Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/29/2000 10:10 AM House 253
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HB 253
April 29, 2000
10:10 a.m
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Co-Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Eric Croft
Senator Mike Miller, Co-Chair
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 253
"An Act relating to a school disciplinary and safety program; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CCS HB 253 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 253
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY AND SAFETY PROGRAM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/19/99 1653 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/19/99 1653 (H) HES
1/18/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
1/18/00 (H) Heard & Held
1/18/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
1/20/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
1/20/00 (H) Moved CSHB 253(HES) Out of Committee
1/20/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
1/21/00 1951 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 4DP
1/21/00 1952 (H) DP: GREEN, DYSON, COGHILL, WHITAKER
1/21/00 1952 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
1/21/00 1952 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER HES
1/21/00 1976 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WHITAKER
2/02/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
2/02/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/02/00 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
2/02/00 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
2/07/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
2/07/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/07/00 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/17/00 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
3/17/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/20/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/20/00 (H) Moved CSHB 253(JUD) Out of Committee
3/20/00 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/22/00 2644 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 1DP 4NR
3/22/00 2645 (H) DP: KOTT; NR: CROFT, GREEN, JAMES,
3/22/00 2645 (H) KERTTULA
3/22/00 2645 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/21/00
3/31/00 2803 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/31/00
3/31/00 2803 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/31/00 2804 (H) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/31/00 2804 (H) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 4/3
CALENDAR
4/03/00 2842 (H) READ THE THIRD TIME CSHB 253(JUD)
4/03/00 2842 (H) PASSED Y31 N6 E2 A1
4/03/00 2842 (H) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/03/00 2842 (H) JAMES NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/03/00 2846 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS, KOHRING, OGAN
4/04/00 2854 (H) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
4/04/00 2854 (H) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y33 N5 E2
4/04/00 2855 (H) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/04/00 2862 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SMALLEY, PHILLIPS,
4/04/00 2863 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
4/05/00 2868 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/05/00 2868 (S) HES
4/14/00 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
4/18/00 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
4/18/00 (S) Moved SCS(Hes) Out of Committee
4/18/00 (S) MINUTE(HES)
4/19/00 (S) RLS AT 10:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/19/00 (S) <Pending Referral>
4/19/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/20/00 3344 (S) HES RPT SCS 3DP 2NR SAME TITLE
4/20/00 3345 (S) DP: MILLER, PEARCE, PETE KELLY;
4/20/00 3345 (S) NR: WILKEN, ELTON
4/20/00 3345 (S) (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
4/21/00 3400 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 04/21/00
4/21/00 3413 (S) MOVED DOWN THE CALENDAR
4/21/00 3415 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/21/00 3415 (S) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HALFORD, WILKEN,
4/21/00 3415 (S) LEMAN, PHILLIPS, PETE KELLY, WARD,
4/21/00 3415 (S) HES SCS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/21/00 3415 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y18 N1 A1
4/21/00 3416 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/21/00 3416 (S) READ THE 3D TIME SCS CSHB 253(HES)AM
S
4/21/00 3417 (S) PASSED Y17 N2 A1
4/21/00 3417 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/21/00 3417 (S) HOFFMAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/24/00 3472 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/24/00 3473 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) AS AMENDED
4/25/00 3481 (H) HELD UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4/26/00 3542 (H) FAILED CONCUR (S) AM N39 E1
4/26/00 3543 (H) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
4/26/00 3543 (H) *DYSON, GREEN, CROFT
4/27/00 3545 (S) FAILED RECEDE (S) AM Y- N19 A1
4/27/00 3546 (S) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
4/27/00 3546 (S) *MILLER, LEMAN, ELTON
4/28/00 3570 (S) LIMITED POWER FREE CONFERENCE GRANTED
4/28/00 3604 (H) LIMITED POWERS FREE CONFERENCE
GRANTED
4/29/00 (H) 253 AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
4/29/00 (S) 253 AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
WES KELLER, Staff
to Representative Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information.
