02/06/2003 08:01 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 2003
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for retired
teachers and principals, including those who participated in
retirement incentive programs, and to the employment as teachers
of members of the public employees' retirement system who
participated in a retirement incentive program; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 47
"An Act prohibiting discrimination by credit rating or credit
scoring in certain insurance rates; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE:REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0036 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0036 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0036 (H) STA, FIN
02/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE:INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0043 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0043 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0043 (H) STA, L&C
01/21/03 0043 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/05/03 0135 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
02/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 20.
GUY BELL, Director
Health Benefits Section
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question during the hearing on HB
20.
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the department and
answered questions during the hearing on HB 20.
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Attorney at Law
Lessmeier & Winters
Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 47.
SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 47 on behalf of Representative
Chenault, sponsor.
RUSSINA SGOUREVA, Product Manager
Progressive Insurance
Rancho Cordova, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 47.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-04, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Dahlstrom, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to
order. Representatives Lynn, Berkowitz, and Gruenberg arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 20 - REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
Number 0039
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to reemployment of and
benefits for retired teachers and principals, including those
who participated in retirement incentive programs, and to the
employment as teachers of members of the public employees'
retirement system who participated in a retirement incentive
program; and providing for an effective date."
Number 00074
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of
HB 20, told the committee that he thinks [the proposed
legislation] is important. He said that when he was president
of the school board in Kodiak, Alaska, and that [board]
considered the Retirement Incentive Program (RIP), it chose to
allow its teachers to retire early. Representative Stevens
noted that by using the RIP, retiring teachers could receive an
additional three years' [credit towards] their retirement. He
said, "I'm not sure it was a wise idea because, in fact, we lost
some very fine teachers who decided to leave."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he personally knows of cases
where teachers wanted to come back to teach, "after going
elsewhere," and it was "quite a costly matter for them to pay
back the money they had received." He said he has seen teachers
who have taught 20 years in Alaska go to Oregon or Washington to
teach, for example, where their experience and qualifications
are welcomed.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS continued as follows:
We put ourselves in a situation where ... it is very
difficult to hire those people back, even though our
districts may want them. What this bill would do is
... give the school districts that option. It's not a
requirement - it doesn't force the school districts to
do anything we don't want to do - it just gives them
that option.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that if [a school district] has a
vacancy and needs a particular teacher experienced in a
particular field, it can hire back that person. Furthermore, it
can make it's own decision regarding salary schedule, for
example.
Number 0265
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS specified that HB 20 would allow the
reemployment of retired teachers and principals who took part in
a RIP, as well as those teachers who are members of the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) who took part in a RIP a few
years ago. He reminded the committee that there is currently a
shortage of teachers and principals, not only in Alaska, but
throughout the [United States] - a problem which will continue
to get worse. He noted that two years ago, the Twenty-Second
Alaska State Legislature passed a bill allowing the rehiring of
retired teachers; however, that bill excluded those who had
taken part in a RIP.
Number 0371
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that additionally, [HB 20] would
allow the Department of Education to hire "RIP" teachers in the
various schools that it controls, such as the Alyeska Central
School, Mt. Edgecumbe, the Alaska State School for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing, and the Alaska Vocational Technical Center.
Representative Stevens, based upon his personal experience,
expressed that the most important factor in early education is
having an excellent teacher. [The proposed legislation] is
another tool to use in "getting to that point."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that HB 416, a similar bill, passed
through the House last year, but did not make it through the
Senate because of time [issues]. He indicated a letter from the
Association of Alaska School Boards and an email from a former
teacher [included in the committee packet] supporting [HB 20].
Number 0455
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked the committee to consider two
amendments. Amendment 1 read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
1 Page 1, line 9: After "teach", Insert "or work",
After "particular" Insert "education".
2 Page 1, line 10: Delete "by resolution".
3 Page 1, line 11: After "teach", Insert: "or work".
Amendment 2 read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
1. Page 2, lines 16-20. Instead of deleting the last
sentence in section 2. Change it to read: A member
who participated in a retirement incentive program
under ch 26, SLA 1986; ch 89, SLA 1989, ch 4, FSSLA
1996; or ch 92, SLA 1997, who makes [IS NOT ELIGIBLE
TO MAKE] an election under this subsection will not
lose the incentive credit provided under the
applicable retirement incentive plan and is not
subject to any related reemployment indebtedness.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH read the first line of HB 20 and asked
Representative Stevens a question regarding the inclusion of the
word "principals".
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS answered that [including the word
"principals"] is equally important. In response to a follow-up
question by Chair Weyhrauch, he clarified that [the proposed
legislation] would only apply to those people in the Teachers'
Retirement System (TRS).
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked why it is necessary to pass a bill in
order for teachers to be rehired.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS explained that current statutes require
that if a teacher who has "RIPed" [is rehired], he/she must
repay the amount of money that was received. He added that
"this" might be a good opportunity to get that money back by
allowing those returning teachers to teach for three to four
years, at which point they would be "back where they would have
been if they had stayed anyway." He said that he is hearing
about teachers who retire from Alaska, are welcomed by other
states to teach, and "would like to return to Alaska, but find
they simply can't." He stated that he thinks [HB 20] would
correct that.
