Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/08/1994 03:00 PM HES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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 None 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 felonies." 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 SHORT TITLE: APPROP: CONSTRUCT/UPGRADE ON-BASE SCHOOLS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER BY REQUEST OF MILITARY 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 SHORT TITLE: FUNDS TO UPGRADE MILITARY BASE SCHOOLS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER BY REQUEST OF MILITARY 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 SHORT TITLE: IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS 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 SHORT TITLE: NOTICE TO OUT-OF-HOME CARE PROVIDERS 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. HB 359 - APPROPRIATION: CONSTRUCT/UPGRADE ON-BASE SCHOOLS 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 Commission. 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 necessary. 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 DOE. 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 nationwide. 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 elementary." 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 obsolete." 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 facilities. 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 district. 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 government. 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 teachers. 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 evaluated. 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 District. Number 109 REP. G. DAVIS said the committee should include the principal. 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 section. 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 "reviewer." 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 members. 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.