Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1996 03:07 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 1996
3:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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. 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."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 12
Supporting the collective bargaining agreement between the
University of Alaska and the Alaska Community Colleges' Federation
of Teachers.
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Relating to rights of public school students.
- PASSED CSHCR 30(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 216
"An Act establishing the Alaska education technology program; and
providing for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 216(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 506
"An Act relating to establishment of a fire fighting and safety
training program by the University of Alaska."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 393
"An Act relating to managed care for recipients of medical
assistance; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 435
"An Act relating to employment contributions and to making the
state training and employment program a permanent state program;
and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(*First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
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
03/14/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 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
03/14/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 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: 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
BILL: HB 216
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Brown
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 530 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/21/95 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 506
SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY FIRE FIGHTING PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NAVARRE,G.Davis,Phillips
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2727 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2727 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 529
TOM LANE, Juneau Facilities Manager
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110650
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0650
Telephone: (907) 465-3037
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 529
GREGORY V. HAYES DrPH, Chief
Section of Laboratories
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110613
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0613
Telephone: (907) 465-3019
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 529
MICHAEL PRESS
Coopers & Lybrand
Telephone: (212) 259-2279
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 529
DENNIS DeWITT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Eldon Mulder
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 451
CURT LOMAS, Program Officer
Welfare Reform Program
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Telephone: (907) 465-3382
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 451
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
Statewide University System
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 155000
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-7311
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HR 12
RALPH McGRATH, President
Alaska Community Colleges Federation of Teachers
2533 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 562-2660
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HR 12
PHIL SLATTERY, Faculty Member
Sitka Campus
Box 1864
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8482
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 12
JOLI MORGAN, Professor
of Applied Business
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 844
Bethel, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 543-2013
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 12
ROBERT WARNER, Associate Professor
of Library Science
University of Alaska Southeast
888 Monroe Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4722
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 12
PETER PINNEY
5132 Haystack
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 389-2582
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 12
GEORGE GUTHRIDGE, Associate Professor
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 883
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5483
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 on HR 12
ERIC LEEGARD, Representative
Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers
P.O. Box 32806
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 780-4021
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 12
KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HCR 30
STEPHEN McPHETRES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
364 4th Street, Suite 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 30
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 30 and HB 216
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HCR 30
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 216
LARRY WIGET, Director of Government Relations
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Telephone: (907) 269-2255
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216
KIMBERLY HOMME, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216
KAREN JORDAN, Past President
of the Alaska Society for Technology
and Education
11575 Mendenhall Loop Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-1803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216
MICHAEL McGOWAN, Coordinator and
Assistant Professor
University of Alaska Fairbanks
510 Second Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 474-7916
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 506
THOMAS MONK, Member
Interior Fire Chiefs Association
1710 30th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 451-2600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 506
DAVID BURNETT, Chief
Kenai Fire Department
105 South Willow
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-7666
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 506
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NAVARRE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 521
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3779
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 506
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-31, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Toohey at 3:07 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Brice, Robinson,
Rokeberg, Bunde and Toohey. Members absent were Representatives
Vezey and Davis.
HB 529 - APPROVE CENTRALIZED PUBLIC HEALTH LAB
Number 082
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced the first order of business to come
before the committee was HB 529. She said this bill had been
before the committee previously and asked if there was anyone in
the audience wishing to testify. Hearing none, she closed public
testimony. She inquired if the Department of Health & Social
Services had any further testimony to present.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Department of Health & Social
Services, said based on his belief that the issues and questions
most likely to be raised were going to be related to the financial
aspects of the project, he had asked the representative from
Coopers & Lybrand in New York to address the committee on the study
that was done.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted for the record that public testimony had been
re-opened.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS joined the meeting at 5:09 p.m.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said based on a 1994 printout of the Centralized
Option Lab Model, a strategic planning document from the Department
of Health & Social Services, the estimated cost for the project in
1994 was $13 million and she expressed concern that in two years
the cost had increased by $10 million.
Number 385
TOM LANE, Facilities Manager, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Health & Social Services, said the original
construction cost estimates were done in 1994 and did not include
the medical examiner's laboratory. Since then, a follow up study
worked on by Coopers & Lybrand was completed in 1995 and because of
the two-year delay extra inflation costs were included, as well as
costs for the medical examiner. He explained the department had
originally tried to get an appropriation last year, so another
year's inflation has also been added to the cost. He acknowledged
it was a big jump in cost, but the increase included three years of
inflation, space for the medical examiner, which wasn't originally
included, and some changes in the financing costs.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY raised a concern about $2,931,000 for a medical
examiner.
MR. LANE said compared to the other costs, it was basically
proportional to the space that would be required as proportional to
the rest of the facility.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if a breakdown of the space was available.
MR. LANE said the department was roughly estimating about 4,400
square feet for the medical examiner and in the neighborhood of
22,300 square feet for the public health laboratory, itself. He
explained that currently the lab is in two locations in Anchorage;
the office is at the state trooper building and the laboratory
space is at the crime detection laboratory.
Number 538
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG asked how many people were in the
medical examiner's office.
GREGORY V. HAYES DrPH, Chief, Section of Laboratories, Division of
Public Health, Department of Health & Social Services, said he
wasn't really sure, but knew of two pathologists and clerical
support.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that information be provided to the
committee concerning the size of the space in relation to the
personnel. He inquired if human remains would also be kept in that
space.
DR. HAYES responded affirmatively.
MR. LANE said that Mr. Lindstrom indicated there are usually two or
three autopsy assistants, a pathologist and some clerical support.
They would provide the committee with a complete breakdown.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how many individuals are currently doing
autopsies?
MR. LANE said he wasn't exactly certain how many people were
involved.
MR. LINDSTROM responded two pathologists.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked if the medical examiner space would
be in addition to the proposed building.
MR. LANE explained that something needs to be worked out for the
medical examiner in the future because currently they are using
borrowed space at the public safety building. They viewed this as
an opportunity to "kill two birds with one stone" and also, it
would allow them to get a symbiotic relationship between the
different laboratories. He explained that the plan in the study
focused on the public health laboratories, but given that something
will need to be done with the medical examiner, this was an
opportunity to consolidate those two programs.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY again reiterated her concern that 44,000 square
feet was a large amount of space for a state with a population of
500,000 to 600,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG calculated the cost to be about $680 a
square foot, assuming there were no service areas attached.
MR. LANE said the original cost estimates were in the neighborhood
of $400 per square foot. Costs would be added to that for
equipment, administrative costs in terms of state employees who
would be working on it at the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities and design costs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he was in support of the
laboratory, but the costs were extraordinary.
MR. LANE interjected that laboratory space is very expensive.
