Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/14/1996 02:12 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 14, 1996
2:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice, via teleconference
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 528
"An Act relating to applications for certificates of need and
licensing of nursing homes; amending the standard of review for
certificates of need for health care facilities in the state;
establishing a moratorium with respect to new applications by
prohibiting the issuance of a certificate of need or a license for
additional nursing home capacity in the state until July 1, 1998;
and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 528(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 452
"An Act relating to state foundation aid and supplementary state
aid for education; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 452(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 503
"An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund dividends."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 465
"An Act relating to employment of teachers and school
administrators and to public school collective bargaining."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26
Relating to creation of the Public Inebriate Task Force.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 512
"An Act establishing English as the common language and related to
the use of English in public records and at public meetings of
state agencies."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 451
"An Act prohibiting persons from receiving or attempting to receive
duplicate assistance; directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to establish a pilot project relating to identification of
recipients of public assistance; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 529
"An Act giving notice of and approving the entry into, and the
issuance of certificates of participation in, a lease-purchase
agreement for a centralized public health laboratory."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 535
"An Act relating to postsecondary education."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 528
SHORT TITLE: NURS.HOME MORATORIUM/CERTIFICATES OF NEED
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/26/96 2884 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/26/96 2884 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/07/96 (H) HES AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 452
SHORT TITLE: CALCULATION OF STATE AID TO EDUCATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/96 2541 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/26/96 2541 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/26/96 2541 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
01/26/96 2541 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 503
SHORT TITLE: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PFD'S TO NONPROFITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2726 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2726 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 465
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER EMPLOYMENT/PUB SCHL BARGAINING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/96 2606 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/02/96 2606 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
02/13/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM ELLIOTT, Acting Director
School Finance
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2891
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 452
EDDY JEANS, School Foundation
School Finance
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-8685
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 452
TIFFANY SARGENT, Staff Intern
to Representative Toohey
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 106
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3759
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 503
NANCI JONES, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0460
Telephone: (907) 465-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 503
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 465
MARILYN LEAHY, President
Valdez School Board
Box 689
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-7801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 465
MIKE WILEY
P.O. Box 618
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-5563
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 465
JIM SIMEROTH, President
Kenai Peninsula Education Association
P.O. Box 921
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4368
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 465
JOHN CYR, Teacher
Wasilla High School and
Vice President, NEA-Alaska
Box 2776
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-2015
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan Ivan
Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSHB 465
LARRY OUELLETTE, Special Education Teacher
Box 871431
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-1821
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 465
LUCY HOPE, President
Mat-Su Education Association
Box 870887
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-4776
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 465
PAM DARNELL
P.O. Box 55257
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-9703
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
KAREN LINDERMAN, Teacher
P.O. Box 10014
Fairbanks, Alaska 99710
Telephone: (907) 457-2446
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
JEAN KRAUSE, Retired Teacher
1333 Kuykendall
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 458-8212
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 465
KARLA FEELEY
10631 Republic Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 274-0536
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
BARBARA YOUNG
P.O. Box 772442
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 274-0536
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
JULIE BHEND
4809 East 6th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 338-5722
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
CHRISTIE SCALLEY
3705 Arctic, Number 280
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 345-2582
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 465
JANIE HILL, Teacher
P.O. Box 650
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
KRIS TIEONEY-SWORD, Teacher
P.O. Box 1128
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-4848
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
JOE JOSEPHSON, Attorney
880 H Street, Suite 205
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-0151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
LOUANNE WEYHRAUCH
Juneau, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 789-4725
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 465
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
RICHARD CROSS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
CHRIS BOONE, School Nurse
Anchorage School District
2321 Southview Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 248-2276
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
STEPHEN McPHETRES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 4th Street, Number 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 265-6556
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
RON FUHRER, Teacher
4106 Laron Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 337-1062
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS
NEA-Alaska, Inc.
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
MARKUS DOERRY, Teacher
P.O. Box 1181
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-4886
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
DEEDIE SORENSEN, Teacher
6903 Sunny Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-5651
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
ARLENE COGHILL, Teacher
P.O. Box 497
Nenana, Alaska 99760
Telephone: (907) 832-5432
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 465
GREG TURNER, Teacher
P.O. Box 210301
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Telephone: (907) 789-9379
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with CSHB 465
ROB PFISTERER, President
Anchorage Education Association
13210 Spendlove Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-2159
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
LARRY WIGET, Director
Government Relations
Anchorage School District
13411 Baywind Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 269-2255
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
NEA-Alaska, Inc.
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
VIRGIE FRYREAR
Superintendent of Schools
Hoonah School District
P.O. Box 360
Hoonah, Alaska 99829
Telephone: (907) 945-3663
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 465
DON OBERG
406 Rogers Road
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4233
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 465
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-26, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Bunde at 2:12 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Davis,
Robinson and Vezey. Representative Brice was present via
teleconference.
HB 528 - NURS.HOME MORATORIUM/CERTIFICATES OF NEED
Number 010
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY introduced a committee substitute which changed the
word "may" to "shall", instituted a moratorium on nursing home beds
and requested the group to appear before the legislature with
suggestions to facilitate further discussions.
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG arrived at 2:13 p.m.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any public testimony on HB 528.
Hearing none, public testimony was closed.
Number 135
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked if a decision is made to
institute another one-year moratorium following the study, would
that require another piece of legislation?
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY responded she wasn't sure.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it was his interpretation and certainly his
legislative intent that additional legislation would be required to
extend the moratorium.
Number 227
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said even though he was not particularly
happy with and did not agree with some of the Findings in the
committee substitute he would not argue the point. He believed
Representative Robinson's point was valid and people will have
different policy on whether the issue should be readdressed by the
legislature or should the department automatically be given two
years and force the legislature to intervene to reduce it. Of the
two policies, he favored the one included in the committee
substitute which would require the department to come before the
legislature again to request an extension.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass CSHB 528 out of committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON pointed out the committee substitute had
not been adopted by the committee.
Number 336
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY withdrew her motion and moved to adopt CSHB 528
(HES), Work Draft 9-LS1731\C, dated 3/13/96. Hearing no objection
it was so ordered.
Number 383
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass CSHB 528(HES) out of committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
HB 452 - CALCULATION OF STATE AID TO EDUCATION
Number 453
CO-CHAIR BUNDE explained that HB 452 addressed disparity funding
and funding for single site school districts. It included the
single site districts in part of the foundation formula, and
personally he would rather the single sites be addressed
individually. He pointed out he had an amendment that would take
the single sites out of HB 452 and allow them to be addressed
separately as they had been in the past.
Number 506
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to adopt Amendment 1, 9-GH2043\A.1, dated
3/8/96.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reiterated that Amendment 1 would remove the single
site funding and require the single sites to be funded as a
separate entity; essentially it would maintain the status quo.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if there was other legislation that
addressed this question specifically.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE replied no, it had been funded as part of the budget
in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS believed he heard that someone had considered
introducing legislation that would roll the single sites into the
foundation formula, which he certainly favored because of the
hassles every year with the foundation formula and then the single
sites. He felt it would be a simpler process to combine them, but
acknowledged there were differences in the structures,
pupil/teacher ratios, etc.
Number 715
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the committee could get the
department's reaction to the amendment.
Number 735
JIM ELLIOTT, Acting Director, School Finance, Department of
Education, introduced Eddy Jeans who administers the foundation
program.
Number 741
EDDY JEANS, School Foundation, School Finance, Department of
Education, testified it was the department's recommendation that
the section remain with the bill. The current foundation program
has been in place since 1988, and the single site school districts
have continued to receive supplemental allocations outside of the
formula, with the exception of one year. House Bill 452 places the
funding allocation within the parameters of the foundation formula.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the question is whether or not it should be in
the formula and this amendment would take it out of the formula.
Number 790
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE testified via teleconference from
Fairbanks in strong opposition to Amendment 1. He pointed out it
has always been a point of contention every year when education
funding was discussed. The drafters of the current formula
basically understood it would need to be addressed again and in his
opinion the sooner it is dealt with, the less contention there will
be regarding funding for the single sites.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated there were two ways to deal with the single
site issue. One would be to roll it into the formula and allow
these small, inefficient operations to continue. The second option
would be to eliminate single site schools. This amendment would
leave the option open.
Number 914
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed her intention to maintain her
objection. Every year the smaller school districts come before the
legislature to lobby for adequate funding, and she agreed with the
Department of Education that it was time to fix the problem once
and for all.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE repeated there were two ways to fix it: Make them
more efficient or throw money at them.
Number 953
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked for further explanation on Section 4
from a representative of the department.
MR. JEANS said Section 4 places a new table in the foundation
formula which increases the instructional units allotted to single
site school districts. It does not increase or decrease the number
of school districts in the state; it simply moves the funding
mechanism into the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commented from that standpoint some people
think there are some single site schools overly funded, while other
single site schools could use a little more money. Section 4 would
put the funding in statute, and would continue to be perceived as
over funded by some people.
MR. JEANS pointed out the table in HB 452 funds the same single
site districts that were funded through the legislature last year.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked how many school districts that included?
