately 30 students taking English as a second language on a
monthly basis. Also, more than 99.9 percent of federal documents
are in English according to General Accounting Office (GOA).
You need to take in consideration that such a law leaves the state
open for extensive, expensive, divisive and frivolous litigation.
There have been several court cases from other states, who have
passed an English only laws, and all of those states have been
expensive not only for the states but for some of the businesses.
And all of those cases have been found unconstitutional. We are a
country composed of many cultures and languages. Language
diversity is to be celebrated not castigated.
Does this proposed bill make me angry? A strong resounding `yes.'
It makes me angry and thousands of citizens. This bill not only
implies racism but denial of our fifth and fourteenth Amendment
freedoms and does not ensure procedural and substantive due
process. The U.S. is a country that prides itself in our freedom
and this bill would trample on one of our basic rights and that is
speech, no matter in what language we choose to express that
freedom. English is not an endangered language. We, the people,
understand and accept the economic importance of knowing English
and do not need a law to force us to learn it. Further, this bill
would not unite us, it would only serve to divide us and has the
potential of bringing about a great deal of prejudice and you,
members of this committee, have it in your power to defeat this
racist bill right here. And as the National Association for
Bilingual Education states, `American ideals of freedom, democracy
and tolerance, not language, have been and will continue to be the
bonds that hold America together.'
I would like to conclude with a quote from Mexico's first Native
American President, Benito Juarez, who said, `El respeto al derecho
ajeno es la paz.' Respect for others rights is peace."
Number 2158
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG confirmed that Ms. Mireles was on the U.S.
Commission for Civil Rights, state advisory committee. He asked,
if he voted for HB 512, whether she would consider him a racist.
Number 2166
MS. MIRELES said she hoped he was not a racist, but said that it
has been proven by the other bills, passed in other states
regarding English as the official language, that it is, in fact,
racist legislation.
Number 2158
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he took exception to the testimony by
Ms. Mireles.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Co-Chair Bunde to read a letter from
Nora Marks Dauenhauer, principal researcher, Language and Cultural
Studies, Sealaska Heritage Foundation, into the record.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE read from the letter, "I oppose HB 512, an act to
make English the official language of Alaska.
The law is unnecessary and redundant. English is already the
common language of communication of Alaska.
This bill seems to have its origins in the insecurity and prejudice
of some segments of the white community. It seems to come from
fears that are absolutely unfounded . Mexican novelist, Carlos
Fuentes, suggested to journalist Bill Moyer in an interview that,
`When you get a proposition in California to vote the English
language as the official language of the state of California, it
only means one thing that English is no longer the official
language of the state of California.'
This is not the case in Alaska. There is no threat to English or
any other language. In fact, most Alaska Native languages are in
danger of extinction.
Native languages have suffered discrimination and persecution under
the `English-only' policies of the past, and many schools still,
are still reluctant to include Alaska Native language and cultural
instruction in the curriculum.
This bill is certainly an affront to the dignity and status of
Alaska Native languages. The bill also looks like a new threat to
the survival of Alaska Native languages.
The bill serves no practical purpose. It is symbolic and divisive.
I fear that it may generate or support anti-Native language emotion
and activity in the future, and that it may become the legal basis
or precedents for laws or policies against Alaska Native languages
in the future.
We need the support of the Alaska State Legislature to protect the
rights and ethnic heritage of all citizens, and not pass
discriminatory..."
TAPE 96-30, SIDE A
Number 0000
CO-CHAIR BUNDE continued reading from the letter, "...legislation
directed against Alaska Native people and their heritage."
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to HB
512. She said Amendment 1 inserts, "and the languages of Natives
peoples indigenous to the state." She developed Amendment 1 based
on a Hawaiian model where English and Hawaiian are official
languages of the state. She said she was going to name each Native
language, but was advised by the drafters that adding the language
of Native people was the correct use of language for the amendment.
She wanted to clarify that the languages include; Aleutian, Eskimo,
Tsimshiann, Tlingit, Haida, Yupik and Anthabaskan languages. The
rest of Amendment 1 brings unity within the language of HB 512.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the title of HB 512 would read, "Establish
English and the languages of Native people indigenous to this state
as the official language and relating to the use of English then in
public records and at public meetings." He clarified that the
official languages are English and Native languages, but English
would remain as the official written language.
Number 0167
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the second part of the proposed Amendment
1, page one, line two, "English" is deleted, and "the common
languages" is inserted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if this is a challenge where we have languages
that are oral and not written. He then asked if Yupik were a
written language.
Number 0198
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON confirmed that Yupik is a written language.
She said Amendment 1 brings in the Native languages and allows them
to be used.
