Legislature(1999 - 2000)

02/07/2000 01:25 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                  February 7, 2000                                                                                              
                     1:25 p.m.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 166                                                                                                             
"An Act relating to the amendment and revocation of spouses'                                                                    
community property agreements and community property trusts; and                                                                
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED SB 166 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 24(FIN) am                                                                                               
"An Act relating to regulations; amending Rule 65, Alaska Rules of                                                              
Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 253                                                                                                              
"An Act establishing a school disciplinary and safety program; and                                                              
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 166                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNITY PROPERTY AGREEMENT/TRUSTS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 4/28/99      1151     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 5/07/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 5/07/99               (S)  -- MEETING CANCELLED --                                                                             
 5/10/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 5/10/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 5/11/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:40 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 5/11/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 5/12/99               (S)  JUD AT  2:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 5/12/99               (S)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 5/12/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 1/12/00               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 1/21/00      1151     (S)  JUD                                                                                                 
 5/13/99      1414     (S)  JUD RPT  1DP 2NR                                                                                    
 5/13/99      1414     (S)  DP: TAYLOR; NR: ELLIS, DONLEY                                                                       
 5/13/99      1414     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                                                                              
 1/18/00      1992     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR AND 2 OR 01/18/00                                                                 
 1/18/00      1992     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                                                                              
 1/18/00      1993     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 1/18/00      1993     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 1/18/00      1993     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  SB 166                                                                         
 1/18/00      1994     (S)  PASSED Y18 N1 A1                                                                                    
 1/18/00      1994     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 1/18/00      1994     (S)  DONLEY NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 1/20/00      2018     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                                                                   
 1/20/00      2018     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y19 N- E1                                                                 
 1/20/00      2019     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 1/20/00      2019     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 1/21/00      1946     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 1/21/00      1946     (H)  JUD                                                                                                 
 2/07/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 24                                                                                                                     
SHORT TITLE: REGULATIONS: ADOPTION & JUDICIAL REVIEW                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/08/99        20     (S)  PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99                                                                           
 1/19/99        20     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        20     (S)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 1/29/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 1/29/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 1/29/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/08/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 2/08/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/08/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/10/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 2/10/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 2/22/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 2/22/99               (S)  MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                     
 2/22/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/23/99       338     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  2DP 2NR      NEW TITLE                                                                 
 2/23/99       338     (S)  DP: HALFORD, DONLEY;                                                                                
                            NR:TORGERSON, ELLIS                                                                                 
 2/23/99       338     (S)  FISCAL NOTES (DOT, DPS, DHSS,                                                                       
 2/23/99       338     (S)  DNR, REV, LAW, F&G, ADM,                                                                            
                            LABOR-6, DEC,                                                                                       
 2/23/99       338     (S)  DOE, DCED-3, GOV-2, COURT)                                                                          
 2/23/99       338     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS,                                                                             
 2/23/99       338     (S)  LABOR, DCRA)                                                                                        
 3/05/99       423     (S)  FISCAL NOTES TO CS (GOV, DCED,                                                                      
 3/05/99       423     (S)  DOE-2, DEC, F&G, DHSS, LABOR, LAW,                                                                  
 3/05/99       423     (S)  DNR, DPS, REV, DOT, COURT)                                                                          
 3/05/99       423     (S)  PREVIOUS FN APPLIES TO CS (GOV)                                                                     
 3/05/99       423     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN TO CS (ADM)                                                                        
 3/05/99       423     (S)  ZERO FN TO CS (F&G)                                                                                 
 3/09/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/09/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/09/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/18/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/18/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/22/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/22/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 3/24/99               (S)  FIN AT  6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/24/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/29/99               (S)  FIN AT  8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/29/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/29/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/31/99               (S)  FIN AT  6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/31/99               (S)  MOVED CS(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                      
 3/31/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 4/01/99       767     (S)  FIN RPT  CS  3DP 4NR      NEW TITLE                                                                 
 4/01/99       767     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, DONLEY                                                                      
 4/01/99       767     (S)  NR: GREEN, PETE KELLY, LEMAN, WILKEN                                                                
 4/06/99               (S)  RLS AT  3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 4/06/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/06/99       793     (S)  FNS TO CS (S.FIN/DNR, DEC, F&G, LAW)                                                                
 4/06/99       793     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN TO CS (COURT)                                                                      
 4/08/99       821     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO CS (GOV-2)                                                                     
 4/13/99               (S)  RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 4/13/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/14/99       915     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  1DNP 4/14/99                                                                     
 4/14/99       916     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 4/14/99       916     (S)  FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                        
 4/14/99       917     (S)  AM NO 1      ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                   
 4/14/99       917     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 4/14/99       917     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 24(FIN) AM                                                                
 4/14/99       918     (S)  PASSED Y14 N5  E1                                                                                   
 4/14/99       918     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 4/14/99       918     (S)  COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                       
 4/14/99       918     (S)  ELLIS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 4/15/99       936     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                        
 4/15/99       936     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 4/16/99       839     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 4/16/99       839     (H)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 1/28/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 1/28/00               (H)  <Bill Postponed to 2/2/00>                                                                          
 2/02/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 2/02/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 2/02/00               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/07/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 253                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY AND SAFETY PROGRAM                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 5/19/99      1653     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 5/19/99      1653     (H)  HES                                                                                                 
 1/18/00               (H)  HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                         
 1/18/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 1/18/00               (H)  MINUTE(HES)                                                                                         
 1/20/00               (H)  HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                         
 1/20/00               (H)  Moved CSHB 253(HES) Out of Committee                                                                
 1/20/00               (H)  MINUTE(HES)                                                                                         
 1/21/00      1951     (H)  HES RPT  CS(HES) NT 4DP                                                                             
 1/21/00      1952     (H)  DP: GREEN, DYSON, COGHILL, WHITAKER                                                                 
 1/21/00      1952     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)                                                                              
 1/21/00      1952     (H)  JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER HES                                                                        
 1/21/00      1952     (H)  REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                               
 1/21/00      1976     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): WHITAKER                                                                              
 2/02/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 2/02/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 2/02/00               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/07/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HANS NEIDIG, Legislative Administrative Assistant                                                                               
   to Senator Dave Donley                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 508                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Explained changes made to SB 24, Version P,                                                                
and cross-referenced the changes to Version E.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
JANICE ADAIR, Director                                                                                                          
Division of Environmental Health                                                                                                
Department of Environmental Conservation                                                                                        
555 Cordova Street                                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified on SB 24.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                 
Environmental Section                                                                                                           
Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                                                                      
Department of Law                                                                                                               
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified on SB 24.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN SAXBY, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                         
Natural Resources Section                                                                                                       
Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                                                                      
Department of Law                                                                                                               
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified on SB 24.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director                                                                                           
Alaska Civil Liberties Union                                                                                                    
P.O. Box 201844                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska  99520-1844                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 253, citing lack                                                             
of balance between the need for order in classrooms and students'                                                               
constitutional rights, among other concerns.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 104                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 253.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
PAULA HARRISON                                                                                                                  
P.O. Box 4533                                                                                                                   
Palmer, Alaska  99645                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Expressed concerns about HB 253 on behalf of                                                               
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
PAMELA WATTS, Executive Director                                                                                                
Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse                                                                                     
Department of Health and Social Services                                                                                        
P.O. Box 110608                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0608                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSHB 253(HES) about the necessity                                                             
of provisions relating to screening and referral for students with                                                              
substance abuse problems, in particular.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CARL ROSE, Executive Director                                                                                                   
Association of Alaska School Boards                                                                                             
