Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/27/1995 07:05 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR & COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 1995
7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 260: "An Act relating to marine pilots and the Board of Marine
Pilots; extending the termination date of the Board of
Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 260(L&C) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 243: "An Act relating to licensure of landscape architects."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 232: "An Act establishing an economic development tax credit;
and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 217: "An Act relating to employment of teachers."
HEARD AND HELD
WITNESS REGISTER
DEIRDE P. BUSCHMANN
P.O. Box 1367
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3008
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 243
SHARON MACKLIN, Lobbyist
Alaska Professional Design Council
315 5th Street, No. 8
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 243
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2538
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question on HB 243
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 232 and CSHB 217(L&C)
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director
Division of Income & Excise Audit
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
Telephone: (907) 465-2320
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 232
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 217
WHITNEY AILLAUD
P.O. Box 1245
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4286
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 217
MARY BOHANAN
P.O. Box 1164
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4379
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 217
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
JIM SIMEROTH
811 Auk Street, No. 5
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4368
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 217
TRENA RICHARDSON
Box 2278
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-7404
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 217
DON OBERG
Box 921
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4233
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 260
SHORT TITLE: MARINE PILOTS
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/95 745 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 745 (H) TRANSPORTATION, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/22/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/22/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/24/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/05/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/07/95 1170 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 2DP 2NR 2AM
04/07/95 1171 (H) DP: BRICE, WILLIAMS
04/07/95 1171 (H) NR: MACLEAN, SANDERS
04/07/95 1171 (H) AM: JAMES, G.DAVIS
04/07/95 1171 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
04/12/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/18/95 1356 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/26/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/26/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/27/95 (H) L&C AT 07:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 243
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 644 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 644 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/24/95 893 (H) STA RPT 1DP 5NR
03/24/95 893 (H) DP: ROBINSON
03/24/95 893 (H) NR: JAMES, WILLIS, IVAN, GREEN,
PORTER
03/24/95 894 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
04/12/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/26/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/26/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/27/95 (H) L&C AT 07:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 232
SHORT TITLE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/06/95 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/95 590 (H) ECD, STA, L&C, FINANCE
03/21/95 (H) ECD AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 17
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(ECD)
03/22/95 850 (H) ECD RPT CS(ECD) 6DP
03/22/95 850 (H) DP: KELLY,MOSES,MACLEAN,KOHRING
03/22/95 850 (H) DP: SANDERS, ROKEBERG
03/22/95 850 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/22/95 850 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/06/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/11/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/18/95 1345 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 2NR
04/18/95 1346 (H) DP: GREEN, PORTER, JAMES, OGAN
04/18/95 1346 (H) NR: WILLIS, ROBINSON
04/18/95 1346 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV)
04/18/95 1346 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/26/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/26/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/27/95 (H) L&C AT 07:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS & RETIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/29/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/18/95 1344 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 2DP 1NR 1AM
04/18/95 1344 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY
04/18/95 1345 (H) NR: G.DAVIS
04/18/95 1345 (H) AM: ROBINSON
04/18/95 1345 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
04/19/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/20/95 1408 (H) L&C REFERRAL ADDED
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/21/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/22/95 1446 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 5DP 1DNP
04/22/95 1446 (H) DP: VEZEY, PORTER, GREEN, BUNDE,
TOOHEY
04/22/95 1446 (H) DNP: FINKELSTEIN
04/22/95 1446 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
04/26/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/26/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/27/95 (H) L&C AT 07:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-47, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was called to order
by Chairman Pete Kott at 7:05 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Kott, Masek, Sanders, Porter, Elton and
Kubina. He announced the agenda for the meeting was HB 260, HB
243, HB 232 and HB 217.
HB 260 - MARINE PILOTS
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT said the last time HB 260 was discussed in the
Labor & Commerce Committee, there was an amendment that was being
drafted. Chairman Kott said he had opted to withdraw that
amendment at this time. He said the original bill will be replaced
with the CSHB 260(TRA), as amended. Chairman Kott noted the bill
would become CSHB 260(L&C).
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS made a motion to adopt CSHB 260(L&C).
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted CSHB 260(L&C) consists of the same language as
CSHB 260(TRA) with the three amendments that were made to the bill.
He said there was a motion to adopt the new CSHB 260(L&C), which is
the amended version of the Transportation Committee Substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said as he understood it, the new
version did not include a maximum tariff, a fixed tariff, or a
resolution.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that was correct. There is no language that
addresses either/or any of those.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked what version of the bill was being
discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA said the amendments are not incorporated
yet.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the amendments would be incorporated into a
Labor & Commerce Committee Substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked what the two amendments were that did
pass.
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded there were three amendments offered.
Maximum tariff which was amendment one and that was rejected.
Amendment two took the bill back to the original state as it
related to the number of members on the board. He said we
decreased that to its present state, as it currently stands.
Amendment three which was adopted, addressed the reissuance or
renewal of a temporary license for emergency purposes to ensure
that the commissioner, after that one year, can extend the
temporary license if that same condition exists. Chairman Kott
said there was a motion before the committee to adopt the Labor &
Commerce Committee Substitute, as amended. He asked if there was
any objection. Hearing none, the motion passed.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to move CSHB 260(L&C) from
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected. He stated he has gone back and
forth on this bill, and after hearing all the testimony he did not
feel that an equitable situation had been created between the
pilots and the shippers. He felt that without some provision to
guide the resolution of a wage dispute or to set a maximum tariff
or a tariff, that we're saying in effect by state law, "you must do
this, but we're going to put you at the mercy of those that we
require you to put on your ships."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked for clarification as to what was being
moved from Committee. He thought he understood Chairman Kott to
say what they were going to move out...they were going to address
two of the amendments. One to restore the board of its original
state. His understanding was the motion is to move the bill that
does not restore the board to its original state. He asked if that
was correct.
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded no, and directed Representative Elton's
attention to page 1, line 9 and said they added three, but now it
is back to two. He emphasized it was amendment two that was
adopted. Amendment one was the maximum tariff.
Number 133
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he had tried to get all the groups
together since last week to reach a consensus, and felt that he was
unable to do so. He said since he was unsuccessful in getting a
consensus, he didn't want to put himself in the middle any longer
and he would support moving the bill and the motion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated there had been a lot of effort on a number of
people's behalf, and he agreed with Representative Kubina. He said
members of the previous committee had expressed frustration because
this bill had been in their committee for over a month while they
were trying to address the issues, and they didn't reach agreement
either.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he had been on the other committee, and
he could verify Chairman Kott's comments. He stressed that the
bill has gone through many changes, and it is a better bill now
than what it was. He felt it was time to move the bill on.
Number 169
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented he would not object to moving the
bill out of committee, but stated, "we are the Labor & Commerce
Committee and maybe one of the reasons we can never come to
resolution, is because we don't hold on to things long enough to
make the interested parties think we are serious about dealing with
it in the best way possible, and we have." He has heard from a
number of different people regarding what the best way to do this
is.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG felt the committee has really tried
to work with this issue to find some clarity and certainty. He
stated it was one of the most difficult problems he had encountered
in the legislature. It is his belief that arms-length transactions
can be conducted and those contracts can be negotiated between
business entities, not between labor and management, but two
different business entities. He expressed uncertainty about his
vote on this issue and that uncertainty troubles him.
CHAIRMAN KOTT felt the troubling area with this issue is there was
no road; you either have one or the other and it's difficult to
grasp for something in the middle.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there was a motion to move the bill out of
committee with individual recommendations and there is objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Sanders, Elton,
Kubina, Rokeberg and Masek voted yes. Representative Porter voted
no. CSHB 260(L&C) passed out of the House Labor & Commerce
Committee.
HB 243 - LICENSING OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Number 220
CHAIRMAN KOTT said HB 243 was heard in committee the previous day,
but was held over for additional testimony. He announced that
Deirde Buschmann was waiting to testified via teleconference from
Petersburg.
Number 224
DEIRDE BUSCHMANN said she practiced as a landscape architect in the
Forest Service for 13 years and recently started her own practice.
She felt the registration of landscape architects in the state of
Alaska will provide a number of positive benefits including
improved safety and design of parks, playgrounds and other places
of public use, design consistency in the application of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and professional recognition of
the of (indisc.) knowledge and abilities that landscape architects
provide the public. She said passage of this legislation will
bring Alaska in line with 45 other states and put Alaska on equal
footing with other design professionals in the state.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the committee members had any questions for
Ms. Buschmann. Hearing none, he asked if there were additional
people to testify on HB 243.
Number 247
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to move HB 243 with individual
recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected for discussion purposes. He asked
how many people will be registered and how many people will fall
out of the system because they can't get registered.
Number 258
SHARON MACKLIN, Representative, Alaska Professional Design Council,
responded that about 50 people statewide would want to be licensed.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to how many might fall out of the system.
MS. MACKLIN requested clarification on the term "fall out."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he was referring to how many people would
not be able to provide the same service they are currently
providing because of a licensing requirement. He asked if there
are any people that are now doing this kind of work that may not be
able to be licensed as a result of this legislation passing?
MS. MACKLIN commented she didn't have a clear answer for the
committee, but didn't think there would be any. She mentioned that
Catherine Reardon may be able to respond to the question.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce & Economic Development, said she did not
have a clear answer either.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked what is it going to take now to be
certified by the board as a landscape architect?
MS. MACKLIN responded one of the qualifications is a national test
and then the Board of Registration will set up their own criteria,
as they do now for architects, engineers and land surveyors. She
gave an example of why the council feels it is in the best interest
of public safety to be licensed. Several years ago, an individual
was killed while riding his bike down the West High/Westchester
Lagoon bike trail. They determined the reason for the accident was
the incline was too steep and it hadn't been designed to a scale
that was safe. That was one example in Alaska of why we need
people to design projects that are safe for the entire public.
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA commented on creating another bureaucracy for
another group of people in our state. He added that he was a
landscaper for four years while working his way through college.
He put in sprinkler systems, designed lawns, etc. At that time he
did not have to pass any test, but stood by his work and developed
a good reputation. He felt the people who are proposing these
changes admit that these landscape architects do not reach the
standards of architects and engineers, and are admitting it by
saying they are going to have somebody on this board, but they
don't have a vote. He stressed his feelings of creating another
obstacle for those people who are enthusiastic and trying to make
a living and this would put up more roadblocks to those
individuals. He explained that his comments were not directed at
Ms. Macklin. He was not going to hold the bill up but stressed it
was just another case of creating more bureaucracy and roadblocks,
while at the same time talking about decreasing the size of
government.
MS. MACKLIN referenced Representative Kubina's comments relating to
the person on the board, and said that person was only going to be
appointed for a short period of time during which regulations would
be drafted for landscape architects. She reiterated they would not
be a permanent person on the board; that is why they were not given
a vote. She added at the end of the bill there is a list of
exemptions; people who don't have to be registered and can continue
to provide a variety of services; e.g., gardeners putting in flower
beds, taking care of landscaping per se, etc. Individuals would
have to be registered in very specific cases.
Number 344
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion before the committee to move
HB 243 with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes. He asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, HB
243 was moved from the House Labor & Commerce Committee.
HB 232 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
Number 353
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Chairman Pete Kott, said
this legislation is an important part of the economic development
package the legislature is considering this year. House Bill 232
empowers the Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority
(AIDEA) to review proposals from corporations in Alaska, either
currently in Alaska or considering moving to Alaska, and their
proposal would be to either expand an existing business and number
of positions, or to create a new business and positions in-state.
AIDEA would be able to determine if, in fact, that corporation is
eligible to qualify for an economic development tax credit based on
that presentation from the corporation and within the criteria laid
out by the legislation. If they are, to what degree and to what
amount they would be credited. The corporation then would receive
a certificate of authorization and would have ten consecutive tax
years in which to apply the credit toward their tax obligation. He
said Section 1 defines the program. The more operative portions of
the legislation are in Section 2 where the tax credit itself is
talked about and the criteria that should be considered by AIDEA in
establishing whether or not an entity is eligible for the tax
credit and to what degree that tax credit could be. He referred to
page 3 and said one of the criteria is that the applicant's project
will upon completion provide a net increase of at least 25 percent
in the number of new employees employed by the applicant.