Number 0211
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY referred back to Ms. Mireles testimony and said the
reason for HB 512 is to say that the official paperwork of the
state of Alaska will be in English. The bill does not say that
Spanish, Gaelic or Yupik cannot be taught. She referred to the
proposed Amendment 1 and said this language would cause meetings to
be recorded in English and Yupik.
Number 0289
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said Amendment 1 only states that English
and Native languages are the official languages.
Number 0289
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the proposed Amendment 1 does not
address Spanish, German or the dialects of Filipino.
Number 0317
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to another bill, regarding the
pioneers of Alaska and said that this bill was modified to
recognize Natives and pioneers, as the bill drafters recognized
that Native people were here before white settlers. She said
Amendment 1 recognizes that Native languages were the existing
languages. She said the pioneers of Alaska did have the foresight
of the Hawaiians to put the acknowledgement of Natives into the
constitution.
Number 0358
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to a resolution from AFN which
states that they are against HB 512 and added that Amendment 1
might disperse some of their concerns.
Number 0384
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked for clarification about the use of
other languages in documents and written materials.
Number 0407
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the written materials could be in
either of the languages, that they did not have to be in all of the
languages.
Number 0422
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that the proposed Amendment 1 would leave
out languages such as Spanish.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that she did not support HB 512,
just that she was proposing this change to the bill.
Number 0439
MR. POPPE said that as a result of the proposed Amendment 1, it
would end up requiring, potentially, all documents in Alaska to be
interpreted and published in 28 languages. He said, because of
this fact, he believed the sponsor would be opposed to the proposed
Amendment 1. He said HB 512 does try to take into consideration
that Native languages did exist in Alaska first and the bill
attempts to incorporate, in the language, accommodations to current
practices among Native people.
Number 0557
MR. POPPE said, in regards to the opposition of HB 512 by AFN in
their October 1995 resolution, the AFN is currently reconsidering
this whole issue due information they have received regarding this
bill. He referred to the two national organizations that are
supporting language activity of this type, U.S. English and English
First. He said U.S. English takes a moderate approach and tries to
preserve all bilingual activity. English First, as part of their
legislation and official approach, is trying to eliminate all
bilingual programs at the national and local level as well as
intruding into the private sector to have English as the only
language. He said English First is more conservative and extreme
in its approach than is the sponsor of HB 512.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1. Representatives Brice,
Robinson voted yea. Representatives G. Davis, Rokeberg, Toohey and
Bunde voted nay. Amendment 1 failed to be adopted to HB 512 in the
House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.
Number 0622
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHB 512, version G,
out of the committee.
Number 0714
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected to the motion. He said his view of
CSHB 512 was tainted, not so much based on the bill's merits,
although the merits are frivolous, but by this organization, U.S.
English. He questioned the ethics of some of their lobbying
efforts and said he resented the misinformation U.S. English
presented to this committee and to him personally. He said he
could not support HB 512 because it is supported by such an
unscrupulous group.
Number 0707
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for specific facts.
Number 0714
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said U.S. English told him that Hawaii was one
of the states that had English as the official language. He said
he was also told, by U.S. English in their presentation to this
committee, that you are not required to know English to gain
citizenship. He said, upon checking with Immigration and
Naturalization Services, he was told that this was not true.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that the representative from U.S. English
told him that AFN had not taken a stand, and then he found the
resolution against HB 512 in the committee packet. He said if the
committee is to make decisions on information provided by this
organization, he said the committee needed to make sure that they
were receiving the proper information.
Number 0808
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would be willing to support an
amendment, similar to Amendment 1, if it clarified the uses and
applications of the languages to a greater degree.
Number 0862
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said no one has convinced her that there is
any problem in the state of Alaska that requires this piece of
legislation. She said HB 512 has been divisive and has caused the
Native constituents in her district to feel that their Native
languages are rejected. She said AFN might change their position,
but added that the only resolution currently is that AFN opposes HB
512. She wanted to recognize that all of us are racist, and to
recognize that fact, allows for healing. She said the people who
try not to be a racist, find themselves being racist. She said it
is a constant education process that we have to work on and
understand when and where we cross that barrier.
Number 0940
CO-CHAIR BUNDE suggested that the word, "ethnocentric" be used,
rather than the word, "racist." He said we are, to varying
degrees, ethnocentric. He said, as someone who studied
psycholinguistics, the common language is the one thing that has
kept this nation from fragmenting. He said we need a common
language, but questioned what was "broken" in Alaska. He said he
would have less hesitation to support HB 512 if there had not been
the history of suppressing other languages in the education system.
He said we are more enlightened now, and reiterated that we need a
common language.
A roll call vote was taken on CSHB 512, version G. Representatives
G. Davis, Rokeberg and Toohey voted yea. Representatives Brice,
Robinson and Bunde voted nay. CSHB 512 failed to be moved from the
House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.