MR. JEANS said he believed it was 22 school districts.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that was 22 superintendents of schools
that were hired through this funding.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony. He said there was a motion
to adopt Amendment 1 and an objection had been raised. He asked
for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of Amendment 1 were
Representatives Vezey, Davis, Rokeberg, Toohey and Bunde. Voting
against the adoption of Amendment 1 were Representatives Brice and
Robinson.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected for a point of order. Discussion
ensued regarding Representative Brice's right to vote via
teleconference. HESS Committee Aide, Lynne Smith, informed the
committee that Legislative Legal had advised that a committee
member in attendance of a committee meeting via teleconference was
allowed to vote on amendments, but could not vote to pass a bill
out of committee.
Number 1127
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to pass CSHB 452(HES) out of committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing
no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 503 - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PFD'S TO NONPROFITS
Number 1175
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that he would turn the gavel over to Co-
Chair Toohey because HB 503 was his bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE, Sponsor, said he would present the bill and also
had an amendment for the committee's consideration. He stated
there had been previous attempts to place a check off on the
permanent funding dividend (PFD) application; however, it had
always resulted in numerous other requests and became unworkable.
Basically, HB 503 would allow an individual to make a contribution
by check off to a nonprofit corporation if the nonprofit meets the
threshold of 10,000 signatures. This bill would allow nonprofits,
who have at least 10,000 signatures of Alaskan residents, to
achieve status on the PFD application.
Number 1273
TIFFANY SARGENT, Staff Intern to Representative Toohey, presented
the following sponsor statement: "House Bill 503 would allow
nonprofit organizations that can get 10,000 signatures of permanent
fund dividend eligible individuals to be placed on a check off list
at the end of the permanent fund dividend application. That would
allow the applicant the opportunity to make a donation of $25, $50,
$100, $500 or the total amount of the dividend to the nonprofit
organization of their choice on the list. It also allows a
nonprofit organization the opportunity to appear in random order on
a yearly basis simply by providing proof of their existence to the
Department of Revenue, as requested. Subsection (d) stipulates
that a nonprofit organization convicted of a state or federal crime
cannot appear on the contribution list, which may deter them from
illegal operations."
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if an organization would remain on the check
off list every year or were they required to get 10,000 signatures
every year?
MS. SARGENT said an organization can appear every year simply by
providing proof of their existence. The Department of Revenue may
contact an organization, such as the Red Cross, by telephone to
ensure they are still in existence.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said an organization less well known than the Red
Cross would have to maintain their nonprofit status, and if
questioned by the department would be required to provide proof of
their nonprofit status. In order to maintain that status, the
organization cannot have committed any criminal acts.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she supported ideas that would get
money to nonprofit corporations, but she had some procedural
concerns. For example, who would determine if the 10,000
signatures were valid? She questioned if these individuals would
have to be registered voters.
MS. SARGENT replied that individuals have to be eligible permanent
fund dividend applicants. That means a 4-year old child who is
eligible for a permanent fund dividend could sign the petition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON repeated her question of who would
determine the validity of the 10,000 signatures.
MS. SARGENT responded it would be the Department of Revenue's
responsibility to ensure the 10,000 individuals meet the permanent
fund dividend eligibility requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why the decision was made to go with
each individual nonprofit instead of through larger nonprofit
organizations, like United Way for example.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE explained the problem in the past had been that 4800
nonprofit organizations requested a check off on the dividend
application and it became too burdensome and costly.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned what the result would be if all
4800 nonprofits got the 10,000 signatures.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded that was unlikely. In fact the concern
that had been voiced to him by some of the nonprofits is they
wouldn't be able to get 10,000 signatures. He explained the
threshold has to be set high enough so the program would be
manageable.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired about the nonprofits in rural
communities that don't have a population of 10,000. In her
opinion, this could be somewhat discriminatory to the smaller
organizations and small communities. She stated that United Way
funds almost all private nonprofits that qualify as nonprofit
organizations.
Number 1582
MS. SARGENT said that a number of groups had previously brought
that to her attention. The thinking is that smaller organizations
with similar interests could unite and form a larger group, thereby
making it possible to reach the 10,000 signatures.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE added that many of the agencies represented by the
United Way work statewide. For example, if the Boy Scouts
organization is on the list, their services are not limited to just
urban areas; they are statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to a situation where a statewide
organization had been convicted of a violation in one community and
asked how it would be determined that no contributions were sent to
the organization in that community.
MS. SARGENT pointed out that subsection (d) clearly stated that an
organization cannot appear on the contribution list if they are
convicted of a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt this would definitely have an impact on
the resources of nonprofits, either in volunteer resources where
individuals are volunteering to get the signatures or in money
resources where smaller nonprofit organizations in rural
communities would be contracting with an organization in Anchorage
for example, to obtain the necessary 10,000 signatures for a
predetermined cost per signature.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he couldn't imagine an organization getting
involved with the program if there wasn't going to be a net gain.
He viewed the program from the perspective that the nonprofit
organizations are not receiving money currently. Obviously, the
ideal situation would be for people to write a check to their
favorite nonprofit organization after receiving the permanent fund
dividend. It is also a fact of human nature that it is easier to
make a check mark on a dividend application than it is to remember
to send a check. This legislation allows a potential source of
income for nonprofits that does not exist previously.
Number 1836
NANCI JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department
of Revenue, testified in opposition to HB 503. She stated it does
not associate the cost with the deed. The fiscal note submitted
spells out the division's obligation to administer this program.
In 1986-89, the Olympic check off was included on the dividend
application, and was a very successful program because it was
administered by the Department of Administration. On the other
hand, HB 503 places the sole burden of the administration on the
permanent fund dividend division. The division would have to 1)
certify whether a nonprofit would be eligible for this program,
which would include sending out a questionnaire and petition to the
nonprofit, and then processing the questionnaire; 2) the division
would need to determine if the nonprofit was eligible because a
nonprofit registered in the state or incorporated as a nonprofit,
is not necessarily eligible to be a 501(c)(3) according to the
Internal Revenue Service; that is a separate registration
mechanism; and 3) contrary to previous testimony, the petitions
must be signed by adults, but the contributions could be made from
a child's dividend. According to the Department of Commerce &
Economic Development, there are 4,397 organized nonprofits in the
state. In 1994, the Fair Business Practices Section of the
Department of Law started a charitable contribution registry for
nonprofits in the state of Alaska. Due to the lack of funding,
they were unable to keep the registry current with addresses,
registrations, etc. She pointed out that every time the division
received a petition, at least 10,000 names would need to be data
captured and a tape match run with the dividend file.
MS. JONES pointed out that currently the options for the permanent
fund dividend are all or nothing. For example, the entire dividend
is deposited in the direct deposit program; the Advanced College
Tuition, a university sponsored program is 50 percent or the
balance remaining and; court ordered levies. Agencies like
postsecondary education provide the division with a computer tape
containing names and addresses of individuals which are matched
against the permanent dividend computer file. House Bill 503 would
require paper transactions versus tape transactions. The division
believes the donor should incur the cost to donate to the charity,
and the charity should absorb the cost of solicitation.
Number 2017
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the division's concern would be reduced if
there was a way to either pay the division or for the nonprofit to
present a certified list to the division.
MS. JONES responded the division's cost would certainly be reduced
if there wasn't a need to incur any computer time. She commented
the division sells the list of permanent fund dividend applicants,
so it is possible that a private company could do the tape match.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE guessed that for about $1,000 a company could verify
the list. He agreed with Ms. Jones' comment that the cost of the
check off should be borne by the nonprofit benefitting from it.
Co-Chair Bunde noted the fiscal note submitted by the division was
quite generous because the division was anticipating a great number
of participants. He asked Ms. Jones to estimate what the charges
would be to a nonprofit for the check off if there were only 25 or
50 participants.
MS. JONES directed the committee members' attention to the second
page of the fiscal note and said there were certain costs the
department would have to incur.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was the department's position that they
would have to send forms to people and solicit participation, or
that the forms would be sent upon request.
MS. JONES said the assumption was the forms would be sent upon
request. As far as the cost to the division she said the first
thing would be to create the forms. Following that would be the
collection process of a data entry program because there would be
various options: what amount did the applicant check off, determine
whether or not the individual was eligible to receive that much of
their dividend and if not, edit decisions would have to be made.
To establish the initial program the department would incur the
same amount of cost regardless of the number of participants. She
explained there is a request for an accounting clerk position to
handle the petitions and deal with the nonprofits. A data entry
clerk would be needed to enter the data. The other large cost is
contractual services for printing, postage, etc. The number of
nonprofit participants is uncertain, but currently one two-sided
page in the dividend package is $8,900. The requirement contained
in the bill for random order renumbering, would require
reprogramming every year and would increase the cost. The only
element that is cost allocated to the number of petitions received
is the data entry clerk. The number of nonprofit participants
would be a factor in the printing costs as well.
Number 2254
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how the division would determine if
a nonprofit had been convicted of a state or federal crime.
MS. JONES said aside from just asking a nonprofit on a registration
form, there would need to be some type of secondary checking
process.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON cited a hypothetical situation of the
Southeast Council with a chapter in various communities. The
Southeast Council obtains the required 10,000 signatures, but one
of the chapters has been convicted of a crime. She asked how that
situation would be handled by the division?
