---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Forty-fourth Legislature – Second Regular Session

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

AND UNIVERSITIES

Minutes of Meeting

Tuesday, January 18, 2000

House Hearing Room 5 – 8:30 a.m.

(Tape 1, Side A)

Chairman McGrath called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and the secretary noted attendance.

Members Present

Mrs. Gonzales	Mr. Miranda	Mr. Carpenter, Vice Chairman
Ms. Gray	Mr. Schottel	Mrs. McGrath, Chairman

Committee Action

H.B. 2025 – HELD

H.B. 2376 – DP – 5-0-0-1

H.B. 2375 – DP – 4-0-2-0

H.B. 2082 – DPA – 4-2-0-0

H.B. 2150 – DPA – 5-0-0-1

Speakers Present

Kathi Knox, Majority Research Analyst

Stardust Johnson

Alan Ecker, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Corrections

Stacy Marshal, Majority Intern

Anthony Seese-Bieda, Assistant Executive Director, Arizona Board of Regents

Lorenzo Martinez, JLBC staff

Blake Anderson, Director of State Relations, Arizona State University

Magdalene Brogan, Teacher

Stacy Marshall, Majority Intern

Brad Regens, JLBC Staff

Alan Ecker, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Corrections

Jerry Landau, Special Assistant, Maricopa County Attorney

H.B. 2025 – university students; Internet; educational purposes – HELD

Chairman McGrath announced that H.B. 2025 would be held.

H.B. 2376 - inmates; Internet access – DO PASS

Kathi Knox, Majority Research Analyst, explained H.B. 2376 in summary. (Attachment 1)

Stardust Johnson testified in support of H.B. 2376. Ms. Johnson stated that she is the widow of Music Professor Roy Johnson from the University of Arizona. She explained that her husband was brutally murdered February 28, 1995 and that this bill had a personal impact for herself and her family. Ms. Johnson stated to the Committee that allowing access to the Internet for incarcerated persons provides a very dangerous potential. She pointed out to the Committee that the Internet is available to people in all countries and by allowing prisoners access to the Internet, we are allowing them access to the world.

Mrs. Johnson reminded the Committee that these incarcerated individuals committed crimes against others, violated the rights of others and are often skilled manipulators because they are sociopaths or psychopaths. Through the Internet, they would have the ability to prey on the most vulnerable people of our society particularly children, who are most adept at using the Internet. She pointed out that teenagers also are very adept at using the Internet for a variety of purposes and we know this from recent activities involving school shootings. Inmates would also be able to prey on lonely, vulnerable women who frequently are induced to sending gifts and/or money and sometimes even succumbing to marriage.

Mrs. Johnson reminded the Committee that it is very important to keep in mind that these persons are incarcerated for committing specific crimes. Children who might be encouraged to correspond with a prisoner, may not know the crime for which the prisoner was incarcerated. It could have been rape. Mrs. Johnson informed the Committee that there was a book written recently entitled, “The Last Victim.” She explained that it tells the true story of the journey into the mind of a serial killer. It was written as part of an assignment for a college freshman who began corresponding with death row inmates, principally serial killers, who then began calling him after he gave them phone numbers. This became a very frightening experience for him. The potential for this reoccurring is very great and we must guard our children against this possibility.

Mrs. Johnson explained that she had researched one prison pen site that is listed on the Internet called PrisonPals.com that lists personal ads from prison inmates. She stated that these prisoners have paid for the privilege of appearing on this Internet site. Mrs. Johnson pointed out that this raises the question of money and who is funding these sites. She explained that the portrayals of these inmates is manipulated and designed to attract other persons. The photos do not represent prisoners because they are not in prison photos.

Mrs. Johnson provided the Committee with copies of the personal ad for Beau Greene and explained that he is the person who murdered her husband. She explained that in his photo, Beau Greene is holding a kitten and is portrayed as a rather submissive person. She pointed out to the Committee that this is the same man who brutally beat and murdered her husband.

Mrs. Johnson stated that this person has the opportunity to communicate with the world, inviting people to correspond with him because he is lonely and bored and in no way does this ad identify the true character or the dangerous nature of this person who committed such a heinous crime.

Mrs. Johnson concluded by stating that there are other prisoners who are not violent in the way that this person is but who may be released and still have the potential for harm against the person with whom they have corresponded.

In response to inquiry from Representative Gray, Mrs. Johnson explained that she downloaded information from PrisonPenPals.com but it is unclear as to who pays for the ads. She stated that they charge the prisoners $19.95 for one year on the Internet. She added that they also invite people to send in names of prisoners who would like to be on the list. There is an alphabetical directory for male prisoners and one for female prisoners, resumes on line and there is information for filling out the ad. Mrs. Johnson informed the Committee that Mr. Greene placed his ad last February and stated that it would be interesting to know what kind of benefits, such as mail, gifts or money, he has received as a result of his placement on this site.

Chairman McGrath explained that her attention to this bill was peaked by an article that appeared in the Arizona Republic on January 2, 2000. (Attachment 3)

In response to inquiry from Representative Miranda, Kathi Knox explained that the bill is specific when it states that a prisoner’s access to the Internet would be prohibited unless authorized by the Department of Corrections. She explained that if the access had something to do with an educational program, the Department would monitor it.

Alan Ecker, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Corrections, addressed further inquiry from Representative Miranda and explained that right now, inmates do not have direct access to the Internet, rather they have contact through a third party. He explained that the inmate sends mail to one of the web site providers, the web site provider posts that information on the Internet and as responses are received, that web site provider sends mail back to the inmate. He explained that this would not effect educational opportunities but would discontinue the opportunity that inmates have that is very often manipulative.

Representative Miranda asked for the position of the Department of Corrections regarding this piece of Legislation. Chairman McGrath addressed that issue and stated that governmental agencies do not use public monies to lobby. She explained that Mr. Ecker was present for information purposes only and can state that the Department is not in favor of the problems created by this issue. She called attention to the fact that in the article (Attachment 3), a spokeswoman from the Department of Corrections stated that this issue does create problems and the Department would be interested in supporting legislation giving authorities greater control over inmate contacts.

In response to inquiry from Representative Schottel, Mr. Ecker explained that prisoners do not have direct access to the Internet but do have access through those third party providers.

Vice Chairman Carpenter moved that H.B. 2376 do pass. The motion passed

by a roll call vote of 5-0-0-1. (Attachment 4)

H.B. 2375 – universities; lease-purchase – DO PASS

Stacy Marshall, Majority Intern, explained H.B. 2375 in summary. (Attachment 5)

Anthony Seese-Bieda, Assistant Executive Director, Arizona Board of Regents, spoke in support of H.B. 2375. He explained that, as a Board, they have not had the opportunity to evaluate the impact of this bill. He stated that there was a number of capital projects that the universities pursue that accomplish the creation of educational and administrative facilities to serve the needs of students that are accomplished on a lease purchase basis. While that still remains a minor portion with respect to the way in which university facilities are developed, built and financed, it has a significant impact on the university system. He explained that they are in the process of evaluating the lease purchase provisions in this bill with oversight by the Board of Regents to fully evaluate what the impact will be.

In response to inquiry from Representative Gray, Mr. Seese-Bieda stated that the most profound project is the facilities at Arizona State University West. He explained that many of those buildings were accomplished through a process where outside financing was recruited and then through general fund appropriation, the lease payments were made to allow ASU west to occupy those buildings and that is an ongoing process. It includes a mix of academic, administrative and student services buildings.

Lorenzo Martinez, JLBC staff, responded to inquiry from Representative Gray regarding a definition of the term “lease purchase.” He explained that typically the way lease purchase works is that Certificates of Participation (COPs) are issued on the open market and then people can buy them similar to bonds. The issuing party then builds revenue to gain a capital project and the COPs are paid off over time.

