Sen. Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, who was absent during a vote last week that saw the Senate swap a polarizing resolution’s referral to his Education Committee with a referral to the Judiciary Committee, criticized the proposal and needled fellow Republicans in a floor speech Tuesday.
Stevens rose to speak on Senate Resolution 9, which would place a constitutional amendment before voters on public funds for education, during the “special orders” segment of Tuesday’s Senate floor session. He commented on the committee referral change being made while he was in Kentucky Friday.
“It appears as if I missed an eventful and truly fun-filled Friday,” Stevens said dryly. “And lots of folks had the opportunity to speak on the issue, except me. There I was in Lexington, Mr. President, chairing you a Council of State Governments meeting, totally oblivious — clueless in Kentucky, one might say,” Stevens added, to general laughter.
Stevens then grew more serious.
“I have never held a bill in a committee I’ve chaired because I did not like it or simply because I had the power as the chairman to do that,” said Stevens. “I made it clear that if the Education Committee had a resolution of any sort, it would be carefully considered, then moved along to the next committee.”
Sen. Mike Dunleavy, R-Wasilla, introduced S.J.R. 9, which would remove a constitutional prohibition on public funds being spent “for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution” if voters approve the constitutional amendment that it proposes.
While Dunleavy could not be reached for comment on this story, his staff pointed to his sponsor statement on S.J.R. 9, in which he said passage of the resolution “clarifies the question on the constitutionality of current educational practices” and “allows the voters to decide whether to maintain or abolish the restrictions on the use of public dollars for the education of children.”
In his speech, Stevens framed that voter decision as a “separation of church and state” issue.
“Mr. President, I have no objection to the resolution moving ahead, though I don’t personally agree with it, and I would, if eventually it makes it to the ballot box, probably vote against it based on our constitutional principle of separation of church and state,” said Stevens. “You see, Mr. President, I really like the First Amendment of the Constitution. I like it a lot. In fact, I really like the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. … All 10 (amendments) are crucial, and if one is taken away, our way of life would be much different than it is today.”
The United States Constitution does not contain the term “separation of church and state,” although contemporaneous writings from its drafters refer to the principle. The First Amendment reads in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Dunleavy said Monday that there is a constitutional question as to whether state scholarships for students attending private religious colleges violate the Alaska Constitution as written. He suggested it is inconsistent for the state to offer those scholarships but not allow vouchers for families seeking state aid to send their children to religious schools.
“For me, there’s a question as to the current practices (that) we’re doing — is it constitutional?” Dunleavy said. “And if it is, why can’t that be extended to everybody? Why just a certain group? That’s the question. Does this bill, if passed, open up Taliban schools and religious schools and private Edison schools? It does nothing of the sort. Can conversations occur? Yes, they can. But it doesn’t open it up.”
Stevens went on to quote both former President James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, and — more mischievously — former Lt. Gov. Jack Coghill, delegation to the Alaska Constitutional Convention and father of Senate Majority Leader John Coghill, R-North Pole. The younger Coghill is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a cosponsor of S.J.R. 9.
“These are the words he spoke on the floor of the Constitutional Convention, meaningful and heartfelt,” said Stevens after reading a quote from former Lt. Gov. Coghill supporting the restriction of public funding of education to the public education system. To chuckles, he quipped, “And as a father, I can sympathize with the senior Coghill. I know how distressing it can be to have a wayward son who does not appear to agree with you in the wisdom of the ages.”
After the Senate adjourned for the day, Majority Leader Coghill remarked, laughing, “I’m always glad when my dad is quoted.”
Coghill added, “A lot of what he said is true. I mean, the context has changed significantly down through the years. Those were back in the days when the (Bureau of Indian Affairs) schools were kind of the big issue in Alaska … and he was pushing that we need to take care of our own education needs. And so the sectarian issue was then the BIA or … boarding schools put together by religious organizations, and the state was fighting to establish its own education system.”
Earlier Tuesday, the Senate majority caucus released a statement quoting Stevens and Coghill to announce that Stevens’ Education Committee will hold “informational meetings” on school vouchers concurrent with Coghill’s Judiciary Committee examining S.J.R. 9 specifically.
Senate President Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla, who is in charge of bill referrals in the Senate, was asked about the Education Committee’s role on S.J.R. 9 in a press conference immediately after the Senate session Tuesday.