Number 785
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought it was irresponsible to ask for this kind
of increase.
MR. LINDSTROM noted the Department of Public Safety is very
supportive of this project. The current space for the medical
examiner is very limited and the Department of Public Safety very
much wants to utilize that space in the crime lab for other
purposes, including the DNA (indisc.).
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY read an excerpt from the 94 project budget, "Land
cost is considered to be $0, based on the use of state-owned
property." She maintained that a $10 million increase in two years
was not justifiable.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented there were people on teleconference
waiting to testify, but he felt there were too many unanswered
questions and asked that the bill be held over to the following
week.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out the increase wasn't quite $10
million, because it included interest, etc. He thought it was more
like $5.5 million.
Number 902
MICHAEL PRESS, Director, Coopers & Lybrand, said he was available
to answer specific questions with regard to the statistical
information, the cost of the lab and savings, the differential in
savings between centralizing and possibly consolidating.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if Mr. Press had previously observed
construction costs of this type of facility and if he had compared
the proposed cost of this project with other projects.
MR. PRESS responded he had found nothing unreasonable about the
cost estimates that accompanied this legislation for the type of
facility that is contemplated.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Press what a typical laboratory
with similar specifications would cost in the United States, what
percentage of Alaska cost adjustment was made for on this project,
and to give a breakdown on the difference between equipment and
specialized leasehold improvements.
MR. PRESS advised committee members that the costs presented were
not derived by Coopers & Lybrand per se. They reviewed the costs
and found nothing unreasonable about them; however, the costs were
specified by the firm of Livingston Slone, Inc., of Anchorage in
conjunction with (indisc.) International, not as the contractor,
but consulting design architects.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented he had a number of questions for Mr.
Press and inquired if Co-Chair Toohey's intention was to hold the
bill in committee.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY agreed there were a number of questions that needed
to be answered, so the bill would be held in committee.
Number 1140
CO-CHAIR BUNDE suggested that Mr. Lindstrom and the Department of
Health & Social Services could probably answer many of the
individual questions.
MR. LINDSTROM felt the department had attempted to furnish as much
information to individuals as possible, but it was his observation
there would be questions that simply would not be answered
satisfactorily to some individuals.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that HB 529 would be held in committee
and rescheduled at a later date.
HB 451 - PROHIBIT DUPLICATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Number 1292
DENNIS DeWITT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Eldon
Mulder, said "The intent is to allow a pilot project on electronic
fingerprinting in the Anchorage area to determine whether or not we
can find a useful and determining duplicate application and as we
move along with legislation that will limit the length of time on
welfare - life time limits on welfare recipients can help build a
data base so that we can track those folks over time in a very
efficient way." As indicated in previous testimony, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Arizona and Washington state are looking at
electronic fingerprinting, while New York, California and
Pennsylvania have already established the program and it appears to
be working well in terms of detecting and deterring fraud. Mr.
DeWitt commented the fiscal notes provided by the Department of
Health & Social Services appeared to be extremely inclusive. The
sponsor concurred that $47,000 for the fingerprint equipment
operator is reasonable. The proposal from North American MORPHO
Systems, Inc. who is the contractor for the equipment, had been
received and provides for three units in the Anchorage office at an
approximate cost of $115,000 to $120,000. The sponsor felt that
$200,000 plus was somewhat excessive for the development of a pilot
project given that several other states have already implemented
the program. Mr. DeWitt said they would like to have the
opportunity to discuss the fiscal notes with the Finance Committee
chairman, who chairs the subcommittee on Health, Education & Social
Services. He felt through discussions in the Finance Committee,
they would be able to come up with more reasonable costs.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE viewed this legislation as twofold, and asked Mr.
DeWitt to correct him if he was wrong. One is to be proactive so
when the time comes that we actually have a nationwide time limit
on welfare, people will not be drifting from state to state
duplicating benefits. The other benefit deals with fraud within
the state of Alaska. He asked Mr. DeWitt to estimate the amount of
fraud currently going on within the state in terms of numbers of
people and dollar amounts involved.
Number 1425
MR. DeWITT said that Co-Chair Bunde was correct on the two intents.
However, they have not been able to come up with a handle on the
number; it's difficult to tell, but they don't believe there is a
great deal of fraud. He added that one of the purposes of the
pilot project is to establish how much fraud there is. Other
states have found it rewarding in terms of a reduction in
applications as well as detected fraud. Based on the reviews
completed of the other programs, there was some initial reluctance
to register for benefits, but the notion that there is a deterrent
effect to eligible and legitimate applicants was not found to be
true.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked the same question regarding fraud of Mr.
Lomas, but limited it to the Anchorage area because that was where
the pilot project would take place.
Number 1512
CURT LOMAS, Program Officer, Welfare Reform Program, Division of
Public Assistance, Department of Health & Social Services,
responded that he did not have fraud data with him at the hearing
for Anchorage, specifically. Based on the department's quality
control activity, which is a federally mandated monitoring activity
that generates statistically reliable results, statewide over the
last four years, the error rate for AFDC payments paid in error as
a result of wilful misrepresentation on the part of the clients,
was 0.85 percent. Again statewide, that calculates to roughly
$102,000 a year out of a $120 million program, which is what was
being looked at. Assuming the activity is proportional, randomly
distributed around the state, Anchorage has approximately 40
percent of the caseload, which would be in the neighborhood of
$40,000 per year.
Number 1581
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said the focus of the fingerprinting
program is trying to identify people attempting to get duplicate
benefits. She asked Mr. Lomas if he had any statistics available
on duplicate benefits fraud.
MR. LOMAS said based on quality control records for as far back as
available, the department has never had a case where they found an
error on the basis of duplicate identity. The only case anyone is
aware of, is the case Mr. Nordlund referred to in his testimony at
a prior hearing, where the fraud was detected by the department
before any benefits were issued. That client is now serving time
for welfare fraud.
Number 1620
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Lomas how he envisioned this type
of pilot program would assist the division in fraud cases.
MR. LOMAS responded the department's fiscal notes reflected no
impact on the cost of the AFDC program, based on their belief that
it wouldn't make a difference. Particularly, given that the design
set out in the project specified in the bill would operate in only
one office in Anchorage, the likelihood of someone receiving
benefits under two identities seemed to be so small as to be none.
Number 1677
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Sections 1 and 2 of the legislation
were currently not in law?
MR. DeWITT said while there are a number of tangential laws which
deal with the issue of fraud, there is no specific prohibition in
either the AFDC program statute or the General Relief program
statute that precluded duplicate enrollment.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE inquired if the department had an individual
in jail who shouldn't be there.
MR. DeWITT didn't think that was the case. He said there is an
ability, through a lot of other tangential laws, to get to the
issue.
