Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/18/1994 01:15 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 18, 1994                                        
                            1:15 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman                                                  
  Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                             
  Rep. Pete Kott                                                               
  Rep. Gail Phillips                                                           
  Rep. Joe Green                                                               
  Rep. Cliff Davidson (via teleconference)                                     
  Rep. Jim Nordlund                                                            
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  HB 472:   "An Act relating to referrals involving dental                     
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  *HB 84:   "An Act implementing certain recommendations of                    
            Alaska 2000 to improve the state's education                       
            system; and providing for an effective date."                      
            HEARD AND HELD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION                              
  HB 420:   "An Act relating to limited liability companies;                   
            amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and                    
            24; and providing for an effective date."                          
            NOT HEARD                                                          
  HB 392:   "An Act relating to the confidentiality of                         
            permanent fund dividend application information;                   
            relating to the permanent fund dividend program;                   
            and providing for an effective date."                              
            NOT HEARD                                                          
  (* First public hearing.)                                                    
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  REP. GARY L. DAVIS                                                           
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 15                                                       
  Juneau, AK  99801-1182                                                       
  Phone:  465-2693                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor of HB 472.                                
  DR. JULIE ROBINSON, President                                                
  Alaska Dental Society                                                        
  3400 Spenard Rd.                                                             
  Anchorage, AK                                                                
  Phone:  277-4675                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 472.                                   
  CARL F.N. ROSE, Executive Director                                           
  Association of Alaska School Boards                                          
  316 W. 11th Street                                                           
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  586-1083                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  JOE JOSEPHSON                                                                
  National Education Association                                               
  880 H Street                                                                 
  Anchorage, AK  99501                                                         
  Phone:  276-0151                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in opposition to HB 84.                                 
  PAM HJORTESET                                                                
  Alaska Association of School Boards                                          
  P.O. Box 7318                                                                
  Ketchikan, AK  99901                                                         
  Phone:  225-3231                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  SHARRON NORTON, President                                                    
  Ketchikan Education Association                                              
  8302 S. Tongass                                                              
  Ketchikan, AK  99901                                                         
  Phone:  225-2479                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference with                       
                       commentary on HB 84.                                    
  DON RENFROE                                                                  
  Dillingham City School District                                              
  P.O. Box 461                                                                 
  Dillingham, AK  99576                                                        
  Phone:  842-5223                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  DON FORD, Board Member                                                       
  Dillingham City School District                                              
  P.O. Box 846                                                                 
  Dillingham, AK  99576                                                        
  Phone:  842-5280                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  JOAN WILKERSON                                                               
  Alaska Public Employees Association and                                      
  Alaska Federation of Teachers                                                
  211 Fourth Street, #306                                                      
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  586-2334                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 84.                       
  REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE                                                     
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 112                                                      
  Juneau, AK  99801-1182                                                       
  Phone:  465-4843                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor of HB 84.                                 
  SENATOR JUDY SALO                                                            
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 504                                                      
  Juneau, AK  99801-1182                                                       
  Phone:  465-4940                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented commentary and analysis of                    
                       HB 84.                                                  
  GEORGE STUART                                                                
  1000 Vicki Way                                                               
  Wasilla, AK  99654                                                           
  Phone:  376-9385                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in opposition to HB 84.                                 
  BILL HUTTON, Principal                                                       
  Hoonah City School District                                                  
  Hoonah, AK  99829                                                            
  Phone:  945-3613                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in support                 
                       of Section 6 of the amendment to HB 84.                 
  BAMBI HILL                                                                   
  Sleetmute, AK  99668                                                         
  Phone:  449-4216                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to HB 84.                                    
  LIN LAUGHY, Superintendent                                                   
  Wrangell Schools                                                             
  P.O. Box 1170                                                                
  Wrangell, AK  99929                                                          
  Phone:  874-2347                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  PAT CASE                                                                     
  Kenai PTA                                                                    
  1622 Highland Drive                                                          
  Homer, AK  99603                                                             
  Phone:  235-6487                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference on HB 84                   
                       with commentary on the tenure process.                  
  STEVE GIBSON                                                                 
  3931 Nielson Circle                                                          
  Homer, AK  99603                                                             
  Phone:  235-6818                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference with                       
                       recommendations concerning HB 84.                       
  KATHI McCORD                                                                 
  1601 Hidden Lane                                                             
  Anchorage, AK  99501                                                         
  Phone:  272-8018                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to HB 84.                                    
  JAMES SIMEROTH                                                               
  811 Auk St., No. 5                                                           
  Kenai, AK  99611                                                             
  Phone:  283-4368                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to HB 84.                                    
  LEONARD N. MURRAY, CEA                                                       
  Mat-Su School District                                                       
  P.O. Box 870523                                                              
  Wasilla, AK  99687                                                           
  Phone:  376-5063                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 84.                       
  CLAUDIA DOUGLAS                                                              
  National Education Association - Alaska                                      
  114 Second St.                                                               
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  586-3090                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 84.                       
  JOHN WITTEVEEN                                                               
  722 Mill Bay Road                                                            
  Kodiak, AK  99615                                                            
  Phone:  486-9220                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  MARY RUBADEAU, Assistant Superintendent                                      
  Kenai Peninsula Borough School District                                      
  P.O. Box 2266                                                                
  Soldotna, AK  99669                                                          
  Phone:  272-5846                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  FORREST OLEMAUN, School Board Member                                         
  North Slope Borough School District                                          
  P.O. Box 169                                                                 
  Barrow, AK   99723                                                           
  Phone:  852-5311                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to teacher tenure with a                     
                       resolution from his school district.                    
  ROBERT GIGLER                                                                
  7447 O'Brien Street                                                          
  Anchorage, AK  99507                                                         
  Phone:  344-5469                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from                        
                      Anchorage in opposition to HB 84.                        
  ALEXANDER McFARLAND, President                                               
  Fairbanks Educational Association                                            
  P.O. Box 70085                                                               
  Fairbanks, AK  99707                                                         
  Phone:  456-4435                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to HB 84.                                    
  SUE WILKIN, President                                                        
  Fairbanks School Board                                                       
  2600 Riverview                                                               
  Fairbanks, AK  99709                                                         
  Phone:  474-7596                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  LAUREL JEFFORD                                                               
  3810 Arkansas                                                                
  Anchorage, AK   99517                                                        
  Phone:  243-3652                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference with                       
                       observations on HB 84.                                  
  LUCILLE CLARK                                                                
  142 W. 5th Avenue                                                            
  Anchorage, AK  99501                                                         
  Phone:  277-0413                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to HB 84.                                    
  STEVE McPHETRES                                                              
  Alaska Council of School Administrators                                      
  362 4th St., #404                                                            
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  586-9702                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 84.                          
  BILL MUNROE, CEA                                                             
  Mat-Su Borough School District                                               
  P.O. Box 3137                                                                
  Palmer, AK  99645                                                            
  Phone:  745-2157                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 84.                       
  SHEILA PETERSON                                                              
  Department of Education                                                      
  801 W. 10th Ave., Suite 200                                                  
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  465-2803                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 84.                          
  KARLA FEELEY                                                                 
  1840 S. Bragaw                                                               
  Anchorage, AK  99508                                                         
  Phone:  274-0036                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to HB 84.                                    
  ROB PFISTERER                                                                
  13210 Splendlove Drive                                                       
  Anchorage, AK  99516                                                         
  Phone:  345-2159                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to HB 84.                                    
  GUY STRINGHAM, Chair                                                         
  Dillingham Education Association                                             
  P.O. Box 370                                                                 
  Dillingham, AK 99576                                                         
  Phone:  842-1075                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference in                         
                       opposition to HB 84.                                    
  BECKY CHAPEK                                                                 
  Cordova School Board                                                         
  P.O. Box 140                                                                 
  Cordova, AK  99574                                                           
  Phone:  424-5356                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified via teleconference                            
                       in support of HB 84.                                    
  VERNON MARSHALL                                                              
  National Education Association - Alaska                                      
  114 2nd St.                                                                  
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  586-3090                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 84.                       