Number 0892
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM prefaced his statement by saying that his
wife is a schoolteacher. He said he has a problem with the
bill. In numerous cases, teachers have been given "great
quantities of dollars" to retire early, he said, which gives
them an "advantage of taxpayer dollars." He asked
Representative Stevens why the people are not being required to
return that money. He opined that it is inappropriate for the
state to give financial incentives to urge employees [to
retire], and then [rehire] those [past] employees without
requiring them to pay the [incentive money] back. He asked how
many teachers are involved and if all the teachers "out of the
university system" have been hired.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS explained that at the time when the
retirement incentive was offered, there were many teachers at
the high end of the salary scale. The teachers who replaced
them eventually will become "higher end teachers" in time. He
stated that he is not certain that it was a wise thing to do,
but, on paper, it saved [the school districts] money. He said
that he has heard people express that those [teachers who
retired with the incentive program] should, perhaps, be punished
for taking "gross advantage" of [the school district]; however,
he stated that the truth of the matter is that those teachers
are now needed. He said, "The districts are able to look at
that and say, 'Well yeah, sure, they were very lucky at that
time - they received an advantage.'"
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated his view that [Alaska] is allowing
other states' districts to "have the advantage of our
experienced teachers when, in fact, ... some of our districts
would like to hire some of them back." He said that [if HB 20
is passed] the districts would be able to weigh the benefits of
rehiring the aforementioned teachers versus hiring teachers at a
lower [pay scale].
Number 1150
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he has not been given evidence
that would compel him to agree with [Representative Stevens].
He asked, "How many teachers are we talking about?" He opined
that if [Alaska] is to make a significant difference in
educational programming, or the ability to have enough teachers
to teach its students properly, then [the number of teachers]
needs to be significant. He reiterated that he has a problem
with [teachers] being rehired without returning the money to the
state that they got as a benefit [for retiring].
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS responded that he does not know what
those numbers are, if they even exist, or how they could be
found. He said that he is not certain that he agrees that it
has to be a significant number. He stated that he thinks [the
legislature] should do all it can to offer the [school]
districts options, and [HB 20] is an option.
Number 1270
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the Kenai Peninsula Borough
[School District] had a similar program. He recalled that it
offered a flat $7,500 retirement incentive. Some of those
teachers are still in the community, he added. He mentioned
Kodiak and asked Representative Stevens to compare cases in
regard to "reimbursement back to the district."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS clarified that the RIP was part of TRS.
He stated his understanding that it is separate from a decision
by a local school district to offer an incentive on its own, for
example. He recommended that Representative Seaton ask "the
department people" his question.
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 2 [text provided
previously]. He asked, "If we adopt Amendment 2, should we then
delete Section 3 of the bill, because it would seem to be
redundant?"
Number 1505
GUY BELL, Director, Health Benefits Section, Division of
Retirement & Benefits, Department of Administration, told the
committee that Section 3 relates to PERS employees who
participated in a RIP, then enter teaching as a profession under
(indisc); therefore, [Section 3] is not redundant, but is
specifically in reference to PERS.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how it is possible to have a zero
fiscal note.
MR. BELL reminded the committee that there were several RIPs.
He said that when a RIP was implemented, it was up to the
district and the teacher to pay the full actuarial cost of the
RIP. He continued as follows:
So, at the time that the RIP was approved, there was a
cost - provided by the division, through our
actuaries, to the school district - that had to be
paid, and the school district and the teacher shared
in that actuarial cost. The RIP penalty ... on
returning is not based on the cost of returning that
teacher to the system, but is effectively a penalty.
MR. BELL stated that teachers who "took the RIP" understood that
there was going to be a significant cost to them to return to
teaching in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there would still be a penalty
if HB 20 passes.
MR. BELL answered that if the bill passes with the proposed
amendments, there will be no penalty to returning [teachers].
In response to a question by Representative Gruenberg, he said
that [the bill] would be "cost neutral"; it would have a zero
fiscal note.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Bell to address Representative
Seaton's previously stated question.
MR. BELL responded as follows:
Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on ... each school
district's collective bargaining agreement with the
teachers' union, so it would really be dependent on
the terms of the agreement between the district and
its own employee units.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Bell if he is aware of any
[instance] when a district has allowed teachers to be hired,
regardless of their years of service.
MR. BELL answered that he is not aware of any, but reiterated
that this is not his area of expertise.
Number 1680
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified as follows:
So if the question is: "Can they rehire a teacher at
any pay range, whether it's a beginning or exit
level?" Under this program, we don't know - unless we
go district by district - whether they would have to
rehire them at the level they left, or the beginning
level.
MR. BELL answered, "I believe so, yes."
Number 1701
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that, having formerly been a
teacher, he has not seen a situation where a district has had
the opportunity to disregard people's time of service. He said
there is a set pay scale in all the contracts he has ever seen.
He stated that unless there is a specific amendment made to [HB
20] which requires that teachers be rehired at a lower pay rate,
he thinks a situation may occur whereby teachers are rehired at
the highest pay rate possible. He added that he is not even
sure that [those teachers] might not even get credit for "the
additional years of service, under periods that they were
granted." He stated that his concern is that schools might
actually incur high costs by [re]hiring teachers at the highest
pay scale. He clarified that he is not totally opposed to the
bill; however, he wants to see [language in it] that will make
it economical.
Number 1784
MR. BELL described the way "this return" works as follows:
First, even by virtue of the RIP, the individual must have
received a normal retirement benefit. Second, the school
district declares a shortage in its particular area or
discipline. Then, if it rehires a retiree, that retiree then
"makes an election," which is to either continue receiving the
retirement benefit and not accrue an additional retirement under
a new salary, or to stop his/her retirement benefit and then
continue accruing retirement credit. The return provision is
the former, he said. He noted, "That's another way that we made
this actuarially neutral; there's no additional cost to the
system, and at the same time, neither the employer nor the
employee - the teacher - is making contributions to the
retirement system." He noted that, in effect, there is some
savings to the school district, by virtue of their not
contributing to the retirement system for that particular
teacher.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Bell to confirm that "the teacher
coming back under this ... bill" would get no retirement
benefits as part of their employment, but would have to set up
his/her own individual retirement plan.
