SB 289-EXTENDING THE SPECIAL ED SERVICE AGENCY Number 0050 CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 289, "An Act extending the termination date of the special education service agency; and providing for an effective date." Number 0128 JACQUELINE TUPOU, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State Legislature, testified on SB 289 on behalf of Senator Green, sponsor of SB 289. She told the members that SB 289 is a sunset bill which deals with the Special Education Service Agency (SESA). This agency was created by the legislature in 1985 to help remote school districts provide necessary services that are required of them from the federal government. For instance, if a school district has one blind child or one deaf child, instead of having to hire those specialists and duplicate services the SESA agency will come in and help to provide services to those children. She explained that this would help the school districts avoid costly residential programs that would be required. Ms. Tupou pointed out that there are letters of support in the members' packets from every school district in the state. This bill would extend the sunset of this agency another nine years, she added. Number 0221 CHAIR GATTO asked Mr. Robinson to comment on the extension of the sunset date and the reason for the long extension of the SESA. Number 0420 CHRIS ROBINSON, Executive Director, Special Education Service Agency, testified in support of SB 289 and answered questions from the members. He explained that the last authorization of the agency was for a nine-year period. In the 1994 performance review of the agency, the fourth since it was created 1986, it was recommended that either a ten-year period or the removal from the sunset provision be implemented, he said. The legislature decided to go with a nine-year authorization that comes to an end in June of this year. Mr. Robinson pointed out that the current performance review has recommended a four-year period of authorization, which is the statutory maximum under the sunset law as it is written. MR. ROBINSON said the agency's perspective of the four-year authorization has three downsides. One is immediate and profound and that is the agency's ability to recruit very scarce specialists into the organization. All but two hires since the agency was formed have been out of state hires, he explained. He told the members that it is not realistic for SESA to persuade a highly trained and experienced specialist in a low- instance disability to come to Alaska with an indefinite and short-term future. Mr. Robinson said that the agency can only be effective to the degree that the positions are filled. MR. ROBINSON told the members that second recommendation of the performance review is long-term in nature. The recommendation is to expand upon the funding, activities, and the influence of the agency. He stated that a four-year authorization would degrade the agency's ability to pursue those recommendations. MR. ROBINSON spoke to the third recommendation by saying that the statute establishing SESA requires specialized reporting requirements from the agency to the Department of Education and Early Development. One of those reports is the state's single audit report which is an annual independent audit that meets the requirements of the state's Single Audit Act. He summarized his comments by saying that the agency has asked for the same period of reauthorization as provided by the legislature. Number 0507 REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that he is supportive of the agency. He asked why not delete the sunset date. He questioned why there is a zero fiscal note because he is sure this agency costs money. Number 0617 MS. TUPOU responded that initially there was a lot of discussion about removing the sunset provision. She explained that there would be many logistical details that would need to be addressed, such as how the agency would incorporate itself into other departments and the authority structure that would exist. It was decided to put forth a nine-year authorization and work on legislation which would remove the sunset in the future, she said. CHAIR GATTO suggested that there is nothing preventing legislation coming forward at any time which would eliminate the sunset provision. MS. TUPOU replied that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what agency SESA is in now. MR. ROBINSON responded that the statute created SESA as a public organization. He characterized the agency as semi-autonomous. He explained that SESA is a public corporation similar to the Alaska Railroad. Mr. Robinson told the members that there is an administrative connection with the Department of Education and Early Development, but a separate board of directors that under statute is the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education. On one hand there is the funding stream in the statute that comes through the Department of Education and Early Development budget unit, but on the other hand the governance is through the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education is technically through the Department of Health and Social Services. Mr. Robinson summarized that it is small, but complex. He told the members that SESA agrees with the sponsor that there are issues related to removing the sunset that the agency would like to be proactive in addressing. He said that there needs to be a plan with respect to accountability and reporting relationships prior to the sunset provision being removed. MS. TUPOU reiterated that the removal of the sunset provision will be addressed at a later time. Number 0834 REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that by agreeing to a nine-year sunset, the agency will be autonomous as it is now. He pointed out that the governor can restructure the agency through an executive order. He told the members that he does not see a substantive downside on removing the sunset provision. Number 0911 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 289, Version A, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for purposes of amending the bill. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his motion to move HB 289 out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved conceptual Amendment 1 which would continue the SESA and remove the sunset date. Number 0940 CHAIR GATTO objected. He stated that he believes it is SESA's intention to specifically deal with that issue later. He told the members he would like to defer to the agency's preference. Number 0992 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she supports SESA and would support removing the sunset provision. However, she would like to know how this action would affect the agency. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that Mr. Robinson told the members that the agency would like to come to the legislature with a plan before proceeding with the removal of the sunset provision. He commented that is why he would oppose the amendment. Number 1024 REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he has still not heard a substantive reason why the sunset should not be removed. The idea of a plan was put forth, but not knowing what it is, or why it is important, is not a valid argument, he said. CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Robinson how this amendment would effect SESA. Number 1076 MR. ROBINSON replied that there are a number of alternatives in terms of the removal from sunset. The simplest one would be where the date would simply be stricken and it would not then address any of the structural features, funding, or administrative relationships of the agency. That would all remain the status quo, he said. Mr. Robinson explained that there have been discussions that include some administrative relationships with the administration that do not exist currently. He told the members that the primary reason the sponsor and SESA agreed with this approach had to do with timing. The procedures relative to the sunset performance review did not wind down until the middle of February with the release of the report. He reiterated that the decision to go with the status quo was one of timing. CHAIR GATTO commented that he sees Representative Gara's interest in this, but he told the members that he is reluctant to over rule the sponsor's desire to maintain a restriction when it is unlikely anyone would object to a sunset and moving forward. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara and Kapsner voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Gatto, Seaton, Ogg, Wilson, and Wolf voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by the House Special Committee on Education by a vote of 2-5. Number 1258 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report SB 289 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, SB 289 was reported out of the House Special Committee on Education.