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HB 472                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS BY REQUEST                             
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/14/94      2375    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/14/94      2375    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY                                   
  03/01/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/01/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/02/94      2575    (H)   HES RPT  3DP 3NR                                 
  03/02/94      2576    (H)   DP:  KOTT, VEZEY, TOOHEY                         
  03/02/94      2576    (H)   NR:  NICHOLIA, BUNDE, OLBERG                     
  03/02/94      2576    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/2/94                  
  03/16/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/21/94      2901    (H)   JUD RPT  5DP 1NR                                 
  03/21/94      2901    (H)   DP:  GREEN,KOTT,PORTER,                          
                              PHILLIPS, NORDLUND                               
  03/21/94      2901    (H)   NR:  JAMES                                       
  03/21/94      2901    (H)   -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE                       
                              (DCED) 3/2/94                                    
  03/23/94      2943    (H)   RULES TO CALENDAR  3/23/94                       
  03/23/94      2943    (H)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/23/94      2943    (H)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                   
  03/23/94      2943    (H)   READ THE THIRD TIME  HB 472                      
  03/23/94      2943    (H)   PASSED Y33 N1 A6                                 
  03/23/94      2943    (H)   BROWN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                  
  03/25/94      2986    (H)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                     
  03/25/94      2986    (H)   TRANSMITTED TO (S)                               
  03/28/94      3370    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/28/94      3370    (S)   HES, JUD                                         
  04/15/94              (S)   HES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM                   
  04/15/94              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  BILL:  HB  84                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/22/93       135    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/22/93       135    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  01/22/93       135    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE  (DOE) 1/22/93                      
  01/22/93       136    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/18/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/18/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/18/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/05/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/06/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/06/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  10/20/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/26/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  01/26/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/31/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  01/31/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/04/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/08/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/08/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/11/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/14/94      2368    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES) NEW TITLE                       
                              3DP 1DNP 3NR                                     
  02/14/94      2369    (H)   DP:  VEZEY, BUNDE, TOOHEY                        
  02/14/94      2369    (H)   DNP: B.DAVIS                                     
  02/14/94      2369    (H)   NR:  KOTT, G.DAVIS, OLBERG                       
  02/14/94      2369    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 2/14/94                       
  03/18/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/21/94              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/23/94      2925    (H)   JUD RPT CS(JUD) NEW TITLE 1DP                    
  03/23/94      2925    (H)   2NR 2AM                                          
  03/23/94      2925    (H)   DP:  PHILLIPS                                    
  03/23/94      2925    (H)   DNP: NORDLUND, DAVIDSON                          
  03/23/94      2925    (H)   NR:  JAMES, PORTER                               
  03/23/94      2925    (H)   AM:  GREEN, KOTT                                 
  03/23/94      2925    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 3/23/94                       
  03/23/94      2925    (H)   REFERRED TO FINANCE                              
  04/06/94              (H)   FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE                    
  04/07/94              (H)   FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE                    
  04/08/94              (H)   FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE                    
  04/12/94              (H)   FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE                    
  04/13/94              (H)   FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE                    
  BILL:  HB 420                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES                                     
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT,Mulder,James                        
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/31/94      2206    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/31/94      2206    (H)   L&C, JUDICIARY, STATE AFFAIRS                    
  02/24/94      2522    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE                               
  02/24/94      2522    (H)   L&C, JUDICIARY, STATE AFFAIRS                    
  03/08/94              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  03/09/94      2676    (H)   L&C RPT  1DP 3NR                                 
  03/09/94      2676    (H)   DP:  MULDER                                      
  03/09/94      2676    (H)   NR:  WILLIAMS, SITTON, HUDSON                    
  03/09/94      2676    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                         
  03/09/94      2703    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  MULDER                            
  03/18/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/21/94              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/23/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/30/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/31/94      3106    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  JAMES                             
  03/31/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/31/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  04/06/94      3153    (H)   JUD RPT  CSSS(JUD) NEW TITLE                     
                              4DP 1NR                                          
  04/06/94      3153    (H)   DP:  GREEN, JAMES, PORTER,                       
  04/06/94      3153    (H)   NR:  KOTT                                        
  04/06/94      3153    (H)   -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE                       
                              (DCED) 3/9/94                                    
  04/07/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  04/07/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  04/12/94              (H)   STA AT 09:30 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  04/12/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  04/13/94      3403    (H)   STA RPT  CSSS(STA) NEW TITLE                     
                              1DP 4NR                                          
  04/13/94      3404    (H)   DP:  OLBERG                                      
  04/13/94      3404    (H)   NR:  VEZEY, KOTT, G.DAVIS,                       
  04/13/94      3404    (H)   -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE                       
                              (DCED) 3/9/94                                    
  04/15/94      3522    (H)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/15/94                       
  04/15/94      3522    (H)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  04/15/94      3523    (H)   STA  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  04/15/94      3523    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 1 BY THERRIAULT                     
  04/15/94      3523    (H)   ...CHANGES EFFECTIVE DATE                        
  04/15/94      3523    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN                      
  04/15/94      3523    (H)   OBJECTION TO ADVANCEMENT MOTION                  
  04/15/94      3523    (H)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 4/18                   
  04/18/94      3563    (H)   READ 3RD TIME CSSSHB 420(STA)                    
                              (EFD AM)                                         
  04/18/94      3563    (H)   PASSED Y38 N- E2                                 
  04/18/94      3564    (H)   EFFECTIVE DATE  SAME AS PASSAGE                  
  04/18/94      3574    (H)   TRANSMITTED TO (S)                               
  BILL:  HB 392                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND PROGRAM                                 
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL,Mulder                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/21/94      2125    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/21/94      2125    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,                        
  02/22/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  02/22/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/03/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/03/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/03/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/03/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/04/94      2605    (H)   STA RPT  CS(STA) 2DP 3NR                         
  03/04/94      2605    (H)   DP:  VEZEY, G.DAVIS                              
  03/04/94      2605    (H)   NR:  KOTT, OLBERG, SANDERS                       
  03/04/94      2605    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/4/94                   
  03/18/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/21/94              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/23/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/25/94      2966    (H)   JUD RPT  CS(JUD)  4DP 2NR                        
  03/25/94      2966    (H)   DP:  GREEN, KOTT, PORTER,                        
  03/25/94      2966    (H)   NR:  NORDLUND, DAVIDSON                          
  03/25/94      2966    (H)   -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE                       
                              (REV) 3/4/94                                     
  04/05/94              (H)   FIN AT 03:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE                    
  04/06/94              (H)   FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE                    
  04/07/94              (H)   FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE                    
  04/08/94      3192    (H)   FIN RPT  CS(FIN) 3DP 1DNP 5NR                    
  04/08/94      3193    (H)   DP:  MACLEAN, LARSON, PARNELL                    
  04/08/94      3193    (H)   DNP: MARTIN                                      
  04/08/94      3193    (H)   NR:  HANLEY, GRUSSENDORF,                        
  04/08/94      3193    (H)   NR:  HOFFMAN, BROWN                              
  04/08/94      3193    (H)   -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE                       
                              (REV) 3/4/94                                     
  04/14/94      3512    (H)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/15/94                       
  04/15/94      3512    (H)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  04/15/94      3513    (H)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  04/15/94      3513    (H)   TECHNICAL AMENDMENT                              
  04/15/94      3513    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 1 BY MARTIN                         
  04/15/94      3514    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 1 FAILED Y13 N21                    
                              E4 A2                                            
  04/15/94      3514    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 2 BY PARNELL,                       
  04/15/94      3515    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 2 ADOPTED UNAN                      
  04/15/94      3515    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 3 BY NORDLUND                       
  04/15/94      3516    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 3 FAILED Y8 N25                     
                              E4 A3                                            
  04/15/94      3516    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 4 BY NORDLUND                       
  04/15/94      3517    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 4 WITHDRAWN                         
  04/15/94      3517    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 5 BY DAVIES                         
  04/15/94      3517    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 5 FAILED Y8 N26                     
                              E4 A2                                            
  04/15/94      3518    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 6 BY MULDER,                        
  04/15/94      3519    (H)   AM NO 1 TO AMENDMENT NO 6 BY                     
  04/15/94      3519    (H)   AM NO 1 TO AM NO 6 ADOPTED                       
                              UNAN CONSENT                                     
  04/15/94      3520    (H)   AM NO 2 TO AM NO 6 BY                            
  04/15/94      3520    (H)   AM NO 6 AS AMENDED ADOPTED Y23                   
                              N11 E4 A2                                        
  04/15/94      3521    (H)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                        
                              UNAN CONSENT                                     
  04/15/94      3521    (H)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSHB
                              392(FIN) AM                                      
  04/15/94      3521    (H)   PASSED Y32 N3 E4 A1                              
  04/15/94      3521    (H)   EFFECTIVE DATES SAME AS                          
  04/15/94      3521    (H)   BROWN NOTICE OF RECONSID                         
  04/15/94      3529    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  MULDER                            
  04/18/94      3567    (H)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD                        
  04/18/94      3567    (H)   MOTION: RET 2ND RESCIND                          
                              PREVIOUS ACTION                                  
  04/18/94      3567    (H)   IN ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO 6,                      
                              AS AMENDED                                       
  04/18/94      3567    (H)   RET 2ND TO RESCIND PASSED Y27                    
                              N7 E2 A4                                         
  04/18/94      3568    (H)   RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION IN                       
  04/18/94      3568    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 6 AS AMENDED PSD                    
                              Y20 N18 E2                                       
  04/18/94      3568    (H)   AMENDMENT NO 6 AS AM FAILED Y18                  
                              N20 E2                                           
  04/18/94      3569    (H)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                   
  04/18/94      3569    (H)   MOTION: RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM                  
                              NO 7                                             
  04/18/94      3569    (H)   RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 7 FLD Y16                   
                              N22 E2                                           
  04/18/94      3570    (H)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y31                    
                              N7 E2                                            
  04/18/94      3570    (H)   EFFECTIVE DATES SAME AS PASSAGE                  
  04/18/94      3574    (H)   TRANSMITTED TO (S)                               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-45, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order                   
  at 1:15 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 1994.  A quorum was                        
  present.  Chairman Porter announced that the committee would                 
  take up HB 472 first.  Chairman Porter several times                         
  reminded those testifying via teleconference that the                        
  committee would appreciate written testimony if available                    
  and he provided the appropriate telefax number:  465-3834.                   
  HB 472 - REFERRALS INVOLVING DENTAL SERVICES                                 
  REP. GARY L. DAVIS, Prime Sponsor of HB 472, addressed the                   
  committee.  He said, "HB 472 will prohibit the receipt of                    
  compensation by dentists for referring a person to another                   
  dentist or dental practice.  The American Dental Association                 
  code of ethics forbids dentists from profiting from                          
  referrals.  This legislation codifies the ethical concern                    
  related to referrals.                                                        
  "Section 2, the receipt of compensation by a person or                       
  advertisement referring a dental service, is prohibited                      
  unless the compensation for referral is disclosed at the                     
  time of referral.  This legislation will help ensure that                    
  patients are being referred to a dentist or dental practice                  
  as a result of their quality service.                                        
  "In simple terms, this is simply codifying a section in the                  
  American Dental Association's Code of Ethics into statute.                   
  There is some testimony.  I believe Julie Robinson should be                 
  on teleconference.  I believe she is President of the Alaska                 
  Dental Society.  She will go into detail as to why the                       
  Association feels this ethical procedure is confronting                      
  problems to the degree that they feel it needs to be                         
  codified in statute.  So, I think she will probably have the                 
  most valid testimony.  And I'll answer questions, if I may."                 
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he saw no immediate questions, but                      
  invited Rep. Davis to remain for questions that might arise.                 
  Number 087                                                                   
  DR. JULIE ROBINSON, President, Alaska Dental Society,                        
  testified via teleconference from Anchorage on behalf of HB
  472.   She thanked the committee for the opportunity to                      
  address them, and particularly thanked Rep. Davis and his                    
  staff.  Dr. Robinson said that HB 272 was easily understood                  
  and to the point.  She related the circumstances of its                      
  origins, which was primarily a response to misleading                        
  advertising by so-called referral services purporting to                     
  guide individuals towards appropriate dental practitioners                   
  in good standing with the Alaska Dental Association.  In                     
  fact, the only referees were a few dental practitioners who                  
  were paying in to the referral "services" towards whom calls                 
  would be channeled regardless of the type of dental services                 
  required; the standing of these practitioners, moreover, had                 
  not been determined by the referrers.  Dr. Robinson                          
  described the experiences of consumers seeking appropriate                   
  dental care and receiving faulty and misleading information.                 
  DR. ROBINSON concluded, "The benefits of advertising depend                  
  on reliability and accuracy.  This type of ad is deceptive                   
  and faulty.  Because the public is easily deceived by this                   
  sort of advertising, and generally has a lack of                             
  sophistication regarding dental services, we feel that the                   
  agency should disclose to the public that the dentist                        
  receiving the referral has paid a fee for this service.  The                 
  dentists also feel that it is important to avoid misleading                  
  the public about services we provide."  She said HB 472                      
  would apply the Dental Society's Code of Ethics regarding                    
  advertising and fee splitting and noted that other states                    
  have enacted or are considering similar legislation.                         
  Number 171                                                                   
  REP. JAMES focused on the extent of the legislation, asking                  
  if it would ban all advertising by dental practitioners.                     
