Legislature(1993 - 1994)

02/08/1994 03:00 PM HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
           HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES                         
                       STANDING COMMITTEE                                      
                        February 8, 1994                                       
                            3:00 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair                                                
  Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair                                                     
  Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair                                                  
  Rep. Al Vezey                                                                
  Rep. Pete Kott                                                               
  Rep. Harley Olberg                                                           
  Rep. Bettye Davis                                                            
  Rep. Irene Nicholia                                                          
  Rep. Tom Brice                                                               
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                    
  Rep. Eldon Mulder                                                            
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  *HB 359:  "An Act making special appropriations to the                       
            Department of Education for construction or                        
            upgrade of schools on military installations; and                  
            providing for an effective date."                                  
            HEARD AND HELD                                                     
  *HJR 47:  Relating to schools on military installations.                     
            HEARD AND HELD                                                     
  HB 84:    "An Act implementing certain recommendations of                    
            Alaska 2000 to improve the state's education                       
            system; and providing for an effective date."                      
            HEARD AND HELD                                                     
  *HB 391:  "An Act authorizing disclosure of information to a                 
            prospective out-of-home care provider about a                      
            minor who has a history of inflicting personal                     
            injury or property damage or committing acts that,                 
            if committed by an adult, would have been                          
            POSTPONED BY PRIME SPONSOR                                         
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  CAPTAIN DENNIS PORTER                                                        
  Legislative Liaison                                                          
  Alaskan Command                                                              
  United States Air Force                                                      
  1700 7th St., Unit B                                                         
  Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506                                                  
  Phone:  (907) 552-3210                                                       
  Position Statement:  Testified in support of HB 359                          
                       and HJR 47                                              
  DUANE GUILEY, Director                                                       
  Division of School Finance                                                   
  Department of Education                                                      
  801 W. 10th St., Ste. 200                                                    
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894                                                    
  Phone:  (907) 465-8679                                                       
  Position Statement:  Testified in support of HJR 47 and                      
                       in opposition to HB 359                                 
  LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOE RALSTON                                               
  Commander, Alaskan Command                                                   
  United States Air Force                                                      
  5800 G St.                                                                   
  Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506                                                  
  Phone:  (907) 552-2100                                                       
  Position Statement:  Testified in support of HB 359                          
                       and HJR 47                                              
  CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President                                                   
  National Education Association/Alaska                                        
  114 Second St.                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  (907) 586-3090                                                       
  Position Statement:  Testified in opposition to CSHB 84                      
  CARL ROSE, Executive Director                                                
  Association of Alaska School Boards                                          
  316 W. 11th                                                                  
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  (907) 586-1083                                                       
  Position Statement:  Testified on CSHB 84                                    
  TERRY CRAMER, Attorney                                                       
  Division of Legal Services                                                   
  Legislative Affairs Agency                                                   
  130 Seward St., Ste. 409                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105                                                    
  Phone:  (907) 465-2450                                                       
  Position Statement:  Answered legal questions on CSHB 84 and                 
                       a proposed amendment                                    
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HB 359                                                                
  SCHOOLS TASK FORCE                                                           
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/11/94      2032    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/11/94      2032    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                     
  02/08/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  BILL:  HJR 47                                                                
  SCHOOLS TASK FORCE                                                           
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/11/94      2031    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/11/94      2031    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                     
  02/08/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  BILL:  HB  84                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/22/93       135    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/22/93       135    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  01/22/93       135    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE  (DOE) 1/22/93                      
  01/22/93       136    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/18/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/18/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/18/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/05/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/06/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/06/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/26/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  01/26/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/31/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  01/31/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  02/04/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  02/08/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  BILL:  HB 391                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT                                           
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/21/94      2125    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/21/94      2125    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY                                   
  02/08/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-10, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. and                     
  announced the calendar.  He stated that HB 391 had been                      
  postponed by request of the sponsor.  Chair Bunde asked for                  
  a roll call and then asked for testimony on HB 359.                          