Number 1732
CO-CHAIR BUNDE conjectured that a person might be a little more
careful in completing their application for benefits if they were
required to go through the fingerprinting process. He asked if
there was any research available from states that have implemented
fingerprinting, to indicate whether or not the reject level of
applicants was reduced.
MR. DeWITT said he didn't have that information available and
couldn't respond to the question.
Number 1779
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Mr. Lomas was aware of any
research related to Co-Chair Bunde's question.
MR. LOMAS replied that according to the federal AFDC agency, there
is only one state conducting this kind of activity in the AFDC
program; other states conducting the activity are doing it only
with their state General Relief programs. He added the only place
it is happening with AFDC program is in LA County, California and
the demonstration results have not been released, but they are a
matter of great controversy. The information he received indicated
the quantitative result that had been detected, that went through
objective measurement, was that they had discovered 11 individuals
who attempted to obtain assistance under a duplicate
identification. Mr. Lomas said he hadn't seen the report because
it hadn't been released yet. He felt it was fair to say there
isn't a good set of data that indicates whether this generates real
results or not.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was anyone else who would like to
testify. Hearing none, public testimony was closed.
Number 1884
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Mr. Lomas if the department thought
there was a problem with fraud in this area?
MR. LOMAS replied no. He said the department recognizes there is
fraud, but they do not feel this particular kind of fraud is
significant relative to the other kinds of fraud that occur where
people may not be providing accurate information. The department
is well focused on it and has a lot of activity in that area.
Number 1919
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the fiscal note indicates an expense
of about a half million dollars in the first year and inquired if
the sponsor felt this was the best use of money to stop fraud in
the state. She asked how the department would use the money if
they were trying to increase fraud cases. Also, she wondered if
the sponsor had looked at other alternatives.
MR. DeWITT said the sponsor has been focused on this approach. The
bulk of the projected cost is for developing a Request for Proposal
and following the federal guidelines for requesting a waiver and
reporting on a waiver. He added that it may be more economical to
limit the project to the General Relief program. If that's the
desire, he feels the reduced cost would be worth the investigation
into the fraud. He also believed the price placed on this project
is certainly all inclusive and a pretty significant estimate for
reviewing and creating the program.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY pointed out the bill is headed for the Finance
Committee next, where the costs can better be addressed. Her
personal feeing was this legislation was not yet needed. The
department has an incredible record for keeping people honest and
has won an award yearly for having no payment errors.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed her desire to table the bill in
this committee based on the lack of statistical data indicating
that it is needed at this time and the large fiscal note.
Number 2078
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to table HB 451.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the
motion were Representatives Rokeberg, Brice, Robinson and Bunde.
Voting against the motion were Representatives Vezey, Davis and
Toohey.
HR 12 - UNIV. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT
Number 2154
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University System,
University of Alaska, said this piece of legislation was confusing
to her, but as she understands it, HR 12 directs the University to
pay for a salary increase, through reductions in their current
programs, for a bargaining unit whose request for a pay increase
was already turned down by the legislature last year. She
commented that this sets sort of odd precedents, but one that
presents some problem is a kind of ignoring the collective
bargaining process the university is involved in with their
collective bargaining units, and a rewriting of legislative history
and intent after the fact, which causes some problems. The biggest
problem however, is the serious financial impact on the current
university budget. She hadn't planned to go into a long history of
what the arbitration was, but stated she would do so if the
committee desired. She explained that what happened with this
arbitration ruling was that in effect, the arbitration froze in
place a 1993 Board of Regents' policy that asked for a 3 percent
salary increase for all faculty. The arbitrator said that even
though the contract states the bargaining unit faculty will get the
same thing that all the other faculty get (keep in mind this
bargaining unit is about 254 members out of a total of 1200
faculty) the board changed the policy, and the arbitrator said they
couldn't do that; they would be frozen in place with the board
policy at the time they signed their contract.
MS. REDMAN distributed a document to committee members which gave
an overview of the UA/ACCFT Arbitration Award, the UA/ACCFT
Collective Bargaining Agreement and the State Employee Collective
Bargaining Law. She pointed out that in Reference 1 the
arbitrator's award states "The University shall pay the bargaining
unit members the pay increase provided by the collective bargaining
agreement." Reference 2 indicates what the collective bargaining
agreement is with this unit; that is "that any compensation
increases shall be subject to legislative appropriations in
accordance with the provisions of AS 23.40.215 and shall be
requested separately from compensation increases requested for
other employees of the University." Additionally, Article 12.5 (B)
says implementation of monetary terms will not become effective
unless there is approval given for the additional funds by the
legislature. That did not happen. She stated that Mr. Jermain
yesterday referenced a letter from Terry Cramer, legislative
attorney, on what to do when the legislature isn't going to fund
the contracts. Basically, her final determination for the
legislature was that you should go in and say you're not going to
fund it and take the money away. She said that Mr. Jermain did not
read the last paragraph of Terry Cramer's letter, which states, "If
there were a monetary term of a contract that required a separate
appropriation, unrelated to other budget items, then, given the
language in AS 23.40.215, that monetary term would be considered to
have failed unless the legislature made an appropriation for that
purpose. However, I believe that this is an unlikely factual
situation. The safer course for the legislature, if it wishes to
disapprove a monetary term, is to state its disapproval
specifically." Ms. Redman said the other state contracts are not
written like the university's. Their collective bargaining
contract is very clear - it does require a separate appropriation,
it does require additional funding and that was not given.
MS. REDMAN said she argued before the legislature for funding of
the contracts last year and is doing so again this year. The
university believes a good contract was negotiated, their faculty
are not overpaid inasmuch as the average university faculty pay,
including the collective bargaining unit, is about what the average
is for a K-12 teacher in this state. They do not feel that is
appropriate for the level of education and the level of
responsibility for these faculty. It is the university's belief
that a 3 percent salary increase is warranted. The request was
made last year, is being made again this year and a fiscal note is
attached to the resolution. She does not think it is appropriate,
and urged the committee not to set the precedent, to convey to the
university we're not...
TAPE 96-31, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. REDMAN continued... expect you to go back, regardless of the
collective bargaining agreement you have, and cut programs in order
to pay for this. She said that is not appropriate. That may be
something that could be negotiated in a future contract, but that
is not the way it's been done thus far.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said based on the amount of contact he has heard on
this piece of legislation, he believes he was either contacted by
all 257 members of this bargaining unit or there are other people
affected by this. He asked if the 3 percent included everyone in
the university system or only the bargaining unit?
MS. REDMAN replied it was only the bargaining unit.
Number 042
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he didn't care what the contract said,
what was being talked about was the process. Apparently there is
a provision in the contracts to arbitrate disputes and that process
was followed. Generally under Alaska law, either party to an
arbitration can appeal to the district court. He asked if that had
been done in this case?
MS. REDMAN said, "No. What the arbitration ruling was, as you can
see in Reference 1, was the arbitrator said to the university, you
must pay the increase provided by the collective bargaining
agreement, so the requirement - we then go back to the collective
bargaining agreement, and the requirement for the university under
the collective bargaining agreement is to go to the legislature and
get the money."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if it was the university's position that
they have complied with the arbitrator's decision?
MS. REDMAN responded affirmatively.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if anyone, subsequent to that, had filed
action in court?
MS. REDMAN said the union is in court now, but not on that issue.
She added that has been the process the university has had with
this bargaining unit for over 20 years, so it is a well established
process. However, the unions are suing the university over the
issue of whether or not the university has to absorb the salary
increase from existing funds. It is the union's contention that
even though the legislature did not fund the contracts last year,
the fact that the legislature did fund anything at the university,
means the university should pay the increase.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated since the award was dated April 14,
1995, he assumed it had to address some year other than 1995. He
asked what fiscal year it was addressing?
MS. REDMAN said it represents the current year in which the award
was given - FY 95, the current year 96, and 97. The university has
requested the 96 and 97 as well and are before the legislature
again for consideration this year.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented he was somewhat confused as to what
action and reaction prompted the arbitration and prompted the
arbitrator's decision.
MS. REDMAN said, "The issue that prompted the actual arbitration
was the board's - the contract with the ACCFT has a provision that
says on compensation, promotion, tenure, essentially all faculty
matters, that they will follow the same policies that apply to non-
organized faculty. Subsequent to the signing of that contract in
1992, in 1993 the Board of Regents suspended a policy that had been
in place which said they would seek 3 percent pay increases for
their faculty every year. The union filed a grievance one year
later in 1994, and their argument and the arbitrator agreed with
them, is that the reason they filed it a year later is we gave a
pay increase and we got money from the legislature for the
bargaining unit during that 1994 year - FY 94. The union waited a
whole year to file a grievance because they weren't sure what the
impact of the cessation of the board's policy would have on them.
They thought - I guess - am I saying it correctly? I don't want to
misrepresent it. But the board - because they gave the pay
increase during the year which they canned the policy, so it wasn't
going to be until the next year that the non-increase took place.
So, the union waited a year to see whether or not the board would
change their mind or whether they would apply it differently to the
union...."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY verified that a raise was given in 1993.
MS. REDMAN responded yes. The union and the nonunion both got a 3
percent increase.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what happened when 1994 came?
MS. REDMAN responded that was in 1994. The university gave a 3
percent pay increase that began January 1, 1994, through June 30,
1994. She emphasized that both the collective bargaining unit and
the non-bargaining unit received that pay increase. In FY 95, the
non-organized faculty did not get an increase, the university was
in the arbitration with the bargaining unit during that year; in
April 1995, the arbitration ruling was received.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked when the arbitration was filed.
MS. REDMAN thought the arbitration was filed in August 1994.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY verified the arbitration proceeding was
started after fiscal year 94 started.
MS. REDMAN interjected FY 95.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY verified that FY 95 started in July 1, 1994,
arbitration proceedings were initiated and the arbitrator's
decision came out in April 1995.
MS. REDMAN stated that was correct.
Number 259
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that so far all the dispute
provisions have all been followed. He understood there's an
arbitration award and apparently there is a dispute over how the
award is administered. He asked Ms. Redman if that was correct.
MS. REDMAN said the legal dispute the university continues to have
with the union has to do with whether or not the interpretation of
the contract which was specified in Reference 2 of the document she
had distributed to committee members. She added everyone agrees
they are bound by the terms of the contract and the contract says
for pay increases, the university comes to the legislature and must
receive a specific appropriation. That's where the point of
contention is and what is being argued in court. The university
believes the language that states, "specific appropriation subject
to provision of additional funds" means that it has to be a
specific appropriation. On the other hand, the union's stand is
that if there is any appropriation to the university, that is
sufficient to then pay the contract. That is the issue that will
be argued in court.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said it was his understanding there was an
arbitrator's decision and there is a difference of opinion in how
to interpret that decision.
MS. REDMAN reemphasized the university does not disagree with the
arbitrator's decision; the university carried out the arbitrator's
decision and she doesn't think the union has any difference of
opinion as to whether or not the university carried it out. She
went on to say, "Now, they dropped a sentence. They say that the
arbitrator said we must pay the increases and they put the period
at the end of that piece of the decision. We say the arbitrator
said we pay the increase provided by the collective bargaining
agreement. We've had a collective bargaining agreement for 25
years and that agreement is that we come to the legislature to get
the new money that's required to implement the terms of the
contract. And that's what we did."
Number 348
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thought the two points of contention were: The
university is saying they aren't paying because they got a general
university appropriation, not a specific appropriation for the
raise; and the union is saying the university got an appropriation
that should have included the amount for the raise.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the point he was trying to get at was
there was a dispute over how to interpret the arbitrator's decision
or how to interpret the contract. Neither party went back to the
arbitrator for clarification, but rather one of the parties went to
court. He asked when the court suit was filed?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Representative Williams, the sponsor of
HR 12 was in attendance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought she had been told that $500,000 was
put into the budget to fund these contracts and asked what happened
to that money?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Representative Vezey wished to continue his
questioning?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he was trying to find out where we are in
the process of determining how to interpret a contract.
MS. REDMAN responded we're in court and she believed the briefs
would be filed within the next weeks.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated, "So, we're being asked to intervene in
a court proceeding?"
MS. REDMAN said that is what it looked like to her.
Number 436
RALPH McGRATH, President, Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of
Teachers, said the arbitration process we concluded with under the
collective bargaining agreement is final and binding; it states in
the agreement that arbitrator's awards are final and binding. The
arbitrator did specifically say the university shall pay the
compensation owed under the Regent's policy. The university, after
the decision came down in April...
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY interrupted and said, "You have an
arbitrator's decision - the way you enforce an arbitration decision
is you go to court and you get a judgment, so that's what you're
trying to do at this time. Is not the legal -- how does anybody
enforce an arbitrator's decision and not go to court and get a
judgment?
MR. McGRATH said at some point, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted that's the process that is going on now;
we haven't gotten there yet.
MR. McGRATH commented that's right.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY surmised that somebody was asking the
legislature to intervene in a court proceeding. The court has not
ruled yet, and a court can overrule an arbitrator's decision under
certain guidelines.
MR. McGRATH said he believed that was correct. The university did
request the arbitrator, for the university's purposes, to clarify
that his decision meant that all the university had to do was
request it of the legislature. The arbitrator took no action on
it; he said that never came before him in the arbitration process.
The university repeatedly says the arbitrator in his decision
simply meant that the university, now that they have lost the case,
would have to come to the legislature. The university did come to
the legislature last year and what occurred was the Office of
Management and Budget came forward with a letter to Representative
Mark Hanley, House Finance Committee, which essentially stated that
$500,000 was needed to fund the FY 95 and the FY 96 costs. Out of
that particular process, there was no action by the legislature.
In that same period of time, Terry Cramer of the Division of
Legislative Legal Services, interpreted PERA for the House Finance
Committee and included in that definition the essence of almost all
of the Resolution, with the exception of the bottom line, and in
their specific case they were not treated properly. In other words
the interpretation that came from legislative counsel was that if
the legislature takes no action and appropriates personal services,
then the terms of the agreement have been met and it is up to the
agency, or in this case, the university to pay out of their
existing budget. The legislature didn't say they were rejecting
the agreement or rejecting the terms, which is certainly within
their power, but they did not say that.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that he wanted to give the people on
teleconference an opportunity to testify at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was under the impression that Mr.
Jermain had testified in an earlier meeting that there had been an
appropriation made that was to fund these contracts, at least
partially.
MR. McGRATH said they may not be correct in that; they've had
discussions with the university on that issue. They don't see that
as necessarily being a part of the resolution; their bottom line is
the university has the obligation to pay. It's the university's
responsibility and they must meet the terms of the arbitrated award
and the contract.
Number 646
MS. REDMAN said the committee at the last meeting had been left
with the last statement of Mr. Jermain that the university had
somehow stolen money. She clarified that was absolutely untrue and
Professor McGrath now understands that. She explained the
university had a bill in the 1994 legislative session to cover the
3 percent from January to June. In addition, there was a base
adjustment for the next year, as there is with any pay increase, to
carry that 3 percent forward into the second year. She believed
that people thought there were two 3 percent increases given, when
in fact it was the same 3 percent carried into the second year.
The bargaining unit members all received the full 3 percent and
still have it in the base budget.
Number 702
PHIL SLATTERY, Faculty Member, Sitka Campus, testified via
teleconference, that he didn't have much to add to what the union
had already said. He thought basically the arbitrator referred to
the regent's policy and payments according to regent's policy, not
payments (indisc.) contract, but there seems to be an ongoing
pattern of delay. He thought the university may not be making the
best effort on the faculty's behalf if they represent people as
community college faculty who are overpaid rather than as
university faculty who are about average in pay across the United
States. He was hopeful they would win it in court, but said it's
difficult when an arbitrator arbitrates an award and makes a
decision and then the decision is further challenged by people who
agreed to abide by it.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed there were two points of view: The
legislature could appropriate additional money or expect the
university to absorb the cost out of the university's current
budget. He asked Mr. Slattery if he would support closing down
some of the smaller, less efficient programs to fund the salary
increase.
MR. SLATTERY said he would prefer not to shut down any of the
programs unless there is a better program assessment than what
they've had in the past, to look at where the cuts could be made
and where they couldn't. He finds any budget cut made across the
university offensive. He prefers the idea of looking at where
money could be taken out of the system, if necessary.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE remarked that people may be asking the legislature
to demand that the university fund this salary increase, and to do
it out of their existing budget, the university will have to take
money from somewhere else. That's one of the realities the
legislature is being asked to address when they are requested to
address this contract.
MR. SLATTERY acknowledged it was reality, but it is his belief that
parties should live up to the terms of a contract.
Number 881
JOLI MORGAN, Professor of Applied Business, testified via
teleconference from Bethel that he has been an Alaskan resident
since 1967 and with the University of Alaska since 1976. He
supports HR 12 and the enforcement of the contract. The contract
language under Article 4, Section (indisc.-coughing) states the
decision of the arbitrator shall be final and the parties shall
abide by it. He said if we feel the university has the obligation
to go before the legislature and ask for the money, Article 12 of
their contract states that the university shall request and
actively support full funding of this agreement. He does not feel
the university has actively supported the funding of the arbitrated
award. He commented that the union had four issues when they went
to arbitration; they lost on three of those issues and they have
abided by that loss.
Number 951
ROBERT WARNER, Associate Professor of Library Science, University
of Alaska Southeast, testified from Ketchikan that he had been with
the university since 1972. He expressed his appreciation to
Representative Williams for bringing this issue to the attention of
the legislature. He said there have been a long series of
difficulties in labor negotiations between the University of Alaska
and the Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers, and this
resolution brings to light one area of difficulty. He asked the
legislature to take a positive look at trying to resolve this
matter so the university professors and university administration
can get back to doing the important work they need to do for the
citizens and the state of Alaska.
Number 1024
PETER PINNEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HR 12. He said the legislature could save money with HR 12
because it wouldn't cost the state any additional money. It should
not be confused with other appropriations coming before the
legislature in terms of pay increases; it's basically a stand to
follow the rules of a negotiated contract which is in place.
Number 1105
GEORGE GUTHRIDGE, Associate Professor, University of Alaska,
testified from Dillingham. He has been with the university since
1990 and supports HR 12. From his point of view, it is simply a
matter of ethical laws. He thought it was contradictory to say now
there are fiscal problems at the university and programs may have
to be cut if this pay increase is funded. The same thing could be
said on the other side; maybe programs will have to be cut in order
to pay for the court proceedings. It is the university's job to
look at the future and to satisfy the legal obligations they
undertake.
Number 1157
BILL JERMAIN, Attorney, Jermain, Dunnagan and Owens, representing
ACCFT, testified from Anchorage. He said he was sorry if he misled
the committee on the 1995 appropriation; apparently that sum was
built into the base of the salary schedule. The arbitration
(indisc.) that the contract required 3 percent; whatever happened
to the rest of the university was irrelevant to that. The 3
percent was owed and the university refused the pay that and the 3
percent is being enforced through the courts. That's a legal issue
that will resolve itself. He said what is misleading is the
statement about contract interpretations; there is no issue of
contract interpretation in any of the litigation. The litigation
deals with the constitutional issue (indisc.-coughing)
interpretation of AS 23.40.215 and includes the enforcement of the
arbitration award. The university is taking the position that with
the nonrepresented faculty, they can give increases without any
appropriation from the legislature. However, with represented
people, even if there is an arbitrator's award as with this case,
they will not give that out of the general appropriation for
personal services, and say that AS 23.40.215 precludes them from
doing that. That's despite the opinion of Ms. Cramer, which Mr.
Jermain believes is very well-reasoned and agrees with. He quoted
from that opinion, "...a collective bargaining contract may call
for a salary increase. By appropriating money for the personal
services for positions in that bargaining unit, the legislature is
acting on that contract term. Unless the legislature also states
its disapproval of the salary increase, the increase will take
effect, even if the amount appropriated is insufficient to fully
fund all of the positions in the department...." He said they need
to be on the same level as the university (indisc.) give out
general appropriations to other faculty members (indisc.) the right
to do it. How at the same time can they ignore an arbitrator's
award which they say they don't disagree with, and say that it
requires a specific appropriation.
Number 1333
ERIC LEEGARD, Representative, Alaska Community Colleges' Federation
of Teachers, pointed out that he had submitted written testimony to
the committee. He emphasized that all the ACCFT members in Juneau
support HR 12.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed the meeting to public testimony.
Number 1377
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to pass HR 12 from committee with
attached fiscal note and individual recommendations. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
HCR 30 - STUDENT RIGHTS
Number 1463
KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Secretary, to Representative Joe Green,
read the following sponsor statement: "House Concurrent Resolution
30 was introduced to send a strong message to students, parents and
schools that education and school safety are top priorities with
the 19th Legislature. Children are one of the state's most
valuable resources for the future economic and social well-being of
our state. We, as elected leaders have the responsibility to
safeguard their future to the best of our ability.
"Education should be the key concern of a parent sending a child to
school, yet the issue of safety has surpassed this concern. In
1940, the major problems in public schools identified by teachers
were talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise in the
classroom, running in the halls, cutting in line, littering, and
disobeying the dress code. Educators now consider the top problems
to be assaults by students on teachers and other students, weapons
in school, racial or ethnic attacks, gang disruptions, shootings,
knifings, and drive-by shootings. While schools should be a safe
haven for learning, many students are burdened with intimidation
and fear of violence.
"This resolution declares that our children have a right to be
provided with a safe, orderly, and drug free environment in which
they can learn, and that they have a right to high academic
standards in order to prepare them to meet the challenges they will
encounter in the future. Our present system, programs, and
attitudes need to be changed. The conditions that allow students
to become disenfranchised need to be identified and reworked. With
the cooperation of parents, educators, and elected officials, we
can all work together to provide our children the quality they will
need and education they deserve."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted the bill sponsor, Representative Joe Green,
was in attendance. He asked if there were questions for the bill
sponsor.
Number 1645
STEPHEN McPHETRES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), said he believed this resolution speaks in
support of education. The legislature coming out with a statement
of philosophy is a very important step in setting the direction of
how education should be treated in the future. To that end, the
ACSA is supportive of this resolution. He pointed out that in
current regulation, school districts have the responsibility of
establishing rights and responsibilities for their students in
their districts. He didn't want there to be any misinterpretation
of the fact there aren't student rights and responsibilities that
do exist currently in school districts across the state. He read
a paragraph from one school district to give the committee an idea
of the statements and beliefs school districts currently have:
"The Board of Education recognizes that students possess the rights
of citizenship. In granting each student the educational
opportunities for which he or she is entitled, the board shall
provide him or her with the nurture, counsel and care appropriate
to his or her age and maturity. No student enrolled in the schools
of this district shall be deprived of his or her basic rights to
equal treatment and equal access to the educational program. Due
process of law, the presumption of innocence, free expression and
association, and the privacy of his or her thoughts." He directed
the committee's attention to this just to let committee members
know there are in existence within the state and school districts,
statements of their rights and responsibilities for students, as
well. The ACSA does support this resolution and would like to see
terms like "drug-free" and "weapon-free" schools added.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE encouraged the sponsor to think about including
the terms "rights and responsibilities of public students" to the
title of the resolution.
Number 1810
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
stated he had provided written testify to the committee in support
of HCR 30. He thought this legislation was appropriate and timely.
Society and societal change is upon us and the children reflect
that. Parents and communities are very concerned about the
environment in which their children attend schools. He said more
important than just handbooks on roles and responsibilities, though
he felt they were appropriate, society has to take a look at what
has happened over the last 30 or 40 years. As was previously
mentioned, many of the things children face today are totally
foreign to many of us adults in our days in school. He said the
Association of Alaska School Boards has established the "Advocacy
Agenda"; there is limited funding but it was their thinking that
funding alone would not be what would drive their effort. That
effort is to raise the awareness of the public as to some of the
problems that exist. He felt that was about the best they could do
to draw attention to the concerns and help society address them.
He reiterated his support for HCR 30.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE directed a comment to Mr. McPhetres that he did not
view this resolution as a criticism of schools; he agreed with what
Mr. McPhetres was trying to do and wanted to encourage and support
him to that end.
Number 1921
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopt Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected for discussion purposes and asked
Representative Robinson to speak to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said Amendment 1 inserts language on page
2, line 15, "; and (11) the right to available resources to attain
a physically and mentally healthy lifestyle."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he didn't understand if the amendment meant
that students have enough money to get healthy or enough brains to
get healthy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied they can have both.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Representative Green had any reaction to
Amendment 1.
Number 2008
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Sponsor of HCR 30, said he had no
objection to the amendment. He understood the intent of the
amendment and concurred that if a student comes to school with some
type of mental problem, whether it be generated from school out of
fear or perhaps a problem at home, it would inhibit the student's
ability to receive a quality education. While most schools do have
counselors and nurses that would look for abuse, he felt the
amendment would fall in line as to students rights.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the placement of the amendment
within the resolution in that Section 10 was written with a degree
of finality.
Number 2105
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she would rather have it become
subsection (3) following line 17 on page 1, and renumber the
existing subsections.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY expressed opposition to the amendment because
it says they have a right to more money. He said it's a nice
concept and wished there was a money tree available, but people
need to be realistic.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed with Representative Vezey's remarks;
however, he felt the other 10 subsections spoke to the same thing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON pointed out that subsection (6) speaks to
the right to learn in a well equipped school. She felt the
statements contained in the resolution were what is viewed as
important in a school. It is difficult for a child to learn who is
not healthy and mentally healthy and she believed the amendment
would strengthen the resolution.
TAPE 96-32, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY pointed out that each one of the Resolves contained
in the resolution comes with an added cost to the school
curriculum.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE remarked that the amendment says "available
resources" and as long as he had a choice as to what is available,
he would support the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated a further objection in that the
amendment seems to carry over strongly from the school into the
home.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Voting to adopt
Amendment 1 were Representatives Rokeberg, Toohey, Brice and
Robinson. Voting against Amendment 1 were Representatives Vezey
and Bunde. Co-Chair Bunde announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Representative Green would entertain the
notion to adding the word "responsibility" to the title?
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he did not have an objection to
adding "responsibility", but he had a concern because all the
Resolves tend to...
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Green to note his concern and
withdrew his request.