HB 529 - APPROVE CENTRALIZED PUBLIC HEALTH LAB
Number 1041
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next item on the agenda was HB
529, an act giving notice of and approving the entry into, and the
issuance of certificates of participation in, a lease-purchase
agreement for a centralized public health laboratory.
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department
of Health and Social Services, supported HB 529 because it resolves
the serious problem regarding the public health laboratory system.
She said public health laboratories are an essential component of
any state system which promotes public health. She said every
state in the nation promotes public health and has a public health
laboratory system.
Number 1216
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said a strong public health system to
(indiscernible), detect outbreaks of disease and controls public
health threats. She said the state currently has three public
laboratories that were established as regional laboratories prior
to statehood. She said they were developed when transportation
linkages and technology was less sophisticated. She said these
three laboratories specialize in services and they are no longer
regional laboratories. She said samples travel from all over the
state to a certain laboratory, based on the function of that
laboratory.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said as air travel and global connections occur
with more frequency today, protecting the public health becomes
more difficult. She said Alaska is often the place where people
are traveling in and out. She said a strong public health system
must be in place to protect the state from biohazards and other
emerging diseases.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said the public health laboratories are in
lease facilities. She said the Anchorage and Juneau facilities
have been in their locations for a long time. She said Anchorage
established their lab location in 1962, and the Juneau lab was
established in 1971. She said the Juneau and Anchorage
laboratories do not meet health and safety codes. She said the
laboratories present risks to staff and, potentially, to the
public. She said the Fairbanks facility is adequate for the near
term and functions as a very fine laboratory.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said HB 529 would incorporate a state medical
examiner which is a strong piece of the state's public health
effort. She said the state medical examiner is currently housed in
a crime lab where space is limited.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said there are very few responsibilities she
has in the state constitution or in the statutes. She said that
one of her responsibilities is to protect public health and added
that was the first responsibility that the territory of Alaska
incorporated for their department. She said the Executive Branch
and the Legislature share this responsibility and it is a core
function of government. She said, as the Commissioner of Public
Health, she is responsible for making sure that the public health
system is strong, that the employees work in safe places and that
she does not knowingly ignore risks. She said as public servants,
we cannot ignore conditions created by state government operations
that present health and safety risk to the public.
Number 1239
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said it would be irresponsible if the state did
not act on this issue. She stated that this has been an issue of
concern for over a decade. She said she did not want to minimize
that it is a difficult regional issue and said that because it has
been difficult issue nothing has occurred. She said 14 separate
studies have concluded that the state must act on this issue. She
said a centralized laboratory function will provide the most
economical, permanent solution to the state's critical facility
problems.
Number 1266
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said a system is needed that is accessible to
health providers statewide, can achieve efficiencies and can enable
the state to improve services and reduce operating costs. She said
it is for this reason that she is asking support for HB 529.
Number 1280
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said it was difficult to propose this solution
as it adversely affects the economies, the lives, and the jobs of
some of the state employees in Juneau and in Fairbanks. She said,
in the year 2000, those employees would be asked to move to
Anchorage under HB 529. She stated her belief in regional
government and did not think that everything should be housed in
Anchorage. She believed that the imparity of the public health
system outweighed those concerns, at this point. She said there is
an unsafe situation in Juneau and in Anchorage and that the state
must act.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said there is another bill in the legislature,
which would close the Juneau laboratory precipitously. She said
this bill is unwise, impacts the lives of the employees and
jeopardizes the current situation. She said the department wants
a planned transfer not a precipitous one.
Number 1343
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said she respects the differences that people
have regarding this issue, but said she felt responsible for
addressing this issue.
Number 1369
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked the witnesses to summarize their points as
there were time constraints.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed that this issue is important to
the community of Juneau and Fairbanks and asked that there be an
opportunity to bring all the relevant information forward.
GREGORY V. HAYES, DrPH, Chief, Laboratories, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services, was next to
testify. He said, as compared to private health laboratory, the
state public health laboratory is directed towards the prevention
and control of disease in the community. He said the public health
laboratory provides an assessment, develops policy and plays an
assurance role. He said the testing that no longer meets this role
is given back to the private sector to perform. He said he could
provide examples of where this is the case. He said the public
labs do not perform routine clinical chemistry testing, but focused
on communicable disease testing.
DR. HAYES said the core functions of a public health laboratory
include disease control and prevention programs, maternal, child,
family health programs and epidemiological programs. The lab
supports surveillance activities, outbreak investigations and
monitors for the emergence of new infectious agents or the re-
emergence of infectious agents of public health importance. He
said the lab also focuses on the development of methods for testing
and then assists with the transfer of the new technology to the
private sector. The lab performs diagnostic product evaluations,
collects data, performs high quality testing at a reasonable cost,
and provides training, laboratory expertise and reference services
to the private laboratory community in the laboratory diagnosis of
diseases of public health significance.