MIKE FORD, Legislative Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Terry Miller Legislative Office Building, Room 329
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided suggestions for language.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-1, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DYSON called the Conference Committee on HB 253 to
order. Members present at the call to order were Representatives
Dyson, Croft and Green and Senators Miller and Leman. Senator
Elton arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 253 - SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY AND SAFETY PROGRAM
CO-CHAIR DYSON announced that before the committee today is HOUSE
BILL NO. 253, "An Act relating to a school disciplinary and
safety program; and providing for an effective date." He also
announced that the committee had been granted limited powers of
free conference. He then turned the gavel over to Co-Chair
Miller.
CO-CHAIR MILLER requested that Representative Croft come forward.
Number 0038
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that there have discussions in regard
to accommodating the difference between schools and attendance
areas. He summarized that [the discussions had indicated] that
it should be a uniform policy across an attendance area, but with
input and periodic review from each school. This would focus on
the language on page 2, lines 13-15.
CO-CHAIR DYSON clarified that he didn't want to "saddle" the
individual school areas with developing [standards for student
behavior and safety], although he wanted them to have review and
input.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised then that the desire is to have the
individual school areas in on both the development and review.
CO-CHAIR DYSON specified his desire [for the individual school
areas] to have input on the development and periodic review.
Number 0160
CO-CHAIR MILLER suggested inserting another sentence after the
language, "developed and periodically reviewed, with the
collaboration of the members". This sentence could read, "The
plans developed by each attendance area must also be reviewed by
each individual school."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT questioned whether it [the standards for
student behavior and safety] is developed by the governing body
of the school board or by the attendance area. If it is
developed by the attendance area, he inquired as to the body of
the attendance area which would do this. He pointed out that the
school has a superintendent and the governing body has a board.
He, then, asked if in the intermediary anyone does this.
CO-CHAIR DYSON indicated no, not to his knowledge.
CO-CHAIR MILLER suggested the following language, "developed and
periodically reviewed with the collaboration of each school
within an attendance area".
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to who at each school would do this.
He surmised that Co-Chair Dyson is trying to get at parents,
teachers, and other responsible people perhaps from each school
in the attendance area. Senator Leman believes that a second
sentence would be appropriate.
CO-CHAIR MILLER, in response to Representative Croft, confirmed
that the committee has limited powers of free conference.
Therefore, language can be structured so long as it remains
germane.
Number 0303
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested rewriting the entire sentence
because it seems that two concepts are being married. He
clarified, "What we really mean is: the governing body does it,
it needs to be uniform across an attendance area and it needs to
have the input of the schools." Those seem to be three different
ideas that speak to three different levels, in one sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN interjected that [on page 2, line 13, after
"be",] "developed by the governing body" could be inserted.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Co-Chair Dyson if, with the language
"developed and periodically revised with the collaboration of",
one would understand that it is done by the governing body and
[the language] merely specifies who is allowed input. He said,
"It's really 'developed and periodically reviewed with the
collaboration of each school', but a new phrase that says, 'They
shall be uniform across attendance areas.'"
CO-CHAIR DYSON related his understanding, then, that on page 2,
line 14, the language "attendance area" would be replaced with
"school" and then continue with the language, "including parents,
teachers, and other persons responsible for the students at a
school". He, then, indicated that the following new sentence
could be inserted, "The standards for behavior and safety will be
consistent across attendance areas." Co-Chair Dyson clarified
that he was working from the Senate version, SCS CSHB 253(HES) am
S. He further indicated that the language, "each attendance
area" could be replaced with "each school" and then a new phrase
could be inserted such as, "Standards will be consistent for each
attendance area."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if he was missing part of the Senate's
concern or is the notion of uniformity...
Number 0505
CO-CHAIR MILLER explained that part of the Senate's concern was
that it may be too much work for each individual school to
develop these plans. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for
an entire attendance area to develop a plan. However, he
indicated that the Senate wanted, as he believes Co-Chair Dyson
desires, each individual school to review these plans.
SENATOR ELTON recalled the concern in the Senate Health,
Education & Social Services Committee [Senate HES] to be that it
would be difficult for the district to consolidate all the
individual plans in order to have something uniform enough
[across the district].