Number 164
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass CSHCR 30 out of the HESS Committee to
the next committee of referral with zero fiscal notes and
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
HB 216 - EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Number 233
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Sponsor of HB 216, said he had a
committee substitute to address for the committee.
Number 266
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 216, Work Draft 9-
LS0765\M, Ford, 3/12/96. Hearing no objection, CSHB 216, Work
Draft 9-LS0765\M was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that educational technology is a major
concern in modern society. Of the eight million high paying jobs
in America, almost one-fourth were in the technology arena. He
felt it was an important way to approach education and training.
The intent of the original bill was to set up the Alaska
educational technology program; that intent is maintained in the
committee substitute. Section 1 of the proposed committee
substitute deals with the legislative findings and the purpose of
the bill. Section 2 of the original bill which dealt with school
districts being required to submit reports was deleted. He learned
there is a new report being generated in the Department of
Education, and their intention is to continue to publish that
report. Section 2 of the committee substitute, contains several
things being required as far as the major purposes of the education
technology program. Most of the requirements that were in the
original bill to administer the fund were eliminated because there
is no general fund monies involved and most likely it will be
operated by pass-through grants. The structuring will be done in
a manner he believed very similar to the Alaska Children's Trust
Fund. He dropped the requirement that the Department of Education
could not use any of the fund money for administrative expenses.
It is his experience that grant money that has flowed into various
funds that have been established in the state generally come
through with the understanding that normal administrative expenses
would be deducted from the grant.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee he had recently learned
the federal government has billions of dollars that will be
available to the various states for inclusion into various funds
around the states for education technology. It is currently before
Congress.
Number 470
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said Section AS 14.30.810 basically covers the
duties of the department. The requirement for the department to
administer the details of the fund has been shifted and instead
overview language borrowed from other states was inserted. Those
states include Georgia, Florida, California and Minnesota. The
duties of the commissioner of revenue are identified in Section
14.30.820. Those duties are basically to administer the fund once
the department is empowered with monies. He noted this was the
standard procedure for handling funds for trusts in Alaska.
Section 14.30.850 is the Definitions section of the bill and is
pretty straightforward. Finally, Section 3 of the bill is the
effective date of the Act. He explained that basically the
framework has been set up in which to receive monies from the
federal government that appears to be forthcoming. There is also
an opportunity for the legislature to appropriate money and an
opportunity is allowed for the private sector to make contributions
into this framework. The Department of Education will actually
oversee the fund, with the Department of Revenue disbursing the
fund.
Number 609
LARRY WIGET, Director of Government Relations, Anchorage School
District, testified from Anchorage that the Anchorage School
District supports the establishment of the Alaska Education
Technology program and urges support of the program by the
legislature. One year ago to the day, he first testified in
support of HB 216; since that time, much has changed. For example,
the ability to share information with each other around the state
and around the world (indisc.) through awareness in the use of
Internet. The development of new software now makes accepting this
information network by students and teachers more user friendly.
The Department of Education, Anchorage School District,
Municipality of Anchorage and other organizations, individuals and
businesses around the state have recognized the importance of this
communication avenue. Unfortunately, what has not changed in the
past year is the ability of the districts and the state to provide
equitable access to information through the information highway to
all students. In the past year, the Anchorage School District has
developed a (indisc.) of instructional technology plan with the
help of the instructional technology committee consisting of over
40 community and school personnel. Their vision begins with a
student in the classroom, eager to learn because of the
instructional technology tools he or she is using. This student is
connected to the district network which is connected to the global
information highway. Computers are used to access information.
However, the technology available to the students in the Anchorage
School District to fulfil this mission is inadequate and outdated.
The district budget cannot provide adequate funds to meet existing
or future district instructional technology needs or eliminate the
present inequity among the schools in providing access to
technology, information resources and communications. To this end,
the voters of Anchorage (indisc.) $35 million for technology. The
outcome of their efforts will not be known until after the April 16
election. House Bill 216 will establish a technology fund. It
will lay the foundation for future monies to be set aside for
technology needs statewide. It recognizes the importance of
technology to the future of Alaska. He urged the committee's
support of HB 216.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY expressed her concern that if we wait for the grant
money, children will be graduating with no schools at all. She
would like to see this concept taken to the Board of Education so
they can incorporate it into their planning.
Number 821
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
said he views this legislation as enabling; it gives direction. He
said he would like to see this fund established, to be able to at
least focus on it as a means of providing the opportunity and
equitable access to technology. From a personal point of view, he
has found that having access to E Mail helps him to communicate
with people. He feels the many uses of technology are critical to
the global economy. He believes the future of young people is
dependent on their ability to use technology. He supports HB 216.
Number 913
KIMBERLY HOMME, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education, testified in support of CSHB 216, which
establishes the education technology fund and the consequent
program that would result. The department feels that having a
technology fund is the first step to having a commitment to
appropriating the funding that's needed. The goal of the fund is
to create a better trained and more productive work force. The
department is concerned that the bill doesn't appropriate dollars
for technology for libraries and schools because it's an empty
shell, but it does provide the frame work for future deposits by
private business, perspective grants from the federal government
and hopefully future appropriations by the legislature. These
monies would then be applied for by school districts and libraries
for the purchases of education technology and the associated
training that goes with new technology. The department would be
allowed to deduct administrative fees from the account to pay for
the work associated with administering the fund and the program.
The department believes if the frame work for the fund is
established, there ultimately would be a mechanism available to
enable the state and local school districts to provide the ability
for children and citizens with the opportunity to learn technology
and its uses. Ms. Homme referred to Co-Chair Toohey's comment on
the Board of Education's concern about technology and education and
said just last fall the board adopted statewide voluntary
technology standards for students. The department has outlined in
regulation what children are expected to know and do with
technology, as well as other areas of the curriculum.
Number 1050
CO-CHAIR BUNDE turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Toohey as he had
to leave for another committee meeting.
Number 1061
KAREN JORDAN, Past President, of the Alaska Society for Technology
and Education, testified the Society fully supports HB 216. She is
the technology coordinator for the Juneau School District and
personally supports the bill. She shared an anecdote about a girl
who had a new E Mail connection with her father, whom she
previously saw only twice a year, but now was able to communicate
with him daily. She cited several other examples of how technology
is currently being used by students. The Juneau School District is
connected to the Internet throughout the district. As had been
previously testified, this bill will set up a fund; it will be a
zero balance fund to begin with, but there are many people
throughout the state that are eager and willing to work on
subsequent funding through grants from private corporations and
other sources. We need to make sure that students as they are
graduating have the skills needed for jobs and employability.
She said that one estimate is that 70 percent of the technology
jobs after the year 2000 will be high technology jobs. The world
is changing, economics are changing and that needs to be addressed
in our school systems.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were other individuals to testify on
HB 216. Hearing none, she closed public testimony.
Number 1246
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass CSHB 216(HES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 506 - UNIVERSITY FIRE FIGHTING PROGRAM
Number 1306
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced the next bill on the agenda was HB 506.
MICHAEL McGOWAN, Coordinator and Assistant Professor, University of
Alaska Fairbanks, testified that Fairbanks has the largest fire
science program in the state and is considered by many
professionals to be the best in the state, and possibly one of the
best in the United States. Currently they have 101 fire science
majors. In addition to offering associate degrees in municipal
fire, the university is the only campus offering associate degrees
in wildland fire and hazardous materials. They also offer courses
in emergency trauma training, emergency medical technician, and
fire fighter I. The university has a pool of 30 instructors that
provide a high level of technical expertise to the program. The
university currently offers about 45 courses per year in fire
emergency medical services. During the last five years, 97
students have graduated with degrees; of those about 80 percent of
them are employed in emergency services or related fields. He has
been told by Representative Navarre's office and Mayor Williams of
Kenai that the primary purpose of HB 506 is to allow the facility
in Kenai to retain all the revenues they generate instead of
turning it over to the general fund of the University of Alaska.
If that is true, he asked why the fire science program in Fairbanks
and Anchorage isn't being included in this bill? He commented that
no one seems to understand the true purpose of the bill, and there
is concern around the state that this will take away from existing
programs. From his point of view, this appears to be an
unnecessary duplication of something already being done quite well.
He asked committee members not to pass this bill out of committee.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. McGowan if he was saying that program
receipts from tuition will cover the cost of training?
MR. McGOWAN said that was the information received from
Representative Navarre's office and Mayor Williams of Kenai.
Apparently the intent is to dedicate the revenues it generates back
to the facility rather than to the general fund of the University
of Alaska.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were any questions for Mr. McGowan.
She asked the next witness to begin his testimony.
Number 1469
THOMAS MONK, Member, Interior Fire Chiefs Association, testified in
opposition to HB 506 because of the inaccurate language, the lack
of clarity and the failure to consider other fire programs within
the state and university system. The association also opposed the
legislation due to their inability to get specific answers to
questions from the university system regarding the policies and
details related to HB 506.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Monk who he had contacted at the
university?
MR. MONK responded he had contacted several agencies; the
President's office, the Provost, Vice President of Academic
Affairs, University Relations, etc. He added that he didn't have
specific names, but the people he had talked with were caught
completely off guard as they had no knowledge of HB 506.
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked for an overview of the structure of the
fire training and safety program at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks.
MR. McGOWAN said he could only speak to the Fairbanks campus. The
fire science program in Fairbanks is under the Tanana Valley
Campus, which is under the College of Rural Alaska. It was his
understanding that the Kenai program is just a campus of the
University of Alaska Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the fire science was a department or
a school under the Tanana Community College.
MR. McGOWAN responded it is a program under the Tanana Valley
Campus, which is under the College of Rural Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there was a school between the
program and the Tanana Valley Campus?
MR. McGOWAN said it's a direct line. He added they used to be a
school of career and continuing education and then merged into the
College of Rural Alaska.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that Representative Navarre was in
attendance.
Number 1633
DAVID BURNETT, Chief, Kenai Fire Department, testified in support
of HB 506. He supported the funds coming back to the Mining and
Petroleum Training Service (MAPTS) in order to continue the
development of this project. He believes it is a viable program
and not in conflict with the university's fire science program.
Number 1668
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NAVARRE, Sponsor, said the goal of HB 506 is
not to compete with any other fire training facilities around the
state. There is a need for the facilities and there will continue
to be a need for them. The impetus of bill was his frustration
with the university in that this is a program that was an outdoor
facility, it had to be moved once because it was generating too
much smoke, another outdoor facility was built. Then there were
environmental problems and people began to build homes around the
facility, so it was going to be moved again in 1988. Another
outdoor facility was going to be constructed, but with the changes
to the Clean Air Act, he suggested that an indoor state of the art
facility be constructed. It is a state of the art facility that is
used for all sorts of fire training, but one of the primary uses is
for oil fire service training. The oil industry utilizes the
facility and are trying, in a cooperative effort, to be able to
keep the funds and accumulate enough funds to buy the props
necessary, which the university doesn't allow them to do, so they
can do the training. The companies are currently buying the props
outside in places like Texas, Pennsylvania and Reno, so rather than
the dollars being spent out of state, they would be spent instate.
He reiterated the legislation is not meant to compete with anybody;
it came as a result of his frustration with the university. He is
also working with the oil industry to see about utilization of the
tax credits that are currently on the statutes as a means of doing
a matching type fund, so they would have some input as to what type
of props are purchased, so specific growing needs within the oil
industry could be met. The Mining and Petroleum Training Service
has also been working in development of the training and trying to
get commitments for the training for the American companies in the
Russian markets. He apologized to the people in Fairbanks who view
this as a threat; it is not intended to be that. The thrust is to
keep the funds where they are generated because this is a self-
funded facility that can continue to grow and meet needs in the
state that are currently not being met.
Number 1824
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY questioned what exactly gives the legislature the
right to dedicate funds.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE responded they're not dedicated. They are
separately accounted for and then the legislature has discretion in
the appropriation process as to the disposition of those funds.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said, "Of program receipts."
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE said they are like program receipts but the
legislature gets to control that through the budget process. He
hoped the funds would be allowed to be used at the facility in
Kenai, but he couldn't absolutely guarantee that.
Number 1858
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the sponsor might consider deleting
"Kenai Peninsula" on page 1, line 7, which would imply a statewide
institute so the people in Fairbanks could participate.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE said he would be happy to come up with one
coordinated plan for fire training in the state that would allow
for designation of certain types of training being done in certain
parts of the state. His frustration with the university is there
seems to be a propensity for whenever someone begins something
successful as a component of the university system, one of the
larger campuses proclaims there's a need and they can generate
additional revenues if they set up their own facility. That has
happened with the petroleum technology training, which was started
in Kenai. He believes there are a lot of programs at the
university that should be combined into one comprehensive plan
statewide. He commented this is his attempt at getting this one
facility in Kenai, which has been generating funds in excess of the
amount needed to operate the facility, and that money has been
stripped away from them and used in other areas.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify on HB 506.
MR. MONK said that Mr. Tim Biggane, President of the Alaska Fire
Chief's Association had been standing by in Fairbanks to testify,
but the time allotment didn't afford him the opportunity.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY apologized to those who didn't get to testify and
announced HB 506 would be heard again in committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY adjourned the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services meeting at 5:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|