Number 1487
DR. HAYES said he had been with the state of Alaska for two years.
He said, under his role of chief, it is his function to use the
available resources such as personnel, instrumentation and
finances. He said he uses these resources in the most effective,
productive and cost effective manner possible and does it in a
manner which protects the health and safety of staff. He said it
has been extremely difficult to do this under the current
structure.
Number 1500
DR. HAYES said he has a staff of 41 in four different locations
which include the chief's office, a lab in Juneau, a lab in
Fairbanks, and a lab in Anchorage which performs 60 percent of the
total testing. He said the labs are specialized. The Juneau lab
performs primarily Mycology and Water Bacteriology while Anchorage
lab specializes in Tuberculosis (TB) testing, the Fairbanks lab
performs almost exclusively Virology testing.
DR. HAYES said the staff is dedicated and professional and have to
meet very stringent federal regulations. He said he would not go
into detail regarding these regulations, but said it makes staff
recruitment difficult.
Number 1572
DR. HAYES said the major issue regarding the labs is their urgent
need of repair. He said there are mechanical and structural
inadequacies which makes it difficult to conduct testing. Two of
the labs were constructed as office space and have major problems.
He said the Fairbanks lab was constructed as a laboratory in 1967,
so it is somewhat dated. All three of the laboratories have poor
facility layouts and space limitations for future growth.
DR. HAYES said the state public health labs are licensed by the
federal government under the clinical laboratory improvement
amendments. He said, during the last survey, the state labs were
found to be out of compliance and forced to stop doing TB testing
in the Juneau lab. The samples were then sent out of state, until
"band-aid" renovations could be done on the Anchorage facility. He
said the surveyors will be coming back in August and will be
looking at how the state is addressing the long range plan to solve
both the health and safety problems of the public health
laboratories.
DR. HAYES said efficient transportation, reliable communications,
and advances in laboratory technology now enable the state to
reconsider the need for having three separate laboratories. He
said, currently, in many instances specimens received in one
laboratory must be split, and sent to one or both of the other
laboratories which dramatically increases turn-around-time.
Number 1625
DR. HAYES said the new technology, that the department is looking
to bring into the laboratory, tests at the molecular level and
includes DNA probes and Polymerase Chain Reaction. He said these
are very expensive technologies which have very specific space
requirements. He said the technology can be used if the organism
is a bacterium or a virus. He said it doesn't make sense to
establish this technology in two or three different locations. He
said it also makes little sense today to have three sets of similar
equipment: autoclaves, microscopes, specialized ventilation
systems, biological safety cabinets, isolation rooms and triplicate
supply orders.
DR. HAYES said that the laboratory, with its varied disciplines,
must work together as a team and also work as a team with the
state's epidemiologist. He said this teamwork would be greatly
enhanced if all the laboratories were physically located together.
DR. HAYES said that when an outbreak occurs of unknown origin, it
would be extremely helpful, to have all of the laboratory
professionals with their expertise together. He cited an example
of a food borne outbreak where the cause could be bacterium, viral,
or parasitic. He said, currently, the samples would have to be
sent to two or three different labs for analysis which dramatically
slows the resolution of the outbreak.
Number 1679
DR. HAYES said, in conclusion, the state has identified the
problems the laboratories face, the state knows how to solve them,
the state has engaged in long-range planning and has developed a
comprehensive workable solution. He said centralization of the
state's public health laboratories in a new facility maintains an
essential public health service more cheaply, more effectively and
more efficiently. He said this centralization solves health and
safety problems and provides for future growth.
Number 1698
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the Fairbanks laboratories are old, but
said the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently certified the
laboratory for Biohazard 3.
Number 1720
DR. HAYES said the facilities are dated and the layout of the
facilities is not optimal. He said the laboratories are on several
different floors with supplies located at a great distance from
where they are utilized. He said the director's office is several
halls away from the labs.
Number 1744
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that the layout presented no danger
to the people that are working at the Fairbanks location. He then
asked if the level and type of equipment needed was really at the
level that Dr. Hayes had listed. He referred to a report written
by the "Strategic Health Plan" and said that apart from a small
reduction in clerical staff most of the scientific staff would
remain. He said the staff was going to need all their individual
equipment such as microscopes.
