HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HB 280 April 22, 1995 10:05 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chairman Representative Caren Robinson Representative Norman Rokeberg MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chairman Representative Tom Brice Representative Gary Davis Representative Al Vezey WORK SESSION CALENDAR HB 280: "An Act establishing the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council and transferring certain functions of other entities to the council; establishing planning mechanism for employment training and other human resource investment needs; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 280 SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RESOURCE INVESTMENT COUNCIL SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/24/95 896 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/24/95 896 (H) HES, FINANCE 03/24/95 896 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 03/24/95 896 (H) 4 ZERO FNS (DCED, CRA, DOE, DHSS) 03/24/95 897 (H) 2 ZERO FNS (LABOR, UA) 03/24/95 897 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 03/24/95 899 (H) SECTIONAL ANALYSIS 04/20/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/20/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 04/22/95 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106 WITNESS REGISTER Bob Rubadeau, Special Assistant Lieutenant Governor's Office P.O. Box 110015 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0015 Telephone: (907) 465-3520 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 280 Joseph McCormick, Executive Director Post Secondary Education Commission Department of Education 3030 Vintage Blvd. Juneau, Alaska 99801-7109 Telephone: (907) 465-6740 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 280 ACTION NARRATIVE HB 280 - HUMAN RESOURCE INVESTMENT COUNCIL TAPE 95-41, SIDE A Number 000 CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY called the Health, Education and Social Services subcommittee on HB 280 to order at 10:05 a.m. She introduced the participants, including the representatives. Co- chair Toohey and Representative Robinson agreed that it was Representative Rokeberg who had initial concerns about the size and command of HB 280. Although he was not initially present, Representative Rokeberg was expected momentarily. There was some general discussion about a new adopted amendment to the Senate version of this bill and it was determined that the committee needed to acquire the latest House version of this bill. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY outlined what she believed to be Representative Rokeberg's concerns more specifically. His initial concern was unintelligible, something about an unwieldy committee, and the second concern was that it (the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council) was slated to be lead by the Lieutenant Governor. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY then offered that the amendment before her was practical. She was not specific as to what amendment she was actually referencing. Generally, the amendment delegated shared leadership of the council to a chairman and co-chairman. One seat would be occupied by someone from the private sector and the other from the public sector. REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON wondered what defined private sector. From past experience she understood that private sector was defined as someone who was a non-state employee and preferably from the nonprofit sector. Representative Robinson pointed out that she didn't necessarily feel strongly one way or another about this criteria and that she didn't have a problem with the Lieutenant Governor holding the position of main chair. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY then asked what section of the original bill dealt with who would be the leader of the group. BOB RUBADEAU, Special Assistant, Lieutenant Governor's Office, outlined for the committee that the Lieutenant Governor would appoint the co-chairmen, one from the public sector and one from the private sector. In summary, there were comments made about what described groups would make up the committee. The comments by Mr. Rubadeau regarding this subject matter were barely audible. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why it was that Senators Leman and Sharp found it necessary to draft an amendment regarding leadership of the council She also referred to the attached memorandum. Representative Robinson thought the title read well just the way it was. MR. RUBADEAU, responded that from past experience they did not have consistent successes with a co-chairmen system when coupled with councils of the same size. He explained further that the intent was to seat someone of a high level personage to lead the council. He stressed that the governmental and private sector partnership embodied in the structure of the co-chairs was a very important component. It would help facilitate the attendance of either chairman to negotiations with business agencies or public speaking engagement, etcetera. This co-chair leadership would also lend itself to changes of administrations resulting from elections. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she had no problem with this structure and then stated for the record that Representative Rokeberg had just joined the meeting. Representative Rokeberg also did not have a problem with the proposed co-chair matrix. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON clarified that it seemed the consensus was to adopt the Senate language which doesn't allow for co-chairmen. What she understood Mr. Rubadeau to say was that by having co- chairmen, private and public, a partnership is built. She wanted to confirm that the committee recommends one of the chairmen be recruited from the private sector. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY pointed out that the Senate version of the bill had already gone through appointed committees and that she foresaw this version becoming the vehicle for both houses. She didn't have a problem with a co-chairman's split between private and public influences, but pointed out that it clearly doesn't define these terms in enough detail. She suggested that the issue of private and public chairmen be discussed in full committee proceedings. REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG offered that he preferred the Senate version of this bill since it would expedite matters. He agreed that the co-chair concept should be discussed in full committee hearings. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON again stressed that she appreciates the concept of public and private sector co-chairmen working together on a council such as this one. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY, along with Representatives Robinson and Rokeberg agreed that the make-up of the council should be decided by a full committee, as to whether or not the Lieutenant Governor would occupy a seat, as well as whether or not the co-chair positions would be filled by private or public sector individuals. There was also some discussion regarding Fran Ulmer specifically as a chairperson in the present capacity of Lieutenant Governor. Everyone agreed that Ms. Ulmer possessed more than adequate abilities to hold a position on the council, but the abilities regarding unknown predecessors was called into question. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated that he preferred the Senate version of the bill, as versus Representatives Robinson and Toohey who preferred the House version. Representative Rokeberg added that he felt both the seats of chairman should be occupied by the private sector, but he didn't feel adamant about this. He also added that the concept of private sector should be defined in more specific terms. Technically, anyone who is not employed in a public capacity could be considered a private entity. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON, suggested that in defining what determines a private status, cautioned against precluding anyone. It was decided that the existing language in the House bill concerning co- chairs, one from the public and one from the private sector would stand as outlined. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG voiced his concern about how unwieldy the established size of the Investment Council seemed. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY offered that there would be many subcommittees appointed under this council, which would help reduce the amount of council members in theory just by the tasks assigned to the various subcommittees. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG cited the percentage rule as a means to establish the balance. If they began deleting members from the public sector, they would be required to delete from the private sector too. He used this as an example of why he proposed cutting the Lieutenant Governor and commissioner of the Department of Community and Regional Affairs from holding a position on the council. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY directed the question of the council's percentage break down to Mr. Rubadeau. MR. RUBADEAU stated that the percentage rule for establishing such a council is laid out specifically in federal law. If two of the four commissioners were dropped from the council, they'd probably be able to drop one of the private or education sectors from the roster and still meet the minimum 15 percent requirements. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated in response to the size of the council that literally there were limited amounts of rooms around the state large enough to accommodate the council for meetings. Co-chair Toohey pointed out that the meetings could be conducted by teleconference. Representative Robinson asked if there were 26 members slated to be on the council. Everyone pointed out that 26 was the maximum amount. Representative Rokeberg finally asked how a council of that size could be effectively managed. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON then asked if the government sector people would be required to cover their own expenses for travel to meetings, etcetera, or would those costs be included in the council's budget. MR. RUBADEAU stated that they anticipate the government sector will pick up their own costs and he pointed out that most of the board meetings will take place in Anchorage. He also added that it would be more ideal to reduce the amount of members on the council, but there are so many potential players around the state that could benefit from this council as a tool. The decision to cut becomes more difficult. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what happens if all members to the council are not present. She understood that the meetings would still go on. Again, it was pointed out that subcommittees would be established to carry through with specific business and teleconferencing could aid to consolidate the council's diverse membership. These subcommittees could then come together as a whole to adopt policy. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about some additional 13 other councils which could also be absorbed into this council. MR. RUBADEAU answered that, yes, initially they looked at some potential volunteer councils that could be absorbed into the council, such as Americorp for example. There then followed a lengthy discussion about what Americorp was and the types of volunteer work they do. JOSEPH MCCORMICK, Post Secondary Education Commission, Department of Education, referred to language of HB 280 outlined on Page 2, line 15 through 20 regarding "the purposes of the act," as a pre- requisite to a discussion about the concept of outcome. Mr. McCormick suggested language which would mandate program outcome assessments managed by the council. Based on the dollars that are spent in a training program, how many people were placed, how many jobs were filled, how receptive was industry to absorb people into the labor force of Alaska, etcetera. Over a period of time the council should establish meaningful outcome assessment programs based on similar criteria. The council could come back to the legislature and report on what's working and what's not. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how this type of language could be incorporated and under what section? There was some discussion about just where to insert this language. Representative Robinson suggested that a rough draft of the actual language should be created and then they could rely on Mr. Rubadeau to edit this language. There was some additional discussion about how presently vocational rehab reported on the numbers of people it served, but it was pointed out that there was no follow-up on how many of these clients were absorbed in the work force or into other alternative programs after rehab was completed. MR. MCCORMICK cited that outcome measures should be divided in three levels: who actually completed the program of vocational rehab; of those who did complete the program, how many of them got jobs; and if training was provided through loans or other types of financing, how was the money paid back? He went on to stress that it was important to look at the integration of curriculum development. This does not currently exist. There are separate vocational organized under the Department of Education, apart from vocational training through the University of Alaska. In addition to this, there are approximately 70 proprietary schools which train people in specific fields. Mr. McCormick felt that there needed to be a very strong coordination of these efforts, which could also be a role of this council. He stated that it doesn't matter what program a person chooses. It does matter that the curriculum is consistent and strong. MR. MCCORMICK offered the following language which would encapsulate his concerns as previously outlined to read, "To sponsor a meaningful program with outcome assessment that effectively measures the success or failure of the efforts of this council." The members decided to insert this language into Section 1, line 18 of the current bill version. MR. MCCORMICK stated another concern of his which dealt with a section of the bill about designating a member of the investment council to be a member of the Post Secondary Commission. He recommended flip-flopping this. Because the council is given the responsibility to license or re-license some 70 voc-tech schools in the state, there should be a member of the Post Secondary Commission on the council to help advise with the policy of vocational training in the state, as versus a member of the vocational council on the commission advising on the issue of student aid policy. MR. RUBADEAU spoke to this specific language outlined in HB 280. He pointed out that the appointment of an investment council member is mandated in the state statute right now. The language is in the process of repeal and revision, but it is already in the post secondary education bylaws. It requires that someone from GECO (Governor's Council on Vocational Education) be appointed a seat on the Post Secondary Education Commission. Mr Rubadeau pointed out that on page 4, line 7 there's mention of appointing someone from a post secondary vocational education institution, which addresses Mr. McCormick's concern about instating an appointee from the business world. Mr. Rubadeau closed by stating that everybody in the world wanted a seat on this commission and they tried to accommodate everybody's needs. MR. MCCORMICK appreciated Mr. Rubadeau's concern about everybody requesting representation, but he pointed out that the fact remains, the state licenses any school that wants to teach vocational training outside the purview of the University of Alaska. There was some additional discussion about deleting a member from the Post Secondary Commission. Mr. McCormick said he'd be pleased to have 13 members instead of 14 on this council, but Mr. Rubadeau reminded him that this number is also in statute. Mr. Rubadeau did say they were trying to amend the name of the two members, which would involve deleting sub-section 5 on line 12 through 14. No one present had a problem with this suggestion. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated for the record that she appreciates having a smaller board to work with because it facilitates getting work done and meeting quorum requirements. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked that the participants work together to make the necessary changes to the bill as discussed. She also asked that a cover letter be created to explain these changes to their Senate counterparts. Co-chair Toohey adjourned the meeting.