Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1994 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
April 6, 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
SB 160: "An Act relating to memorial scholarship loans."
HEARD AND HELD
SB 266: "An Act extending the termination date of the
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 521: "An Act relating to judicial review of decisions
of school boards relating to nonretention or
dismissal of teachers."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Aide
Sen. Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 160
DIANE BARRANS, Director
Student Financial Aid Programs
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7109
Phone: (907) 465-6740
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 488.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Aide
Sen. Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 266
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 160
SHORT TITLE: MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP LOANS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/12/93 769 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/12/93 769 (S) HES, FINANCE
03/31/93 (S) HES AT 01:45 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/31/93 (S) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/93 1025 (S) HES RPT 7DP
04/01/93 1025 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DOE, DPS)
01/24/94 2581 (S) FIN RPT 5DP
01/24/94 2581 (S) UPDATED ZERO FNS PUBLISHED
(DOE, DPS)
01/24/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
ROOM 518
01/24/94 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
01/26/94 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
01/26/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/15/94 2860 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/15
02/15/94 2860 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/15/94 2860 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
02/15/94 2860 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 160
02/15/94 2861 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1
02/15/94 2864 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/16/94 2412 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/16/94 2412 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/06/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 266
SHORT TITLE: DIRECT-ENTRY MIDWIVES/BD & PRACTICES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/28/94 2615 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/28/94 2615 (S) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
02/24/94 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/15/94 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/16/94 3239 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
03/16/94 3239 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB PUBLISHED
(DCED)
03/16/94 3239 (S) ZERO FN TO CS PUBLISHED
(S.L&C/DCED)
03/16/94 3250 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
03/21/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/21/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/24/94 3344 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/24/94
03/24/94 3349 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/24/94 3349 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/24/94 3349 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/24/94 3349 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
266(L&C)
03/24/94 3349 (S) PASSED Y16 N- E1 A3
03/24/94 3353 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/25/94 2959 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/25/94 2959 (H) HES
04/06/94 (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
03/22/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/30/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-64, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR TOOHEY called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m., noted
members present and announced the calendar. She brought SB
160 to the table.
SB 160 - MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP LOANS
TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Aide to Sen. Robin Taylor, Prime
Sponsor of SB 160, stated that legislation would modify
eligibility requirements for the Alaska State Trooper's
Michael Murphy Scholarship to include certificate programs.
He said the scholarship revolving loan fund established by
the legislature includes a provision allowing the
forgiveness of one-fifth of the loan indebtedness for each
one year period of full time employment in law enforcement
in Alaska. Department of Labor statistics show that 63% of
Sitka program graduates are currently employed in the state
as law enforcement personnel.
MR. OTNESS further stated that SB 160 has a zero fiscal note
and received unanimous support in the Senate. He asserted
that the bill would encourage Alaska students to seek
employment in Alaska. He urged support of the legislation.
Number 100
REP. BUNDE referred to the forgiveness program and the zero
fiscal note and asked if there could be forgiveness and a
zero fiscal note.
Number 105
MR. OTNESS said it did not sound logical to him and he did
not understand the discrepancy.
Number 117
REP. G. DAVIS indicated that zero fiscal notes are put forth
when there is no impact other than what has been funded in
the past. He said the legislation is not asking for
additional funding.
REP. BUNDE said that was not his understanding.
Number 149
CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the memorial scholarship program is
new.
REP. G. DAVIS said it is not a new program and it has been
funded in the past.
REP. OLBERG referred to the position paper from the
Department of Public Safety and indicated that the Michael
Murphy Scholarship is supported entirely by state employees
donating a day or more of annual leave per year to the fund.
MR. OTNESS added that private donations are also given.
Number 181
REP. BUNDE said his comments do not indicate that he is
opposed to the scholarship.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further testimony.
Number 185
DIANE BARRANS, Director, Student Financial Aid Programs,
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, testified in
support of SB 160. She stated that the scholarship program
is primarily funded by donations from state troopers, which
explains the zero fiscal note. She indicated that there is
a set amount of money that is made available to students
each year. She said the bill would expand the eligibility
pool to include the certificated students at the police
academy in Sitka.
Number 226
REP. G. DAVIS asked Ms. Barrans if there has been any
problems expending the money and indicated that the academy
is not a degree program.
MS. BARRANS said it is not a degree program. She indicated
that there are currently 30 borrowers in the history of the
program. She explained that there are up to four new
scholarship loans per year.
REP. BUNDE asked if the scholarship would be limited to the
Sitka program only.
MS. BARRANS said the legislation would include Sitka.
REP. BUNDE explained that he is a member of the
Postsecondary Education Commission and indicated that an
appeal was put forth on a student loan by a police officer
in Juneau. Rep. Bunde said the officer was in a certificate
program in another state and was unable to get the student
loan. He felt the legislation would address that situation.
Number 278
(Chair Toohey indicated that Reps. B. Davis, Kott, and Brice
arrived at 3:10 p.m.)
REP. VEZEY asked if the loan fund is capitalized by the
Department of Public Safety.
Number 280
MS. BARRANS replied that it can be funded by any state
employee. She indicated that the Department of Public
Safety tends to donate most often.
REP. VEZEY asked if the scholarship program is funded by the
Department of Administration (DOA).
MS. BARRANS explained that the DOA is the mechanism through
which the leave time becomes dollars. She said by donating
leave, money goes into the scholarship loan fund.
Number 313
REP. VEZEY said if the program is really funded through the
DOA, leave time cannot be converted into dollars, citing
that either employees use leave time or lose it.
MS. BARRANS said to her knowledge leave time can be cashed
in depending on how much leave time has been accrued. She
explained that if a person has six weeks of leave, they are
allowed to cash in a certain amount of days of leave time
per year and receive it in a check.
REP. VEZEY said he thought leave time could only be cashed
in when an employee leaves their job.
MS. BARRANS said his interpretation was correct also.
REP. VEZEY asked if donating a day of leave time actually
means the employee worked a day and did not get paid.
MS. BARRANS said that was possible.
REP. VEZEY asked what other possibilities there were to
donate a day of leave time. He asserted that the employees
work but donate their leave.
MS. BARRANS said, "Or they would not have that leave
available to cash out when they either separate from the
state or choose to cash in leave."
REP. VEZEY asked how an employee would be entitled to a tax
deduction.
MS. BARRANS said she was unsure.
REP. BRICE indicated that staff can and legislators cannot
donate leave time.
Number 386
CHAIR TOOHEY said she also would like that answer and
indicated that she wanted to hold the bill.
REP. BRICE maintained that the bill is one of the most
uncomplicated bills that has come through the committee. He
said all the bill does is include certificated programs. He
indicated that the program is a very well established
funding mechanism that the state has been using for years.
He said, "It would be like me taking a day's salary and
writing the check for it and passing it out." He encouraged
the committee to pass the bill out.
Number 432
REP. VEZEY disagreed and said the employee never received
the money. He said that they are getting a tax deductible
contribution for donation of their time which clearly, under
IRS regulations, is not tax deductible. He further
explained that he would like an answer before passing the
bill out of committee.
REP. B. DAVIS asked where in the bill it states that the
leave time donation is tax deductible.
REP. OLBERG indicated that the a document in the bill packet
titled "Michael Murphy Memorial Scholarship Loan Fund"
addresses the concern.
REP. BRICE said, "It might be to write off the forgiveness.
I don't know."
Number 490
REP. VEZEY said he believed the DOA is not mandated to pay
employees for unused leave. He felt there was flexibility
for the DOA. He asked for clarification.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked Rep. Vezey if he would like to work with
the committee aide in a subcommittee to address the problem.
REP. OLBERG commended Chair Toohey's recommendation of a
subcommittee comprised of one staff member and one committee
member, citing the excellent use of time and energy.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further testimony. There was none.
REP. BRICE made a motion to pass SB 160 out of committee
with individual recommendations.
CHAIR TOOHEY indicated that it was her intent to hear
further testimony and table the bill until the
aforementioned concerns have been addressed.
Number 547
REP. B. DAVIS asked the origin of the document titled
"Michael Murphy Memorial Scholarship Loan Fund."
MR. OTNESS said he was unsure and would check into it.
REP. B. DAVIS indicated that the document says that the
statement "may" be used for income tax purposes. She
asserted that there is a difference between shall and may.
She further indicated that there are some donations that are
tax deductible and some that are not. She felt that Rep.
Vezey's concerns were irrelevant to the bill.
CHAIR TOOHEY said Rep. Vezey's concerns would be addressed
at a later date. She then brought SB 266 to the table.
SB 266 - DIRECT-ENTRY MIDWIVES/BOARD & PRACTICES
CHAIR TOOHEY said it was her intent to hear testimony, but
she did not want to pass the bill out that day.
Number 600
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Aide to Sen. Loren Leman,
Prime Sponsor of SB 266, stated that the bill was amended in
the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee and the title only
extends the termination date of the Board of Certified
Direct-Entry Midwives. She said the board would be extended
to June 30, 1998. She indicated that there was a zero
fiscal note and that there was a recommendation from the
Division of Legislative Audit to continue the board.
Number 613
CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were any questions. Hearing no
questions, she indicated that she would notify Ms. Kreitzer
of when SB 266 would be heard again. She then brought HB
521 to the table.
HB 521 - JUDICIAL REVIEW: TEACHER TENURE DECISIONS
REP. G. DAVIS said he would like to hear more history and
testimony on the bill. He felt that perhaps the bill should
be heard at a later time when there would be witness
testimony.
REP. OLBERG indicated that he was satisfied with the amount
of testimony heard previously.
(Chair Toohey took a brief at-ease from 3:24 p.m. to 3:31
p.m. Note: Chair Toohey passed the gavel to Rep. Bunde to
preside over the remainder of the meeting.)
Number 679
CHAIR BUNDE reminded the committee that HB 521 was before
the committee. He indicated that there was no public
testimony and asked the pleasure of the committee.
REP. TOOHEY made a motion to pass HB 521 out of committee
with individual recommendations.
CHAIR. BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
REP. KOTT asked if Chair Bunde would speak to his objection.
CHAIR BUNDE felt that the present system is adequate. He
explained that if a teacher is denied tenure they can ask
for an administrative hearing. At the hearing, the school
district brings their charges, the teachers bring their
defense, and if the teacher does not prevail, they can
request a trial. He asserted that court trials are
expensive and the school district does not always prevail.
He further explained that the districts are opposed to
spending approximately $50,000 in legal fees and to being
restricted to using the same information as heard in the
administrative hearing. He observed that the teacher would
be able to have one defense, see the weaknesses in the bill
of particulars, and then have a second defense. He
indicated that the legislation is supported by the
Association of School Administrators and the Association of
School Boards. He felt that the statute is not used very
often and cited that two districts testified that they each
had one in the past year.
REP. BUNDE further explained that a school district had
spent $60,000 in court, lost, and planned to appeal. He
contended that if the tenure review process had been handled
correctly, the case should never have gone to court. He
encouraged other members to offer their views.
REP. OLBERG listed a number of figures that reflected the
cost of de novo trials. He said the North Slope Borough
School spent $126,000 on a de novo trial, and another case
which involved preparation for trial and settlement
negotiations cost $29,000. He indicated that $59,500 was
finally paid in a settlement. He further indicated that
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, in one case,
has spent a total of $82,920, and in another scheduled for
trial in Superior Court the total cost to date is $112,930.
The Sitka School District spent $50,836 on a de novo trial
and appealed at the cost of $24,067. He asserted that
automatically granting a new trial to a non-tenured teacher
is "over-kill" on behalf of the teacher. Rep. Olberg
acknowledged the difficulties involved in terminating a
tenured teacher. He further stated that the provisions that
allow teachers to use all of the school board's information
at trial while the board is denied the same usage is
"ridiculous."
Number 804
CHAIR BUNDE attempted to correct Rep. Olberg by saying that
the bill addresses tenured teachers only. He then said it
was his understanding that the aforementioned examples
pertained to non-tenured teachers.
REP. OLBERG clarified that he was referring to tenured
teachers and maintained that the examples refer specifically
to tenured teachers.
REP. G. DAVIS asserted that non-tenured teachers currently
have no protection.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that he misunderstood some of the
testimony.
REP. OLBERG explained that a non-tenured teacher can also
sue the school district.
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged that there are procedures a school
board must follow to fire a tenured or non-tenured teacher.
He reiterated that the de novo trial procedure only pertains
to tenured teachers. He further indicated that only a few
examples had been mentioned from certain school districts
and there were more cases across the state.
Number 836
REP. G. DAVIS clarified the thrust of the legislation by
describing a scenario where a tenured teacher is found to be
acting nonprofessionally, which by law is grounds for
termination.
CHAIR BUNDE interjected that there are four specific grounds
for termination: gross insubordination, incompetence, moral
turpitude, and financial emergency.
REP. G. DAVIS indicated that sleeping in class would be
incompetence. He further related that the teacher files a
grievance and has his case heard before the school board.
The teacher hires an attorney, as does the school board, and
they undergo a process very similar to a court trial. He
then asked Chair Bunde if the entire school board is part of
the hearing and perhaps public participants.
CHAIR BUNDE said it was his understanding that only the
school board participates.
REP. G. DAVIS continued with his scenario by saying that the
school board upholds the decision of their administrators.
He pointed out that the need for de novo trial stems from
that juncture as the board will support the acts of their
administrators a majority of the time. He further explained
that the teacher would be granted a de novo trial in a
Superior Court if requested. He then indicated that the
school board is charged with defending themselves at an
additional cost level at a court trial. He asserted that HB
521 would deny the automatic right for all teachers to go to
a de novo trial, but would not preclude a civil proceeding.
He asked if other members had any details to add or
corrections to make to his scenario.
Number 911
REP. TOOHEY concurred. She further indicated that the money
saved by not going into de novo trials could be put back
into the schools. She declared her support of the bill.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that the money saved would go back to
administration and not to the classroom.
Number 915
REP. VEZEY said, to his understanding, the bill does apply
to non-tenured teachers and it also specifies that they
would not have the right to appeal an administrative
decision to the Superior Court. He felt the intent of the
bill is common sense thinking. He then pointed out that
under current law, if a teacher decides to appeal to the
court, all the previous testimony is "wiped out," and with
the de novo trial evidence and testimony is new. School
districts would have to bring prior witnesses back to the
location of the trial from outside the state, if need be,
and depositions would have to be taken over again. He
asserted that much redundant legal work is done. The
legislation would reduce the amount of money that has to be
spent preparing for trial. He said it did not eliminate the
right of an individual to an appeal trial. The legislation
provides that the school board would not have to rebuild the
case "from scratch." He further indicated that he knew of
no other system that automatically grants a de novo trial.
Number 995
CHAIR BUNDE summarized by saying that in any legal
proceeding there is always the right to appeal. He
explained that the teacher is fired by a superintendent, and
the school board, in almost every situation, must support
the decision of their administrator. He said, "You really
don't have the right of appeal at the school board level as
cleanly as you might have in other situations where the
board of directors is a little more removed, the school
board is a little more removed from the administration. So,
instead of a right of appeal, internally it really doesn't
exist until you've got a case or the school board, school
district, doesn't have a case, you go to the courts." He
indicated that teachers could still go through the courts in
a civil suit. He felt that the de novo trial offers more
protection to the teacher and exerts more pressure on the
school district. He felt the legislation was strictly a
cost saving measure.
Number 050
REP. TOOHEY stated that as a nurse she would not have the
option to spend $80,000 of a hospital's money to bring a
case to Superior Court.
CHAIR BUNDE interjected and said Rep. Toohey would be able
to go into civil proceedings.
REP. TOOHEY concurred.
Number 071
CHAIR BUNDE said the issue is not the suit, it is whether it
is de novo trial or not. He asked if the bill was going to
House State Affairs. He was informed that the bill would
continue on to House Judiciary. He asked for further
discussion. Hearing none, he then indicated that there had
been a motion and an objection and called for the vote to
pass HB 521 out of committee. Reps. Toohey, G. Davis,
Vezey, Kott, Olberg, and Nicholia voted Yea and Chair Bunde
voted Nay. Chair Bunde announced that HB 521 was so moved.
Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE
adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|