A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | May 27, 2014 | Committee Room | House Education Committee

Full MP3 Audio File

Good morning if you will take your seats I want to welcome everyone back I hope you had a nice holiday. I didn't get exactly what i wanted at the race track, but it was a good event and i appreciated all those that participated. Our Sargent of arms we have Doug Harris, Martha Parish, David Collins and Bob Rossen. Our agenda today, first thing we are going to take up is house resolution 11-46. And Patsy will be handling this. Patsy.[Speaker Changes]Thank you representative Johnson. Member of the committee if you would look at your bill summary for the house simple resolution 11-46. This is to just set the date of Tuesday June 17th for a vacancy election. That will be held on the house floor that day. The house had elected you might remember last march William Collins Jr to be one of the house members of the state board of community colleges. And he resigned to take a job with a commerce department on December 6th 2013. So therefore the house needs to fill his vacancy on the state board of community colleges for the remainder of the unexpired term, which ends June 30th 2019. And your summery just goes through those statutory procedure. The speaker of the house has selected the house education committee to handle this elections. SO once you pass this resolution off the floor of the house then staff will send to each member of the house a nomination form and also the directions. And you will have until June the 4th at five pm, to get your nominations into the house of principal clerks office. As you know your nominees will need to complete a statement of economic interest form and send that into the state ethics commission, also about five pm on June Fourth. This committee will then meet again on June the tenth to review your slate of nominees. And to vote on which nominees are all nominees to send to the floor for the June seventeenth election. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] Do we have any questions? Yes go ahead [Speaker Changes] Formation at the appropriate time Madame chairman.[ Speaker changes] I have a motion for a favorable report, all those in favor say "I". All apposed? Resolution passes.We are now going into House bill 10-40. Improve administrative program, monitoring for DIP and Representative Julie Howard will be presenting.Representative Howard would you like to do your little technical amendment?[Speaker Changes] Yes Mame i would like to send fourth the technical amendment please. And I will ask staff to explain it if members have there copies.[Speaker Changes] Kara McCrawl ?? [Speaker Changes] The technical amendment simply is to correct a drafting error we were being redundant and repeating the superintendent instructions title twice. Just need to remove that so it will read in conformity with the rest of the statue. [Speaker Changes] Do we have any questions about that? Representative Horn most favorable report. All those in favor say "I" All opposed "No"? OK it passes. And the amendment passes. And representative Howard you have the floor. [Speaker Changes] OK thank you Madame Chairmen.As many of you know the program evaluation does a lot of studies and research for various departments and reports. And i look out and see that there are several folks on this committee that are also a member of the program evaluation. And this bill stems from one of the

reports that program evaluation did for us. And basically what it will do is based upon the findings and recommendations of the program evaluation division, we can save about 19 million dollars annually. And also another 6.1 million in one-time savings. The bill does about five different things but it improves the school bus efficiency. If the budget folks would decide that facing down the buffer in the budget rating formula used to allocate state funding from 10% to 5% until fiscal year 18-19, this will result in 19.3 million dollars in annual cost savings when it's fully implemented. The bill requires DPI to conform its school bus funding formula to the recommendations of a 205 consultant study of transportation required by the general assembly. Secondly, limiting the statewide inventory of spare buses 10% of regularly used buses and in 2012-13, the inventory data suggests that the sale of 996 unnecessary buses would generate 3.1 million dollars in one time revenues. The third thing is reducing the school bus replacement part inventory levels maintained by the local education authorities, the LEAs. For example limiting the average days of inventory to 30 for very high valued parts would result in an estimated reduction of 3 million dollars in state funding. Another piece would be requiring statewide term contracts for certain school bus replacement parts and amending state law to require the LEAs to purchase school bus replacement parts with term contracts unless a lower price can be obtained. Another piece would be improving the compliance with the school bus safety inspections and scheduled maintenance by using available information to improve the state inspection process. Another piece in the bill that the textbook services program staffing level would be reduced and the warehouse space which is not necessarily at this point would also be reduced. Another piece in there would be determine the cost effectiveness and continued need for the school facility consulting services provided by DPI. Ensure the LEAs have workers compensation programs that are designed to minimize the program cost and establish an effective performance management system for administrative services. Basically this is a cost savings provision that has been recognized and found by the program evaluation division, where we can utilize our budget dollars more effectively. Madame Chairman, that completes my report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative ??. I did not make the announcement that this bill is for discussion only. Although I do wish that we would go ahead and thoroughly go ahead and discuss this bill as we will eventually be voting on it. And it does have a serial referral to finance so we will be voting not long down the road. Do we have any questions? Yes, go ahead, Representative Shepherd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair. Representative Howard, I see here that you say DPI will also direct and eliminate certain textbook service positions. And I saw in the Governor's budget that he's allocating more funds in his budget to buy textbooks. Is that any sort of a conflict or did you all find in your studies that perhaps these were unneeded positions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well we found in the study at that time was that we were overstaffed, and the space was, we had leased space that was not being properly utilized.