MR. BELL replied, "In the case of a school district, it would be
a 403(b), tax-deferred savings." He defined that as the
opportunity [teachers] would have to make additional retirement
savings, because they would not be contributing to the Teachers'
Retirement System.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked whether there is anything to prohibit the
district from reducing, by that margin, the amount of pay that
teacher would receive through contract with that district.
MR. BELL reiterated that that would be subject to the contract
with the district.
Number 1930
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS told the committee he believes that,
currently, teachers who retire "under normal retirement," with
no RIP involved, can return to teaching and choose to remove
themselves from that retirement system, no longer receive
retirement pay, and accrue time in the system again. He
reiterated that it is at the districts' discretion whether or
not to rehire a teacher. He said, "There are several checks on
this program, I believe."
Number 1991
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 3 [of the proposed
bill]. He said that it refers to people who retired under PERS;
therefore, the bill must [also] cover people who are not retired
teachers, but who, technically, retire under PERS, as well as
TRS. He asked Mr. Bell to confirm that.
MR. BELL said, "Correct."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested, that being the case, page 1,
line 11, should be amended to permit the employment of retired
teachers and "other people," to conform with Section 3.
MR. BELL said that he does not think [an amendment] is
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected that it may not be
necessary, but he wants to eliminate any questions for those
interpreting [the language of the bill in the future].
MR. BELL explained that Section 1 relates only to people retired
under TRS. He stated that the reason Section 3 has been added
is because it makes specific reference to PERS retirees. He
said, "Under the retirement center programs, both retired public
employees are excluded or are subject to paying penalties if
they return in PERS or in [TRS]." For example, he said, a
retired fisheries biologist who gets a teaching certificate and
teaches in a school district will be subject to paying the
penalty if he/she is a RIP retiree.
Number 2100
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested Conceptual Amendment 3, as
follows:
So, shouldn't we also say "retired teachers or public
employees" or something like that, to cover the former
retired biologist? A technical amendment to make sure
we don't have a problem.
MR. BELL replied, "It might help, but it wouldn't do any harm."
In response to follow-up questions from Representative
Gruenberg, he suggested that, on Page 1, Line 11, the words
"public employees" be added after the words "retired teachers".
He said he did not think it necessary to add the word "retired"
before "public employees".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the language being discussed would
change the entire nature of the bill.
MR. BELL said, "If that amendment were to be adopted, I would
suggest a consultation with [Legislative Legal and Research
Services]."
Number 2207
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he does not want to change
the bill, but he wants to "make it conform."
Number 2247
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated Amendment 2. He referred to the RIPs
in [the years 1986, 1989, 1996, and 1997]. He asked if those
were the referenced RIP programs for teachers and principals.
MR. BELL concurred.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about the basic intent of creating a RIP
and "wanting to get them back now." He stated that he agrees
with Representative Stevens regarding retired teachers as a
valuable resource that the state doesn't want to lose. He
emphasized that he thinks it is critically important to the
state to get teachers back out in the Bush to teach. Regarding
the RIP, he asked what the public policy is that drives it and
if it's in the state's overall interest.
Number 2295
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said, in hindsight, "I'm sort of sorry
that I was involved in that as the president of the school
board." He qualified that there were immediate savings from
replacing teachers at the high end of the salary scale with
those at the low end; however, a few years later, the teachers
hired [as replacements] are at the high end of the salary scale
and many qualified teachers have been lost.
Number 2360
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH mentioned an inspiring teacher from his past.
He pointed to the zero fiscal note. He noted that the Alaska
Association of School Boards is in favor of [HB 20]. He asked,
"What is the relationship between this organization and
individual school districts?"
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS answered that he hoped they would speak
in favor of [HB 20].
Number 2420
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated his understanding that there are two
issues involved. The first, he said, is regarding PERS and a
question of "whether or not you ... have to return any incentive
to retire." The second issue, he highlighted, is the
[retirement] incentive given by the school boards to the
teachers. Representative Holm cited an example of a person who
received a $10,000 cash bonus [to retire from the Fairbanks
School District], in addition to the retirement paid. The
person is now in the Anchorage School District as a teacher. He
reiterated that he has a problem with not requiring pay back of
the monies received in regard to the RIP.
Number 2535
MR. BELL noted that there are a number of school districts that
offer incentive bonuses - generally through a collective
bargaining process - that are completely separate from the
retirement system. He clarified that the retirement system has
no say over the awarding of those bonuses, and the law states
nothing regarding people who subsequently return to another
district after receiving a separation or a second bonus from
another district. [Neither] the "rehired retirement" law [nor]
the retirement incentive law have [any] connection at all with
district-sponsored bonuses. He stated the following:
So, I would suggest that that should be separated from
this particular bill, because this bill has no impact
- either positive or negative - on that particular
type of situation. That would occur regardless of
whether this bill passed or did not pass. This bill
strictly relates to teachers who participated in the
state-sponsored Retirement Incentive Program - TRS
Retirement Incentive Program - those four that
Representative Weyhrauch mentioned.
Number 2602
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted the importance of local control
over education. Whatever the districts decide to do [in regard
to offering bonuses] is beyond the purview of HB 20. He
clarified that his previous statement that bonuses [in the RIP]
were not a good idea was his own personal one.
Number 2648
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the teachers that are rehired
would immediately have tenure. He said, "If we're looking at a
short-term need, and the highest paid individuals are people we
bring back into the system, I'm wondering if we're stuck there
for the long term and whether there's any impact here at all."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that he retired after 25 years as a
university professor, and he had tenure. He stated that he
never thought that tenure was an important issue. He asked what
difference it makes whether a teacher has tenure or not, if the
school district has decided it needs that valuable teacher back
[regardless of the money].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON described a situation in which budget cuts
might require a district to let go of its lower-paid teachers
and retain the rehired, higher-paid teachers with tenure. He
stated that his concern was that [the proposed] legislation
might build a longer-term budgetary problem.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS responded, "It might be an important
issue to ask of the bargaining units." He added that it is an
issue that would be controlled by the contracts with bargaining
units.
Number 2770
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated his belief that legislation has
been passed in the last couple of years that allows people to be
reemployed without, in essence, negating their seniority.
Number 2796
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked the committee if there was any objection
to Amendment 1 [text provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected to point out that the deletion
on [page 1, line 10] should also [delete] the commas.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH again asked whether there was any objection to
Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 2830
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2
[text provided previously]. There being none, Amendment 2 was
adopted.
Number 2850
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to Conceptual Amendment 3, a
handwritten, photocopied amendment, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
p 1 l 11 after "teachers" insert "or public
employees
[subject to technical correction by legal counsel]
He asked if there was any objection to [Conceptual] Amendment 3.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked the sponsor if he would like to comment on
[Conceptual] Amendment 3.
Number 2870
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS concurred with the aforementioned
comments of Mr. Bell, that [Amendment 3] is not necessary, but
will do no harm.
Number 2887
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH outlined the steps that would be taken to
include the above three amendments in a committee substitute.
Number 2910
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development
(EED), said that he recalls the legislation previously mentioned
by Representative Berkowitz, although he does not remember the
bill [number]. He urged the committee to consider [the content
of] that legislation, which provided allowance for districts to
negotiate "the number of years they would get." He said that
would be consistent with "current policy - negotiated
agreements." He said that districts vary in the amount of years
allowed to be "brought in." He explained that that is probably
why a person might leave one district to go to another and might
not only receive retirement pay, but also might "get credited
with 'X' number of years."
TAPE 03-04, SIDE B
Number 2996
DR. McLAIN stated that the issue, critical to savings, was
heavily debated last year.
DR. McLAIN noted that he has served as both assistant
superintendent and superintendent in several districts
throughout the state. Regarding bonuses, he said that some
districts, for various reasons, did decide to offer incentives,
which were separate from any state agreement. He added, "It had
an impact in that that salary quite often raised the pay, which
would raise the average, which increased the amount of
retirement. But those were really outside of this bill and
outside of the one that was passed last session or the session
before."
DR. McLAIN said that another component of [HB 20] is that it
[would] allow "the department" to "take advantage of this
program." He mentioned an amendment added in so that "our
people and our teaching-learning support system would be able to
participate." He added, "It's a critical division in our
department." He explained that the people [in that division]
are required to be "certificated," and they provide direct
support services to teachers, schools, districts, and the
administration, for example, regarding curriculum and
instructional matters. Mr. McLain noted that the salary
structure and the "twelve-month contract nature of that work"
sometimes make it hard for [the department] to attract people.
He urged the committee to consider "anything that we can do to
open up that as a possibility, to make it more attractive." He
said that [HB 20] would allow retired people to elect to work
with "us," and that the state as a whole would benefit from
their experience. He reiterated that there would be no cost to
the state; there is a zero fiscal note. He demonstrated that
point as follows: "The person, if they ... took the retirement
and left - went down to Oregon - we're still paying out the
retirement benefit. Now, we still pay out the retirement, but
we also get the benefit of their expertise back with us."
Number 2860
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the amendment he had
offered was designed to ensure that the employees who are non-
teachers could be hired back. They would be former public
employees who would be employed to work in the system. He said
he thinks that it is important that "we make certain there is no
question that they can be reemployed."
DR. McLAIN responded to Representative Gruenberg as follows: "I
appreciate the amendment that you offered, and I also hesitate,
without legal counsel, on the exact wording." He said that he
understood Representative Gruenberg's intent and that it would
not cause the department any problems. He stated his
understanding that Representative Gruenberg's proposed amendment
would mean that a biologist, for example, who left employment,
then gained a teaching certificate, could "come back in and take
on the teaching." He clarified that he did not interpret
Representative Gruenberg as saying that a person could leave "as
a custodian and come back in as a custodian."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that Mr. McLain had focused on
Amendment 1 and the addition of the phrase, "or work". Since
someone had asked to have that phrase added, he opined, "It
sounds like there are people who are going to be brought back
in, not just to teach, but to work." He asked if that was
correct.
Number 2770
DR. McLAIN clarified that Teaching and Learning Support is a
particular division of EED. Those individuals [in it] are
required to have teaching certification in order to do their
job; they are required to have the background and skill set that
would make them eligible for TRS. They are not PERS employees,
he said. That is why the language [of the proposed legislation]
was changed from "teach" to "work", because what they do is work
with curriculum development and grant management, for example.
He said that he would not have a problem with the addition of
adding "PERS opportunities" to the proposed legislation.
Number 2714
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that it sounded as though the
certification was the key issue.
DR. McLAIN said yes. He listed some areas where certification
is necessary.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH recognized Representative Crawford in the room.
Number 2651
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the intent of his
[proposed] amendment was not to expand, but to conform. He
stated that his intent was to include only the people who Mr.
McLain intends to include. Furthermore, [to that purpose], the
bill must be carefully drafted.
Number 2625
DR. McLAIN reiterated that he had understood that Representative
Gruenberg had been bringing in the idea that someone retired
under PERS might earn a teaching certificate and come back [to
teach] as a second career. He said, "I think that's an exciting
extension and builds into our statewide efforts on retention and
recruitment, and to that degree, I thought it fit in well."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred that that had been his exact
intent.
DR. McLAIN noted that the state's university system only
prepares about 30 percent of its teachers; there is a general
teaching shortage in the state, which is acute in some areas and
chronic in others. In the past 23 years, application files have
decreased in size. He [encouraged] anything that can be done to
attract and retain teachers. He stated that it's difficult to
watch a teacher with twenty years of experience leave to teach
in another state. He offered to make a report regarding teacher
retention and recruitment available to the committee.
Number 2529
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that Mr. McLain not limit the
distribution to only the House State Affairs Standing Committee,
because he said he thinks everyone in the legislature is
concerned about the issue. He stated that "whatever your
department can do" to provide incentives [to teachers], while
implementing any cost-effective programs would be of benefit.
In response to a comment by Mr. McLain, he clarified that there
was a zero [fiscal] note to the state, but he wasn't sure about
a cost to the district.
DR. McLAIN said that the districts would have the option not to
exercise [the proposed legislation] if it did not work out for
them to do so.
[HB 20 was heard and held.]
HB 47 - INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
[Contains brief mention of HB 5.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 47, "An Act prohibiting discrimination by
credit rating or credit scoring in certain insurance rates; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 2395
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that a great deal of information came in
late yesterday and the committee hasn't had time to digest it
all. Therefore, the committee won't take any action on HB 47
today. However, he invited testimony.
Number 2346
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that HB 5 is similar to HB
47. Regardless which legislation moves forward from the
committee, he asked if it was the chair's intention to allow
testimony on both pieces of legislation.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH expressed the need to use the committee's time
efficiently.
Number 2303
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Attorney at Law, Lessmeier & Winters,
Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company, recalled that there
was quite a bit of legislation on credit scoring last session.
Furthermore, as a result of the work on that legislation, much
was learned. For example, he noted, it was learned that there
is a strong correlation between a high credit score and the
predictability of loss. He said he doesn't believe that there's
any reasonable dispute about that.
MR. LESSMEIER stated that another thing learned was that the
insurance industry in Alaska uses credit [scoring] in different
ways, depending upon the company. As far as Mr. Lessmeier knew,
he said, there is only one company in Alaska that is approved to
use credit [scoring] for purposes of making rates, although
there are probably a number of companies that use credit
[scoring] for underwriting. He remarked that work on the
legislation last session also educated everyone with regard to
the lack of history of a problem with the use of credit
[scoring] in Alaska.
Number 2153
MR. LESSMEIER identified the issue before the committee as one
of fairness. If the ability exists to predict which groups of
people will cause the most losses, should the [insurance
industry] be able to price their insurance accordingly? He
proffered that fundamental fairness seems to dictate that if the
aforementioned ability exists, the [insurance industry] should
be able to use it. Those presenting a lower risk should pay a
lower premium, while those presenting a higher risk should pay a
higher premium.
MR. LESSMEIER explained that State Farm reviewed many of its
closed records and many of the factors involved, in an attempt
to determine which factors are predictive of loss. The
actuaries then developed a formula that was applied to a number
of closed cases in order to determine whether it had predictive
value, he said. The predictive value turned out to be very
high. Therefore, Alaska State Farm uses credit scoring.
MR. LESSMEIER noted that State Farm refers to it as underwriting
scoring rather than credit scoring because it isn't intended to
predict whether someone is a good credit risk or not; rather,
it's intended to predict whether someone is a good underwriting
risk. The aforementioned was used for a short period of time
for homeowner's insurance when State Farm was attempting to
write more business; that is, the [underwriting scoring] was
used to "write people" that State Farm wouldn't have otherwise
written. State Farm no longer uses it for homeowner's insurance
in Alaska, although it is used for automobile insurance, but
only for new business. State Farm doesn't use [underwriting
scoring] to cancel or renew policies.
Number 1982
MR. LESSMEIER recalled that at the end of last session, he
worked very hard with the Senate to develop a compromise.
However, there was a lack of time. Since last year there have
been a number of developments that deserve review, he said. For
example, he noted that the National Council on Insurance
Legislators (NCOIL) has [introduced] model legislation which is
included in the committee packet. He said that the committee
packet should also have a recent study by the State of
Washington's Division of Insurance that doesn't reach any
significant conclusion. He noted that Alaska's Division of
Insurance study should be available February 10, 2003.
MR. LESSMEIER related State Farm's belief that [credit scoring]
is a valuable tool that is in the interest of State Farm's
policyholders. State Farm is willing to work with the
legislature to accomplish ways to ensure that this tool is used
fairly. Mr. Lessmeier stressed that Alaska's Division of
Insurance has the power, the authority, and the responsibility
to investigate any instances of unfair discrimination in
insurance. Therefore, if credit [scoring] is being used
unfairly by any company, the division has the power,
responsibility, and authority to address it and stop it. He
added that the division also has the power, responsibility, and
authority to approve rates for insurance companies in Alaska.
If an insurance company is using credit [scoring] to determine
rates in Alaska, it is being done with the approval of the
Division of Insurance.
Number 1764
MR. LESSMEIER suggested that, for future hearings, it would be
helpful to have a State Farm actuary available for questions.
However, he informed the committee that State Farm doesn't
review records that are identified as medical or utility
collections. Also, State Farm writes people without a credit
history with traditional underwriting factors. He said that if
an individual believes that their credit history is inaccurate,
there are mechanisms for correcting it. Mr. Lessmeier specified
that the ultimate goal is to ensure that people are charged a
rate that's commensurate with their risk.
MR. LESSMEIER informed the committee that there are maybe one or
two states that have completely banned the use of credit, which
is the goal of [HB 47 and HB 5]. However, under the provisions
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the direct writers of
insurance will still be able to use credit [scoring] in terms of
how insurance is solicited, because those direct writers will
continue to target who they want to solicit through the mail.
Number 1613
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to what other criteria
besides credit scoring [State Farm] uses to access an
individual's risk and ultimately how that risk is used in the
calculation of the rate. He asked about the credit rating of
Alaskans as a whole compared to national averages.
Representative Berkowitz expressed the need to see the evidence
that credit scoring correlates to loss.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to Mr. Lessmeier's earlier
statement that it's okay to use credit [scoring] to access,
based on groupings of people, and he said that it doesn't always
seem to be appropriate to do so. He noted, for example, that
rates can't be based on one's race, gender, religion, and he
said he suspected someone's economic status couldn't be used
either. He added that if rates somehow had a de facto effect of
reflecting these other criteria, that would be suspect as well.
Therefore, [using credit scoring] as a means of de facto
discrimination against poor people may be one of the concerns
driving this legislation, he suggested.
MR. LESSMEIER said Representative Berkowitz's questions are all
good and he believes all of those issues have been reviewed, in
particular the last issue. He informed the committee that
[State Farm] does not discriminate based on income, race, or
gender.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern that if there is an
unnaturally high correlation between poor credit scoring and
economic status, then that would mean that people are being
discriminated against based on their economic status.
MR. LESSMEIER related that he believes that Representative
Berkowitz's concern has been addressed and that he would provide
that information to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to who NCOIL is.
MR. LESSMEIER answered that every state is invited to have a
legislative delegate to NCOIL, which is a group of state
legislators interested in insurance issues. In the past,
Senator Donley was Alaska's representative. He said he didn't
believe there is currently an Alaskan legislator in NCOIL.
Number 1375
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled Mr. Lessmeier's earlier statement
regarding [the need] for the rate to be commensurate with the
risk. However, he said he understood Mr. Lessmeier to say that
State Farm isn't using credit scoring to base the rates but
rather in determining whether to offer insurance. Therefore, he
inquired as to how credit scoring can impact a rate to be
commensurate with the risk.
MR. LESSMEIER explained that State Farm's use of credit scoring
is primarily used in determining whether to write insurance or
not for an individual and whether that individual would be
placed in a mutual company or standard company. He noted that
it's possible that those placed in the mutual company may
receive a better rate than those placed in a standard company.
Mr. Lessmeier further explained that one group ends up
subsidizing the other. He expressed the need to accomplish
fairness in terms of what people pay and the risk they present,
which can be accomplished in different ways.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then that the credit score is
going to determine an individual's rate because of the policy or
company in which the individual will be placed.
MR. LESSMEIER related his understanding that [credit scoring]
could determine what company the individual is placed with, and
that could determine the individual's premium.
Number 1190
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related her understanding that various
insurance companies determine at certain points during the year
that the company will not write certain types of insurance
policies for the remainder of the year, depending upon the
number of policies written and money made in that area. She
asked if that is correct.
MR. LESSMEIER said he didn't know the answer. However, he
offered that economic conditions may impact whether a company
chooses to continue writing a particular line of business, which
is of concern in Alaska. Mr. Lessmeier related that what State
Farm has experienced with automobile insurance has been
disastrous. He specified that one of the things that may impact
a company's desire to write business in a state such as Alaska
is the question of how much market share the company wants. Mr.
Lessmeier noted that State Farm stopped writing homeowner's
insurance for a period of time, but has begun to do so again.
He indicated a concern that State Farm was holding too much of
the market as well as the loss experience.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if Mr. Lessmeier is able to
provide the committee with information specifying the percentage
of business State Farm is interested in writing in Alaska for
homeowners and automobile as well as for small businesses. She
related constituent concerns regarding the lack of insurance
being written for small businesses.
Number 0974
MR. LESSMEIER stated that there are many factors determining
whether companies choose to write insurance. He provided the
following example with automobile insurance: He explained that
Alaska requires mandatory insurance and mandated authors of
uninsured and underinsured motorists. The Lawrence decision
interpreted the mandated offers under umbrella policies. As a
result, there are companies that have stopped writing that
coverage. Although State Farm continues to write it, it's a
large problem. The uninsured/underinsured coverage has become
dramatically more expensive.
MR. LESSMEIER said that one of the reasons for the increase is
due to the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that if one's liability
policy can cover punitive damages, then the
uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage would have to provide
protection for punitive damages as well. He said it doesn't
make sense that anyone would want to buy that kind of protection
for himself or herself. This needs to be fixed, he said.
Although he agreed that [coverage for] uninsured motorists has
to be addressed, he stated that there will always be a certain
number of people driving without insurance and thus
uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is necessary. However,
the more expensive it is the more difficult it is to have.
MR. LESSMEIER noted that insurance is a necessity, but also
noted that the more impediments that are created in a state such
as Alaska, the more problems there will be. Mr. Lessmeier
suggested talking with some of the agents regarding the
availability of insurance. He related that he has anecdotal
knowledge that a number of insurance companies have left the
state because it isn't an easy place to do business.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM directed her earlier question to
business insurance.
Number 0688
MR. LESSMEIER noted that most businesses have to provide
insurance for vehicles. He said that he wasn't familiar with
the issue of the availability of commercial insurance. However,
he said that he was more familiar with the types of problems
that have occurred with commercial construction and issues such
as mold coverage. Those types of problems have created
significant problems for insurance, he said.
Number 0592
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to the health of the insurance
industry in Alaska as compared to other states. Furthermore, he
inquired as to how passage of HB 47 would impact the overall
insurance business in Alaska for insurers as well as for
consumers.
Number 0536
MR. LESSMEIER related his understanding that in the years 1999,
2000, and 2001 State Farm had an underwriting loss with
automobile insurance in Alaska that amounted to close to $50
million. Although he said he understood that the rest of the
country has also experienced a bad trend [in this area], he
couldn't compare Alaska to the rest of the country. He informed
the committee that there will have to be rate increases. State
Farm's experience with homeowner's insurance was better and he
recalled that for 2002 there was an underwriting profit.
MR. LESSMEIER, with regard to how HB 47 would impact this, said
that an underwriting score is the best tool to predict loss.
Mr. Lessmeier said that he didn't think this state, an already
difficult market, would want to create barriers for insurers to
do business. He noted that although the insurance industry is a
highly regulated industry, it's fiercely competitive. The more
competition, the better it is for the consumer, he said. He
noted that historically, Alaska's insurance rates have been good
when one considers the cost of living. Mr. Lessmeier concluded,
"This is something that would help. How much of a difference it
would make I can't tell you."
Number 0132
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether an individual with bad
credit from the point of view of the insurance company would
ever have the ability to restore good credit.
MS. LESSMEIER responded that he didn't know, but offered to find
out.
TAPE 03-5, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. LESSMEIER, in response to a question by Representative Holm,
said that he believes all insurers, in terms of the insurance
pool, have to take a certain number of people in that pool. He
noted that State Farm has a mutual company and a standard
company.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if the $50 million loss is related to
the pool participation.
MR. LESSMEIER answered that he didn't believe it was related to
the pool participation. He said he believes that loss is across
the board.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM remarked that he believes that HB 47 is good
because it elevates the idea that people have a responsibility
to pay their bills on time and pay for their insurance.
Although there is no constitutional right to insurance, he said
he believes that it's important of the state's economic survival
to have insurance companies. Representative Holm inquired as to
how Mr. Lessmeier would rate HB 47 with regard to State Farm's
desire to remain in Alaska and do business here.
MR. LESSMEIER replied that it isn't his belief that State Farm
isn't going to do business in Alaska if HB 47 is passed.
However, it's one factor in an overall struggle for State Farm
to try to keep its products available and affordable. He
mentioned that there is also legislation regarding whether
[insurance companies] can use after-market automobile parts,
which is a huge issue for automobile insurance.
Number 0352
SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 47 on behalf of Representative
Chenault, sponsor. She informed the committee that over two-
thirds of the states are reviewing abolishing credit scoring.
The states of Kentucky and Washington are in the group of
several states that have abolished credit scoring. Ms. Wright
characterized some of the facts presented today as misleading.
MS. WRIGHT mentioned the legislature's responsibility to young
people, some who have difficulty obtaining insurance of any type
due to their lack of a credit record. Insurance companies are
using bad credit records as well as no credit records to elevate
insurance rates in Alaska, she charged. For instance, her own
daughter would have faced double insurance rates had she
obtained insurance on her own; she attributed this to her
daughter's lack of credit [history]. Therefore, Ms. Wright's
husband placed his name on the vehicle and insured the vehicle
for less than half the premium she was quoted by several
insurance companies. She mentioned that some of the younger
fishermen in the state are having difficulty obtaining boat
insurance due to the lack of a credit [history], a bad credit
rating, or questionable credit rating. Ms. Wright said that
everyone has had financial problems at some point, and if
insurance had been required and that individual couldn't afford
it, she suggested that the individual would've driven without
insurance. Forcing the economically deprived into the arena of
not paying their insurance and driving without insurance is a
concern of Representative Chenault, she related.
Number 0682
MS. WRIGHT turned to the issue of underinsured premiums. She
informed the committee that her uninsured/underinsured rate was
less than $20 annually, and that insures four vehicles. That
[rate] isn't a huge factor. Ms. Wright said the aforementioned
isn't under discussion here; rather, the discussion involves
individuals with obligations and children buying a new car. The
decisions related to HB 47 will impact whether or not such
individuals can afford insurance or medicine for their children,
she said. Furthermore, some older citizens can't afford the
premiums. Ms. Wright related her belief that [credit scoring]
does discriminate against young and old individuals as well as
those less fortunate. In closing, Ms. Wright suggested that the
committee needs to take a good look at this before the insurance
companies present their statistics and say that they don't use
[credit scoring]. She noted that her credit rating has been set
before her during a settlement conference and thus she charged
that insurance companies do use [credit scoring].
Number 0908
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if the passage of HB 47 as written
would raise the cost of insurance for everyone.
MS. WRIGHT related that a wise lawyer once told her that
insurance companies aren't in the business to pay claims or
determine risks, but rather are in the business to collect
premiums. Ms. Wright related her belief that HB 47 isn't a
cure-all, but it will address one portion of the problem.
Furthermore, she stated that she didn't believe that any
insurance company making money in this state would pull out.
Number 1058
RUSSINA SGOUREVA, Product Manager, Progressive Insurance,
informed the committee that she is responsible for overseeing
all of the company's business that flows through its independent
agents in Alaska. Ms. Sgoureva pointed out that Progressive
Insurance, the fourth largest auto insurer, is the largest
writer of private passenger auto insurance through independent
agents in the nation. Progressive Insurance does business in 48
states with over 30,000 independent agents in the nation.
Progressive Insurance is the fifth largest writer of auto
insurance in Alaska with over 16 independent agents through
which Progressive Insurance sells insurance. Progressive
Insurance also sells insurance through its call center and the
Internet. In total, Progressive Insurance has over 17,000
policies in the State of Alaska and last year over 13,000 of
those policies were sold to Progressive Insurance's independent
agents. Ms. Sgoureva explained that she wanted to provide the
committee with some background on how Progressive Insurance uses
credit [scoring] and the measures the company has taken to
address the concerns of the general public and legislators.
Number 1220
MS. SGOUREVA echoed Mr. Lessmeier's earlier comment that credit
[scoring] is a powerful and important predictor of future
losses. Credit is one of many things that insurers consider
when determining rates. An individual's driving record, type of
vehicle, location of the insurer, gender, and age are used when
determining an individual's rate. Age is already a factor
included in the rate order of calculations for most insurance
companies. All of the actuarial support associated with using
age has been filed with the Alaska Division of Insurance. Ms.
Sgoureva said that the use of credit [scoring] allows insurance
companies to more accurately predict future losses for
policyholders. There are many studies that have demonstrated
the predictive power of credit [scoring] and she offered to
share those with the committee and the legislature.
MS. SGOUREVA said that since Progressive Insurance started using
credit [scoring], it was able to offer better rates to many
consumers who otherwise wouldn't have been eligible for these
rates. She related that Progressive Insurance estimates that
over 60 percent of its policyholders were eligible for a lower
rate once credit was used as a rating variable. She explained
that credit scores focus on an individual's bill paying behavior
and how they use their available credit; for a consumer who has
been responsible with his/her use of credit, it reflects
positively on the score.
Number 1476
MS. SGOUREVA specified that the credit information Progressive
Insurance reviews doesn't contain any reference to income, race,
color, creed, or physical handicap or disability. As a company,
Progressive Insurance has worked hard to use credit [scoring]
responsibly in order to ensure that the process is transparent
to the regulators, consumers, and agents in the state.
Progressive Insurance doesn't use credit history to refuse to
insure a consumer or to cancel an existing customer.
Furthermore, credit information that is disputed by the consumer
with the credit reporting agency isn't considered in the credit
scoring. All medical, business, and commercial debts and liens
are excluded from consideration. She announced that Progressive
Insurance is willing to share with the regulators, media, and
consumers, information about how it uses credit [scoring] in the
process of determining rates.
MS. SGOUREVA noted that Progressive Insurance was very actively
involved in the discussions of credit scoring during the last
Alaska State Legislature. She noted that, since that time,
Progressive Insurance has employed a number of measures to
address issues that were brought to the company's attention.
For instance, Progressive Insurance has filed its credit scoring
methodology with the Alaska Division of Insurance. Furthermore,
Progressive Insurance has modified its credit scoring
methodology in order to ensure that medical and business debt
are excluded. Ms. Sgoureva told the committee that Progressive
Insurance has also collaborated extensively with the Alaska
Division of Insurance in the preparation of the report that will
be out on Monday.
Number 1500
MS. SGOUREVA turned to what Progressive Insurance sees as
dangers associated with an outright ban on credit [scoring].
First, consumers will see significant increases if credit
[scoring] were banned because there would be less accurate
pricing. Progressive Insurance estimates that over 11,000
policies in the state might experience increased premiums as a
result of the elimination of credit [scoring]. She highlighted
the issue of fairness and asked if those policyholders who
currently experience better rates due to their better financial
responsibility deserve to lose those rates. Second, the removal
of credit [scoring] would create an uneven playing field for
agents and the insurance companies that write through agents.
The Federal Credit Reporting Act allows the use of credit
[scoring] in designing solicitations for insurance for direct
companies and chapter companies. With the elimination of
credit, Progressive Insurance's agents in Alaska will be
disadvantaged because they won't be able to obtain the more
profitable and higher attention business. Therefore,
Progressive Insurance doesn't feel that the aforementioned is a
fair decision with regard to its agents.
Number 1600
MS. SGOUREVA turned to the challenges of doing business in
Alaska. In 2001, Alaska fared significantly worse than most
other western states. She referred to an analysis from AM Best
(ph), which illustrates that insurers in Alaska lost about $.24
per $1.00 of premium that they wrote in 2001 in Alaska, compared
with about $.12 in other states. In regard to an earlier
comment that [the elimination of credit scoring] is a nationwide
trend, Ms. Sgoureva emphasized that no state banned credit
[scoring] last year. Furthermore, the State of Washington
passed legislation limiting the use of credit [scoring], but
does not ban it. Similarly, the states of Kentucky, Michigan,
and Maryland have legislation providing various restrictions on
how credit [scoring] can be used and monitored; however, credit
[scoring] has not been banned.
Number 1725
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 47 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1725
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:00
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|