316 West Eleventh Street                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSHB 253(HES).                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-9, SIDE A                                                                                                               
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                
meeting to order at 1:25 p.m.  Members present at the call to order                                                             
were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, Murkowski and Kerttula.                                                                    
Representatives Green and Croft arrived as the meeting was in                                                                   
progress.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SB 166 - COMMUNITY PROPERTY AGREEMENT/TRUSTS                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[Note:  See minutes for HB 220, the companion bill, heard by the                                                                
House Judiciary Standing Committee on January 19, 2000.]                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0036                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business would be SENATE                                                             
BILL NO. 166, "An Act relating to the amendment and revocation of                                                               
spouses' community property agreements and community property                                                                   
trusts; and providing for an effective date."  He explained that                                                                
the committee had reviewed the House version, HB 220, last week,                                                                
and as far as he can tell, the two are identical.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0085                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move SB 166 from the                                                                   
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero                                                                 
fiscal note.  There being no objection, SB 166 was moved from the                                                               
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SB 24 - REGULATIONS: ADOPTION & JUDICIAL REVIEW                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business would be CS FOR                                                              
SENATE BILL NO. 24(FIN) am, "An Act relating to regulations;                                                                    
amending Rule 65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing                                                                
for an effective date."  A proposed House committee substitute                                                                  
(CS), Version P, had been adopted as a work draft and discussed at                                                              
the previous hearing on February 2, 2000.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0165                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to adopt the new proposed                                                                
House CS, version 1-LS0274\E, Bannister, 2/7/00, as a work draft.                                                               
There being no objection, Version E was before the committee.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0206                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HANS NEIDIG, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Dave                                                               
Donley, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to                                                                  
explain the changes.  Noting that he was working from Version P, he                                                             
said he would try to cross-reference the changes to Version E,                                                                  
which he had just received.  He explained the changes as follows:                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1)   The first change was made to page 2, line 29:  the term "mail"                                                             
     was deleted and the term "furnish" was inserted, a change                                                                  
     suggested by [Chris Kennedy of the Department of Law (DOL)].                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2)   The second change was made to page 4, line 8:  the entire                                                                  
     subsection (3) was deleted, a change made after considering                                                                
     comments made by the department and members of the House                                                                   
     Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3)   The third change was made to page 5, lines 9-10:  language was                                                             
     added to require the [Department of Environmental                                                                          
     Conservation] to provide a report explaining their "good faith                                                             
     effort," if they chose to utilize this clause to circumvent                                                                
     the requirements of subparagraphs (i) and (j), a change made                                                               
     after considering concerns expressed by the current committee                                                              
     at the last meeting [February 2, 2000].  That change can be                                                                
     found on page 8, lines 6-13, of Version E.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4)   The fourth change added a five-year sunset clause.  That                                                                   
     change can be found on page 8, Sections 15 and 16, of Version                                                              
     E.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
5)   The fifth change, a suggestion by Senator Loren Leman, allows                                                              
     the lieutenant governor to require state agencies to use                                                                   
     abbreviated public notices in newspapers of general                                                                        
     circulation.  It recognizes the advances in technology by                                                                  
     allowing notices to be furnished rather than mailed, thereby                                                               
     utilizing the Internet.  That change is found in Sections 2,                                                               
     6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, of Version E.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0495                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,                                                                       
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), came before the                                                                 
committee to testify.  Noting that she'd worked for the legislature                                                             
for four years, then had gone to the DEC to help draft regulations                                                              
on a bill that she'd worked on for a year, she stated, "I can't                                                                 
tell you how many times I said to myself, 'I wonder what we meant                                                               
by that,' even though only a few months had passed."  Ms. Adair                                                                 
pointed out that writing regulations is a very different process                                                                
from what most people think it is, which this current draft                                                                     
legislation confirms for her.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR reminded members that regulations rely on a number of                                                                 
statutes.  An authority line follows each enacted regulation, and                                                               
the statutes giving the agency authority to adopt that regulation                                                               
are all listed there; rarely does a regulation list just one                                                                    
statute.  For example, a statute says, "A person may not pollute or                                                             
add to the pollution of the air, land, subsurface land or water of                                                              
the state."  The intent seems clear that pollution is not allowed.                                                              
However, that statute is tempered by others that the DEC relies on                                                              
when adopting a regulation that does allow pollution.  That is what                                                             
most of the DEC's regulations do:  they allow pollution in some                                                                 
form to occur.  Ms. Adair pointed out it is also difficult for an                                                               
agency to really understand the intent of one legislature from                                                                  
another when statutes are amended.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR told members the bill before them is very                                                                             
process-oriented but doesn't yield significant public benefits for                                                              
that process.  She believes it attempts to get to frustration with                                                              
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and how regulations are                                                                  
adopted, a frustration she shares.  The packet of information she'd                                                             
provided outlines some things done at the DEC to try to make the                                                                
regulatory process more meaningful to the public.  The notice                                                                   
requirements are written in "legalese" and printed in the legal                                                                 
notice section of the newspaper; therefore, the DEC has created a                                                               
"quick summary" that gives people, in plain English, an better idea                                                             
about what the regulations do and whether they are affected                                                                     
personally.  The DEC has also created "an amazing guide" to                                                                     
commenting on regulations, including what to do and how the process                                                             
works.  With the draft proposal, the DEC also sends along a "dear                                                               
interested party" letter outlining, in plain English, what                                                                      
regulations are proposed, the changes, and what the DEC believes                                                                
the impact will be on that interested party, so that people don't                                                               
necessarily have to go through the whole regulatory package to see                                                              
if their interests are being affected.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR next discussed the "responsiveness summary" prepared at                                                               
the end of the process.  She explained that if people take time to                                                              
read regulations and provide comments, they deserve an answer as to                                                             
what the DEC did with those comments.  The copy she'd provided is                                                               
from the DEC's recently enacted drinking water regulations, a huge                                                              
project affecting 3,000-plus drinking water systems across the                                                                  
state.  The DEC had made many changes based on numerous public                                                                  
comments received, and then had provided this responsiveness                                                                    
summary to people who commented.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR pointed out the bill's de facto cost-benefit analysis.                                                                
It says the DEC cannot have a valid or effective regulation if it                                                               
imposes any material operating or capital cost without yielding                                                                 
significant public benefits; she suggested Mr. Kennedy from the                                                                 
Department of Law (DOL) had pointed out the difficulty with that                                                                
language.  The final item in the packet is a current statute                                                                    
requiring the DEC, whenever proposing a regulation, to give special                                                             
attention to any public comment they receive regarding the cost to                                                              
comply with the proposal and any alternate practical methods of                                                                 
complying.  If the DEC has received such a comment, the                                                                         
responsiveness summary will explain what it was and what the DEC                                                                
did about it.  A person who had commented could certainly take                                                                  
issue at that point, if the DEC had missed the mark.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0960                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR turned attention to another problem with the APA not                                                                  
addressed in this bill, which perhaps exacerbates it.  There is an                                                              
inaccurate perception that when the DEC puts something out for                                                                  
comment, they already know what they will do.  However, that is not                                                             
the case.  The DEC really does use the public comment period to                                                                 
solicit ideas from the public about their proposal.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR pointed out the difficulty, when receiving a comment, of                                                              
being sure of what the person meant or how to change the proposed                                                               
regulation to meet that concern.  Current law bars the DEC from                                                                 
talking to the people that have commented; they have to open the                                                                
public comment period back up for at least 30 days in order to                                                                  
solicit clarification about what a person was trying to say or what                                                             
the DEC believes will solve the problem.  That has been problematic                                                             
for the department in any number of instances; she cited solid                                                                  
waste regulations as an example where the proposals went out to                                                                 
public notice four or five times simply to get information back                                                                 
from people who had commented, because it was the only process                                                                  
available.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR expressed concern that adding more process wouldn't be in                                                             
the state's best interest; that includes expanding what has to be                                                               
in a public notice, when it is already so difficult to read for lay                                                             
people, and requiring the DEC to report to the legislature.  She                                                                
said it would be non-value-added activity.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR reported that amendments Senator Leman has offered in the                                                             
new proposed CS are from a bill that the Governor introduced about                                                              
three years ago; she was part of the work group that came up with                                                               
