Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/13/1996 03:07 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 1996
3:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 371
"An Act relating to the rights of terminally ill persons."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 465
"An Act relating to employment of teachers and school
administrators and to public school collective bargaining."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 373
"An Act relating to educational benefits for family members of
deceased members of the armed services."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 371
SHORT TITLE: RIGHTS OF TERMINALLY ILL PERSONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN,TOOHEY,Finkelstein,Davies
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2363 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2363 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2363 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/06/96 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/06/96 (H) MINUTES
02/13/96 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 465
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER EMPLOYMENT/PUB SCHL BARGAINING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/96 2606 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/02/96 2606 (H) HEALTH,EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
02/13/96 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JAMES O. BURRIS
115 Granite Creek Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8167
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
TERI LUNDY
1311 Sawmill Creek Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8138
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371
CLOTHILDE BAHOVEC
627 DeGroff Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8185
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
BRUCE GORDON
P.O. Box 80046
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-6988
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
CHUCK BOOTH
P.O. Box 102
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-5751
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
BEVERLY DUNHAM
P.O. Box 27
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-5623
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
APRIL WOLFE
P.O. Box 7202
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 479-6988
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
ELAINE ROSE
Box 384
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8915
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
MARY SOLTIS
405 Verstovia Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5624
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
HELEN CRAIG
613 DeGroff Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5917
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
RON SHEEHAN
P.O. Box 521747
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
Telephone: (907) 892-8994
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
VESTA LEIGH
P.O. Box 905
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
LORI BROWN
P.O. Box 3943
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-2398
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371
SUE KELLY
P.O. Box 3564
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-6587
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
ELEANOR VIERECK
1707 Red Fox Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-2879
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
FATHER MICHAEL KANIECKI
1316 Peger Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 474-9540
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
JOHN COGHILL, JR.
P.O. Box 58003
Fairbanks, Alaska 99711
Telephone: (907) 488-7886
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
DEBORAH VAN VELDHUIZEN
P.O. Box 82593
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-8449
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
SANDI DOYLE
P.O. Box 81183
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-9751
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
DR. FREDERICK HILLMAN
1685 Stanton Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 562-7161
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
PEGGY BURGIN
1530 West 11th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-2102
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
SHIRLEEN RANNALS
1751 Westview Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-9425
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
ANITA SYREN
7027 Lake Otis Parkway
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 349-5966
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
BERT SHAW
332 Shaw Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 337-3807
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
WILLIE LOGAN
4130 Endeavor Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 349-7446
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 371
THERESE SYREN
7027 Lake Otis Parkway
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 349-5966
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
PATRICIA SENNE, Executive Director
Alaska Nurses Association
237 East Third, No. 3
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-0827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
CORALYN OINES
2414 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-6732
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
JOLEE CARNEY
1412 Kinnikinnick, No. A
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 277-2479
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 371
JACK MCGEE, Attorney
445 Nelson
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2548
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Aide
Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for HB 465
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 465
TOM RICHARDS
580 Steele Creek Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-8052
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
VINCE SPERANGE
2801 West International
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 243-3108
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
BILL MUNROE, President
Classified Employees Association
Mat-Su Borough School District
2950 Marianns Place
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-4269
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
DAVE PARSONS
P.O. Box 80467
Fairbanks, alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 456-5671
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
LELA AYRES, Teacher
523 Quicksilver Circle
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-0103
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
LUCY HOPE
P.O. Box 870887
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-4796
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
GAYLE PIERCE
2310 Patterson Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99711
Telephone: (907) 488-2199
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
RICHARD I. MAUER, Member
Delta-Greely School District
P.O. Box 1302
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4956
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
DEB GERMANO, Member
Kenai Peninsula School Board
P.O. Box 1511
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-2538
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
MARILYN LEEHY, President
Valdez School Board
Box 689
Valdez, alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-7801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
KIMBERLY HOMME, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W. 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-7930
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
364 4th Street, Suite 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 465
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-10, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Toohey at 3:07 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Davis, Rokeberg,
Robinson, Brice and Toohey. Representatives absent were Bunde and
Vezey.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced the calendar for the meeting was HB 371,
Rights of the Terminally Ill and HB 465 Teachers Employment Public
School Bargaining. She opened public testimony at the Sitka
teleconference site.
HB 371 - RIGHTS OF TERMINALLY ILL PERSONS
Number 196
JAMES O. BURRIS testified via teleconference from Sitka that he
wanted to lend his complete support to the provisions of this
legislation. He felt this was a bill that should be passed so
people who are terminally ill can die with the degree of dignity
they are entitled to. Terminally ill people should not be
subjected to weeks and months of medication and pain.
Number 274
TERI LUNDY testified via teleconference from Sitka. She began her
testimony by asking what the DNR identification is and if it was
going to become a mandatory form that needed to be filled out and
signed when being registered into a pioneer's home or a hospital
before major surgery? She asked if the living will is a mandatory
document at this time? What is the medication or medications that
will be used by the physician for the physician assisted suicide?
She referred to Section 2, AS 18.20.005 (a) "The legislature finds
that the people of the state have a fundamental right to make their
own end-of-life decisions. The right should include...." She
asked if the other choices were suicide by hanging, suicide using
a firearm, suicide by cutting one's wrists. She said the proper
term for "dignified" is euthanasia. Regarding Section 3 (a) (1) -
(4), she expressed concern that there is an option for the
requester not to notify the next of kin of their decision or they
may not have any next of kin to notify. She questioned who these
people are that are given the authority to witness and sign the
Request for Medication, but are not required to give their
residence address. She referenced page 3, line 18, and asked why
an individual had to be over 18 years of age to complete the
Request for Medication. Additionally, line 29 pushes
responsibility on the physician to write the prescription thereby
becoming the messenger of death. She asked what the meaning was
regarding the language on page 4, line 13. She inquired as to the
types of identification that would be required for the witnesses.
In conclusion, Ms. Lundy said she was not pleased with the drafting
of HB 371 or its presentation to the public.
Number 580
CLOTHILDE BAHOVEC testified from Sitka via teleconference that the
time for people to die with dignity has long past; it should have
been law years ago. She discussed the high cost of medical care
and didn't feel that a terminally ill person should be forced to
have medication and life-support equipment to keep them alive. She
believes the decision to end your life should be a private matter
between the physician and the patient. She concluded that inasmuch
as this is a voluntary decision, she doesn't understand why people
should be upset about it.
Number 654
BRUCE GORDON testified from Fairbanks urging the committee's
support of HB 371. His wife died about 1 l/2 years ago after
suffering over 15 years from Parkinson's disease, which is always
progressive and at present there is no cure. The symptoms include
deterioration of muscle control spreading over the entire body.
Her X-rays and biopsy of lung tissue resulted in a diagnosis of
lymphoma and in 1991 she experienced a cardiac arrest while in the
hospital. When her Parkinson's disease suddenly accelerated in
September 1994, she knew the final stage was near. She had signed
a living will, durable power of attorney and a Do Not Resuscitate
order in 1992, all of which were witnessed by disinterested
parties. She hoped for another heart attack that would be the
final release to her constant pain. Failing that, she was
determined to end her own life while she was still able to do so
without any assistance from him so as not to put him at risk for
criminal prosecution. She finally found a nonviolent means and
died peacefully in her bed, as she had wanted. He commented that
he and his wife had been members of groups for several years that
supported the right to die with dignity and the freedom to choose
the time and the circumstance. House Bill 371 provides this
freedom with the necessary and appropriate safeguards. He urged
the committee to pass HB 371.
Number 773
CHUCK BOOTH testified from Seward in opposition to the legislation.
Number 786
BEVERLY DUNHAM testified from Seward that at the age of 12, she
watched her father die of cancer. She saw this magnificent 225
pound man turn into nothing but a vegetable who was in great pain
and would have done anything to have been alleviated of that pain.
She commented that she has asthma and has seriously considered not
taking her doctors advice about getting a pneumonia shot because
thankfully her father died from pneumonia a few days earlier than
he would have otherwise. She has always known that if the time
came when one of her loved ones asked for her help in ending their
life she would do it regardless if she had to go to prison. She
commented that churches and many people don't want laws except when
it comes to issues like the right to die or having the choice of
what happens to your own body. Her 82-year-old brother has
multiple sclerosis and they are both aware of what the future holds
for him. She is hopeful that he will be able to die when he gets
to that stage. She referenced the Oregon law and said even though
it's in court now, it has finally made the medical community
realize that it has a responsibility to help people die less
painfully. There is an effort among the doctors now to begin
medications that really might have some effect. They are trying to
counsel patients who are dying and their families. She concluded
that she favors HB 371.
Number 938
APRIL WOLFE testified from Bethel that she is not supportive of
this legislation. She commented that it has taken a friend of hers
five years to be properly diagnosed with metal toxicity which is a
condition that doesn't just go away, but doctors were able to find
a process called chelation that's beginning to draw the poisons out
of her body. During this five year period, Ms. Wolfe said she
watched her friend's stress and emotional levels go up and down.
There were days when her friend was ready to give up and Ms.
Wolfe's concern is that with this legislation a person might decide
to give it up if the timing is just right. In her friend's case
there has been a major break-through in treatment. She believes
this bill would destroy hope in terms of medical break throughs.
Number 1051
ELAINE ROSE testified from Sitka via teleconference that she is
against this bill. She thinks that suicide is suicide, and it
doesn't make it right just because the doctors say it's okay. She
added neither the legislature nor the federal government has a
right to decide on this issue; it's an individual decision.
Number 1080
MARY SOLTIS testified from Sitka that pain is controllable with
modern medicine. A person who seeks to kill him or herself to
avoid pain does not need legalized assisted suicide, but needs a
doctor who is better trained in alleviating pain. She asked who
would ensure the lethal dose of medication didn't get into the
wrong hands. She noted that euthanasia in the Netherlands has been
legal for 15 years and voluntary assisted suicide for those with a
terminal illness has now spread to include nonvoluntary euthanasia
for children born with disabilities. Half of the killings in the
Netherlands are now nonvoluntary and the problems for which death
is now a legal solution include mental illness, permanent
disability and simple old age.
Number 1161
HELEN CRAIG testified from Sitka that she supports HB 371 for
several reasons. First, she has seen loved ones suffer for many
years. She does believe that every possible option should be
pursued first, but the terminally ill who are suffering from great
pain that is not able to be controlled, should be allowed to go to
the Lord. She noted that one of her children was born early and
born a vegetable. She and her husband were faced with the
difficult decision of allowing their child to suffer, be a
vegetable and to have no joy in her life, or letting that child to
go to the Lord. She does not believe this is a decision that
should be made by everyone, but the person afflicted or the parents
of a child whose life will have no meaning or joy should have the
right to make this decision.
Number 1265
RON SHEEHAN testified via teleconference that he is basically
against HB 371 on the assumption that the sanctity of life is being
put into some variables. He said this is a bill that, through the
euthanasia, could get into patricide. He referred to a survey done
in Washington State in 1994 which indicated that physicians who
were originally for euthanasia, mainly the ontologists and
hematologists who deal with the subject every day, were opposed to
it after some long thought. The psychologists and the physicians
who are the farthest removed from the problem were for it. He
commented that our doctors are almost phobic in their lack of
willingness to prescribe adequate amounts of pain medication for
the terminally ill. Until they get over that phobia and start
administering sufficient pain medication, this is not an
appropriate measure. He is concerned over whether this issue is
being driven by the insurance companies and their willingness to
sacrifice human life to stem the tide of cost (indisc.) life-saving
measures of people who are going through their last six months of
life, which is when the largest amounts of money are spent in
health care.
Number 1357
VESTA LEIGH testified from Kenai that she has looked for something
like this since she was 30 years of age. She watched her mother
die a very slow death and the doctors would administer sufficient
medication to ease her pain. She asked why the individuals opposed
to this legislation aren't beating the drum to do away with alcohol
and tobacco, which kills millions of people every year. She
personally believes this bill doesn't go far enough, but it is a
good start.
Number 1420
LORI BROWN testified via teleconference that she is a pharmacist
and understood that HB 371 stated the physician would write a
prescription and the pharmacist would fill it. Currently, it is
not mandatory for a physician to include a diagnosis, prognosis or
history on prescriptions. She feels this information would be
vital for pharmacists to conscientiously fill the prescription or
to choose not to. Some pharmacists may be completely against
aiding to end a patient's life and that option should be available
to them. She expressed concern that it is not included in this
legislation. She added that without knowing why the prescription
was written and what it is being used for, the pharmacists may put
themselves in a professional or morally compromising situation,
because they are the ones who would ultimately be dispensing the
medication. She asked the committee to consider that issue.
Number 1470
SUE KELLY testified via teleconference that she is in favor of this
legislation.
Number 1485
ELEANOR VIERECK testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She
indicated she is speaking for herself, but is also the Fairbanks
representative for the Hemlock Society, which is an organization
that has the right to die as its mission. She supports HB 371.
She remarked that she is also a member of the Christian Ecumenical
Peace with Justice Committee in Fairbanks and wanted to speak about
non-harming. Non-harming is one of the major ethical tenets of all
world religions. She referred to the oath taken by doctors: They
do not vow in the hippocratic to refrain from assisting a person
who wishes to commit suicide. They do, however, vow non-harming.
She referred to a poll conducted by Mark Clements, Inc., of 352
doctors who subscribe to Scientific American Medicine and said the
results indicate that 95 percent of these doctors believe a doctor
should be able to help a terminally ill patient die by withholding
life-support. Only 73 percent of those doctors feel that a doctor
should be allowed to help the terminally ill person die with
dignity. She pointed out this legislation does not force any
doctor who does not comply with this philosophy to do so. Eighty
percent of the doctors said there is no conflict about a patient's
right to die and the oath taken when they became a doctor. It is
her feeling that it is a compassionate, caring and ethical choice
to assist a terminally ill person who wants to avoid the legalized
torture of a prolonged terminal illness.
Number 1595
FATHER MICHAEL KANIECKI testified from Fairbanks that he is totally
opposed to HB 371. He feels it is bad public policy and bad
morals. He said it seeks to establish a new fundamental right
equal to those of the U.S. Constitution; the right of people to
make their own end-of-life decisions. He feels that what is being
proposed through soft sounding language is that suicide is as basic
a right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He thinks
much of this comes from the distorted view we have of freedom; the
root of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human
rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a notion of
freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way.
While it is true that the taking of life in its final stages is
sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human
compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken
as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of
freedom, which ultimately becomes the freedom of the strong against
the weak who have no choice but to submit. The freedom of choice
as popularly understood today to be freedom from all restriction,
has led to the breakdown of family and eroded our bonds of fidelity
with each other. We have an obligation to sustain and support
members of our family for better or worse, in sickness and in
health. Freedom seems to be the battle cry of the proponents for
euthanasia or assisted suicide. He knows that all human life is
valuable. Medicine should have as its prime goal the easing of
pain, not the termination. Father Kaniecki said we're trying to
play God. God gives life and only God can take it away.
Number 1672
FATHER KANIECKI remarked that in Holland, where euthanasia with
safeguards is the accepted practice, some 95 percent of persons in
nursing homes expressed a concern for their future. They think
they are going to be forced into signing something that will
terminate their life. In conclusion, Father Kaniecki said at a
time when individual rights are universally acknowledged and
upheld, the most fundamental human right, the right to life, is
being trampled in the name of personal freedom. Freedom, as
granted by God, is not individualistic or absolute. Rather,
freedom finds its true expression within the context of the
faithfulness of each person to family and community. Authentic
freedom recognizes the value of all human life and rejects the
current bias in favor of death that runs through society. We
affirm that life is a gift from God to be treasured, supported and
dealt with compassionately from its very conception until its last
breath.
Number 1715
JOHN COGHILL, JR., testified from Fairbanks that in listening to
the previous testimony, he appreciates the concern for people in
our society that are in pain and dying, but he thinks we are going
about it the wrong way. The U.S. Constitution and the State
Constitution show gratitude to God for the life He has given us.
He thinks we're trying to wipe out the tragedy by really pandering
to the final excesses of our society, starting with alcohol,
tobacco and any other excess that we do as a society that brings us
to the place of pain and suffering. And then finally to make it
okay, by a stroke of a legislative-policy-making-pen, for people to
watch other people take their life in suicide. Our society, just
by virtue of the fact that this is bait, is in trouble. Mr.
Coghill suggested the committee kill the bill and watch those
people who want to take care of their loved ones. No one likes
suffering, but it is part of life. Watching people die is one of
the most painful experiences of life, but it is also one of the
instruments that God has given us to allow the extremes of love
this side of eternity. He said we are robbing ourselves of that by
allowing the government to okay suicide. He encouraged committee
members to not bring the quick fix relief many people are looking
for, but allow us to take care of our living and dying with
dignity.
Number 1826
DEBORAH VAN VELDHUIZEN testified from Fairbanks that she is a
citizen and supports this legislation. She said if we do not
respect the integrity and dignity of a person in the matter of
death, then she questions if people really believe in the integrity
and dignity in life; it is just a continuance. She urged the
committee to support HB 371.
Number 1850
SANDI DOYLE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that she
opposes HB 371 as an act against all human life and the right to
life. She said this bill is nothing more than assisted suicide by
doctors who take an oath to preserve life. All life is a gift from
God. This bill, if passed, would and could lead to the killing of
the mentally ill and the physically handicapped.
Number 1901
DR. FREDERICK HILLMAN testified from Anchorage that he is a retired
physician who practiced in Anchorage from 1958 to 1990. He said in
founding this Nation, the founding fathers from the various sects
made it clear that the new constitutional nation would be not only
nonsectarian, but indeed secular. It debated the matter and in the
end, they wrote the Constitution to include neither the word God
nor the word Christ. In no sense, can this country be called a
Christian one. The ensuing two centuries of religious liberty that
we have enjoyed have shown the wisdom of the founding fathers'
decision. Now we find that some church leaders are using the
religious argument to prevent passage of a law that has nothing to
do with religion. House Bill 371 is a bill that does not infringe
on the religious rights of anyone. On the other hand,
spokespersons for some churches would like to impose their own
narrow religious views on everybody. Their religious arguments
concerning purely a non-religious bill directly contravenes the
First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and they mock our 200 year
history separation of church and state. House Bill 371 is entirely
voluntary and permissive. It allows an individual to escape
needless suffering if the person chooses; it does not require
action by anyone. It is not about killing, but it is about a
person's own personal decision of whether to continue to endure
one's own needless suffering. It contains safeguards to prevent
such a decision being made in haste, without thought, under
pressure or for financial reasons. It concerns a decision that Dr.
Hillman may well want to make for himself some day. As a long time
church member, he does not attempt to force his religious views on
other people and he deeply resents the attempts from other sects to
stand in the way of a law that may benefit him. He suggested that
the committee strike from the record any testimony against HB 371
that is based on religious argument.
Number 2010
PEGGY BURGIN testified from Anchorage that she is a senior citizen
and has lived in Alaska for almost 50 years. She has three very
personal reasons why she supports this legislation. First, her
mother had a stroke which was totally debilitating. She had been
an energetic, active person in the community, but when she realized
that her quality life was gone she wanted to die. She did not want
to be a burden on her family. She ended up in a nursing home for
almost three years and finally willed herself to die. Secondly,
her husband contracted lung cancer several years ago. He went
through an operation, chemotherapy and radiation hoping it would
give him some quality of life and a few more years. But the cancer
spread and within 2 l/2 years he was dead, but he died in great
pain. She has heard there is medication to relieve pain, but he
did not receive that help. The last time she saw him in the
hospital, they were using a vein in his foot because all his other
veins had been used. It was very difficult to watch him die with
all the pain and suffering. Her last reason is that she and her
sister watched the suffering of their family and made a pact that
if at anytime either one of them needed some help, they would try
to help the other to alleviate the pain and allow that person to
die with dignity. Her sister was diagnosed with cancer of the
liver. She sent for Ms. Burgin immediately and reminded her of
their agreement and said, "I want you to help me. I don't want to
go on like this, I know my time is short, but I don't want to
suffer." Ms. Burgin was not able to help her; it was heartbreaking
to watch her suffer and to wonder why Ms. Burgin hadn't kept her
promise.
Number 2137
SHIRLEEN RANNALS testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
said there are two basic views; that God exists and that God
doesn't exist. If God exists, then people have certain (indisc.)
rights. Americans are very fortunate that our country was founded
on the first view; that God exists. Because of this, America is
not a secular nation, but an interface nation. This recognition of
a Creator has and continues to have, a great impact on our country.
We recognize there are limits of what we can do to ourselves or
others. We are always in search of what is right in a particular
situation. We attempt to know what the Creator wants. We believe
there is an objective right or a wrong. Therefore, it is entirely
appropriate within the framework of our form of government to
consider the morality of the proposed bill. She remarked the
question must always be asked of every piece of proposed
legislation is it consistent with the recognition that we are the
created, not the Creator. If we fail to do this, then we are
acting against the nature of our foundation as a nation. We are
being un-American. We failed to do this with the issue of slavery
and we reaped the tragic results. We failed to do this with the
issue of abortion, and we continue to reap the tragic results. We
cannot afford to continue in this way. The self-destruction we
have incurred is all around us. Our nation is literally falling
down around us, but we can turn it around. We must turn again to
the tradition of being "One Nation Under God." We must search for
what is right and what the Creator wants in every situation. Ms.
Rannals maintains that if we examine this bill, we will conclude
that it is not what the Creator wants. Our Declaration of
Independence states the Creator gives the right to life, the right
to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness; not the right
over life, not the right over liberty or the right over the pursuit
of happiness. No one can take his or her own life or that of
another. Only the Creator gives and takes away.
Number 2243
ANITA SYREN testified via teleconference that she has lived in
Alaska for 47 years, most of which have been in Anchorage. She is
a widow and the mother of a deceased son. She asked the committee
to vote for life and against the legalization of assisted suicide.
Her husband died of cancer and her son from lymphoma ten years
later. Both of them died at home. She is a nurse and could have
administered an overdose under the circumstances, but none of them
ever considered bringing about their deaths in this manner. She
stated the family supported them through their suffering with the
best of care until their natural death. That was truly death with
dignity. Her son fought especially hard to beat his cancer. He
had a wife and two small children and said over and over that he
didn't want to give up. He was aware of the suffering that would
come to him because he had witnessed his father's death. Her son
courageously rejected two extreme courses of action. On one hand,
he refused further treatment that was disproportionate to any
expected results. He never considered the other extreme of
suicide. Ms. Syren said this issue is unfairly characterized as
compassion by those who are obviously misled, but are sincere. She
finds this characterization reprehensible.
TAPE 96-10, SIDE B
Number 017
BERT SHAW testified from Anchorage that he is in favor HB 371. He
believes the safeguards are sufficient to avoid abuse. He said
when it is his time to go, he is hopeful this is law. His wife
died three years ago after a very painful year of cancer. The
medical costs were approximately $200,000. The last few weeks she
could barely see, could only whisper, couldn't walk or eat and
screamed out from the pain many times a day. The last week of her
life she was in a coma most of the time. He feels this bill is
reasonable and should become law.
Number 043
WILLIE LOGAN testified via teleconference from Anchorage in favor
of HB 371.
Number 071
THERESE SYREN testified from Anchorage via teleconference. She
stated that committee members are being urged to accept this bill
by individuals who assert that objective moral norms are
unattainable, while others of us are arguing that the state cannot
choose between different moralities but to simply guarantee maximum
freedom for individuals. This argument is in direct contradiction
to the Declaration of Independence which states that we are endowed
by the Creator of our rights. This is a basic tenet of natural
law. The same law absolutely prohibits the wilful taking of
innocent human life, whether one's own or another. The abandonment
of natural law, again the basis for our Declaration of Independence
and our Constitution has already had a disastrous effect on our
country. We've lost millions of lives through legalized abortion,
hundreds of thousands of lives in the Civil War, not to mention the
suffering of slaves. This all comes as a result of the rejection
of the natural law. She watched her brother die of cancer three
years ago and had once asked him how he coped with the gradual
separation from his two small children and wife. He said, "You
simply let go." He was referring to the gradual psychological
readiness for death that cannot be artificially rushed by suicide.
Number 129
PATRICIA SENNE, Executive Director, Alaska Nurses Association,
testified from Anchorage. She stated the Alaska Nurses Association
is opposed to HB 371. In discussions with Alaska's registered
nurses about the issue of assisted suicide, the concern that is
raised most frequently is that allowing assisted suicide will open
pandora's box. While there may be individual patient cases that
are compelling, there is a high potential for abuse with assisted
suicide particularly with vulnerable populations such as the
elderly, poor and disabled.
Number 171
CORALYN OINES testified from Sitka. She is the daughter of a woman
diagnosed with senility dementia and the niece of three Alzheimer
victims. She acknowledged their lives have caused pressures and
difficulties for everyone around them, but their value in the
family interaction is precious. She would be distressed to live in
a state that would shorten their lives and the obvious progression
from willing to unwilling participation. She is strongly opposed
to HB 371.
Number 220
JOLEE CARNEY testified via teleconference from Anchorage that she
is opposed to this bill that basically allows legal suicide. Her
concern is that once it starts, we won't be able to stop it.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY closed testimony via teleconference.
Number 245
JACK MCGEE testified that he is a practicing attorney and also
teaches philosophy at the University of Alaska Southeast. He had
a number of difficulties with the bill he wanted to point out for
the committee. The first concern was with the burden it puts on
physicians. If a physician wanted to execute a request for
medication, this legislation requires two doctors to make a
determination that the patient has made a competent decision and
that the patient's decision was voluntary. How is the physician
supposed to make that determination? Competency and voluntariness
are legal concepts that involve complex facts. They are not the
kind of things that are disclosed by a medical examination. What
happens if the physician is wrong? Given the explosive growth of
tort litigation, sooner or later a physician is going to be sued on
the grounds that he or she made a negligent judgment. He
questioned whether it is fair for a physician to have this awesome
burden imposed on them by law. Mr. McGee asked the committee to
consider this real life situation from a letter to an editor,
published in the September 14, 1993, edition of the Santa Rosa
Press Democrat from an 84-year-old woman who had been living with
her daughter. He read, "Everything went fine for many years, but
when I started to lose my hearing about three years ago, it
irritated my daughter. She began to question me about my financial
matters and apparently feels I won't have much of an estate for
her. She became very rude to me. Then suddenly one evening, my
daughter said very cautiously she thought it was okay for older
people to commit suicide if they cannot take care of themselves."
The woman went on the recount the number of ways in which her
daughter reenforced this message. She concluded her letter with,
"So, here I sit, day after day, knowing what I am expected to do
when I need a little help." Mr. McGee said if an older person
under circumstances like these, requests assisted suicide under
this bill, could anyone really be comfortable in claiming that this
request was voluntary.
MR. MCGEE explained that his second major problem with the
legislation lies in Section 2 which creates a fundamental right to
suicide. He fears this language is going to be used as a vehicle
to expand this right in a way beyond the scope of the bill to
include all sorts of groups, with all sorts of individual problems.
If this right is fundamental, the argument will be that individuals
suffering from mental illness or depression, for example, ought to
be able to claim this right. In light of the shocking rise of the
rates of suicide among senior citizens and teen-agers, particularly
now between the ages of 11 and 14, it is difficult for him to see
how this fundamental right language serves the public interest.
Mr. McGee stated this is a very profound bill and it should be
given very careful thought.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that House Bill 371 would be held over
until next Tuesday. She turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Bunde
for HB 465.
HB 465 - TEACHER EMPLOYMENT/PUB SCHL BARGAINING
Number 455
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Tom Wright, Legislative Aide to Representative
Ivan to present the sponsor statement for HB 465.
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Aide to Representative Ivan Ivan, read the
following sponsor statement:
Representative Ivan introduced House Bill 465 to allow our
school districts a degree of flexibility when dealing with
increased costs associated with our educational system.
House Bill 465 would allow school districts to lay off
teachers who have acquired tenure rights, but only if the
school district finds it necessary to reduce the number of
teachers due to declining enrollment or declining revenues.
Qualifications for rehire purposes are also established in
this bill.
The bill also increases tenure from two to three years and
removes the costly trial de novo portion of our statutes
which allows a school district employee who, if not satisfied
with a district led investigation, to go to the court system
to begin an entirely new trial. The district's investigation,
most often, must be recreated. The deletion of the trial de
novo provides our educators the same protections as provided
to other state employees. New procedures for appealing a
decision to dismiss or nonretain a tenured teacher are
established in House Bill 465. The record established during
the various hearings will be available for use if a suit is
filed in superior court.
An extensive evaluation system and an improvement of
performance plan is included in House Bill 465. The
evaluation system can be used for nonretention purposes.
Should a tenured or nontenured teacher receive a less than
acceptable evaluation, a plan of improvement would be imposed.
If, after imposition of the plan of improvement, the teacher
receives another less than acceptable evaluation, the teacher
is subject to nonretention.
Sections 2 and 4 of House Bill 465 apply only to those
teachers who are hired after the bill is signed into law.
The remaining sections of the bill dealing with loss of tenure
rights, evaluations, layoff and rehire and elimination of
trial de novo go into effect after the bill is signed and will
have an effect on all teachers.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Ivan to join Mr. Wright at the
witness table.
Number 594
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Ivan if he was
planning on or if he would prepare a comparison of the various
bills dealing with this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN, Prime sponsor of HB 465, responded that
the majority of the elements of HB 217 were incorporated in HB 465.
He said they also took into consideration some of the issues
brought up by the task force on House Bill 217 and the position
statements of the Association of the Alaska School Boards. He
believes this is a better bill than the bill he sponsored last
year. He views it as a good tool for the various school districts,
villages and parents.
Number 649
TOM RICHARDS testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said
there are some good items in this bill, but some that he feels
totally undermine its effectiveness. He commented on the process
and approach that makes teachers feel like they haven't been
included in this process. In a comparison of the Governor's bill
and Representative Ivan's bill, he thought the peer review had some
possibilities, but providing for peer review without any training
is not good and undermines the effectiveness of this bill. With
regard to observation, he said HB 465 calls for one observation and
evaluation of each teacher. There needs to be some multiple
approaches to that in order to take a good look at whether the
teacher is effective or not. Representative Ivan's bill offers no
in-service training and he felt that says something about teachers
in general and how the legislature feels about what they do. In
fact, he thought the timing of the teleconference sent a message in
that the high schools are the only schools out by 3:00 p.m. and the
only teachers available to testify. He referred to the reduction
in force issue and mentioned that Representative Ivan's bill offers
three criteria: 1) during the school year, the district determines
there will be a decrease of at least 2 percent per pupil revenue in
the next year. He thought the contingency funds could certainly
handle a 2 percent dip and the school districts could use that as
a punitive measure; 2) school district's revenue has failed to keep
pace with inflation over the last five years. He commented that
rainy day funds are for situations like this; and 3) school board
has determined it is unable to meet its financial obligations. His
concern is this could be used to clean house and once that was
accomplished, the school board would find additional money.
Relating to unacceptable performance, he said Representative Ivan's
bill contains a large paragraph concerning only one evaluation, one
observation and a one-year plan of improvement. He asked the
committee to consider William Demming's approach to management and
quality control.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that Mr. Demming's approach is
for everyone to be happy in a win/win situation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE added that as a former teacher, he shared some of
Mr. Richard's frustration about teacher involvement. However, Co-
Chair Bunde has been involved with this issue over the last two
years and has begged the teachers in his district to get involved
and quite frankly, the teachers that have tenure are not very
concerned and have been ignoring the issue. It is not the
committee's intent to ignore teacher participation, but it was
vastly limited the last time this issue came before the
legislature.
MR. RICHARDS volunteered his telephone number and said if the
committee at any time has any questions concerning secondary
education, he would be happy to respond.
Number 861
VINCE SPERANGE testified from Anchorage that he wanted to address
the aspect of Representative Ivan's bill that calls for the ability
to terminate a tenured teacher. Under current law, there are three
criteria, one of which is incompetence which is defined as the
inability to perform a teacher's customary duties. He thinks that
an ill-considered change in the bill is the substitute that states
that failure to receive an evaluation that is acceptable after an
imposition of a plan of improvement would be grounds for
termination. His concern is the plan of improvement and the
aspects of the criteria are not defined. So a plan of improvement
could be drafted because of a teacher's win/lose record as a coach,
or because they are not volunteering enough after the work day.
Effectively, it would allow a person's career to be ended based on
a plan of improvement which the teacher had no input or is not
necessarily related to their performance as a teacher. He stressed
this is a serious consideration; this is a person who has chosen a
career path in which they've invested tens of thousands of dollars
to achieve and must maintain a certificate to continue in that
career, yet this would allow a relatively arbitrary criteria to be
the factor determining their loss of a job. He supports the
Governor's compromise bill and believes it to be a good alternative
that should be considered.
BILL MUNROE, President, Classified Employees Association, Mat-Su
Borough School District, testified via teleconference. He
expressed his opposition to various parts of this bill. On page 2,
line 28, Section 3 (c), he said there will be a cost associated and
it appeared to him to be an unfunded mandate. He asked what the
financial impact would be on a district of having to train people
to evaluate employees. As the local association president, he has
had opportunity to watch people go through plans of improvement for
various reasons. Some times the reasons for a plan of improvement
are legitimate employer concerns, but sometimes not. There are
times when it is used as a tool to improve an employee's
performance and sometimes not. He has seen evaluations that have
been abused or ignored. To say that a teacher can be terminated
because they fail to meet a plan of improvement with no other
recourse, is probably giving too much power to an administrator
with that particular tool. In his view, the plan of improvement
should be used particularly to improve an employee's performance.
Sometimes that is not possible, but there are ways of dealing with
tenured teachers, and those ways have worked when management
exercised its right to evaluate employees fairly.
Number 1090
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Mr. Munroe had a position on the part of
the bill that would involve an evaluation of administrators.
MR. MUNROE said there exists ample opportunity for administration
evaluation. In his school district, they have what is called
(indisc.) and various other standardized policy procedures
instituted by the school board that allow for evaluation of any
employee whether it be the superintendent or the custodian. He
felt there was a viable working process in place that addressed
those concerns.
MR. WRIGHT referenced Mr. Munroe's question regarding the costs
involved for the evaluation system and said there would be costs
involved in training someone to use the evaluation system no matter
what evaluation system is used, whether it's in HB 398, HB 217 or
HB 465. He added they have not tried to figure out what the cost
would be for these systems; that's something the local school
district would undertake.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE questioned if there was a fiscal note reflecting
those costs.
MR. WRIGHT responded not for the local school districts. The
attached fiscal note is from the Department of Education who has
stated there would be no fiscal impact of the department. This
impact would be undertaken by each school district.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the unfunded mandate then has some validity,
but that would be a cost the district would have to address in
their budget.
MR. WRIGHT replied that if the evaluations suggested by the task
force or in any other legislation were going to be imposed, he
didn't think there was a way to avoid unfunded mandates in any
relationship between the state and districts or local government.
Number 1206
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY said it was his understanding that we're
trying to change from the current mediation/litigation procedure
that has a different cost to each school district to the evaluation
process which would be no more expensive, and hopefully less
expensive, than the current process.
MR. WRIGHT said it is also their hope to improve the quality of
education. He pointed out there are excellent teachers throughout
the system and children are receiving a good education, but there
are some teachers who are not up to standard with other teachers.
The approach under this bill would be to do the evaluation, go to
the plan of improvement and reevaluate again. The goal is to
improve the quality of education anyway we can.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the intent was the evaluation system
would be no more expensive or perhaps cheaper than the current
system of arbitration and litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he believed that costs would still be
incurred in staff management in various districts. House Bill 465
is trying to improve performance of teachers. It is his
understanding there are costs incurred with cases that are
currently in the courts. This legislation addresses the trial de
novo portion of the statute.
Number 1362
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked Representative Ivan if he could
briefly explain the system proposed under HB 465 versus the current
system for nonretaining a teacher. What are the steps leading to
trial de novo?
MR. WRIGHT said the steps being proposed under HB 465 in place of
the trial de novo are for dismissal: (1) a pre-termination
hearing; (2) school board for a decision; (3) arbitration; and (4)
superior court. For nonretention, the pre-termination hearing is
the school board hearing, then arbitration and superior court on
appeal.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE verified that it's pre-termination, school
board, arbitration and then superior court. He asked what the
current process is.
MR. WRIGHT replied he wasn't certain if there was a pre-termination
hearing, but there's a hearing at the school board level, then it
can go to superior court. But the problem with going to superior
court under the current system is a whole new record can be
established. The record established at the school board hearing is
not valid in superior court.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked which record under HB 465 would be
established at the superior court - the pre-termination, school
board or the arbitration?
MR. WRIGHT replied the record would begin with the first hearing
and be carried through the process.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that new information could be opened
up at each of the three levels and at no point during the three
step process would the findings be shut off.
MR. WRIGHT responded that was his understanding. He added there
can be new findings, but the record that is established at the
first hearing follows through the process. There is, however,
nothing to preclude someone from coming through with new findings.
Number 1526
DAVE PARSONS testified from Fairbanks in opposition to HB 465
because he feels it has some problems. The evaluation process
raises a red flag with him. The evaluation is a relatively simple
process in his job as custodian because a person can come in after
he's done and tell whether or not he's done a good job. He added
that basically any person off the street could come in and do an
evaluation. However, when it involves teachers, the process gets
a bit more complicated. First, a person can begin to wonder what
the motivations are for an evaluation; for example, if a school
district is having a problem meeting its financial obligations,
there could be an attempt to get rid of teachers that the district
wouldn't have been able to get rid of otherwise with these so-
called plans of improvement, which may or may not be realistic.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Representative Gail Phillips, Speaker of
the House, had joined the meeting. Speaking for the school board
in Anchorage, Co-Chair Bunde said they were highly motivated and
jealously guard their powers and he doubted if they would accept
anyone off the street to make any decisions for them.
Number 1692
LELA AYRES testified from Anchorage that she is a third grade
teacher and one of her concerns is the plan of improvement. She
was part of the Mat-Su committee that developed an evaluation
process for the district. The committee consisting of central
office administrators, principals from every level and teachers,
worked for over two years to refine the evaluation process they are
now working with. A plan of improvement was one part of that
process; it was a tool to be used when the principal saw the need.
She feels HB 465 reduces the plan of improvement to a weapon that
principals might be reluctant to use. It is too open-ended and
ill-defined. She urged the committee to support the Governor's
compromise bill. There was time and effort spent by all aspects of
the community to develop that bill and it addresses everything that
is of concern to the committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that unfortunately the Governor's
compromise bill did not involve all aspects of the community. He
didn't believe it involved any legislators and that might have been
a useful inclusion.
Number 1770
LUCY HOPE testified from Anchorage that she is concerned with the
provisions of HB 465 regarding the imposition of a plan of
improvement. She said when we, as teachers, develop an individual
education plan or an individual discipline plan for a student, the
student or the parents of the student are always involved in the
process. In fact, the law requires they be involved in the
development process. It seems that teachers who are in need of an
individualized plan of improvement need to have involvement in that
process and in evaluating their progress. Plans of improvement
need to be stated in measurable terms and require ongoing
monitoring. There are no provisions for any of those in this bill.
It is her feeling that a teacher could fail to meet a plan of
improvement because the plan is too vague, the time limits were not
specified or the goals could be impossible to achieve. If plans of
improvement are to be part of the law, it seems that the concerns
also need to be addressed just as they are for the student plans
that are currently in the law.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE advised Ms. Hope that her concerns had been noted by
Representative Ivan's staff.
Number 1872
GAYLE PIERCE testified from Fairbanks regarding the removal of the
trial de novo. She said she was having difficulty understanding
the provisions of the bill and wanted to ask some questions of
Representative Ivan. She wanted to know who does the advisory
arbitration award advise. It was her understanding that the
advisory arbitrator's decision would provide advice to the school
board. As far as she can tell, it is only the school board that is
(indisc.) to make the decision about the retention or nonretention
of the teacher. She asked if that was a correct understanding or
does the advisory arbitration advise the court. She added that
didn't make sense to her because changing to a judicial review from
a trial de nova suggests that it is only a procedural review. It
was her understanding from reading the bill that by removing the
trial de novo or by not going by a binding arbitrator's report, it
removes any independent or neutral third party decision making.
She referred to the layoff provision and asked if it wasn't true
that given the funding in the last several years, every district
right now meets the test of not keeping pace with inflation. It's
her understanding that if this bill was enacted, every district
would immediately qualify for decisions with regard to tenured
teacher layoff.
MR. WRIGHT referred to page 6, line 30, which states "If the school
board sustains the dismissal or nonretention, the teacher is
entitled to mandatory advisory arbitration conducted by a neutral
third party." The feeling is that if it will strengthen the
teacher's case, they are entitled to it. It certainly is not
something the teacher has to undergo; they can go to superior court
from the school board decision, if so desired. In regards to Ms.
Pierce's second question, Mr. Wright said he didn't know if every
school district would meet the test of not keeping pace with
inflation, but thinks there are some that definitely meet that.
Number 2085
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if inflation was calculated into the
bill.
MR. WRIGHT asked what Representative Rokeberg meant by calculated.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the witness testified that inflation
would cause a triple (indisc.) in terms of the layoff provisions.
MR. WRIGHT directed the committee's attention to page 4, line 23,
"the school board has determined that the district revenue averaged
over the past five school years has failed to keep pace, for the
same period, with inflation or the cost of changes in the
requirements imposed on the district by state and state law;".
CO-CHAIR BUNDE speculated that the majority of districts in Alaska
have not kept pace with inflation, certainly not the last four
years when there has been flat funding.
MR. WRIGHT added that it's conceivable that every school district
probably could make that statement.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this was something that was
borrowed from the Governor's bill.
MR. WRIGHT said no.
TAPE 96-11, SIDE A
Number 007
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON inquired if a list of those districts
that have kept pace with inflation, if there is any, could be
obtained through the department or the sponsor.
MR. WRIGHT added he thought they were trying to come up with an
interpretation of a financial emergency, rather than leaving it
vague as it is in HB 217 and HB 398.
Number 100
RICHARD MAUER, Member, Delta/Greely School District, testified in
the capacity of legislative liaison for his school board. He
believes HB 465 contains many excellent tools that are going to
help in the Delta/Greely district. Specifically, he wanted to
address the provision for layoffs based on declining student
enrollment. He said in his school district, there is a military
base that has been placed on the base realignment and closure list.
Between now and the year 2001, the base will be nearly closed down
completely. The impact on the district's student enrollment is
dramatic. Currently, they have 890 students and by the year 2001,
they are forecasting less than 500 students. Under current law, if
teaching staff is reduced they have to nonretain and then go by
their negotiated agreement for seniority as far as what staff is
kept after they've gotten rid of the nontenured staff. Under the
provisions of HB 465, it would give them, as a district, the
opportunity to implement a plan to maintain their programs. He
said an example is the district's science program where their
chemistry teacher has no seniority; she has just gained tenure. As
they reduce their students and the district has to nonretain, those
teachers with low seniority are the ones who will be going out the
door along with their science program. Under the provisions of
this legislation, the district's plan could be implemented as to
which programs they want to keep and then institute layoff. It is
helpful for the kids, but it also helps the teaching staff because
they are not nonretaining teaching staff. If there is an economic
increase which brings the student population back up, these
teachers could be brought back on.
Number 365
DEB GERMANO, Member, Kenai Peninsula School Board, testified she is
newly elected and is serving as the legislative liaison for the
board. She referenced the previous comments regarding an emergency
situation of a district, and said it needed to be understood that
school boards want to do what is best for the children. There are
37 sites in the Kenai Peninsula School District. An emergency
situation of laying off is not something they anticipate; they are
always looking to increase staff not decrease it. She said it
would be nice for them to have the flexibility to layoff staff in
the emergency situations, but the intent is not there for the Kenai
Peninsula School District or for that matter any other district, to
look at laying off people to gain money for other things. With
reference to the evaluation process, she thought there was some
compromise or adjustments that needed to be made. She believes it
is very important and needed to ensure that the staff is the best
they could have for the children. A quality education is what we
all want for our children and this gives the school boards local
control to address the needs of the children locally. The school
boards are the people who are looking at the kids.
Number 559
MARILYN LEEHY, President, Valdez School District, testified this is
an important piece of legislation for the Valdez School District
both in terms of the layoff provision and the professional
standards they would like to be able to establish and maintain in
their schools. She mentioned that concern had been expressed about
what those standards are, but as elected officials, it is their
obligation, job and duty to ensure that professionals are up to
those professional standards. She commented the Valdez School
District has those standards in place now, but they aren't
necessarily enforced because whether or not they are applied
doesn't affect the schools. She said, "We'd like to have the
opportunity to make sure that if these standards are in place, that
they mean something and that we can do more than determine which
teachers are incompetent, but also have some way of determining
whether or not they are actually performing to an adequate
standard; at least a satisfactory standard and there's a big
difference which I think this bill addresses between whether or not
a teacher is incompetent, which is cause for removal at the moment,
as to whether or not that person can be retained in the district
because their performance satisfies the standards that have been
established."
MS. LEEHY addressed the issue of process for removal and said it
was important for committee members to know that when the school
board meets to review this issue, they meet as a quasi-judicial
body and they are bound by rules of law. They put together a full
legal process and after that legal process is complete, after the
rules of law have been established, they have to do it again. This
legislation provides that once that record has been established -
the conditions have been met for making sure the rights of the
individual have been maintained, then that individual has the right
to go on from there and review the school board's work in superior
court to make sure the board did what they were supposed to do in
the proper way, but not to start all over again from ground zero.
The effect of that is to make it very difficult for school boards
to afford the process of enforcing the standards they like to see.
Number 727
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Leehy's reaction to the notion of this
being an unfunded mandate and school districts having to spend some
time and money establishing an evaluation procedure.
MS. LEEHY said she thought the assumption was that the school
districts were not already doing that. She believes this could be
used to improve the evaluation process and it may indeed cause some
problems in the smaller districts for organizing the access to put
together the plan. It is not to say the districts aren't already
evaluating or don't already have instruments in place. It's part
of the operating expenses and part of what is already done.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Leehy as a school board member, to
conceptualize how an evaluation team might be put together.
MS. LEEHY replied there were professionals to do that. They employ
a staff who are highly paid and well-trained. This bill provides
for input and she didn't think their obligations should be pushed
off onto people who don't have the training. She thinks this bill
also provides that if the school board does it wrong, they are
accountable for it. If these standards are not applied properly,
it will come back on her on election day.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Leehy if she anticipated a problem
establishing the peer review portion of the legislation.
MS. LEEHY responded she did. She thinks it is unfair to ask
teachers to comment on another teacher's adequacy for employment.
She feels that's what the school board gets paid to do and they
establish the standards. There is a great deal of opportunity for
personal perspectives to color the judgment of one teacher to
another. The principals and administrators are the ones who see
the overall view of the school and are best suited to accomplish
that.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Leehy if she thought teachers were
professionals and able to judge competent teaching.
MS. LEEHY said she thinks teachers are professionals, but she hopes
their entire orientation is looking for the best in the people
around them and try to encourage and magnify that.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Valdez had a teacher mentoring
program instead of a teacher review process.
MS. LEEHY responded they didn't, but she thinks it is an excellent
idea, but it would involve some money.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referenced Ms. Leehy's previous statement
regarding the issue of incompetency as a cause for nonretention and
remarked that HB 465 replaces that with the plan of improvement.
He asked if that would take a tool away from the school board and
create a situation where a teacher would not be able to be removed
for one year, because the plan of improvement in HB 465 allows for
an entire year of evaluation.
MS. LEEHY said she wasn't worried about that because they don't
hire incompetent teachers. She added that after the evaluation
period, there is no reason why they should have an incompetent
teacher. If something has happened to a teacher that is causing
them to not perform at the standard, she wants to be able to work
with that teacher. The school district has invested a great deal
in their professionals and the stability of the district and the
staff is of importance to them.
Number 1030
KIMBERLY HOMME, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education, said the department recognizes the hard
work that Representative Ivan has devoted to these difficult issues
both last year and again this year. This bill, HB 465, does
incorporate the "subject areas" contained also in the Governor's
compromise bill, but deals with the subject areas in a different
way. She said the Department of Education agrees these five issues
can be addressed in legislation this year: Lengthening the teacher
probationary period; improving the teacher evaluation process;
increasing public information in the collective bargaining process;
eliminating the trial de novo, which has been an expense to school
districts; and increase the school district's ability to determine
how and when teachers are laid off. The department believes that
a bill amending these items needs to be carefully crafted so the
best information and the broadest consensus is available.
MS. HOMME stated this Administration's bill contained all of these
issues, as well. Each one of these issues can be addressed in a
bill the Administration can support. The department is willing to
work with Representative Ivan, the HESS Committee and others.
Commissioner Holloway has met with Representative Ivan and has
requested his cooperation in this endeavor. Representative Ivan
has agreed to meet to discuss possible changes. The department
would like to work through the unacceptable provisions of the
legislation and explore possible changes with him.
MS. HOMME presented a brief history of the various bills. The
Governor vetoed HB 217 last year because it was felt that it didn't
adequately address the real issues of the education system. The
Governor promised to work on the problems that face the rural
school boards especially and asked Commissioner Holloway to form a
group of people to work on the issues and take a fresh approach to
studying the contentious issues of HB 217. Thus, the development
of HB 398 which the department thinks will promote excellence in
education. Involved in that group were a variety of people, not
legislators as Representative Bunde duly noted, but parents,
teachers, school board members, the State Board of Education,
school administrators and the university. All of the issues in HB
217 were contained in HB 398.
MS. HOMME advised that HB 465 would be acceptable to the department
if it contained provisions that need to be made to better reflect
the compromise piece of legislation. As it is written, it is
divisive in the education community. She noted that committee
members had been provided a packet which included a list of
resolutions that came from all the different varieties of education
community groups; i.e., Association of School Boards, elementary
principals, secondary principals, et cetera. In summary, Ms. Homme
said these different groups felt these issues could be addressed
this year. The department believes they can work with the sponsor
to deal with some of the potentially divisive issues in HB 465.
Number 1284
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
summarized that he made an attempt to try to address HB 465 from
the standpoint of quality, performance, fairness and
accountability. If there are measures in this piece of legislation
that's threatening, he really wants to discuss them. He said he
was willing to work with anyone to address those issues and added
there were a number of things that have been of concern to school
board members. As everyone is aware, they are elected officials;
they are held accountable and are responsible for the oversight of
the school districts. They are asking for the authority to do some
things that affect the quality of education. Unfortunately, the
school boards may get those tools as a result of financial
emergency. The Association of Alaska School Boards thinks these
tools should be in place for their use currently. They need the
money to operate the schools. In the absence of that and if the
school has an emergency, the tools are needed to ensure that the
programs that are provided or the qualifications that are going to
be determined are not negotiable, but determined by local elected
officials. He would like the opportunity to discuss that issue
with committee members.
Number 1350
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, asked that the record reflect their concern with
the section of the bill that deals with the dismissal of the
administrator if the responsibilities of the evaluation process are
not carried out. He noted the Alaska Council of School
Administrators has submitted some substitute language to the
sponsor, which he understood is a friendly amendment being
considered by Representative Ivan. He added the council had other
comments regarding the rest of the bill which he would like the
opportunity to discuss at a later time.
Number 1391
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the HESS Committee would hear HB 465 again
at the request of the sponsor. He understood there would be
additional work done on the bill, so rather than give a date
certain, it will be heard again at the request of the sponsor. The
hearing will be noticed and additional time allotted for testimony.
Number 1404
CAREN ROBINSON said she would like to have a comparison of the
different bills that deal with this issue. She expressed her
desire to sit down in a working group and come up with a bill that
could be supported by all HESS committee members. She appreciates
all the work done by the sponsor and has made her concerns known to
the department that it was an unfortunate mistake not to include
Representative Ivan in the group. She commented the perspectives
which come from the rural areas are very different from the urban
areas and she is hopeful that in looking at this issue, they can be
sensitive to those different perspectives.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 373, Education for Family of
Deceased Military would be held over until Thursday, February 15.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting of the HESS Committee at 5:07
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|