MS. JONES said her interpretation of HB 503 is that each individual
registered incorporated nonprofit has the right to petition. If
they work under one chapter or one charter, then they are
considered one chapter or one charter. Otherwise, it would be a
one-to-one relationship.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to move the amendment addressing
one of the concerns raised by the division, which states that if an
applicant checks off more money than they are receiving, the
application is thrown out. Also, he would like the committee to
review the letters of support from organizations and bring the bill
before the committee at a later date for further consideration.
TAPE 96-26, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Alaska had anything like a
501(c)(3) federal definition of nonprofit corporation in statute?
MS. JONES said not that she was aware. According to the Department
of Commerce & Economic Development it is a separate registration
process in order to be recognized by the Internal Revenue Service
as a nonprofit.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired if Alaska has a nonprofit
corporation classification?
MS. JONES responded yes. She explained that a corporation applies
to the state to do business within the state's boundaries. The
corporation papers, charter, organization by-laws, etc. are
submitted to the Department of Commerce & Economic Development.
The corporation is then registered as a corporation allowed to
conduct business in the state of Alaska. Whether the corporation
is for profit or nonprofit depends on their objective for creating
the corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if he was correct in saying there is
no such thing as a nonprofit corporation, there's only corporations
in Alaska.
MS. JONES responded no, there are nonprofits recognized because of
their objectives within the state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG verified it was based on the objective
given in the incorporation papers.
Number 066
CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved to adopt Amendment 1. Representative Brice
objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Co-Chair Bunde to verify he wasn't
referring to PFD applications being thrown out in his earlier
statement.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE confirmed that was the case.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were further objections. Hearing
none, Amendment 1 was adopted. She announced that HB 503 would be
held in committee.
HB 465 - TEACHER EMPLOYMENT/PUB SCHL BARGAINING
Number 138
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN, Sponsor, said he met with a group of
individuals, including representatives from the Association of
School Boards, Alaska PTA, NEA-Alaska and elementary and secondary
school principals on February 26 to discuss HB 465. The outcome
was that a number of recommendations were incorporated into the
current committee substitute which covers three main areas: 1)
teacher evaluation; 2) nonretention and evaluation; and 3) layoffs.
Number 255
MARILYN LEAHY, President, Valdez School Board, testified via
teleconference that she believed the sponsor and committee had
taken a good bill and turned it into an excellent bill; one that
challenges school districts to set high standards and gives school
boards the tools needed to achieve those standards. There are
three strengths she sees in the legislation. The first, is that
both community and teachers would be involved in setting the local
evaluation criteria and the public would have input to the
evaluation process itself. Another strength is the layoff
procedures are clarified and strengthened. If circumstances
require a school board to resort to this drastic measure, it can be
done without destroying the educational program. Rehire rights for
teachers that are vested, are also ensured. Finally, the change in
the dismissal proceedings takes into account the legal protection
for individuals that already exists as part of the obligation of
school board members. This legislation provides for the proper
oversight of school boards, but does so without attempting to
replace their authority. She believes the rights of the
individuals have been fully addressed by this legislation, and the
role of school board members as elected officials, has been
reinforced. In conclusion, it is her belief this bill strikes
exactly the right balance between the rights of the individual
employees and the needs of the citizens to establish and maintain
educational standards for each community. If passed, she believes
it will improve the quality of instruction, improve school board
accountability in the district, and cause everyone to raise their
expectations of what education in Alaska should be.
Number 345
MIKE WILEY testified via teleconference that he had served for six
years on the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District and has about
13 years of teaching experience. He believes this is a good bill
and had three areas to address which emphasized some good points.
He stated the language in Section 3 relating to school boards
considering information from students, parents, community members,
classroom teachers, and administrators in the design and periodic
review of the district's certificated employee evaluation system is
both appropriate and excellent. In Section 4, he supports the
three-year tenure right clause. It is his opinion, this would help
teachers as well as the general public and is a good compromise.
He supported the language change in Section 8, AS 14.20.175(b)(1)
from "failure, after imposition of a plan of improvement..." to
"failure, after implementation of a plan...." Also, he felt the de
novo concern had been addressed in Section 10.
Number 436
JIM SIMEROTH, President, Kenai Peninsula Education Association,
testified via teleconference that he represents approximately 710
tenured and nontenured teachers and has 32 years experience himself
in the classroom. There were a multitude of reasons why he thought
CSHB 465 would reduce education to a political morass and lower the
quality of education for children; instead he wanted to share one
of the situational cases that he dealt with this year as president.
There is a teacher with 17 years of experience in other districts,
who is in her second year in the Kenai Peninsula Borough School
District. She is nontenured, intelligent, very well educated and
dedicated to her students. No one questions her instructional
skills, the time she spends working on curriculum improvements, or
in helping children. She has developed and implemented a new
curriculum program that is followed throughout the district, is
professional in every sense of the word, and has never had anything
even resembling a bad evaluation. This year she got a new
principal, who recently became an administrator after teaching for
a couple of years. Last year he was transferred mid-year from his
original assignment to another school to finish out the year. This
year he came to the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District and
shortly into the year, he discovered he needed more time for
administrative duties and less for teaching, so he reassigned the
teachers and changed the curriculum model. Concerned parents
became upset and questioned the teacher as to why this was
happening. She told the parents and the principal perceived that
as nonsupportive, gave her an unsatisfactory evaluation and placed
her on a plan for improvement. The gist of that plan for
improvement simply stated that 1) she had to display enthusiasm for
activities when suggested by someone else, meaning the principal,
with 100 percent accountability; 2) she would reduce inappropriate
communication with school visitors, staff, parents and community,
which obviously meant don't tell the parents anything about how
decisions were made in the school; and 3) she would show support
and respect to the principal during the time of formal and informal
settings on and off campus 100 percent of the time. He asked if
this teacher was supposed to support and respect this principal
even when he might not deserve that support and respect? He stated
the whole point is that a very outstanding and dedicated teacher is
likely to be gone from their school district. He believed that
CSHB 465 if enacted, would create this scenario for every hard
working, confident and dedicated teacher in the state of Alaska.
He urged the committee not to pass CSHB 465.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the school board didn't ultimately hire and
fire teachers.
MR. SIMEROTH replied certainly.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that if this teacher loses her job, it
would be a school board decision, not the principal's decision.
MR. SIMEROTH thought that would be the case.
Number 641
JOHN CYR, Teacher, Wasilla High School and Vice President, NEA-
Alaska, urged the committee not to pass CSHB 465. He felt there
were many questions and problems with it. He referenced Section 3,
AS 14.20.149(b)(6) which requires the school district to prepare
and implement a plan of improvement for a teacher or administrator
whose performance is evaluated as less than acceptable. He said
that section actually has two parts, in that it requires a plan of
improvement when a teacher or administrator is less than
acceptable, but it further states "except if the teacher's or
administrator's performance warrants immediate dismissal." He
wondered if that set another standard. He said the old tenure bill
spoke of incompetence which is legally definable, but the language
in CSHB 465 appears wide open for interpretation. With regard to
Section 3, AS 14.20.149(b)(7) which provides an opportunity for
students, parents, community members, peers and administrators to
provide information to the evaluating administrator on the
performance of the teacher or administrator who is the subject of
evaluation, he wondered what doors this would open. He questioned
what Section 3, AS 14.20.149(3) would do to a negotiated agreement.
He felt that whole section seemed to be mandated. A number of
districts had met cooperatively and collaboratively with the school
boards and superintendents and worked out their own plans of
improvement and evaluation. He asked if those plans would be
disregarded and the process would start over?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Ivan to address Mr. Cyr's
questions concerning immediate dismissal and the plan of
improvement.
Number 774
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the evaluation plan gives an opportunity
for administrators and teachers to work together if there are
problems. For example, if a nontenured teacher is prone to
problems or needs assistance, those issues can be identified and a
plan of evaluation developed between the teacher and the
administrator. If there is no improvement the following year, then
there is cause for nonretention.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the question raised was about the plan for
improvement, but there's also criteria for immediate dismissal. He
asked if that referred to the immorality or gross insubordination
issue.
Number 819
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan Ivan, said
that was correct. He had questioned the bill drafter about it
because Representative Ivan wanted to make it clear there was
nonretention and there was dismissal. The bill drafter indicated
the language on page 3, line 6, needed to be left in the bill,
except if there was an incompetence question, immorality question
or substantial noncompliance question, then immediate dismissal
could take place because of one of those three issues. He
explained that incompetence was still in the dismissal section.
Incompetence was changed in the nonretention section to fit in with
the evaluation system. Incompetence was still a standard for
dismissal.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Wright to address the plan for evaluation.
MR. WRIGHT explained that Section 14 states, "Nothing in this Act
affects a collective bargaining agreement in effect on the
effective date of this Act." In other words, those plans that are
in use and part of a negotiated contract on the effective date of
this act, will remain in effect. However, it can become a
negotiable issue after the negotiated contract expires if the
school district and the union wish to do so, but the evaluation
system will be based on the performance standards already adopted
by the Department of Education.
Number 895
MR. CYR said he was a little skeptical that when and if this
legislation is enacted into law, the "warrants immediate dismissal"
language would be open to interpretation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted for the record it would be his intent that
there be two criteria: That is nonretention and then dismissal.
Dismissal is currently spoken to in the statute and is
incompetence, immorality and substantial noncompliance. He views
the immediate dismissal only applying for the dismissal section,
not for the nonretention section.