some of those ideas.  The irony is that those amendments provide                                                                
for abbreviated notices because of the recognition that public                                                                  
notices are already too long and convoluted for the public to                                                                   
understand.  And now this bill takes the DEC, which often has                                                                   
controversial proposals out there, and says to make the notices                                                                 
longer and more convoluted.  Ms. Adair asserted that there just                                                                 
doesn't seem to be a good mesh there in the legislative intent.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1142                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR said she believed Chris Kennedy of the DOL had pointed                                                                
out a lot of the confusion.  For example, how would the two-year                                                                
time line affect regulations where maybe only one of the statutes                                                               
upon which the regulation relies for its authority has been                                                                     
amended, but the others have not been?  If they follow the                                                                      
negotiated regulation process that Representative James had                                                                     
shepherded through the legislature last year or the year before,                                                                
two years probably isn't long enough.  Ms. Adair stated that                                                                    
"reg-neg" is normally done on something fairly controversial, and                                                               
it is critical to take the time and follow the process through, and                                                             
to listen to the people that one is negotiating with.  To do                                                                    
otherwise violates the spirit of negotiated rule making.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR suggested other questions may be drafting issues.  For                                                                
example, the bill provides that the DEC will give notice to people                                                              
who have commented.  But since they haven't had an opportunity to                                                               
comment yet, she isn't sure who those people are.  Stating her                                                                  
belief that Deborah Behr, a regulations review attorney from the                                                                
DOL, had testified, she said Ms. Behr is the hurdle that the DEC                                                                
must get through to adopt regulations.  Ms. Adair stated:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     We've talked about what she would need from us if this                                                                     
     bill were to be law to demonstrate ... that we had                                                                         
     considered the cost and the benefit; I don't know that we                                                                  
     would really be able to get through that.  We don't                                                                        
     necessarily know costs per se.  We can presume that there                                                                  
     will a cost, as Chris points out in his letter.  Some of                                                                   
     those costs are individual business costs, but the                                                                         
     benefit may also be an individual benefit and not a                                                                        
     public benefit.  And that's of concern.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1294                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR advised members that it is confusing to the DEC, since                                                                
every regulation has to list its statutory authorities, how                                                                     
regulation may thwart or circumvent statute.  She recalled an                                                                   
instance in which the DEC had proposed to change a seafood                                                                      
processing regulation to clarify that farmed seafood products                                                                   
should be labeled "farmed," with the state of origin noted, so it                                                               
is clear that the farmed fish did not come from Alaska.  However,                                                               
in reviewing the DEC's authorities to adopt such a regulation, the                                                              
DOL correctly pointed out that the farmed fish statutes refer only                                                              
to farmed salmon.  Therefore, the DEC was unable to adopt that                                                                  
regulation because they had expanded it from the statute, saying                                                                
farmed seafood products as opposed to farmed salmon.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR emphasized that those authorities are checked out by the                                                              
DOL every time the DEC does a regulation.  She surmised that the                                                                
"thwarting" language in the bill has to do with intent, which is                                                                
very difficult to discern.  She said conference committee                                                                       
proceedings may not be recorded, and if a bill has gone through a                                                               
conference committee, it may be impossible to know the intent.                                                                  
Furthermore, bills may be amended on the floor; she cited an                                                                    
example regarding oil spill legislation where the DOL determined                                                                
the DEC wasn't able to do what the maker of the amendment had                                                                   
intended because the language hadn't been written to allow for                                                                  
that.  She concluded, "So that's another problem that I see with                                                                
language like this.  Your attorneys and our attorneys don't always                                                              
agree, and that's not uncommon."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1479                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Adair whether the DOL has an                                                                 
assigned person to review DEC regulations, for example, so that                                                                 
there is an area of expertise.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR answered that there are two processes.  There are                                                                     
departmental attorneys who specialize in certain areas; for                                                                     
example, the department will use one attorney for drinking water                                                                
issues and another for food related issues.  She explained that                                                                 
when the comments come back in, the department will work with the                                                               
same attorney to help draft any changes to the regulations based on                                                             
those comments.  The department will also work with Deborah Behr                                                                
and Steve Weaver, the regulation attorneys from the DOL, to ensure                                                              
that the wording is right and that it follows the drafting manual.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1554                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Adair whether there is a chance for                                                              
error since the attorney may not be involved in the process and                                                                 
aware of the intent.  In other words, is that why sometimes the                                                                 
regulations don't comply with a piece of legislation?                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR replied there is constant communication between the                                                                   
attorneys involved and the department.  For example, the department                                                             
talks all the time with the regulation attorney to ensure that a                                                                
drafting change for clarity doesn't change the substance.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1621                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to a letter dated 2/7/00 from the                                                                 
DOL.  He asked Ms. Adair whether the scenario on page 3 of that                                                                 
letter talks about an ecotour stopping development in the Colville                                                              
River delta.  He further asked whether that refers to page 2, lines                                                             
29-30, of Version E of the bill.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR affirmed both.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Adair how an argument can be made                                                                
using that language in relation to the Colville River delta                                                                     
example.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR said she would defer to Christopher Kennedy, author of                                                                
the letter.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Adair whether she is familiar with                                                               
the actual permitting of that example.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR said she isn't familiar with that exact one, but she is                                                               
familiar with that argument having been made in other cases.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Adair whether she is familiar with                                                               
the Municipality of Anchorage [Point Woronzof] example on page 5 of                                                             
the letter.  He further asked what section of the bill relates to                                                               
that example.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR affirmed that she is familiar with it.  She said it                                                                   
refers to page 6, line 13, of Version E.  The proposal for Point                                                                
Woronzof was site-specific criteria for total chromium, when the                                                                
intent was Chromium 6.  Although a small change, it is a big change                                                             
in effect; the DOL and the DEC believe the bill would require                                                                   
renotification in that case.  She noted that in the case of Point                                                               
Woronzof, the department did not go out to a public notice again                                                                
because it was specific to the Municipality of Anchorage; it was                                                                
what they wanted, and there wasn't any public comment on the                                                                    
proposal.  The department went ahead and made the correction.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Adair what the current bill would                                                                
require the department to do in that case.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR replied that the bill would require the department to go                                                              
back out for public notice before adopting it.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Adair what kind of time line it                                                                  
would be:  30 days?  90 days?  One year?                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR said she isn't sure whether the two-year provision would                                                              
apply.  She doesn't believe 90 days would apply because that is for                                                             
after a statute has been adopted.  She thinks it would be 30 days                                                               
at a minimum, as called for under the APA.  Depending on the                                                                    
comments, the department might have to go back out again for public                                                             
comment.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it would be at least 30 days, then, and                                                               
another publication cycle.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR concurred, pointing out that the department would lose                                                                
its place in line at the DOL since the regulation attorneys attend                                                              
to everybody's regulations throughout the state.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that Christopher Kennedy was online.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1890                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Kennedy to explain how an ecotourism                                                             
business would have the right to sue to stop development in the                                                                 
Colville River delta example, given the language on page 2, lines                                                               
28-30, of Version E.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1925                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental                                                                  
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, answered                                                                
via teleconference from Anchorage.  He explained that he had used                                                               
the ecotourism group and Alpine field example simply to demonstrate                                                             
how the concept of commercial activity is sometimes broader than                                                                
what is thought.  In actual litigation, some have used the                                                                      
ecotourism business as a way of getting standing to sue.  The                                                                   
actual Alpine litigation was not a challenge to a DEC regulation.                                                               
He was just looking for an example of how this sort of thinking has                                                             
been used in the past.  An analogous situation might be transferred                                                             
to future litigation under the new standard of review that is being                                                             
proposed in SB 24.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, then, that they would be a commercial                                                              
enterprise and able to argue that this special water criterion                                                                  
isn't necessarily producing significant and public benefits.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY agreed.  In that litigation, he explained, they said                                                                
they could no longer use certain channels of the river because of                                                               
disfigurement from the development activity.  Under the bill, they                                                              
could argue that imposes a cost on them because they would need to                                                              
travel further or somehow alter their trip itinerary in response to                                                             
the development.  Had there been a DEC regulation at issue in that                                                              
