SB 27-ACCESS TO DRIVING/SCHOOL RECORDS OF CHILD CHAIRMAN MILLER brought up SB 27 and stated that the prime sponsor Senator Leman is present to testify. SENATOR LOREN LEMAN said that he introduced SB 27 in response to a constituent complaint. A mother in Anchorage was concerned that her minor daughter might be driving with a suspended driving license. When she contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) she was denied access to that information. The DMV told her that privacy protections in the law prohibited the state from disclosing any information about her daughter's driving record. He stated that others on the committee who have had teenagers are aware of the responsibilities parents must assume once a child receives a driving license. The parent must consent before the license is issued, and then the law holds the parent responsible for any damage caused by negligence or wilful misconduct while the child is operating the vehicle. In the example of the Anchorage mother who called him, SENATOR LEMAN stated she was denied the information but if her daughter had been arrested for driving with a suspended license, the police would have called her, the parent, first. He said he suspects this provision in state law was unintentional. The statutes governing DMV include a provision that keeps all driving records "confidential and private." This makes sense in relation to adults, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the parent-child relationship. SENATOR LEMAN referred members to the statute in the bill packet and pointed out an exception that allows law enforcement personnel to have access to the information. There is no such exception for parents, and SB 27 will correct this problem. While the legislation was being drafted, he also asked Legal Services to research another area of the statutes and determine if there's any provision in state law guaranteeing parents the right to access their children's school records. He learned there is no such law. There is a statute (AS 25.20.130) that guarantees a non- custodial parent the same access to school records that is allowed for custodial parents but nowhere does the law define what access rights a custodial parent has. For that reason, Section 1 of the bill adds a provision that also guarantees parental access to school records. The Anchorage School District already has this policy, and it may be the policy in other school districts in the state, but he said he is not sure. There is a federal law, also in the bill packets, that denies federal funding to any educational agency or institution that does not allow parental access to children's school records. For that reason, SENATOR LEMAN said he feels it is prudent to state clearly in the statutes that parents have a right to this information. SENATOR LEMAN concluded his remarks and said that Mike Pauley, Staff Aide, would remain to answer questions. Number 511 CHAIRMAN MILLER referred to the two fiscal notes in the bill packet and asked Senator Leman about support or opposition, and if there have been problems with the Administration on the bill. SENATOR LEMAN replied that DMV says this makes sense and they are willing to work on it. The only concern relating to school district records was voiced by the Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (CDVSA) that the residence address of the child would be divulged to the non-custodial parent who may have a judgment or restraining order against him. SENATOR LEMAN stated that it could be worked out and if it's part of a court order, the school district shouldn't have to release that information. It could be a policy established by regulation rather than put in statute and that would be consistent with the intent of this legislation. That is the only concern that has been raised. Number 528 SENATOR ELTON asked Mike Pauley, Staff to Senator Leman, about residence records in case of a restraining order, and how a school record is defined. In some districts, a law enforcement officer may have notes on students or may be keeping a record. Federal law defines school record as academic records, and there are exclusions. Is it the Senator's intent to use the federal definition? MIKE PAULEY replied it is not defined in the statute and it could be addressed in regulation or left to the discretion of the individual school districts. Regarding his first concern, he and the Senator don't feel the child's physical address is relevant to their driving or academic records. Both the Department of Education (DOE) and the CDVSA have expressed concern about this. This information could be excluded from the child's records either by regulation or administrative discretion. SENATOR ELTON stated Anchorage school district provides for the release of records, but excludes medical and psychological records of children. Under the broad language in the bill, he is unsure those exclusions would be applicable or that Anchorage would be allowed to continue to exclude certain records. He gave as an example the disincentive for a student to go to the school health clinic if he has a sexually transmitted disease and that record could be released to the custodial parent, non-custodial parent or step parent. MR. PAULEY responded the bill as it is drafted is merely neutral on that question. It would not prevent the disclosure of such information, but neither would it require it. It is a discretionary matter, and the sponsor would not object to providing further clarity, but they have tried to state policy in the statute without trying to "micro manage" or imagine every case scenario. NUMBER 571 CHAIRMAN MILLER clarified the controversy is in Section 1. He asked Mr. Pauley to explain again why Section 1 was inserted. Section 2 speaks for itself. MR. PAULEY replied that they asked Legal Services to look for other precedents to guide how the bill should be drafted. Legal researched existing law on granting parents access to school records, planning to model the driving records language after it, and discovered there was nothing directly addressing parental access to school records. MR. PAULEY reiterated the statute 25.20.130 which states " a parent who is not granted custody has the same access to the medical, dental, school, and other records of the child as the custodial parent." The noncustodial parent having the same rights as the custodial parent seemed odd, leading them to question what rights parents have. They felt it would add clarity to state it specifically in the statutes that the custodial parent has the right to access this information. The federal law withholds funds to any agency or institution which denies this access. Section 1 is consistent with federal law and adds clarity to the existing state law. Number 591 SENATOR WILKEN said that on Page 1, Section 2(c) it appears that if the department asks for the records, a fee is not charged, but if the parent asks, it is. He asked why the difference, and why not have the department furnish the records to a parent without the fee. TAPE 99-05, SIDE B Number 587 MR. PAULEY replied that in light of the current budget situation, they tried to generate a bill with two zero fiscal notes and they succeeded. If the committee wants to remove the fee, the sponsor wouldn't object, but the Finance Committee might. SENATOR WILKEN stated it ought to be reversed, with free records to the parent and a charge to the department. He deferred to CHAIRMAN MILLER. CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if the apparent problem could be fixed by changing language in Section 1, on lines 4 and 5, to "upon the request of a custodial parent or a custodial guardian." MR. PAULEY replied he believes that language change would place this statute in conflict with the existing one in 25.20.130 that says just the opposite -- that a non-custodial parent has this access. The sponsor's intent is not to deny all non-custodial parents access to that information, because there are only a small number of non-custodial parents with a restraining order against them for domestic violence. The concern of staff from DOE and CDVSA is simply the address of the child. Again, the address is not relevant to a driving or school records, and it could be defined that it's not to be included in the accessed information. He repeated it could be done either through regulation or administrative discretion. Number 569 SENATOR ELTON said he applauds the focus of both sections of the bill and feels parents should have access. He suggested language saying "access to school education records," which would limit release of non-academic information including addresses, school records of a medical or psychological nature, or the log book of a police officer. MR. PAULEY again stated the intent was not to "micro manage" too much. If they state "academic" records, it would have to be defined and whether or not it includes disciplinary action against the child. Some people would argue that it does have relevance, others would disagree. The sponsor does not want to dictate to the DOE and the school districts how to implement that in the details. Number 550 MS. MONA MAEHARA, Acting Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, stated the council supports the sponsor's intention that parents have access to their child's driving and school records. However, their concern is that these documents would provide the address for both the minor and the parent. This information given to parents with restraining or protective orders against them could endanger the minor and the other parent. She stated her appreciation of the committee's understanding of the problem and effort to resolve it. The council is working with the sponsor's staff, and has been told by DMV that they can dock the address before they issue the driving abstract. The council wants to minimize the time and effort placed on school districts to protect both child and family. She offered to work with the sponsor and the committee. Number 527 SENATOR WILKEN moved a conceptual amendment with the intent to remove any fee being charged to the parent. The text would read: Page 1: on line 13, strike the first "or" add "agency," after "administrative" strike the second "or" after "judicial agency" add "or a parent or guardian" on line 14, strike ";and (2) upon payment of a fee determined by the on line 15, strike "commissioner, furnish a parent or guardian of a driver" SENATOR WILKEN then read through the proposed language change. CHAIRMAN MILLER offered it as a formal amendment. SENATOR KELLY suggested striking the words "without charging a fee" on line 12. He said it is intent language that the drafters would pick up. SENATOR ELTON expressed support for the amendment. CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if there was objection to the amendment. There being none, the amendment was adopted. The Chairman noted there remain serious concerns regarding Section 1, and said he would like the section to be redrafted. He requested Ms. Maehara, Mr. Pauley and Sharon Clark work together on a compromise committee substitute by Thursday's meeting so that the committee can move the bill out. There being no further discussion, the committee adjourned at 2:30 p.m.