MR. CYR referred to Section 8 and said it appeared that
incompetency had been deleted from the section.
MR. WRIGHT said he would try to clarify this issue, because there
had been a number of questions raised. In current statute
dismissal is cited under AS 14.21.070 and nonretention is cited
under AS 14.21.075. Currently, the same standard exists for both.
The CSHB 465 changes incompetency under the nonretention portion of
the statute to fit the evaluation system into the overall scheme.
MR. CYR referenced Section 9, AS 14.20.177(a)(2) relating to
reductions in force and asked who sets the standard. He said every
year his school district talks about a significant decrease in
revenue, although it has never happened yet.
MR. WRIGHT said the financial emergency section had been an issue
for two years. Originally, the proposed legislation contained
language regarding what constituted a financial emergency, but it
was not to everyone's liking. The decision was made to go back to
the language contained in HB 398, the Governor's bill, which was
compromised on by all the groups, and that language was
incorporated into the current committee substitute. Mr. Wright
said from a legal standpoint, he couldn't tell the committee what
the language means.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted for the record it appeared that decision would
be made by the local school district, but hoped to have a little
more clarity as other individuals testified.
MR. CYR commented that he was upset because in his view the de novo
trial and the right to go to Supreme Court in the case of dismissal
had been taken away. He believed that to be a diminishment of his
rights.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he didn't interpret it to mean that a person
wouldn't have a right to go to court.
MR. WRIGHT referred Mr. Cyr to page 8, lines 5-7, which states, "If
the school board sustains the dismissal or nonretention, the
teacher may appeal the decision to the superior court, in
accordance with applicable rules of court, for a judicial review
based on the record."
MR. CYR asked if he would be allowed to go to Supreme Court?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he didn't see any limitation.
Number 1232
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said she interpreted "based on the
record" to mean that the judge would only be able to look at what
was actually on the record; in other words no new evidence could be
brought forward.
MR. WRIGHT concurred with her interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought that may be part of the problem.
She said in all the appeals she has sat on, it had always been on
the record augmented, so it was on the record but both parties had
the right to bring new information forward if need be.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said certainly there isn't any limitation in this
legislation that would prevent a person from taking their case to
court.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it didn't keep a person from taking it
to court, but that person could only take to court what was
actually in the record; nothing new.
Number 1331
LARRY OUELLETTE, Special Education Teacher, testified in opposition
to CSHB 465. As a special education teacher, he thinks about all
the laws that protect the due process rights of parents. For
example, there is a team of people who get together and set up an
education plan based on criteria that is observable and measurable.
This legislation raises a concern that certain aspects may not be
observable and measurable. He commented that he has worked in 26
school districts as an itinerant, and has seen how personalities
can affect teachers. When a teacher's activities were reviewed by
people who allow personalities to enter into the process, it
becomes easy to do that (indisc.) criteria that's observable and
measurable. He reiterated his concern about the aspects of this
legislation being very clear as to what standards teachers were
going to be performing under. He added he would like to see more
peer review, as he felt a good peer review system for retention
purposes had been lacking.
Number 1450
LUCY HOPE, President, Mat-Su Education Association, said the
Association represents about 856 teachers, and she would fax
testimony from several teachers who were unable to be present. Her
testimony addressed the provision in the committee substitute
regarding layoff of tenured teachers. A week ago she received
notice of Mat-Su School District's intent and plan to lay off 170
nontenured teachers. Based on her interpretation of the committee
substitute, the Mat-Su School District would qualify every year as
having significant, demonstrated reduction in per-pupil
expenditures due to a decrease in revenue from one year to the
next. With the state funding formula frozen since 1989, the growth
the Mat-Su district experiences each year and also that the rural
contribution has shown a decrease each year in per-pupil funding
since 1990, this means the per-pupil expenditures were decreasing
every year. In the Mat-Su district, this would mean teachers every
year who have achieved tenure, would be subject to nonretention,
even though they are excellent teachers and their performance has
been judged as being acceptable. The anxiety because of the
layoffs has been intense, has caused low morale and has certainly
affected the children in the classroom in the Mat-Su School
District. She is aware that many of the teachers being laid off
are applying for jobs in neighboring districts or in the Lower 48,
and it is her belief that if this law is passed, every year
teachers who feel at risk will be doing the same thing. She urged
the committee not to pass the bill out.
Number 1680
PAM DARNELL testified via teleconference regarding Section 3 on
Employee Evaluation. She said under the current system, teachers
are evaluated by principals who as professional evaluators, look at
many different areas when doing an observation and evaluation. For
example, does the teacher follow the curriculum set by the board,
does the teacher use all the elements of a good lesson, does the
teacher provide lessons that teach all learning styles, are the
lessons varied for competitive, cooperative and individual
learners, is the classroom set up to provide a positive learning
environment, etc. Her concern is that parents and committee
members will not be looking at the teacher's teaching skills as the
principal does, but at whether or not the students liked the grade
received or the discipline the student received. Her experience
has shown that many excellent teachers have been dismissed for a
variety of reasons other than their teaching skills.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if these conflicts would apply to a
personality conflict between a principal and a teacher?
MS. DARNELL responded perhaps to some extent, but she hoped a
principal would use a certain set of guidelines for evaluations.
She guessed the key would be to vote for competent school board
members, who would hire competent superintendents, who in turn
would hire competent principals, and so forth.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Ms. Darnell if she would place more
faith in students or parents?
MS. DARNELL responded probably students, because at least they were
in the classroom all the time.
Number 1865
KAREN LINDERMAN, Teacher, testified via teleconference from
Fairbanks. She asked if the word "department" in Section 3 AS
14.20.149(b) referred to the Department of Education?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE confirmed it was the Department of Education.
MS. LINDERMAN said she was concerned with its inclusion in a
paragraph that addresses the local school board's responsibility.
The issue is who would be setting the standards, how would they be
set, etc. She believed the employee evaluation in Section
14.20.149(e) of CSHB 465 was vague. She had several questions that
came to mind: What is this concept, how is it determined, who
determines it, etc. Her strongest concern was with the unclear
handling of collecting evaluative materials and the employees's
access to the information especially if it's in a negative context
or prior to a pretermination hearing. She questioned how
confidentiality would be dealt with and yet due process still
maintained. She felt these types of concerns were the reason
teachers were not interested in sacrificing the de novo trial
provision. In conclusion, she said she would rather live with HB
398, the Governor's compromise bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it was his opinion that the confidentiality
provision applied to keeping the complaints about the teacher
confidential between the teacher and the person doing the
evaluation. It certainly was not to keep that information
confidential from the teacher.
MS. LINDERMAN questioned how soon the teacher would have access to
that type of information? Her concern was the teacher would not
get discovery on it until they walked in for the pretermination
hearing.
TAPE 96-27, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted for the record it would not be his intent to
deprive the teacher of the normal due process of being able to have
access to information and having the ability to face his/her
accuser.
MR. WRIGHT said Section 10, Procedures upon Notice of Dismissal or
Nonretention, states that a pretermination hearing under this
section must comport with the minimum requirements of due process,
including an explanation of the employer's evidence and basis for
the proposed dismissal and an opportunity for the teacher to
respond. That section goes on to state that following a
pretermination hearing, an employer determines that dismissal is
appropriate, the employer shall provide written notice, including
a statement of cause and a complete bill of particulars, of the
decision.
MS. LINDERMAN asked what the employee would have in hand before
arriving at the pretermination hearing?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was her assumption that a teacher would
be given no advance notice of a pretermination hearing?
MS. LINDERMAN said she certainly hoped that wouldn't happen, but
she had seen some pretty bizarre things happen.
MR. WRIGHT said it was the hope of the sponsor that if a teacher
had an area of weakness or a particular problem, it would be
discussed through the plan of improvement or in the evaluation.
Mr. Wright did not foresee a teacher being dismissed or nonretained
without any notice under this system.
Number 229
JEAN KRAUSE, Retired teacher, testified that her entire teaching
career had been at the same high school in the Mat-Su School
District. During her 20 years of teaching, there were five
different superintendents, one of whom was bought out of his
contract after the community erupted over his unethical activities.
This took place after the district had already renewed his contract
for two years, even though the community was already upset. She
informed the committee that each superintendent brought a different
approach to instruction, and during her last 10 years of teaching
there were six different principals, each with their own different
approach to instruction and student discipline. Not all of the
principals left their position voluntarily. She asked if a
principal who is on a plan of improvement should be evaluating
teachers? During her 20 years, there were several teachers who
questioned the instructional shifts being imposed upon them. These
teachers were not popular for doing so, yet their questions were
not only legitimate, they were right on target about the weaknesses
of some of those approaches to instruction and discipline. Her
point was that teachers need some latitude and protection to speak
out on instructional and student discipline considerations. She
opposed CSHB 465.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that ultimately the school board is the
hiring and firing entity.
MS. KRAUSE again asked if a principal who is on a plan of
improvement should be evaluating teachers.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that was an excellent question. He pointed
out that CSHB 465 demands an evaluation of principals.
MR. WRIGHT said he would defer the question to Steve McPhetres,
Director of the Principals Association.