In response to inquiry from Representative Schottel, Mr. Martinez explained that there are three building systems in this state, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Department of Administration (DOA) building system and the university building system. There are legislative oversight mechanisms when it comes to lease purchase for ADOT and the DOA building system. However, when the lease purchase-financing instrument was developed, the statute related to DOA and was modified to include oversight of lease purchase projects. The university statutes were never modified to take into account lease purchase financing. He added that all lease purchase agreements have to have language that says the state is not obligated to pay off the COPs. Language can be added to indicate that the building system will make its best efforts to obtain appropriations from the Legislature to pay off the COPs but if the Legislature decides not to appropriate funds to pay off the COPs, there are no consequences for the State. Representative Schottel pointed out that our Constitution states that the State cannot go into debt and he inquired as to whether or not these entities in any way jeopardize that part of the Constitution. Mr. Martinez stated that COPs were developed because they are different from bonds and because the State is not obligated to make the payments, they are not considered debt.

Chairman McGrath added that the reason the universities are placed under the same oversight as DOA is because the Legislature is responsible for the budget. Mr. Martinez agreed with the comments made by Ms. McGrath and added that anytime they are going to enter into a lease purchase agreement, it would have to be brought before the Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) for review and approval.

Blake Anderson, Director of State Relations, Arizona State University, spoke in support of H.B. 2375 and stated that his only concern was regarding computer equipment and other equipment purchases and whether or not that had to go through JCCR. Mr. Martinez addressed that issue and explained that these statutes were modeled after the DOA statutes and the DOA statutes do not apply to those types of equipment and lease purchases.

In response to inquiry from Vice Chairman Carpenter, Mr. Martinez explained that at times, there are major infrastructure projects that are undertaken, which could be a revamping of the heating or air conditioning system that requires lease purchase financing.

Vice Chairman Carpenter moved that H.B. 2375 do pass. The motion carried

by a roll call vote of 4-0-2-0. (Attachment 6)

H.B. 2082 – teachers; phonics – DO PASS AMENDED

Kathi Knox, Majority Research Analyst, explained H.B. 2082 in summary (Attachment 7). At the request of Chairman McGrath, Ms. Knox also explained the 9-line McGrath amendment dated 1/17/00 at 1:45 p.m. (Attachment 8) and the 6-line Gray amendment dated 1/17/00 at 2:06 p.m. (Attachment 9). In response to inquiry from Representative Miranda, Representative Gray explained that the change allows for easier reading and understanding of what the intent is.

The Committee discussed a verbal amendment. Representative Gray explained that one class of 45 hours allows three credits and that is not enough to bring the teacher up to proficiency. The extra time of another class would be needed and it was recommended by Dr. Carol Grosspeck from the Alhambra School District and some of the other teachers. She explained that the leaders from around the country who participated in the Reading Success Task Force recommended additional training and teachers want the additional training regarding phonemic awareness and how to implement that with children.

In response to further inquiry from Representative Gonzales, Representative Gray explained that the attitude is that teachers are teaching whole language and do not need the phonemic training. There is a conflict between the two programs.

Chairman McGrath stated that the reason she had this bill drafted was because of the abysmal reading scores that we have in this state. The very best statistic is that one child in four is not reading at grade level. She informed the Committee that the whole language method of teaching is the most difficult because children have to memorize every word they see. Everyone can learn to read with the phonics method and everyone used to learn to read with the phonics method. She pointed out that the phonics method is having great success with bilingual education in the Alhambra district. She added that we are cheating the children of this state by not teaching them to read and it is important that we go forward with this program.

In response to inquiry from Vice Chairman Carpenter regarding clarification of the word “rigorously” in this bill, Ms. Knox stated that she would get the information to him.

Magdalene Brogan, Teacher, spoke in support of H.B. 2082. Ms. Brogan stated that teachers do need specific tools to adequately do their job. She offered her personal experiences with children and her efforts to teach reading.

In response to inquiry from Representative Miranda, Ms. Brogan explained that this legislation would have a positive impact on children who use English as a second language. She added that this method of teaching would change their classroom instruction somewhat. However, this would be a matter of the parents indicating that this program is for their child. Representative Gray added that Mountain View Elementary, which is a low-income, largely Hispanic district, has had great success with this method.

Vice Chairman Carpenter inquired as to who made up the Reading Success Task Force Committee. Representative Gray explained that the Task Force is made up of Senator Huppenthal, Magdalene Brogan, an elementary school teacher; Kay Byrd, Director of teacher training, and Dr. Karen Sullivan-Burstein, Professor of Education. Also on the panel is Jeanne Eller, Director of Teacher Training; Dr. Kenneth Goodman, Professor of Education at the University of Arizona; Dr. Marj Jones, Director of Curriculum; Dr. Mary North, Director of Curriculum; Elaine Panczak, elementary school teacher, Sheila Rogers, elementary school teacher, Linda Shepperd, Elementary School Teacher, Virginia Carey Tokar, retired educator and Laura Wilbur, School District Coordinator for Community Education. Members from the House include, Representative Linda Gray and Representative Karen Johnson.

Ms. Gray added that people came in from across the United States and among them was Bonnie Grossman, Ph.D., Research Associate, University of Oregon; Robert Sweet, Staff Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. Congress and Marilyn Jager Adams, Ph.D., Research Associate, Harvard University Graduate School of Education. Also in attendance was Ken Goodman and Yetta Goodman both teachers in education, Judith R. Birsh, Assistant Professor of Education at Columbia University and her specialty is program and learning disabilities, and Peggy McCardle, Associate Chief, Center for Research for Mothers and Children.

(Tape 1, Side B)

Representative Gonzales stated that she was concerned with dictating what a professional should be doing. She stated that she had really strong feelings regarding what we do in our schools and the fact that we are not providing enough tools for our children. She suggested that we are not providing equal education for all children.

Chairman McGrath explained that Representative Gonzales was talking about capital, maintenance and operation needs and what the Committee was discussing was methods of learning and teaching.

Representative Gonzales stated that the issues are related because if a child comes to school hungry or the classroom or teacher is inadequate, the child will not learn well. She added that we tend to paint all children with the same brush and we ought to conform the school to the child rather than conform the child to the school.

Representative Gray addressed the issues raised by Representative Gonzales and pointed out that not having enough books in a classroom is a problem and that the Reading Success Task Force had been discussing providing each teacher with $250 to use for the purchase of books for their classrooms. She suggested a statewide standard regarding a number of books per school and was hopeful that funding would be provided for that. She also suggested keeping libraries open later for access by children. However, she pointed out that if the child cannot read, then the availability of books will do no good. She added that the research indicates that for the majority of the children tested, the phonics program does improve their reading.

Representative Schottel responded to the issues and explained that schools are not parents. Schools are learning institutions and a professional teacher’s job is to instruct the students. He pointed out that our schools do have breakfast and lunch programs. However, it is the responsibility of the parents to have their child prepared and ready when they come to school. It is not the fault of the school in the cases where this does not happen. Mr. Schottel stated that there is no cure all to address every social, welfare, family and nutrition problems in our schools.

Vice Chairman Carpenter commented that Deer Valley does not have libraries open in the summer because there is no funding available. He added that the phonics program does not work for everyone. Chairman McGrath stated that the use of phonics makes it much easier for children to master the English language rather than the whole language method which requires children to memorize every word they read. She added that being able to break down words phonetically is a huge advancement and offers a great advantage to the child.

In response to inquiry from Representative Miranda, Chairman McGrath explained that it is not specified that the teachers have to pass the test with knowledge that they learned at the university. They can take the class outside of the university or just pass the exam after studying on their own so this requirement will not affect the universities. In response to inquiry from Vice Chairman Carpenter, Ms. McGrath explained that the one three-hour class is being added and the universities should have no problem because they are already offering reading classes. This merely transfers the method of teaching.

Vice Chairman Carpenter moved that H.B. 2082 do pass.

Vice Chairman Carpenter moved that the 9-line McGrath Amendment dated

1/17/00 at 1:45 p.m. (Attachment 8) be adopted. The motion carried.

Representative Gray moved that the 6-line Gray Amendment dated 1/17/00

at 2:06 p.m. (Attachment 9) be adopted.

Representative Gray moved that the following verbal amendment to the 6-line

Gray Amendment dated 1/17/00 at 2:06 p.m be adopted: