03/18/2004 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2004
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 511
"An Act relating to the certificate of need program for health
care facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 511(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 353
"An Act relating to jury duty; and amending Rule 15(k), Alaska
Rules of Administration."
- MOVED *CSHB 353(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 333(EDU)
"An Act relating to an endowment for public education and the
University of Alaska; relating to university land; establishing
a trust fund for public education; and providing for an
effective date."
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 511
SHORT TITLE: CERTIFICATE OF NEED PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SAMUELS
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) HES, FIN
03/02/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/04 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/04/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/04/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/04 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/18/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 353
SHORT TITLE: JURY DUTY EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KAPSNER
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) EDU, HES, JUD
02/17/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/17/04 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/17/04 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/18/04 (H) EDU RPT 3DP 2NR 2AM
02/18/04 (H) DP: GARA, KAPSNER, GATTO;
02/18/04 (H) NR: OGG, WOLF; AM: SEATON, WILSON
03/04/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/04/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/18/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JANET CLARKE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 511 and answered
questions from the committee members.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 353 and answered questions
from the members.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Representatives Wilson, Gatto, Coghill, Seaton, and Kapsner were
present at the call to order. Representatives Wolf and Cissna
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 511-CERTIFICATE OF NEED PROGRAM
Number 0092
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 511,"An Act relating to the certificate of need
program for health care facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
JANET CLARKE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Health and Social Services, testified in support
of HB 511 and answered questions from the committee members.
She told the members that the administration support HB 511 in
its current form which includes one amendment the committee
adopted during the first hearing of the bill. That amendment
was related to residential psychiatric treatment centers (RPTC)
which the department believes strikes the right balance of
technical corrections in closing some of the loopholes to make
the CON program work better.
MS. CLARKE referred to a letter she sent to the member on March
15 which addressed a number of the questions from the members.
She commented that Tanana Valley Clinic testified that 99
percent of the CONs submitted have been approved. Ms. Clarke
explained that the department did a review of that point and
asked the members to look at Attachment 1, Response to TVC
Assertions. There were also issues of non-hospital CON
approvals and the assertion that the department protects
hospitals from competition. Ms. Clarke pointed to the third
page of the attachment, Certificate of Need Decisions from 1996-
2003. She noted that the table at the top of the page reflects
that 61 percent of the CONs had been approved as requested, 11
percent were denied, 11 percent were partially approved, 6
percent were withdrawn, 14 percent had special conditions
attached to their CONs, and 17 percent were shaped by the CON
process. In other words, the process provides technical
assistance with the application, and the questions that were
asked in the CON process helped shape the direction the
facilities chose to go. Ms. Clarke emphasized that this is not
a rubber stamping process, but a public interactive process.
She summarized that she believes the CON process is doing the
job the legislature intended.
Number 0367
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented on the differences between the
CON processes in Alaska as opposed to the process in Utah. He
said the committee was told that in Utah the department assesses
the needs of a community when a CON application comes in.
However, in Alaska when a CON application comes in there is a
public notice for 30 days where counter proposals can come
forward. He asked Ms. Clarke to address this point.
MS. CLARK directed the members' attention to Attachment 3,
History of Concurrent (Competing) Certificate of Need Reviews.
This attachment shows the number of competing CON applications
in Alaska since 1982, she said. In the 1980s there were four
[competing CON applications], and in the 1990s there were two
[competing CON applications]. She agreed with Representative
Seaton's description of the way CONs are handled in Alaska.
During the 30-day public notice there would be an opportunity
for someone to come in with a competing application, she
acknowledged. Ms. Clarke commented that the department does not
solicit, encourage, or in any way encourage competition to CONs.
She summarized that competing CONs have been a very rare
occurrence particularly in the last twenty years where it has
only happened twice.
Number 0544
CHAIR WILSON announce that Representatives Cissna and Wolf have
joined the meeting.
Number 0561
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the CON process is time
consuming.
MS. CLARKE referred to Attachment 2, Certificate of Need
Questions & Answers, and directed the members' attention to the
question: "What are the components of the certificate of need
(CON) process?" She provided the following list [original
punctuation provided]:
· Submission of a letter of intent (includes who,
what, how large, the cost and timeline);
· Letter of intent (LOI) determination - a decision
is made as to whether a CON is required;
· 60-Day wait - A CON application may be submitted
60 days after the LOI determination;
· Completeness Check - The application is checked
for completeness, and more information is
requested if the application is incomplete. The
applicant has 60-days to submit information;
· Review Period - The analysis document must be
submitted to the Commissioner in 90 days;
· Public Notice & Public Comment - Public notice is
given at the beginning of a review and the public
comment period runs concurrently with the review,
· Commissioner's Decision - The Commissioner makes
the decision, which is published, and
· Appeal - The applicant has 30 days to appeal if
dissatisfied.
MS. CLARKE added that the commissioner will make a
decision, and if an applicant is still unhappy litigation
is still an option.
Number 0709
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked at what point in the process does
the department make the application public. Is it when a
submission of a letter of intent is received or later in the
process.
MS. CLARKE replied that the letter of intent is a one-page
document that is public information.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the letter of intent is
published.
MS. CLARKE responded that a lot of things are published on the
department's web page, but would have to verify that the letter
of intent is one of them.
MS. CLARKE summarized information on Attachment 2 which was
titled "Certificate of Need Questions and Answers." She
explained that the types of projects which require CON are
health care facility projects that involve expenditures of $1
million or more for construction, renovation, or the purchase of
new equipment. Ms. Clarke told the members that there are other
projects which are exempt from CON; for example, if the project
costs under $1 million, or is for routine maintenance or repair,
or routine replacement of equipment. Specifically, exemptions
are for pioneer homes, private physicians' offices, dentists'
offices, and any other project that is not included in the
definition. Ms. Clarke emphasized that if HB 511 passes the
legislature the definition will change to include residential
psychiatric treatment centers and independent diagnostic testing
facilities.
Number 0843
MS. CLARKE explained that the department is required to have a
decision on a CON application to the commissioner within 90
days, and then the commissioner can take as long as necessary to
make the determination. She added that there is usually a lot
of pressure to turn that decision around fairly quickly.
MS. CLARKE responded to earlier comments concerning the cost of
a CON as being between $5,000 to $100,000 or more, by saying
that a lot of the cost depends on the whether the applicant is
happy with the decision and if there is a decision to litigate
it. However, one example from a group in the state of
Washington that has done consulting in the state of Alaska and
has done at least four CON applications charges $15,000 per
application. She said she believes that is a good independent
assessment of the cost.
MS. CLARKE summarized that the department supports HB 511 and
urged the members to pass it from committee.
CHAIR WILSON commented that an amendment will be presented
shortly that will remove residential psychiatric treatment
centers (RPTC) from the bill and asked Ms. Clarke to comment on
the purpose of including them.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF moved Amendment 1. He told the members that
many communities are looking at adding RPTC's and this bill
simply adds one more layer of bureaucracy. He pointed out that
Ms. Clarke stated the cost could be between $15,000 to $100,000
to obtain a CON.
Number 0977
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER objected for purposes of discussion. She
explained that in her area a tribal health consortium, Yukon-
Kuskokwim Health Corporation, is planning on building a RPTC for
Native kids. She added that there are no RPTCs in Rural Alaska,
so most of these kids get shipped out of state. Representative
Kapsner said that there is concern that a for-profit hospital
could come into the area and take that option way from the
tribal health consortium.
Number 1024
MS. CLARKE responded that the department opposes Amendment 1.
She explained that there is an effort to bring the 500 children
who are currently placed in out of state facilities back to
Alaska. Ms. Clarke told the members it is the department's wish
to do this in a planned community-based way where many smaller
facilities would be constructed throughout Alaska if needed.
She emphasized that it is important not to over build the
system. The department wants a three-pronged approach where
there would be a gate keeping system in place to ensure that
kids are going to the right place. It is important to make sure
that RPTCs are built in the right locations so kids can be as
close to home as possible. Kids who are not close to their
parents do not receive the same benefit as those who are. It is
also important these facilities not be large. Ms. Clarke added
that while there are 500 kids out of state, the department does
not believe it would be prudent to build 500 beds in Alaska.
Instead, the department believes having a smaller number of beds
with a variety of options will be helpful in making the kids
successful.
MS. CLARKE noted that three of the members of the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee are on the
House Finance Budget Subcommittee which deals with this issue.
She told the members that this is one of the fastest growing
areas of the Medicaid budget. She explained that the budget is
now well over $40 million and is growing rapidly every year. It
is important that as the kids are moved back to Alaska, they are
provide with better treatment, and that the Medicaid budget is
not broken. Ms. Clarke explained that the administration wishes
to work with Tribal partners because there is 100 percent
federal funding available for those services, and it is
important to do it in a planned manner.
Number 1153
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that she understands that there
is legislation currently moving through the process that would
removed reimbursement to this kind of program. She added that
she hopes there is some coordination to ensure that the
community-based RPTCs are paid enough to remain open.
MS. CLARKE replied that she believes Representative Cissna is
referring to some cost containment regulations that are
currently out for public comment.
Number 1199
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked for clarification on residential
psychiatric treatment center. In this context what does the
word "residential" mean. "Is this a locked-down facility," he
asked?
MS. CLARKE replied that some of the facilities will be locked
facilities; however, some are secured facilities. By that she
said she means the facility is secured by staff; it is not like
a locked cell.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there is 100 percent control.
MS. CLARKE responded that there are a whole array of residential
facilities including many levels of security. She clarified
that RPTCs are one step away from an inpatient psychiatric
hospital.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how many kids the department plans on
bringing back to Alaska.
MS. CLARKE replied that it is the intention to bring back as
many children as will benefit from returning to the state of
Alaska. There are some specialized facilities in the Lower-48
that deal with for example, fire starters. That program cannot
be replicated in every state. Ms. Clarke emphasized that the
department wants to stem the tide of kids going out of state and
bring some back to the appropriate placement.
Number 1383
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF pointed out that the committee has heard
from a program in Southeast Alaska [Crossing Wilderness
Expeditions for Youth, Overview, 1/29/04] that has a remote
program, yet it would be considered a residential facility which
would fall under the CON process.
MS. CLARKE responded that there is no retroactive clause in HB
511. There are a couple of facilities, in Anchorage and Palmer,
that have the designation of RPTCs. She emphasized that not all
residential centers will fall under the CON process. Many
communities have residential homes that fall under a different
program and CON does not apply to them.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said that the members were told the CON
process would apply to the program he is referring to. Unless
Ms. Clarke can confirm that it does not apply, he will assume it
does.
MS. CLARKE responded that she would have to look at the program
to determine the level of care and intensive services that are
being provided.
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that the budget debate has made
it clear that there needs to be management of RPTCs because they
are largely publicly funded. He told the members that he
opposes the amendment even though he struggles with the idea of
the state managing many of these programs.
CHAIR WILSON agreed with Representative Coghill's comments. She
pointed out that there are many companies in the Lower-48 who
know the current problems Alaska is experiencing and without the
CON process these companies could come up here and build many
facilities as a way to make money.
Number 1441
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Wolf voted in favor
of Amendment 1. Representatives Cissna, Kapsner, Gatto,
Coghill, and Wilson voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.
Number 1508
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 511 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 511(HES) was reported out
of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
HB 353-JURY DUTY EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS
Number 1543
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 353, "An Act relating to jury duty; and amending
Rule 15(k), Alaska Rules of Administration."
Number 1554
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER testified as sponsor of HB 353. She
explained that this bill allows for teachers whose schools fall
under the designation of not meeting adequate yearly progress
(AYP) under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to be exempt
from jury duty. She commented that she knows the members are
aware of the fact that all teachers are now required to be
highly qualified teachers. This adds an extra burden because
substitute teachers most often are not highly qualified
teachers. In many cases it is difficult to find teachers who at
the minimum have a high school diploma. Representative Kapsner
told the members that it is her hope that one day this will not
be a concern because all of Alaska's schools will be meeting AYP
and teachers will not be exempted.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER explained that the Lower Kuskokwim School
District brought this problem to her attention. Bethel has the
third busiest court system after Anchorage and Fairbanks, she
said. Residents in Bethel and 11 villages in a 50-mile radius
are asked to come in to participate in jury duty. Until this
year jury duty meant three months of service and four months for
grand jury. The court system has been helpful in working with
the communities to shorten the required length of time in
serving on jury duty, she added.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER told the members that from September 1 to
December 15, 2003, the Lower Kuskokwim School District's payroll
records show 107.5 days that its teachers were out of the
classroom performing jury duty. She added that most of those
schools are not meeting AYP.
CHAIR WILSON asked what the requirements are for persons serving
as substitute teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that requirements for
substitute teaching is up to the individual school districts.
She added that it is not necessary to be a certified teacher.
In the Lower Kuskokwim School District the minimum requirements
is that substitute teachers have a high school diploma.
Representative Kapsner added that it can be difficult to find
someone in the village who is available to substitute.
Sometimes substitutes are 19 year-olds who just graduated the
year before.
Number 1685
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that his trip to Kipnuk was
enlightening. He told the members that it could be days of
waiting to get in or out of a village for jury duty. With AYP
requirements this can be a real strain on the school district.
Representative Gatto said he supports this bill.
Number 1721
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if it is necessary to reference
public law [on page 1, line 5 and 7] where it says:
(b) A person may claim exemption and may be excused
from service as a juror if it is shown that the person
is a teacher in a school that has failed to make
adequate yearly progress under P.L. 107-110.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this reference is for definition
purposes only.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that she is unsure, and asked if
the bill drafter is in the committee room.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the next committee of referral
is the House Judiciary Standing Committee and suggested that the
question could be addressed in that committee. He said he does
understand the need for teachers in these circumstances to be
excused. However, he struggles with the idea that if he were an
accused person who knew that a certain segment of society would
be excused from jury duty, he might feel that it would be
necessary to appeal for a trial outside of that area.
Representative Coghill asked Representative Kapsner if she has
consider that scenario.
Number 1791
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that she has looked at that
situation. She emphasized that this bill is not an effort to
allow a particular group to shirk its civic duty. In looking at
the problem Representative Kapsner said she really tried to
balance the stress that is put on the schools and the students
and the burden it would place on the court system. She
explained that one theory she has is that in many cases teachers
would not be a jury of their peers. For instance, if most of
the teachers are first or second year Alaskan citizens from the
Lower-48 those teachers [are not peers of rural residents]. She
said she understands that most attorneys would like to have a
teacher in the jury pool because of the education level and
language level that brings to the jury. Representative Kapsner
noted that not all teachers are from out of state or out of the
region, in fact, many teachers have been in the villages for 20
years or more.
Number 1860
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that there could be schools in
the Anchorage School District that are not meeting AYP.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER agreed that every district has schools
which do not meet AYP.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to the term "may" [on page 1,
line 5] that says:
(b) A person may claim exemption and may be excused
from service as a juror ... .
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he is concerned about that
language.
Number 1894
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER emphasized that it is her goal that this
will not even be an issue for very long. As soon as schools
reach AYP, then this would not be an issue. Even if a teacher
may be called to jury duty it creates a lot of stress within the
school district. She emphasized that this legislation is one
thing that can be done to help the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that he appreciates what
Representative Kapsner is saying and will likely vote to pass
the bill from committee. He said he has to ask about the guy
who runs the generator, the Village Public Safety Officer, or
the only Alaska State Trooper, all of whom may be the only ones
who are available for their duty. Representative Coghill said
he assumes the court system will take all of that into account.
He summarized that he is concerned with the many jobs where
there is little or no backup, and questioned whether all of them
should be exempted from jury duty.
Number 1982
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that there are nine school
months in the year, so theoretically there are another three
months that teachers could be called to jury duty. She
emphasized that it is important for the members to prioritize
what is important. She stated that she believes it is important
to keep the commitments to the schools by keeping the teachers
in the classroom to ensure that the policy that is already in
place is then met.
Number 2019
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that maybe this questions would
be better addressed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
He said he wants to make sure that when the bill refers to
"teachers" it is referring to "classroom teachers". He pointed
out that a principal could be a teacher and not be a classroom
teacher. It is certainly possible for the principal to leave
town and not have it impact the classroom. Another important
point would be to specify that the exemption is good for only
the school term. Representative Gatto agreed with
Representative Cissna's comments that teachers should not be
given a "free pass" during the summer months. Perhaps teachers
should be given a delay in serving on jury duty rather than an
exemption.
CHAIR WILSON commented that in earlier discussion in the House
Special Committee on Education there was a suggestion that some
language should be inserted that clarified that only schools
that were off the road system would qualify. For example, she
said she believes it is a lot easier to find substitute teachers
in Anchorage as opposed to a village. She asked if other
members have any thoughts on this point.
Number 2078
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that she believes it would be
important to talk with administrations from some of the larger
school districts because it is her understanding that finding
substitute teachers is a problem for those districts as well.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that when the bill gets to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee there will be talk of the law
of general applicability. If this exemption is good for one
community, it is good for all of them since this bill is really
in response to the AYP requirements and the hardship jury duty
service incurs. For example, Tok, Dot Lake, or even North Pole
could experience some of the same problems communities not on
the road system have, he said.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
testified on HB 353 and answered questions from the members. In
response to the question by Representative Coghill on language
which refers to "may," he said he read that language to mean it
is the discretion of the teacher to ask for an exemption from
jury duty. For example, judges are exempt from jury duty, but
some choose to be seated as jurors. He suggested if the members
wish to make that language clear it should be run by the drafter
for clarification.
Number 2197
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he believes the language
should be clarified. He said he would like to see judges have
discretion.
MR. WOOLIVER commented that there are many other important
community professions that serve an important function and whose
absence may have a detrimental effect on a community if they are
called away to jury duty. He told the members that Alaska
Statutes use to have a long list of professions that could be
exempted. For example, a public health nurse, use to be exempt
if he/she is the only health care professional in a town. Mr.
Wooliver told the members that anyone who is called for jury
duty can automatically defer service for up to ten months. In
particular hardship cases, he said, individuals have been
excused for a particular call.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that if it is the wish of the
legislature that an individual claim that exemption, then the
language should be "to be excused" rather than "may be excuse".
He commented that he would like to give the judge discretion,
and wondered if the House Judiciary Standing Committee might be
better at devising the language for this.
CHAIR WILSON agreed with Representative Coghill's comments that
it is important to give the judge discretion.
Number 2326
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Mr. Wooliver how many judges he
believes would look at the discretionary language and say
teachers should not be exempt.
MR. WOOLIVER responded that he does not know. He said he
believes judges would look at this as a preference that the
legislature wishes these teachers be given an exemption from
jury duty. Mr. Wooliver pointed out that some judges could look
at the language and be unclear as to whether this is a
redundancy in the sentence or whether this is really granting
the judge discretion to deny the exemption.
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told the members an amendment could be
made [on page 1, line 5] after the word "excused" insert the
words "by the court". He noted that the language may not be the
exact wording that should be used.
TAPE 04-20, SIDE B
Number 2349
MR. WOOLIVER suggested another option which would be to delete
the second "may" [on page 1, line 5]. He said that would take
away the discretion, but it would clearly say that the teacher
could claim an exemption and be excused from service.
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved Amendment 1 as follows:
On Page 1, Line 5, after "exemption and"
Delete "may"
Number 2307
CHAIR WILSON objected for purposes of discussion. She pointed
out that by removing "may" from this sentence the wording would
read as follows:
(b) A person may claim exemption and be excused from
service as a juror ... .
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that language would automatically give
teachers an exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he believes the first "may" in the
sentence handles the issue. He said he believes that the
language is clear by removing the second "may" in the sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he does not want to hold
the bill up over this issue; however, there needs to be
clarification that there is some discretion by the judge. He
pointed out that the next committee of referral is the House
Judiciary Standing Committee and believes that committee could
more appropriately address the question.
Number 2253
CHAIR WILSON agreed that she will have a discussion with the
House Judiciary Standing Committee chair to address the issue of
court discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA told the members that it is her opinion
that the highest priority in this issue is addressing the needs
of students who are having a hard time reaching AYP. She said
she does not believe that the courts should have a higher value
in this particular instance.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees that students are a high
priority, but constitutionally [a defendant's] right to a fair
trial is also a high priority and that is his reason for
suggesting the need for some judicial discretion.
MR. WOOLIVER said that he believes his earlier suggestion of
removing the second "may" [on page 1, line 5] removes the
discretion by the courts. Judges do currently have the
discretion of providing a teacher with an exemption if a teacher
says there is a burden.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he believes his earlier
suggestion of inserting [on page 1, line 5] the words "by the
court" after the word "excused" would be clarifying language.
The language would read as follows:
(b) A person may claim exemption and may be excused by
the court from service as a juror ... .
MR. WOOLIVER urged the committee to be sure to tell the court
what the members want it to know.
CHAIR WILSON said she believes the language could be read in two
different ways.
Number 2083
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 2, as follows:
On Page 1, Line 5, after "excused"
Insert "by the court"
Number 2064
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected to Amendment 2. She told the
members that she prefers that the highest priority remain the
welfare of the students.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Gatto,
Wolf, and Wilson voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives
Cissna and Kapsner voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was
adopted by a vote of 4-2.
Number 1960
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved Amendment 3 [later conceptual
Amendment 3], as follows:
On Page 1, Line 7
Delete "teacher has the meaning"
Insert "teacher means a person who serves a school
district in a teaching capacity and is required to be
certified in order to hold that position."
Number 1957
CHAIR WILSON objected to the motion for discussion purposes.
She agreed to strike the sentence and asked if it would be
better to simply say, "if it is shown that a person is a
classroom teacher in a school that has failed."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded that he is not sure, but the
current language has the definition of a "teacher as a person
who serves the school district in a teaching ... ." He stated
that he just wants to use the same language that is in statute.
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that part of the language would be left
out.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that he would like to leave out the
part [of the definition] that refers to those who serve in
counseling or administrative capacities.
Number 1900
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER told the members that her father was a
principal and also a teacher in four schools. She commented
that most school districts are so strapped that many counselors
also teach.
Number 1882
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO agreed that is a good point. As long as an
individual is a teacher in the classroom, even if the individual
may have other jobs, that person would be exempt from jury duty.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO restated Amendment 3 [later conceptual
Amendment 3] as follows:
On Page 1, Line 7, after "in this subsection,"
Delete "teacher has the meaning"
Insert "teacher means a person who serves a school
district in a teaching capacity and is required to be
certified in order to hold the position."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he appreciate what Representative
Gatto is trying to achieve with this amendment. He suggested
that if court discretion is left in the bill, a judge would be
able to discern the level of need. He said he is opposed to the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that he is simply trying to place a
higher bar for an individual to be excused from jury duty
because he believes citizens have an obligation to serve. He
pointed out that Representative Kapsner's bill is trying to
defend the classroom by keeping the classroom teacher there.
The idea that there may be other positions which may merit
exemptions are separate issues.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:10 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.
Number 1749
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER suggested that Amendment 3 be changed to
a conceptual amendment to address the definition of a classroom
teacher.
Number 1722
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO restated his motion to adopt conceptual
Amendment 3, to define a teacher as a classroom teacher. There
being no objection, conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved conceptual Amendment 4 to define the
term during the year when this exclusion would apply. He
suggested language be crafted that would define the time when
school is not in session for a week or longer.
CHAIR WILSON objected to the motion. She explained that jury
duty is not just one week of service; it is usually a month or
more.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that many teachers have to
take classes in the summer for recertification tests. He
reiterated the importance of court discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the original intent of the bill was to
deal with schools off of the road system. He commented that
every school has teachers that will be required to take special
classes. The intent of this bill, and the reason he supports
it, is the difficulty that occurs during the school year for
those teachers in rural areas. This exemption should not be
offered outside of the school year, he emphasized.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if a conceptual amendment could be
offered that inserts language that addresses the time during the
school year.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO withdrew Amendment 4 and moved new
Amendment 4 to read:
Page 1, Line 4
After the word "juror"
Insert "during the school year"
CHAIR WILSON objected to the motion. She pointed out that many
of the teachers leave the area during the summer months.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Kapsner,
Gatto, and Wolf voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives
Wilson and Coghill voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 was
adopted by a vote of 4-2.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 353 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 353(HES) was report out
of House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|