Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows:
This may, in fact, be a very good bill. I hope it is. I just have a number of questions about it, and I feel like I’m not clear on the effect. I have had a chance to talk to supporters of it. It seems well-intentioned, but I’ve got questions about the definition of what a new job is.
I would be reluctant to take on the repayment on behalf of the community colleges by the state if a job is, say, reclassified. You know, it’s really kind of the same job, or if it’s maybe an outsourced job that is replaced by a fewer number of employees, are we kind of encouraging that? I would want to be very careful about that stuff.
I also understand that perhaps a company could train their own employees with their own supervisors as the teachers and then bill the state for this training. I’m worried about how much oversight we have over that or whether we’re just going to provide free training to all businesses. There’s got to be some kind of controls on that in some way to make sure that we are really getting what we pay for.
I know also that in Iowa they have a provision. Say you provide this training and it’s supposed to be paid back out of the income tax of the employee’s. What if those employees get laid off? Is the state ultimately on the hook for that, or do they default on the bonds? In Iowa they have the ability to levy a property tax to pay those things off. I don’t think we have that same provision in this bill. I want to know what would happen if those bonds are defaulted on. Is the state on the hook?
So it may be a good bill. I’m just unsure and, therefore, I’m just going to vote “no” and hope that these questions get answered as the thing moves through the legislative process.