  Number 103                                                                   
  REP. ELDON MULDER, Prime Sponsor of HB 359, stated that last                 
  session a task force was created upon recommendations by                     
  General Ralston which addressed the problems of on-base                      
  military schools.  He stated that the existing condition of                  
  a base school would highly affect the evaluation and overall                 
  recommendations by the Base Realignment and Closure                          
  REP. MULDER stated that HJR 47 is a resolution requesting                    
  that on-base schools be expeditiously transferred to the                     
  local school districts, and HB 359 is the appropriation bill                 
  which would fund $26 million, or half of the upgrades                        
  REP. MULDER stated there is no funding mechanism available                   
  to school districts and local communities to invest in on-                   
  base schools as they cannot bond for the schools because                     
  they do not own them.  He also said that because of federal                  
  entities involved in the oversight of the facilities, the                    
  situation is even more complex.                                              
  REP. MULDER urged that the base schools be transferred to                    
  local school districts as quickly as possible.  He stated                    
  that to accomplish that there must be reparations done to                    
  the facilities.  Rep. Mulder said it was the recommendation                  
  of the task force to have both the state and federal                         
  government fund the improvements necessary for the                           
  facilities involved.                                                         
  Number 234                                                                   
  CAPTAIN DENNIS PORTER, Legislative Liaison for the Military                  
  Schools Task Force, presented a slide show to the committee                  
  that summarized the findings and recommendations of the task                 
  force.  He stated that the on-base schools are owned by the                  
  U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE) and the land is                      
  owned by the U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. DOD).  It is                   
  the local school district's responsibility for construction.                 
  CAPT. PORTER said that the above arrangement caused inherent                 
  problems, citing the question of who would make repairs.  He                 
  noted that there was little or no funding for reparations of                 
  on-base schools.                                                             
  CAPT. PORTER stated that the local school districts have a                   
  $25,000 cap per year for repairs.  Any costs over that is                    
  the responsibility of the state.  He also said that some                     
  major maintenance issues are the responsibility of the U.S.                  
  DOE and cited that the U.S. DOD is prohibited by law to                      
  spend any operational maintenance dollars on school repairs.                 
  CAPT. PORTER stated that there were schools that had been                    
  upgraded by the U.S. DOE and later transferred to local                      
  school districts, and previously there had been a joint                      
  venture by the U.S. DOD and the State of Alaska that funded                  
  repairs of three on-base schools.  There are nine remaining                  
  schools in need of funding for repairs.  He noted that 50%                   
  of the students at Ben Eielson Junior/Senior High School                     
  come from off-base and the majority of on-base schools are                   
  attended by off-base students.                                               
  CAPT. PORTER told the committee that the cost to upgrade and                 
  repair the schools in the Anchorage bowl area was estimated                  
  to be over $27 million.  He said the total deficit for all                   
  schools was approximately $52 million.  The Americans with                   
  Disabilities Act, which ensures handicap access to all                       
  public buildings and the upgrades for fire and health and                    
  life safety codes, was responsible for increasing the                        
  estimated amount of funding originally projected in 1990.                    
  CAPT. PORTER stated that ownership would be transferred                      
  after the schools were upgraded and repaired.                                
  Number 491                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY asked if there would be any tax deferrals or any                 
  type of savings if the schools are transferred.                              
  Number 500                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER said that the because of state statutes, local                  
  school districts cannot bond for the on-base schools.  He                    
  went on to say that the task force has utilized a cohesive                   
  united approach to market the proposal.  They felt it was                    
  important to increase awareness for everyone by involving                    
  parents through volunteerism.                                                
  CAPT. PORTER felt it was unrealistic to get $26 million                      
  dollars each from the government and the state, although he                  
  was confident that at least $10 million could be obtained                    
  from the federal government this year.  Also, the U.S. DOE                   
  may also come forth with some funding, he said.                              
  CAPT. PORTER distributed photos to the committee of a                        
  classroom at Aurora Elementary School.  The picture shows                    
  two support beams in the middle of the room, obviously                       
  obstructing children's view.  He stated that there were 70                   
  such support structures placed throughout the school as a                    
  result of warnings from engineers that the roof could                        
  collapse at anytime if there was more than two inches of                     
  snow fall.                                                                   
  Number 612                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS asked if Ursa Major was recently transferred                   
  to the local school district and where the money came from                   
  to enable the transfer.                                                      
  Number 619                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER answered that the U.S. DOE funded the transfer                  
  for $4.9 million.                                                            
  Number 623                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS asked if the upgrades had been done.                           
