Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 412: "An Act relating to facilities for the care of
children; to child placement agencies; to
maternity homes; to certain residential facilities
for adults; and to foster homes for adults; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HJR 54: Relating to medical savings account legislation.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 533: "An Act increasing the amount of local
contributions that may be made to a city or
borough school district under the foundation
formula; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 521: "An Act relating to judicial review of decisions
of school boards relating to nonretention or
dismissal of teachers."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
PAT O'BRIEN
Social Services Program Officer
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Phone: (907) 465-2145
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 412
DUANE GUILEY, Director
Division of Education Finance and Support Services
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2891
Position Statement: Testified on HB 533
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President
National Education Association/Alaska
114 Second St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-3090
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 521
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W. 11th St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-1083
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 521
LARRY WIGET
Legislative Liaison
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-3195
Phone: (907) 269-2255
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 521
(spoke via teleconference)
RICHARD SWARNER
Executive Director, Business Management
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
144 N. Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (907) 262-5846
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 521
(spoke via teleconference)
JIM SIMEROTH, Teacher
Kenai Middle School
811 Auk St. #5
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Phone: (907) 283-4896
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 521
(spoke via teleconference)
JOHN HOLST, Superintendent
Sitka School District
P.O. Box 179
Sitka, Alaska 99836
Phone: (907) 747-8622
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 521
(spoke via teleconference)
TOM EVERITT, Personnel Director
North Slope Borough School District
P.O. Box 169
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Phone: (907) 852-5311
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 521
(spoke via teleconference)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 412
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/28/94 2177 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/28/94 2178 (H) HES, FINANCE
01/28/94 2178 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 1/28/94
01/28/94 2178 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/14/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
BILL: HJR 54
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCT LEGIS
BILL VERSION: SSHJR 54
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,B.Davis
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/07/94 2282 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/07/94 2282 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/11/94 2742 (H) B.DAVIS WITHDREW AS PRIME
SPONSOR
03/11/94 2742 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS
03/11/94 2742 (H) KOTT WITHDREW AS FIRST COSPONSOR
03/11/94 2742 (H) PRIME SPONSOR: KOTT
03/18/94 2868 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/18/94 2868 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL
SERVICES
03/22/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 533
SHORT TITLE: ALLOWABLE LOCAL EFFORT FOR SCHOOL FUNDING
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/16/94 2835 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/16/94 2835 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/22/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 521
SHORT TITLE: JUDICIAL REVIEW:TEACHER TENURE DECISIONS
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/09/94 2683 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/09/94 2683 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/22/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-59, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR TOOHEY called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m., noted
members present and announced the calendar. She indicated
that there would be teleconference testimony beginning at
3:45 p.m. for HB 521. She brought HB 412 to the table.
HB 412 - COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES
CHAIR TOOHEY asked Pat O'Brien to testify.
Number 036
PAT O'BRIEN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Family and Youth Services (DFYS), Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), testified in support of HB 412. She
stated there had been amendments made to the legislation
including additional cross-references drafted by Terri
Lauterbach and the DHSS was comfortable with the legislation
as written. She offered to answer questions.
CHAIR TOOHEY indicated that the committee should have a copy
of the committee substitute (CS) dated 3/16/94 version E.
She then asked if there were any questions for Ms. O'Brien.
Number 100
REP. OLBERG asked if the legislation would save the state
money.
Number 101
MS. O'BRIEN explained that savings is the focus of the bill.
She stated that currently the DHSS has an overloaded
licensing staff that has difficulty meeting expected
standards for the ratio of licensors to the number of
facilities they license. She said the DHSS does not expect
to hire more staff, so the only option is to combine a
number of varying standards into the statute that will ease
the workload of the licensors. She further explained that
both private agencies that perform licensing and licensing
supervisors across the state support the effort as an
important efficiency measure.
REP. OLBERG asked if money will be saved because more people
will not be hired.
MS. O'BRIEN asserted that the DHSS will do more with the
same resources or less.
Number 143
REP. B. DAVIS asked if Chair Toohey wanted to hear further
testimony.
CHAIR TOOHEY said it was her intent to discuss the proposal
and move it out of committee.
REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to pass HB 412 out of committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no objections, declared that HB 412
was so moved. She then brought HJR 54 to the table.
HJR 54 - SUPPORT MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT LEGISLATION
Number 185
REP. KOTT made a motion to move the Sponsor Substitute for
HJR 54 out of committee with individual recommendations. He
stated that the joint resolution was a simple measure that
requests Congress to review the tax codes and to make minor
changes to support the medical account savings legislation.
He indicated that the medical savings account is like an IRA
account. He said the plan has been adopted in 15 other
states and has been very effective. He explained that
because the other states have income tax they are able to
offer some relief to those that offer a medical savings
program. He said Alaska does not have income tax and that
is why the legislation requests Congress to change their tax
codes accordingly.
Number 259
CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the legislation relates directly with
income tax.
REP. KOTT said it would be beneficial to receive the full
benefit of the resolution. He said for that to happen,
Congress must adjust the tax codes for those who use the
medical savings accounts. He said Alaska needs tax deferral
status. He explained that because the account is similar to
an IRA account there would be a 10% penalty for taking money
from the account if the funds are not used for medical
purposes.
(Chair Toohey stated for the record that Rep. G. Davis
arrived at 3:08 p.m., Representatives Brice and Nicholia
arrived at 3:10 p.m., and Representative B. Davis arrived at
3:05 p.m.)
Number 316
REP. VEZEY stated that the resolve of the resolution would
be one of the most important steps in health care. He urged
the committee to support the resolution.
REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to move the sponsor substitute
for HJR 54 out of committee with individual recommendations
and attached zero fiscal note.
CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no objections, indicated that SSHJR 54
was so moved. She then took an at-ease from 3:14 p.m. to
3:16 p.m.
Number 359
CHAIR TOOHEY brought HB 533 to the table and said it was not
her intent to move the bill out of committee that day. She
asked Duane Guiley to come forward to answer questions.
HB 533 - ALLOWABLE EFFORT FOR SCHOOL FUNDING
DUANE GUILEY, Director, Division of Education Finance and
Support Services, Department of Education, testified on HB
533. He stated that the legislation would provide an
opportunity for districts to assist in the budget process of
running schools with locally contributed dollars without
putting additional burden on the state of Alaska. He
indicated that under current state statute, the maximum
amount that a district can contribute is 23% of the current
year's basic need as adjusted for the actual appropriation,
or the prorated dollar amount of basic need.
MR. GUILEY indicated that the reason for the cap is so that
the state of Alaska stays in compliance with the federal
test, in order to recognize $43 million of federal impact
aid in the state formula. He maintained that the bill
proposes to raise the cap to the federal limit of 25%. He
explained that the actual local contribution is not known
until after the year is closed out and audits are received
by the Department of Education (DOE). At that time, the DOE
calculates the actual disparity amount and makes adjustments
to school district's total state aid. He indicated that the
DOE had just completed adjustments for the 1993 fiscal year
in the month of March 1994. He said if the limit is raised
to 25%, the state would be asking districts to retroactively
return any excess local contribution to the municipality or
borough after the year has ended and the money is expended.
MR. GUILEY further explained that in the past the cap has
been less than 23%. He said when the bill that created the
current foundation formula passed in 1987, the cap was 21%.
Based upon the request of local school districts, to raise
that cap to allow for additional contributions, the bill was
amended and raised to 23%. He indicated that if the cap is
raised to 25%, there is additional capacity provided to
districts throughout the state that would total $11,397,318.
He said, "That again is the amount of additional capacity
that would be afforded to local municipalities and boroughs,
additional contributions to the budget, and staying within
the 25% level."
Number 453
REP. B. DAVIS asked for clarification regarding
municipalities asking for rebates up to a certain amount.
MR. GUILEY explained that the disparity standard controls
the actual limit in order for the state to stay in
compliance with federal law. He said once the audits are
submitted, the process of confirming actual local revenues
begins. He indicated that prior to that time the DOA works
from the budgeted number. He said if a district actually
contributes more than they are allowed under law, the DOA
asks the district to refund local money.
REP. B. DAVIS said she understood.
Number 482
REP. BUNDE said he had heard that the 25% might cause some
concern regarding federal regulation. He asked Mr. Guiley
why 25% is a better level for the legislation.
MR. GUILEY indicated that under current statute, the cap is
at 23%. He said the DOE has already gone on record
supporting an increase to as high as 24% and have indicated
that under the current disparity calculation it is not
problematic in relation to the federal regulation. By
raising the limit to the full 25%, the state may be put in a
situation where districts would be asked to retroactively
return local dollars or put them out of compliance with
state statute which would keep them from receiving any state
aid.
MR. GUILEY further explained that the choice a local school
district has is to continue to receive the excess local
dollars and forfeit 100% of their state aid or give back a
minimal of excess local dollars that put them over the 25%
cap should the legislation pass. He pointed out the bar
graph schedule supplied in the committee bill packets and
explained that it demonstrates the effects of the cap. He
pointed out that the white bar indicates the four mill
minimum contribution. He explained that the three
exceptions to the rule are North Slope, Unalaska, and
Valdez. He said their four mill contribution exceeds 35% of
basic need and therefore a different cap applies to those
districts. He indicated that the shaded bar represents the
maximum allowable excess. He stated that the district of
Hoonah contributes absolutely all they can to their local
budget. He indicated that where there are black diamonds at
the top of shaded bars, it represents the districts that
would benefit from the legislation. He said those districts
could choose to assist their schools with a greater amount
of local contribution without fear of losing state aid.
Number 556
REP. BUNDE stated that he supported the bill as it would
encourage local support for school districts at a time when
the state has to do more with less. He said federal
regulation keeps the state from going beyond 25% and the
state should allow and encourage districts to come as close
to 25% as possible.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Guiley if the areas affected by the
legislation would have to vote on the issue or would it be
an automatic option.
MR. GUILEY indicated that if the revenue is available to a
municipality or borough, through their budgeting process
they would provide an amount requested by the local school
district. Under state statute, school districts must
provide their request to the municipality by April 1. He
said once the request is provided, the district has 30 days
to act on it through their budget process. He indicated
that the money may be available already to the local
municipality without an increase tax revenue or other
sources of revenue. If the money is not available, it might
result in additional tax increases through sales tax, bed
receipts, fish tax, federal forest receipts, or any other
source of revenue to meet the need if they have the desire.
Number 612
CHAIR TOOHEY stated for the record that she rescinded her
statement that the bill would not be moved out of committee
that day.
REP. G. DAVIS indicated that some local taxes need tax payer
approval and some assemblies and council have the authority
to raise taxes without voter approval. He said it depended
on what tax they want to obtain it from and how their
ordinances read.
REP. BUNDE observed that nothing in the proposal requires
local taxes to be raised. He said it allows those that
would like to assume more responsibility for their school
district to do so. He reminded the committee that the state
may not fully fund education this year and that local
municipalities could assume some of that responsibility if
they choose to do so.
Number 640
REP. NICHOLIA asked what type of impact the formula would
have on school districts, single sight school districts, and
REAAs in rural areas.
Number 645
MR. GUILEY stated that the proposal would provide an equal
opportunity for all organized municipalities and boroughs to
provide additional support to their school districts. He
said there is no opportunity for local contributions
regarding REAAs. He indicated that the state of Alaska
funds basic need at 100% in the case of REAAs without a
local contribution requirement.
REP. NICHOLIA asked what impact the legislation would have
on Galena or the Tanana city school district.
Number 671
MR. GUILEY directed the committee's attention to the
schedule included in the bill packets that indicates that
Galena could contribute an additional $14,756 at a 1%
increase which would be 24% total. He said under the
proposal Galena could contribute an additional $29,512 if
they are already at the cap. He said, currently, Galena is
not at the cap so they do have additional contribution
capacity within existing statute.
REP. NICHOLIA asked Mr. Guiley if he has been in contact
with Galena so they could comment on the formula.
MR. GUILEY responded he had not been in contact with any
specific district so that they might comment, but he
indicated that attached to the sponsor statement is a
schedule of what Galena currently contributes to the local
school district. He asserted that under the existing
statute, the total allowable excess is $360,000 over the
required local effort, giving a total allowable contribution
of $440,000 compared to the $253,000 that Galena currently
budgets. He said Galena may not benefit from the statute
because they are not currently contributing at the cap but
may find themselves in that situation in the future.
Number 711
REP. NICHOLIA stated that she had concerns regarding the
legislation. She indicated that HB 533 was first introduced
March 16, 1994, while she was attending a conference in
Fairbanks. She said she had not had time to speak to her
school districts about the bill.
Number 721
REP. BUNDE reiterated that the legislation does not require
local districts to do anything, it allows them to take
responsibility if they wish.
REP. VEZEY observed that there are not very many areas that
will be affected by the legislation.
MR. GUILEY clarified that the bill provides opportunity to
districts that have the desire to contribute more. He said,
"So those districts that are currently at the cap, or in the
event if we have proration, the cap is applied to the
prorated dollar amount. That would change the schedule
somewhat and more districts would find themselves closer to
that cap. So, especially in the event of proration, you may
find more districts than what are indicated here in the
position to take advantage of this legislation, should it
pass."
Number 758
REP. VEZEY asked if his observation is wrong, as he saw only
three or four communities currently that would benefit from
the bill.
MR. GUILEY said Rep. Vezey is correct. He stated that
historically Ketchikan, Kenai, Fairbanks, and Juneau have
been the four districts that have repeatedly contributed
very close to the cap.
REP. G. DAVIS offered to Rep. Vezey that the legislation
would allow those districts that are in "dire straits" to
gain more funding.
REP. B. DAVIS indicated that there may be only a few
districts at the cap currently, but in the future other
districts would have the opportunity to rise to that
maximum, especially if state funding is cut back. She said,
"Anchorage, for example, does not reach the cap that's set
by, we reach the artificial cap that we have in our city,
but not what's set here. But, that would give us an
opportunity to do it should there be a need to do it." She
reiterated that the legislation would be beneficial to other
districts in the future.
Number 805
REP. BUNDE made a motion to pass HB 533 out of committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
note.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were any objections.
REP. OLBERG objected.
CHAIR TOOHEY called for the vote. Reps. Toohey, Bunde, G.
Davis, Vezey, B. Davis, Nicholia, and Brice voted "Yea" and
Rep. Olberg voted "Nay." Chair Toohey declared that HB 533
was so moved.
(Chair Toohey handed the gavel over to Rep. Bunde to preside
over the remainder of the meeting.)
Number 845
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that there would be teleconference
testimony starting at 3:45 p.m.
(Chair Bunde took a brief at-ease from 3:30 until 3:45 p.m.
to accommodate teleconference testimony.)
CHAIR BUNDE reconvened at 3:45 p.m. He brought HB 521 to
the table and indicated that there would be teleconference
testimony.
HB 521 - JUDICIAL REVIEW: TEACHER TENURE DECISIONS
Number 866
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, National Education
Association/Alaska (NEA/AK), testified in Juneau in
opposition to HB 521. She stated the legislation would end
the right of a dismissed, tenured teacher to obtain a trial
de novo, or new trial, before a Superior Court judge and
would only be allowed to ask a judge to consider whether the
school board afforded the teacher due process. She further
indicated that a teacher's right to a jury trial would be
precluded.
MS. DOUGLAS indicated that in 1975 the Supreme Court stated,
"It is well known that the composition of many school boards
is not such as to endow them with fact-finding expertise in
matters of teacher nonretention." Also in 1977 the court
observed that, "There is no question that a judicial body,
often further removed from the political pressures involved
in teacher nonretention dispute, will provide more objective
perspective of the proceedings."
MS. DOUGLAS further indicated that the bill would require
judges to treat school board decisions in the same manner as
judges treat decisions of such neutral, expert agencies as
the Workers Compensation Board, the Professional Teaching
Practices Commission, the Board of Fisheries and the Board
of Game. She said those agencies are specialized bodies
which have the "fact-finding expertise" which the Supreme
Court has said school boards lack in matters of teacher
nonretention. She also asserted that it is nearly
impossible to obtain a fair hearing from school boards
because they often "rubber stamp" the recommendations of
administrators.
Number 929
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Douglas to leave her written testimony
with the committee secretary. He asked for testimony from
Carl Rose.
Number 938
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), testified in Juneau in support of HB 521. He
stated that he had provided the committee with a written
statement as well as correspondence from member districts.
He noted that during this time of financial difficulty the
state has to look at how it conducts business and the costs
that are incurred as result of decisions made. He stated
that dollars targeted for the classroom are being spent in
the legal arena regarding nonretention. He felt that if
there is any question regarding due process or lack thereof,
a Superior Court should examine the case.
MR. ROSE further indicated that if an objective review is
provided, and also a fair and impartial hearing is provided,
there should be no reason for a new trial. A record and a
body of knowledge is created at the local level regarding
the case. He said if that hearing is unsatisfactory to a
teacher, they have the right to request a new trial. The
facts of that hearing will be the basis upon which those
involved will prepare for a new trial. He felt the process
puts the school districts at a disadvantage, expenses
increase, and the burden of proof still lies with the school
district.
MR. ROSE asserted that the right to due process should be
protected by law. But, he said he had great concerns if a
case has to be retried after the facts have been brought
forth by a hearing process.
MR. ROSE directed the committee's attention to information
included in the bill packets that relate various expenses
that some school districts have incurred as a result of de
novo trials. He reiterated that dollars should be going
into the classrooms and not being diverted to pay for legal
fees.
Number 014
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Rose if he felt school boards rubber
stamp the recommendations of their administrators.
MR. ROSE replied that administrators are hired for certain
functions, including the recommending of nonretention in
appropriate situations, and school boards, more than likely,
will heed those recommendations. He further indicated that
school districts usually seek legal counsel during the
hearing process before problems are created. He also stated
that he was aware of recommendations of nonretention that
have come forward from administration and subsequently have
not been taken under consideration by the local school
board.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the issue was more about money than
going to trial. He also said if the case is won in the
first trial, chances are the facts won't change in the
second trial and the district would prevail again.
Number 052
MR. ROSE indicated that money is an issue and also that the
burden of proof lies with the school district. He said,
"the burden of proof is on the school district. And, if you
go to two separate trials and you basically lay out your
strategy at a hearing level, safe to say that the opposition
gets to prepare a case for you and meet you in a separate,
new trial. I think there is a disadvantage. The school
board is bound, but they can't change the list of
particulars. When you state your list of particulars and
your reasons for nonretention, you can't change those."
MR. ROSE further indicated that there is a "chilling effect"
on administrators after a tremendous amount of money has
been spent and quite a bit of time has passed due to a de
novo trial and the district does not prevail. He stated
that administrators are fearful to pursue another
nonretention case for fear it will not "stick" over the
course of time.
Number 082
CHAIR BUNDE asked for teleconference testimony.
Number 083
LARRY WIGET, Legislative Liaison, Anchorage School District,
testified via teleconference in support of HB 521. He
stated that the testimony he was giving was provided by the
executive director of Labor Relations, Lee Wilson. He said
the current provisions of AS 14.20.205 grant Alaskan
teachers a measure of security unheard of in other
employment arenas. That security makes it very difficult
for the school districts to remove any teachers "whose
performance insults public expectations and inhibits student
growth."
MR. WIGET indicated that teachers who have been judged unfit
for duty by school boards, after lengthy and formal
evidential hearings, have the option to begin the process
all over again in Superior Court. He said the second trial
typically occurs more than a year after the hearing before
the school board, thus increasing the difficulty and cost of
securing testimony from witnesses who may be out of the
state or country. He stated that recently the Anchorage
school district first spent $20,000 to prevail before a
hearing officer and then was forced to expend an additional
$100,000 only to achieve the same result in Superior Court.
He further explained that all witnesses had to testify again
and that all arguments, all discovery, and all briefs were
recreated and submitted to the judge.
MR. WIGET asserted that HB 521 would protect teachers by
giving them access to court review of an administrative
judgement. He said in order for a decision made by a
hearing officer to be overturned by a court, the appealing
party is required to demonstrate that a substantial error in
fact or law was made, hence the burden of proof rests
clearly on the appellant. He further reiterated that HB 521
will prohibit completely unwarranted second evidentiary
proceedings in Superior Court.
TAPE 94-59, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for Mr. Wiget.
REP. TOOHEY, for clarification, asked Mr. Wiget if there is
no other collective bargaining unit in the state that allows
for a de novo trial.
MR. WIGET said it was his understanding that HB 521 would
put teachers on equal footing with other state represented
employees.
REP. TOOHEY felt that Mr. Wiget's position was reasonable.
Number 024
CHAIR BUNDE referred to the scenario Mr. Wiget spoke of
where a school district paid an additional $100,000 for a
new trial. He asked if the school district prevailed.
MR. WIGET said yes.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for teleconference testimony from Kenai.
Number 038
RICHARD SWARNER, Executive Director, Business Management,
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 521. He stated that the
Kenai school district had recently undergone a de novo trial
for nonretention of a tenured teacher at a cost of $74,000.
He indicated that the cost is an exorbitant yet "normal
price" for the additional process. He asserted if HB 521
had been law at the time of the second trial, the costs
would have totaled $20,000 to $25,000. He felt the
legislation would be a cost containment measure and would
maintain a teacher's right to due process. Mr. Swarner
further indicated that there are also additional costs
incurred as administrators must devote more time for
preparing for and participating in a de novo trial.
MR. SWARNER directed the committee's attention to a letter
in their bill packets from SHARON RADTKE, Executive
Director, Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, to CARL
ROSE. He said the correspondence further details the
testimony of Mr. Rose and Mr. Wiget. He strongly urged the
passage of HB 521.
CHAIR BUNDE asked, if the Kenai district had a more
effective tenure review process, would it have been
necessary to take the teacher to court?
MR. SWARNER said that was a difficult question to determine.
He said the district does not take teachers to court very
often. He indicated the last court case was in the early
1980's and the cost was approximately $50,000. He stated
that in the most recent court case, the district did not
prevail and asserted that they would take the case to the
Supreme Court which will cost another $20,000.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further testimony.
Number 131
JIM SIMEROTH, Teacher, Kenai Middle School, testified via
teleconference in opposition to HB 521. He stated that the
legislation would take away a basic right of a teacher to a
fair trial. He asserted that not all school boards are
unbiased in their decisions. Due process does not always
ensure fair treatment. He said if cost is an issue, it has
been his experience that costs incurred by a school district
are the result of some type of inadequate administrative
procedures.
Number 171
CHAIR BUNDE asked for testimony from Sitka.
Number 172
JOHN HOLST, Superintendent, Sitka School District, testified
via teleconference in support of HB 521. He stated that
those who are in opposition presume that there is a lack of
due process. He said, "that couldn't be further from the
truth." He indicated that there is no intention on the part
of any school board or administrator to "do away" with due
process provisions. Currently, the system is duplicative
and adds unwarranted costs to the process. He asserted that
no strength is added to due process by allowing de novo
trials. Due process is protected under HB 521 and any
teacher can ask a Superior Court judge to determine whether
or not their rights have been violated.
MR. HOLST said the Sitka School District is currently
involved in a case that has been remanded from the Supreme
Court back down to the Superior Court. The district thought
the case had been decided a few years ago. He indicated
that a letter included in the committee bill packets
outlines the costs to the district as well as their
insurance carrier.
MR. HOLST further stated that there are tremendous costs
involved in the initial development of a nonretention case
and that it can take up to 70% of an administrator's time.
He felt the protections afforded to tenure teachers under
current statute "are about as iron-clad as they could be
without even adding the de novo trial." He strongly urged
the passage of HB 521.
Number 261
CHAIR BUNDE said he assumed that Mr. Holst is not a teacher.
Number 262
MR. HOLST said he is the superintendent of the Sitka School
District.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for testimony from Barrow.
Number 265
TOM EVERITT, Personnel Director, North Slope Borough School
District, testified via teleconference in support of HB 521.
He stated that he had spent seven years in the Anchorage
School District as a director of labor relations handling
any type of case having to do with the dismissal of
teachers. He said he began a career in collective
bargaining in 1965 and understands due process from working
"both sides of the fence." He asserted that the legislation
in no way takes away teacher due process. He indicated that
the hearings held by school boards are very much like legal
proceedings where witnesses are sworn under oath and
testimony and legal representation is allowed. He said the
procedure is conducted exactly as if it were in a court
room. He said in the case of a de nova trial it is the
exact process again.
MR. EVERITT related a case that had just been completed
where the board brought a hearing officer to Barrow to
oversee the board as to ensure that the proceedings were
handled in "a very legal way." He said the hearing officer
wrote the decision for the board and the procedure was
conducted according to all legal processes. He indicated
that the case went to a de novo trial and the district's
expense was $126,000. The district is still awaiting the
decision. He guessed that whatever the decision will be,
the case will go to the Supreme Court.
MR. EVERITT supported the concept of a judge reviewing the
records of the hearing before the school board and
determining whether or not the process was carried out in a
proper and legal manner as to avoid the de novo trial
completely. He also supported the right to due process.
MR. EVERITT related another case where a teacher was
terminated for incompetence. He stated that $29,000 in
attorneys fees were spent in preparing for the case. He
then indicated that the insurance company which represented
the district settled with the teacher for just under
$60,000. He said the insurance company had just finished
paying $126,000 for the previous case and felt it would be
easier and cheaper to pay the teacher than to go through
another trial. He asserted that the district was fortunate
that it had insurance coverage, but indicated they fully
expect to be cancelled by the insurance company as a result
of two very large claims. He said the district now would be
wholly responsible for all legal expenses.
Number 389
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Everitt if he was related to John
Everitt.
MR. EVERITT said no and that he had never met him when he
was in the Anchorage school district.
Number 390
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further testimony. There was none.
He then indicated that there had not been enough testimony
from teachers on the issue. He said he would keep the
legislation under advisement until he ascertained the
general position of teachers.
Seeing no further business before the committee CHAIR BUNDE
adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|