And as you know now, everything is geared toward the technology of having most of the information on the iPads and that sort of think as opposed to having hard copy textbooks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that sufficient Representative Shepherd? Representative Lucas: [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. Having had the opportunity to have sat in on program evaluation, I will share with you that some parts of the bill were a bit contentious and somewhat controversial, especially as it relates to Sections 3 and 4. So I'm happy to note that we won't be taking a vote on this today. I don't know if your plans are to allow any public comment from agencies or individuals, but if so, I think some members of the state board may want to speak. [speaker changes] Thank you representative Lucas. Representative Glazier. [speaker changes] Thank you very much Madam Chair. I appreciate also hearing from folks. I've got three questions please. One is on the textbook section, Representative ??. I start off saying, I agree with portions of this bill very much. I've got two sections that cause me some concern and I apologize to you, I had scheduled a meeting with program staff, but when my granddaughter was born, I canceled that meeting and I have not rescheduled it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As you should. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am sorry that I didn't ask these in advance. My first question is on the textbooks, several of those positions I thought were dedicated to deal with Braille and EC issues. So my question is, I wonder if they are fundable in designation because I'm not sure those positions, even though we've reduced the textbooks ought to be replaced. I'm wondering if that discussion came up in committee or how you might respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman, we have some of the research folks from program evaluation if you ??? your questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly ???, I believe we have Chuck ??? here, could you answer that Chuck? We actually do what to hear from you, we'll find you a mike. [SPEAKER CHANGES} I'm lead evaluator on this project, our understanding is that there are ten positions currently assigned to the textbook services program and that these positions are responsible for processing orders from LEA's for adopted textbooks and that they are associated with the purchase and distribution of hard copy textbooks. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Follow up please [SPEAKER CHANGES} Follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES} And I understand that and I wonder if maybe this is one of those which is why it a good bill for discussion which we can talk about later with staff and Representative Howard. If a couple of those are designated and have speciality areas of Braille and working on materials for the deaf, not sort of easily exchangeable. Maybe we can look at those positions. Would that be acceptable? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Thank you. My last question then is on the bus segment. I don't disagree with the 1 percent provision, but I wonder what the response is to the DPI response about the counting differential on spare buses. It seemed like DPI had some very different data and may we'll hear that from the department, but I wondered what your response was to their response. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe DPI did present in the committee when we had this report, but it's a matter of reduction from 10% in spare busses to 5% in spare busses. Every district is not the same and we all know that, you may have some areas

In the far West or where it’s more mountainous and you have problems with parts and getting parts, but when we looked at the overall allocation, it is a place where we could adjust and make some sizable savings that could go other places. If everybody would just try to work together. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Last follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I think I understand. And as I read the bill, Representative Howard, it’s to limit the inventory to criteria subject to get to the 10% number. Is that not correct? Again, if there is a difference in the data, that underlay that, would that be something again, just so we can get to some clear agreement if there is a difference in the data, is that something we could look at over the next few days. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Absolutely. Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes, and I do want you to know that the reason that we are just hearing it today is we realize that it is comprehensive and that a lot of people are opinionated about it. We are going to hear from the public also. But this will give you a chance to get the staff in if there are things you don’t like in it, or to approve it then that’ll give you a little bit of time. I have Representative Fisher and Representative Jeter and Representative Graham and then I’ll ask. Okay. Representative Fisher. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Madame Chairman. I’m going to go back just to sort of the nuts and bolts of school transportation just for a second, just to refresh my memory some, if that’s okay. I looked at the idea of reducing our inventory of buses and I wonder, and this is another question that maybe we can get into when we discuss it more thoroughly, but what is the demand for transportation these days in our school systems overall across the state? And are we meeting the responsibility, the requirement of transporting children who live a certain distance away from their schools. Will we, with the reduction in this inventory, be able to meet that need? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Howard. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I don’t think we’re making any adjustments, Representative Fisher, in regards to the children that we are transporting now. This should have no effect on the current routes and the transporting of the students. It’s the number of spare buses, backup buses, that each LEA has on site, in their locations. So it shouldn’t make any difference at all on how we transport the children, doesn’t matter where they live. We have a responsibility to get them to the school. It shouldn’t make any difference. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Fisher, is that? Okay. Representative Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you Representative Howard , for presenting the bill. I have one question, and it may be in here and I just can’t find it. You’re talking about 19 million dollars worth of savings. Is that savings going to stay in DPI? Does it go to the general fund? Do we have a plan for it, or is it? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Jeter, that would be up to the appropriations, the budget directive of what happens and it will take a while to implement and then achieve those savings. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Jeter, is that sufficient? Representative Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chair. Just a point of clarification in Section 2. What is a non-compliant county maintenance facility? Are we talking about facilities that maintain our buses? And also how would that be non-compliant? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I’m going to ask our research folks to address that question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes sir, each county has its own maintenance facility that maintains school buses, and by non-compliant we identified over a thousand buses that were operated during the fiscal year that were being operated while

Not in compliance with the thirty day safety inspection requirement. And we also identified approximately 25% of all preventative maintenance activities were performed after the scheduled period for which they were supposed to be performed. And that’s what we mean by non-compliant. It’s more non-compliant activities versus a non-compliant maintenance facility. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Madame Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m kind of alarmed when we talk about bus safety. How could we allow busses to be on our highways when they are not safe to operate? Is this an issue with funding, lack of personnel, we’re not meeting those timelines? I’m really concerned about the implications. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me defer to our research person. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Mr. Hefferin? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They are prepared to answer that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re not asserting that the buses were unsafe that were operated, but this statutorily required 30 day safety inspection is designed to ensure or help ensure that these buses are safe. And you know, we think that we found extensive non-compliance with this 30 day safety inspection requirement, and recommended that DPI utilized the data that we used to identify this non-compliance and use their existing process or modify their existing process of inspecting county maintenance facilities to help ensure that this situation improves. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative – [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand this is for discussion and I’ll probably want to talk about this a little further. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair. I’m glad this is discussed and there’s one particular item from personal experience that I have a question on and I’ll leave it to you, if there’s someone in the audience to direct it. Our state’s geography certainly varies, and in my three counties especially. In one of them, the geography goes from 1200 feet to 6000 feet, so windy undulating mountain roads tend to wear things out. And a couple years ago we had a terrible problem on activity buses and yellow buses with clutch fans. So when it comes to inventory whether it be spare buses or spare parts, I just want to make sure that places that aren’t necessarily near and dear to the flatlands, we don’t have an unintended consequence of cutting their inventory to the point that we just get into a bad situation. You couple that with some other items that we did recently when we look at mileage to a large degree and some counties that may run their buses three times a day. Actually three shifts, one in an evening. Most counties don’t do that so they don’t achieve the mileage criteria. I just want to make sure if there’s someone in the audience who might be able to speak to that, I would greatly appreciate hearing from them, whatever your discretion allows. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative Whitmire, we’re going to allow speaking from our visitors but I’m going to stop and see if someone has an answer to that question. If you’ll go to the microphone, but in the meantime I want to introduce, we did not have our pages when we started today, and I’d like for y’all to stand when I call your name. I have Ian Vonner, is that correct? Lauren Lee. Lauren is from Mecklenburg, and Ian is from Orange County. And I have Connor McVicker? Connor. He’s from Alamance and he’s Representative Riddell’s. And Emily Morris. And she’s from Union County, and she’s Representative Horn’s page for the day. Would you identify yourself for the record? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, my name is Derek Graham, I’m Section Chief for Transportation, with Department of Public Instruction. I appreciate the question about the geography. We’re well aware of some of the differences that take place across the state, and many of the things that we do focus on making sure that we treat all counties the same way. That includes the way that we do our funding formula. Specifically to the parts inventory, one of the things, and this bill would require that we develop a policy, and kind of what’s been going around in my mind is our policy would need to

Include such things for parts inventory. For instance if you have a small county in a rural, whether you talk about rural in the coast, rural in the mountains, you may have a particular part that you only use two of every year, for instance. All right, so does that mean you keep on the shelf and then six months later you buy another one? You know, we don’t really think so. We think that the LEAs need to have the flexibility to stock two or three of those in case you go above average and you make sure that you get those buses back on the road promptly. When delivery time and even supply time can impact the ability to get those parts in place. So part of the policy that we’ve kind of always operated under and that would certainly be recommended if this legislation passes, is to include those kinds of things especially for the smaller LEAs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Graham. Does that answer your question, Representative Whitmire? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It helps, thank you ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re welcome. This bill comes from program evaluation and Representative Howard’s counterpart, Senator Hartsell, so let’s hear for backup today as Senator Hartsell is there anything you’d like to say? All right. I have two people that have asked to be heard and that is Eric Aker and I believe if you’ll come to the microphone and give your name and who you’re with, who you represent? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Eric Aker, Lincoln County schools transportation director. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that you, did you say you – [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lincoln County Schools. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lincoln, okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair and members of the committee for allowing us to speak today. My name is Eric Aker. I’m the director of transportation for Lincoln County schools and I also represent the North Carolina pupil transportation association. Our association represents a large share of LEAs across North Carolina. Our purpose is to further the safety of our student transportation here in North Carolina. With all due respect to the bill’s sponsor, I’m requesting today and asking to consider changes to House Bill 1040, in the following ways. In section 1A1, changing the text to read require all LEAs to bid bus parts, tires, fuel, and supplies to secure the best price possible while maintaining the minimum required safety standards for any commodities purpose. The reason for the change? Transportation budgets have been cut more than 5% in the last five years, which equates to approximately 25 million dollars, while inflation has increased significantly on repair parts, tires, and other school bus supplies. Over the last three years tire costs have risen 35%. Oil cost has risen between 12 and 15%, and with LED lighting now standard, the cost to replace lighting has soared from just a few dollars to now over a hundred. In addition, school bus replacement schedules have been changed to keep buses in service longer, which will also affect cost maintenance. At the same time costs have risen, LEAs have absorbed additional operational costs and mechanical costs that include transportation of homeless students across school boundaries, which is now federally mandated under McKinney Bento Law, an increase in exceptional children’s transportation with modified day scheduled, repair to air conditioning equipment, dealing with engine issues from certain manufacturers, and the list continues to go on. LEAs have made adjustments over the past few years to improve efficiency, to be able to manage these escalating costs, so any further adjustments to funding formulas will result in budget reduction. One that a majority of LEA transportation departments simply cannot afford. In summary, reducing the funding buffer, which is supposed to account for situations that can be mathematically predicted with the current funding formula, will result in another budget reduction for LEAs. In section 1A, number 3, NCPTA requests the removal of this section. Reason for this? Reducing current inventory levels will negatively impact transportation departments in the following ways. This action may limit the ability of an LEA to take advantage of cost savings on bulk pricing for high volume items. This may affect the ability of an LEA to stock hard-to-find parts. This action may affect turnaround time for repair parts that have to be ordered. This action may cost LEAs additional funds through added shipping costs. Under section 2, change the section to read the department of public instruction in consultation with North Carolina public school transportation associate shall revise the state inspection process

[SPEAKER CHANGES] For inspecting school buses to focus on safety-related items that ensure safe and effective school bus operation and the remaining of that legislation should stay the same. Reason for this, the current school bus inspection program needs simplification so that more buses can be inspected by DPI with existing staff. Currently there're over 421 items that can remove a school bus from service some of these items do not have an impact or are not safety-related to the operation of the bus. The NCPTA is experienced in safe and practical school bus operation this experience should be considered when making changes to the school bus inspection program. The NCPTA respectfully request inclusion in the process to ensure the inspection program is effective practical and ensure the safe school bus operation crossing the state of North Carolina. Before closing, I would like to add the house bill 1040 is not the only proposed house legislation that suggests funding reduction to public school transportation. The governor’s budget refers to claim expenditure for at fault claims to be reimbursed to state using local dollars. This is another reduction in funding and added expense to local school districts across the state. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and I will be have to answer any questions at this time. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Akers and if you all will notice you had a hand out. We are running pretty close on time and we will have this back up so, if the next speakers will just speak for minute or two. I have someone from DPI and is there anyone here from, Ben Matthews? and is there anyone here from the state board? I had a note there, and a John Bunion? Mr. Matthews. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning. Ben Matthews director of safe and healthy school support in the Department of Public Instruction. The majority this bill is covered by, excuse me cold, covered in my division in the Department of Public Instruction. First and for most on the transportation piece we are just maniacal about school bus safety. The points that have been made by the gentleman who just spoke. Talked about the number of issues when we inspect the bus. There are some of those and are superfluous not really related to the safety piece. The safety piece we are really totally focused on. We have three regional field people across the state of North Carolina at this point. It is obviously physically impossible for all three of those people to inspect all the school buses in North Carolina. We have a training program in place to help the locals inspect their buses and we spend time daily across the state making sure our buses are safe.I want the public to understand that our kids are riding on really are safe. If our guys find a bus that is inherently unsafe we park it immediately. To the point on the text book warehouse. We are currently working very diligently with other agencies, Department of Commerce, Department of Public Safety, Department of Agriculture, Department of Security Commission to be sure that that space is used appropriately. So, we have reached out without any direction from anyone basically being good public servants to be sure that that space is being used and we have changed our process just to just in time service to the school districts. So, we are on top of that thing. In terms of reducing positions there. The government is putting money back in for textbooks. If we eliminate those positions we will not be the position to serve our district when the budget is passed. There was also a point made about getting ready for digital distribution. Currently the state gets a discount because of the way we manage textbook distribution. We’ve already been in conversation with some of the major IT vendors who put out the material for digital equipment and if we continue the process the way we have it. We would continue serving the state by shipping digital equipment to the public schools. You’ve got a thing in place already that it is saving the state millions of dollars and to eliminate those positions, furthermore we don’t want to eliminate them, and Mr. Heffer mentioned it earlier, we do have some those that are totally dedicated to the provision of equipment to the site and hearing-impaired across North Carolina. To get eliminate, those the federal government would be on us in a heart beat. They’ve already been on us and one of the things we did over the years have changed that process to be…

To be better purveyors of the equipment and material for the hearing and sight impaired. So I would throw those things out this morning. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Mathews. I have, incase I massacre the name. It's Bus, Busin? [speaker changes] Madame Chairman I'd ask to speak on the next bill, so thank you very much. [speaker changes] Okay, that'll be fine. Do we have any other, just anyone else who wished to speak on the bill? If not, thank you Representative Howard and we appreciate your work so much and I know it's difficult on you to not get it completed all in one day, but I appreciate you taking the time for the discussion and the questions and I think it may make things run a lot smoother for us. [speaker changes] Thank you, thank you madame Chairman. [Speaker Changes] Our next bill is house bill 1060 and we will be voting on this bill. I believe Representative Martin will be handling that. Floor is yours Representative Martin. [Speaker changes] Thank you madame Chairman and if you'll permit Representative Holloway is going to join me also since he did most of the work on this. [Speaker changes]He's already been lobbying at me this morning. [speaker changes]Good. Members it's a pleasure to be here and it's a pleasure to be back on the education committee after an absence of several years from it. House bill 1060 deals with military children we have in our system throughout North Carolina. Under current law principals are required to identify military children in their schools, but we don't have a way of getting that state wide. So at the request of the Department of Defense this bill would seek, to direct DPI to come up with a system to get that data state wide. This came through Ed Oversight and we had a great bi-partisan or rather non partisan working group on this with Representative Holloway, me, Representative Poore and Representative Glasier. Madame Chair I'll stop there, but I'm happy to answer any questions the committee has. [speaker changes] Thank you. Representative Shepard. [speaker changes] Thank you Madame Chair. Representative Martin, my question is I talked with our local school officials and they're already capturing that data and I guess the question I have is since they're already doing that is this going to encumber them more by forcing them to go to another system or doing it a different way which will cost them more money, is this something we're going to push back down to them when they've already done a good job of capturing that information are we going to require them to do more than that or change what? [speaker changes] Right, outstanding question. THroughout this whole process one of our overarching goals was not to significantly add to the burden that our students already have, as I mentioned of course principals are already required to collect this information. Statewide systems are already going to a common system of reporting data up to the state and already the state has fields created in that database that the systems can use to enter this data. [speaker changes] Follow up [speaker changes] So what you're telling me is since I know that they're already capturing this data in Onslow County. So with that being said, then it would just be a matter of making an adjustment with the system they've got, they're not going to have to go to anything new or it's not going to cost them anything more out of their pocket since they're crunched for money already, ok. [speaker changes] Right, good question. I think the answer to that, I may call for staff help on this or Representative Holloway, is it depends on what system they're using. My suspicion and I'll look to staff pretty quickly to come in is that they're probably if they're not already using going to be moving to the system that we're using state wide. And if they're already doing that anyway theres nothing additional that they would need to do this. Madame Chair if I could just look at staff to see if I've stated that correctly. [speaker changes] Staff, you have a clearing. Karen McCraw. [speaker changes] Representative Shepard, there is the uniform education reporting system power school you've probably heard of is the way that they keep the data. Right now Power School does not have fields for military children, so this would be a new checkbox that they'd check in Power School. Right now because there is not a way to put that in Power School, principals have to keep up with it in some other fashion and we don't know they may be doing it on spreadsheets and hard copies. Once it's in Power School it would be accessible throughout the district and you wouldn't have to duplicate that entry if a student moved between schools. [speaker changes] And Representative Shepard to add in, the additional this will by going to the common system, this will allow at the state level how our military students, how do they perform when there's a deployment out of Legume or Bragg and so forth. I neglected to mention the additional equal benefit of this which is the

Us, to better compete for federal impact aid. That if we can make a case to the federal government on the number of military students we’ve got, we can make a better case for the federal impact aid that can follow those military children. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Well I understand that our system, they’re using federal calls that they fill out and they capture that information from all them so that they do get that impact aid and so forth. That was my concern, was it going to cost them more money or were they going to have to go to another system when they’re already doing one that’s capturing that information currently. Thank you for your time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepherd, I understand there is someone with DPI, Louis Fabrizio, that might shine a little light on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Lou Fabrizio, DPI, director of data research and federal policy. In our discussions about this particular bill, we are aware that some school districts have been collecting the information as was stated earlier by the staff member. That information typically is in an Excel spreadsheet. Our person who works with the Powers school system has stated that we will have the capability of importing any information that’s in an Excel spreadsheet into the system to alleviate that burden from the school district. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Lucas? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Madame Chair. I want to commend the sponsors of this bill, for working so diligently in finding a way to make our state more military friendly. We proud ourselves on being a military friendly state. That being said, Madame Chair, at the appropriate time, I’d like to offer a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time. And I understand that we can do it a little better. I think we’re ranked 27th. We could do, this will maybe help move us up. Representative Torbec? Okay are there any other questions? John, want to try again to identify yourself? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Members of the committee, John Busshan for the North Carolina press association and virtually all the newspapers around the state. Here to say that the press association applauds the spirit of the bill, and the work that’s gone into it. And just has a question about potentially unintended consequences that might have been built into this. There’s language in the bill that says essentially nothing from this point forward that relates to military student identified information would be accessible under the public records law, that’s GS132, except as allowed by FERPA, which is the federal education records law. And while that sounds like that’ll continue to allow the public to have the current level of its right to know preserved, many of our members have been in battles already with some state universities, one in particular, over getting information as simple as who’s run up 500 parking tickets and how they’ve been paid and that sort of thing, and if this ?? an entire group whose identities are no longer accessible, then our members would be opposed to that. But I don’t know the answer that, just having looked at it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you like to reply, Representative? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you very much, Madame Chair. And we definitely had a discussion in our working group about that very issue, the balance of privacy versus openness to the press and to the people. Our thought on that and our intent in this is that’s a battle worth, a discussion worth having, but that just to treat this information just like it has in the past. Whatever decisions are made elsewhere on the broader topic of student privacy, this could be part of that, but the intent is not to carve out anything additional but as we’re creating this new data to keep it protected under FERPA is just that it is right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not sure that is - [SPEAKER CHANGES]I’ve never known press not want to a follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]With the chair’s indulgence, Madame Chairman, I’m not sure that the language is clear on that point, and I’d welcome the chance to talk some more with you about that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Be happy to meet with you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I believe our staff can help you a little bit also. Cara McCraw. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There is a sort of belt and suspenders approach in additionally stating that this is a exception to the public records law however all student records are

Section to the public's record law and that is in another section except for anything that a school has designated as directory information so because this has an exception for FERPA. If a parent wanted to designate that as something that could be released if something the school system had made it directory information they could, but otherwise as with all other education records they are considered confidential. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Alright, thank you very much. Representative Holloway is there anything you'd like to say? Alright, I have a motion for a favorable report from Representative Lucas, seconded by Representative Tolbert. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. House bill 1060 passes. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you madame chair and thank you members. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Holloway am I correct in your asking that 1062 can be put on next week's? Alright, thank you. With that said does my co-chair here have anything he'd like to say? Like to give us an update? Okay if not I declare this meeting adjourned.