  Number 173                                                                   
  DR. ROBINSON replied that it would not; in fact, there were                  
  many perfectly legal advertisements for dentists currently                   
  in the Yellow Pages.  She explained that HB 472 would                        
  regulate only dental referral services for dentists.  She                    
  noted that the paid referral services limited inclusion in                   
  any particular area to certain practitioners who paid large                  
  Number 216                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS asked if there were other, open-ended referral                 
  services, and wondered how to determine if they were                         
  operating in a lawful fashion.                                               
  DR. ROBINSON described the referral service of the Alaska                    
  Dental Society, which provides several referral options for                  
  every caller, as an example of a legitimate service.                         
  Number 252                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND posed a question regarding Section 2 of HB
  472, which makes referral fees illegal.  He asked if that                    
  meant that a dentist to whom a patient came for examination                  
  could not charge that patient a fee for services if the                      
  dentist, having determined that he was not the appropriate                   
  person for the service, referred the patient on to another                   
  DR. ROBINSON explained that this was not so; the section                     
  meant that one dentist could not receive a fee from another                  
  dentist for referring a patient.                                             
  discussed the language and Section 2 and agreed that it was                  
  acceptably clear.                                                            
  CHAIRMAN PORTER observed, "In its most negative form, we're                  
  prohibiting kickbacks."  He asked if there were further                      
  REP. JAMES expressed discomfort with the legislature                         
  policing the ethics of the members of the Board of Dental                    
  Examiners, an entity which might be considered to be capable                 
  of self-policing.  She cautioned against an excess of                        
  REP. DAVIS responded to this concern by characterizing the                   
  legislation as forward-looking; a way of obviating problems                  
  such as those, for example, which might be coming into being                 
  through the plethora of 800 and 900 telephone numbers which                  
  provide the means for referral businesses to operate without                 
  familiarity with the professional ethics involved.                           
  REP. JAMES reiterated her concerns and remarked, "I feel                     
  it's really improper for the state to go out and try to                      
  police everybody's ethics.  I think that we have a hard                      
  enough time policing our own."                                               
  Number 318                                                                   
  REP. GREEN expressed, in counterpoint, his concerns over the                 
  ramifications of untrained persons in paid referral services                 
  making recommendations.                                                      
  REP. JAMES responded that the guilty party would not be the                  
  referral system, but rather the participating dentist.                       
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Dr. Robinson to tell the committee if                  
  the board of the Alaska Dental Society was capable now of                    
  doing this policing without the statute.                                     
  DR. ROBINSON believed that it was not so capable, given its                  
  current burdens.                                                             
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked, "Is there any other discussion?"                      
  REP. PHILLIPS said, "I would move that we move HB 472 out of                 
  committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal                    
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated, "We have a motion to move the bill.                  
  Is there a discussion?  Is there objection?"  There being no                 
  objection, HB 472 was adopted and moved out of committee.                    
  HB 84 - IMPLEMENTING OF ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS                          
  Number 403                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS moved the House Judiciary Committee Substitute                 
  for HB 84, dated 2/22-D.                                                     
  REP. NORDLUND objected for purposes of obtaining an                          
  explanation of the differences between the bill that was                     
  referred from HESS and the Judiciary CS that Rep. Phillips                   
  was moving.                                                                  
  REP. PHILLIPS responded that the basic differences between                   
  the two bills were in the removal of the tenure review                       
  committees that were in the HESS committee substitute and                    
  the making of a change on the time on tenure.  She said that                 
  both the School Board Association and the National Education                 
  Association (NEA) supported the removal of peer review                       
  groups from the bill.                                                        
  There being no further discussion or objection, the                          
  Judiciary CS for HB 84 was adopted by the committee for                      
  Number 430                                                                   
  CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School                  
  Boards, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in                       
  support of CSHB 84.  Mr. Rose expressed his belief that the                  
  increasing workload of administrative staff, whose numbers                   
  have been reduced by funding cuts, made it difficult to                      
  perform evaluations of teachers in the "compressed time line                 
  of two years."  He noted that the evaluation process                         
  contained unfairness to teachers and students.  He said a                    
  two-year tenure review system of teachers might not grant an                 
  adequate amount of time to "accurately ascertain if they are                 
  qualified to be granted tenure" without giving them the                      
  opportunity to improve their teaching, while perhaps                         
  prematurely granting tenure to teachers for whom tenure                      
  might not be appropriate.  He stated that "[i]n fairness to                  
  children, and students in the classroom, it would behoove us                 
  to insure that we had well-qualified people in the classroom                 
  in the amount of time required to insure that that takes                     
  place is important."  Mr. Rose criticized the HESS committee                 
  substitute's inclusion of a peer review committee.  He                       
  concluded by reiterating his support for a longer tenure                     
  review period and for fewer statutory requirements mandated                  
  onto school districts.                                                       
  Number 497                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND asked if school boards were currently required                 
  by law to do evaluations.                                                    
  MR. ROSE replied that they were required by regulation, not                  
  REP. NORDLUND asked if there existed a specific number                       
  evaluations required, or a specific time line for their                      
  MR. ROSE said yes, but he didn't know what they were and                     
  suggested that Steve McPhetres might be able to provide an                   
  REP. NORDLUND asked how the proposed four-year tenure                        
  evaluation plan would affect the number of evaluations to be                 
  MR. ROSE said that his impression was that by extending the                  
  time line, the annual number of evaluations would be carried                 
  through for four years, and not just spread out over four                    
  REP. NORDLUND asked how that would lessen the load on the                    
  districts or the evaluators, since it appeared that more                     
  evaluations, rather than fewer, would now be done.                           
  MR. ROSE replied that what was needed was time to make the                   
  tenure decisions.  He stated, "As it is right now, normally,                 
  you have about 18 months under current law before you have                   
  to start action and decide whether someone is qualified or                   
  not, and 18 months may not be an adequate amount of time to                  
  determine whether a person is qualified to be granted tenure                 
  or not.  That's what we're asking for."                                      
  REP. NORDLUND said, "So, the proposal, what it amounts to,                   
  is delaying the decision on whether or not you'd want to                     
  retain a teacher.  You're giving yourself more time.  Isn't                  
  there a risk there, that you could be having a bad teacher                   
  teaching for a longer period of time than you would under                    
  the two year tenure?"                                                        
  MR. ROSE said he could see how one could make such an                        
  interpretation, but "...we're saying, there may be teachers                  
  out there who have their careers cut short because we had                    
  inadequate time to evaluate... we may have some good ones                    
  that we're missing, but we simply want more time to make                     
  that decision.  It's a pretty heavy decision to make over a                  
  period of 18 months; that could alter someone's career."                     
  Mr. Rose reiterated that the longer review period would                      
  provide more time to ensure that the people who are granted                  
  tenure have been able to show competence.                                    
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked that committee members and individuals                 
  testifying be aware that over 25 people were slated for                      
  Number 552                                                                   
  REP. JAMES asked Mr. Rose what percentage of teachers were                   
  turned away in the tenure review process.                                    
  MR. ROSE replied that that percentage varied from district                   
  to district.                                                                 
  Number 567                                                                   
  JOE JOSEPHSON, National Education Association (NEA),                         
  testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to                 
  HB 84.  Mr. Josephson, an attorney, put forth the                            
  proposition previously advanced in Laurence Johnston Peter's                 
  The Peter Principle some years back that "work fills the                     
  time available for its performance."  Mr. Josephson                          
  explained how this principle might manifest itself if a two-                 
  year evaluation plan blossomed into a four-year plan.  "One                  
  can argue the change from two years to four years does                       
  nothing except give the people who have the assignment more                  
  time to do the work...."  He noted that tenure serves a very                 
  valuable purpose and contributes to a stable and high morale                 
  workforce.  He said that it helped assure that teachers are                  
  freed from fear of losing their jobs "because of petty,                      
  political, personal kinds of things not related to their                     
  Number 580                                                                   
  MR. JOSEPHSON said he believed the effects of the change in                  
  the law would be adverse to education, stating, "First, it                   
  will expose more teachers than ever before to the political                  
  or arbitrary interference, which is the objective of the                     
  tenure law to curtail.  Second, it will not encourage people                 
  to enter the field of public education.  Third, it will not                  
  encourage early monitoring and evaluation of new teachers.                   
  We believe that administrators will have a tendency to                       
  become more slack in the oversight of teachers, because the                  
  day of reckoning and decision making is delayed.  Fourth, it                 
  will not weed out marginal teachers from the system.  The                    
  tendency may be to give some probationary teachers more time                 
  and service.  It will not make teachers better educators.                    
  It will reward administrative inefficiency or slothfulness."                 
  Number 607                                                                   
  PAM HJORTESET, Alaska Association of School Boards (AASB),                   
  testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in support of                    
  the "D" version of HB 84.  She stated that that version was                  
  far less cumbersome than the original and that she felt it                   
  was something with which most teachers, administrators and                   
  school board members could live and work.  She noted that                    
  she was keeping her testimony brief in order to give time to                 
  a Ketchikan teacher.                                                         
  Number 618                                                                   
  SHARRON NORTON, President, Ketchikan Education Association,                  
  testified via teleconference in support of the "D" version                   
  of HB 84.  She said she believed it was much better than the                 
  original.  She stated that she was, however, opposed to the                  
  four-year probationary period for teachers, and said she                     
  felt what was needed was stronger administrative evaluation                  
  of teachers during the first two years of their employment,                  
  and that the two-year probationary period works.  Ms. Norton                 
  concluded that this two-year probationary period "could work                 
  better with more clout given to administrative evaluation                    
  during those first two years of employment, and providing                    
  for the option of extending the probationary period into a                   
  third year."                                                                 
  Number 640                                                                   
  DON RENFROE, Dillingham City School District, testified via                  
  teleconference in support of HB 84.  Mr. Renfroe expressed                   
  criticism of tenure, particularly in rural school districts,                 
  as imposing an inflexibility at odds with the changing needs                 
  of schools.  Mr. Renfroe reminded committee members that the                 
  evaluation process represents only a small portion of                        
  administrators' responsibilities.  He believed a four year                   
  tenure review process would permit a better, more extensive                  
  evaluation system for teachers and provide for more greater                  
  staff development and on the job training.  Mr. Renfroe                      
  concluded, "So I think extending to four years is better for                 
  the kids, and I think that's why we're all here."                            
  Number 670                                                                   
  DON FORD, Board Member and parent, Dillingham City School                    
  District, testified via teleconference in support of HB 84.                  
  Mr. Ford criticized current tenure law and the concept of                    
  retaining staff by seniority rather than expertise, training                 
  or experience.  He compared education unfavorably with other                 
  state and private entities in terms of provision of service                  
  and cost effectiveness.  Mr. Ford suggested that tenure was                  
  in the better interests of some teachers, rather than the                    
  students and asked, "Does the legislature primarily support                  
  teachers or children?"                                                       
  Number 707                                                                   
  JOAN WILKERSON, Alaska Public Employees Association (APEA)                   
  and the state local for the American Federal of Teachers                     
  (AFT), testified in opposition to HB 84.  Ms. Wilkerson                      
  warned of significant costs and losses she foresaw being                     
  generated by the legislation.  She stated, "While we all                     
  hope that it is not necessary to make cuts in state funding,                 
  it is possible that this will occur.  As such, money for the                 
  school districts will be tight.  The creation and                            
  implementation of any system which further encumbers the                     
  present review system will be costly, and without additional                 
  funds, other programs or personnel will have to be cut."                     
  Ms. Wilkerson also cautioned against increased litigation                    
  costs in implementing a new system.                                          
  Ms. Wilkerson emphasized that APEA's concerns rested not                     
  only with its members but with school districts and                          
  children.  She said that the tenure review system provided                   
  no opportunity for support to the teachers or involvement by                 
  the union.  Also, she cautioned, the extended tenure review                  
  system as proposed might select simply for the most verbally                 
  adroit advocates.  Ms. Wilkerson asked for more opportunity                  
  for teacher and APEA participation in drafting legislation                   
  affecting teachers and urged that HB 84 not be passed from                   
  committee as constituted, particularly not without reduction                 
  of the probationary time frame.                                              
  Number 749                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON requested a section by section explication of                  
  HB 84.                                                                       
  REP. PHILLIPS offered to do so.                                              
  CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that such a review could be done.  He                 
  also recognized Senator Salo, who was invited to address the                 
  Number 756                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS presented the pertinent areas of the bill                      
  under discussion.  She said that only Sections 6 and 7 would                 
  undergo changes.  In Section 6 the tenure review period                      
  would go from two to four years; and in Section 7 the tenure                 
  peer review committee concept would be removed.                              
  Number 760                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the changes were drafting,                    
  rather than substantive, changes, and Rep. Phillips                          
  Number 769                                                                   
  REP. BUNDE said, "As these changes address my original bill,                 
  I wonder if I could have an opportunity to comment?"                         
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented, "Let's see if we can get the                      
  testimony in before we get into a debate."                                   
  Number 772                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND requested further explanation of Sections 1, 2                 
  and 3.                                                                       
  REP. PHILLIPS deferred to Rep. Bunde.                                        
  Number 781                                                                   
  REP. BUNDE averred he did not recognize the bill, but did                    
  continue on to say that Sections 1, 2 and 3 discussed                        
  allowing grants to districts.                                                
  Number 783                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if substantive changes were involved                   
  and REP. BUNDE characterized them rather as minor.  He said                  
  that one change was new ability to apply for grants several                  
  years in a row.                                                              
  Number 787                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that Section 3 appeared to allow an                     
  awardee, a grantee, to receive a grant for three years                       
  within a five year period, as opposed to two, and this was                   
  the only substantive change he'd seen.                                       
  REP. BUNDE said, "It doesn't begin a new program; it's                       
  simply, I guess you would call it, an expansion of an                        
  existing program."                                                           
  Number 795                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND asked what kind of grants these were.                          
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied, "Grants to public school districts                  
  under the unique, dedicated fund school grant program that                   
  was established prior to '59, and consequently has that                      
  Number 800                                                                   
  REP. BUNDE interjected that these were grants from the                       
  Department of Education (DOE).                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "And, the remainder of the bill is                     
  merely the change of tenure from two years to four years...                  
  and removing, in the HESS, the committee peer review.                        
  Cliff, did you follow all that?"                                             
  Number 810                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON stated, "I did.  I had a couple of other                       
  questions.  Rep. Bunde talked -- I don't know if he was                      
  being facetious, but he said he didn't recognize this bill.                  
  I can't read his body language, so... I was wondering if in                  
  fact he had problems with the changes or exactly what?"                      
  REP. BUNDE responded, "Major problems."                                      
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "We're going to hear about that                        
  REP. DAVIDSON continued, "The other thing, Mr. Chairman, if                  
  I might.  You had, I believe, called upon Senator Salo.  Was                 
  she going to say anything about the different sections to                    
  this bill?  Because if she could, I would appreciate that."                  
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "The Senator certainly has the floor                   
  if she would wish to elucidate further on what this bill                     
  Number 817                                                                   
  SEN. SALO offered comments on HB 84:  "I realize you have a                  
  lot of people on teleconference and I'll be very brief.  I                   
  certainly didn't like the whole review process because it                    
  was very cumbersome and would have sucked up a lot of                        
  district resources.  The change to a four-year tenure is a                   
  simpler procedure, but I think when I came in I heard Rep.                   
  Nordlund asking some questions that I think you should think                 
  about very carefully.  That is, that if you keep people in a                 
  non-tenure status longer, there is the requirement to do a                   
  much more thorough review of non-tenured teachers.  I think                  
  every building administrator that I know in this state will                  
  tell you that the current evaluation system keeps them very                  
  business amongst the other duties that they have.  They have                 
  trouble usually meeting the deadlines for the evaluations;                   
  often evaluations don't have the amount of observation going                 
  with them that they should.  So, you're talking about                        
  doubling that kind of a work load on non-tenured teachers,                   
  and I think that's a very serious consideration, as well as                  
  the others that I'm sure you'll hear in testimony."                          
  Number 827                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON said, "Senator, the deadline issue of which                    
  you spoke -- how do we address those concerns that you have,                 
  as far as meeting deadlines?  Is there a mechanism by which                  
  we can address those concerns?"                                              
  Number 833                                                                   
  SEN. SALO responded, "Well, you can put more money into the                  
  schools so that we could have assistant principals in                        
  schools to assist with the evaluation process.  All of us                    
  probably think that would be worthwhile.  Probably none of                   
  us think that it's very possible.  The other thing to do, I                  
  guess, is you could relax that procedure on non-tenured                      
  teachers on evaluation, but then I guess you would certainly                 
  eliminate the reason to keep a person on probationary status                 
  longer.  So, in my opinion, the best way to address it is                    
  either to leave it alone, because I don't think we have any                  
  proof out there that we have something that's broken; the                    
  other way might be to try to deal with the only legitimate                   
  argument that I have ever heard on this issue, and that is                   
  that for a very, very small percentage of teachers, that the                 
  district is unsure about as to whether they should keep them                 
  or get rid of them, maybe there's a reason to extend, on a                   
  limited basis, to a third year on tenure.  However, I think                  
  that if it's an issue of whether teachers are going to get                   
  retained after that second year or not, then the testimony                   
  that we ought to listen to as legislators is from the                        
  teachers.  Most districts and most teachers will tell you,                   
  if you can't tell if they're good or bad in two years, cut                   
  bait.  You either fish or you cut bait.  And if that's the                   
  decision you have to make, taking longer than that -- it's a                 
  matter of opinion whether you need longer than that."                        
  Number 850                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I'm going to ask that we try now to                   
  get back to the testimony and save the discussion and debate                 
  of the bill until we have concluded with the testimony."                     
  Number 855                                                                   
  GEORGE STUART, Mat-Su Evaluation Committee, testified via                    
  teleconference in opposition to HB 84.  He stated that                       
  extending the tenure review process to four years would                      
  increase the workload of principals substantially.  He said,                 
  "The system, if you're asking to improve instruction, there                  
  are some ways that I believe can do that.  And that's staff                  
  development, mentoring teachers that need help, and                          
  providing leads to teachers to either retrain if they're                     
  having problems in the classroom, or to improve their                        
  instruction.  I think that would be a better method."                        
  Number 871                                                                   
  BILL HUTTON, Principal, Hoonah City School District,                         
  testified via teleconference in support of the Section 6                     
  amendment to HB 84.  He said, "The Hoonah City School                        
  District is in full support of the Section 6 amendment.  I                   
  can reiterate from personal experience that it would save                    
  teacher jobs and make education better.  Case in point:  A                   
  few years ago I recommended that a teacher not be offered a                  
  contract because of an area of weakness.  Other performance                  
  areas were strong, but more time to work with this teacher                   
  to upgrade that area of weakness may have resulted in a very                 
  fine teacher."  He concluded that two more years were needed                 
  to improve the evaluation process.                                           
  Number 885                                                                   
  BAMBI HILL, Sleetmute, Alaska, testified via teleconference                  
  in opposition to HB 84.  [Text of Ms. Hill's testimony lost                  
  in part due to abrupt ending and beginning of sides of                       
  tape.] Ms. Hill expressed agreement with the comments of Joe                 
  Josephson.  She said she believed extending the tenure                       
  review time from two to four years would increase costs.                     
  TAPE 94-45, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MS. HILL continued her testimony.  She believed that by the                  
  time a teacher had come through training, and student                        
  teaching experience, and a rigorous interview process to be                  
  hired, two years of proper evaluation with mentoring and on                  
  the job training and observation should be sufficient to                     
  make a determination and permit a teacher to proceed or not                  
  with his teaching position.                                                  
  Number 054                                                                   
  LIN LAUGHY, Superintendent, Wrangell Schools, testified via                  
  teleconference in support of HB 84.  He expressed rigorous                   
  disapproval of extant teacher tenure law and stated, "The                    
  Alaska legislature could in a single act set in motion the                   
  revitalization of education in our state at virtually no                     
  cost to the state or local communities.  That act would be                   
  the elimination of the teacher tenure law."  Mr. Laughy                      
  noted that Alaska enjoyed large numbers of talented,                         
  dedicated teachers, but the state also sustained the effects                 
  of average, poor and a few incompetent teachers who could                    
  not, without considerable difficulty, be removed.  Mr.                       
  Laughy cited in particular the negative impact of tenure law                 
  on attempts at forging curriculum changes.  He compared the                  
  primary and secondary school teacher tenure system with                      
  university tenure systems; the latter, he asserted,                          
  typically extended seven years.  Mr. Laughy termed four for                  
  five years an absolute minimum.                                              
  Number 121                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON said, "Mr. Laughy, you said five to seven                      
  years, absolute minimum.  What about the teacher that                        
  doesn't cut the grade here -- do you think that that teacher                 
  should be exposed to the student population for up to seven                  
  years without getting the kind of evaluations that we're                     
  talking about?  It seems to me that there comes a point                      
  beyond which you're creating a problem for the child again."                 
  Number 130                                                                   
  MR. LAUGHY replied, "Our present use of the tenure law is                    
  such that if we hire an experienced teacher we expect that                   
  teacher to be excellent after one year.  If we hire a new                    
  teacher, we expect that person to be excellent after two                     
  Number 136                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON asked, "What is the problem then in measuring                  
  Number 140                                                                   
  MR. LAUGHY said, "We do not have a difficulty in that                        
  respect.  In the extended time period I think we're                          
  overlooking one significant item -- the extended time period                 
  would allow school boards much greater flexibility in making                 
  programmatic changes that they do not now have, when they                    
  have most of their staff locked into tenured positions."                     
  Number 146                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON stated, "So, you mean, the purpose of the                      
  extended tenure evaluation is that we need to allow school                   
  boards more flexibility?  And what is the nature of that                     
  Number 156                                                                   
  MR. LAUGHY responded, "Well, the nature of that flexibility                  
  is the same as the issue that was raised from Dillingham.                    