  Number 624                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER said that the upgrades would occur over the                     
  next few years.                                                              
  Number 636                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE introduced Duane Guiley to testify on HB 359 and                 
  HJR 47.                                                                      
  HJR 47 - FUNDS TO UPGRADE MILITARY BASE SCHOOLS                              
  Number 641                                                                   
  DUANE GUILEY, Director, Division of School Finance,                          
  Department of Education, testified in support of HJR 47.  He                 
  felt the resolution continued to bring to the forefront the                  
  problems associated with transferring on-base schools and                    
  the costs involved.  However, he did state that the                          
  Department of Education (DOE) did not support HB 359 in that                 
  the bill calls for a direct appropriation of 50% of state                    
  share matched with 50% federal share for projects that have                  
  not been evaluated or ranked in the school construction                      
  priority process.  He said the highest priority project for                  
  on-base schools is a replacement facility for Taylor and                     
  Pennell Elementary Schools on Eielson Air Force Base.  The                   
  school district has applied for the transfer and received                    
  $600,000 last year for a planning grant.  A capital project                  
  construction grant has been applied for by the school                        
  district this year.  Mr. Guiley said the school has been                     
  evaluated and ranked, on a relative basis compared to state-                 
  wide need, as number 33 on the school construction list.  He                 
  stated that an appropriation of $241 million would be needed                 
  to fund the construction needs that are ranked ahead of                      
  Eielson.  Therefore, Mr. Guiley reiterated that the DOE does                 
  not support the proposed bill as written.  He recommended                    
  that the projects be submitted through "the normal capital                   
  projects process as the Fairbanks North Star Borough has                     
  already done."                                                               
  Number 694                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY asked what the status of the schools would be if                 
  indeed Ft. Richardson did eventually close.                                  
  Number 701                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER answered that the schools would be turned over                  
  to the local military and/or the state.                                      
  Number 719                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS asked Mr. Guiley about the planning grants                     
  given to the North Star Borough.                                             
  Number 728                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said the North Star Borough School District has                   
  one of the best six-year capital improvement project                         
  planning processes.  He continued on to describe the process                 
  involved in the planning process.                                            
  Number 749                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS said he didn't want to see any planning grants                 
  duplicate some of the information within the task force                      
  recommendations and proposed legislation.                                    
  Number 757                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said the initial planning that Capt. Porter had                   
  mentioned was related to the upgrade of Taylor and Pennell.                  
  The district determined in their review that it would be in                  
  their best interest to build a new facility, then they could                 
  relinquish control of the two existing facilities and turn                   
  them back to the federal government.                                         
  Number 773                                                                   
  REP. KOTT asked, as a variable, how important schools are in                 
  determining whether or not a military base should be closed.                 
  Number 785                                                                   
  LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOE RALSTON, Commander, Alaskan Command,                  
  (senior ranking military member in Alaska) United States Air                 
  Force, responded by saying that the Base Realignment and                     
  Closure Commission uses many variables when they evaluate a                  
  military base.  They look at the location, training areas,                   
  housing and schools, among other factors.  He said he could                  
  not forecast what the commission will do, but they will look                 
  carefully at on-base schools.  If there are schools that                     
  have roofs that are about to collapse and other serious                      
  states of disrepair, those conditions have a bearing on                      
  their decision when they compare that base with another that                 
  perhaps has better schools on it.                                            
  Number 818                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS told Mr. Guiley that she felt the North Star                   
  Borough situation was different from the situations being                    
  addressed within the proposed legislation.  She said the                     
  nine schools still belong to the U.S. DOD and the capital                    
  grant process would not apply because the local school                       
  district would only allow the transfer if the upgrades had                   
  already been made.                                                           
  Number 869                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY said that his reference to the guidelines were                    
  referring to the capital projects funding process that is in                 
  existence for schools statewide.  He said it would be the                    
  choice of the local school district of whether or not to                     
  take title to the proposed buildings.  The only way the                      
  federal government would provide more money for the                          
  buildings would be if the district agreed to take title.                     
  Number 928                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS asked what type of proposal would satisfy the                  
  Number 934                                                                   
  MR. GUILEY suggested that the projects be applied for, be                    
  evaluated and placed on a prioritized list, and recognized                   
  on a statewide basis.  He said the current list this year                    
  totals approximately $660 million of school construction                     
  statewide, citing that was just the first year of a six-year                 
  plan.  He said the total for the six-year plan is over $2                    
  billion of outstanding, unfunded capital improvement project                 
  requests.  He asked that the applications be developed for                   
  the schools in the proposed legislation.                                     
  Number 959                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS asserted that if that procedure were to be                     
  followed, the schools could be on the list "forever."  She                   
  stated again that it was not reasonable to expect the nine                   
  schools to follow the same procedure.                                        
  Number 977                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY asked how Alaskan standards compare to standards                  
  Number 995                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER stated that there are a number of schools in                    
  the same situation throughout the United States.  He said                    
  "our schools probably fare somewhere in the middle-range of                  
  this.  However, I can only take and look at Anchorage school                 
  districts, and if you were to rank the majority of the                       
  schools that we are talking about, they are in the Anchorage                 
  bowl area.  And, if you take a look at what they've                          
  done...they've had an HSI study a few years ago (1992) and                   
  they took a look at all the schools, and all of our schools                  
  rank in their top ten worst schools that they have.  And, I                  
  think that makes a statement, in itself, if you only apply                   
  that.  And, they have the most schools of any school                         
  district in the state of Alaska, 72 or so, 55 of them being                  
  REP. VEZEY asked in what years the schools were built.                       