MS. KRAUSE advised she wanted a response from the sponsor, because
Mr. McPhetres wasn't the individual who wrote this legislation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was Representative Ivan's intent that a
principal on a plan of improvement would be evaluating teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the responsibility rests with the school
districts throughout the state and he felt these policy questions
would be addressed at that level.
MR. WRIGHT was sure that issue would be brought up when the local
school districts put their evaluation systems and plans of
improvement in place. Certainly a contingency could be written in
to cover the situation of an administrator not doing evaluations
correctly. Also, there would be supervision for an administrator
who was on a plan of improvement.
Number 600
KARLA FEELEY testified via teleconference from Anchorage that
several individuals had expressed concern that an administrator
could essentially recommend nonretention for any reason he/she
deemed fit under this legislation. She directed committee members'
attention to page 5, Section 8, and said the school administrator
would have the ability to implement a plan of improvement and to
decide when performance was less than acceptable based on that plan
for improvement. She said that Co-chair Bunde's remarks regarding
school boards having the final say about employment decisions was
certainly correct; however, the school board is the employer and
has a certain reluctance to overthrow the decisions of their
management, so is inclined to listen to the principal's
recommendation to nonretain a teacher. Under this legislation, a
teacher does not get an impartial hearing on the issue. She noted
there is the right to go to court for a judicial review based on
the record, but that does not give the judge the opportunity to
hear the evidence as an objective and impartial hearing officer.
It is important to remember the school board is the employer and
the judge cannot hear the evidence himself and make a decision
independent of the record. Her understanding of a judicial review
was that a judge must have an egregious reason for overturning the
decision of an administrative body like a school board. The judge
can't acknowledge the school board made a wrong decision unless
there was some glaring error, so nowhere in this process does a
teacher have the right for an objective decision maker. That's why
there had been testimony that a teacher's ability to teach as a
professional, without being subject to political whim, is at stake.
A teacher's ability to speak his/her opinion about the best
instruction for the students is also at stake. She asked
Representative Ivan how he planned to keep teaching from being
repoliticized under this legislation?
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he didn't believe it would be politicized.
He reiterated that school districts are responsible for developing
education and evaluation plans and believed the rights of teachers
were protected through the due process as outlined in CSHB 465.
Number 863
BARBARA YOUNG testified that as a mother of a 4th grade daughter
she is very concerned about CSHB 465. She wanted qualified
teachers teaching her daughter and this legislation does not seem
to provide for qualified teachers. The two-tiered approach dealing
with incompetent teachers appeared confusing to her. She asked how
she, as a parent could be expected to evaluate her daughter's
teacher? She did not believe she was qualified to do that as she
was not in the classroom to observe her teaching ability. Under
the current system,evaluating teacher performance is handled by
qualified administrators as supervisors. If this legislation is
enacted, who would determine whether her child's teacher gets a
plan for improvement or not and what kind of guidelines or
standards would this individual use for the determination? Are
there any written standards for incompetence? She urged the
committee not to pass this bill out of committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Young had said that parents were not
qualified to judge whether their children were getting a good
education or not?
MS. YOUNG responded that was correct and added she did not feel
qualified because she was not in the classroom every day to observe
the teaching skills.
Number 961
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Ms. Young if she saw something blatantly
amiss and disagreed with during an observation of a classroom
wouldn't she appreciate the opportunity to participate in a plan of
improvement for that teacher?
MS. YOUNG responded that if she observed something she disagreed
with, she would feel it was her duty to discuss it with the
teacher. She didn't believe she needed to be involved in the
evaluation process for that to happen.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that was assuming the teacher listened to
the parent, but what happened if the teacher didn't listen?
MS. YOUNG said the opportunity would still exist to go to the
principal.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE remarked that sounded like it was evaluating the
teacher.
MS. YOUNG said no, she would be bringing forward the problem she
had observed. Evaluation of a teacher is completely different than
observing a problem.
Number 1018
JULIE BHEND testified as a concerned parent of two elementary
school age children. She is very much involved in her children's
education, and feels she already has a great deal of input into the
teachers' performance. She has never hesitated to bring her
concerns to the attention of either the teacher or principal, and
those concerns have been addressed. She saw no need to have
parents further involved in the evaluation process. It was her
belief this legislation had very little to do with improving public
education, but was laying the groundwork to decrease education
funding, which would mean an increase in class size. It eliminates
the concept of job security and she didn't understand how the
Alaska school system could continue to attract high quality
educators if there was no job security.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that with or without the legislation, there
was a great likelihood that funding for schools would be decreased
because the money was not available and the general public was not
interested in putting additional funding into schools. With regard
to quality educators, he noted there are thousands of people
waiting to take a teaching job.
Number 1113
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON disagreed with Co-Chair Bunde's observation
and said polls indicate that people do put education as their
number one priority and would be willing to put more money into
education.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE remarked that his constituency had indicated to him
their number one priority was to cut state spending. After that,
education was their number one priority.
Number 1134
CHRISTIE SCALLEY, Teacher, testified via teleconference and urged
the committee not to pass this legislation. She was concerned that
it is unfamiliar ground and she doesn't feel that anyone
understands the full implication of the bill. She does not believe
it would lead to educational excellence and doesn't understand how
anyone could say that parents should be allowed to evaluate
teachers. She noted that out of her 27 students, 11 of them are
bilingual whose parents do not speak English. Four of her students
live in a hotel and can only get to school by taxi. Those are
everyday situations. She stated this was not a teacher-friendly
bill, but is more like teacher bashing which affects the children
as well as parents. She observes teachers every day going out of
their way for their students.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he shared her concern with the teacher bashing
or the educational system bashing and felt there were too many
experts on education, because everyone had been in a classroom at
least once. He noted that parents currently evaluate teachers all
the time. He believed the language in this legislation was
permissive in that it says parents "may" be part of the process,
not necessarily have to be taken into consideration.
MS. SCALLEY said she has evaluated her children's teachers in her
own way. She felt the broadness of the statement in the
legislation would not be good for teachers or the stability of
schools.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he shared that, but freedom of speech had to be
available to everyone. It was his opinion that the more parents
are included in the process, the more understanding they are of
what it takes to be a good teacher.
Number 1346
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he, too, would be concerned if he
believed the broad statement that parents will evaluate teachers,
but pointed out the bill says it will provide an opportunity for
students and parents to evaluate teachers. He believed the
opportunity would be determined at the local school district level,
such as at PTA meetings or school board meetings, etc.
Number 1400
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG complimented the sponsor and his staff
for including this section, because he believed that a statement
should be made in statute to try to involve parents in the
classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN referred to Representative Davis' comment that
it is an opportunity given to the parents, but it is not mandated.
Number 1473
JANIE HILL testified from Dillingham as a parent and teacher. She
expressed concern with the section of the legislation on the
significant, demonstrated reduction in per-pupil expenditures due
to a decrease in revenue from one year to the next. She said that
Dillingham being a rural, small single site district, every year
has the threat or actual reduction in revenue. She was very
discouraged with the previous comment that the public wants to
reduce funding and thought a state income tax should be considered.
She said more money needed to be put into education, not less. She
was particularly concerned about the stability of education in
rural Alaska and remarked there are teachers coming and going all
the time and many of the tenured teachers are gone. She didn't
believe teachers should be faced with the threat of being laid off
every year due to a lack of revenue. One of her fears is that
teachers who have taught longer and are more experienced may be the
ones targeted for removal because more money could be saved.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that individuals who argue for the early
retirement bill say those are the teachers who should be gotten rid
of. He pointed out that 65 percent of the people in Anchorage do
not have kids in school and do not support the income tax idea.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated her belief that individuals were
pushing for early retirement because of what is perceived as a
financial crisis, not because they believe those teachers were not
worthwhile.
Number 1616
CHRIS TIEONEY-SWORD testified that House Bill 465 was described by
Representative Ivan in the February 29 issue of the Bristol Bay
Times as an instrument that could balance the playing field between
the teacher's union and schools boards. While he admits that
teachers deserve benefits and salaries that were "fought so hard to
achieve" he also believes that it is okay for any teacher to be
fired at any time for any reason. She said this bill is
adversarial and divisive. What's good for education isn't to
legally perpetuate a system of battles between school boards,
administrators (indisc.-paper shuffling) collaboration and site
based decision making. She stated CSHB 465 would extend a
teacher's probationary status from two years to three years.
That's how long a teacher would be legally permitted to be fired
without any cause. She said that should be compared to the rest of
the working world and believed that a 90-day probationary period
was ample time for employees to obtain permanent employment. She
remarked that tenure is not a guarantee of lifelong employment.
Competent and effective administrators use their evaluation process
to maintain a staff of highly effective educational employees.
Currently, she knows she can get fired for being incompetent, for
immoral turpitude or for substantial noncompliance of school laws.
Tenure works when administrators are given resources to do their
job. Properly funded schools could support administrators and
master teachers, whose sole purpose would be to provide support,
education and ongoing direction through comprehensive evaluations.
That's their job; that's what they are trained to do. She noted
she teaches Earth Science, which isn't popular with parents who
believe in creationalism. She also teaches health and no one likes
the curriculum for 7th and 8th grade health, but fortunately she
works for a sound district and an administrator who approves of her
work ethics and teaching skills, and doesn't let the winds of
political correctness enter into her evaluation process. House
Bill 465 would change that. Academic freedom and innovation would
become a thing of the past. She believes that CSHB 465 is a
symptom of a greater ill; faulty school funding. Perhaps it is
easier to replace experienced teachers with less costly,
inexperienced ones, but it is not in the best interest of the kids.
She said that CSHB 465 gives school boards three creative ways to
fire experienced teachers: 1) through the evaluation procedure; 2)
through changes in the reduction in force laws; and 3) through the
elimination of a teacher's legal right to due process.
Number 1797
JOE JOSEPHSON, Attorney, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He said he hoped to correct some myths after having
worked with school districts and teachers in the dismissal process.
First, there is the suggestion, which he thinks is flawed, that the
trial de novo and teacher tenure are protections only for teachers
and don't exist anywhere else in the public service. Actually, in
Title 39, civil servants in the personnel system, have a right to
a hearing before the personnel board. The interesting thing about
that is if the employee was dismissed or sanctioned by superiors,
that hearing would go to a neutral party, the state personnel
board; not to the boss who made the decision against the employee
in the first place. He felt that is the central problem and what
teachers have been advocating is the opportunity to have one level
playing field, before one neutral determiner of the facts, whether
it be an arbitrator or a superior court judge. This legislation,
as written, does not give that to teachers, but says that if the
school board plans to dismiss or nonretain, the teacher has a right
to an administrative hearing where the final decision is made by
the same board that started the process, and if the teacher is
still unhappy with the result, they can go to the superior court.
But the matter goes to the superior court not in a de novo hearing,
but "on the record of" before the administrative agency. He said
one of the results of that would be that administrative hearings
would be more costly and cumbersome because both sides would know
that was their only chance. When it gets to superior court, the
judge who has not heard a single witness face-to-face and has not
seen anyone's demeanor, will be reviewing the matter only to decide
if there is substantial evidence to sustain the decision of the
board. The judge is not there to make an independent judgment.
Mr. Josephson pointed out that one of the basic tests on the scope
of judicial review says that "an agency finding a basic fact,
generally concerns the parties in a `who did what to whom' variety.
The general rule is that such findings are reviewed under the
substantial evidence on the whole record test" meaning that the
court has relatively little power. That is what would happen. Mr.
Josephson went on to say that in the case of personnel from
executive agencies in state government, that is what happens, but
the difference of course, is that those people would have had a
hearing before an independent personnel board, not the agency for
which they were working. In a case, Titus v. the State, the Alaska
Supreme Court said the board's (speaking of the personnel board)
findings should not be reversed if in the light of the whole record
they are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. That's what he
fears under this process. The teacher is charged by the school
board, the school board makes a decision, and the school board wins
if there is any rational basis found by the judge that sustained
it, even if the judge wouldn't make that decision himself and even
if the judge thinks the decision is wrong. He said that is why the
trial de novo issue is so important.
MR. JOSEPHSON believed the testimony of a previous witness was
correct in that under the administrative hearing process in CSHB
465, there is no guarantee that before the hearing comes up, the
teacher would know who is bearing witness against him/her or what
that testimony consists of. Those are rights that an individual
has in court, that are not available in the administrative process;
they are pre-discovery rights. From his perspective, whether the
committee goes with the Governor's bill, whether the right to
arbitration is inserted, or judicial trial de novo is reinserted,
it is important to have one level playing field. Mr. Josephson
said even though someone had previously stated this bill says
judicial on the record, new evidence can be brought in. In his
view that is not clear. He referenced the Administrative
Procedures Act, Title 44, Chapter 62, and said there is a specific
provision that if there is an appeal from the chiropractic or
medical board, for example, to the court, the court can have a
trial de novo. Trial de novo is not limited to just teacher tenure
cases.
Number 2028
LOUANNE WEYHRAUCH testified that as the parent of two children she
is opposed to CSHB 465. She was particularly concerned about the
effect of Section 8, which removes the incompetency standards for
nonretaining a tenured teacher and substitutes the evaluation
procedure. She felt the provision in CSHB 465 would basically
destroy the protection that existing statute provides from
arbitrary firing. She believed that teachers should focus on doing
their best at teaching and not have to work in fear of doing
something out of the ordinary for which they could lose their job.
She feared that under CSHB 465, the creativity and motivation of
teachers would be stifled because it makes it too easy for the
evaluation process to be manipulated and teachers could be removed
for arbitrary reasons. It is her belief that Section 8 opens the
door for a result-based evaluation procedure which would just be
aimed at getting rid of a particular teacher for some arbitrary
reason. She stated CSHB 465 removes the requirement of
incompetency for nonretaining a tenured teacher, and requires only
a negative evaluation, one plan of improvement and another negative
evaluation. There would be no finding that the teacher was
incompetent. She believed that additional evaluation requirements
could be provided without deleting the requirement that
incompetency remain in the law as a standard for nonretaining a
tenured teacher.
Number 2151
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted for the record it was his understanding that
if there was a plan of improvement, the teacher had an entire
school year to address the plan of improvement and then there would
be another incompetency hearing.
MS. WEYHRAUCH said she didn't believe the legislation required the
plan of improvement to last for an entire year; it stated that it
wouldn't go for more than one year.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it would be his intent that it last for a
school year.
MR. WRIGHT commented that CSHB 465 states the plan of improvement
shall last for no more than one year. Again, that will be up to
the individual school district to decide if it should be exactly
one year or if they want to set specified times. He noted the
evaluation standards are based on teacher education standards under
4 AAC, Chapter 19, that have been adopted by the Department of
Education. He added those are the minimum standards for which a
school district will base standards for teachers.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would like some assurance that it wouldn't
be a two-week plan of improvement and expressed his desire that it
be a minimum of a school year.
MR. WRIGHT said the sponsor did not have a problem with that.
Number 2255
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
said with the help of the sponsor, the association had tried to
take into consideration HB 217 that was vetoed, HB 398 which is the
compromise bill introduced by the Governor, and they looked at HB
465 as the vehicle. With the agreement of Representative Ivan and
his work with the reconstituted committee, he has agreed to many of
the proposals that have been put forth and has incorporated them
into CSHB 465. Mr. Rose felt they tried to address quality,
performance, accountability and fairness in this legislation and
that it had been achieved to a great degree. He felt the issues
before the committee are issues that aren't just shared by school
boards. It is important to note that communities, parents and the
public in general are very concerned about the quality of education
and he thought a bill such as this that speaks to quality and
performance, addresses public confidence in the schools. He hoped
that people would look at this legislation from a progressive point
of view; not from the point of view of being negative and closed
minded. He believed there had been a lot of effort devoted to
being open to other avenues, and thought that had been
accomplished. He said the issues addressed by the Governor in his
veto message of HB 217 were that he wanted three years instead of
four; CSHB 465 accommodates that. Another issue was that quality
in education through the evaluation process was not addressed, and
with the assistance of Commissioner Holloway, a reconstituted group
addressed that issue and tried to include it in CSHB 465. Lastly,
the retirement inventive program in HB 217 does not exist in CSHB
465. He thought the crux of this bill was the evaluation for
quality and the largest disagreement was the removal of the de novo
trial. He felt the issue centers around the economics and the
protections provided by the system in CSHB 465 and by the proposals
that are being offered through direct access to superior court.
TAPE 96-27, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt it should be understood that there was no
consensus of the reconstituted group on the provisions offered in
CSHB 465.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she and Mr. Rose had discussed the
section regarding the record being supplemented by new, relevant
information.
MR. ROSE believed Representative Robinson was referring to the
augmented record. His understanding was that Representative
Robinson was proposing that if there was any additional information
which needed to be brought out, not a recap of what had already
taken place, that it be done at an additional hearing level. His
only concern was that CSHB 465 provided for a full bill of
particulars and cause. Mr. Rose said if we went back to the
augmented process and offered additional information, we then are
out of compliance with the bill in the first portion. It could
however be changed, and he felt they would be open to looking at
that.
Number 085
RICHARD CROSS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education, said
that Governor Knowles introduced a consensus bill dealing with the
issues before the committee and still fully supports HB 398. He
pointed out that Representative Ivan had listened to the various
interested parties and improved the legislation. Since the last
hearing on HB 465, Commissioner Holloway reconvened the group of
people who crafted HB 398; parents, school board members, teachers,
school and university administrators. The group met February 25
and Representative Ivan met with them the following day.
Representative Ivan incorporated many of the concerns that were
raised by that group in the committee substitute. He said he would
like to see discussion continued in three areas: 1) A comparison
of HB 398 to CSHB 465 reveals that HB 398 provides for considerably
more local control in areas like the development of the evaluation
procedure and other areas; 2) Commissioner Holloway has a strong
belief that education should be improved through standards -
standards for teachers, standards for schools and standards for
students. In the area of nonretention, the department would like
to make it clear that a nonretention should be standards based. In
other words, the reason for the teacher's nonretention was failure
to meet the standards that were established and agreed upon. The
last area was the narrowed dismissal process. He said there had
been considerable debate and discussion about trial de novo and the
problems associated with school boards having to go through two
complete trials in order to dismiss a teacher. The department felt
that some balancing needed to occur between the dismissal procedure
set forth in CSHB 465 and the trial de novo.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said Mr. Cross had referred to a teacher
having two complete trials before being dismissed and wondered if
he meant one hearing and one trial de novo.
MR. CROSS responded under the current system, the school board is
required to offer a teacher a full hearing and then a trial de novo
if the teacher chooses to appeal, which has been determined by the
courts through various rulings to be a completely new trial. In
other words, what happens at the hearing before the school board
gets flushed when the teacher goes to court.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS encouraged Mr. Cross to address the concerns
with Representative Ivan and his staff. He felt that maybe a few
minor word changes could work to everyone's satisfaction.
Number 291
CHRIS BOONE, School Nurse, testified from Anchorage that school
nurses in the Anchorage School District are proud of the services
they provide to the students and staff. She noted that in many
parts of the state, health care is provided by staff who lack the
knowledge necessary to deliver optimum health care and health
education and requested the committee's help to ensure that didn't
happen in the Anchorage School District. Last fall a budget review
team assembled to help the Anchorage School District formulate
their 1996-97 budget proposal. The committee which studied the
special education department of which health services is a part,
recommended that 46 school nurse positions be eliminated in the
district and that 28 health attendants be hired. The
superintendent chose not to concur with the recommendation at that
time but stated it was their intent to investigate alternatives for
service delivery at a reduced cost. Based on the steps taken, it
appears the intent is to abolish the certificated school nurse
positions and attempt to deliver the services with employees having
less education. She said that CSHB 465 has a provision which would
give the superintendent the legal right to terminate the jobs of
school nurses in Anchorage. There is a section that allows school
boards to lay off tenured teachers, which also includes
certificated nurses. She discussed the importance of the school
nurses particularly if parents do not have the financial means to
seek routine medical care. She urged the committee to delete the
section of the legislation that allows for the dismissal of tenured
employees because of financial shortfalls.
Number 405
STEPHEN McPHETRES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, testified that at the last hearing on HB 465, he
provided some language which has been incorporated into CSHB 465.
He noted that discussions now refer to employee evaluation, not
teacher evaluation, which was one of their recommendations because
they believe that as administrators they can be held accountable
for supervision. With regard to the question that was raised about
a principal being on a plan of improvement, he views that no
differently than a teacher who is on a plan of improvement to carry
out the responsibilities of the classroom. Therefore, a principal
who is on a plan of improvement would be responsible for carrying
out the evaluation of teachers. He pointed out an area that had
not been addressed was the provision that allows an evaluation to
take place every two years, not every year, for tenured teachers
who are proven competent. This is an opportunity for principals to
be able to concentrate on nontenured teachers and tenured teachers
whose performance is questionable. The council believes this is a
good piece of legislation and urged passage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referenced page 3, section 7, and asked if
that was the language proposed by the Alaska Council of School
Administrators.
MR. McPHETRES replied yes, it was.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what Mr. McPhetres' perception was of
a school district in terms of who would be doing the evaluation.
MR. McPHETRES said that would come from the superintendent.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why then did the legislation say
school district instead of superintendent.
MR. McPHETRES explained there are supervisors in the larger
districts, so if it says superintendent there would be no
flexibility for the larger districts.
Number 517
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if there was a lack of continuity
between school districts with regard to certificated employees?
MR. McPHETRES responded to his knowledge everyone who is
responsible for teaching or administration must have a certificate
unless it is an emergency condition, which he thought would require
approval from the Commissioner of the Department of Education.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said his question was directed more at nurses
and library assistants who could be certificated in one school
district, but not in another. Inasmuch as certificated employees
are addressed in the evaluation system, were those individuals
included.
MR. McPHETRES responded that would depend on the district's
definition of the position. For example, a librarian assistant may
not require an certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that was his question. Is the lack of
continuity between the school districts going to cause some
problems?
MR. McPHETRES replied no, it would not cause any problems.
Number 610
RON FUHRER, Teacher, testified from Anchorage and noted that the
Governor's compromise bill, HB 398, appeared to encapsulate all the
salient points from HB 217 and thought it was a very good bill. He
expressed concern that CSHB 465 appeared to mimic the compromise
bill, but ignored various components that he felt would help in
terms of teachers feeling secure in focusing on the academic
instruction and not being concerned about the loss of their
employment status. One of his concerns was that it appeared a
tenured teacher could be dismissed at any time during the year.
Yet again, a tenured teacher could be placed on a plan for
improvement and would be dismissed if their performance was not
acceptable. He said there doesn't seem to be any specifics as to
what the plan of improvement would be. Were the expectations
measurable and attainable, were they subjective versus objective,
and what was the criteria to be used to measure acceptable
performance? Another problem he addressed was how were parents
going to provide input on the evaluation process without being in
the classroom?
Number 756
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, NEA-Alaska, Inc., testified she was in sort of an
unusual situation in that historically NEA-Alaska has strongly
opposed any change to the tenure laws. The NEA has believed the
tenure laws have been good for public education and good for the
state of Alaska, have provided an opportunity for stable teaching
staff within the school districts and played a major role in the
successful learning opportunities for the students. The continuity
and stability of the staff is very important in the making of an
effective public school and effective teaching. For several years
there have been concerns voiced from parents, administrators and
school boards that two years has not been enough time to do an
evaluation and the increasing costs of the dismissal process. At
their delegate assembly in January, NEA-Alaska convinced the
delegates that in the spirit of trying to improve quality education
they agreed to several changes in the law, including changing the
probationary period from two to three years, adding an evaluation
section to law which NEA-Alaska felt was something that has been
needed for a long time, and agreed to changing some options in the
dismissal process for both teachers and school districts to save
money for both parties, layoff language was added for a district
that has determined a financial emergency exists, and "tenure" was
changed to something that wasn't quite so controversial. She
expressed concern about the evaluation process included in CSHB 465
in that part of the provisions of the compromise bill were
included, but not all of them. For example, there are bits and
pieces which speak to a plan of improvement, but not specifics
regarding what the evaluation process should include. The NEA-
Alaska believes that if local districts are going to have an
evaluation process, then there should be input from community
members, parents, teachers, administrators and everybody involved
in designing that process. She felt the addition of a plan of
improvement in that section truly muddies the water. She thought
there needed to be very specific language about establishing job
descriptions, as well as performance standards. Other
considerations of this section not addressed are the evaluation of
nontenured teachers and there is not a clear definition of "less
than acceptable." She expressed her willingness to work with the
sponsor to get word out to the public that the goal is to improve
education in Alaska. With regard to the section addressing
students, parents, community members, peers and administrators
providing information on the performance of a teacher she
questioned what the definition is of performance. How is a
community member going to comment on the performance of a teacher
unless they are in the classroom and unless those individuals were
included in the training and instruction of what the system is, she
didn't feel it was fair to have those comments become part of the
evaluation.
Number 1019
MARKUS DOERRY, Teacher, testified that he has taught both at the
university level and high school level and noted there are a lot of
differences. He addressed the issue of politicization of the
teaching process and said that teachers not only have to worry if
their teaching methods and views match their administrator's, but
with parents being brought into the process, a teacher would now
have to worry about trying to keep the parents happy. Currently,
in Dillingham a parent can talk to the teacher if there is a
problem. If there is no satisfaction, the parent can go to the
principal, and so on. He reiterated that process does exist and it
is a matter of local control. He stated this legislation appears
to take that control away.
Number 1172
DEEDIE SORENSEN, Teacher, said she was just at the beginning stages
of putting her child through the public school system. During her
years of teaching, she listened to lots of parents talk about
teachers and observed that one parent would speak highly of a
teacher, yet another would say they would never allow their child
to be in that teacher's classroom. She noted there are many
components to an evaluation and it doesn't necessarily mean the
teacher is a good teacher or a bad teacher, but basically the
teacher's style. She commented that parents shop for teachers in
Juneau, just as she shopped for her son's teacher based on what she
believed was the best match him. Even though she teaches in the
same building, she does not believe that she could evaluate her
son's teacher because she is good for him, but may not be good for
another child. With regard to parent involvement in the evaluation
process, she felt it was important to recognize what parents
observe and what they know about a teacher is relative to their own
sphere of experience with that professional.
Number 1304
ARLENE COGHILL, Teacher, testified that she is currently in her
26th year of teaching. Three years ago, while attending the March
Madness school board meeting, she found out she was being fired.
She and seven other teachers in the district had received good
evaluations from their administrator and were all fired. Not all
of the teachers were tenured, but many of them were. She said it
was sudden and it happened because she forgot to send for her
certificate during a time when she was dealing with the death of
her husband. In looking back at the what transpired, she said the
teachers were not evaluated by the administrator, because the
administrator's evaluations were thrown out; they were evaluated by
a very vocal group of witch hunters. The administrator was also
evaluated at that point and was accused of misusing school money,
which later turned out to be untrue. Ms. Coghill said her previous
evaluations had been glowing up until the time of her nonretention
and firing. She said she didn't deserve to be evaluated by a
system that is left vague and open for a school board or some other
group to fire her for personal reasons. She urged the committee
not to deny teachers their de novo rights.
