CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 27(HES) "An Act relating to school records and driver license records of certain children." Senator Loren Leman testified to this bill, which he sponsored. It came about after he heard from a mother who suspected her minor daughter was driving with a suspended license. When she tried to find out from the Division of Motor Vehicles, she was told that the privacy protection in the law prevented them from releasing that information to her without written permission from the child. Senator Loren Leman believed parents ought to have the right to access to this information. He then explained that as the bill progressed, his office learned that state law did not require a school to guarantee access of parents to their child's school records. He noted that it was common for some school districts to provide that information, there was no requirement in state law. Therefore, this requirement was added to the bill. The Health, Education and Social Services Committee made changes to the bill and Senator Loren Leman requested the Division of Motor Vehicles to comment on those to clarify the intent of the committee. The first change eliminated the five-dollar fee for parents who requested the child's drivers license record. Currently, there was no fee charged to law enforcement and Senator Gary Wilken offered an amendment in HESS to do the same for parents. The second change allowed the DMV and schools to refuse to release the minor child's address if they believed it could jeopardize the child's health and safety. Senator Loren Leman shared that the issue raised by DMV was whether an insurance company could claim they were the guardians of the child and avoid paying the fee. That would jeopardize the finances of the division since they currently processed many requests from insurance, which generated substantial program receipts. The intent was to not let someone other than the parent or guardian to obtain records at no charge. Senator Lyda Green had understood that there were federal requirements that school records be provided to a parent or guardian upon request and wondered why this portion of the bill was necessary. Senator Loren Leman believed that was correct and this bill would make state law consistent. Senator Lyda Green asked if the state failed to follow through with this bill, would federal funds be withheld. Senator Al Adams shared Senator Lyda Green's feelings that Section 1 was unnecessary. The federal Family Education and Privacy Rights applied to the academic records and excluded health and counseling records, which he felt was a private matter. He said that parents shouldn't be guaranteed access to records such as birth control counseling. In order to adopt this state law, the same exclusions that were in the federal law must also be made. Senator Lyda Green asked why the school records were included in the bill. Senator Loren Leman repeated his explanation that while drafting the driving records access bill, they asked the Legal Services Division if there was a statute granting parental access for school records and was told there was none. This provision would allow non- custodial parents as well as custodial parents to have access. JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration testified. She said the department understood Senator Loren Leman's desire for parent's to have access to their child's driving records. She said parents currently could get a copy of the record with written release from the minor child. She spoke to the division's concerns to make sure this would be strictly related to a parent walking into the DMV wanting a copy of their minor child's driver's records. She wanted to ensure that this would not spill over into insurance companies because they had a request for a family's records for the purpose of writing a group policy. There was a $5 charge for every copy of driver's records unless it is from law enforcement or for judicial records. Also state and federal employers, under the Commercial Vehicle Safety Act were required to have a copy of an employee's driver's records and were therefore exempt from the fee. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if it was her concern because the language was unclear. Juanita affirmed and said it could be interpreted by the insurance industry as an exemption for them when they requested records on behalf of a parent for the purpose of writing an insurance policy. She commented that the requests for driver's records for purposes other than law enforcement, insurance companies and state and federal employees were only five to ten per year. She anticipated this would have no fiscal impact on the division. However, if insurance companies were exempted from the fees, the fiscal impact would be substantial. Co-Chair John Torgerson had trouble understanding why the language wasn't clear. He didn't see where the insurance companies would have grounds to argue they didn't have to pay the fee. Juanita Hensley responded that she just wanted to clarify the issue and make sure it was on the record. Senator Gary Wilken referred to proposed Amendment #1 and asked if the language on page 2 line 2 eased the division's concern. Juanita said it was still vague because the parent was still requesting the child's driving record through the insurance company. Senator Gary Wilken said he thought it seemed very clear to him that it would apply to the parent or guardian. Juanita Hensley argued that the parent was still requesting the child's driver's records but through the insurance company. Co-Chair John Torgerson disagreed with the argument. Senator Gary Wilken stated that the intent was to make sure a parent could be exempted from the fee so long as state agencies were not charged. Senator Al Adams asked for clarification if it was the intent to charge parents for the records. Juanita said there would be no charge and since there were so few requests, this would not impact the division's revenues. Recess 9:36AM / 9:37AM DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School Administrators, spoke to the parental requests. He testified that from practical experience, it had never been a problem and that the parent's request always prevailed. Most school districts had a policy covering the matter. More importantly, he stressed the federal Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act set forth the statutes that school districts followed. Therefore, he thought most of the concerns were covered with that statute. SB 27 was not a problem according to Darroll Hargraves, but he did want to bring the federal statute to the attention of the committee. He concurred that parents should have the right to access school and driving records of their miner children. Co-Chair John Torgerson requested Darrell Hargraves read the proposed Amendment #1 and to stand by to comment on those changes. Senator Gary Wilken moved for adoption of Amendment #1. Co-Chair John Torgerson explained that it would make it mandatory to release information to a school district about a miner's alleged commission of an offense that was punishable as a felony or involvement with a deadly weapon if that miner was transferring to the school district. He explained that this amendment was a result of requests from principals in his district with concerns about students expelled from a school for commission of a serious crime who could then enroll in another school district without a requirement the new school district be notified of the circumstances. Senator Lyda Green asked if there was a provision where confidentiality covered a student who committed this serious of a crime. She supported the transfer of the information to the school, but wanted to prevent the information from reaching non-relevant school staff. She wanted to shield the information from reaching everyone at the school. Co-Chair John Torgerson was unsure and thought there probably was some privacy protection. His intention was to let the school know so they could determine whether or not to let the child enroll in the school. He noted that if a child was convicted the information would be public. Darroll Hargraves said that would present a problem because sometimes volunteers opened the mail. However, it was important that information about crimes committed by certain students be given to the school. If the intent was to notify a receiving school that a child has been found guilty of a heinous crime, that was to be commended, he added. Senator Gary Wilken said his wife had been on the school board and it was a problem of communication between law enforcement and the school districts that was worked out the district level. He suggested the committee look at the language dictating how public safety must communicate with the district to ensure confidentiality. He thought it was with the superintendent of schools and that was were the shield of confidentiality was protected. He supported the amendment. Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill and the amendment held in committee.