  CAPT. PORTER replied 1952-1960.                                              
  REP. VEZEY said "the schools that we're comparing them with                  
  in Anchorage were all built in (the) 60's and mostly in the                  
  late 70's and beyond."                                                       
  Number 027                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER agreed, but felt the schools being discussed                    
  did not have the programmed upgrades and normal maintenance                  
  that the other schools had.                                                  
  Number 032                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said he could think of very few schools in the                    
  state that are over 30 years old, and the ones that did come                 
  to mind were on military bases.                                              
  Number 043                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER stated that "the number of schools that were                    
  this age... there is less than 10% of the schools that are                   
  in the state of Alaska...through that information we                         
  gathered at the task force level to find out exactly where                   
  we're sitting.  Again, I'm not so worried about the age of                   
  the school as I am the programmed maintenance and upgrades                   
  that we've had over the years."                                              
  Number 053                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that "a lot of those program upgrades and                    
  whatnot is due to the fact that the legislature has adopted                  
  new building standards which makes these older buildings                     
  Number 056                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER agreed that there had been a number of statutes                 
  addressing that issue.  He felt that the main problem was,                   
  "who's responsible for it?"  He said there is no capital                     
  improvement for on-base schools because the districts don't                  
  own them.                                                                    
  Number 070                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY asked, "is this unique to the United States...                   
  this snafu?"                                                                 
  Number 073                                                                   
  CAPT. PORTER said it was not.                                                
  Number 088                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS related the concern that all legislators have                  
  for their school district, hypothetically asking why his                     
  district hadn't been given priority.  He reminded Capt.                      
  Porter that all legislators were facing the same problems                    
  and crisis situation in the state with educational                           
  Number 109                                                                   
  REP. MULDER restated that the situation was unique in that                   
  the school districts would not take over the on-base schools                 
  until they are brought up to code, and there was no funding                  
  mechanism in place to enable a transfer.  He stated that                     
  school districts in other states were undertaking the                        
  financial responsibility of upgrading the schools and                        
  maintaining their military establishments because they                       
  realized the importance of military bases to their economy.                  
  Number 141                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE thanked everyone for their testimony and                         
  instructed the committee to take a brief at-ease.                            
  TAPE 94-10, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE reconvened the meeting at 3:45 p.m. and stated                   
  that Rep. Kott arrived at 3:04 p.m.  Chair Bunde brought                     
  HB 84 to the table for discussion.                                           
  HB 84 - IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS                                
  Chair Bunde stated that the committee would be working from                  
  version U of CSHB 84.                                                        
  Number 055                                                                   
  (See Attachment 1 for Ms. Douglas' prepared statement.)                      
  CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, National Education                               
  Association/Alaska (NEA/AK), testified in opposition to                      
  HB 84.  She stated that some believe that tenure is                          
  synonymous with lifetime employment, but she felt it was                     
  untrue.  It was her belief that the current tenure process                   
  protects teachers' academic freedom and protects schools                     
  from the spoils of bureaucracy.  She said the current tenure                 
  system continued to encourage effective teaching and at the                  
  same time allowed for dismissal and nonrenewal on the                        
  grounds of incompetence, immorality, or failure to comply                    
  with school system regulations.                                              
  MS. DOUGLAS continued by saying that administrators are                      
  trained to evaluate and coordinate various resources to                      
  develop staff, but there are situations where the                            
  administrators do not have the time to address all the needs                 
  of others.  She stated that weakening tenure would not help                  
  administrators do better jobs.  She also felt that "creating                 
  tenure review committees cannot do this because of lack of                   
  money, authority, time, and staff needed to insure a                         
  successful staff development and evaluation program.                         
  Schools are burdened with too many mandates from the local,                  
  state and federal levels.  Both the teachers and                             
  administrators are expected to do more, but are allocated                    
  nothing to accomplish the expectations."  She felt the                       
  proposal would create new bureaucracy to complicate the                      
  evaluation process.                                                          
  MS. DOUGLAS expressed concern, stating that by removing                      
  teachers from already overcrowded classrooms to serve on                     
  tenure review committees would be costly and would add to                    
  the overcrowding problem.  She questioned as to whether                      
  school districts would be expected to fund the tenure review                 
  committee, meetings, in-service training, etc.  She also                     
  felt that a two-tier tenure system would be confusing and                    
  divisive and that litigation could be expected, perhaps                      
  resulting in the rise of insurance premiums for the school                   
  MS. DOUGLAS stated that the problem is not tenure and the                    
  public did not believe it to be a problem either, referring                  
  to results from a study last year by the DOE.  She felt that                 
  the system for preparing teachers for the classroom must be                  
  improved, that the process used to select teachers for                       
  employment should be reviewed, and that the procedure used                   
  to evaluate and develop teachers must become a vehicle to                    
  empower teachers.                                                            
  Number 275                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE expressed his intention to end up with                           
  legislation that will serve Alaska teachers in the very best                 
  way possible.                                                                
  Number 291                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS stated that public perception seemed to be an                  
  issue that the committee was dealing with.  He said perhaps                  
  the public did not see the additional work that has been put                 
  on teachers and administrators.  He asked Ms. Douglas if she                 
  felt that was why the common citizen does not have a grasp                   
  of all their duties and that perhaps all the public can see                  
  and address is tenure.                                                       
  Number 324                                                                   
  MS. DOUGLAS agreed and said that the public, for the most                    
  part, did not understand the demands on both administration                  
  and teachers and they tend to personalize tenure if they                     
  have had a bad experience with one teacher.  She felt that                   
  the problem that has given tenure a bad name was that it                     
  protected a number of "bad" teachers.                                        
  Number 376                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated for the record that he was a very strong                  
  supporter of tenure and that he wanted tenure strengthened,                  
  not eliminated.                                                              
  CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged Terry Cramer from Legislative Legal                 
  Services and offered her expertise to anyone with questions                  
  with legal terminology.                                                      
  Number 452                                                                   
  CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School                  
  Boards (AASB), testified in favor of CSHB 84.  He stated                     
  that he was unsure of the appropriateness of the legislation                 
  towards Alaska 2000 regarding issues of the actual delivery                  
  system in education, of governance at state and local levels                 
  (who's responsible for what?), and of the funding of                         
  education in the future.  He felt that these were the                        
  critical issues that needed to be discussed.                                 
  MR. ROSE said that he was concerned that the PTA did not                     
  want to be involved in the advisory board process.  He                       
  stated that the parents viewed education as a very political                 
  process and they did not want to be involved in the politics                 
  of education.  He felt there needed to be systemic change                    
  that would address the politics involved that keeps the PTA                  
  away from participating.                                                     
  MR. ROSE expressed concerns about tenure.  He wanted to                      
  speak to the standards set for tenure.  He listed the four                   
  reasons that allow administration to nonretain,                              
  incompetence, immorality, substantial noncompliance, and                     
  reduction in enrollment.  Under that scenario, he said that                  
  he appreciated the language of "deficient performance."  He                  
  felt that incompetence was more than sufficient reason to                    
  remove a teacher, but if the scale were incompetence and                     
  excellence, he asked what would be done about substandard or                 
  average or below average performance.  He asserted that                      
  students deserve better.  Mr. Rose referred to Terry Cramer                  
  when he asked what the language "deficient performance"                      
  meant as compared to incompetent.                                            
  MR. ROSE stated that the inclusion of committees and public                  
  access within the proposal indicates change and a                            
  considerable amount of money.  He indicated that the system,                 
  so far, has evolved through the process of "oil money" and                   
  in the future the school districts cannot depend on that                     
  revenue.  He stated that the issue of permanent fund dollars                 
  being set aside to fund education and perpetuity does two                    
  things:  it isolates education as a high priority, and                       
  relieves the strain on the general fund for the rest of                      
  MR. ROSE said these issues are crucial and no one seems to                   
  be addressing them.                                                          
  Number 663                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE reminded Mr. Rose that the committee substitute                  
  (CS) was a distillation of Governor Hickel's bill.  He said                  
  that he chose the word "deficiency," intending it to be a                    
  community standard suggesting local flexibility.  However,                   
  at this point, Chair Bunde said he was considering changing                  
  "deficiency" to "incompetency" because incompetence is                       
  defined in statute.                                                          
  Number 710                                                                   
  MR. ROSE felt that the current definition of "incompetence"                  
  is inadequate and would not ensure quality in classrooms.                    
  He urged Chair Bunde to retain the standard of "deficiency."                 
  Number 739                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 84.  He said that                  
  he wanted to amend version U of CSHB 84 to remove Section 1,                 
  citing that the CS was "no longer the Alaska 2000 bill that                  
  began a year ago.  It is a fraction and has become (I will                   
  still maintain it is) an attempt to implement some of the                    
  Alaska 2000 requests that came originally from the                           
  governor."  He opened to the committee for discussion the                    
  topic of "incompetence" versus "deficient."                                  
  Number 769                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that deficiency is not a high enough                         
  standard, citing that mediocre or substandard should be                      
  grounds for dismissal.  "If your goal is excellence, you                     
  have to set high standards and mediocrity may not be good                    
  enough to meet that standard."                                               
  Number 796                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said he understood Rep. Vezey's point.                           
  Number 802                                                                   
  REP. TOOHEY made a motion to delete Section 1 of CSHB 84.                    
  CHAIR BUNDE, hearing no objection, stated that Section 1,                    
  was deleted.  He then asked Terry Cramer for the statutory                   
  definition of incompetence.                                                  
  Number 810                                                                   
  TERRY CRAMER, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative                     
  Affairs Agency, stated that she had drafted the tenure                       
  section of CSHB 84.  She listed the reasons, from statute,                   
  that a teacher may be nonretained.  AS 14.20.175 in statutes                 
  reads as follows:  "incompetency...which is defined as the                   
  inability or the unintentional or intentional failure to                     
  perform the teacher's customary teaching duties in a                         
  satisfactory manner."                                                        
  Number 833                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that was below average performance.  The                    
  enforcement of the definition, he said, lies within the                      
  interpretation of the school administration.                                 
  Number 843                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG shared his solution to the tenure problem.  He                   
  said that teachers should be graded numerically on                           
  performance by a single form used statewide.  A teacher                      
  would be retained for a 51 or above and would be nonretained                 
  at 50 and below.  He stated that a definition could not be                   
  agreed upon for incompetent or substandard.  He continued to                 
  say that he has undergone performance reviews that were                      
  subjective evaluations with a number attached to it.                         
  Number 875                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE responded that he would not want to use the same                 
  form to evaluate a special education teacher for the                         
  handicapped and an advanced honors English teacher.                          
  Number 883                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG said he felt that the subject taught made no                     
  difference, the standard should be the same for all                          
  Number 909                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY felt that whatever standard is proposed could be                  
  litigated and said what was needed was the authority of an                   
  administrator to build a competent faculty.                                  
  Number 929                                                                   
  REP. OLBERG said, "aren't we saying now, if you are not                      
  incompetent, you are eligible for tenure?"                                   
  Number 934                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE agreed.                                                          
  Number 935                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS said what was just read was the process used                   
  to have a teacher removed, not to guarantee tenure.  She                     
  also gave an example of how she thought tenure could cause                   
  problems.  She said that perhaps in a small district that                    
  has just a few teachers there might rise an occasion where                   
  they want to hire on a teacher that has all the                              
  qualifications that is required for a position that has been                 
  filled for sometime.  She said that if there is no just                      
  cause, the teacher could not be replaced.  Rep. B. Davis                     
  continued on to say that of the eight years she served on                    
  the school board committee, not one parent came to the                       
  school board meeting or talked to her personally about                       
  tenure or its removal.                                                       
  Number 012                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that it was his feeling that it would be                  
  impossible to come up with a form that could grade every                     
  teacher in every different school district in the state.  He                 
  further stated that to be judged by a "jury of your peers"                   
  would be a more fair process than to be judged by one person                 
  that may have a personal conflict with the teacher being                     
  Number 068                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS related to Chair Bunde that the problem facing                 
  the teachers is that they are not trained administrators and                 
  have not been trained to evaluate.  She also stated that the                 
  process could be done by choice at the local level and not                   
  be a mandate from the state.  She then asked if the school                   
  districts would buffer the cost for substitute teachers or                   
  would the money be appropriated along with the bill.                         
  Number 081                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that over a year's time the evaluating                      
  committee would observe for approximately an hour.  He said                  
  teachers can recognize excellence in teaching and can                        
  recognize incompetence.                                                      
  Number 099                                                                   
  REP. B. DAVIS recommended that Chair Bunde read the copy of                  
  a letter sent to the committee from the Anchorage School                     
  Number 109                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS said the committee should include the                          
  TAPE 94-11, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS made the committee aware that copies of his                    
  proposed amendments were in their bill packets.                              
  (See Attachment 2 for the copy of the proposed amendment.)                   
  Number 007                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked if everyone in the audience had a copy.                    
  REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to move the amendment.                           
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that the amendment had been moved and it                  
  was up for discussion.                                                       
  REP. G. DAVIS summarized the intent of the amendment.                        
  Page 4, line 16:  He felt by reducing the size of the                        
  committee that cost would decrease and it would also better                  
  address the smaller school districts.                                        
  Page 4, line 17:  Rep. G. Davis said it was a housekeeping                   
  measure to reflect the aforementioned change.                                
  Number 088                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE, in regards to inserting "regular" after "The"                   
  on page 4, line 26, said he was unclear as to its intent.                    
  Number 101                                                                   
  MS. CRAMER said that she chose to insert that in the draft                   
  to ensure it was clear that the members she was speaking of                  
  were the appointed members, not members that are added                       
  school by school.                                                            
  Number 115                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS stated that the following change on page 4,                    
  line 26, addressed the makeup of the committee to include                    
  the principal and a tenured teacher from the same school                     
  that the teacher being evaluated works in.                                   
  Page 4, lines 27-28:  Rep. G. Davis said this section deals                  
  with the quorum issue in regards to the change in size of                    
  the committee.                                                               
  Page 5, line 1:  Rep. G. Davis asserted that the amendment                   
  deletes a paragraph that contains the public meeting                         
  Number 194                                                                   
  MS. CRAMER stated that it deletes the sentence that reads,                   
  "the committee shall meet at a time and place that will                      
  encourage public participation."                                             
  Number 198                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS expressed concern, stating that the process                    
  should not be held open to the public and further stated                     
  that it related to the Open Meetings Act as far as the                       
  legalities of what needs to be made public and what does not                 
  need to be made public.                                                      
  Page 6, line 6:  Rep. G. Davis said that the change also                     
  related to the public meetings section.                                      
  Number 247                                                                   
  MS. CRAMER reiterated that it related to public meetings                     
  requirements and public records.                                             
  Number 257                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Cramer, "on that last amendment, on                    
  page 6, line 6... if the local school board disapproves                      
  tenure for a teacher, a local board shall set out in writing                 
  the reasons for disapproval.  Is this what you're talking                    
  about?  It was my purpose there that the teacher would                       
  receive written notification."                                               
  Number 271                                                                   
  MR. CRAMER said that the particular sentence he read would                   
  remain and that the line taken out was "the meeting is                       
  closed and documents remain private."                                        
  Number 281                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS continued on by saying that on page 6, lines                   
  14-15, he would suggest to delete "The tenure review                         
  committee for a school shall review the performance of each                  
  tenured teacher every five years."  He said that the                         
  deletion would relate to the cost of the activities of the                   
  committee.  He felt that there need only be one review after                 
  five years.  He stated that the intent was to eliminate the                  
  extended process and cost of the committee.                                  
  REP. G. DAVIS stated that from page 6, line 15 and on, the                   
  term "committee" had been deleted and "reviewer" had been                    
  inserted.  He said there was concern over the word                           
  Number 355                                                                   
  MS. CRAMER interjected by saying that "the policy choice is                  
  up to you...what the amendment does now is to leave to a                     
  school board to identify who it is that the reviewer would                   
  be.  If you, as a legislative body, want to say it's the                     
  school administrator, we should say so."                                     
  Number 361                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that the amendments would be discussed                    
  and voted on individually.  He started with the first                        
  proposal that would change the committee to five members.                    
  Number 384                                                                   
  MS. CRAMER said that what she drafted was "three (members),                  
  who are the generic ones and then from a school there is a                   
  principal and a teacher.  So, there would be for each tenure                 
  review five people - the three ongoing members and the two                   
  ad hoc members."                                                             
  CHAIR BUNDE said he thought the thrust was to reduce the                     
  number of members rather than have three roving members and                  
  then a member from the school.  He felt whatever the intent                  
  was, he did not look favorably upon it.                                      
  Number 412                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS conveyed that his intent was to reduce the                     
  overall size to a minimum of three but no more than five.                    
  MS. CRAMER said that could be done, but the language, as                     
  written, did not accomplish that.                                            
  Number 421                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE stressed that his original intent was to have a                  
  majority of teachers and a representative of the school                      
  board and a principal.  He felt that to have three people,                   
  one teacher, one principal, and one school board member,                     
  would be to outvote the school teacher and would cause him                   
  grave concern.                                                               
  Number 441                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS said he did not propose to override a teacher                  
  or any member.  He felt that Chair Bunde's scenario placed                   
  the teachers on the committee in a majority position and he                  
  did not agree with that.                                                     
  Number 457                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that with a majority of members as                          
  teachers, a situation of intimidation or influence from the                  
  principal would be less likely to exist.                                     
  Number 481                                                                   
  REP. BRICE referred the proposed change to page 4, line 17,                  
  and stated that Chair Bunde's concerns were being addressed                  
  by the very language of the proposed change, citing that                     
  teachers still are the majority of the committee.                            
  Number 525                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE felt that there were problems with that section                  
  of the amendment, stating that perhaps the drafter and the                   
  amender had different goals in mind.                                         
  Number 546                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY commented that nine members was an unworkable                     
  number for a working committee and that eleven was                           
  unreasonable.  He felt seven to be maximum and five to be                    
  the better number of members.                                                
  (Due to surrounding noise the question asked by Rep. Vezey                   
  was inaudible.)                                                              
  Number 563                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that he was open to discussion on that                      
  point.  He further stated that he agreed that nine members                   
  was too many.  He asked that the particular portion of the                   
  amendment that addressed the size of the committee be                        
  withdrawn and rewritten because the intention was not clear.                 
  Number 609                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS agreed that nine was too many, but he                          
  preferred his own wording of that section.                                   
  Number 613                                                                   
  REP. BRICE questioned how the wording would impact small,                    
  single-site school districts.  He added that he agreed with                  
  Rep. G. Davis' intent.                                                       
  Number 641                                                                   
  MR. ROSE commented that "the role of the school board member                 
  is that of a policy maker not unlike a legislator, they're                   
  legislators of their district.  And, I think to include them                 
  on a tenure committee is to move them into the executive                     
  function.  And, I don't think that that's what the design                    
  is.  I appreciate what you're trying to get to, but these                    
  elected officials are responsible for all facets of the                      
  educational system."                                                         
  REP. BRICE agreed with Mr. Rose.                                             
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that tenure evaluation for smaller                        
  schools would be costlier to evaluate because someone from a                 
  neighboring school would have to take part.                                  
  Number 676                                                                   
  REP. BRICE interjected by asking about a one school district                 
  and how the tenure process would work there.                                 
  Number 680                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Rose how the bill would impact single-                 
  site schools with three teachers.                                            
  Number 682                                                                   
  MR. ROSE answered by saying that it would place                              
  disproportionate value with decision-making.                                 
  Number 700                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that he thought there were no single-site                   
  schools with less than five teachers.                                        
  Number 706                                                                   
  MR. ROSE said that there were such schools.  He also added                   
  that the issue of an administrator and a teacher or the                      
  requirement for oversight for a committee in a small site                    
  would be difficult to accomplish.                                            
  Number 722                                                                   
  REP. BRICE asked what the impact would be on the small                       
  school if the committee was increased from three to five                     
  Number 726                                                                   
  MR. ROSE said that in most rural districts, perhaps a                        
  district-wide committee would be more suitable.                              
  Number 751                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that he supported changes that would                         
  indicate a committee of three to five members with the                       
  majority being tenured teachers and the minority being                       
  appointed by the school board.                                               
  Number 777                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE reminded Rep. Vezey of Rep. G. Davis' intent to                  
  have a school administrator on the committee and stated that                 
  he agreed with that point.  He said in order to make the                     
  numbers work, school administrators needed to be on the                      
  committee and not school board representatives.                              
  Number 789                                                                   
  REP. VEZEY said that in the original bill there was no                       
  mention of a school board member being on the committee,                     
  citing that it said "...the school board will appoint the                    
  members of the committee..."                                                 
  Number 804                                                                   
  CHAIR BUNDE said that would be the route he would follow.                    
  He further stated that the proposal suggests three to five                   
  members to make the committee less cumbersome.  He said he                   
  was not going to ask for a vote on the proposed amendment,                   
  but he and Rep. G. Davis would further discuss the amendment                 
  to clean up the language.                                                    
  CHAIR BUNDE stated that he wanted to continue discussions on                 
  the issue of further review after tenure has been granted.                   
  He said that his original intent was that after five years                   
  of tenured teaching, the teacher would be reevaluated (still                 
  maintaining tenure until found incompetent).  He said there                  
  had been previous discussion that there might be a less                      
  threatening way to accomplish that.  He reiterated that it                   
  was a small number of teachers that "burn out" after a                       
  period of time.  He said the confidence in the teaching                      
  profession would be strengthened by a reevaluation after                     
  tenure is granted.                                                           
  Number 882                                                                   
  REP. G. DAVIS said it was public perception that viewed                      
  tenure as a safeguard from being fired.                                      
  CHAIR BUNDE thanked all those present.                                       
  Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE                 
  ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:55 p.m.                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects