Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/18/1994 01:15 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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 services." 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 SHORT TITLE: REFERRALS INVOLVING DENTAL SERVICES 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 CONSENT 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 SHORT TITLE: IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS 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 2DNP 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 INTRODUCED-REFERRALS 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) 3/9/94 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, NORDLUND 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, B.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 CONSENT 04/15/94 3523 (H) OBJECTION TO ADVANCEMENT MOTION 04/15/94 3523 (H) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 4/18 CALENDAR 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, FINANCE 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, PHILLIPS 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, THERRIAULT 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, BROWN 04/15/94 3515 (H) AMENDMENT NO 2 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 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, KOTT 04/15/94 3519 (H) AM NO 1 TO AMENDMENT NO 6 BY MULDER 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 BUNDE/WITHDRAWN 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 PASSAGE 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 READING 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 ADOPTING 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 fees. 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 practitioner. 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. REP. NORDLUND, DR. ROBINSON, CHAIRMAN PORTER and REP. DAVIS 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 questions. 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 protectionism. 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 note." 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 review. 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 law. REP. NORDLUND asked if there existed a specific number evaluations required, or a specific time line for their completion. MR. ROSE said yes, but he didn't know what they were and suggested that Steve McPhetres might be able to provide an answer. REP. NORDLUND asked how the proposed four-year tenure evaluation plan would affect the number of evaluations to be done. 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 years. 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 testimony. 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 performance...." 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 committee. 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 concurred. 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 privilege." 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 later." 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 says." 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 years." Number 136 REP. DAVIDSON asked, "What is the problem then in measuring excellence?" 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 flexibility?" 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 curriculum." 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 Alaska." 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 community.'" 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, please." 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 educators. "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 that." 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 district?" 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 $50,000." 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 review?" 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 meeting. "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 committee. 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 tenure. 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 today. "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 development. 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 ADJOURNMENT 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.