  Some times if you have to cut back on staff, such as major                   
  considerations are being given to that now, and I know in                    
  Ketchikan and in Juneau, and you can only cut non-tenured                    
  teachers, you can have serious impacts on your programs                      
  because you can continue to have part of your curriculum                     
  that maybe is a lower priority in your community, and you                    
  have to keep that part of the curriculum present because you                 
  have a tenured teacher in that position teaching that                        
  Number 177                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON asked, "What is the excellent model we're                      
  going to use as far as evaluation systems are concerned?  It                 
  sounds like this gentleman has a pretty good grasp of                        
  teacher evaluations.  We know that one size does not fit all                 
  -- particularly when we're considering the different school                  
  districts with different expertise and different resources.                  
  So, how do we get through that problem?  Because we're                       
  trying to create a situation here [throughout] the entire                    
  state of Alaska, to evaluate teachers, and be fair to the                    
  teachers, fair to the kids, and allow the school board and                   
  the superintendents to their jobs.  So how do you arrive at                  
  that model for excellence, for measuring excellence?"                        
  Number 194                                                                   
  MR. LAUGHY said, "I'm sure that varies some by district, but                 
  we certainly know now what constitutes effective teaching                    
  after the research [that] has been conducted over the last                   
  twenty years."                                                               
  Number 203                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND asked, "Mr. Laughy, is your district prepared                  
  now then if this bill passes to do two evaluations a year                    
  for four years as opposed to the evaluations you do for only                 
  two years?"                                                                  
  MR. LAUGHY replied, "Yes, we are prepared to do that."                       
  Number 212                                                                   
  PAT CASE, representing the Kenai Peninsula Council of PTAs,                  
  testified via teleconference in criticism of the limitations                 
  of HB 84, and said, "As we all know, tenure has been a very                  
  hot issue.  Among parents it is a very hot issue.  In your                   
  new Alaska 2000 initiative, we elevate the standards of                      
  students; thus, teacher standards must also be raised to                     
  match.  Now, the biggest objection parents have to current                   
  tenure law is that it is extremely difficult to remove a                     
  sub-par teacher from his position once tenure has been                       
  achieved.  It really makes a difference in the quality of                    
  the work force.  The process of evaluating a teacher's                       
  performance after they achieve tenure must be addressed, not                 
  just when they achieve tenure.  I think that's the biggest                   
  problem that parents in this state have, that it's so                        
  difficult to ensure the continued quality of the teachers.                   
  I feel that if this is going to have any effect on the                       
  education of our children, the number one thing we have to                   
  consider is the quality of delivery of the curriculum given                  
  to our students.  And just to change the date from two years                 
  to four years won't change the fact that teachers lose their                 
  inspiration from time to time, and there must be some sort                   
  of mechanism put in place so we can ensure that they                         
  maintain certain standards throughout their career."                         
  Number 261                                                                   
  STEVE GIBSON, testified via teleconference from Homer with                   
  some support and some criticism of HB 84.  He said he felt                   
  that four years would be an appropriate tenure probation                     
  period because it provided needed flexibility to school                      
  districts and administrators.  He criticized the CS                          
  abridgment of the tenure review board as not providing for                   
  the sense of ownership due parents and community members                     
  intended by the Alaska 2000 recommendations, saying,                         
  "Advisory tenure review by a panel of principals and                         
  teachers would not add public confidence in the quality of                   
  teaching in our schools.  That lack of confidence stems from                 
  their perception of the very people that you would empower                   
  on the committee.  I feel that parents and community                         
  members, in addition to teachers and administrators, would                   
  be appropriate, and maybe that would reduce the public view                  
  that teachers would just take care of their own.  If there                   
  are concerns about confidentiality, I feel that you should                   
  take the view that public members should not be expected to                  
  be any less discreet than teachers or administrators.  And I                 
  hope that you give consideration to not just making this                     
  another layer of government that in effect just takes care                   
  of itself."                                                                  
  Number 304                                                                   
  KATHI McCORD, teacher, Bowman Elementary School, testified                   
  via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 84.                    
  She observed, "Tenure is such a red flag word.  I have heard                 
  people rail against it as though teachers can hardly wait to                 
  get tenure so we can kick back for the remaining 18 years                    
  until we retire.  That is absolute hogwash."  Ms. McCord                     
  expressed a wish to see children protected from scare                        
  tactics alleging teacher incompetence; tactics which were,                   
  she asserted, employed to veil another issue:  control.  She                 
  stated, "Tenure is a safeguard to our profession to allow                    
  for the process of academic freedom.  Tenure protects                        
  teachers from being unfairly attacked because we disagree                    
  with someone else's view.  Tenure keeps administrators from                  
  being allowed to fire a teacher because of petty issues and                  
  personality conflicts."                                                      
  "Sometimes," MS. McCORD continued, "a person gets into                       
  teaching that shouldn't be there, but it's usually obvious                   
  from the first year and definitely by the second.                            
  Principals should be required to do a minimum of two                         
  evaluations during each of the first two years accompanied                   
  by a plan for improvement when it's needed.  They would then                 
  be able to not retain if necessary."                                         
  MS. McCORD noted that most principals she had worked for had                 
  been good employers, but cited an example to illustrate the                  
  implicit dangers of injudiciously placed authority.  She                     
  described working for a principal who responded to her                       
  challenge to inappropriate actions on his part by saying                     
  that she was lucky she had tenure.  "It was obvious," she                    
  said, "that if I had been a non-tenured teacher I would have                 
  been let go.  Not because of my teaching -- I'm a creative,                  
  hard working teacher who loves kids and loves my job -- but                  
  because of my association involvement and perceived                          
  challenge to his control.  That's not right."                                
  MS. McCORD continued, "Extending the tenure probationary                     
  period serves no useful educational purpose.  Rather, we                     
  should be looking at improved administrative evaluation.                     
  The evaluation process is a positive tool for improving                      
  teacher performance.  If a district has poor evaluation                      
  techniques or believes other tasks are more important and                    
  thus does not devote the time necessary to do fair and                       
  adequate evaluations, it is not responsible public policy to                 
  provide more time to get the job done.  It's not a matter of                 
  time, it's a matter of commitment to the task."  She                         
  concluded, "The current tenure time line works.  Please                      
  leave tenure alone."                                                         
  Number 351                                                                   
  JAMES SIMEROTH, a teacher residing in Kenai, testified via                   
  teleconference in opposition to HB 84.  He said, "This is my                 
  30th year of teaching; 11 of those have been on the Kenai                    
  Peninsula, and I still haven't lost my inspiration for                       
  teaching.  Current teacher tenure law works fine when it's                   
  administered properly.  Every year teachers in Alaska are                    
  terminated for just cause, and rightly so.  The only time it                 
  doesn't work well is when the school administrators do not                   
  do their job adequately.  I would like to see better trained                 
  administrators doing their jobs efficiently.  Weakening the                  
  tenure law will only weaken the quality of education in                      
  Contemplating the delay or weakening of tenure, MR. SIMEROTH                 
  warned, "I am concerned about the possibility of an attitude                 
  of `Why worry about the ability those being hired -- we'll                   
  just fire them if they don't work out.'  This kind of                        
  atmosphere can only cause more disruption in the educational                 
  process of our children.  This attack on tenure really seems                 
  to be about hiring teachers for a cheaper price and not                      
  about better education.  My experience has shown that a                      
  cheaper product usually means cheaper quality...  This is                    
  not the way to improve education in Alaska.  It appears to                   
  me to be an unwarranted attack on public school teachers."                   
  MR. SIMEROTH said, "I also think some people would like to                   
  equate teaching in public schools with teaching at the                       
  university level.  Teaching conditions in these areas are                    
  only remotely related and should not even be considered as a                 
  similar working environment.  I urge you to reject this                      
  effort to amend tenure law that can only bring about a                       
  lessening of quality education in Alaska.  Support the                       
  current teachers statutes.  They are effective."                             
  Number 387                                                                   
  LEONARD N. MURRAY, CEA, Classified Employee, Mat-Su School                   
  District, testified in opposition to HB 84.  He said, "I am                  
  against HB 84 mainly because I think if they extend the                      
  tenure law to four years it's going to do an injustice to                    
  the teacher by not evaluating him properly within the two                    
  years.  It stretches it out too long.  You know and I know                   
  that through proper evaluation or documentation you can                      
  either hire a teacher, if it's done correctly, or get rid of                 
  a teacher."  Mr. Murray expounded on his opinion that a                      
  protracted tenure probation process punished teachers,                       
  taxpayers and most of all, students.                                         
  Number 418                                                                   
  CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, National Education Association -                 
  Alaska (NEA-AK), representing approximately 9,000 employees,                 
  testified in opposition to HB 84 and said, "Before yesterday                 
  we thought we were going to be testifying on House Bill --                   
  the Committee Substitute, which included the peer review                     
  committee.  We found out yesterday from Rep. Phillips that                   
  the amendment was going to be offered.  I have not seen it                   
  yet.  But I've tried to prepare some remarks in terms of                     
  just tenure in general.  Some have come to believe that                      
  tenure is synonymous with lifetime appointment.  Nothing                     
  could be further from the truth.  Competent and effective                    
  administrators with leadership and motivational skills have                  
  utilized tenure as an ally to develop innovative and                         
  challenging teaching staffs.  Over 20 years ago Alaska                       
  joined the mainstream of America by extending tenure to its                  
  teachers.  Today, tenure continues to accomplish its purpose                 
  by encouraging effective teaching in the various political                   
  climates existing in any school district during a person's                   
  career.  Tenure is to establish employment security and                      
  professional responsibilities within the framework of the                    
  process.  Tenure is granted to protect academic freedom."                    
  MS. DOUGLAS emphasized that NEA-AK supported tenure because                  
  it "...protects the freedom the academic community needs to                  
  impart knowledge and critical thinking skills to children.                   
  Tenure protects schools from becoming systems where the                      
  spoils of a bureaucracy are dumped.  Tenure protects the                     
  schools and teachers from assaults by political pressure                     
  groups.  Tenure provides the needed security to enable                       
  teachers to be creative and experiment with new methods.                     
  Tenure enables to maintain discipline in a fair and                          
  impartial manner without jeopardizing their jobs.  Tenure                    
  permits teachers to be critical of the politics and tactics                  
  of teacher organizations, including our own.  Tenure                         
  protects the school system from chaotic and spasmodic                        
  changes.  The authority to grant tenure is the discretion                    
  and power of the local school district, the local school                     
  board, which cannot be delegated.  State law prescribes how                  
  teachers may acquire tenure.  The probationary period allows                 
  school boards time to assess a teacher's ability and                         
  competencies.  During this period, there is no guarantee of                  
  employment beyond the annual employment contract.  During                    
  the period an Alaskan probationary teacher may be terminated                 
  without cause."  She reiterated that tenure does not give a                  
  teacher lifetime appointment, but rather, "provides a                        
  competent teacher an assurance of a continued appointment as                 
  long as his or her performance is satisfactory."                             
  "Administrators," MS. DOUGLAS asserted, "are critical to the                 
  [educational] process and... success because they are                        
  trained to evaluate and develop teachers to accomplish the                   
  educational goals and plans of the school district.                          
  Administration is a demanding job.  Those who enter it                       
  understand that many variables will attack their time.  But                  
  good administration understands the necessity of developing                  
  the skills of the staff."  Ms. Douglas explored at length                    
  the vital need for high quality leadership, staff                            
  development and adequate evaluations.  She termed the                        
  evaluation process a positive tool for improving teaching                    
  performance and encouraging school districts working with                    
  the staff to improve the quality of the evaluation."                         
  MS. DOUGLAS bemoaned the lack of appreciation for                            
  experienced, mature, committed teachers who provide                          
  stability to the educational system.  She quoted the words                   
  of a teacher whose newspaper article challenged this                         
  distortion of values:  "He stated, `It alarms me that                        
  veteran teachers aren't valued for stability and                             
  consistency.  Research clearly identifies a link between low                 
  teacher turnover and high student achievement.  Stability is                 
  even more paramount to success in Bush districts.  Instead                   
  of respecting these facts, we are regarded as a commodity                    
  with experience discounted.  Once we gain experience and                     
  added expertise, we're perceived as too expensive for                        
  teaching the future leaders of our state.  It is true that                   
  tenure offers job security for new teachers, but it also                     
  offers stability and continuity to a school and to a                         
  MS. DOUGLAS concluded by urging committee members to                         
  consider the long-range effects on all involved of changing                  
  tenure law. Along with copies of her written testimony she                   
  also offered copies of an article by a superintendent which                  
  discusses terminating incompetent teachers that are tenured                  
  teachers.  "And this," she noted, "is from the Phi Delta                     
  Kappa; it's an article that NEA has nothing to do with.  I                   
  would like to include that with my testimony if I could,                     
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that she certainly might.                            
  Number 539                                                                   
  JOHN WITTEVEEN, Superintendent of Schools, Kodiak School                     
  District, testified via teleconference in support of the                     
  removal of the peer review committee from the work draft of                  
  HB 84.  Mr. Witteveen characterized the peer review                          
  committee as cumbersome and said he felt this belief was                     
  shared by the school board association, the superintendents                  
  and the teacher's association.                                               
  MR. WITTEVEEN said that in terms of the extension of the                     
  length of tenure there were probably two issues being                        
  simultaneously argued.  He stated, "One is regarding the                     
  evaluation process itself, and whether or not you can                        
  effectively evaluate a non-tenured teacher in a two-year                     
  period.  I do believe that that needs to be extended and                     
  primarily because what we're faced with now is giving that                   
  non-tenured teacher plenty of notice that we've got some                     
  problems with them, which effectively cuts the two years                     
  down to probably a little over a year.  With a non-tenured                   
  teacher we put additional administrative observations into                   
  the program to make sure that we're not selectively trying                   
  to eliminate someone.  But it does force our time line down                  
  to much less than two years.                                                 
  "The second part of this is really based on the ability to                   
  manage a school district.  In times of declining revenues                    
  you can lay off non-tenured teachers, and so far, most                       
  districts' pools of non-tenured teachers seem to be                          
  sufficient to do that, but there are some districts in                       
  Alaska, the smaller districts, in particular, where when                     
  they're faced with cutbacks, they cannot effectively manage                  
  their program.  I think Lin Laughy pointed that out, where                   
  he could end up with a tenured senior P.E. teacher, and                      
  having to put that person into a regular classroom                           
  situation, which is not good for kids.  And I think most                     
  people would recognize that.  Extending the length of tenure                 
  down from the non-evaluation argument would lend more                        
  argument to the management of the system and where you would                 
  place people within the system."                                             
  MR. WITTEVEEN said he felt that parents and students also                    
  needed to be involved in the evaluation process for                          
  teachers; not with a peer review committee per se, but                       
  perhaps through optional opinion surveys, as employed by the                 
  Kodiak school district.  He concluded by restating his                       
  support for the removal of the peer review committee and the                 
  extension of the tenure period from the working draft of the                 
  HB 84.                                                                       
  REP. BUNDE said, "I would like to comment on what I guess I                  
  would call the `Carl Rose Amendment'.  I have reviewed                       
  tenure from personal experience, both as a public school                     
  teacher and a college teacher.  We're worked on this in the                  
  HESS Committee for well over a year now.  A considerable                     
  number of public hearings, a great deal of testimony.  And I                 
  suppose that I feel that I've fallen into the Ron Larsen                     
  syndrome of success.  If I've made everyone a little bit                     
  mad, I think I've been successful, at least up until this                    
  point.  I certainly don't dispute the need for tenure.  I                    
  think the Anchorage School District in recent history is an                  
  indication of what would happen if you had teaching become a                 
  popularity contest to please school districts.  In small                     
  school districts, every time the school board changed, you                   
  would have a change of teachers; if you didn't have any job                  
  security, I feel, it would become a popularity contest.                      
  "We have a problem with the current system.  It does not                     
  work.  You hear from the union representatives that it does                  
  work, but you talk to the PTAs and the parents, it is not                    
  working.  Even one poor teacher is too many.  The principals                 
  can't or won't evaluate properly, and we've heard a                          
  considerable amount of testimony to that; I mean, you look                   
  at principals, they are teachers who, for one reason or                      
  another, have left the classroom, and may indeed be burned                   
  out teachers themselves, coasting at another level.  They                    
  are not being able to do the job.  Hence, the need for the                   
  tenure review committee.  Now, people resist it, but people                  
  have resisted change since time immemorial.  How do they                     
  know it won't work?  They haven't tried it.  It's working at                 
  other educational levels, and working quite well.                            
  "One of the problems with the current bill before you is it                  
  doesn't address one of the biggest concerns, and that is,                    
  burnout.  Sure, someone can be an outstanding teacher.  But                  
  it's a demanding, exhausting job, and what happens ten or 15                 
  years down the road?  And how do you reevaluate these                        
  people?  There is a current law that allows people to be                     
  fired for a number of reasons.  How many people are fired?                   
  It's a very cumbersome project.  Look at the Anchorage                       
  School District.  How many people are fired for                              
  incompetence?  It seldom if ever happens.  Teaching has been                 
  calling itself a profession for as long as I've been related                 
  to it, and yet they refuse to do like other professions and                  
  have self-evaluation.  We have peer review in all other                      
  professions.  Why is teaching different?  I would really                     
  encourage you to address or seriously consider the idea of                   
  peer review and further review after tenure is granted.  And                 
  maybe you too can be successful in making everyone just a                    
  little bit angry."                                                           
  Number 647                                                                   
  MARY RUBADEAU, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula                     
  Borough School District (KPBSD), testified via                               
  teleconference from Soldotna in support of the school grants                 
  section in the first part of HB 84.  She called the school                   
  improvement grants critical to "positive change and                          
  initiatives for school improvement...  In Alaska, we                         
  appreciate those grants and would like to see them continue                  
  to be supported."                                                            
  MS. RUBADEAU also expressed support for the removal of the                   
  peer review committee from the "D" of the legislation                        
  because that process seemed cumbersome, and she praised the                  
  expansion of the probationary period for tenure.  She termed                 
  the tenure discussion as being an argument, not over tenure                  
  itself, but rather of timeliness, and remarked on the                        
  reality of a two-year probationary period; not two years at                  
  all, she said, but between 13 and 18 months before a                         
  decision must be made.  Ms. Rubadeau underscored the need                    
  for sufficient time "to do thorough evaluation and                           
  supervision" and expressed appreciation for the possibility                  
  of this afforded by the proposed legislation.                                
  Number 682                                                                   
  FORREST OLEMAUN, board member, North Slope Borough School                    
  District, testified via teleconference from Barrow in favor                  
  of the excision of teacher tenure law from Alaska statues.                   
  He read aloud the resolution passed by the North Slope                       
  Borough School District calling for the elimination of such                  
  laws.  The resolution termed tenure a costly and obsolete                    
  process in an age of collective bargaining protections.                      
  Number 708                                                                   
  ROBERT GIGLER testified via teleconference from Anchorage in                 
  opposition to HB 84.  Mr. Gigler cautioned against the                       
  advent of a New World Order with one government, one                         
  religion, one currency, one educational system and the mind                  
  control of children.                                                         
  Number 743                                                                   
  ALEXANDER McFARLAND, President, Fairbanks Education                          
  Association, testified via teleconference in opposition to                   
  HB 84.  He said, "I wanted to start off by saying that in                    
  fact Mr. Bunde did make some people angry, myself included,                  
  when he suggested that `one poor teacher is too many,' which                 
  begs the question, `How many poor administrators are too                     
  many?'  I would like to start out by saying that nothing                     
  about this bill in regards to tenure suggests that real                      
  improvement in the quality of education will take place.  I                  
  think legislators are confusing public school teacher tenure                 
  with that of university professor tenure.  Teachers who are                  
  granted tenure are only assured of a job if their evaluation                 
  continues to be satisfactory.  Increasing the length of time                 
  it takes to achieve tenure does nothing to improve the                       
  evaluation process utilized by administrators.  In fact, it                  
  may even allow a teacher who should be counseled out of                      
  teaching in their first or second years to stay four years.                  
  "In our district, here in Fairbanks, if a teacher has an                     
  unsatisfactory evaluation, they are put on an improvement                    
  plan.  If they do not accomplish the goal of the improvement                 
  plan, they are released from their contract.  If the                         
  legislature really wanted to improve education it would                      
  require administrators to spend quality time in the                          
  classroom evaluating teacher performance in a responsible                    
  way.  I've been teaching in Fairbanks for 15 years, 13 in                    
  public school, and teachers everywhere are asking for real                   
  evaluations, ones that will help them improve their own                      
  performance in the classroom.  Instead, we get                               
  administrators that write things like, `You would improve                    
  your performance if you would do a better job planning for                   
  unplanned events.'  That was written on a teacher's                          
  evaluation this year.  Another administrator had to be asked                 
  to come in and observe a teacher by that very teacher and                    
  replied, `I don't have the time, but here's your evaluation                  
  anyway.'  In fact, in that same building, at least eight                     
  other teachers complained to me that they have yet to be                     
  observed or evaluated.  The deadline in Fairbanks is March                   
  1, and I spoke to them two days ago.                                         
  "When will the legislature impose upon administrators                        
  regulations that cause them to do their job of supervision                   
  and evaluation?  The plan before you only increases the time                 
  administrators have to not do their job.  If they did their                  
  job with the intensity that teachers teach, our teaching                     
  staff in this state would be first in the country.  The bill                 
  before you does nothing to increase the quality of education                 
  in this state.  In fact, with salaries around the country                    
  going up and ours decreasing, it will be harder than ever to                 
  lure quality teachers into this state.  This plan hampers                    
  the abilities of creative teachers and forces them to lower                  
  themselves to having to plead with administrators to keep                    
  their job."                                                                  
  MR. McFARLAND recommended adopting educational improvement                   
  measures such as those implemented by the state of                           
  Washington; for example, the assignment of a master teacher                  
  to every new teacher in a district to provide regular                        
  assistance and reflection on performance.  He said that Mr.                  
  Laughy and Mr. Witteveen had "pointed out the true purpose                   
  of this bill:  to allow districts to balance their                           
  budget..."   He concluded by urging opposition to HB 84                      
  whilst strongly encouraging "increasing evaluation of                        
  teachers on a more responsible level."                                       
  Number 793                                                                   
  SUE WILKIN, President, Fairbanks School Board, testified via                 
  teleconference in support of HB 84.  Ms. Wilkin stated,                      
  "Having been involved in education for many, many years, and                 
  having four children in the system, and having been involved                 
  in the issue of tenure over the years, and been a PTA                        
  president and council president and state school board                       
  member, [tenure] is certainly not a new subject.  As I have                  
  served on various national committees, it's always been                      
  interesting to me to compare what we do in statutes for                      
  teacher protection that other states do not do.  We probably                 
  have teachers that are the most protected group of public                    
  employees that I have ever known.  It is a management                        
  problem.  It's something that we need to deal with and the                   
  school board."                                                               
  MS. WILKIN agreed with the previous speaker that the current                 
  tenure system did not work and proposed better training of                   
  administrators in administering the evaluation process in a                  
  cohesive and fair manner, in order that administrators "do                   
  their job so that the teachers can do their jobs."  She                      
  proposed a simplification and extension of the tenure review                 
  process, reiterating that her school board supported the                     
  extension of the process to four years, and the elimination                  
  of a peer group review.                                                      
  Number 840                                                                   
  LAUREL JEFFORD, a parent, testified via teleconference from                  
  Anchorage regarding HB 84.  [Chronic noise in foreground                     
  made testimony difficult to hear.]  Ms. Jefford expressed                    
  concern about tenure and the possibility that teachers could                 
  need protection from the administrators of their own                         
  schools.  She voiced the hope that students would be                         
  nurtured and taught by parents to share the concerns of                      
  their school day with their parents, and that the parents of                 
  these children would in turn be heard and heeded by the                      
  schools as the parents expressed to them their children's                    
  needs.  Ms. Jefford hearkened back to her experiences as a                   
  high school student confronted with attempting to learn                      
  mathematics from an intoxicated teacher.  She urged                          
  responsible evaluation, training and retraining as needed by                 
  teachers to provide for the best education for children.                     
  TAPE 94-46, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  LUCILLE CLARK testified via teleconference from Anchorage in                 
  opposition to the proposed four-year tenure review plan.                     
  [Some text is missing due to abrupt tape transition.]  Ms.                   
  Clark asked, "Why subject the students to a bad teacher for                  
  a longer period of time?  I am now 62 years old and I                        
  understand very, very well that more time does not ensure                    
  quality.  I ask all administrators, all school board                         
  members, all teachers, why is it that you are afraid of the                  
  parents and the public?  It is because we see the problems                   
  more clearly than you.  Is it because we see them and it's                   
  not going to make us lose our jobs?"  Ms. Clark included in                  
  her testimony a request and recommendation that all                          
  legislation be prepared in a clearer and more orderly                        
  fashion so that issues might be presented without confusion.                 
  Number 066                                                                   
  STEVE McPHETRES, Alaska Council of School Administrators,                    
  testified in support of HB 84.  Mr. McPhetres praised the                    
  grants provided for in Section 1 of the bill for                             
  "...providing incentives which will promote the willingness                  
  to improve education.   We have reviewed the many projects                   
  funded this past year and find them to be innovative and                     
  exciting.  The creativity outlined in many of these projects                 
  clearly indicates the willingness of educators to seek                       
  better ways of delivering education to Alaska's children."                   
  MR. McPHETRES also lauded the extension of the tenure                        
  probation period to four years.  He stated, "If we are truly                 
  committed to providing the best and most qualified teachers                  
  to educate our Alaskan children, we must give them the time                  
  to develop their skills and talent.  Time must also be                       
  provided for schools to provide the guidance and evaluation                  
  to make sound administrative decisions.  We must consider                    
  the fundamental requirements for proficient teaching, which                  
  include, amongst others, a broad grounding in the liberal                    
  arts and sciences, knowledge of the subjects to be taught,                   
  the skills to be developed of the curricular arrangements                    
  and materials that organize and embody that content.                         
  Mastering all these areas of proficiency requires time,                      
  counseling and experience.  Those of us who have been in the                 
  profession for years can recall beginning teachers who have                  
  had difficult times during their first two years of                          
  teaching.  Yet, had they been given additional time to                       
  develop their skills, they would have turned into strong                     
  "Society is calling for change, yet change is so difficult                   
  within the existing structure.  Public education cannot                      
  continue to deliver the services we have for the past 25                     
  years.  If public education is to be a reflection of                         
  society, we must be accountable, and responsible, for the                    
  delivery of quality education.  This can be accomplished by                  
  allowing more time for the beginning teacher to become                       
  proficient and more time for the school district to provide                  
  the necessary assistance and observation to make sound                       
  decisions.  One of the major reforms that is taking place in                 
  Alaska today is within the revision of the requirements for                  
  teacher certification."                                                      
  MR. McPHETRES elaborated on this revision process, noting,                   
  "We cannot limit our reform to education to merely                           
  strengthening these entry level standards.  We must also                     
  provide an avenue for strengthening the profession.  One                     
  additional step in the reform process is the extension of                    
  the probationary period for the new teachers and teachers                    
  new to the districts of Alaska."                                             
  Number 157                                                                   
  BILL MUNROE, Education Support Worker, Mat-Su Borough School                 
  District and president of the local employees' association,                  
  testified in opposition to HB 84.  He stated, "There are a                   
  lot of things that I feel that are wrong with public                         
  education, but I know there are a lot of things that are                     
  right with it.  Tenure is an issue to me that is not going                   
  to make our kids better students.  It's not going to make                    
  our teachers better teachers.  When I think of tenure, I                     
  also think of seniority.  Do I feel like I need seniority,                   
  as a protection?  Yes, I feel like I need seniority as a                     
  protection.  I also feel like teachers need tenure as a                      
  protection, along those same lines.                                          
  "I asked a personnel director awhile back why evaluators                     
  tend to give rubber stamp evaluations to all of our                          
  employees, teachers included.  He told me that a lot of                      
  times teachers become friends with administrators, or the                    
  administrator or supervisor does not want to play the heavy                  
  and give somebody a poor evaluation.  I've seen this first                   
  hand.  I know it happens.  It happens in our association.                    
  It happens in the teachers' association.  I think if you                     
  lengthen this process from two to four years you're not                      
  going to be helping the matter.  I think the evaluators need                 
  to be tough.  I think they need to be fair, I think they                     
  need to be consistent.  If you could write a law to                          
  encourage them to be that way, it might help."                               
  Suggesting that laws often delineate problems without fixing                 
  them, MR. MUNROE recommended a shift of attitude instead.                    
  He said, "I think what's going to fix this problem is                        
  people's attitudes.  Most new employees when they come on                    
  are gung-ho.  They want to do a good job.  The question is,                  
  do they have the skills to do that job?  A lot of times they                 
  don't.  I think Claudia made a good point with the mentoring                 
  program.  I think it goes beyond that.  The teacher of the                   
  year, Matt Weaver, this year in the state of Alaska, is a                    
  dynamic individual that can motivate students to learn.  The                 
  way he does that is through his personal style and something                 
  that he thinks can be taught.  And maybe at the colleges, if                 
  they would take the time to teach teachers how to teach                      
  properly, we could address the real problem, which is that                   
  students aren't learning what they should be learning.  I                    
  would encourage you to look at the real problems rather than                 
  extending this tenure [review], and if you do extend tenure                  
  [review], I think you ought to make evaluations really                       
  tough, and fair and consistent.  I encourage you to do                       
  Number 232                                                                   
  SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey,                    
  Department of Education, testified regarding HB 84.  She                     
  said, "Throughout the Alaska 2000 Initiative, a cross-                       
  section of Alaskans met during 1992 to examine our school                    
  system and to make recommendations to the state board and to                 
  Governor Hickel -- ways to improve the quality of public                     
  education.  As introduced, House Bill 84 highlighted five of                 
  those proposals.  The committee substitute before you now                    
  has retained two of those concepts.  One of them deals with                  
  the Fund for the Improvement of School Performance.  This                    
  fund was established in 1990, but was not appropriated any                   
  money into the fund until last year.  So last year was the                   
  first year that the grants were awarded.  25 recipients from                 
  16 school districts were granted an award.  During the                       
  process of writing the regulations to implement the fund, it                 
  became obvious that there was a conflict in the definitions                  
  or how to implement it.  There was a cap of $50,000 and our                  
  attorney general felt that that cap should apply to the                      
  local school district.  The larger school districts did                      
  submit many proposals.  One district submitted 25 individual                 
  proposals.  All the proposals were ranked in order, but                      
  because of a cap of $50,000, some proposals that had more                    
  merit than others could not be awarded.  So the language                     
  before you now allows the department some flexibility in                     
  awarding those grants.  The proposed change in the tenure                    
  law to allow four years before granting tenure does address                  
  many of the concerns that were expressed during the Alaska                   
  2000 initiative.  And the Department of Education would                      
  support that change."                                                        
  REP. NORDLUND said, "Under the grant proposal, let me make                   
  sure I understand this now, you only award one grant per                     
  Number 287                                                                   
  MS. PETERSON replied, "No.  We could cap it at $50,000.  So                  
  several grants were awarded per district.  I do have a list                  
  of those also if you'd like.  But the grant, the way the                     
  language is written now, the $50,000 cap would be at each                    
  proposal.  So a school district, a larger district, if they                  
  had more proposals, in theory could be awarded more than                     
  Number 296                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND asked, "Does the department have any                           
  statistics on the number of tenured or non-tenured teachers                  
  that are not retained by school districts?  Can we get an                    
  idea of how many, how effective school districts are in                      
  making evaluations and getting rid of non-tenured teachers                   
  based on those evaluations?"                                                 
  MS. PETERSON stated, "I am not aware if the Department of                    
  Education keeps those statistics, but I can certainly check                  
  and get back with you."                                                      
  Number 307                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS said, "Just for the record, I want to say I                    
  appreciate your comments on the grant issues, because those                  
  grants are very, very effective and certainly worthwhile,                    
  especially with the smaller school districts.  I don't know                  
  about the larger ones.  They are very much appreciated."                     