Number 1578
GREG TURNER, Teacher, testified that one of his concerns with CSHB
465 was the three-year probationary period. As a parent, he wasn't
sure he wanted his children to be in a classroom with a teacher who
had been on a plan of improvement for three years; he felt two
years was plenty. His other concern was the layoff policy and
laying people off by program. For instance, if a teacher taught in
a district for 15 years, and then decided to add music to their
certificate and taught music for another 4 years, if the school
district decided to lay off by program, that teacher could be gone
if the layoffs occurred by program, even though that teacher had 15
years of teaching before going to the music department. He added
generally it is the music, physical education, and counseling
programs that are the first to go. He also discussed his concern
with the layoff provisions for fiscal reasons. He urged the
committee not to pass CSHB 465.
Number 1759
ROB PFISTERER, President, Anchorage Education Association,
testified that he had a lot of concerns about CSHB 465. As
president of the Anchorage Education Association, a lot of his
duties revolve around evaluation of teachers and principals. He
noted currently Anchorage is working on an evaluation document
whereby teachers evaluate principals. He agreed that things are
handled differently from district to district as had been
previously mentioned and one of those things was the philosophy of
the Anchorage School District and Teachers Association towards
evaluation; that is the evaluation process would be used to improve
instruction, not necessarily to go after a teacher. It may end up
however, if a teacher is not performing at a certain standard, the
teacher's job may be in jeopardy. He believes that CSHB 465 comes
philosophically from a different angle than what has been done for
several years in Anchorage related to evaluation; that is Anchorage
is directed toward improvement and this bill seems more punitive in
nature. Another problem he had was the inclusion of parents,
students and community members in the evaluation process. The
Anchorage School District has spent a lot of time making sure that
evaluations are conducted in a certain procedure so both the
teacher and evaluator are cognizant of how the process will go.
Also, he felt that CSHB 465 did not contain much information
relating to the criteria to be used in the evaluation process.
Again, the Anchorage School District has devoted a lot of time
developing that criteria. Regarding the area of plans for
improvement, he said there currently are plans for improvement for
teachers and plans for improvement for administrators. However,
CSHB 465 does not contain any criteria on how a teacher will meet
a plan for improvement. It discusses whether a teacher has met the
plan and if they haven't, they can be nonretained for not meeting
it. He viewed that as an important concept which needed to be
defined. He brought up the issue of an administrator being on a
plan for improvement and said he currently has an administrator on
a plan for improvement and that administrator has given a teacher
evaluation in which retribution was being sought because the
teacher had reported certain information about the administrator.
He addressed the area of teachers not performing to standard. Mr.
Pfisterer said there were other issues he would like to speak
against, but limited his testimony because of time constraints.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced an at-ease at 5:23 p.m.
TAPE 96-28, SIDE A
Number 002
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting back to order at 5:25 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested that CSHB 465 be placed in a
working group since there were several amendments yet to be
addressed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the amendments would be addressed following the
completion of public testimony.
Number 106
LARRY WIGET, Director, Government Relations, Anchorage School
District, testified the Anchorage School District, their
administration and school board are all very proud of their
teachers and are supportive of the working relationship in
developing new standards for evaluation relative to improving
instruction. The Anchorage School District administration supports
the concepts put forth in CSHB 465. Members of their school board
and administration had participated in the committee assembled by
the Governor this past summer, the school board reviewed HB 465 and
a school board member and administrator participated in the
reconvened committee brought together by Commissioner Holloway. He
noted for the record "we would like to state that if we're going to
make teaching bargaining positions open - the records open at the
beginning and at the end, the negotiations open, we'd also like to
see that to all public employees."
Number 241
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, Inc., pointed out
that page 2, line 21, states that an evaluation of a certificated
employee, which he assumed meant an administrator or a teacher,
would be based on observations of the employee in the employee's
work place. He said that seems to be pretty clear, but page 3,
subsection 7, provides students, parents, administrators, community
members, etc., an opportunity to provide information on the
performance of a teacher or administrator who is subject to the
evaluation. It appeared to him the intent was clear that CSHB 465
gives these various groups or individuals an opportunity to input
the evaluation process. He asked if that were to occur would
parents be provided an opportunity to observe a teacher in a
classroom and be able to look at all the variables teachers deal
with in a classroom setting. He did not object to teachers and
parents working with one another to educate children; that's the
public in education.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Mr. Marshall's concern regarding subsection
7 was that comments provided by parents could involve behavior
outside the classroom?
MR. MARSHALL referenced page 2, line 21, and asked if the parents
can go into the classroom to actually observe?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it would lower Mr. Marshall's level of
concern if the opportunity to provide information was based on
observations made within the classroom? He added he was not aware
of any school district that would prevent a parent from coming into
the classroom.
MR. MARSHALL thought it would be critical relative to the
performance of teaching. He asked if it would be wrong to allow
teachers to have some input relative to an administrator's
performance?
MR. WRIGHT said that issue was addressed in one of the amendments.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to the opportunity given to parents,
students and community members to provide information and asked if
that would be information relative to the classroom?
MR. WRIGHT replied yes, exactly.
MR. MARSHALL asked Mr. Wright if teachers would have an opportunity
to input the administrator?
MR. WRIGHT responded yes.
MR. MARSHALL referred to subsection 6 and said this was where the
two standard approach to competency came into play. He pointed out
that page 3 requires the school district to prepare and implement
a plan of improvement for a teacher or administrator whose
performance is evaluated as less than acceptable, except if a
teacher's or administrator's performance warrants immediate
dismissal. He added that performance referred to competence. He
asked what criteria was being used to place a teacher under a plan
of improvement, and what criteria was used that would result in the
immediate dismissal. He questioned if there was a two-tier
approach; tier one for competence and performance, and tier two
that could result in immediate dismissal.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it was his understanding there were two tiers.
One tier required a plan of improvement, the tier of nonretention,
and the second tier of immediate dismissal is immortality,
incompetence and substantial noncompliance, which is existing
statute. He asked Mr. Wright if incompetence was in the immediate
dismissal section?
MR. WRIGHT responded that was correct. He explained that
incompetence was under the dismissal sections and incompetence was
replaced in the nonretention section with the evaluation system.
MR. MARSHALL referred to Section 7, page 5, line 6, and said that
a teacher who is dismissed under this dismissal section is not
entitled to a plan of improvement. He added that Mr. Wright was
correct in that incompetence was referred to as one of the reasons,
but that person is not entitled to a plan of improvement. Under
the nonretention section, he assumed the opportunity existed to at
least request a plan of improvement and a certain amount of time to
correct the situation. He pointed out that it still deals with
incompetence, but the employee gets a plan under the one section,
but doesn't under the other section.
Number 777
MR. MARSHALL referred to page 3, line 19, and expressed concern
with the language "shall last for no more than one year."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE interjected there was an amendment which would
require it to be a substantial portion of the school year.
MR. MARSHALL discussed the opportunity for parents to provide input
relative to a teacher's performance. He referenced page 4, line 4,
and questioned when this information would actually be available to
the teacher? He asked if it would be part of the plan of
improvement, would it be provided to the teacher when it was
accessible to the school district, and how did the school district
actually get the information in the first place. He said those
questions are not clear. He expressed concern with page 3, line
22, which says that a school district must observe the teacher.
His assumption was that school district meant the principal, but it
wasn't spelled out.
C0-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Marshall to hold the rest of testimony to
allow the last two individuals to testify via teleconference.
Number 1033
VIRGIE FRYREAR, Superintendent of Schools, Hoonah School District,
testified that CSHB 465 addressed many of the concerns educators
have had for many years. She believed many people had worked on
this legislation to make it palatable for teachers, administrators,
school boards and the communities. She felt the evaluation process
in CSHB 465 was a real asset and stated she and the school board
fully supported moving the tenure out of the law. She expressed
her thanks to Representative Ivan and his staff for bringing this
legislation forward. He said the Hoonah City School Board of
Education and administration support CSHB 465 and encouraged the
committee to pass it.
Number 1140
DON OBERG testified via teleconference and asked if a district
could change the evaluation procedures, process and requirements
after the beginning of the academic year under this legislation?
Also, he questioned if the district would have the duty to in-
service all its employees on the evaluation process at the
beginning of each year?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded he didn't have the answers, but he would
bring the questions to the bill sponsor.
Number 1220
MR. MARSHALL continued his testimony by referring to page 5, line
12, which deals with failure to receive an acceptable rating on the
evaluation after implementation of a plan for improvement. He said
this in a sense is what systems ought to be doing now - evaluating,
identifying plan of improvement, and basically that work should
show whether a teacher is competent or incompetent. It seemed
inconsistent to him that the word "incompetent" would be removed
even in a nonretention, as defined on line 14. Their concerned
focused on what needs to be done to measure up on a score sheet or
plan for improvement? Does one negative score give the
administration the latitude to tell a teacher he/she "didn't live
up to lines 12 and 13 of this particular bill, so I'm going to
recommend you for nonretention?" He thought the threshold was too
low and needs to be looked very carefully. He said the reason he
makes the point about the evaluation is that it is tied to the
issue of layoff on page 6, line 8, which indicates a reduction in
force is based on the person most qualified and line 17 states that
a teacher has to show evidence of acceptable teaching. Acceptable
teaching experience in the subject is also referenced on line 21.
He said if there is a low threshold, not only can the teacher get
nonrenewed through the single step identified on page 5, lines 12-
13, but also runs the risk of being subject to the reduction in
force provision.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that CSHB 465 would be held over until
2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting of the House HESS Committee at
5:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|