Number 1800
JOHN MIDDAUGH, MD, Chief, Division of Public Health, Department of
Health and Social Services, thanked the legislators for their
assistance in helping the state public health laboratory monitor
for TB. He said the laboratory has helped keep TB under control by
accepting and analyzing the sputum specimens which has helped the
state detect people infected with TB. He said the reason for the
original TB outbreak was that part of public health infrastructure
"broke." He said the department's section of labs are "broke" in
terms of facilities and the ability to maintain, over the next
decades, the capacity to provide an essential function of state
government. He said there is no question that state public health
labs are different than private labs and that the types of
expertise they contain are different. He said the staff are
qualified professionals, who have done incredible work. He said
the state needs to maintain facilities which enable staff to apply
emerging technology of both equipment and collegial interaction in
order to maintain an ability to detect and diagnosis epidemics
efficiently, accurately and enable the state to know how to
respond.
Number 1879
DR. MIDDAUGH said teams have just come back from St. Lawrence
Island with 600 sputum samples that "we dropped on the lab" in a
day in Anchorage doing smears, looking under the microscope as well
as to doing a culture from those specimens. He said the staff has
done thousands of those specimens since the department requested
the assistance from the legislature last year. He referred to the
epidemic from last summer at Burwash Landing, where hundreds of
tourists were getting sick, including the elderly. He said the
public health laboratory had no understanding, initially, of the
cause of the outbreak and the lab had to get many specimens. He
said it, turned out the etiology, was a Norwalk virus which is
difficult to detect or control. He said the superb lab work from
the state lab personnel, under trying conditions, was able to
detect the outbreak and were able to control it. He said this type
of outbreak, from contaminated water, is almost impossible to
contain. He said many options were discussed including shutting
down the tour bus operations, between Haines and Fairbanks, in the
middle of the tourist season.
Number 1912
DR. MIDDAUGH said that during this outbreak there was some new
publicity about Hanta virus, which came out of some surveys of
voles in the Yukon. He said this information created some
sensationalistic media coverage which tended to imply that this
virus might be a threat to the tourists in Alaska. He said superb
work, done by Don Ritter over many decades, gave the state
information about the long presence of this Hanta strain in mice,
but no evidence of infection in humans.
Number 1931
DR. MIDDAUGH said, in summary, the expertise that the state public
health laboratory has must be supported by adequate facilities. He
said, when he came to Alaska, huge problems existed in shipping
specimens from point A to point B, especially when specimens went
from one region to another. He said, today, specimen shipment
usually comes into the Anchorage area and the ability to rapidly
interface multiple biological specimens in a lab is an important
component of the response.
DR. MIDDAUGH said to get a group of physicians to agree on anything
is difficult and mentioned that while a consensus did not exist,
the state medical association fully endorsed and supported the
department's efforts to develop a central, single laboratory
facility. He said this decision to build a central facility was
not done lightly. He said his close friends, who he worked with
for 20 years in Fairbanks, Juneau and Anchorage, are near and dear
to his heart. He added that, scientifically, it is not sound to
maintain, in the long-term, separate facilities. He urged the
committee to help build a public health facility for the future
that will maintain the state's ability to protect the public health
for several decades to come.
Number 1983
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it was the intent to hold HB 529 over to
another meeting, but wanted to give the committee members the
option to ask the witnesses questions.
Number 1992
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the comment about "scientifically
sound to keep them separated" and asked if information of how the
state has been unscientifically sound since statehood.
Number 2007
DR. HAYES said the new technology that the public lab is using,
Polymerase Chain Reaction, does not look at a virus or a parasite,
it looks at something on a molecular level. He said it is this
type of testing that the state needs to bring into the public
health laboratory. He said it does not make sense to set this type
of technology up in three separate places as it is expensive. He
said the use of Polymerase Chain Reaction technology will allow the
lab to identify something in a matter of hours as opposed to
putting the specimen into a viral culture which would take a week
or weeks to identify. He said the cirologic assay is another
example of how the technology would best utilized in a central
facility.
Number 2035
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG received information that the central
facility would be 47,000 square feet.
Number 2054
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS clarified that the three labs perform
specific, specialized functions.
Number 2067
DR. HAYES said the labs have specialized themselves over the years.
He said in Juneau the primary specialization is Water Bacteriology
and Mycology as well as other routine bacteriology. He said the
Anchorage lab does routine bacteriology and specializes in TB
testing. He said there was a big effort by the federal government,
who is funding the state TB program, to centralize the TB program
as the state can achieve better statistical analysis of the
specimens. He said the Fairbanks specialization is virology.
Number 2090
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG cited a personal experience with food
poisoning and cited the excellent work that the state public health
laboratory did.
Number 2109
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that the Anchorage and the Juneau
laboratories were in need of maintenance work. She asked if this
centralization process were being driven more by finances rather
than being the best policy. She said the state obtained three labs
initially and asked for information regarding why three labs were
developed. She asked if the state went to one lab, would the state
would eventually revert back to three labs. She also asked for
information regarding the timeliness of getting specimens under one
centralized facility.
Number 2155
DR. HAYES said, under the territorial days when these labs were set
up, transportation was very poor and it made sense to have three
labs spread out in a state the size of Alaska. He said each lab
provided the same, whole range of testing. He said, currently,
there are not the same transportation problems. He said Anchorage
is the hub of the transportation system in the state of Alaska.
DR. HAYES said he, currently, has problems with virology specimens
being sent from Bethel that don't make it there because they are
frozen or die before they make it to the Fairbanks lab. He said
putting the lab in Anchorage is the best location to receive those
samples in a timely manner and to give the best turn around time.
He said, in checking with the airlines regarding communities such
as Petersburg, Tok and Kenai, factors have been worked out as part
of the long range plan.
Number 2197
DR. MIDDAUGH said that when he came to Alaska as a commissioned
officer, he was met by Frank Pauls, who founded the Juneau lab, and
said that Frank told him that it would be valuable for the state to
move toward a single lab in Anchorage. He said, here we are,
trying to do that again.
DR. MIDDAUGH said the state did not build the lab in Fairbanks, it
was built by the federal government as part of a huge research
operation in the 1950s and 1960s. He said we are still benefitting
from the work done by Dr. Rausch and his colleagues. He said that
facility was built, at the time, with state-of-the-art work and
that is why the rabies and virology work is done there. He said,
when he arrived in Alaska, the Fairbanks lab did microbiology and
all of the specimens would be flown to Fairbanks and then the plane
would come to Anchorage. He said, 10 to 15 years ago, those planes
started to fly to Anchorage and then the specimen would be shipped
back up to Fairbanks to be analyzed.
DR. MIDDAUGH said, one of the problems, is that usually the
etiology of the disease is not known at first so diagnostic
specimens need to be taken and analyzed for both viruses and
bacteria. He said as technology grew and merged together, there is
no justification for one lab doing virology and one lab doing
microbiology and bacteriology. He said these specializations are
coming together because of the technology.
DR. MIDDAUGH said the department is looking to maintain the best
science and the ability for the lab to function within the next
several decades. He said this plan is not necessarily the best
message for politics or for his close colleagues, but added that
professionally, these staff are in accordance that science dictates
a central facility.
Number 2297
TOM LANE, Facilities Manager, Division of Public Health, Department
of Health and Social Services, said the centralized facility would
have a 55 year life.
Number 2306
GREG HERREFORD, Manager, Juneau Laboratory, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services, said he was in
favor of a consolidated facility. He said he has lived in Juneau
for ten years and that he likes living here, but that for the good
of the state and the good of the people in the state of Alaska,
there needs to be a high quality, high resource laboratory. He
said the current situation, with the three laboratories, is
untenable. He said he supports the building of a combined
facility.
MR. HERREFORD said, because of the financial situation, the state
cannot support three state-of-the-art laboratories and that the
state of Alaska deserves a state-of-the-art laboratory.
Number 2346
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said everyone will need to know what will be done
to the personnel in the laboratories.
Number 2355
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said there has been some discussions in the
budgetary process to eliminate the Juneau lab immediately, she
asked what would happen if this were to occur.
MR. HERREFORD said, if the Juneau lab were to move immediately, the
biggest problem would be that the Anchorage facility is very
stressed now with the specimen load and the space constraints.
TAPE 30, SIDE B
Number 0000
MR. HERREFORD said, "...add additional testing and testing areas
that move, say from Juneau to Anchorage, I've honestly don't know
where they would find the place to put some of the testing that we
have to do." He mentioned that the Mycology testing required a
biological safety cabinet and its own enclosed room. He said
anything like outbreak protection is not needed but, he said to do
this type of testing, you want to minimize the amount of foot
traffic. He said an immediate move would have a negative impact.
Number 0062
DR. HAYES said he was working on this issue right now.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would take that answer as a "no."
Number 0066
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what Southeast will lose as a result
of losing the Juneau laboratory if a consolidated facility is built
or the Juneau laboratory is closed.
Number 0075
MR. HERREFORD said that if a consolidated, state-of-the-art
facility is built and if various clinics are told what services are
going to be offering then he did not think that Southeast will lose
much. He said the turn around time will be increased, but there
are ways to mitigate that impact such as instituting a Goldstreak
or a courier pick-up. He said, if there is a precipitous closure
of the Southeast lab, this area will lose quite a bit. He said the
turn around time will be much longer than the doctors and clinics
in this area will find acceptable and they might stop utilizing the
state laboratory. He said this will result in a loss of baseline
data which is needed to detect outbreaks before they infect
hundreds of people.
Number 0118
NOLAN WATSON, said he has been involved with the public health
laboratories in the state of Alaska since 1993. He said he
conducted one of the studies referred to by Commissioner Perdue.
He said this study was an assessment of the public laboratory
facility. He said he was a consultant to the Anchorage lab and was
responsible for "band-aiding" the facility, especially the TB lab.
He said the laboratories in the state of Alaska are among the worst
that he has been. He referred to his experience in the states of
Washington, Arizona, Hawaii and California. He said he wrote a
book which will be distributed by the CDC on the design of public
health laboratory facilities. He said for the safety of the
personnel and for the specimens that come through, assessment is a
big issue.
Number 0208
MR. WATSON said the protocols and the high quality of the technical
people, minimize the risks in the Anchorage laboratory and in all
the laboratories. He said trying to do high quality biological
safety Level 3 facility in a wooden office building is very
difficult. He said he could only commend the people who work in
the facility. He concluded by saying that he supported HB 529.
Number 0208
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HB 529 would be held over for testimony on
Thursday, March 21, 1996.
Number 0214
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Mr. Watson was involved with the
financial side of the studies or whether he was involved with the
design side.
Number 0232
MR. WATSON said his background was in facilities and before joining
the architectural practice his background was as a laboratory
scientist. He said he is involved in the scientific aspects, not
the financial side.
HB 540 - HEALTH CARE DATA; BIRTH REGISTRATIONS
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next item on the agenda was HB
540, an act relating to health care data and registration of
births.
Number 0265
JOHN MIDDAUGH, MD, Chief, Division of Public Health, Department of
Health and Social Services, said HB 540 is a housekeeping bill but
also has important significance. He said, after 20 years of
effort, his department was successful in obtaining a federal grant,
as a result of legislation passed by Congress, to establish a new
statewide cancer registry. He said his department has successfully
moved towards implementation of the registry and promulgated
regulations in order to do so.
Representative Vezey joined the committee meeting at 4:45 p.m.
MR. MIDDAUGH said the federal legislation requires certain
components which could not be incorporated into state regulations.
He said, in order to maintain eligibility under this program, which
includes federal funding of $420,000 per year for a five year
project period, the state needs to include three provisions:
protection from civil liability for providers who report under
state law; provisions that assure access to the medical records
which would establish characteristics of the diseases that are
required to be reported; and provisions to provide for appropriate
protection of data and access to data for research. He said these
provisions have been endorsed by the Alaska State Medical
Association, who support this effort.
MR. MIDDAUGH said there is another component to HB 540 which
relates to birth records and said Mr. Zangri will discuss this
section.
Number 0322
AL ZANGRI, Chief, Vital Statistics, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services, was next to testify. He
said HB 540 is a housekeeping bill for his department. He said the
primary objective of HB 540 is to bring the Alaska statute into
line regarding the way the state of Alaska registers births that
occur in foreign air space or international waters and land in
Alaska. He said these changes are made as a result of strong
suggestions from the National Center for Health Statistics. He
said the primary objective of HB 540 is to fully implement the
state's electronic birth system. He said this system would allow
the state to register births from hospitals by electronic means
rather than the records being shipped to the department, via floppy
disks. He said the state needs the ability to eliminate the
individual signature on every birth certificate and allow an
electronic registration method so that these births can be recorded
over modems. He concluded that HB 540 will allow the state to do
this.
GARREY PESKA, Lobbyist, Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home
Association, said he supported HB 540.
Number 0407
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to move HB 540 with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. A roll call vote
was taken on HB 540. Representatives Vezey, G. Davis, Rokeberg,
Robinson, Toohey and Bunde voted yea. Representative Brice voted
nay. HB 540 was moved from the House Standing Committee on Health,
Education and Social Services.
HB 512 - ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
Number 0435
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to rescind the committee's
action on "HB 512."
Number 0450
A roll call vote was taken on whether to rescind the action of the
committee on "HB 512." Representatives G. Davis, Rokeberg, Vezey,
Toohey and Bunde voted yea. Representatives Brice and Robinson
voted nay. The committee action on HB 512 was rescinded by the
House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.
Number 0500
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move "HB 512 with attached
fiscal notes and individual recommendations."
A roll call vote was taken on "HB 512." Representatives Rokeberg,
G. Davis, Vezey and Toohey voted yea. Representatives Brice,
Robinson and Bunde voted nay. "HB 512" was moved from the House
Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.
HR 12 - UNIV. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT
Number 0510
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HR 12, supporting the collective
bargaining agreement between the University of Alaska and the
Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers, was next on the
agenda.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, sponsor of HR 12, read from a sponsor
statement, " I introduced HR 12 on behalf of the Alaska Community
College Federation of Teachers (ACCFT). It is my understanding
that on May 8, 1992, the University of Alaska Board of Regents
approved a collective bargaining agreement between the University
of Alaska and the ACCFT. In June of 1993, through a change in
university policy, the collective bargaining agreement was
compromised. An April 1995 arbitration decision ruled the original
collective bargaining agreement should be fulfilled. I am asking
that the legislature support the ruling of the arbitrator."
Number 0520
RALPH McGRATH, Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers,
said ACCFT represents the full-time staff who teach in vocational,
technical, adult basic education, continuing education, the
extended sites of the University of Alaska and are the faculty who
are responsible for the 100 and 200 introductory courses. He said
ACCFT has been a faculty organization for over 20 years
representing the interests of the community college component of
the University of Alaska. He said, he believed, that many of the
committee members had received support letters from faculty around
the state expressing hope and interest that the legislature would
support HR 12.
Number 0622
MR. McGRATH said the issue involved, is different from many of the
other collective bargaining agreements, because it is an existing
contract. He said this contract was negotiated and approved by the
Board of Regents in 1992. He said the regent's policy, adopted as
part of the contract, was to compensate faculty for work performed.
He said in 1994, the Board of Regents suspended that policy. He
said ACCFT took the matter to arbitration and received the
arbitrator's award last April which upheld the validity of the
contract and that the terms agreed upon must be met.
Number 0654
MR. McGRATH said the issue of appropriation to meet this contract
came before the legislature. He said, during the last legislative
session, no formal action was taken by the legislature to reject
the contracts. He said ACCFT is familiar with the legal counsel
for the legislature, and knows the significance when no action is
taken on an issue. He said this is a problem that was created by
the University of Alaska and that they should have met the terms of
the contract. He said the Board of Regents determined the policy,
knew the terms of the policy, knew that the contract terms deemed
arbitration boards as final and binding. He said that when the
arbitration board says the university shall pay that is what it
means.
Number 0659
MR. McGRATH said, because the university still refuses to pay,
ACCFT is asking the legislature to support the legal opinion of
last year and perhaps to provide a signal to the university, that
when they fail to meet the terms of contract, they should be
disciplined and they should not blame the legislature for rejecting
their contracts. He said the university should meet the demands of
the contract for the 285 people it represents.
Number 0759
BILL JERMAIN, Attorney, ACCFT, said he was the Deputy Commissioner
of Labor for the state of Alaska and drafted the first bills on
PERA. He said there are several things that are obvious in PERA.
He said the purpose of PERA is to encourage collective bargaining
and to clearly have a separation of powers. He said the Executive
Branch negotiates the contracts while the Legislative Branch
appropriates money. He said from the history of the legislation
there must be an affirmative rejection. If a agreement is
negotiated and the legislature appropriates general funds for a
purpose, those funds go to that purpose. He said this statement is
compatible with the opinion given by Legislative Counsel, Kramer,
and one which ACCFT agrees with. He said if you fail to this, you
discourage the collective bargaining process. He said until you
have legislation agreeing to this process, you have a law that
states you must meet the terms of your agreement. He said you
would have a situation where you would pay non-representatives out
of general appropriation which would create immediate disparity and
unfairness.
Number 0869
MR. McGRATH said the problem is complicated by the fact that in
collective bargaining agreements, you have a give and take. He
said, in the state of Alaska, there are circumstances where you
have established cost savings which could not have been
accomplished any other way except by collective bargaining. He
said the fair labor standards provisions were accomplished through
the collective bargaining process, saving the state billions of
dollars. He said the disadvantage is that the state does not fund
the financial obligation that was the give and take in that
arrangement. He said it is the Executive Branch position, that
unless you specifically appropriate additional monies for that
collective bargaining agreement, the state will not pay their
obligations. He said if this occurs, then the legislature will
always be the "bad guy."
Number 0889
MR. McGRATH said the university will negotiate an agreement and
then not honor its obligations, looking at the legislature for
appropriations. He said, no matter how much money the legislature
gives the university, they are not going to meet their obligation
unless the legislature gives them additional money. He said this
practice does not lead to one of fiscal responsibility.
Number 0904
MR. McGRATH said there is litigation dealing with the failure of
the university to honor its 1995 obligations. He said the
university received appropriations from the legislature for 1995,
but it has never been given to the community college group. He
said a specific bill was passed stating that the sum of $507,000
was appropriated to the University of Alaska for a three year
percent salary adjustment to satisfy those monetary terms of a
collective bargaining agreement entered into with ACCFT for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1995. He said, even though the
legislature expressly appropriated money, the money has not been
paid. He said this legislature has spoken eloquently to fiscal
responsibility and added that this situation is not fiscally
responsible by the Executive Branch of government.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Standing
Committee on Health, Education and Social Services, Co-Chair Bunde
adjourned the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|