CO-CHAIR MILLER suggested on page 2, line 14, after the word
"members", insert "from each school within an attendance area".
He explained the need to utilize language that would gather
everyone from each school in an attendance area to develop a plan
for the attendance area while providing the ability for each
school to periodically review [that plan].
Number 0608
WES KELLER, Staff to Representative Dyson, Alaska State
Legislature, said that Senator Elton accurately described what
happened [in Senate HES]. However, there seems to be a
misconception because this [language] refers to the behavioral
standards not the plan. The plan is put together by the
governing body and the variable is the standard of behavior that
is established by each school.
CO-CHAIR DYSON indicated agreement with Mr. Keller. He pointed
out that the disciplinary policy is developed districtwide, which
is not changed. He specified, "All we're wanting is that the
schools to have input on the behavior and safety standards by
school." He surmised that the major concern from the districts
is the amount of work, although he indicated that any changes [in
the behavioral standards] between attendance areas would be
relatively minuscule. The desire is to allow some variation with
the behavior and safety standards within an attendance area while
the disciplinary policy should be districtwide.
SENATOR ELTON agreed and clarified that was the struggle: to not
have a series of mini-plans. The desire was to reach a district
plan and "attendance area" seemed to be a compromise. He
suggested that perhaps the language is being viewed in too
discrete a manner and perhaps lines 8-10, on page 2, also need to
be remembered. If that is taken into consideration, he indicated
that only lines 14 and 15 would be necessary because lines 8-10
say that it will be a district-governing body plan.
Number 0832
CO-CHAIR DYSON agreed that "they" can have input into the plan
and the plan is clearly done at the district level. However, the
standards are discussed on page 2, beginning with line 11. The
desire is for each school to have input in the development of the
standards. Co-Chair Dyson stated that the development of common
standards in an attendance area is acceptable. He restated
Representative Croft's suggestion to on page 2, the end of line
15, insert "The standards will be consistent for each attendance
area."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that Anchorage is one attendance
area and thus an individual school could not have a different
[behavioral and safety standard]. He noted that changing the
language such that [Anchorage's situation could be remedied]
would return to the discussion regarding the school versus the
attendance area. Representative Croft felt that Senator Miller's
distinction between 20 schools developing a plan that has to be
brought together or 20 schools at the table to develop a plan to
be appropriate because one results in chaos while the other
works. He inquired as to why paragraph (1) would allow different
standards in different attendance areas, but there cannot be
different standards in regard to paragraphs (2) and (3). He
pointed out that [the schools] in a district must have identical
policies for paragraphs (2)-(5), some of which seem to relate to
paragraph (1). He explained "In other words, I have different
attendance area standards of behavior, but identical standards of
what is a dangerous student across a district."
CO-CHAIR DYSON stated that perhaps the word "standards" on page
2, line 16, should be replaced with the word "policy." He
related his belief that [paragraph (2)] should be in the
disciplinary policy for the district.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised then, in regard to line 18, that
there can be different standards of behavior and safety, but once
those are violated there must be identical standards.
CO-CHAIR DYSON agreed that there [can be] a different
disciplinary standard.
MR. KELLER noted that Carl Rose has done much work on that as the
School Board Association has done much work with the terms
"policies" and "procedures." He related his understanding that
policies and procedures can be developed such that it
incorporates different behaviors and specific standards.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN emphasized that the aforementioned was one
of the major thrusts behind this legislation. He explained that
as long as it fell within the policies and procedures of the
school district it was alright; that had to be approved before
the year [began].
CO-CHAIR DYSON indicated agreement. He reiterated that the word
"standards" on line 16, page 2, is slightly confusing because it
is the disciplinary policy that is being discussed at that point
not the behavior standards.
Number 1084
MIKE FORD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said that he preferred
"policy" because it is a policy regarding when a teacher can act
and is not really a behavioral standard. The two terms are
easily confused because paragraph (1) discusses standards of
behavior and paragraph (2) uses the word "standards", although
"policy" would probably be more accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his understanding that "the program"
is what the governing body does and "standards" are what the
community has. He requested that Co-Chair Dyson define the
terms.
CO-CHAIR DYSON said that he believes that each district should,
does and wants to have standard disciplinary procedures and
policies. In his view, that should be districtwide.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised, then, that Co-Chair Dyson was
meaning that the words "procedures," "policies" and "programs"
are synonymous.
MR. FORD remarked that the word "program" has been of some
concern as it seems to give a little more latitude to the
governing body. He indicated that may be appropriate because
there may be things not on the list that they want to do.
Therefore, the use of the word "program" meant that "bells and
whistles" could be added, if so desired.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the words "procedures," "policies"
and "programs" are considered the same, "similar enough that
they're used in the same way as distinct from 'standards'?"
Number 1215
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that [on page 2] the word "standards"
appears on lines 22 and 27. Therefore, whatever the decision
perhaps an omnibus change would be appropriate.
MR. FORD said that one of the questions is in regard to the
difference between a "standard" and a "policy?" Often a
"standard" is a "policy" and vice versa. Therefore, he didn't
believe that [the use of either word] would make any difference
in some instances. However, if the intent is to have a different
meaning [for each word, then it would make a difference].
CO-CHAIR MILLER remarked that the discussion seems to be going a
little afar as the original discussion was in regard to who
should have the input.
MR. FORD commented that the "real essence" is in regard to how to
divide the workload, specifically in regard to what schools and
districts should be required to do. He noted that he has heard a
lot in regard to the district being overburdened if schools are
allowed to come up with their own plan because the district would
be left to reconcile all the individual plans. Although striking
a balance may not be easy, he liked the notion of having the
schools collaborate in the development. He surmised that
allowing the schools to have input should allow some
individuality in the program. The language could specify that
there could be differences or it could require that they be
consistent.
Number 1331
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT proposed that [on page 2,] lines 13 and 14
be changed such that it would read as follows: "standards
required under this paragraph must be uniform for each attendance
area developed and periodically reviewed with the collaboration
of members of each school, parents, ...".
CO-CHAIR MILLER indicated that [language] places each individual
school within the attendance area in the development of the plan.
SENATOR LEMAN returned to the issue of consistency across an
attendance area. In his current opinion, the committee may not
want to require [consistency across an attendance area] because
some school may want to have a slightly different policy. He
noted his agreement with not burdening the school with developing
this. However, he indicated the need to allow an addendum that
would say in addition to [the districtwide standards] one would
have to follow some [additional rules]. He expressed his
hesitancy with forcing a uniformity across an attendance area.
CO-CHAIR DYSON inquired as to the thoughts on inserting the
language, "The district may have consistency across attendance
area."
SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't mind it.
CO-CHAIR MILLER indicated, then, that the district would have the
choice as to whether it wanted to have the consistency across the
attendance area.
SENATOR ELTON remarked that he didn't believe anything in the
language prohibits a district from doing that.
SENATOR LEMAN said that he didn't disagree with Senator Elton's
assessment in regards to the current language. However, he
expressed the need to take care when requiring it in any new
language.
Number 1468
MR. FORD said if the concern is the desire to be consistent
between schools while allowing for variation, then the language
could relay that standards could be consistent in either the
district or the attendance area, except as allowed by the
district. Such language would allow variations to be installed
if approved by the district. In response to Co-Chair Miller, Mr.
Ford clarified that the language would read as follows:
"Standards required under this paragraph must be consistent in
the district, but with the approval of the district you could
allow for exceptions to that consistency."
SENATOR ELTON specified that the exception could be for a school
or an attendance area.
MR. FORD agreed. He believes [that language] allows one to
balance the uniformity provision with the exceptions.
CO-CHAIR DYSON stated that he wanted to leave the district in
control, and furthermore he didn't want to "give" on the issue of
requiring input from each school. He informed the committee that
[in his district] there are so called "ABC schools," which are
back to basics schools that may have more stringent dress codes,
et cetera.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT returned to Senator Elton's point that such
schools can already do that. He inquired as to what was in the
language that tied the district's hands before.
MR. FORD related his belief that this all flows from the idea of
consistency and how one desires to apply it. He acknowledged
that, at this point, the desire is not to require consistency
across schools and/or areas.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained, "We thought we did for a while
and now we decided we don't or I'm going to add language that
confirms that we're not. But I'm saying we could just go back to
when we didn't."
CO-CHAIR MILLER agreed that it may not preclude the district from
requiring whatever they want. However, adding language to that
effect provides more comfort to the Senate.
Number 1627
CO-CHAIR DYSON asked, then, if a new sentence could be added at
the end of line 15, on page 2. The sentence would read: "Each
individual school will participate in the development and
periodic review of the standards."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he believes it would be easier to
delete the reference to "attendance area" and replace it with the
word "school" and then insert the following: "The school
district may make the procedure uniform across the district
attendance areas or schools as they choose."
CO-CHAIR DYSON said that would work for him.
MR. KELLER pointed out that it leaves out the requirement for
each school to be involved in developing the discipline
standards.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that the committee is addressing
paragraph (1) on page 2.
CO-CHAIR MILLER specified that page 2, lines 14-15, would read:
"with the collaboration of members of each school, parents,
teachers, and other persons responsible for the students at a
school". He asked Representative Croft to provide the committee
with a rough idea of the proposed sentence to follow the language
on page 2, line 15.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT informed the committee that the sentence
would read: "The district may choose to apply the standards
across the district attendance area or for each school as they
choose."
MR. FORD offered the following language: "Standards applicable
to each school must be consistent in each district, except as
approved by the governing body."
CO-CHAIR MILLER suggested that Mr. Ford's language be amended by
inserting "or attendance area" after the word "district".
Therefore, the flexibility is evident.
MR. KELLER pointed out that now [the language] says that each
school board must do this with collaboration, which is different
than saying each school will do this. Therefore, he questioned
who would take the initiative.
CO-CHAIR MILLER said he believes the language now makes it the
responsibility of each school and then the district melds them
together. He pointed out that "they" may decide that there needs
to be a standard district within an attendance area and thus each
school would be approached when a nearby school has different
standards.
Number 1782
CO-CHAIR DYSON noted that he has a slight preference for
Representative Croft's language versus Mr. Ford's language. He
explained that Representative Croft's language said that "the
district may homogenize them by school, attendance area or
district." However, Mr. Ford's language has a slightly different
emphasis, which is based on a standard with exceptions.
MR. FORD stated his belief that districts would probably prefer a
consistency requirement as it would make their work load easier
and then they would deal with the exceptions.
SENATOR ELTON indicated that he preferred Mr. Ford's approach
because it specifies that consistency is the first goal, while
recognizing that there may be circumstances in attendance areas
or in different schools.
CO-CHAIR DYSON agreed with Senator Elton's comments. However, he
said, "I would have said our goal here is the community gets to
have input, ..., the teachers, the parents and the community gets
to have input." Therefore, when the teacher enforces the pre-
agreed upon standards he/she will be backed up because the
community has had input. Co-Chair Dyson emphasized that his
first goal is the community's input not the consistency, although
consistency will happen through the process and would be the
choice of the governing body.
SENATOR ELTON pointed out that paragraph (1) on page 2 outlines
just what Co-Chair Dyson refers to, the input from the different
communities.
Number 1887
MR. FORD read his suggested language again, which read as
follows: "Standards applicable to each school must be consistent
within the district or attendance area, except as approved by the
governing body." Mr. Ford understood Co-Chair Dyson to be
suggesting that [each school] "may be consistent."
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to why "must" would be desired. He
echoed earlier comments that much of this discussion is regarding
workload. He expressed the need to have something that is easily
developed because, frankly, most schools aren't going to spend a
lot of time at each school to develop this. Therefore, Senator
Leman preferred flexibility.
MR. FORD stated that his concern with using "may" is that it
implies that it may not be, which is where "we" were.
CO-CHAIR MILLER clarified, then, that the committee would
basically adopt the House's [paragraph (1) on page 2], except
changing the word "revised" to "reviewed" and thus the language
would read: "with the collaboration of members of each school,
parents, teachers, and other persons responsible for the students
at a school" and then Mr. Ford's suggested language would be
inserted. However, the issue regarding "shall" or "may" remains.
The word "may" allows flexibility for a district that doesn't
want to adopt standards.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that every school district would
probably have to take some action on this. Therefore, both his
sentence and Mr. Ford's sentence maintain local control with a
slightly different emphasis. He then turned to Senator Leman's
point regarding the amount of work "we" want the schools to do,
which one can't get around with technical drafting or word play
because part of the desire is for there to be some work done "on
the ground." He said, "Forcing them to have a conversation is
what they're not doing enough of now and that we want to force
them to do."
Number 2050
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if it is voluntary under the "may"
language. He posed a situation in which one [school] has some
bad [students] that it wants to handle differently and thus [the
school] should be prepared to show why it should be different.
Therefore, he asked why should [another school] be forced to do
the same.
SENATOR ELTON agreed and said that there is no way to enforce
individual schools or parents to be part of this. He noted that
in his community there are site counsels, some of which are
active and others that are not. It seems that the largest piece
of work will be the initial development and the reviews will be
relatively simple. Senator Elton applauded one of the purposes
of the bill in that the language, as it is now written, is
forcing a discussion.
CO-CHAIR DYSON commented that Co-Chair Miller's language arrives
at exactly the place "we" want to go while allowing community
input and the district the power to "massage" it. Co-Chair Dyson
noted his preference for the word "may".
Number 2134
MR. FORD interjected that he had a further suggestion, which he
read as follows: "The governing body may require standards
developed under this paragraph be consistent for all schools in
an attendance area or a district."
CO-CHAIR MILLER remarked that he believes that arrives at where
"we" want to go. Co-Chair Miller announced that [Mr. Ford's
language] takes care of Sec. [Alaska Statute] 14.33.120(1).
MR. KELLER pointed out the other area of concern, which can be
found on page 1, line 13, of SCS CSHB 253(HES) am S. He
explained that the House version used the words, "understood,
accepted, and upheld" while the Senate version used the word
"developed".
CO-CHAIR MILLER recalled much Senate debate on that point. He
also recalled that language change was due to Senator Elton's
amendment. He noted that he had recently received a letter from
Larry [Wiget], Anchorage School District. The district police in
Anchorage still have concern regarding the House language. The
fear is that [the language] could provide a heyday to an active
practitioner of the law. He inquired as to the definitions of
"accepted" and "understood."
MR. KELLER acknowledged that [difficulty], but pointed out that
this language is under the purpose which describes the goals of
an Act. He said that broader terms are used when describing the
goals of an Act. Mr. Keller noted that he too has spoken with
Mr. Wiget, who said that if assurance can be obtained regarding
that is not what is being done, then "they are with us,
verbally."
Number 2224
SENATOR ELTON said he understood that. However, if the House
language is used, then it would seem that a huge loophole is
being created. For example, if a student is disciplined, would
it be a defense to say that he/she didn't understand or accept
[the standard]. He questioned why one would give a person a
defense.
CO-CHAIR MILLER remarked that the Senate's language, "developed,"
is more inclusive and doesn't provide a loophole.
SENATOR ELTON said that the word that really was of concern in
the House language is "upheld."
MR. KELLER indicated agreement that the Senate's language,
"developed," does cover it.
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out the need to change the word "relating"
to "related" throughout the body of the bill. He acknowledged
that the title of the bill also includes the word "relating";
however, its use is directed by the constitution.
CO-CHAIR MILLER announced that [Mr. Ford] would draft a
[Conference Committee Substitute] and pass it around to all the
committee members.
Number 2332
CO-CHAIR DYSON moved that the committee adopt the [forthcoming]
Conference Committee [Substitute] and report. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Conference Committee on HB
253 was adjourned at 10:56 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|