situation, then that would bring them into the cost-benefit                                                                     
analysis that Ms. Adair discussed earlier.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2035                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Kennedy whether a halibut charter                                                                
operator in Homer could challenge a platform waste regulation for                                                               
one of the oil rigs.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY affirmed that, saying that example has crossed the                                                                  
DOL's mind as well.  He thinks all of the discharges are handled                                                                
through so-called "mixing zone permits," which are not specific                                                                 
regulations but which, in the future, might be handled through                                                                  
site-specific water quality criteria that are regulations.  The                                                                 
Municipality of Anchorage example that the committee has been                                                                   
discussing is a regulation of that kind.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2077                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned a big game guide in the Arctic                                                                   
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), asking whether there are DEC                                                                   
permits out there.  He said he is trying to determine how far this                                                              
could go.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY answered, "Yes, I think that's correct."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the bill sets up two different                                                                  
burdens of proof:  one by clear and convincing evidence, and one by                                                             
a preponderance of evidence.  In his letter, Mr. Kennedy makes the                                                              
argument that these types of legal standards are used in weighing                                                               
facts.  He asked Mr. Kennedy to explain that further.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY, as an example, said when a regulation is challenged by                                                             
a litigant, the DOL approaches the court with a motion for summary                                                              
judgment, asking the court to rule on whether the regulation is                                                                 
valid.  This has occurred with DEC regulations in connection with                                                               
Prince William Sound, where a challenge was brought - by a man                                                                  
living in Whittier as a subsistence fisherman - to regulations                                                                  
pertaining to tanker traffic.  The benefit to the department is                                                                 
that these types of challenges can be resolved quickly and                                                                      
inexpensively, which is how the courts traditionally handle them.                                                               
The courts see the issue of whether a regulation fits with                                                                      
legislative intent as being an objective question, which is                                                                     
resolved by looking at the language of the statute itself, the                                                                  
underlying regulation and the legislative history.  In fact, the                                                                
court may do its own research on the issue and issue a ruling.                                                                  
Although certainly lawyers play a role in bringing information to                                                               
the court's attention, there is no trial, and the concept of burden                                                             
of proof doesn't really enter into it at that stage.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2200                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Kennedy whether the burdens of proof                                                             
work independently.  That is, could one sue and a court rule that                                                               
yes, this meets the intent of the statute but decide to                                                                         
independently review under (B) to see whether it has significant                                                                
public benefits?                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY said that is the way he believes Version P is drafted.                                                              
Assuming Version E is the same, the standards are independent, and                                                              
the regulation would have to meet them.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that he is pretty sure that portion                                                               
is the same for both versions.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2278                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she wanted to flesh out a better                                                                   
understanding of what happens when rewriting a regulation that                                                                  
would substantially change the substance but which, under the                                                                   
current situation, wouldn't normally be considered significant                                                                  
enough to require additional notice.  Referring to the chromium                                                                 
example, she suggested one could wind up re-noticing a lot of                                                                   
things that everyone had already commented on, because of the                                                                   
change of one word.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY replied that he thinks it could happen.  The Point                                                                  
Woronzof example helps in particular to understand that.  The                                                                   
change from chromium to Chromium 6 is one everyone had agreed on.                                                               
It was a significant change in the sense that, if the limit had                                                                 
remained at chromium instead of Chromium 6, it would have put an                                                                
onerous burden on the Municipality of Anchorage.  Going back out to                                                             
notice would have served no benefit at all; it would have simply                                                                
been jumping through a hoop to get through the formalities.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2353                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to testimony the previous week                                                                
about language in the Forest Practices Act (FPA) that appears                                                                   
similar to that in SB 24; she said she hadn't reviewed that                                                                     
language.  She asked whether this is, in fact, the same application                                                             
of the FPA requirement for yielding significant public benefits, or                                                             
if there is a difference.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY said he is somewhat familiar with it but would defer to                                                             
Kevin Saxby, who works closely with the FPA.  He affirmed that the                                                              
language in the FPA is related to the language in SB 24; it seems                                                               
to have been the starting point for drafting, but it works                                                                      
differently.  The most important difference to him is that under                                                                
the FPA the underlying standard of review, written into the APA                                                                 
right now, was not taken away from review of forestry regulations.                                                              
Therefore, AS 44.62.030, the 1959 standard of review, still applies                                                             
to forestry regulation; the FPA language was added as an overlay to                                                             
that, to encourage agencies to more closely consider the issue of                                                               
costs.  The language is not the same, however.  Mr. Kennedy read                                                                
[from AS 41.17.080(d)]:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     The commissioner shall adopt only those regulations                                                                        
     necessary to accomplish the purposes of this chapter and                                                                   
     shall avoid regulations that increase operating costs                                                                      
     without yielding significant benefits to public                                                                            
     resources.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY pointed out that the actual test for the regulations,                                                               
if they are challenged, remains the 1959 standard that has been                                                                 
worked out over the years.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she would look at the FPA herself.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-9, SIDE B                                                                                                               
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the language relating to capital                                                               
or operating costs on industrial, commercial, or other development                                                              
activity without yielding significant public benefits.  He said                                                                 
that part is similar.  He asked whether the distinction is really                                                               
that one is a directive to the commissioner "that one cannot sue                                                                
on," whereas the other is clearly something that contemplates a                                                                 
lawsuit and a court testing it out.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. KENNEDY deferred to Kevin Saxby to answer whether it is merely                                                              
a directive.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0039                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN SAXBY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section,                                                             
Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, responded via                                                                    
teleconference from Anchorage that he wouldn't say it is merely a                                                               
directive.  However, as he reads the statutes, certainly the                                                                    
proposed changes in this bill create a greater ability for someone                                                              
to argue that the standard has not been met.  In contrast, under                                                                
the FPA, the courts are likely to look at the older standard, the                                                               
"arbitrary and capricious," necessary to meet the statutory                                                                     
purposes.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0067                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Saxby whether anyone has ever sued                                                               
under Section [080](D) of the FPA.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SAXBY indicated he hasn't defended any such cases, and he has                                                               
been on this almost since the Act was adopted.  Therefore, he                                                                   
doesn't think so.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the committee has written testimony                                                             
from Richard Harris of Sealaska Corporation that asserts nobody has                                                             
sued.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0104                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony.  He announced                                                             
the intention of holding the bill over to iron out some issues                                                                  
brought up during the past two hearings, as well as to give                                                                     
committee members time to review the new proposed CS.  He indicated                                                             
he had also asked Legislative Legal Counsel [Legislative Affairs                                                                
Agency] to respond to three issues, which he is still waiting for.                                                              
[SB 24 was held over.]                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease at 2:15 p.m., then called the                                                                   
meeting back to order at 2:25 p.m.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HB 253 - SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY AND SAFETY PROGRAM                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0146                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the final order of business would be HOUSE                                                              
BILL NO. 253, "An Act establishing a school disciplinary and safety                                                             
program; and providing for an effective date."  The committee had                                                               
adopted a proposed committee substitute, Version K, as a work draft                                                             
on February 2, 2000, and had heard considerable testimony.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0156                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union                                                             
(AkCLU), testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  She noted                                                                
that she had faxed a position paper to the committee in opposition                                                              
to HB 253.  Ms. Rudinger explained that, in a nutshell, AkCLU's                                                                 
opposition to HB 253 stems from a lack of balance between the                                                                   
legitimate need for order in the classrooms and the need to respect                                                             
students' constitutional rights.  Furthermore, she believes this                                                                
bill is bureaucracy at its worst and is bad public policy, with                                                                 
state government telling local school districts that they must                                                                  
adopt community standards and then deciding whether that has been                                                               
accomplished.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER indicated both statewide and national branches of the                                                              
organization have heard from hundreds of students and parents over                                                              
the past ten months, especially, about concerns of overreaction by                                                              
schools to the tragedy at Columbine High School in Colorado.                                                                    
Although acknowledging the need for order in the classrooms, the                                                                
AkCLU believes students have constitutional rights, as upheld by                                                                
both the Alaska Supreme Court and courts around the country when it                                                             