Huggins responded in part, “We have agreed upon if there remain substantial education issues, then the question of will it be referred to Education will be open.”
Carolyn Kuckertz, a legislative staffer with the Senate majority caucus, said Huggins was unavailable to comment further Tuesday, but said he expressed the belief that Stevens “is definitely entitled to have his own opinion, and he has some very good points.”
Stevens spoke more about his floor speech late Tuesday afternoon. He said he was not upset about the referral change, but added, “I was surprised that it was taken out of committee while I was gone.”
Stevens, who was Senate president until the collapse of the coalition he led after last November’s elections, said he believes Huggins’ decision to change the referrals without informing him was not “mean-spirited” but was rather a “simple oversight.”
Sen. Dennis Egan, D-Juneau, ignited controversy himself when he voted with minority Democrats to oppose changing the committee referrals Friday. That vote appears to have violated an agreement within the caucus to vote together on procedural issues.
But Stevens spoke warmly of Egan Tuesday, much as Huggins had the day before when asked about the Juneau senator’s wayward vote.
“I appreciate Egan’s support,” Stevens said. “He’s a fine person.”
For Egan’s part, he gave Stevens’ floor speech a favorable review.
“I liked it,” Egan said. “And I’m pleased with what he did, and I agree with what the senator said. And I applaud him for coming forward. And I got all kinds of crap for trying to stick up for him.”
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 586-1821 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.





Comments (18)
Add commentprivate schools
wish to be private and set their own policies, establish their own curriculum, teach whatever doctrine they believe in, be free from holding public meetings, establish their own boards of governance and not be required to provide public disclosure of their finances. They do not want federal requirements like NCLB testing to be required of their students. Yet they want a part of the public coffers without any related strings like those required of our school districts.
So when providing funds to these schools,should that ever come to pass, will private schools then be required to provide the same levels of financial reporting that school districts are required to provide? Will the private school teachers be required to have background checks and fingerprinted as public school teacher are? Will I be able to examine the books and see where the public funds are being spent? These are but a few of the questions I have regarding public funded private schools.
For me it is a matter of accountability and disclosure. I demand public funds to be accounted for by all schools: either public or private.
I believe Senator Stevens is an informed and astute student of history, public policy and knowledgeable of the expectations Alaskans have regarding our funding of public education and not funding private schools.
Thanks Sen, Stevens too bad
Thanks Sen, Stevens too bad there isn't more of you.
Stevens for Governor
Ive said it before. Sen. Gary Stevens would make an excellent governor for Alaska, regardless of any party affiliation. How long has it been since we had a really "good for Alaska" governor?
Just wonderin'
'Coghill added, “A lot of what he said is true. I mean, the context has changed significantly down through the years.'
The context has changed? Since 1957? Isn't this one of the politicians that gets up tight whenever the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights is mentioned? I'm sure 'context has changed significantly' since 1778. So why is it so easy to change the Alaska constitution, but impossible to accept changes to our American founding documents ?
Senator Gary Stevens for Governor
I agree with the two previous posts re: Senator Gary Stevens for Governor!
agreed
I agree that Governor Stevens has a really good sound to it. Unfortunately, the main players who purchased our current governor and most of the Legislature--Big Oil and Pebble--would spend millions to prevent Stevens from winning.
Informal Ratings
The conversation got me to thinking about who has been a governor since I moved to the state (as an adult) and how they impacted me. I developed a rating base on what harm or good they did for me, not on personality (see Palin rating), and on a system of up/down/ or no call (I am being nice because I could be giving a couple of the minus votes a minus 14 or so). Anyhow, I sure that there will be many different opinions from the way I view the situation. Have fun.
74-82 Hammond +1
82-86 Sheffeild 0
86-90 Cowper 0
90-94 Hickel +1
94-02 Knowles -1
02-06 Murkowski -1
06-09 Palin 0
09-Present Parnell 0
This resolution
Simply allows for the state to vote on whether or not they want to allow school vouchers, it won't automatically implement it as some of you fear.
In regards to school vouchers, if not painfully obvious by now, the public school system is a joke. The US ranks embarrassingly low in almost every single education category across the board. Private school students outperform public school students in basically everything. If/when I have children, I will send them to private school.
The reason private schools
The reason private schools out perform is they don't have hundreds of restrictions on every single aspect of a school to deal with. Oh and they get far more money then public schools. I agree with you that if I can ill send my kids to private school, but its definitely not a level playing field.
Alaskastu - you can't even say...
that private schools "outperform" public schools - they do not test on the same measures as public schools, and are not accountable for their grading practices. If I'm a business person making money by having a private school - I don't hire certified teachers, and I set my curriculum and testing so that my students all get "A's" - regardless of their actual capabilities.
In addition, private schools are not required to take ALL students - if they want to look like they are better than public schools, they simply turn away every and any child with a disability, or who is behind in school already, or who has an unsupported home life. If your entire school is made up of 'perfect' children if Ivy-league parents, what do you think is going to happen?
I agree whole-heartedly with Islander on this. If you want to play with public money - you accept all of the strings attached.
to Private Schools -
Don't do it! Stay as far away from government as you can!!! Your students will thank you.
@Islander
Why should you care about how the money is spent? For one thing, as soon as the state writes the check it is no longer 'public funds'. As long as the students who complete an education at one of these private schools gets a high quality education and you believe that the overall cost per student is appropriate why should you care?
As far as background checks go, all you would need to do is ask... If they can't pony up acceptable proof take the Kid to the competition instead.
The argument for public schools
Is badly damaged by the public schools themselves... they have made a habit of not being able to provide quality meaningful education….. no matter the price.
AH HA -
Of course it's still public funds. How do you figure? The point is that private schools don't want to be subject to any form of accountability that would ensure student are getting a high quality education. In the absense of any accountability, or any way to compare 'apples to apples' with public school - how could you tell that the child was getting a quality education? And if they are not - then why would you give public funds to something that doesn't really work?
I went to school before standards and testing - and I'm sure many of us have had the experience where getting an "A" in one class required little or no effort, while getting an "A" in the next class required a LOT of effort.
@Swimmergirl...
Let's assume (just an assumption) that you receive a paycheck from the city of Juneau. Is it public funds? By your logic it is.
Does the city have the right to weigh in on how you spend that money? I would hope not and I'll be you agree.
Does the city have the right to ensure you provide an honest day’s work for the day’s wages they paid? Certainly.
One more time... where did it stop being "Public Money"?
As far quality goes and your concern that private schools are not accountable for quality, it’s really a non issue… give people vouchers and let them choose. Competition will work. If allowed to it always does.
Don’t get me wrong, I have an intense dislike for nearly all things religious (of all stripes) and given almost any other choice would never send my child to a religious school but I absolutely support a parents right to choose to do so and can see no reason not to offer vouchers that allow parents to make the choice they prefer.
It seems to me that you might be set on imposing your values on others rather than letting them choose for themselves….
For competition to work, you
For competition to work, you assume those making decisions have perfect information and decide on that basis. Given a lack of standardized testing across public and private education sectors, there is no way to truly make that comparison.
There is also the assumption that people are able to change their decisions instantly upon discovering a better deal, which is also especially false in an educational environment.
Put bluntly, capitalism is all well and good, but there are some areas where the free market model falls apart: education tends to be one of them.
@Cynical
I guess I beg to differ.... Perfect information is not required. The better the information is the better the individual decisions are but remember, we are dealing with a universe of different schools and a universe of different parents that will be spread over time. The market will prevail. The only way it CAN'T is if the buyer's are prevented from making choices. People will see cause and effect... some schools will produce obviously better graduates and some schools will produce those who do not do as well in the world. It will not take long and those schools that are not producing will be without students.
As far as ‘instantly’ changing your choice, I suppose you are correct but, you know, there is always next year….seems like plenty of time to make a fairly decent assessment of the product you are receiving and your possible options.
The way things are now the system largely forces knowing re-investment in mediocrity
This is indeed a difference
This is indeed a difference of opinion that is irreconcilable. I assume that people are inundated with information, such that they are forced to rely on others for opinions on what they believe works best... and in turn there is an imperfection in the system as a result.
The other trick is that there seems to be a failure to notice the lag time: Suppose a school does produce better graduates. How long will it take for other parents to notice this fact? It will not be obvious immediately upon graduation. It will not be obvious immediately upon graduate school admissions. Under a purely capitalist model, it will only be obvious after these individuals have been employed in their fields and are appropriately compensated for their skills. In other words, there is a lag of several years before the current results can truly be ascertained. This is not conducive to a free market model.