SSHB 5 - VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR EDUCATION Number 0140 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is SSHB 5, "An Act relating to vouchers for education; and providing for an effective date." CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that Article VII, section 1, of the state constitution commits the state to the pursuit of a public, not a private institutional school system. It is there in black and white. In addition, the constitutional language eliminates substantial barriers that would negatively impact the health and welfare of students attending private institutions. He recognizes that the state constitution is somewhat silent on that and construed that meaning by going back to the state constitution convention. More importantly, Article VII prohibits the direct transfer of state funds for religious or private institutions. In addition, he doesn't believe that in the bill itself the state is hostile towards private institutions. However, he does believe that the bill is not totally neutral. A voucher system would promote enrollment in a private school setting while negatively impacting the public school environment addressed in Article VII. In addition, in relation to how the funds would be spent, he concluded that they would either subsidize or entirely fund those students who receive them via the voucher system. The amount is not known because it would be subject to legislative appropriation. The money associated with the voucher system and those who would use it would be a direct benefit to those institutions. Furthermore, based on how the dispersement of funds would occur, it would be hard to get around the idea of directly supporting that religious or private institution. It could not be skirted by giving the money to the parents who in turn would pay the institution. In conclusion, he noted as he reviewed the state constitution and looked at some of the case law, this cannot be pursued statutorily. It is an issue that deals with the constitution in scope. Number 0442 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Chairman Kott whether he came across any jurisdictions subsequent to the rendering of the state supreme court that are different. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied there are a number of cases that were reviewed in other states that were somewhat appropriate, but it is more appropriate to look at cases within Alaska. He noted when looking at those cases, it is important to review the state constitutions to see how they marry up. In this case, it doesn't marry up to the Alaska Constitution. It was delineated during the state constitution convention. There was a whole argument of funding private institutions and/or where should private institutions be on the pecking order of providing an education for the children of the state. Number 0593 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted her appreciation of Chairman Kott's summation. Anyway she looked at a voucher system, she couldn't come up with anything without directly or indirectly benefitting a particular institution. Number 0673 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he doesn't see how this particular measure can be dealt with in statute. The correct vehicle is a constitutional amendment. Although the few cases to refer to in Alaska aren't identical, they are identical enough to fail in a challenge based on constitutional grounds and to have set a precedent. Number 0722 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted her agreement with Chairman Kott's assessment. She doesn't agree, however, that a constitutional amendment is needed to design a system to allocated monies to each child to go to a school somewhere. The constitution says the state should provide an education which means money should be provided for every child in the district, not for just those who sign up for public school. The state has a responsibility to ensure that the children are educated and parents should have a choice. Public schools cannot serve every child. There are children above and below the norm that need a separate kind of education. She noted, if a public school allocates $5,000 per student for a public education, certainly a voucher for $5,000 should not be given because of the fixed and other costs involved in maintaining a school system. The only portion that should go to a child via a voucher should be just the cost that would be eliminated in the public system because that child isn't there anymore. Number 0841 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted his agreement with Chairman Kott's analysis in terms of the Framers of the state constitution and the meaning of the Sheldon Jackson case. At the time of the state constitution convention, there were a large number of private schools operating in the state. He is also drawn to the comments made by Representative James because he recognizes the state's dilemma. He also recognizes the dilemma of how the bill was transmitted to the House Judiciary Committee and the desire of the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee to get an opinion and for it to be returned to them. He is also troubled by the comments made by the sponsor's staff that any court decision of a program would have to be tied to a constitutional amendment. If that is true, not only will a constitutional amendment need to be put before the voters but a vehicle to design a program that meets the merits of that constitutional amendment will need to be attached to it. He asked Chairman Kott whether his staff looked into the connection between a constitutional amendment and the design of a voucher program. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied no. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Chairman Kott what the committee will do now with the bill. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied, as noted at the last meeting, if the bill was found to have constitutional problems, it will not go back to the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee. If that committee wants to deal with it via a constitutional amendment, it will probably come to this committee at some time. If that committee wants to pursue another bill aside from a voucher system, that is fine. It is his intent to lay the bill aside and he believes it is the intent of the sponsor to withdraw it. Number 1042 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated, as a member of the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee, that is the proper course. Number 1056 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted her agreement with Chairman Kott's analysis and thanked him. CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked the committee members for spending the time on this issue and not getting involved with the public policy question, but looking at it from a constitutional aspect. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the bill will be laid aside.