comes to free expression, individuality and due process - sorely                                                                
lacking in HB 253.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER reported that the AkCLU has heard from students around                                                             
the state about new "one strike and you're out" policies, under                                                                 
which groups of students are being hauled in for disciplinary                                                                   
action and suspended or harshly sanctioned when even the alleged                                                                
victim claims he wasn't a victim; she cited an example at Service                                                               
High School in Anchorage involving a football team.  Ms. Rudinger                                                               
acknowledged that HB 253 only deals with incidents in the classroom                                                             
but said she was using this as an example of how school                                                                         
administrators overreact and crack down on innocent behavior.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER agreed that anything truly disruptive in the classroom                                                             
should be dealt with.  However, the AkCLU believes there is a                                                                   
problem with vagueness in HB 253.  At a minimum, it talks about                                                                 
standards for respect and honesty.  However, respect is not                                                                     
behavior; it is internal, something one feels.  She recalled the                                                                
Louisiana legislature's decision to enforce respect by passing a                                                                
bill requiring students to address teachers by "sir" or "ma'am";                                                                
there was even a proposal that students stand at attention when the                                                             
teacher walked in the room.  Different people have different ideas                                                              
of what respect is, and she believes HB 253 goes way too far                                                                    
regarding the extent to which the government mandates that.  She                                                                
referred members to the AkCLU's position paper, then restated that                                                              
enforcing respect and honesty can lead to a lot of problems when                                                                
not clearly defined, and when the state will decide whether                                                                     
communities have actually set their own standards sufficiently to                                                               
meet the state's requirements.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0381                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER challenged the assertion that there won't be a fiscal                                                              
note associated with this.  Although she couldn't provide                                                                       
specifics, she pointed out that the state will have to decide                                                                   
whether schools are complying and school districts are enforcing                                                                
community standards of respect and honest.  That could lead to a                                                                
lot of bureaucracy.  If not additional staff, it will certainly                                                                 
require staff time and pay that goes to people already working for                                                              
the Department of Education and Early Development.  Ms. Rudinger                                                                
concluded by saying students understand that adults making these                                                                
rules have good intentions, and students want safe schools.                                                                     
Despite the tragedies of the previous year, however, incidents of                                                               
school violence have decreased significantly for the past five                                                                  
years.  She believes there is not the urgent need for marshal law                                                               
that seems to be imposed in well-intentioned by way-too-broad                                                                   
legislation like HB 253.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0456                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Ms. Rudinger.  He noted the arrival a few                                                                 
minutes earlier of Representative Dyson, who had been attending                                                                 
another hearing.  He invited Representative Dyson to comment.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0465                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB
253, explained to Ms. Rudinger that the sole intention was to                                                                   
protect teachers from being disciplined by school boards when the                                                               
teachers effect and enforce the pre-agreed-upon standards and use                                                               
the pre-agreed-upon procedures.  Everything else was just an effort                                                             
to get communities to go through a process of their own choosing,                                                               
to come up with whatever behavior and safety standards they want,                                                               
"not to impose any state version of those."  He asked Ms. Rudinger                                                              
how he could  accomplish that goal in a way that is less                                                                        
objectionable to her.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER recalled that a provision in the bill talks about                                                                  
immunity from civil liability.  She said teachers are already                                                                   
immune from civil liability for damages from implementing a policy                                                              
that the school tells the teacher to implement.  And certainly                                                                  
courts have upheld teachers' rights to maintain order in the                                                                    
classroom.  However, as noted in their position paper, the AkCLU                                                                
fears that HB 253 goes too far in immunizing teachers, and that it                                                              
arguably would allow teachers to be physically violent against                                                                  
students when it perhaps wasn't warranted.  If school boards or                                                                 
school districts aren't backing up teachers because they feel the                                                               
teacher went too far, she believes the school board or school                                                                   
district should have that discretion to say so.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0572                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how to protect a teacher who does the                                                                
right thing, though, and enforces a standard that the community                                                                 
agrees upon, but who is fired by the superintendent or school board                                                             
because one of its members is the parent of the student involved.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER answered that she isn't an expert on employment law.                                                               
However, she believes that any employee who is wrongfully                                                                       
discharged despite the fact that the person wasn't violating any                                                                
policies of the employer - the school district in this case - would                                                             
have a cause of action against the employer for wrongful discharge.                                                             
These cases are fact-driven, and the outcome would depend on what                                                               
had happened.  Referring to Representative Dyson's example of a                                                                 
politically connected student, she said she hasn't heard complaints                                                             
from teachers that they aren't being supported or given enough                                                                  
discretion in the classroom; therefore, she can't speak to that.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER mentioned the importance of two things:  1) giving                                                                 
teachers the ability to maintain order and 2) providing due process                                                             
to students.  Referring to her earlier discussion of the football                                                               
team incident, she said the 20-some parents who crammed into her                                                                
office were upset because their children weren't given a chance to                                                              
appeal or to even call their parents until they had written a                                                                   
statement of "confession" to the principal's liking.  Many parents                                                              
are upset that schools are overreacting.  Ms. Rudinger contended                                                                
that bills like HB 253 divert attention from - and reinforce - the                                                              
underlying root causes of alienation and intolerance, by focusing                                                               
on "surface issues" like respect, honesty, dress codes and what a                                                               
person looks like and sounds like, and by saying that anyone                                                                    
different from the norm is to be sanctioned and further outcast.                                                                
There is a need to include students in the educational process and                                                              
to work on the underlying root causes, which are alienation and                                                                 
problems having to do with class, poverty or just a lack of feeling                                                             
included in the school.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Ms. Rudinger and called upon Paula Harrison.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0790                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PAULA HARRISON testified via teleconference from the                                                                            
Matanuska-Susitna Legislative Information Office (LIO), speaking on                                                             
behalf of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District.  Noting                                                                
that the superintendent was unable to testify that day, Ms.                                                                     
Harrison expressed concerns about HB 253, some relating to the due                                                              
process rights of students just discussed by Ms. Rudinger.                                                                      
Referring to Representative Dyson's comments about protecting                                                                   
teachers from discipline, Ms. Harrison indicated she isn't aware of                                                             
that being a big issue in the state.  She expressed curiosity about                                                             
the incidents generating the sponsor's concern.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. HARRISON advised members that the bigger concern with her own                                                               
school district involves how HB 253 correlates with special                                                                     
education students and the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities                                                                  
Education Act] laws.  Furthermore, removing a student from a                                                                    
classroom is typically something for which her district's                                                                       
principals have responsibility.  One concern is that authority of                                                               
the principal may be delegated, through this legislation, to                                                                    
teachers, teacher assistants or other persons who may be                                                                        
responsible for students; she asked whether "other persons"                                                                     
includes volunteers or parents in the schools, and she expressed                                                                
concern about how far that goes.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. HARRISON said although a reasonable degree of authority is                                                                  
necessary, and although the district supports teachers in                                                                       
maintaining order in their classrooms, extending the full                                                                       
responsibility of discipline to individuals other than the                                                                      
principal may have ramifications for not only her district but also                                                             
districts statewide.  She told members, "Our principals, as well as                                                             
our student support services, the special education director, are                                                               
those who give guidance in these specific areas.  We believe that                                                               
every school district should be responsible enough to adopt policy                                                              
and regulations that ensure that we do have safe schools."  Ms.                                                                 
Harrison acknowledged that events at Columbine High School in                                                                   
Colorado have created a new awareness nationwide.  However, her                                                                 
district believes it is the responsibility of good school boards,                                                               
superintendents and administrations to ensure that teachers are not                                                             
harmed for maintaining order in their classrooms.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Ms. Harrison and asked whether anyone else                                                                
wished to testify via teleconference.  He then called upon Ms.                                                                  
Watts in Juneau.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0977                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PAMELA WATTS, Executive Director, Advisory Board on Alcoholism and                                                              
Drug Abuse (ABADA), Department of Health and Social Services, came                                                              
forward, extending the board's appreciation to Representative Dyson                                                             
for addressing this important issue.  Although supporting his                                                                   
commitment to increasing safety in Alaska's schools and supporting                                                              
teachers who keep classrooms and schools safe, the board believes                                                               
omission of a provision for screening students who may have                                                                     
substance abuse problems weakens school disciplinary plans.  Ms.                                                                
Watts referred to a letter sent to the committee by the ABADA that                                                              
reviews links between students with substance abuse problems and                                                                
