Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2003 12:09 PM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
April 29, 2003
12:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act allowing persons to teach in the public schools for up
to five months without a teaching certificate if the person has
applied for a certificate and the application has not been acted
upon by the Department of Education and Early Development; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 136(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE:TEACHER CERTIFICATION DEADLINE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GATTO
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/03 0307 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/03 0307 (H) EDU, HES
04/17/03 (H) EDU AT 6:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/17/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/29/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN SWEENEY, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 136 and answered questions
from the members.
PAULA HARRISON, Director
Human and Resources and Labor Relations
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 136 and answered
questions from the members.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 12:09 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Seaton,
Ogg, Wolf, and Gara were present at the call to order.
Representatives Wilson and Kapsner arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 136-TEACHER CERTIFICATION DEADLINE
Number 0056
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 136, "An Act allowing persons to teach in the
public schools for up to five months without a teaching
certificate if the person has applied for a certificate and the
application has not been acted upon by the Department of
Education and Early Development; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR GATTO, sponsor of HB 136, explained that the purpose of
this bill is to provide an extension from three months to five
months for school districts to allow individuals to continue to
teach while they are awaiting their security clearance. He read
the following statement into the record [original punctuation
provided]:
Currently, teachers who are waiting to receive
certification, with all of their paperwork submitted
and approved in Juneau must wait until they are
cleared through a fingerprint check for final
certification. During the process they may teach for
up to three months. Unfortunately, three months is
very rarely enough time for teachers to receive
fingerprints. Often sending teachers out of the
classroom on leave without pay is the only option
available to a school district under statute when a
teacher waits more than three months on fingerprints.
The Department of Education has recently attempted to
address this problem by issuing conditional
certificates. Adding expense, a separate
certification, and a new process is less efficient
than this proposal. Extending the amount of time that
a teacher can be in the classroom teaching while
waiting on fingerprints from three months to five
months eliminates the need for a separate conditional
certification and resolves the problem of placing
teachers on leave without pay.
CHAIR GATTO announced that he is handing the gavel over to Vice
Chair Seaton, since he is the sponsor of the bill before the
committee.
Number 0238
VICE CHAIR SEATON announced for the record that Representative
Wilson has joined the committee.
CHAIR GATTO told the committee that in all fairness the
Anchorage School District does not have a position statement on
this bill because they have not had time to investigate the
issue. The National Education Association (NEA) has not taken a
position on it. However, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District has taken a position on it and there was someone on
line, but the connection was lost. If that person comes back on
line, it would be good if he/she were given the opportunity to
testify on the bill.
Number 0327
KEVIN SWEENEY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), testified
on HB 136 and answered questions from the members. He told the
committee that EED is working with Chair Gatto and Senator
Therriault on the issue of fingerprinting and obtaining
certification. Rather than putting this legislation forward,
the department would like to deal with this issue with the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) and those processing the
fingerprints. He believes that it is more beneficial to see
that the timeframe is shortened so the districts never have to
worry about going to five-month options, as opposed to just
admitting that there is a problem and allowing the timeframe to
get even longer, whereby there could be a teacher in a classroom
without having any idea of that person's criminal background
history.
MR. SWEENEY said he knows that Chair Gatto supports the
department's efforts and is looking for a way to solve the
problem when there is a teacher who must go on leave without pay
due to nothing he/she has done; it is unfair. The department
hopes to come up with a better solution by the end of the
session. The EED is working with the DPS. In fact, he'd spoken
with their administrative services manager today and will be
provided with a lot of information so the problem can be
properly addressed.
Number 0462
VICE CHAIR SEATON said in the sponsor statement it refers to the
department's issuing conditional permits as a way of dealing
with this problem. Is that currently the department's practice?
MR. SWEENEY replied that he is unsure of that. The process is
such that teachers apply for certification and the last thing
that is done is the fingerprinting. Once a teacher gives
his/her fingerprints for analysis, the teacher is given a three-
month temporary certification. Probably what the department has
tried to do in certain situations is if in three months the
fingerprints are not back, the teacher is given another three-
month temporary certification.
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked if there is any difference in the level
of security that the state has for a teacher who is on a
conditional permit and one that has been given an extension. He
said since a conditional permit has been given, it provides
districts with a comfort level. Does an extension to that
permit change the district's comfort level with that individual?
Number 0641
MR. SWEENEY responded that three months is tough enough to
swallow. In a perfect world the background check would be
instant and no one would have to worry about someone being in
the classroom without knowing, as well as possible with a
fingerprints check, that the individual does not have a criminal
background. It is critical when dealing with our children. Mr.
Sweeney said he has discussed this with teacher certification
folks and they have said that the longer someone is allowed in
the classroom, especially sexual predators, the more time these
individuals are allowed to groom their victim. He said going
from issuing a temporary certification from three to five months
really scares the department. Three months is really the lesser
of two evils.
Number 0669
PAULA HARRISON, Director, Human Resources and Labor Relations,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, testified in support
of HB 136 and answered questions from the members. The intent
in going from three to five months is basically due to the
Department of Public Safety's inability to complete the
background check in a timely manner. The conditional permits
that are being issued now cost a lot of money for the
department, instead of what was previously issued, which was a
yellow card that meant the teachers could be in the classroom
for 90 days. She assured the committee that the school district
does not hire and place in the classroom any teacher that they
have not done a thorough background investigation on. Ms.
Harrison told the committee that the district fingerprints all
the teachers in the district, even if they have been
fingerprinted through the certification process. That is their
requirement and that of many other school districts in the
state. The reality is, the fingerprints are not coming back
timely, and there is nothing the district can do. What happens
is that the district then has to take someone who has been in
the class for 90 days and tell them that person cannot be in the
classroom anymore. Then the district puts someone else in the
classroom until his or her certificate actually comes through.
Number 0788
MS. HARRISON said she is shocked that the EED has come out
against this bill. She said she has been one-on-one with every
certification director since 1997 about the problems the
district has in getting fingerprints back in a timely manner.
It would be helpful to have a conditional certification for five
months because all the districts are waiting for the
fingerprints to come back. She said in the rural districts it
does not matter when the fingerprints come back because the
teacher will remain in the classroom anyway. The larger
districts really try to comply with the letter of the law and it
puts districts in a difficult situation. For example, she said
that she has a school psychologist whose fingerprints have been
run seven or eight times because of her disability. She knows
she is never going to get a certificate, so Ms. Harrison said
she has put this woman in a different retirement system because
the district needs a school psychologist.
Number 0916
MS. HARRISON said that she strongly supports this legislation
because it is not about sexual predators, but about districts
trying to comply with the law. She assured the committee the
district is thoroughly checking references before hiring
teachers.
Number 0940
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked where in the certification process
the fingerprinting takes place.
MS. HARRISON responded that fingerprinting is part of the
application procedure with the state. No application is
accepted without everything in the packet being completed. One
part of that package is fingerprint cards. When the department
issues a card saying everything has been completed with the
exception of the fingerprint or criminal background check, that
card allows districts to go ahead and hire an individual to be
in the classroom for 90 days. Ms. Harrison told the committee
if a teacher were to send in an application for certification
without including fingerprint cards, the entire application
would be returned to that person. She said that when Matanuska-
Susitna Borough School District hires a teacher applicant,
fingerprinting is the very first thing the district does before
that teacher is in the classroom.
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked how long it takes for the district to
get the results back.
MS. HARRISON replied that they do not have as much time to get
them back as the department. Sometimes it can be as much as 120
days to get a response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). When the district calls with concerns, DPS is very
responsive. She said that the district sends their requests in
daily. They do not hold them until there is a group. The day
the district fingerprints the teacher applicant is the day it is
sent to DPS. Maybe that is the holdup in certification in the
EED. Perhaps they wait and batch them and send them in by
groups. There has been this battle since 1997, and the
districts cannot seem to get anywhere.
Number 1126
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that she can see this is a real
problem for many districts. In talking with a number of people
involved in the schools, she said she'd found what they would
prefer is that the processing time for fingerprinting be speeded
up, rather than extending the time a teacher can be in the
classroom without having a background check completed. Carol
Comeau of the Anchorage School District and Mary Francis of the
Association of School Administrators both have concerns about
this bill. Representative Wilson said all it would take is for
one child to be harmed because the legislature looked at the
wrong end in solving this problem and it would be a disaster.
She asked if anyone from the DPS is available to answer some
questions.
Number 1221
MR. SWEENEY told the committee that he has met with the
administrative services manager of the Department Public Safety
before coming to the meeting. She'd said she would provide him
with statistics and information so that the committee can digest
what is currently happening. He was told that DPS is
transitioning from a mix of manual and automated systems to a
fully automated system and they are expediting how long it
takes. The FBI's response time has improved because they are on
a fully automated system now. He was told if there is a
backlog, it is mostly a workload issue. While the
administrative services manager had explained that they are much
faster than a couple of years ago, she could not assure him that
fingerprint checks would be done in exactly three months or
exactly five months. In most cases where it takes an extremely
long period of time, it is because they are dealing with someone
who has had a record way back in the past and they have to dig
through records manually. Mr. Sweeney said he is hopeful there
will be more information soon, as the manager is working on this
issue today.
MR. SWEENEY clarified for the record that the EED recognizes
that there is a problem here and have been talking with Chair
Gatto's office about this. He said the department is fighting
this bill because they want to find the best possible solution
instead of taking just this one solution and running with it.
Mr. Sweeney told the committee he has committed to Chair Gatto's
and Senator Therriault's offices to work on a solution to this
problem that the department believes will protect children
better.
Number 1358
VICE CHAIR SEATON thanked Ms. Sweeney for his comments, but
reminded him that there are only 28 days left in the session and
that raises some concern for a speedy resolution to this
problem.
CHAIR GATTO commented that if DPS is able to speedup the process
for getting fingerprints and background checks back in two
months, then nothing in this bill would hinder the school
district in any way because they would be ahead of schedule.
The problem is that is not happening. He pointed out that with
the enormous amount of background checks which are done before
an individual is hired, if fingerprints did not exist,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District would still be
satisfied that their background checks would be sufficient to
protect the children in the classroom. He asked Ms. Harrison if
since 1997 there has ever been a fingerprint check come back
that nullified the background check the district had done. Has
any fingerprint check ever shown that the district had made an
error in judgment?.
MS. HARRISON said no, that has never happened since she began
work there in 1997. In that time, the district has hired over
800 teachers and it has never happened, not even once.
Number 1474
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Ms. Harrison why the school district
does fingerprinting on top of what the state does. Is there a
way to have only one entity do it so money could be saved?
MS. HARRISON replied that the school district requires it. The
prospective teachers pay for the fingerprinting. Everyone in
the district is fingerprinted, not just the teachers.
Custodians, secretaries, classified staff, substitutes, or
anyone that works in the school district must be fingerprinted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if there are benefits of double
fingerprinting.
MS. HARRISON responded that she does not know what the benefit
is to doing it or not. She said the school district gets back
absolutely everything on an individual. She is not sure what
the state gets back because there are about 300 different
classes of fingerprints and what information can be disseminated
and to whom. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District was
fingerprinting long before the state required it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Sweeney, if the districts are
doing fingerprinting and doing it faster than the state, whether
there is any way to change the rule so the state is not doing a
duplicate fingerprint. Could not the department piggyback on
what the school districts are doing?
Number 1583
MR. SWEENEY responded that he really does not know the answer to
that question. If the school districts are submitting
fingerprints, it is most likely going to the same organization
the department is submitting them to. He said he does not see
the results coming any faster from the district than when it
comes from the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that the legislature is being told
the state is spending too much money. The last time he had to
get his fingerprints checked it was expensive. He said if there
are two entities doing the check, it makes sense that only one
entity should do it. He said he thinks either the school
districts should refrain from it or the state should refrain.
It is an economy that should be taken advantage of somewhere.
MS. HARRISON interjected that some individuals get a teaching
certificate and may have it for six years before they are ever
hired. One of the advantages of the district's doing the
fingerprinting is that the check is very current when an
employee is hired versus someone who was certified years before.
Another point is that some teachers have never been
fingerprinted because they were grandfathered into the system.
Number 1680
VICE CHAIR SEATON said that there may be a difference in the
amount of information the state releases to a district. The
district may be looking for additional information beyond what
the state provides.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that her husband is a
superintendent of schools, so she has seen what he has gone
through when there is a hiring process going on. Not all
schools do fingerprinting because they know it is being done
through the Department of Education and Early Development. She
said it is wonderful that Ms. Harrison's district is so precise
in doing background checks. Representative Wilson commented
that there have been plenty of weekends that her husband has not
been home because he was following up on references for
prospective employees. He has mentioned that not all schools go
through that rigorous process that he does. Unfortunately, the
reality is that many schools are having such a hard time hiring
teachers that they are glad to get someone. If the committee
knew the scrutiny given every teacher was consistent, then this
bill would not be a concern. However, there definitely is no
consistency in hiring practices, so it is important to be
concerned about that.
Number 1791
VICE CHAIR SEATON mentioned Chair Gatto's point that if the law
were changed to allow teachers to remain in the classroom for up
to five months without a teaching certificate and the process of
getting the fingerprints back was speeded up, it would not leave
a teacher in the classroom longer if the fingerprints come back
in two or three months. Unless the committee is looking at five
months, the department is not going to try to push to get
fingerprints back earlier and it really will not have any effect
in the classroom without fingerprint checks' coming back as fast
as they can.
MR. SWEENEY responded that the director of administrative
services in the Department of Public Safety mentioned to him
that the fingerprints that take the longest amount of time to
get back are the ones for which they have found some sort of
criminal activity. The criminal activity was done a long time
ago, so it is necessary to go back through the records manually
and it takes much more time. So if that is the case, that
scares him, he said. For 99.5 percent of the people, the new
automated system will be streamlined and only take two months,
but it is the exception to that rule, the one with the criminal
history, who would be allowed to stay in the classroom for five
months, if that is indeed the case.
VICE CHAIR SEATON noted for the record that Representative
Kapsner joined the committee sometime ago.
Number 1918
CHAIR GATTO said this question is directed to Mr. Sweeney. He
used the analogy of an individual submitting a claim to an
insurance company to pay a medical bill. The company has a time
limit. If they do not meet that time limit, they are required
to send a letter advising they are late. For such a small
percentage of people, it would seem a simple process for the
districts to be sent a letter saying this individual continues
to be under investigation. This might be enough information for
the district to pull the person out of the classroom, watch that
individual, or do something. It is the other 99.5 percent that
he is thinking about. He said he has watched Ms. Harrison work.
She has a large district and a desk full of information and an
added responsibility for each of these new teachers.
CHAIR GATTO said the legislature's goal has been to streamline
government. There has been a small percentage that has been
missed. How about if DPS just passes on a small bit of
information that says the individual continues to be under
investigation? Then the district can take action on the very
small percentage of those people, rather than continually trying
to get conditional permits and occupying valuable time that
could be used for checking other teachers for other things. A
lot of the education funding has been taken away, and yet they
are expected to do more. This bill is a simple way of saying
that although the district is not getting money, there is some
relief. Hopefully, DPS could send a warning; even if it is
unmerited, at least it would be some protection for the
district.
VICE CHAIR SEATON commented that it is clear the department is
working expeditiously with DPS to speed up the fingerprinting
process, and with current homeland security issues, that is one
of the things that will be worked on. However, there is a time
lag here. Would a two-year sunset on the bill give the
department enough time to implement the faster fingerprinting
and paper relief for the districts for now? He asked Mr.
Sweeney if he sees that as a mechanism that might work.
MR. SWEENEY replied that he cannot speak to that now. If it is
the will of the committee to move this bill forward, he is not
here to stop that from happening. He said he wants to work
together to assure everyone's concerns are met. If that is the
end product, it is something the department would deal with. He
said this is just the first step for the bill and the discussion
between the sponsor and the department will continue. He said
everyone has the same end goal in mind and will work judiciously
to meet it.
Number 2131
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked Chair Gatto if a sunset provision would
take away some of the long-term worries that the department has
and allow time for DPS to upgrade their systems. He said he
believes that with homeland security taking on so much
importance, he believes that process will be automated. VICE
CHAIR SEATON asked Chair Gatto if he sees any harm in the bill
sunsetting.
CHAIR GATTO responded that he does not see a problem with a
conceptual amendment in sunsetting the bill because he would
like to see the bill move through the process as quickly as
possible. He said he believes there is enough support among the
districts for it.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed her concern with the bill, but
said she would be willing to vote to pass the bill from
committee and look at it again in the House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee. Representative Wilson
told the committee that she is concerned about the safety issue
and wants to hear from other school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF told the committee he has serious concerns
with the bill and cannot vote to pass the bill from committee.
He said it takes only one day to sexually molest a child and
this bill is asking for an additional 60 days.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he has a host of concerns about this
bill. He asked Mr. Sweeney if the teachers are being charged
for the fingerprinting for the state teaching certificate as
well as the school district's fee for fingerprinting.
MR. SWEENEY replied that there are a group of fees associated
with obtaining a teacher's certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that the state is
undercompensating teachers and in some cases making them pay
hundreds of dollars for extra fingerprints that are not needed.
He asked the committee if it would be possible to insert an
amendment in the bill that would say if a teacher has paid for
fingerprints in one jurisdiction from either the district or the
state within the last year, then it is not required for the
other. This seems like an incredible burden on teachers. He
asked Chair Gatto and Mr. Sweeney if they see any problem with
this kind of amendment.
Number 2289
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on what information
each entity doing the fingerprinting transmits to other
entities. He said the fingerprinting is done for a certain
reason at one agency. But is the legislature telling that
agency not only to certify that they did not find anything
within their provisions, but also to share all the information
obtained from the background check?
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that the most efficient system
would be to appoint one agency to be responsible to gather
fingerprints. The backup would be that if the district requires
information, the legislature could require that the state share
the information. Ideally, the state's background check should
be good enough that the school districts do not require the same
background check and teachers are not required to spend money
for additional fingerprinting.
Number 2351
CHAIR GATTO responded that this is really straying from the
purpose of the bill, but whatever the legislature says or does,
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District will require fresh
fingerprinting for every fresh applicant. He asked if Ms.
Harrison would confirm that this is correct.
MS. HARRISON replied that is correct.
CHAIR GATTO went on to tell the committee that the liability is
too great to permit that. He said that Representative Wolf
addressed that issue in his comment that it only takes one day
to sexually assault a child. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District will continue to do background checks, and the cost
will be charged to the applicant. He does not see a way out of
this. Chair Gatto said that he knows there are small districts
out there with one teacher and they are almost scared to lose
this teacher after three months and be forced to remove the
teacher from the classroom; so these districts will just choose
to violate the law and allow the teacher to continue teaching,
knowing that the district has already done a very significant
background check. He summarized his comments by reiterating Ms.
Harrison's statement that in all the years they have been hiring
teachers, not even one time has there been a problem. This
legislation satisfies the needs of the districts, he suggested.
Number 2429
VICE CHAIR SEATON ruled that Representative Gara's suggested
amendment is outside the scope of the title of the bill being
considered.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that in one of the school
districts she represents, someone failed the background check,
so it is not necessarily 100 percent.
CHAIR GATTO asked if the person's record was missed in the
background check, but was discovered in the fingerprinting
process.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that she does not know the
details behind the discovery.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented, in response to Vice Chair
Seaton's ruling against a possible amendment, that while the
amendment may not fit in the purview of the bill, it fits right
in the statutory provision and the committee can expand the
title if necessary.
VICE CHAIR SEATON responded that he does not believe the
legislature should be in the position of regulating a school
district, the state, and the FBI. The purview of this bill is
just talking about five months of teaching until the person gets
a certificate back, not what the school districts do to
accommodate their liability requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Ms. Harrison if it makes sense to have
one centralized fingerprinting system for new hires. He said he
would like her to consider this idea for another day. He also
asked if the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District is doing
a more detailed background check with their fingerprints than
the state.
MS. HARRISON responded that Alaska law determines the
information provided to the districts based on the fingerprint
check. The law also says what the Department of Education and
Early Development can get back. She told the committee that
information is not the same. Some small agencies like "Child
Find" do not get as much information as a school district does.
Districts get everything. She said she is not clear on what the
state gets back, but that she is sure there are some
restrictions on what they get back.
Number 2563
REPRESENTATIVE GARA told the committee he would leave the
centralized fingerprinting system issue to the administration
and ask them to look into this as an efficiency measure.
CHAIR GATTO commented that Representative Gara's choice is a
wise one, since the Alaska constitution requires single-subject
bills.
MR. SWEENEY said that the administration has made their position
known on this bill. He believes Chair Gatto will work with the
Department of Education and Early Development on this issue.
Number 2602
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked Chair Gatto if he would support a
conceptual amendment to insert a two-year sunset on this bill.
CHAIR GATTO responded that while he does not prefer it, in the
interest of moving the bill forward he will accept it. He asked
Ms. Harrison if she sees a problem with a sunset provision.
MS. HARRISON replied that she does not see a problem with the
sunset provision and believes this may help to get the
fingerprints and background checks back more quickly.
CHAIR GATTO stated that he would accept a conceptual amendment
for a two-year sunset on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked about possible inefficiency at the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) or the
Department of Public Safety. He asked if this is an example of
where the administration has cut staffing back too much. If the
school districts are having less difficulty getting information
back from the Department of Public Safety than the EED, then it
suggests that there is inefficiency within the EED. Is that the
case?
MR. SWEENEY responded that he is not sure that is the case. It
might be a question for Ms. Harrison. Does the district get the
fingerprint background check more quickely than the department?
Number 2705
MS. HARRISON told the committee she has the greatest respect for
EED and the certification analysts. She said they work very
hard, but are self-funded. They can only afford to hire as many
people as the funds they bring in support. The question would
be how often they send the fingerprint cards in. The district
sends the cards in on a daily basis. If the district
fingerprints one person today, that fingerprint card is sent in
the mail with a check to the Department of Public Safety. If
the department is batching them or only sending them once per
week or once every two weeks, that could be a problem. She said
her district is getting the information back more quickly than
the EED.
MR. SWEENEY commented that is something he will look into.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out if either department is
understaffed, then the legislature needs to know. The
legislature is in support of making efficiencies, but not at the
expense of causing a public danger. He said he will wait to
hear from the EED.
Number 2766
CHAIR GATTO moved to report CSHB 136 with a conceptual amendment
of a two-year sunset out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF objected to the motion.
VICE CHAIR SEATON stated for the record that while the committee
does not have the fiscal note before them, they have been
advised that it is a zero fiscal note.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Gara, Ogg,
Wilson, and Gatto voted in favor of reporting CSHB 136 from
committee. Representative Wolf voted against it. Therefore,
CSHB 136(EDU) was reported out of the House Special Committee on
Education by a vote of 5-1.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated for the record that she is voting
to move the bill to the next committee of referral and intends
on getting more answers to questions on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF commented that this bill is playing Russian
roulette with our kids. It is inappropriate to put a sexual
predator in our schools for even one day.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 12:53
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|