Likewise, value added processing should be encouraged in this type
of expansion, so we could look for more value added processing,
both in the timber and seafood industry in the state, as a result
of HB 232. Page 4, lines 6-12 states, "The credit amount may not
exceed the lesser of the amount of credit approved which may not
exceed 5 percent of the amount of gross wages payable as
compensation for the new employees created by this expansion
effort, or 25 percent of the tax due and payable by the taxpayer
under this chapter." He noted this chapter is the net corporate
tax statute of the state of Alaska. He said in essence, that is
the legislation and what it does. AIDEA will review the
legislation on an annual basis. He added they have been working
with both AIDEA and the Department of Revenue on this legislation.
They have further changes they would like made, as you will hear
from the representative from the Department of Revenue. They would
like the reporting mechanisms and the monitoring mechanisms laid
out in statute, rather than left to regulation. He stated they
would be working with the Department of Revenue to develop the
language in that regard. Mr. Mourant said he was available for
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if this bill had a Finance Committee
referral?
MR. MOURANT responded it does. The current fiscal notes are zero.
He said he would anticipate in working out the arrangements with
the Department of Revenue, especially on what their review and
reporting requirements are, there may be a small fiscal note
attached to the legislation before it is over. He reiterated that
it does have a Finance Committee referral.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said this bill has undergone a little surgery during
the process. He believed this was the third committee of referral;
the first two being the State Affairs Committee and the Special
Committee on Commerce and Economic Development.
Number 409
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented the legislation that he was familiar
with that has done this in the past, is the fisheries business tax
credit. He believed that tax credit was sunsetted after a certain
period of time. He pointed out this bill does not have a sunset
provision and wondered what the reasoning was behind not having a
sunset provision.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said first of all, there is a ten year provision in
the bill which will allow corporations or companies to claim that
tax credit, so any kind of a sunset will have to be factored it out
ten years. Beyond that, he thought the importance of it is that as
Alaska is starting to retract, at least in the oil industry, we
want to ensure that we do other things that will attract new
business to the state, and that message needs to be out there. He
said if at some point in time it looks like it needs to be
revisited, he was sure the legislature, at that point, will do so.
Chairman Kott commented that he has never really been much in favor
of a sunsetting clause.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thought there were probably technical
ways. Once a person is in the program maybe they are not taken
away, but to preclude new people from joining. From what he
remembered of the previous debate on the fisheries tax credit,
there was some strong suspicion on the part of many people in the
Department of Revenue, as well as others, that what the state was
actually doing was forgiving taxes on either new businesses or
business expansion that was going to occur anyway. He wondered if
that issue had been considered.
MR. MOURANT said page 2 of the legislation refers to the criteria
for eligibility for the tax credit. In the first section of
possible criteria to be applied against a project it states,
"verification that at least one other state is considering the
project and also determining through the best available data that
the projected cost of the applicant's project in this state would
exceed the cost in the competitive state." Likewise, as a third
portion of just that one individual criteria, is we find that the
receipt from the tax credit is a major factor in the applicant's
decision to proceed. He explained there are several variables that
would lead one to believe that something wasn't going to happen
automatically if they have got to justify to AIDEA that these
criteria have been met - that there is competition of a state, and
the bottom line is they needed assistance through a tax credit.
Number 446
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented on the four year sunset in the
fisheries program, and said assuming that fisheries is not an
infinite resource and that at some point in time, there's only so
much you can do with x number of fish. Whereas business is
business is business, if there are other opportunities that are
around.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the response by Mr. Mourant essentially
would preclude almost any resource based industry, because a
resource based industry that is coming into the state, is making a
decision based on where the resource is and the amount of the
resource available, so you wouldn't have that criteria kick into
place between what another state may be offering or not. If that
is a rigid criteria that cannot be breached by AIDEA, we are
essentially talking about service businesses only. He asked if
that was correct.
MR. MOURANT responded that was correct, if that particular portion
of criteria were applied, but pointed out there are three
independent possible criteria that could be applied independently.
Not all three have to be met. The second criteria on page 3, line
9 states, "The applicant's project would upon completion provide a
net increase of at least 25 percent in the number of new employees
employed by the applicant." He noted that really isn't industry
restrictive at all. Likewise, the third criteria states, "The
applicant's project is economically sound and will upon completion
benefit the people of the state by increasing opportunities for
employment in the state and strengthening the economy of the state
and significantly expanding existing facilities in the state."
He explained that the criteria regarding the 25 percent and the
third one regarding the substantial increase, are independent
criteria. Meeting any one of those three criteria would qualify
the program for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the basic criterion and asked
if it was conceivable that a new entry into the oil and gas
industry would apply for this credit.
MR. MOURANT said that would not be beyond the realm of
comprehension. However, trying to justify, given Alaska's resource
richness especially with oil and gas, that they were in competition
in another state...although they would reach the criteria of the 25
percent increase perhaps, or the substantial increase of facility,
this certainly could be taken under consideration by AIDEA, but the
AIDEA board would have the ultimate authority.
Number 483
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that would be the question, that is
why he said a new entry into the market. A case to be made is that
a company that has a certain investment capital in the budget,
looks in Alaska as well as another state, but will come to Alaska
if they can get this break. He asked if that was the idea?
MR. MOURANT responded that is exactly the idea.
Number 489
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if he understood correctly, it seems that
AIDEA is required to make these determinations, and yet there is a
zero fiscal note for AIDEA. He could think of numerous businesses
all of whom will look at this bill and say they were going to add
another wing on, going to expand production capacity, etc. He felt
that AIDEA and AIDEA staff were going to be overwhelmed with
applications, and yet there is a zero fiscal note.
MR. MOURANT acknowledged that had been a topic of conversation, but
AIDEA is satisfied that under the current criteria, they will be
able to do the elementary reviews. He had spoken with both the
project manager for AIDEA and the executive director of AIDEA; both
of them are comfortable with the zero fiscal note, at least with
this version of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if that was the case, they must be
overstaffed and underworked. He thought the staff would not only
be reviewing, but assumed they would be doing some sort of checking
up to make sure the corporation or company that is getting the tax
credit is actually doing what they promised.
MR. MOURANT said that having served on the AIDEA board, he could
say, with certainty, that the staff works very hard, and wasn't
sure if there was any slack in their budget. In conversation with
both AIDEA and the Department of Revenue, part of the language that
the department is desirous of amending into this bill at a future
date, is language that lays out criteria for them to review the
actual concurrence with the project proposed--whether or not they
created the number of positions they were proposed, how much credit
they really are due, how much expansion really took place. That
monitoring wouldn't be conducted by AIDEA, but rather by the
Department of Revenue. Likewise, the Department of Revenue would
receive the certificate of tax credit along with the annual filing
of the taxes from the entity.
Number 524
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Assistant Director, Division of Income & Excise
Audit, Department of Revenue, said the division has been the bill
through the first two committees and the focus in the first two
committees, the original bill proposed that a new board be put
together to administer the program, and the sponsor, in working
with the Departments of Commerce and Revenue, agreed to have AIDEA
step in and fill that role. The Executive Branch initially had
some concern of creating another board, and we think it is an
improvement to have AIDEA come in and fill that role. There are a
couple of issues that the sponsors agreed to work with the
Departments of Commerce and Revenue and AIDEA to address, which
could be done before the next committee. One of those issues is
the criteria for determining the tax credits which does need to be
more objective. AIDEA feels they are going to need some guidance
and they are working on some proposed language to do that. Mr.
Bartholomew felt the scope of the credit also needs to be
addressed. Initially, the eligibility requirement of competition
between states was the focus and a big limit. If the focus is also
going to be expanding current businesses that are in Alaska, that
will have an impact and the department will have to look at that
with the sponsor on what they really anticipate this legislation
applying to. It was his understanding that it should be focused on
bringing new economic development in to the state, and as Mr.
Mourant indicated, it should provide significant new investment in
employment increases.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW mentioned the other issue the department tries to
address in the policy of tax credits is a needs based incentive,
similar to the Governor's royalty reduction. A justified need. He
felt discussions could continue to determine if that can be
accomplished in this legislation. There are some program
administration adjustments that are being discussed between the
Department of Revenue and AIDEA on how the appeal process and the
compliance would work. He indicated they are working on some
language on how the compliance would work which they will discuss
with AIDEA and the sponsor. Mr. Bartholomew said, "One example
AIDEA asked us to share where this would have applied, again this
was back if it would be limited to just competition among states,
one of the projects that they have been involved in where they
think it did make a difference, the incentives that were provided,
was the Federal Express cargo facility in Anchorage. The
competition between Oregon, an Eastern state, and Anchorage --
that's when the focus was on competition among states, and
incentives did make a difference in that case." In-state criteria
would be different.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said Fed-Ex decided to locate here without a
tax credit in existence.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW interjected he thought the incentives were worked
out between the international airports and financing incentives, so
it was not a tax credit; it was just where they did get incentives
related to financing provided by AIDEA that had some tax
exemptions. It was an example where they would have met the first
criteria regarding the competition.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referenced Mr. Bartholomew's comments
regarding the proposed language from AIDEA and assumed he was
talking about possible amendments to the bill.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW responded that would be up to the sponsor. He said
it could be done through regulations; however, the drift they have
received from the legislature this year is that, if possible, don't
leave it to regulations, put it in the bill. That is why we would
be proposing that it be put in the legislation, before it goes to
the Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if anyone from AIDEA has testified on
this bill.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW responded they have not. He explained that AIDEA
just became involved between the last committee and the Labor and
Commerce Committee. Based on conversations he has had with AIDEA,
they are supportive of the concept. He said it was just getting
that objective criteria ironed out.
Number 581
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that the city of Juneau did an economic
tax credit incentive on property tax, so it is somewhat different,
but the incentive provided 100 percent forgiveness on the tax in
the first year, 80 percent in the second year, and so forth over a
five year period until it reached a zero percent tax credit.
Representative Elton asked if that sort of a phase out was
considered in this legislation or could it be. Related to that, he
said in reading the bill, there is no upper tax credit limit and if
AIDEA so decided, they could do dollar for dollar -- you invest one
dollar, you get a one dollar tax credit.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said he thought the limitation on an annual basis
is up to 25 percent of the tax liability. (Indisc.) huge tax
liability still would be limited on an annual basis, to 25 percent
of the liability; that would be the annual cap. He thought the
limitations are the lesser of 25 percent of the expense for wages
for new employees, or 25 percent of the annual tax liability.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if that was corporate tax liability?
MR. BARTHOLOMEW responded corporation tax.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he had been working with the departments, and
with AIDEA since they became involved in the process, to refine the
legislation as it is working its way through the system. It does
have another committee of referral and he thought at that point,
things should be developed to the point where they want it;
however, issues will be addressed as they come up. He noted they
are a cooperative partner working with the department and
incorporating the suggestions as they come up.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented he liked the idea of aiding new
business, as well as the idea of expanding existing business;
however, he said we don't want to create incentives for new
businesses that compete with existing businesses that have been
here for years. He asked Chairman Kott if he was thinking this
would be an interim project.
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted he was supportive of the concept also.
He referenced page 3, line 15, where it talks about strengthening
the economy of the state and said just because of the way our tax
base is right now, we actually end up subsidizing unintentionally,
certain businesses and industries, because they don't bring back
enough tax to pay for the increase in schools, roads, etc. He
asked does strengthening the state's economy mean that? In other
words, is that something we are going to be subsidizing and it will
actually cost the state money because of the business coming here.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that strengthening the economy of the state can
mean a number of things. (Indisc.) increasing the amount of jobs
that is being created by whatever the entity is that comes to the
state of Alaska as a new business, we recognize that unless it
folds or is not performing up to its expectations, there is going
to be a corporate tax return to the state. Obviously, the benefit
will not be the entire amount for the first ten year period that
the legislation provides for, but there will be some corporate tax
return to the state of Alaska. If it is a viable business, and not
a business that came up here to draw business away from another
business, after the ten year period it should be around and we
would then receive the full benefit.
TAPE 95-47, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if it was envisioned that fish
processors would be able to take advantage of the credit because
they really are competing with Seattle processors, they are
(indisc.) and floating processors; they are not new, but if they
would add new things like surimi, salmon cakes, etc.?
Number 017
MR. MOURANT responded the only restriction which would prevent that
from qualifying is if perhaps they were taking advantage of another
tax credit program of some type. He referred to page 2, line 1,
which says it cannot be used in conjunction with another tax credit
program. But if they were not qualified for another tax credit,
they could certainty apply and perhaps receive authority under this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted along that same line of questioning
and also Representative Porter's concern about competition, on page
3 it speaks to whether the tax credit will result in a net increase
in jobs. Therefore, the findings of AIDEA's determination that a
tax credit would be forthcoming, would have to take that into
consideration and he thought that was the leveling effect. It
would have an impact on the competitive nature of the location and
also what the activity was.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he liked the sentence better because the
net increase in jobs, in value added manufacturing or processing,
or a fiscal gain to the state. He felt they needed to look out for
the fiscal gain to the state more closely.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if Mr. Bartholomew could recall how much
tax forgiveness the state gave away in the last four years of the
fisheries business tax credit.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said he did not have that information.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to the language on page 2, "...cannot
be used by a taxpayer in conjunction with any other tax credit
program," and asked if a corporation was taking advantage of the
city property tax forgiveness program in Juneau, would the language
as it is written, preclude them from taking advantage of the state
program. It is not delineated between whether it is a state tax or
a municipal tax.
MR. MOURANT stated that because the tax credit program speaks to
Title 43.10, which is the state net corporate tax, he thought that
would take care of the problem. He said amending the legislation
to read, "...in conjunction with any other state tax credit
program" would do no harm.
Number 085
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 3, line 19 and said
apparently this particular determination would be certified by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Does that mean it would go
from AIDEA to OMB, involving two agencies?
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said he thought it was AIDEA's hope to have that
authority left with the AIDEA board, and not have to go to OMB. He
believed it was one of the corrections AIDEA proposed to the
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that made sense to him.
Number 101
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said in light of the fact that this
legislation was going to be carried over to the interim and it is
going to the Finance Committee for review, he made a motion to move
CSHB 232 out of the House Labor & Commerce Committee with
individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said a motion was made to move CSHB 232 from
committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA objected. He said inasmuch as this was
Chairman Kott's bill, he may want to analyze what the best way to
do this might be.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he was happy with the motion to move the bill
and stated he would be working with the departments to incorporate
any suggested changes they may have. If they don't, he reiterated
he was happy with the bill the way it currently exists.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he was not objecting. He said he liked
what Chairman Kott is trying to accomplish, but he has some
questions about it and thoughts he would like to put in, and he
wanted Chairman Kott to know that if it goes the way it is, he
would probably express his thoughts and raise some questions on the
House floor. It is his opinion that it does need some additional
work, and he especially thinks they need to hear from AIDEA, who is
going to have to implement it.
Number 143
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection. Hearing none,
CSHB 232(STA) passed out of committee with individual
recommendations, and accompanying fiscal note.
HB 217 - TEACHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS & RETIREMENT
Number 151
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the next bill before the committee is HB 217.
He asked Representative Ivan Ivan to give his sponsor statement.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN, Sponsor, said HB 217 was introduced to
allow the school districts some flexibility in dealing with rising
enrollments and increased costs associated with their education
system. This bill would allow the school districts to lay off
teachers who have acquired tenure rights, but only if the school
district finds it necessary to reduce the number of teachers due to
declining enrollment or declining revenues. The bill also
increases the tenure from two years to four years and removes the
costly trial de novo portion of our statutes, which allows a school
district employee, who if not satisfied with the district-lead
investigation, to go to the court system to begin an entirely new
trial. The district's investigation will stop unless (indisc.).
The deletion of trial de novo provides our educators the same
protection as provided to other state employees. The bill does
allow for mandatory advisory arbitration if the school board
reaches a decision unfavorable to the teacher prior to appealing to
superior court.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said Sections 1-3 of the Committee Substitute
for House Bill 217, as it came out of the Judiciary Committee,
apply only to those teachers hired after the bill is signed into
law. The remaining sections of the bill dealing with loss of
tenure rights, layoffs and elimination of trial de novo go into
effect after the bill is signed and will have an affect on all
teachers. Representative Ivan said he was available to answer
questions from the committee and also Mr. Wright, Legislative
Assistant to Representative Ivan was also available for questions.
Number 191
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there would be other individuals
available to testify. He would save his questions for later.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there were several people signed up to testify.
He said he would like to offer CSHB 217(L&C), version R, Kramer,
dated 4/25/95. He asked his Administrative Assistant, Rod Mourant,
to come forward and articulate the changes which were made
primarily in cooperation with the prime sponsor of the bill.
Number 206
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
said there were just a few changes between CSHB 217(JUD) version O
and the work draft CSHB 217(L&C), version R, dated 4/25/95, Kramer.
In the former version O of the Judiciary Committee, there was a
Section 3 which called for peer review, in the case of evaluation
and dispute of layoff. The cost requirements in the peer review
section caused great concern for both the National Education
Association (NEA) and PTA. Likewise, both of those organizations
expressed concern over time away from the classroom on the part of
instructors to serve on a peer review committee. Coupled with
that, again, is the expense of hiring substitute instructors while
they were serving on the committee. For that reason, that section
has been deleted from version R.
MR. MOURANT said a small subsection in Section 5, page 3, line 31,
(f), was added that says a teacher in layoff status may choose
whether or not to treat the layoff as a termination for the
purposes of receiving a refund of the balance of the teachers
member contribution account in the Teachers Retirement System, AS
14.25.150. That would allow an instructor who felt they needed
additional cash reserves to, in fact, avail themselves of the
employee contribution amounts that are in their employee
contribution account in the Teachers Retirement System.
MR. MOURANT continued that a third change in the legislation is in
Section 6, page 4, which deletes the provision that was in the
Judiciary Committee version for mandatory advisory arbitration.
This would allow the teacher to take an appeal directly from appeal
to the superintendent directly to judicial review. This
accomplishes two things: It is a big cost savings in not having to
hire an unbiased arbitrator to hear the case; and likewise, it
speeds the process up toward final resolution on a much quicker
basis. He said those were the three major changes. He pointed out
one correction that still needs to be made in this legislation,
which was an oversight by both the drafting attorney and himself,
is on page 2, line 10, still makes reference to the now deleted
appeal review section. Therefore, item 3 on page 2, line 10 should
be deleted in its entirety.
Number 268
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON mentioned that he has an amendment which
addresses the concern brought up by Mr. Mourant. He asked Mr.
Mourant if he had worked with the sponsor and if the sponsor was
comfortable with the changes that were being made in the committee
substitute.
MR. MOURANT responded that was absolutely correct.
Number 274
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt the work draft on HB 217\R,
dated 4/25/95.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said a motion had been made to adopt CSHB 217(L&C),
dated 4/25/95. He asked if there was objection.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA objected. He said the section that he liked
the most, which was the peer review, had been deleted. He stated
he has always been an advocate of allowing teachers to be involved
in working with new teachers and helping to evaluate them. He felt
teachers are a lot harder on themselves than administrators. One
of the excuses made for not conducting evaluations is that the
administrators are overworked. That may be, and that was one
reason why he felt that teachers should be involved in policing
their own ranks. He stated that other professional groups do this,
and believed it was probably the strongest thing that could be done
to improve the schools and the teaching profession. He reiterated
he did not particularly like the way Section 3 was worded in the
original bill, but he did like the concept.
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented the initial peer review committee was a
membership of three teachers, and there was some concern voiced
regarding the funding for pulling those teachers out of the
classroom. It was not only the issue of taking them out of the
classroom, thereby not affording them the opportunity to teach the
children, but there was also the idea that there were no guidelines
or procedures identified for this evaluation process. Who is going
to train these three panel members, would it be a roving panel,
would it be the same three members, do we train and continue to
retrain various teachers to be qualified in the peer review
process. It was his impression after listening to both sides, that
the best thing that could happen, unless it was fully funded, was
to go back to the status quo and take it out. However, after
listening to testimony, if it is the will of this committee to put
it back in, it can be done.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the Labor & Commerce Committee has an
asset that other committees didn't have; that's having a teacher on
the committee. He asked if there was a teacher mentoring program
and if so, what would be the difference between that and peer
review. A teacher mentoring program has nothing to do with tenure
or tenure review; whereas, this peer review would be...
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA interjected specifically for evaluating for
tenure. He added he was not aware of any statewide teacher mentor
program. It is generally left up to the school districts to decide
if they want to do anything along those lines. However, he felt
there should be one. He commented that some of the new teachers
just coming out of college don't have the training and the coaching
to get their point across. They need to be taught to come down to
the level of being able to teach children. He said that he was
really speaking against the whole bill in a sense, in that this
isn't the problem. He said two years or four years won't make any
difference. Are you going to have people working with them, are
you going to train them anymore - nothing is going to change. He
reiterated that nothing is going to change, this isn't the problem.
He said by the committee doing what was just said is also the
problem. Nobody wants to sit down and address the problems such as
money, etc.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if Representative Kubina was maintaining his
objection to adopting the committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA replied no.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection. Hearing none,
CSHB 217(L&C), version R, dated 4/25/95 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted there were people in Delta Junction waiting to
testify via teleconference.
Number 377
WHITNEY AILLAUD testified via teleconference from Delta Junction,
and said HB 217 is nothing more than teacher bashing, under the
thinly veiled disguise of educational reform, considering the
provision of increasing the service required for acquisition of
tenure from two to four years. (Indisc.) school administrators are
forced to do their jobs and dismiss incompetent teachers quickly.
If HB 217 is enacted, good teachers will have to teach from their
(indisc.) while school officials can slack off and allow
incompetents to remain on the job for four years. He said other
sections in HB 217 are equally ridiculous, but was unable to
address them because of the 60 second time period. He urged the
committee to kill HB 217.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Chairman Kott asked if there was a
60 second time limit on testimony.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said it was ordered with a one minute limit,
but it was at Chairman Kott's discretion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded he would allow up to three minutes, which
is standard practice for the House Labor & Commerce Committee.
MR. AILLAUD referred to the 3 percent reduction in funding. To
think that an entire school district's staff could be (indisc.)
because of the 3 percent reduction is absurd. This opens the door
for all kinds of problems if there is a vindictive superintendent
and very good teachers who have served the community well, but
maybe have fallen from grace with the superintendent, would lose
their jobs because of this bill. It would do nothing to help
education in this state.
Number 404
MARY BOHANAN, Teacher, testified via teleconference from Delta
Junction. She said her children had gone through Alaska schools
and wanted to go on to become teachers in this state. She asked
the committee members to not pass HB 217 or CSHB 217. The issue of
laying off tenured teachers when there is a decrease in revenue
caused her much anxiety. (Indisc.) fiscal or financial emergency
in a district be verified. Will districts be asked to show a
public record prior to laying off teachers, if they sought all cost
saving avenues before destroying us and the lives of this
community? According to this bill, 1 percent of $60,000 in this
district could cause many of us teachers to be laid off. Is that
1 teacher, 8 teachers, 35 teachers? Three percent or 10 percent
revenue -- what kind of numbers are we dealing with and how do we
verify that these are actually cuts, because there are grants that
come in, local support that comes in. What numbers are we really
talking about. Is it just what the state provides? She stated
this is a bad bill and asked committee members to hold it up so it
doesn't pass this year.
Number 420
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
said for the record they have agreed to some compromise language
that was originally embodied in CSHB 217(HES) and again in CSHB
217(JUD). He said they originally asked for five years and the
compromise was four years. They agreed on the peer review and
stated they supported the peer review. He noted when they moved on
the issue of layoff and the discussion took place about how they
would verify, he went on record then and wanted to go on record now
that, "You have locally elected officials at the local level."
They are elected, they stand accountable at the election box, and
try to invoke a layoff with bogus information, and there will be
real trouble locally. He said school board members don't educate
children; teachers do. We, in fact, need more teachers, not less.
They do not control their revenue stream and the only means they
have to balance the budget is to manage. Their lack of ability to
manage right now is curtailed greatly in a number of districts. He
emphasized they supported the compromise legislation that addressed
advisory arbitration as a compromise from moving directly to
judicial review. They initially wanted subject area endorsements.
He thought the public would like to know that teachers in math are
endorsed in the area of math. They'd like to know that teachers in
science were endorsed in the area of science. They think they
compromised when they agreed to recognize secondary and elementary
qualifications or primary qualifications so they could address
qualifications before seniority. He thought that was a major move.
MR. ROSE said there are three areas in the bill which concerns
them. One is acquisition; two is layoff; and three is de novo. In
the area of acquisition, they are asking for four years. They are
asking for four years not to say they need four years to determine
whether a teacher is not worthy to teach. If a teacher is not
satisfactory and they have realized that in one year, they are not
bound to keep them for four years. They do want to ensure that new
teachers, new professionals who try to enter the profession, are
given enough time to get professional development, to get
supervision, in-service training, to get experience before a
decision is made prematurely that could alter their career. They
are asking for more time to make a better decision. Secondly, is
the area of layoff. Presently, the law is silent on financial
shortfall. He said you can nonretain a teacher if you have a
decline in revenue - nonretain. They think that nonretaining a
teacher is appropriate if a teacher is incompetent. They think it
is appropriate if a teacher substantially does not comply with the
laws and regulations. They think it is appropriate if a teacher is
found to be immoral. They think it is inappropriate for financial
emergency. Thereby, they think for financial emergency, whether it
be for student decline or revenue decline, there should be a layoff
provision created that protects seniority, that protects tenure,
that protects accrued leave, and not simply dismissed. They think
it is fair and they think qualifications should be looked at for
rehire. They think it is a quality issue. If you look at
qualifications first, you send a message to your job force that you
should look at qualifications. In this case, it would be primary
and secondary, but eventually they hope to attain subject area
endorsements; thereby, multiple endorsements for a student or for
a teacher would be the measure of employment security. They think
it is good for the work force; they think it is good for
instruction. They think it is good for employment security.
MR. ROSE said on the issue of de novo, they have statistics that
will show that on average, a trial de novo to remove a teacher
could cost somewhere in the area of $100,000 for the entire
process. They think it is expensive and that money should be spent
in the classroom. They think if they take an action that is
unfavorable to a teacher, that teacher should have the opportunity
to go to superior court for a judicial review. They think that if
called upon, to go to a second trial, it is very costly, a
duplicate effort, and very expensive. Mr. Rose said he thinks the
issue of 3 percent as a trigger - he opposes a trigger. They would
agree to a trigger if it satisfies the committee, but he is opposed
to it. He stated they are elected officials and if they do
anything that is inappropriate, they should be removed from office.
He said he would guarantee that any school board that decides to
layoff teachers, when they have other areas of the budget that have
not been addressed, has real trouble. These are elected officials,
they assume that responsibility for performance, but he said they
do not control our revenue, the legislature does; the city councils
do. Mr. Rose said they stand responsible for the performance of
their schools and if the funding is inadequate, that responsibility
should be shared.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would have assumed that the most
important job that a school board member has or an administrator
has is teacher development and teacher assessment. He asked Mr.
Rose to correct him if he was wrong and discuss those other
responsibilities that might have a higher priority.
MR. ROSE agreed with Representative Elton.
Number 487
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said given that, he doesn't understand what
the issue is between two and four years. If the most important
chore that an administrator has or that a school board member has
are those two things, why should it take that long. He said he
lived in a community where there are dozens, if not hundreds, of
people that would be willing to go to work, and if somebody doesn't
work out after two years, why can't we just dip into that pool of
people that would love to go to work in the Juneau School District.
MR. ROSE responded he believed they did that. He said right now
because of the two year tenure law, it is an inadequate amount of
time to assess. He commented the biggest pressure that school
districts face right now is that we spend too much money in
administration. Thereby, if we look across the state, statewide
we reduce administration, but we further increase the need for
teachers. He was not saying they do a perfect job at evaluation.
Evaluation continues to be a problem. There is a tendency to look
at the worst case scenario and over generalize. He said he had
heard testimony that some people have not been evaluated in five
years. Administrators adamantly disagree when they are asked. He
said he thought we had a responsibility to ensure that teachers
have adequate amounts of time to gain experience, to gain
confidence, and to gain supervision in a new profession before a
decision is made that alters their career.
Number 514
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented he had said earlier in relation to
another bill, that anecdotal experience is very dangerous; however,
he was trained as a journalist. He started out as a reporter and
ended up an editor. If someone came to him with a premise that
"I'm sorry, you shouldn't get rid of me for four years as a
reporter because the most important job that an editor has is good
reporters. If you don't have good reporters, you get phone calls
from readers. If you don't have good teachers, administrators
probably get phone calls from parents." If an editor can make a
decision within three months of whether a person is going to make
it as a reporter based on that kind of feedback from angry readers,
Representative Elton said he is having a difficult time accepting
the argument that an administrator that is doing his/her job, can't
make a decision based on feedback from angry parents as quickly as
an editor can make a decision on a reporter. The development of a
reporter is the editor's top job. Why should it take four years?