  MS. PETERSON remarked,  "Yes.  We certainly got a great,                     
  tremendous response.  However, this year, there is no money                  
  in the budget.  But we're always hopeful."                                   
  REP. GREEN said, "You indicated that the department favored                  
  a four year review.  Do you have any comment on the peer                     
  Number 323                                                                   
  MS. PETERSON responded, "As the committee substitute came                    
  out of the HESS Committee, the department felt that it would                 
  be a very unworkable situation, and is cumbersome.  We would                 
  like to have some procedure in which parents could become                    
  involved in the evaluation process, and would encourage                      
  local school districts to set up a procedure where there is                  
  more public input in the evaluations.  But how the bill came                 
  out of HESS Committee, the Department of Education felt that                 
  there were quite a few problems with it."                                    
  Number 336                                                                   
  KARLA FEELEY, a former teacher, testified via teleconference                 
  from Anchorage in opposition to HB 84.  Ms. Feeley reviewed                  
  the concept of tenure from an historical perspective, saying                 
  that it had been introduced during the depression to                         
  introduce professionalism into the teaching profession.  She                 
  stated, "Policy makers then believed it was in the public's                  
  interest to protect teachers from being fired except for                     
  reasons that had to do with their performance as teachers.                   
  This is still good public policy today.  I know two non-                     
  tenured teachers in a district in Alaska who are losing                      
  their jobs for no apparent reason, except that the                           
  administration wants to shovel them out or hire someone                      
  cheaper.  I've observed the classrooms of these teachers.                    
  They are not only good, they are superior educators.                         
  Treating employees like so many disposable nuts and bolts is                 
  bad management policy in education, as well as in business,                  
  and it is a waste of taxpayers' money.  I've also seen non-                  
  tenured teachers whose jobs were threatened simply because                   
  they had the temerity to attend a public school board                        
  "Do legislators see the problem as bad teachers being                        
  allowed to achieve tenure?  If that's the concern, giving                    
  administrators who are not now doing their jobs evaluating                   
  teachers even more time not to do their jobs is not the                      
  answer, as Alexander McFarland said from Fairbanks.  I                       
  encourage you to mandate proper evaluation and help for                      
  beginning teachers so that the public can be assured that it                 
  is the good teachers who are staying and the poor teachers                   
  who are leaving our classrooms.  The legislature could                       
  certainly provide the opportunity for an additional year for                 
  improvement where there is doubt.                                            
  "And remember, tenure only protects teachers from summary                    
  dismissal.  Incompetent tenured teachers still can and                       
  should be dismissed under current law.  No teacher wants a                   
  bad teacher next door.  We want school principals to                         
  properly supervise and if necessary dismiss teachers while                   
  respecting teachers' rights to decent and fair treatment.  I                 
  urge you to adopt language ensuring proper evaluation and                    
  help for many teachers rather than extending the                             
  probationary period."                                                        
  Number 386                                                                   
  ROB PFISTERER, President, Anchorage Education Association,                   
  testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 84.  He                     
  expressed agreement with the previous speaker and stated,                    
  "Basically, the issue you need to address is adequate                        
  evaluation and quality staff development.  I think the idea                  
  of evaluating is an important concept in education; and                      
  administrators, if they would evaluate, have all the tools                   
  they need to determine whether a teacher is fulfilling their                 
  job qualifications and performance.  Right now the                           
  administrators have the power to eliminate bad teachers in a                 
  two year time period before they get tenure and after they                   
  get tenure.  There is nothing in the tenure law that                         
  protects incompetent teachers."                                              
  MR. PFISTERER asserted that the extended tenure process was                  
  being promoted by school boards and administration "...to                    
  allow school boards flexibility to cut staff, with no                        
  concern over whether they're doing their jobs adequately.                    
  It has nothing to do with better schools, but it does have                   
  to do with whether they can just fire at whim a person who                   
  may be a thorn in their side.  Tenure does not protect                       
  incompetent teachers.  It does protect academic freedom                      
  unhampered by attacks from school boards that have a                         
  political agenda."  Mr. Pfisterer refuted Rep. Bunde's                       
  assertions concerning the difficulty of terminating tenured                  
  teachers and said he had previously sent Rep. Bunde a letter                 
  on this issue, and would be glad to forward a copy to the                    
  Number 433                                                                   
  GUY STRINGHAM, President of the Dillingham Education                         
  Association and a teacher in the Dillingham City School                      
  District, testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
  84.  Mr. Stringham noted that he had also served as a                        
  principal and as a district administrator.  He reviewed the                  
  day's testimony and professed embarrassment at the                           
  characterizations of some aspects of careers in education.                   
  He restated a disconcerting proposition he had heard:  "If I                 
  understand some of the testimony I listened to, I heard an                   
  assistant superintendent of Kenai point out the colleges are                 
  failing in turning out administrators in that they are                       
  coming out incompetent in the area of evaluating employees,                  
  and that most of these are gravitating to the rural areas,                   
  and that in order to take care of that problem, we need to                   
  somehow extend or do away with tenure.                                       
  "I also heard Rep. Bunde indicate that in other professions                  
  this kind of evaluation process is a little different.  I                    
  agree with him.  It really is.  Because the bottom line in                   
  those professions in the private sector demands that there's                 
  competence and there's ability and that the employer                         
  representatives are required to either train people or to                    
  remove people.  And they do that rather well.  The training,                 
  however, the important ingredient, seems to be missing.                      
  "Collective bargaining law was pointed out as some way in                    
  which we have some kind of protection, but I believe, along                  
  with companion bill 84, you have other pieces of legislation                 
  right now that you're considering that would do away with my                 
  right to the courts if I undergo some arbitrary, capricious                  
  way of being handled by a school board or superintendent or                  
  other administrator..."  Mr. Stringham began very lightly to                 
  outline another companion piece of legislation but turned to                 
  what he felt was an essential facet of any discussion on                     
  MR. STRINGHAM concluded, "What we're really talking about, I                 
  believe, is the fact that a teacher is on probation every                    
  year of their teaching life.  If a teacher remains who                       
  should not, for one of the three golden reasons --                           
  immorality, incompetence or insubordination -- for more than                 
  one year, then you have an incompetent administrator, not an                 
  incompetent teacher."                                                        
  Number 480                                                                   
  BECKY CHAPEK, Cordova School Board, testified via                            
  teleconference in support of the "D" version of HB 84 and                    
  said, "First of all, thank you for the grants that exist in                  
  this bill.  They've been successful and we'd like to see                     
  them continue, even though I know funding gets to be a                       
  problem.  Also, I support the "D" version of this bill."                     
  Ms. Chapek praised the removal of the peer review committee                  
  from the legislation and also spoke in favor of the                          
  extension of the tenure probation period to four years.  She                 
  stated, "we certainly don't want to use this extended tenure                 
  time as a budget balancing tool...."                                         
  MS. CHAPEK referred to the Cordova School District and said,                 
  "We're in the bottom third of the state's starting pay                       
  scale.  Attracting good teachers to Cordova isn't easy to                    
  do, and it's not like we're waiting every time that a                        
  teacher is up for tenure, we just want to drop [that person]                 
  or we go out and find another one.  That's no picnic.  It                    
  doesn't benefit our district, our children, or our                           
  administration to engage in that sort of folly.  If a                        
  teacher is dissatisfied with their evaluation process, there                 
  is a union if they want to bring that up in negotiations,                    
  and I'm sure they will.  Our district is prepared to do more                 
  evaluations which will become necessary for a four year                      
  tenure situation.  Doing this extra work will save us a lot                  
  of heartache later, not only for the districts, but for the                  
  teachers and the students."                                                  
  MS. CHAPEK concluded, "In the past we have requested that                    
  non-tenured teachers continue to improve their classroom                     
  performance through further education.  And I just feel that                 
  we need an extension to this and I would encourage you to                    
  consider that."                                                              
  Number 535                                                                   
  VERNON MARSHALL, National Education Association - Alaska,                    
  testified in opposition to HB 84.  He said, "I hope I can                    
  offer, I had a kind of a prepared statement I'd like to                      
  offer, but then I thought, no, after hearing so much                         
  testimony I'd just like to offer a few comments.  I hope a                   
  goal here is not to, in a sense, to dump on employees.  You                  
  know, it's easy to go out and -- let's say, you're in the                    
  law enforcement business, or have been, that the problem                     
  with law enforcement is the police officer.  Or the problem                  
  with the military is the soldier.  Police officers,                          
  soldiers, teachers, state employees, work in systems.  And                   
  those systems must have rules or many things can happen to                   
  employees that are not good for the public policy.  I think                  
  it's easy to go out and be very critical of somebody else's                  
  profession."  He meditated on the realities of working                       
  within a system.                                                             
  MR. MARSHALL said, "I have had situations where                              
  administrators have encouraged me to change grades because                   
  some young fellow who earned an `F' wasn't going to be                       
  allowed to play Friday night on the football team.  Those                    
  are the realities of teaching.  That's why tenure in effect                  
  is needed.  Because, again, I didn't give the grade, the                     
  grade was earned.  Now we can go in and debate whether that                  
  student actually earned the grade or not, but again, I had                   
  the wherewithal and the information to do that.  I think it                  
  is a management problem.  I remember when I first taught                     
  school.  I was basically given a set of keys and told to go                  
  down to the second door to the left and I'll see you in                      
  about 180 days.  That was very little leadership.  I hate                    
  the teacher bashing, and I've heard a lot of teacher bashing                 
  "I would encourage you to pull the bill down, go back to the                 
  table, and talk about trying to develop a team that involves                 
  management and the instructors in terms of our effort to go                  
  out and create a good system that ensures that the kids of                   
  Alaska get the best education that we can possibly advance,                  
  for them."                                                                   
  MR. MARSHALL asserted a four year tenure probation process                   
  would delay a decision which should be achieved within two                   
  years and would not enhance the quality of the decision.  He                 
  reminded committee members that beginning teachers want very                 
  much to do a good job and to do this need timely guidance,                   
  direction and advice; to be apprised of the instructional                    
  goals of the school system and to benefit from staff                         
  MR. MARSHALL commended the concept of teacher mentors and                    
  noted that NEA-AK was working with the state university                      
  system to further improve the preparation of teachers for                    
  the classrooms of Alaska.  In closing, he called for                         
  legislation "...that's professionally sound, that ensures                    
  that our kids do get quality teachers and quality                            
  instruction, and that helps Alaska move into a new century                   
  and the new demands that we've got."                                         
  Number 657                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there was no time available for                   
  hearing testimony on other bills and stated that HB 420                      
  would be taken up on the following Monday at 1:30.  He also                  
  announced that the hearing on HB 84 would be continued                       
  because action had not been taken by the committee, although                 
  further testimony would not be taken.  The House Judiciary                   
  Standing Committee was then adjourned.                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects