Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 521 - JUDICIAL REVIEW: TEACHER TENURE DECISIONS REP. G. DAVIS said he would like to hear more history and testimony on the bill. He felt that perhaps the bill should be heard at a later time when there would be witness testimony. REP. OLBERG indicated that he was satisfied with the amount of testimony heard previously. (Chair Toohey took a brief at-ease from 3:24 p.m. to 3:31 p.m. Note: Chair Toohey passed the gavel to Rep. Bunde to preside over the remainder of the meeting.) Number 679 CHAIR BUNDE reminded the committee that HB 521 was before the committee. He indicated that there was no public testimony and asked the pleasure of the committee. REP. TOOHEY made a motion to pass HB 521 out of committee with individual recommendations. CHAIR. BUNDE objected for discussion purposes. REP. KOTT asked if Chair Bunde would speak to his objection. CHAIR BUNDE felt that the present system is adequate. He explained that if a teacher is denied tenure they can ask for an administrative hearing. At the hearing, the school district brings their charges, the teachers bring their defense, and if the teacher does not prevail, they can request a trial. He asserted that court trials are expensive and the school district does not always prevail. He further explained that the districts are opposed to spending approximately $50,000 in legal fees and to being restricted to using the same information as heard in the administrative hearing. He observed that the teacher would be able to have one defense, see the weaknesses in the bill of particulars, and then have a second defense. He indicated that the legislation is supported by the Association of School Administrators and the Association of School Boards. He felt that the statute is not used very often and cited that two districts testified that they each had one in the past year. REP. BUNDE further explained that a school district had spent $60,000 in court, lost, and planned to appeal. He contended that if the tenure review process had been handled correctly, the case should never have gone to court. He encouraged other members to offer their views. REP. OLBERG listed a number of figures that reflected the cost of de novo trials. He said the North Slope Borough School spent $126,000 on a de novo trial, and another case which involved preparation for trial and settlement negotiations cost $29,000. He indicated that $59,500 was finally paid in a settlement. He further indicated that Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, in one case, has spent a total of $82,920, and in another scheduled for trial in Superior Court the total cost to date is $112,930. The Sitka School District spent $50,836 on a de novo trial and appealed at the cost of $24,067. He asserted that automatically granting a new trial to a non-tenured teacher is "over-kill" on behalf of the teacher. Rep. Olberg acknowledged the difficulties involved in terminating a tenured teacher. He further stated that the provisions that allow teachers to use all of the school board's information at trial while the board is denied the same usage is "ridiculous." Number 804 CHAIR BUNDE attempted to correct Rep. Olberg by saying that the bill addresses tenured teachers only. He then said it was his understanding that the aforementioned examples pertained to non-tenured teachers. REP. OLBERG clarified that he was referring to tenured teachers and maintained that the examples refer specifically to tenured teachers. REP. G. DAVIS asserted that non-tenured teachers currently have no protection. CHAIR BUNDE indicated that he misunderstood some of the testimony. REP. OLBERG explained that a non-tenured teacher can also sue the school district. CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged that there are procedures a school board must follow to fire a tenured or non-tenured teacher. He reiterated that the de novo trial procedure only pertains to tenured teachers. He further indicated that only a few examples had been mentioned from certain school districts and there were more cases across the state. Number 836 REP. G. DAVIS clarified the thrust of the legislation by describing a scenario where a tenured teacher is found to be acting nonprofessionally, which by law is grounds for termination. CHAIR BUNDE interjected that there are four specific grounds for termination: gross insubordination, incompetence, moral turpitude, and financial emergency. REP. G. DAVIS indicated that sleeping in class would be incompetence. He further related that the teacher files a grievance and has his case heard before the school board. The teacher hires an attorney, as does the school board, and they undergo a process very similar to a court trial. He then asked Chair Bunde if the entire school board is part of the hearing and perhaps public participants. CHAIR BUNDE said it was his understanding that only the school board participates. REP. G. DAVIS continued with his scenario by saying that the school board upholds the decision of their administrators. He pointed out that the need for de novo trial stems from that juncture as the board will support the acts of their administrators a majority of the time. He further explained that the teacher would be granted a de novo trial in a Superior Court if requested. He then indicated that the school board is charged with defending themselves at an additional cost level at a court trial. He asserted that HB 521 would deny the automatic right for all teachers to go to a de novo trial, but would not preclude a civil proceeding. He asked if other members had any details to add or corrections to make to his scenario. Number 911 REP. TOOHEY concurred. She further indicated that the money saved by not going into de novo trials could be put back into the schools. She declared her support of the bill. CHAIR BUNDE indicated that the money saved would go back to administration and not to the classroom. Number 915 REP. VEZEY said, to his understanding, the bill does apply to non-tenured teachers and it also specifies that they would not have the right to appeal an administrative decision to the Superior Court. He felt the intent of the bill is common sense thinking. He then pointed out that under current law, if a teacher decides to appeal to the court, all the previous testimony is "wiped out," and with the de novo trial evidence and testimony is new. School districts would have to bring prior witnesses back to the location of the trial from outside the state, if need be, and depositions would have to be taken over again. He asserted that much redundant legal work is done. The legislation would reduce the amount of money that has to be spent preparing for trial. He said it did not eliminate the right of an individual to an appeal trial. The legislation provides that the school board would not have to rebuild the case "from scratch." He further indicated that he knew of no other system that automatically grants a de novo trial. Number 995 CHAIR BUNDE summarized by saying that in any legal proceeding there is always the right to appeal. He explained that the teacher is fired by a superintendent, and the school board, in almost every situation, must support the decision of their administrator. He said, "You really don't have the right of appeal at the school board level as cleanly as you might have in other situations where the board of directors is a little more removed, the school board is a little more removed from the administration. So, instead of a right of appeal, internally it really doesn't exist until you've got a case or the school board, school district, doesn't have a case, you go to the courts." He indicated that teachers could still go through the courts in a civil suit. He felt that the de novo trial offers more protection to the teacher and exerts more pressure on the school district. He felt the legislation was strictly a cost saving measure. Number 050 REP. TOOHEY stated that as a nurse she would not have the option to spend $80,000 of a hospital's money to bring a case to Superior Court. CHAIR BUNDE interjected and said Rep. Toohey would be able to go into civil proceedings. REP. TOOHEY concurred. Number 071 CHAIR BUNDE said the issue is not the suit, it is whether it is de novo trial or not. He asked if the bill was going to House State Affairs. He was informed that the bill would continue on to House Judiciary. He asked for further discussion. Hearing none, he then indicated that there had been a motion and an objection and called for the vote to pass HB 521 out of committee. Reps. Toohey, G. Davis, Vezey, Kott, Olberg, and Nicholia voted Yea and Chair Bunde voted Nay. Chair Bunde announced that HB 521 was so moved. Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|