Number 530
MR. ROSE said if you have an excellent teacher, it could be true;
four years may be too long. If you have a bad teacher, that
decision can be made much sooner. But if you have marginal
teachers, what about them? He said that is what they are faced
with. They just want the time to make a good decision.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded that if he had a marginal reporter,
he would go out and get a better one. That is a decision that
parents of students would want an administrator to do. They don't
want a system that goes on for four years protecting a marginal
teacher when there are plenty of people out there knocking on the
door for jobs that could be a better job. He didn't think the
people waiting in the Juneau School District are marginal teachers.
MR. ROSE pointed out the standard under certification right now for
removing a teacher is incompetence. What we desire is excellence;
the standard for removal is incompetence. He felt that standard is
low. He said if we had the time to ensure that the best teachers
are given tenure and granted tenure, because there are
extraordinary benefits to tenure, that is what we would like to
have.
Number 544
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if administrators would rather sit down
and work these things out with teachers or (indisc.).
MR. ROSE said teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if Mr. Rose had commented that one of
their biggest problems is they spend too much on administration.
MR. ROSE clarified that is what they are criticized for. That has
become the standard and every school district that he was aware of
that has reduced their administration considerably. He noted that
testimony heard last week indicated the Mat-Su School District has
reduced their administration in the last years by 50 percent;
they've increased students by 1200. Mr. Rose emphasized they are
trying to reduce administration; meanwhile the regulations,
statutes, and requirements need to be met.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he wasn't criticizing Mr. Rose, he
thought Mr. Rose was admitting their administration costs were too
high. He said he misunderstood Mr. Rose's remark.
MR. ROSE said they are accused of that.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he has firsthand experience in talking
with teachers and administrators who have admitted they don't have
time for evaluation. He has experienced getting his evaluation on
his last day and being asked to sign it. The person who prepared
the evaluation had not been in his classroom the entire year, other
than to run in and deliver a message. He knows it has happened
with nontenured teachers. He asked why there isn't statements in
these bills that say a teacher has a right to know when they are
not doing something right or not meeting the standard. They have
a right, whether it is peers or administrators, in there with them.
He inquired if it was in regulation that people are supposed to be
evaluated. What happens when the rules aren't followed?
MR. ROSE said he wished there were administrators present to speak
for themselves; however, when they talk to administrators they
explain what their role and responsibility is or the administrators
explain what their role and responsibility is, they tell us they
are administrating and they struggle especially in multi-site
districts to be able to comply with all those regulations. He said
for noncompliance, your funds are withheld. He thought that was
the only compliance measure there is in the Department of
Education. He said they ask for those evaluations before they
consider the review of tenure.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA commented that on two difference occasions,
there were nontenured people that teachers recognized were not up
to par, and they worked with the administrators to ensure this
person didn't have any stigma, talked about things they could
improve, they got a letter that wasn't a glowing letter but it was
something where they could go get more experience - not ruin their
career. He stressed that people need to work together.
MR. ROSE reiterated they did support the peer review.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there were three individuals wishing to testify
from Kenai/Soldotna.
Number 613
JIM SIMEROTH testified via teleconference from Kenai-Soldotna. He
stated he has 31 years experience as a teacher in the Kenai
Peninsula Borough School District. He commented that HB 217 was
detrimental to public education. School districts do not need four
years to let incompetent or ineffective teachers hang around until
something is done about them. In his opinion, that makes the
problem worse. He commented he had a lot of problems with the peer
review committee. First, he was not sure he would want to be on a
committee that would evaluate another teacher. Teachers are hired
to teach students and one of the duties of an administrator is to
evaluate teachers. He said the issue that should be addressed is
effective evaluation, not tenure. In regards to mandatory advisory
arbitration, he felt that was simply a contradiction of terms. If
it is mandatory, it should count for something; not be advisory.
The last issue he wanted to address was abolishing the de novo
trial. He felt that went against the (indisc.) principle; that is
that people must be treated in a fair and just way. This bill
allows administrators to unfairly dismiss a teacher and then never
really have to explain what the real reason was. He thought the
districts (indisc.) to the de novo trial simply because (indisc.)
they lose those. They usually lose those because some unfair,
unjust decision has been made. He urged the committee to not pass
this bill.
Number 634
TRENA RICHARDSON testified via teleconference from Soldotna. She
said she is a 22-year employee of the Kenai Peninsula School
District. In general, she thinks HB 217 is overall a terrible
bill.
TAPE 95-48, SIDE A
Number 001
MS. RICHARDSON continued...which cost the district additional
dollars or they could be compensated by the (indisc.) for the
additional work they are being asked to do. This is going to cost
the school district a lot of money, and where is that money going
to come from. School districts' budgets are already stretched past
their limits. Districts all over the state have been cutting
budgets this year, increasing class size, cutting programs, etc.
She said the legislature is talking about not fully funding
education right now, so how can they justify strapping districts
with a peer review committee, which is just another unfunded
mandate with no (indisc.). (Indisc.) that the legislature this
year could spend as much time identifying new resources and funds
than they have on bills such as HB 217 (indisc.) employee groups,
the state would probably find that there would be less of a funding
crisis because there would be so much of that funding available.
She urged the committee to not put any more unfunded mandates on
the school districts.
Number 028
DON OBERG testified via teleconference from Kenai, that he had some
real reservations about the idea that this would be a cost saving
measure. As he understood earlier testimony, (indisc.) judicial
review is very expense. He suggested the committee might look at
what it might cost for an (indisc.) hearing. He was sure it would
result in attorneys for the school district and possibly for the
teacher. Then there would be advisory arbitration. He said, as
you know arbitration is nonexistent. Then there would be a
(indisc.) hearing again to determine if the arbitration (indisc.--
talking amongst committee members). He urged the committee to look
at the possible expenses before they make a decision.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it is the intent of the chair to recess to the
call of the chair. Committee members were summoned to the House
floor, as there was a call placed on the House.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA raised an objection. He commented that given
the time of day, they would be debating tort reform on the House
floor which would take several hours to get through, and he
wholeheartedly objected to having committee meetings in the middle
of the night when this is a subject that people want to testify on.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it was not his intent to call the committee back
tonight if they are on the House floor after 10:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Kott recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|