school violence, vandalism, truancy and other issues; she cited                                                                 
some statistics from that.  She emphasized that a provision for                                                                 
taking into account the role of substance abuse - as well as mental                                                             
illness or developmental disability - is a critical one.  On behalf                                                             
of the board, therefore, she requested that CSHB 253(HES) be                                                                    
revised to include some provision for screening students who might                                                              
have substance abuse disorders.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1115                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what sort of screening Ms. Watts                                                                     
suggests.  For example, would a teacher not have authority to                                                                   
discipline, or would there be other measures?                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. WATTS replied:                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Not at all.  What we had in mind was more that if a                                                                        
     student was found to be in violation of school                                                                             
     disciplinary policy - and that whatever mechanism that                                                                     
     particular school or district had ... for reviewing the                                                                    
     violations and coming up with some consequences to those                                                                   
     violations - that if there was any indication at all that                                                                  
     there were reports from teachers or staff - or any                                                                         
     initial screening, minimal screening tool, even - that                                                                     
     the student might have a problem with alcohol or other                                                                     
     drugs, that that be taken into consideration, so that,                                                                     
     hopefully, some early intervention might prevent                                                                           
     subsequent violations of school policy for that student,                                                                   
     and maybe get them the type of assistance that they might                                                                  
     need to remediate the problem.  And this would vary from                                                                   
     district to district because, of course, resources ...                                                                     
     are different in districts statewide.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1178                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN requested clarification about the process.                                                                 
For example, would this plan require the teacher having information                                                             
beforehand or would it be implemented out of the classroom after a                                                              
problem occurred?                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. WATTS explained that the teacher wouldn't necessarily have to                                                               
know this, and the student would still be accountable for his or                                                                
her behavior.  However, the board feels that when alcohol or other                                                              
drugs are a factor in acting out behaviors, that should be                                                                      
considered in the larger picture of recommendations made for that                                                               
student.  It is likely that the student would still be held                                                                     
accountable.  But in order to intervene and hopefully remediate                                                                 
with that type of behavior in the future, the student would be                                                                  
identified as having a substance abuse problem, and would receive                                                               
help to the extent that resources were available.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1278                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON briefly discussed a comprehensive school                                                                   
safety bill that he considered ideal, presented the previous year                                                               
by Representative Brice; it included diagnoses, early intervention                                                              
and parallel programs for students.  Unfortunately, it had failed                                                               
because of a large fiscal note.  Therefore, this present bill aims                                                              
at one small target:  protecting the teachers who did the right                                                                 
thing.  Representative Dyson said he assumes every school board and                                                             
district would identify and take into account the kids with                                                                     
disabilities and substance abuse problems; many of those students                                                               
would have Individual Education Plans (IEPs), for example, and                                                                  
teachers would take into account each student's particular                                                                      
challenges.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated he'd grown up in a home with                                                                     
alcoholism and is sympathetic to these problems.  He mentioned that                                                             
he'd sponsored HCR 11, which had made it to the Senate floor; that                                                              
legislation makes alcohol and substance abuse treatment the highest                                                             
priority of all treatments offered by the state.  Next he referred                                                              
to Walter Majoros, Executive Director, Alaska Mental Health Board,                                                              
confirming with Ms. Watts that she had seen language that he and                                                                
Mr. Majoros had worked on.  [Apparently proposed amendment                                                                      
1-LS0599\K.2, Ford, 2/7/00, not offered, which read:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 26, following "AS 11.81.430(a)(2)":                                                                           
          Insert ";                                                                                                             
               (7) procedures and actions necessary to comply                                                                   
     with 20 U.S.C. 1400-1485 (Individuals with Disabilities                                                                    
     Education Act)"]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Watts whether that amendment starts                                                              
to satisfy her.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. WATTS said she'd had a brief look but should take an additional                                                             
look and carry that through to the board, to see what their                                                                     
position might be on that.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     We're assuming that they are responsible enough and                                                                        
     professional enough that they're going to ... do this                                                                      
     consistent with what ... is required under IDEA law, and                                                                   
     so on, and will be ... quite sensitive.  And they're                                                                       
     sensitive not only because they care about kids, but                                                                       
     there's some funding that comes with it, you know.  So I                                                                   
     think those issues have their attention.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON expressed appreciation for Ms. Watts' advocacy                                                             
for these children.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1492                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards                                                              
(AASB), came forward to clarify his organization's position on this                                                             
bill, noting that he had testified in the previous committee.  He                                                               
hadn't opposed the bill, he said, because he agrees with the intent                                                             
and wants to address two areas:  1) the "criminalization" of school                                                             
board members who provide a volunteer service to their communities                                                              
and 2) interpretation.  Also agreeing with the intent of                                                                        
implementing community-based strategies, protecting teachers and                                                                
facilitating the creation of standards, Mr. Rose commented, "We've                                                              
done this as an association for school boards."  He said the                                                                    
question is how to go about this.  He pointed out that Anchorage                                                                
has 86 schools, and the bill is designed so that each school would                                                              
prepare policies and procedures.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE explained that in terms of governance of school districts,                                                             
as understood by the AASB, a policy is a broad statement of what                                                                
one wants to have done, whereas a procedure is the process by which                                                             
those policies are carried out.  He likened it to legislation and                                                               
the administrative regulations that get adopted.  There are two                                                                 
issues:  what to do, and how to do it.  A school district policy                                                                
determines how discipline and safety issues will be dealt with;                                                                 
however, the bill asks for that discussion to take place at each                                                                
school level.  The problem is that AASB's membership would be                                                                   
responsible for decisions made across the state at each school                                                                  
board level.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE pointed out that the school board is the group that can                                                                
and will be sued.  He believes teachers are already indemnified:                                                                
when one sues a teacher in a school district who is carrying out                                                                
the duties of the job, one is actually suing the school district;                                                               
the weight of the school district is behind that teacher.  Mr. Rose                                                             
asked, "If you authorize someone to act, but there's no method of                                                               
appeal, where's the responsibility for that action?"  For example,                                                              
he said, a school could decide the policy, and a teacher could act                                                              
in what he or she believes to be good faith; that interpretation                                                                
may be very different from the school board's.  If the teacher's                                                                
interpretation were challenged by the school board, there could be                                                              
an area of dispute.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE voiced the belief that a process and safeguards are in                                                                 
place now.  When there is an infraction, there are numerous                                                                     
processes of appeal, from the local level up to the school district                                                             
office.  A school board is the quasi-judicial body of the district;                                                             
if there is an appeal before that body, they can't review the                                                                   
record on that but must sit as an unbiased, objective body to                                                                   
render that decision.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1799                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE brought attention to page 1, lines 12 through 14, of CSHB
253(HES), which read:  "(1) implement and maintain community-based                                                              
standards of school behavior that are understood, accepted, and                                                                 
upheld by students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and                                                               
the community".  He suggested those would become points of                                                                      
contention if there were a challenge.  He asked the committee to                                                                
hold this bill over to try to iron these issues out.  Noting that                                                               
each school has a student handbook, he said the community-based                                                                 
activity called for in the bill is being addressed in part.  He                                                                 
offered to work to improve that, but emphasized that having the                                                                 
whole group of people liable for a class A misdemeanor - on issues                                                              
over which they may have no control - is fraught with problems.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1897                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there are any pre-qualifications for                                                                
school board members, such as not having been convicted of a                                                                    
misdemeanor in the last 12 months.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE answered that a person must be 18 years of age and have 30                                                             
days' residency in a community.  In terms of convictions, however,                                                              
he would have to check the statutes.  He said the two areas of                                                                  
access to a school board member in question are the election                                                                    
process and the ability to be recalled.  In that way, the public                                                                
does have access to those elected officials.  He then suggested a                                                               
person would have to be a citizen of the state for 30 days.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA also expressed concern about the                                                                        
misdemeanor section of the bill.  She said she tends to agree that                                                              
the bill needs some work to flesh this out.  She asked what happens                                                             
if a teacher is fired now, even though the teacher was correctly                                                                
implementing a procedure.  If the school board recommended firing                                                               
the teacher, for example, it could have been acting in good faith                                                               
but somehow have made the wrong decision.  She asked whether a                                                                  
teacher can file a wrongful termination case but cannot file an                                                                 
individual tort case against school board members.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE replied that there are two ways: dismissal or                                                                          
termination, both for cause.  In place now is the opportunity for                                                               
a teacher to choose a full, formal hearing before the board or                                                                  
arbitration.  In either case, the school district will make its                                                                 
case one time.  Mr. Rose explained:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     This is the issue of de novo that we moved away from some                                                                  
     years ago.  I believe that a portion of this bill may                                                                      
     bring an awful lot of legal costs to bear on a school                                                                      
     district .... We'd receive dollars for education, but a                                                                    
     large portion of that money would be spent on litigation                                                                   
     and defending the school district.  There are a lot of                                                                     
     people who would be identified here.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     In answer to your question, the process right now is a                                                                     
     teacher has a choice. ... If they want to appeal, they                                                                     
     can go through a formal process before the board, for a                                                                    
     full hearing, the record of which will be reviewed by                                                                      
     superior court, or ... have their hearing heard before an                                                                  
     arbitrator, the results of which would be binding, if                                                                      
     they do this arbitration.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated her understanding that individual                                                                
school board members can't be sued in tort for individual                                                                       
liability, if they are acting in good faith.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE said he believes school board members are indemnified by                                                               
the school district, unless the school board member has done                                                                    
something specifically that wasn't covered under the board members'                                                             
responsibilities.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether, then, school board members                                                               
can be sued and have a judgment issued against them, but the school                                                             
would be indemnifying them and paying for it.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE nodded in affirmation, adding, "In the carrying out of                                                                 
their duties."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2227                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether Mr. Rose was saying he doesn't                                                               
like the idea of the parents and community in each school having                                                                
input on the behavior and safety standards.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE responded:                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify:  We are about community                                                                  
     involvement, and I think that's the basis of where these                                                                   
     discussions should take place.  As a matter of fact,                                                                       
     we're involved heavily ... in community engagement.  The                                                                   
     issue of setting policy at the school level is an area                                                                     
     that causes me great concern.  The implementation of the                                                                   
     policy - the regulation of how they're going to be put in                                                                  
     place - I think is ... within the realm of the community.                                                                  
     But the policy that would be put in place, that the                                                                        
     district will stand behind, should be with the elected                                                                     
     officials, the elected body.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     That was certainly our intention.  We want the school                                                                      
     district and/or the schools to get input from the                                                                          
     community:  what do you want the standards ... to be?                                                                      
     And the policy will be approved by - the final thing,                                                                      
     approved by - the school board for it.  If they choose,                                                                    
     in a widely divergent school district that covers several                                                                  
     hundred square miles, to have slightly different behavior                                                                  
     standards in a small rural school than a large urban one,                                                                  
     we wanted to allow them the flexibility, but it still has                                                                  
     to be approved by the school board who sets the policy.                                                                    
     But I understood you to say it's too clumsy to get all                                                                     
     the people ... in the community out there to have input.                                                                   
     And you didn't mean to imply that.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE confirmed that he didn't mean to imply that.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated the desire to have Mr. Rose help make                                                               
this clearer.  He indicated the intent to have everybody who wants                                                              
to in a community have input; the policy would come back to the                                                                 
school board, which is exactly where he is hearing Mr. Rose say he                                                              
wants it.  Next, he brought attention to page 3, line 13, saying                                                                
the only thing this bill would require an appeal on is if the                                                                   
governing body, the school board, knowingly - he emphasized                                                                     
"knowingly" - allows a teacher or others here to be terminated or                                                               
punished in violation of this section.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-10, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON mentioned one district where 85 students told                                                              
a principal they weren't going to school, cussed at the principal,                                                              
and then spent three weeks roaming the halls and terrorizing                                                                    
people; the school board let it go on.  He said that ought not to                                                               
be; the school board didn't do its job.  He asked, in that case,                                                                
what appeal process Mr. Rose wants before the Alaska State Troopers                                                             
put those people in jail.  He acknowledged he may be preaching.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0064                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE noted that most districts have a policy process, with a                                                                
first and second reading, then a third reading for final passage.                                                               
He pointed out page 2 of the bill, lines 8 through 12, which read:                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     (a) Each school shall adopt a written school disciplinary                                                                  
     and safety program that is developed with the                                                                              
     collaboration of members of the community, parents,                                                                        
     teachers, and other persons responsible for the students                                                                   
     at that school.  A disciplinary and safety program                                                                         
     adopted by a school must include the following:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE said that is to be approved by the school board.  He                                                                   
referred to testimony in the previous committee.  He said the                                                                   
board, the governing body of a school district, should describe in                                                              
policy what it is that they believe should happen.  How that                                                                    
happens, however, is a discussion that can take place at the school                                                             
level.  He reminded members that school districts cannot set policy                                                             
in excess of the law and regulations; in the absence of law,                                                                    
regulations have the weight of law.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE said all he is asking is that individual schools operate                                                               
within the parameters described by the board.  He believes the                                                                  
policy should be clear, and the process for carrying it out should                                                              
be at the local level.  But to ask the public what they want -                                                                  
which may be inconsistent with district policy, state regulations                                                               
or state law - could be inviting people to come back and be                                                                     
rejected at the local level.  He noted that the policy determined                                                               
at the district level is open to public review and public access,                                                               
through a public process.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0250                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to CSHB 253(HES), page 2, lines 29                                                                
and 30, which read:  "A school disciplinary and safety program                                                                  
adopted by a school is not effective until approved by the                                                                      
governing body of the school district."  He suggested that a                                                                    
governing body that didn't like the program could ask that it be                                                                
modified.  He requested confirmation that Mr. Rose wasn't                                                                       
suggesting that the school behavior standards shouldn't be in the                                                               
hands of the common people but should be in the hands of                                                                        
professionals.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE confirmed that he hadn't said that.  He reiterated that                                                                
school districts operate within the confines of state law and                                                                   
regulations, which they can't exceed.  This bill has the potential                                                              
of allowing local schools to maybe exceed that in their desire,                                                                 
only to be turned back when they come back to the board; that would                                                             
be very cumbersome.  He specified that he doesn't want to stop the                                                              
public from having access, but he doesn't want to raise the                                                                     
expectation, create a problem, and have to be the one to tell them                                                              
"no."                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0340                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Rose whether adding "district" after                                                             
"school" on line 8, page 2, would satisfy him.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE said that would be very helpful, as what they are talking                                                              
about is the school district being able to set the parameters.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     I think what we lose is mandating that the schools - each                                                                  
     one of them - be out there and get involved with their                                                                     
     PTA and find out what the parents want.  If that gets the                                                                  
     knot out of your knickers, I'd be glad to do it, ...                                                                       
     rather than foul this up.  But I think we'll lose more                                                                     
     than we gain.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0391                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE remarked that at no time do school boards knowingly go out                                                             
and tread on teachers.  If that has happened in the past, it has                                                                
been isolated instances.  Personally, he takes great offense                                                                    
because that isn't how he lives his life, and those aren't the                                                                  
people whom he represents.  Restating that these things may have                                                                
happened in isolation, he asked whether they haven't happened in                                                                
every public institution.  He offered his efforts to fix that.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE pointed out that in any school district, when there is a                                                               
violation, there are three things to do:  investigate, validate and                                                             
take appropriate action.  He hadn't had the opportunity to                                                                      
investigate or validate what happened for instances discussed here.                                                             
However, he is aware of instances where the system has righted                                                                  
itself.  School board members have been recalled.  Superintendents                                                              
have been relieved of their duties.  And teachers have been fired                                                               
and gone to court, with alarming costs to uphold that.  Noting that                                                             
the system is ongoing, Mr. Rose concluded, "If the intent of the                                                                
bill ... and the purposes of the bill are what we want to do, I'm                                                               
willing to reshape and work with you to try to accomplish that.                                                                 
But I do think criminalizing the volunteer members is ... a bit                                                                 
large for me."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0538                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would certainly appreciate any                                                                 
assistance in getting to the final objective of the sponsor.                                                                    
[Although the comment regarding Representative Rokeberg indicated                                                               
his presence, he was in fact chairing another meeting.]                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0562                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed his understanding that, under the                                                                
bill, whatever the schools themselves came up with as appropriate                                                               
action would have to fit under an umbrella of the school district,                                                              
and be approved by it.  He asked why the existing policy booklet                                                                
sent out to students and parents is acceptable, with its potential                                                              
for misunderstanding, and yet a new one wouldn't be.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE referred to the potential addition of "district" [on page                                                              
2, line 8].  He stated the belief that if each school district                                                                  
shall adopt a written disciplinary and safety policy, it is                                                                     
consistent with what happens now.  However, if it reads "Each                                                                   
school," then 86 schools in Anchorage, for example, would determine                                                             
the policy.  He said schools should have input, approved through a                                                              
district policy for all the schools.  How to administer those                                                                   
policies through a set of regulations is, he believes, an issue                                                                 
that could be talked about a number of different ways.  Mr. Rose                                                                
concluded:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     But I think what we want is something that is consistent                                                                   
     across the district.  To be in a position of having to                                                                     
     defend 86 different determinations would be very, very                                                                     
     difficult for us.  But I think what Representative Dyson                                                                   
     has said, "Each school district", that means you have an                                                                   
     overall template ....  If we have a template of what the                                                                   
     policy is going to be, then that provides continuity                                                                       
     across the district.  Now, district to district, that may                                                                  
     change.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0718                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said to him that kind of guts the bill.  There                                                             
are reasons why schools would want different rules, and any                                                                     
differences in school policies in a district would have to be                                                                   
approved by the district.  He questioned the need for the bill if                                                               
"district" is added there.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0780                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE restated that school districts don't have the authority to                                                             
exceed the law or regulation.  He indicated his organization is                                                                 
asking that each school district maintain that same standard; all                                                               
their policies reflect their authority under statutes and                                                                       
regulations, and they are asking for continuity throughout a                                                                    
district.  However, regarding how individual schools and their                                                                  
committees deal with specific issues relative to the school, those                                                              
things happen now and there is latitude for that within the law.                                                                
Mr. Rose added, "I don't think that you're suggesting that each                                                                 
school may have the opportunity to exceed the law."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN affirmed that.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE reiterated that he is asking that the policy be the                                                                    
template for each individual school. Within schools, they do have                                                               
authority, through their local councils, to do things differently.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0856                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that adding "district" to page 2,                                                                
line 8, isn't a complete resolution of the important choice being                                                               
discussed.  He cited examples:  lines 11 and 12, which read in                                                                  
part, "A disciplinary and safety program adopted by a school", and                                                              
lines 29 and 30, which read in part, "A school disciplinary and                                                                 
safety program adopted by a school".  He pointed out the need to                                                                
decide whether it is the school or the district.  He doesn't                                                                    
believe that just adding "district" [to line 8] makes it clear                                                                  
which choice has been made.  He suggested that the committee and                                                                
the sponsor need to make that call.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0920                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT next brought up a subject raised to him as a                                                               
concern.  He said he doesn't know what goes on in most school                                                                   
districts, and doesn't have enough information to have an informed                                                              
opinion about it.  However, some people say that part of the                                                                    
problem in rural Alaska is largely white teachers disciplining                                                                  
largely Native students and not, then, getting supported by largely                                                             
Native school boards.  He acknowledged that it raises difficult                                                                 
urban-rural issues, racial issues, and questions of where the                                                                   
ultimate authority should lie.  He asked whether that is a problem                                                              
in rural Alaska - that teachers aren't given needed support - and,                                                              
if so, whether this is an appropriate way to meet that.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1002                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE responded:                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     I think you bring up a very important point.  As you                                                                       
     know, we've been struggling with some state policy issues                                                                  
     here of late:  the issue of "Indian country," the issue                                                                    
     of subsistence, a lawsuit over equity in how we build our                                                                  
     schools, a lawsuit over village safety.  More and more,                                                                    
     we're finding that there is a large ... difference in the                                                                  
     views of rural Alaska, in terms of where we're going as                                                                    
     a state.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     I think that that would have an impact, in terms of ...                                                                    
     a people looking at what they value, their culture, their                                                                  
     tradition, and looking at a system that would impose,                                                                      
     maybe, some other values, a Western education.  And a lot                                                                  
     of this could be an extension of what they see as a                                                                        
     state.  You raise a very valid issue, because I believe                                                                    
     in much of my membership there is some hesitation.  What                                                                   
     is the message when we have a state that doesn't                                                                           
     recognize the issues of running water and sewer ... that                                                                   
     would serve citizens of the state? ...                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     This is far bigger issue than I mean to speak about here,                                                                  
     but I would say yes, in answer to your question.  In                                                                       
     rural Alaska, there are some differences because ... the                                                                   
     prism that they view the state through is very, very                                                                       
     different.  And this does not mean that they are any                                                                       
     less.  It simply means that, from their point of view,                                                                     
     they look at how the state administers its state policies                                                                  
     and see ... a great difference there.  I think that's why                                                                  
     we're going to the courts as much as we are.  But with                                                                     
     regard to a bill such as this, when we talk about rural                                                                    
     Alaska, things are very, very different there. ...                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     It does not relieve them from their responsibility of                                                                      
     doing the right thing.  And so, if they are terminations                                                                   
     that are unjust, they need to be addressed.  They need to                                                                  
     come forward.  I would never stand in the way and say                                                                      
     that that is appropriate, because it's not appropriate.                                                                    
     But there are a lot of people out there who feel they                                                                      
     aren't treated fairly, and if they don't have a right to                                                                   
     appeal, ... they feel very badly that they don't ever get                                                                  
     their day in court, if you will.  And I'm not talking                                                                      
     formal court. ... I'm saying to you that many people that                                                                  
     I deal with - and it's not just school board members,                                                                      
     when I go out into communities - they look at what they                                                                    
     have available to them, they look at what's available to                                                                   
     others, and I know the issue of who pays and all that                                                                      
     comes into play.  But the actual quality of life is                                                                        
     extremely different.  And I think we need to account for                                                                   
     that.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1177                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON agreed this is an excellent question.  He said                                                             
his primary motivation for mandating community involvement is for                                                               
the very reason just discussed.  If the teacher has, in hand, what                                                              
the community wants, then at least the teacher knows.  He also                                                                  
agreed with Mr. Rose about not having the school board be in the                                                                
uncomfortable position of having to tell an individual school                                                                   
community that what they want is illegal, for example.  He briefly                                                              
discussed an Anchorage school where "gang colors" weren't allowed;                                                              
although a legitimate concern there, he said, it may be meaningless                                                             
in smaller communities.  He mentioned other examples such as locker                                                             
searches, suggesting those aren't the kinds of things that Mr. Rose                                                             
believes the district must sweep together and have all be standard.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROSE answered that he just thinks the district needs the                                                                    
opportunity to be consistent with law across the district, because                                                              
those elected officials are the ones who can and will be sued.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON returned to Representative Croft's point                                                                   
regarding page 2, lines 29 and 30, which read:  "A school                                                                       
disciplinary and safety program adopted by a school is not                                                                      
effective until approved by the governing body of the school                                                                    
district."  Representative Dyson proposed just saying that the                                                                  
school district, while allowing individual schools to have some                                                                 
variation of the behavior standards, will make sure that the                                                                    
policies are within law, and so forth.  He expressed appreciation                                                               
for Mr. Rose's testimony.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1356                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Mr. Rose as well.  He apologized to Mr.                                                                   
Majoros and Mr. Cyr for not getting to their testimony that day.                                                                
[HB 253 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                  
meeting at 3:30 p.m.                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects