Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/18/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 1994
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson (via teleconference)
Rep. Jim Nordlund
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 472: "An Act relating to referrals involving dental
services."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 84: "An Act implementing certain recommendations of
Alaska 2000 to improve the state's education
system; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
HB 420: "An Act relating to limited liability companies;
amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and
24; and providing for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
HB 392: "An Act relating to the confidentiality of
permanent fund dividend application information;
relating to the permanent fund dividend program;
and providing for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REP. GARY L. DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 15
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of HB 472.
DR. JULIE ROBINSON, President
Alaska Dental Society
3400 Spenard Rd.
Anchorage, AK
Phone: 277-4675
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 472.
CARL F.N. ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W. 11th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
JOE JOSEPHSON
National Education Association
880 H Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 276-0151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in opposition to HB 84.
PAM HJORTESET
Alaska Association of School Boards
P.O. Box 7318
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone: 225-3231
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
SHARRON NORTON, President
Ketchikan Education Association
8302 S. Tongass
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone: 225-2479
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference with
commentary on HB 84.
DON RENFROE
Dillingham City School District
P.O. Box 461
Dillingham, AK 99576
Phone: 842-5223
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
DON FORD, Board Member
Dillingham City School District
P.O. Box 846
Dillingham, AK 99576
Phone: 842-5280
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
JOAN WILKERSON
Alaska Public Employees Association and
Alaska Federation of Teachers
211 Fourth Street, #306
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-2334
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 84.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of HB 84.
SENATOR JUDY SALO
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 504
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4940
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented commentary and analysis of
HB 84.
GEORGE STUART
1000 Vicki Way
Wasilla, AK 99654
Phone: 376-9385
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in opposition to HB 84.
BILL HUTTON, Principal
Hoonah City School District
Hoonah, AK 99829
Phone: 945-3613
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in support
of Section 6 of the amendment to HB 84.
BAMBI HILL
Sleetmute, AK 99668
Phone: 449-4216
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 84.
LIN LAUGHY, Superintendent
Wrangell Schools
P.O. Box 1170
Wrangell, AK 99929
Phone: 874-2347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
PAT CASE
Kenai PTA
1622 Highland Drive
Homer, AK 99603
Phone: 235-6487
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference on HB 84
with commentary on the tenure process.
STEVE GIBSON
3931 Nielson Circle
Homer, AK 99603
Phone: 235-6818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference with
recommendations concerning HB 84.
KATHI McCORD
1601 Hidden Lane
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 272-8018
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 84.
JAMES SIMEROTH
811 Auk St., No. 5
Kenai, AK 99611
Phone: 283-4368
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 84.
LEONARD N. MURRAY, CEA
Mat-Su School District
P.O. Box 870523
Wasilla, AK 99687
Phone: 376-5063
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 84.
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS
National Education Association - Alaska
114 Second St.
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 84.
JOHN WITTEVEEN
722 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone: 486-9220
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
MARY RUBADEAU, Assistant Superintendent
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
P.O. Box 2266
Soldotna, AK 99669
Phone: 272-5846
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
FORREST OLEMAUN, School Board Member
North Slope Borough School District
P.O. Box 169
Barrow, AK 99723
Phone: 852-5311
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to teacher tenure with a
resolution from his school district.
ROBERT GIGLER
7447 O'Brien Street
Anchorage, AK 99507
Phone: 344-5469
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from
Anchorage in opposition to HB 84.
ALEXANDER McFARLAND, President
Fairbanks Educational Association
P.O. Box 70085
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Phone: 456-4435
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 84.
SUE WILKIN, President
Fairbanks School Board
2600 Riverview
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 474-7596
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
LAUREL JEFFORD
3810 Arkansas
Anchorage, AK 99517
Phone: 243-3652
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference with
observations on HB 84.
LUCILLE CLARK
142 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 277-0413
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 84.
STEVE McPHETRES
Alaska Council of School Administrators
362 4th St., #404
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 84.
BILL MUNROE, CEA
Mat-Su Borough School District
P.O. Box 3137
Palmer, AK 99645
Phone: 745-2157
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 84.
SHEILA PETERSON
Department of Education
801 W. 10th Ave., Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 84.
KARLA FEELEY
1840 S. Bragaw
Anchorage, AK 99508
Phone: 274-0036
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 84.
ROB PFISTERER
13210 Splendlove Drive
Anchorage, AK 99516
Phone: 345-2159
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 84.
GUY STRINGHAM, Chair
Dillingham Education Association
P.O. Box 370
Dillingham, AK 99576
Phone: 842-1075
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 84.
BECKY CHAPEK
Cordova School Board
P.O. Box 140
Cordova, AK 99574
Phone: 424-5356
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in support of HB 84.
VERNON MARSHALL
National Education Association - Alaska
114 2nd St.
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 84.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 472
SHORT TITLE: REFERRALS INVOLVING DENTAL SERVICES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2375 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2375 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/01/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/02/94 2575 (H) HES RPT 3DP 3NR
03/02/94 2576 (H) DP: KOTT, VEZEY, TOOHEY
03/02/94 2576 (H) NR: NICHOLIA, BUNDE, OLBERG
03/02/94 2576 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/2/94
03/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/94 2901 (H) JUD RPT 5DP 1NR
03/21/94 2901 (H) DP: GREEN,KOTT,PORTER,
PHILLIPS, NORDLUND
03/21/94 2901 (H) NR: JAMES
03/21/94 2901 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(DCED) 3/2/94
03/23/94 2943 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/23/94
03/23/94 2943 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/23/94 2943 (H) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/23/94 2943 (H) READ THE THIRD TIME HB 472
03/23/94 2943 (H) PASSED Y33 N1 A6
03/23/94 2943 (H) BROWN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/25/94 2986 (H) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
03/25/94 2986 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/28/94 3370 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/28/94 3370 (S) HES, JUD
04/15/94 (S) HES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM
04/15/94 (S) MINUTE(HES)
BILL: HB 84
SHORT TITLE: IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 135 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 135 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/22/93 135 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93
01/22/93 136 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/18/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
10/20/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/26/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/26/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/31/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/31/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/04/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/11/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/14/94 2368 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE
3DP 1DNP 3NR
02/14/94 2369 (H) DP: VEZEY, BUNDE, TOOHEY
02/14/94 2369 (H) DNP: B.DAVIS
02/14/94 2369 (H) NR: KOTT, G.DAVIS, OLBERG
02/14/94 2369 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 2/14/94
03/18/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/94 2925 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NEW TITLE 1DP
2DNP
03/23/94 2925 (H) 2NR 2AM
03/23/94 2925 (H) DP: PHILLIPS
03/23/94 2925 (H) DNP: NORDLUND, DAVIDSON
03/23/94 2925 (H) NR: JAMES, PORTER
03/23/94 2925 (H) AM: GREEN, KOTT
03/23/94 2925 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 3/23/94
03/23/94 2925 (H) REFERRED TO FINANCE
04/06/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
04/07/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
04/08/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
04/12/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
04/13/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
BILL: HB 420
SHORT TITLE: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT,Mulder,James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/31/94 2206 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/31/94 2206 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY, STATE AFFAIRS
02/24/94 2522 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/24/94 2522 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY, STATE AFFAIRS
03/08/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/09/94 2676 (H) L&C RPT 1DP 3NR
03/09/94 2676 (H) DP: MULDER
03/09/94 2676 (H) NR: WILLIAMS, SITTON, HUDSON
03/09/94 2676 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
3/9/94
03/09/94 2703 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MULDER
03/18/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/30/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
03/31/94 3106 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
03/31/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/31/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/94 3153 (H) JUD RPT CSSS(JUD) NEW TITLE
4DP 1NR
04/06/94 3153 (H) DP: GREEN, JAMES, PORTER,
NORDLUND
04/06/94 3153 (H) NR: KOTT
04/06/94 3153 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(DCED) 3/9/94
04/07/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/07/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/94 (H) STA AT 09:30 AM CAPITOL 102
04/12/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/13/94 3403 (H) STA RPT CSSS(STA) NEW TITLE
1DP 4NR
04/13/94 3404 (H) DP: OLBERG
04/13/94 3404 (H) NR: VEZEY, KOTT, G.DAVIS,
B.DAVIS
04/13/94 3404 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(DCED) 3/9/94
04/15/94 3522 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/15/94
04/15/94 3522 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/15/94 3523 (H) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/15/94 3523 (H) AMENDMENT NO 1 BY THERRIAULT
04/15/94 3523 (H) ...CHANGES EFFECTIVE DATE
04/15/94 3523 (H) AMENDMENT NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN
CONSENT
04/15/94 3523 (H) OBJECTION TO ADVANCEMENT MOTION
04/15/94 3523 (H) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 4/18
CALENDAR
04/18/94 3563 (H) READ 3RD TIME CSSSHB 420(STA)
(EFD AM)
04/18/94 3563 (H) PASSED Y38 N- E2
04/18/94 3564 (H) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE
04/18/94 3574 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
BILL: HB 392
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL,Mulder
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/94 2125 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/21/94 2125 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
02/22/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/22/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/04/94 2605 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 2DP 3NR
03/04/94 2605 (H) DP: VEZEY, G.DAVIS
03/04/94 2605 (H) NR: KOTT, OLBERG, SANDERS
03/04/94 2605 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/4/94
03/18/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/25/94 2966 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 2NR
03/25/94 2966 (H) DP: GREEN, KOTT, PORTER,
PHILLIPS
03/25/94 2966 (H) NR: NORDLUND, DAVIDSON
03/25/94 2966 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(REV) 3/4/94
04/05/94 (H) FIN AT 03:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE
04/06/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
04/07/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
04/08/94 3192 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) 3DP 1DNP 5NR
04/08/94 3193 (H) DP: MACLEAN, LARSON, PARNELL
04/08/94 3193 (H) DNP: MARTIN
04/08/94 3193 (H) NR: HANLEY, GRUSSENDORF,
THERRIAULT
04/08/94 3193 (H) NR: HOFFMAN, BROWN
04/08/94 3193 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(REV) 3/4/94
04/14/94 3512 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/15/94
04/15/94 3512 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/15/94 3513 (H) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/15/94 3513 (H) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT
04/15/94 3513 (H) AMENDMENT NO 1 BY MARTIN
04/15/94 3514 (H) AMENDMENT NO 1 FAILED Y13 N21
E4 A2
04/15/94 3514 (H) AMENDMENT NO 2 BY PARNELL,
BROWN
04/15/94 3515 (H) AMENDMENT NO 2 ADOPTED UNAN
CONSENT
04/15/94 3515 (H) AMENDMENT NO 3 BY NORDLUND
04/15/94 3516 (H) AMENDMENT NO 3 FAILED Y8 N25
E4 A3
04/15/94 3516 (H) AMENDMENT NO 4 BY NORDLUND
04/15/94 3517 (H) AMENDMENT NO 4 WITHDRAWN
04/15/94 3517 (H) AMENDMENT NO 5 BY DAVIES
04/15/94 3517 (H) AMENDMENT NO 5 FAILED Y8 N26
E4 A2
04/15/94 3518 (H) AMENDMENT NO 6 BY MULDER,
KOTT
04/15/94 3519 (H) AM NO 1 TO AMENDMENT NO 6 BY
MULDER
04/15/94 3519 (H) AM NO 1 TO AM NO 6 ADOPTED
UNAN CONSENT
04/15/94 3520 (H) AM NO 2 TO AM NO 6 BY
BUNDE/WITHDRAWN
04/15/94 3520 (H) AM NO 6 AS AMENDED ADOPTED Y23
N11 E4 A2
04/15/94 3521 (H) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/15/94 3521 (H) READ THE THIRD TIME CSHB
392(FIN) AM
04/15/94 3521 (H) PASSED Y32 N3 E4 A1
04/15/94 3521 (H) EFFECTIVE DATES SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/15/94 3521 (H) BROWN NOTICE OF RECONSID
04/15/94 3529 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MULDER
04/18/94 3567 (H) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
04/18/94 3567 (H) MOTION: RET 2ND RESCIND
PREVIOUS ACTION
04/18/94 3567 (H) IN ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO 6,
AS AMENDED
04/18/94 3567 (H) RET 2ND TO RESCIND PASSED Y27
N7 E2 A4
04/18/94 3568 (H) RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION IN
ADOPTING
04/18/94 3568 (H) AMENDMENT NO 6 AS AMENDED PSD
Y20 N18 E2
04/18/94 3568 (H) AMENDMENT NO 6 AS AM FAILED Y18
N20 E2
04/18/94 3569 (H) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/18/94 3569 (H) MOTION: RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM
NO 7
04/18/94 3569 (H) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 7 FLD Y16
N22 E2
04/18/94 3570 (H) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y31
N7 E2
04/18/94 3570 (H) EFFECTIVE DATES SAME AS PASSAGE
04/18/94 3574 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-45, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order
at 1:15 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 1994. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would
take up HB 472 first. Chairman Porter several times
reminded those testifying via teleconference that the
committee would appreciate written testimony if available
and he provided the appropriate telefax number: 465-3834.
HB 472 - REFERRALS INVOLVING DENTAL SERVICES
REP. GARY L. DAVIS, Prime Sponsor of HB 472, addressed the
committee. He said, "HB 472 will prohibit the receipt of
compensation by dentists for referring a person to another
dentist or dental practice. The American Dental Association
code of ethics forbids dentists from profiting from
referrals. This legislation codifies the ethical concern
related to referrals.
"Section 2, the receipt of compensation by a person or
advertisement referring a dental service, is prohibited
unless the compensation for referral is disclosed at the
time of referral. This legislation will help ensure that
patients are being referred to a dentist or dental practice
as a result of their quality service.
"In simple terms, this is simply codifying a section in the
American Dental Association's Code of Ethics into statute.
There is some testimony. I believe Julie Robinson should be
on teleconference. I believe she is President of the Alaska
Dental Society. She will go into detail as to why the
Association feels this ethical procedure is confronting
problems to the degree that they feel it needs to be
codified in statute. So, I think she will probably have the
most valid testimony. And I'll answer questions, if I may."
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he saw no immediate questions, but
invited Rep. Davis to remain for questions that might arise.
Number 087
DR. JULIE ROBINSON, President, Alaska Dental Society,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage on behalf of HB
472. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to
address them, and particularly thanked Rep. Davis and his
staff. Dr. Robinson said that HB 272 was easily understood
and to the point. She related the circumstances of its
origins, which was primarily a response to misleading
advertising by so-called referral services purporting to
guide individuals towards appropriate dental practitioners
in good standing with the Alaska Dental Association. In
fact, the only referees were a few dental practitioners who
were paying in to the referral "services" towards whom calls
would be channeled regardless of the type of dental services
required; the standing of these practitioners, moreover, had
not been determined by the referrers. Dr. Robinson
described the experiences of consumers seeking appropriate
dental care and receiving faulty and misleading information.
DR. ROBINSON concluded, "The benefits of advertising depend
on reliability and accuracy. This type of ad is deceptive
and faulty. Because the public is easily deceived by this
sort of advertising, and generally has a lack of
sophistication regarding dental services, we feel that the
agency should disclose to the public that the dentist
receiving the referral has paid a fee for this service. The
dentists also feel that it is important to avoid misleading
the public about services we provide." She said HB 472
would apply the Dental Society's Code of Ethics regarding
advertising and fee splitting and noted that other states
have enacted or are considering similar legislation.
Number 171
REP. JAMES focused on the extent of the legislation, asking
if it would ban all advertising by dental practitioners.
Number 173
DR. ROBINSON replied that it would not; in fact, there were
many perfectly legal advertisements for dentists currently
in the Yellow Pages. She explained that HB 472 would
regulate only dental referral services for dentists. She
noted that the paid referral services limited inclusion in
any particular area to certain practitioners who paid large
fees.
Number 216
REP. PHILLIPS asked if there were other, open-ended referral
services, and wondered how to determine if they were
operating in a lawful fashion.
DR. ROBINSON described the referral service of the Alaska
Dental Society, which provides several referral options for
every caller, as an example of a legitimate service.
Number 252
REP. NORDLUND posed a question regarding Section 2 of HB
472, which makes referral fees illegal. He asked if that
meant that a dentist to whom a patient came for examination
could not charge that patient a fee for services if the
dentist, having determined that he was not the appropriate
person for the service, referred the patient on to another
practitioner.
DR. ROBINSON explained that this was not so; the section
meant that one dentist could not receive a fee from another
dentist for referring a patient.
REP. NORDLUND, DR. ROBINSON, CHAIRMAN PORTER and REP. DAVIS
discussed the language and Section 2 and agreed that it was
acceptably clear.
CHAIRMAN PORTER observed, "In its most negative form, we're
prohibiting kickbacks." He asked if there were further
questions.
REP. JAMES expressed discomfort with the legislature
policing the ethics of the members of the Board of Dental
Examiners, an entity which might be considered to be capable
of self-policing. She cautioned against an excess of
protectionism.
REP. DAVIS responded to this concern by characterizing the
legislation as forward-looking; a way of obviating problems
such as those, for example, which might be coming into being
through the plethora of 800 and 900 telephone numbers which
provide the means for referral businesses to operate without
familiarity with the professional ethics involved.
REP. JAMES reiterated her concerns and remarked, "I feel
it's really improper for the state to go out and try to
police everybody's ethics. I think that we have a hard
enough time policing our own."
Number 318
REP. GREEN expressed, in counterpoint, his concerns over the
ramifications of untrained persons in paid referral services
making recommendations.
REP. JAMES responded that the guilty party would not be the
referral system, but rather the participating dentist.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Dr. Robinson to tell the committee if
the board of the Alaska Dental Society was capable now of
doing this policing without the statute.
DR. ROBINSON believed that it was not so capable, given its
current burdens.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked, "Is there any other discussion?"
REP. PHILLIPS said, "I would move that we move HB 472 out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal
note."
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated, "We have a motion to move the bill.
Is there a discussion? Is there objection?" There being no
objection, HB 472 was adopted and moved out of committee.
HB 84 - IMPLEMENTING OF ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
Number 403
REP. PHILLIPS moved the House Judiciary Committee Substitute
for HB 84, dated 2/22-D.
REP. NORDLUND objected for purposes of obtaining an
explanation of the differences between the bill that was
referred from HESS and the Judiciary CS that Rep. Phillips
was moving.
REP. PHILLIPS responded that the basic differences between
the two bills were in the removal of the tenure review
committees that were in the HESS committee substitute and
the making of a change on the time on tenure. She said that
both the School Board Association and the National Education
Association (NEA) supported the removal of peer review
groups from the bill.
There being no further discussion or objection, the
Judiciary CS for HB 84 was adopted by the committee for
review.
Number 430
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of CSHB 84. Mr. Rose expressed his belief that the
increasing workload of administrative staff, whose numbers
have been reduced by funding cuts, made it difficult to
perform evaluations of teachers in the "compressed time line
of two years." He noted that the evaluation process
contained unfairness to teachers and students. He said a
two-year tenure review system of teachers might not grant an
adequate amount of time to "accurately ascertain if they are
qualified to be granted tenure" without giving them the
opportunity to improve their teaching, while perhaps
prematurely granting tenure to teachers for whom tenure
might not be appropriate. He stated that "[i]n fairness to
children, and students in the classroom, it would behoove us
to insure that we had well-qualified people in the classroom
in the amount of time required to insure that that takes
place is important." Mr. Rose criticized the HESS committee
substitute's inclusion of a peer review committee. He
concluded by reiterating his support for a longer tenure
review period and for fewer statutory requirements mandated
onto school districts.
Number 497
REP. NORDLUND asked if school boards were currently required
by law to do evaluations.
MR. ROSE replied that they were required by regulation, not
law.
REP. NORDLUND asked if there existed a specific number
evaluations required, or a specific time line for their
completion.
MR. ROSE said yes, but he didn't know what they were and
suggested that Steve McPhetres might be able to provide an
answer.
REP. NORDLUND asked how the proposed four-year tenure
evaluation plan would affect the number of evaluations to be
done.
MR. ROSE said that his impression was that by extending the
time line, the annual number of evaluations would be carried
through for four years, and not just spread out over four
years.
REP. NORDLUND asked how that would lessen the load on the
districts or the evaluators, since it appeared that more
evaluations, rather than fewer, would now be done.
MR. ROSE replied that what was needed was time to make the
tenure decisions. He stated, "As it is right now, normally,
you have about 18 months under current law before you have
to start action and decide whether someone is qualified or
not, and 18 months may not be an adequate amount of time to
determine whether a person is qualified to be granted tenure
or not. That's what we're asking for."
REP. NORDLUND said, "So, the proposal, what it amounts to,
is delaying the decision on whether or not you'd want to
retain a teacher. You're giving yourself more time. Isn't
there a risk there, that you could be having a bad teacher
teaching for a longer period of time than you would under
the two year tenure?"
MR. ROSE said he could see how one could make such an
interpretation, but "...we're saying, there may be teachers
out there who have their careers cut short because we had
inadequate time to evaluate... we may have some good ones
that we're missing, but we simply want more time to make
that decision. It's a pretty heavy decision to make over a
period of 18 months; that could alter someone's career."
Mr. Rose reiterated that the longer review period would
provide more time to ensure that the people who are granted
tenure have been able to show competence.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked that committee members and individuals
testifying be aware that over 25 people were slated for
testimony.
Number 552
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Rose what percentage of teachers were
turned away in the tenure review process.
MR. ROSE replied that that percentage varied from district
to district.
Number 567
JOE JOSEPHSON, National Education Association (NEA),
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to
HB 84. Mr. Josephson, an attorney, put forth the
proposition previously advanced in Laurence Johnston Peter's
The Peter Principle some years back that "work fills the
time available for its performance." Mr. Josephson
explained how this principle might manifest itself if a two-
year evaluation plan blossomed into a four-year plan. "One
can argue the change from two years to four years does
nothing except give the people who have the assignment more
time to do the work...." He noted that tenure serves a very
valuable purpose and contributes to a stable and high morale
workforce. He said that it helped assure that teachers are
freed from fear of losing their jobs "because of petty,
political, personal kinds of things not related to their
performance...."
Number 580
MR. JOSEPHSON said he believed the effects of the change in
the law would be adverse to education, stating, "First, it
will expose more teachers than ever before to the political
or arbitrary interference, which is the objective of the
tenure law to curtail. Second, it will not encourage people
to enter the field of public education. Third, it will not
encourage early monitoring and evaluation of new teachers.
We believe that administrators will have a tendency to
become more slack in the oversight of teachers, because the
day of reckoning and decision making is delayed. Fourth, it
will not weed out marginal teachers from the system. The
tendency may be to give some probationary teachers more time
and service. It will not make teachers better educators.
It will reward administrative inefficiency or slothfulness."
Number 607
PAM HJORTESET, Alaska Association of School Boards (AASB),
testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in support of
the "D" version of HB 84. She stated that that version was
far less cumbersome than the original and that she felt it
was something with which most teachers, administrators and
school board members could live and work. She noted that
she was keeping her testimony brief in order to give time to
a Ketchikan teacher.
Number 618
SHARRON NORTON, President, Ketchikan Education Association,
testified via teleconference in support of the "D" version
of HB 84. She said she believed it was much better than the
original. She stated that she was, however, opposed to the
four-year probationary period for teachers, and said she
felt what was needed was stronger administrative evaluation
of teachers during the first two years of their employment,
and that the two-year probationary period works. Ms. Norton
concluded that this two-year probationary period "could work
better with more clout given to administrative evaluation
during those first two years of employment, and providing
for the option of extending the probationary period into a
third year."
Number 640
DON RENFROE, Dillingham City School District, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 84. Mr. Renfroe expressed
criticism of tenure, particularly in rural school districts,
as imposing an inflexibility at odds with the changing needs
of schools. Mr. Renfroe reminded committee members that the
evaluation process represents only a small portion of
administrators' responsibilities. He believed a four year
tenure review process would permit a better, more extensive
evaluation system for teachers and provide for more greater
staff development and on the job training. Mr. Renfroe
concluded, "So I think extending to four years is better for
the kids, and I think that's why we're all here."
Number 670
DON FORD, Board Member and parent, Dillingham City School
District, testified via teleconference in support of HB 84.
Mr. Ford criticized current tenure law and the concept of
retaining staff by seniority rather than expertise, training
or experience. He compared education unfavorably with other
state and private entities in terms of provision of service
and cost effectiveness. Mr. Ford suggested that tenure was
in the better interests of some teachers, rather than the
students and asked, "Does the legislature primarily support
teachers or children?"
Number 707
JOAN WILKERSON, Alaska Public Employees Association (APEA)
and the state local for the American Federal of Teachers
(AFT), testified in opposition to HB 84. Ms. Wilkerson
warned of significant costs and losses she foresaw being
generated by the legislation. She stated, "While we all
hope that it is not necessary to make cuts in state funding,
it is possible that this will occur. As such, money for the
school districts will be tight. The creation and
implementation of any system which further encumbers the
present review system will be costly, and without additional
funds, other programs or personnel will have to be cut."
Ms. Wilkerson also cautioned against increased litigation
costs in implementing a new system.
Ms. Wilkerson emphasized that APEA's concerns rested not
only with its members but with school districts and
children. She said that the tenure review system provided
no opportunity for support to the teachers or involvement by
the union. Also, she cautioned, the extended tenure review
system as proposed might select simply for the most verbally
adroit advocates. Ms. Wilkerson asked for more opportunity
for teacher and APEA participation in drafting legislation
affecting teachers and urged that HB 84 not be passed from
committee as constituted, particularly not without reduction
of the probationary time frame.
Number 749
REP. DAVIDSON requested a section by section explication of
HB 84.
REP. PHILLIPS offered to do so.
CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that such a review could be done. He
also recognized Senator Salo, who was invited to address the
committee.
Number 756
REP. PHILLIPS presented the pertinent areas of the bill
under discussion. She said that only Sections 6 and 7 would
undergo changes. In Section 6 the tenure review period
would go from two to four years; and in Section 7 the tenure
peer review committee concept would be removed.
Number 760
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the changes were drafting,
rather than substantive, changes, and Rep. Phillips
concurred.
Number 769
REP. BUNDE said, "As these changes address my original bill,
I wonder if I could have an opportunity to comment?"
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented, "Let's see if we can get the
testimony in before we get into a debate."
Number 772
REP. NORDLUND requested further explanation of Sections 1, 2
and 3.
REP. PHILLIPS deferred to Rep. Bunde.
Number 781
REP. BUNDE averred he did not recognize the bill, but did
continue on to say that Sections 1, 2 and 3 discussed
allowing grants to districts.
Number 783
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if substantive changes were involved
and REP. BUNDE characterized them rather as minor. He said
that one change was new ability to apply for grants several
years in a row.
Number 787
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that Section 3 appeared to allow an
awardee, a grantee, to receive a grant for three years
within a five year period, as opposed to two, and this was
the only substantive change he'd seen.
REP. BUNDE said, "It doesn't begin a new program; it's
simply, I guess you would call it, an expansion of an
existing program."
Number 795
REP. NORDLUND asked what kind of grants these were.
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied, "Grants to public school districts
under the unique, dedicated fund school grant program that
was established prior to '59, and consequently has that
privilege."
Number 800
REP. BUNDE interjected that these were grants from the
Department of Education (DOE).
CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "And, the remainder of the bill is
merely the change of tenure from two years to four years...
and removing, in the HESS, the committee peer review.
Cliff, did you follow all that?"
Number 810
REP. DAVIDSON stated, "I did. I had a couple of other
questions. Rep. Bunde talked -- I don't know if he was
being facetious, but he said he didn't recognize this bill.
I can't read his body language, so... I was wondering if in
fact he had problems with the changes or exactly what?"
REP. BUNDE responded, "Major problems."
CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "We're going to hear about that
later."
REP. DAVIDSON continued, "The other thing, Mr. Chairman, if
I might. You had, I believe, called upon Senator Salo. Was
she going to say anything about the different sections to
this bill? Because if she could, I would appreciate that."
CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "The Senator certainly has the floor
if she would wish to elucidate further on what this bill
says."
Number 817
SEN. SALO offered comments on HB 84: "I realize you have a
lot of people on teleconference and I'll be very brief. I
certainly didn't like the whole review process because it
was very cumbersome and would have sucked up a lot of
district resources. The change to a four-year tenure is a
simpler procedure, but I think when I came in I heard Rep.
Nordlund asking some questions that I think you should think
about very carefully. That is, that if you keep people in a
non-tenure status longer, there is the requirement to do a
much more thorough review of non-tenured teachers. I think
every building administrator that I know in this state will
tell you that the current evaluation system keeps them very
business amongst the other duties that they have. They have
trouble usually meeting the deadlines for the evaluations;
often evaluations don't have the amount of observation going
with them that they should. So, you're talking about
doubling that kind of a work load on non-tenured teachers,
and I think that's a very serious consideration, as well as
the others that I'm sure you'll hear in testimony."
Number 827
REP. DAVIDSON said, "Senator, the deadline issue of which
you spoke -- how do we address those concerns that you have,
as far as meeting deadlines? Is there a mechanism by which
we can address those concerns?"
Number 833
SEN. SALO responded, "Well, you can put more money into the
schools so that we could have assistant principals in
schools to assist with the evaluation process. All of us
probably think that would be worthwhile. Probably none of
us think that it's very possible. The other thing to do, I
guess, is you could relax that procedure on non-tenured
teachers on evaluation, but then I guess you would certainly
eliminate the reason to keep a person on probationary status
longer. So, in my opinion, the best way to address it is
either to leave it alone, because I don't think we have any
proof out there that we have something that's broken; the
other way might be to try to deal with the only legitimate
argument that I have ever heard on this issue, and that is
that for a very, very small percentage of teachers, that the
district is unsure about as to whether they should keep them
or get rid of them, maybe there's a reason to extend, on a
limited basis, to a third year on tenure. However, I think
that if it's an issue of whether teachers are going to get
retained after that second year or not, then the testimony
that we ought to listen to as legislators is from the
teachers. Most districts and most teachers will tell you,
if you can't tell if they're good or bad in two years, cut
bait. You either fish or you cut bait. And if that's the
decision you have to make, taking longer than that -- it's a
matter of opinion whether you need longer than that."
Number 850
CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I'm going to ask that we try now to
get back to the testimony and save the discussion and debate
of the bill until we have concluded with the testimony."
Number 855
GEORGE STUART, Mat-Su Evaluation Committee, testified via
teleconference in opposition to HB 84. He stated that
extending the tenure review process to four years would
increase the workload of principals substantially. He said,
"The system, if you're asking to improve instruction, there
are some ways that I believe can do that. And that's staff
development, mentoring teachers that need help, and
providing leads to teachers to either retrain if they're
having problems in the classroom, or to improve their
instruction. I think that would be a better method."
Number 871
BILL HUTTON, Principal, Hoonah City School District,
testified via teleconference in support of the Section 6
amendment to HB 84. He said, "The Hoonah City School
District is in full support of the Section 6 amendment. I
can reiterate from personal experience that it would save
teacher jobs and make education better. Case in point: A
few years ago I recommended that a teacher not be offered a
contract because of an area of weakness. Other performance
areas were strong, but more time to work with this teacher
to upgrade that area of weakness may have resulted in a very
fine teacher." He concluded that two more years were needed
to improve the evaluation process.
Number 885
BAMBI HILL, Sleetmute, Alaska, testified via teleconference
in opposition to HB 84. [Text of Ms. Hill's testimony lost
in part due to abrupt ending and beginning of sides of
tape.] Ms. Hill expressed agreement with the comments of Joe
Josephson. She said she believed extending the tenure
review time from two to four years would increase costs.
TAPE 94-45, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. HILL continued her testimony. She believed that by the
time a teacher had come through training, and student
teaching experience, and a rigorous interview process to be
hired, two years of proper evaluation with mentoring and on
the job training and observation should be sufficient to
make a determination and permit a teacher to proceed or not
with his teaching position.
Number 054
LIN LAUGHY, Superintendent, Wrangell Schools, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 84. He expressed rigorous
disapproval of extant teacher tenure law and stated, "The
Alaska legislature could in a single act set in motion the
revitalization of education in our state at virtually no
cost to the state or local communities. That act would be
the elimination of the teacher tenure law." Mr. Laughy
noted that Alaska enjoyed large numbers of talented,
dedicated teachers, but the state also sustained the effects
of average, poor and a few incompetent teachers who could
not, without considerable difficulty, be removed. Mr.
Laughy cited in particular the negative impact of tenure law
on attempts at forging curriculum changes. He compared the
primary and secondary school teacher tenure system with
university tenure systems; the latter, he asserted,
typically extended seven years. Mr. Laughy termed four for
five years an absolute minimum.
Number 121
REP. DAVIDSON said, "Mr. Laughy, you said five to seven
years, absolute minimum. What about the teacher that
doesn't cut the grade here -- do you think that that teacher
should be exposed to the student population for up to seven
years without getting the kind of evaluations that we're
talking about? It seems to me that there comes a point
beyond which you're creating a problem for the child again."
Number 130
MR. LAUGHY replied, "Our present use of the tenure law is
such that if we hire an experienced teacher we expect that
teacher to be excellent after one year. If we hire a new
teacher, we expect that person to be excellent after two
years."
Number 136
REP. DAVIDSON asked, "What is the problem then in measuring
excellence?"
Number 140
MR. LAUGHY said, "We do not have a difficulty in that
respect. In the extended time period I think we're
overlooking one significant item -- the extended time period
would allow school boards much greater flexibility in making
programmatic changes that they do not now have, when they
have most of their staff locked into tenured positions."
Number 146
REP. DAVIDSON stated, "So, you mean, the purpose of the
extended tenure evaluation is that we need to allow school
boards more flexibility? And what is the nature of that
flexibility?"
Number 156
MR. LAUGHY responded, "Well, the nature of that flexibility
is the same as the issue that was raised from Dillingham.
Some times if you have to cut back on staff, such as major
considerations are being given to that now, and I know in
Ketchikan and in Juneau, and you can only cut non-tenured
teachers, you can have serious impacts on your programs
because you can continue to have part of your curriculum
that maybe is a lower priority in your community, and you
have to keep that part of the curriculum present because you
have a tenured teacher in that position teaching that
curriculum."
Number 177
REP. DAVIDSON asked, "What is the excellent model we're
going to use as far as evaluation systems are concerned? It
sounds like this gentleman has a pretty good grasp of
teacher evaluations. We know that one size does not fit all
-- particularly when we're considering the different school
districts with different expertise and different resources.
So, how do we get through that problem? Because we're
trying to create a situation here [throughout] the entire
state of Alaska, to evaluate teachers, and be fair to the
teachers, fair to the kids, and allow the school board and
the superintendents to their jobs. So how do you arrive at
that model for excellence, for measuring excellence?"
Number 194
MR. LAUGHY said, "I'm sure that varies some by district, but
we certainly know now what constitutes effective teaching
after the research [that] has been conducted over the last
twenty years."
Number 203
REP. NORDLUND asked, "Mr. Laughy, is your district prepared
now then if this bill passes to do two evaluations a year
for four years as opposed to the evaluations you do for only
two years?"
MR. LAUGHY replied, "Yes, we are prepared to do that."
Number 212
PAT CASE, representing the Kenai Peninsula Council of PTAs,
testified via teleconference in criticism of the limitations
of HB 84, and said, "As we all know, tenure has been a very
hot issue. Among parents it is a very hot issue. In your
new Alaska 2000 initiative, we elevate the standards of
students; thus, teacher standards must also be raised to
match. Now, the biggest objection parents have to current
tenure law is that it is extremely difficult to remove a
sub-par teacher from his position once tenure has been
achieved. It really makes a difference in the quality of
the work force. The process of evaluating a teacher's
performance after they achieve tenure must be addressed, not
just when they achieve tenure. I think that's the biggest
problem that parents in this state have, that it's so
difficult to ensure the continued quality of the teachers.
I feel that if this is going to have any effect on the
education of our children, the number one thing we have to
consider is the quality of delivery of the curriculum given
to our students. And just to change the date from two years
to four years won't change the fact that teachers lose their
inspiration from time to time, and there must be some sort
of mechanism put in place so we can ensure that they
maintain certain standards throughout their career."
Number 261
STEVE GIBSON, testified via teleconference from Homer with
some support and some criticism of HB 84. He said he felt
that four years would be an appropriate tenure probation
period because it provided needed flexibility to school
districts and administrators. He criticized the CS
abridgment of the tenure review board as not providing for
the sense of ownership due parents and community members
intended by the Alaska 2000 recommendations, saying,
"Advisory tenure review by a panel of principals and
teachers would not add public confidence in the quality of
teaching in our schools. That lack of confidence stems from
their perception of the very people that you would empower
on the committee. I feel that parents and community
members, in addition to teachers and administrators, would
be appropriate, and maybe that would reduce the public view
that teachers would just take care of their own. If there
are concerns about confidentiality, I feel that you should
take the view that public members should not be expected to
be any less discreet than teachers or administrators. And I
hope that you give consideration to not just making this
another layer of government that in effect just takes care
of itself."
Number 304
KATHI McCORD, teacher, Bowman Elementary School, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 84.
She observed, "Tenure is such a red flag word. I have heard
people rail against it as though teachers can hardly wait to
get tenure so we can kick back for the remaining 18 years
until we retire. That is absolute hogwash." Ms. McCord
expressed a wish to see children protected from scare
tactics alleging teacher incompetence; tactics which were,
she asserted, employed to veil another issue: control. She
stated, "Tenure is a safeguard to our profession to allow
for the process of academic freedom. Tenure protects
teachers from being unfairly attacked because we disagree
with someone else's view. Tenure keeps administrators from
being allowed to fire a teacher because of petty issues and
personality conflicts."
"Sometimes," MS. McCORD continued, "a person gets into
teaching that shouldn't be there, but it's usually obvious
from the first year and definitely by the second.
Principals should be required to do a minimum of two
evaluations during each of the first two years accompanied
by a plan for improvement when it's needed. They would then
be able to not retain if necessary."
MS. McCORD noted that most principals she had worked for had
been good employers, but cited an example to illustrate the
implicit dangers of injudiciously placed authority. She
described working for a principal who responded to her
challenge to inappropriate actions on his part by saying
that she was lucky she had tenure. "It was obvious," she
said, "that if I had been a non-tenured teacher I would have
been let go. Not because of my teaching -- I'm a creative,
hard working teacher who loves kids and loves my job -- but
because of my association involvement and perceived
challenge to his control. That's not right."
MS. McCORD continued, "Extending the tenure probationary
period serves no useful educational purpose. Rather, we
should be looking at improved administrative evaluation.
The evaluation process is a positive tool for improving
teacher performance. If a district has poor evaluation
techniques or believes other tasks are more important and
thus does not devote the time necessary to do fair and
adequate evaluations, it is not responsible public policy to
provide more time to get the job done. It's not a matter of
time, it's a matter of commitment to the task." She
concluded, "The current tenure time line works. Please
leave tenure alone."
Number 351
JAMES SIMEROTH, a teacher residing in Kenai, testified via
teleconference in opposition to HB 84. He said, "This is my
30th year of teaching; 11 of those have been on the Kenai
Peninsula, and I still haven't lost my inspiration for
teaching. Current teacher tenure law works fine when it's
administered properly. Every year teachers in Alaska are
terminated for just cause, and rightly so. The only time it
doesn't work well is when the school administrators do not
do their job adequately. I would like to see better trained
administrators doing their jobs efficiently. Weakening the
tenure law will only weaken the quality of education in
Alaska."
Contemplating the delay or weakening of tenure, MR. SIMEROTH
warned, "I am concerned about the possibility of an attitude
of `Why worry about the ability those being hired -- we'll
just fire them if they don't work out.' This kind of
atmosphere can only cause more disruption in the educational
process of our children. This attack on tenure really seems
to be about hiring teachers for a cheaper price and not
about better education. My experience has shown that a
cheaper product usually means cheaper quality... This is
not the way to improve education in Alaska. It appears to
me to be an unwarranted attack on public school teachers."
MR. SIMEROTH said, "I also think some people would like to
equate teaching in public schools with teaching at the
university level. Teaching conditions in these areas are
only remotely related and should not even be considered as a
similar working environment. I urge you to reject this
effort to amend tenure law that can only bring about a
lessening of quality education in Alaska. Support the
current teachers statutes. They are effective."
Number 387
LEONARD N. MURRAY, CEA, Classified Employee, Mat-Su School
District, testified in opposition to HB 84. He said, "I am
against HB 84 mainly because I think if they extend the
tenure law to four years it's going to do an injustice to
the teacher by not evaluating him properly within the two
years. It stretches it out too long. You know and I know
that through proper evaluation or documentation you can
either hire a teacher, if it's done correctly, or get rid of
a teacher." Mr. Murray expounded on his opinion that a
protracted tenure probation process punished teachers,
taxpayers and most of all, students.
Number 418
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, National Education Association -
Alaska (NEA-AK), representing approximately 9,000 employees,
testified in opposition to HB 84 and said, "Before yesterday
we thought we were going to be testifying on House Bill --
the Committee Substitute, which included the peer review
committee. We found out yesterday from Rep. Phillips that
the amendment was going to be offered. I have not seen it
yet. But I've tried to prepare some remarks in terms of
just tenure in general. Some have come to believe that
tenure is synonymous with lifetime appointment. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Competent and effective
administrators with leadership and motivational skills have
utilized tenure as an ally to develop innovative and
challenging teaching staffs. Over 20 years ago Alaska
joined the mainstream of America by extending tenure to its
teachers. Today, tenure continues to accomplish its purpose
by encouraging effective teaching in the various political
climates existing in any school district during a person's
career. Tenure is to establish employment security and
professional responsibilities within the framework of the
process. Tenure is granted to protect academic freedom."
MS. DOUGLAS emphasized that NEA-AK supported tenure because
it "...protects the freedom the academic community needs to
impart knowledge and critical thinking skills to children.
Tenure protects schools from becoming systems where the
spoils of a bureaucracy are dumped. Tenure protects the
schools and teachers from assaults by political pressure
groups. Tenure provides the needed security to enable
teachers to be creative and experiment with new methods.
Tenure enables to maintain discipline in a fair and
impartial manner without jeopardizing their jobs. Tenure
permits teachers to be critical of the politics and tactics
of teacher organizations, including our own. Tenure
protects the school system from chaotic and spasmodic
changes. The authority to grant tenure is the discretion
and power of the local school district, the local school
board, which cannot be delegated. State law prescribes how
teachers may acquire tenure. The probationary period allows
school boards time to assess a teacher's ability and
competencies. During this period, there is no guarantee of
employment beyond the annual employment contract. During
the period an Alaskan probationary teacher may be terminated
without cause." She reiterated that tenure does not give a
teacher lifetime appointment, but rather, "provides a
competent teacher an assurance of a continued appointment as
long as his or her performance is satisfactory."
"Administrators," MS. DOUGLAS asserted, "are critical to the
[educational] process and... success because they are
trained to evaluate and develop teachers to accomplish the
educational goals and plans of the school district.
Administration is a demanding job. Those who enter it
understand that many variables will attack their time. But
good administration understands the necessity of developing
the skills of the staff." Ms. Douglas explored at length
the vital need for high quality leadership, staff
development and adequate evaluations. She termed the
evaluation process a positive tool for improving teaching
performance and encouraging school districts working with
the staff to improve the quality of the evaluation."
MS. DOUGLAS bemoaned the lack of appreciation for
experienced, mature, committed teachers who provide
stability to the educational system. She quoted the words
of a teacher whose newspaper article challenged this
distortion of values: "He stated, `It alarms me that
veteran teachers aren't valued for stability and
consistency. Research clearly identifies a link between low
teacher turnover and high student achievement. Stability is
even more paramount to success in Bush districts. Instead
of respecting these facts, we are regarded as a commodity
with experience discounted. Once we gain experience and
added expertise, we're perceived as too expensive for
teaching the future leaders of our state. It is true that
tenure offers job security for new teachers, but it also
offers stability and continuity to a school and to a
community.'"
MS. DOUGLAS concluded by urging committee members to
consider the long-range effects on all involved of changing
tenure law. Along with copies of her written testimony she
also offered copies of an article by a superintendent which
discusses terminating incompetent teachers that are tenured
teachers. "And this," she noted, "is from the Phi Delta
Kappa; it's an article that NEA has nothing to do with. I
would like to include that with my testimony if I could,
please."
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that she certainly might.
Number 539
JOHN WITTEVEEN, Superintendent of Schools, Kodiak School
District, testified via teleconference in support of the
removal of the peer review committee from the work draft of
HB 84. Mr. Witteveen characterized the peer review
committee as cumbersome and said he felt this belief was
shared by the school board association, the superintendents
and the teacher's association.
MR. WITTEVEEN said that in terms of the extension of the
length of tenure there were probably two issues being
simultaneously argued. He stated, "One is regarding the
evaluation process itself, and whether or not you can
effectively evaluate a non-tenured teacher in a two-year
period. I do believe that that needs to be extended and
primarily because what we're faced with now is giving that
non-tenured teacher plenty of notice that we've got some
problems with them, which effectively cuts the two years
down to probably a little over a year. With a non-tenured
teacher we put additional administrative observations into
the program to make sure that we're not selectively trying
to eliminate someone. But it does force our time line down
to much less than two years.
"The second part of this is really based on the ability to
manage a school district. In times of declining revenues
you can lay off non-tenured teachers, and so far, most
districts' pools of non-tenured teachers seem to be
sufficient to do that, but there are some districts in
Alaska, the smaller districts, in particular, where when
they're faced with cutbacks, they cannot effectively manage
their program. I think Lin Laughy pointed that out, where
he could end up with a tenured senior P.E. teacher, and
having to put that person into a regular classroom
situation, which is not good for kids. And I think most
people would recognize that. Extending the length of tenure
down from the non-evaluation argument would lend more
argument to the management of the system and where you would
place people within the system."
MR. WITTEVEEN said he felt that parents and students also
needed to be involved in the evaluation process for
teachers; not with a peer review committee per se, but
perhaps through optional opinion surveys, as employed by the
Kodiak school district. He concluded by restating his
support for the removal of the peer review committee and the
extension of the tenure period from the working draft of the
HB 84.
REP. BUNDE said, "I would like to comment on what I guess I
would call the `Carl Rose Amendment'. I have reviewed
tenure from personal experience, both as a public school
teacher and a college teacher. We're worked on this in the
HESS Committee for well over a year now. A considerable
number of public hearings, a great deal of testimony. And I
suppose that I feel that I've fallen into the Ron Larsen
syndrome of success. If I've made everyone a little bit
mad, I think I've been successful, at least up until this
point. I certainly don't dispute the need for tenure. I
think the Anchorage School District in recent history is an
indication of what would happen if you had teaching become a
popularity contest to please school districts. In small
school districts, every time the school board changed, you
would have a change of teachers; if you didn't have any job
security, I feel, it would become a popularity contest.
"We have a problem with the current system. It does not
work. You hear from the union representatives that it does
work, but you talk to the PTAs and the parents, it is not
working. Even one poor teacher is too many. The principals
can't or won't evaluate properly, and we've heard a
considerable amount of testimony to that; I mean, you look
at principals, they are teachers who, for one reason or
another, have left the classroom, and may indeed be burned
out teachers themselves, coasting at another level. They
are not being able to do the job. Hence, the need for the
tenure review committee. Now, people resist it, but people
have resisted change since time immemorial. How do they
know it won't work? They haven't tried it. It's working at
other educational levels, and working quite well.
"One of the problems with the current bill before you is it
doesn't address one of the biggest concerns, and that is,
burnout. Sure, someone can be an outstanding teacher. But
it's a demanding, exhausting job, and what happens ten or 15
years down the road? And how do you reevaluate these
people? There is a current law that allows people to be
fired for a number of reasons. How many people are fired?
It's a very cumbersome project. Look at the Anchorage
School District. How many people are fired for
incompetence? It seldom if ever happens. Teaching has been
calling itself a profession for as long as I've been related
to it, and yet they refuse to do like other professions and
have self-evaluation. We have peer review in all other
professions. Why is teaching different? I would really
encourage you to address or seriously consider the idea of
peer review and further review after tenure is granted. And
maybe you too can be successful in making everyone just a
little bit angry."
Number 647
MARY RUBADEAU, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District (KPBSD), testified via
teleconference from Soldotna in support of the school grants
section in the first part of HB 84. She called the school
improvement grants critical to "positive change and
initiatives for school improvement... In Alaska, we
appreciate those grants and would like to see them continue
to be supported."
MS. RUBADEAU also expressed support for the removal of the
peer review committee from the "D" of the legislation
because that process seemed cumbersome, and she praised the
expansion of the probationary period for tenure. She termed
the tenure discussion as being an argument, not over tenure
itself, but rather of timeliness, and remarked on the
reality of a two-year probationary period; not two years at
all, she said, but between 13 and 18 months before a
decision must be made. Ms. Rubadeau underscored the need
for sufficient time "to do thorough evaluation and
supervision" and expressed appreciation for the possibility
of this afforded by the proposed legislation.
Number 682
FORREST OLEMAUN, board member, North Slope Borough School
District, testified via teleconference from Barrow in favor
of the excision of teacher tenure law from Alaska statues.
He read aloud the resolution passed by the North Slope
Borough School District calling for the elimination of such
laws. The resolution termed tenure a costly and obsolete
process in an age of collective bargaining protections.
Number 708
ROBERT GIGLER testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 84. Mr. Gigler cautioned against the
advent of a New World Order with one government, one
religion, one currency, one educational system and the mind
control of children.
Number 743
ALEXANDER McFARLAND, President, Fairbanks Education
Association, testified via teleconference in opposition to
HB 84. He said, "I wanted to start off by saying that in
fact Mr. Bunde did make some people angry, myself included,
when he suggested that `one poor teacher is too many,' which
begs the question, `How many poor administrators are too
many?' I would like to start out by saying that nothing
about this bill in regards to tenure suggests that real
improvement in the quality of education will take place. I
think legislators are confusing public school teacher tenure
with that of university professor tenure. Teachers who are
granted tenure are only assured of a job if their evaluation
continues to be satisfactory. Increasing the length of time
it takes to achieve tenure does nothing to improve the
evaluation process utilized by administrators. In fact, it
may even allow a teacher who should be counseled out of
teaching in their first or second years to stay four years.
"In our district, here in Fairbanks, if a teacher has an
unsatisfactory evaluation, they are put on an improvement
plan. If they do not accomplish the goal of the improvement
plan, they are released from their contract. If the
legislature really wanted to improve education it would
require administrators to spend quality time in the
classroom evaluating teacher performance in a responsible
way. I've been teaching in Fairbanks for 15 years, 13 in
public school, and teachers everywhere are asking for real
evaluations, ones that will help them improve their own
performance in the classroom. Instead, we get
administrators that write things like, `You would improve
your performance if you would do a better job planning for
unplanned events.' That was written on a teacher's
evaluation this year. Another administrator had to be asked
to come in and observe a teacher by that very teacher and
replied, `I don't have the time, but here's your evaluation
anyway.' In fact, in that same building, at least eight
other teachers complained to me that they have yet to be
observed or evaluated. The deadline in Fairbanks is March
1, and I spoke to them two days ago.
"When will the legislature impose upon administrators
regulations that cause them to do their job of supervision
and evaluation? The plan before you only increases the time
administrators have to not do their job. If they did their
job with the intensity that teachers teach, our teaching
staff in this state would be first in the country. The bill
before you does nothing to increase the quality of education
in this state. In fact, with salaries around the country
going up and ours decreasing, it will be harder than ever to
lure quality teachers into this state. This plan hampers
the abilities of creative teachers and forces them to lower
themselves to having to plead with administrators to keep
their job."
MR. McFARLAND recommended adopting educational improvement
measures such as those implemented by the state of
Washington; for example, the assignment of a master teacher
to every new teacher in a district to provide regular
assistance and reflection on performance. He said that Mr.
Laughy and Mr. Witteveen had "pointed out the true purpose
of this bill: to allow districts to balance their
budget..." He concluded by urging opposition to HB 84
whilst strongly encouraging "increasing evaluation of
teachers on a more responsible level."
Number 793
SUE WILKIN, President, Fairbanks School Board, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 84. Ms. Wilkin stated,
"Having been involved in education for many, many years, and
having four children in the system, and having been involved
in the issue of tenure over the years, and been a PTA
president and council president and state school board
member, [tenure] is certainly not a new subject. As I have
served on various national committees, it's always been
interesting to me to compare what we do in statutes for
teacher protection that other states do not do. We probably
have teachers that are the most protected group of public
employees that I have ever known. It is a management
problem. It's something that we need to deal with and the
school board."
MS. WILKIN agreed with the previous speaker that the current
tenure system did not work and proposed better training of
administrators in administering the evaluation process in a
cohesive and fair manner, in order that administrators "do
their job so that the teachers can do their jobs." She
proposed a simplification and extension of the tenure review
process, reiterating that her school board supported the
extension of the process to four years, and the elimination
of a peer group review.
Number 840
LAUREL JEFFORD, a parent, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage regarding HB 84. [Chronic noise in foreground
made testimony difficult to hear.] Ms. Jefford expressed
concern about tenure and the possibility that teachers could
need protection from the administrators of their own
schools. She voiced the hope that students would be
nurtured and taught by parents to share the concerns of
their school day with their parents, and that the parents of
these children would in turn be heard and heeded by the
schools as the parents expressed to them their children's
needs. Ms. Jefford hearkened back to her experiences as a
high school student confronted with attempting to learn
mathematics from an intoxicated teacher. She urged
responsible evaluation, training and retraining as needed by
teachers to provide for the best education for children.
TAPE 94-46, SIDE A
Number 000
LUCILLE CLARK testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to the proposed four-year tenure review plan.
[Some text is missing due to abrupt tape transition.] Ms.
Clark asked, "Why subject the students to a bad teacher for
a longer period of time? I am now 62 years old and I
understand very, very well that more time does not ensure
quality. I ask all administrators, all school board
members, all teachers, why is it that you are afraid of the
parents and the public? It is because we see the problems
more clearly than you. Is it because we see them and it's
not going to make us lose our jobs?" Ms. Clark included in
her testimony a request and recommendation that all
legislation be prepared in a clearer and more orderly
fashion so that issues might be presented without confusion.
Number 066
STEVE McPHETRES, Alaska Council of School Administrators,
testified in support of HB 84. Mr. McPhetres praised the
grants provided for in Section 1 of the bill for
"...providing incentives which will promote the willingness
to improve education. We have reviewed the many projects
funded this past year and find them to be innovative and
exciting. The creativity outlined in many of these projects
clearly indicates the willingness of educators to seek
better ways of delivering education to Alaska's children."
MR. McPHETRES also lauded the extension of the tenure
probation period to four years. He stated, "If we are truly
committed to providing the best and most qualified teachers
to educate our Alaskan children, we must give them the time
to develop their skills and talent. Time must also be
provided for schools to provide the guidance and evaluation
to make sound administrative decisions. We must consider
the fundamental requirements for proficient teaching, which
include, amongst others, a broad grounding in the liberal
arts and sciences, knowledge of the subjects to be taught,
the skills to be developed of the curricular arrangements
and materials that organize and embody that content.
Mastering all these areas of proficiency requires time,
counseling and experience. Those of us who have been in the
profession for years can recall beginning teachers who have
had difficult times during their first two years of
teaching. Yet, had they been given additional time to
develop their skills, they would have turned into strong
educators.
"Society is calling for change, yet change is so difficult
within the existing structure. Public education cannot
continue to deliver the services we have for the past 25
years. If public education is to be a reflection of
society, we must be accountable, and responsible, for the
delivery of quality education. This can be accomplished by
allowing more time for the beginning teacher to become
proficient and more time for the school district to provide
the necessary assistance and observation to make sound
decisions. One of the major reforms that is taking place in
Alaska today is within the revision of the requirements for
teacher certification."
MR. McPHETRES elaborated on this revision process, noting,
"We cannot limit our reform to education to merely
strengthening these entry level standards. We must also
provide an avenue for strengthening the profession. One
additional step in the reform process is the extension of
the probationary period for the new teachers and teachers
new to the districts of Alaska."
Number 157
BILL MUNROE, Education Support Worker, Mat-Su Borough School
District and president of the local employees' association,
testified in opposition to HB 84. He stated, "There are a
lot of things that I feel that are wrong with public
education, but I know there are a lot of things that are
right with it. Tenure is an issue to me that is not going
to make our kids better students. It's not going to make
our teachers better teachers. When I think of tenure, I
also think of seniority. Do I feel like I need seniority,
as a protection? Yes, I feel like I need seniority as a
protection. I also feel like teachers need tenure as a
protection, along those same lines.
"I asked a personnel director awhile back why evaluators
tend to give rubber stamp evaluations to all of our
employees, teachers included. He told me that a lot of
times teachers become friends with administrators, or the
administrator or supervisor does not want to play the heavy
and give somebody a poor evaluation. I've seen this first
hand. I know it happens. It happens in our association.
It happens in the teachers' association. I think if you
lengthen this process from two to four years you're not
going to be helping the matter. I think the evaluators need
to be tough. I think they need to be fair, I think they
need to be consistent. If you could write a law to
encourage them to be that way, it might help."
Suggesting that laws often delineate problems without fixing
them, MR. MUNROE recommended a shift of attitude instead.
He said, "I think what's going to fix this problem is
people's attitudes. Most new employees when they come on
are gung-ho. They want to do a good job. The question is,
do they have the skills to do that job? A lot of times they
don't. I think Claudia made a good point with the mentoring
program. I think it goes beyond that. The teacher of the
year, Matt Weaver, this year in the state of Alaska, is a
dynamic individual that can motivate students to learn. The
way he does that is through his personal style and something
that he thinks can be taught. And maybe at the colleges, if
they would take the time to teach teachers how to teach
properly, we could address the real problem, which is that
students aren't learning what they should be learning. I
would encourage you to look at the real problems rather than
extending this tenure [review], and if you do extend tenure
[review], I think you ought to make evaluations really
tough, and fair and consistent. I encourage you to do
that."
Number 232
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey,
Department of Education, testified regarding HB 84. She
said, "Throughout the Alaska 2000 Initiative, a cross-
section of Alaskans met during 1992 to examine our school
system and to make recommendations to the state board and to
Governor Hickel -- ways to improve the quality of public
education. As introduced, House Bill 84 highlighted five of
those proposals. The committee substitute before you now
has retained two of those concepts. One of them deals with
the Fund for the Improvement of School Performance. This
fund was established in 1990, but was not appropriated any
money into the fund until last year. So last year was the
first year that the grants were awarded. 25 recipients from
16 school districts were granted an award. During the
process of writing the regulations to implement the fund, it
became obvious that there was a conflict in the definitions
or how to implement it. There was a cap of $50,000 and our
attorney general felt that that cap should apply to the
local school district. The larger school districts did
submit many proposals. One district submitted 25 individual
proposals. All the proposals were ranked in order, but
because of a cap of $50,000, some proposals that had more
merit than others could not be awarded. So the language
before you now allows the department some flexibility in
awarding those grants. The proposed change in the tenure
law to allow four years before granting tenure does address
many of the concerns that were expressed during the Alaska
2000 initiative. And the Department of Education would
support that change."
REP. NORDLUND said, "Under the grant proposal, let me make
sure I understand this now, you only award one grant per
district?"
Number 287
MS. PETERSON replied, "No. We could cap it at $50,000. So
several grants were awarded per district. I do have a list
of those also if you'd like. But the grant, the way the
language is written now, the $50,000 cap would be at each
proposal. So a school district, a larger district, if they
had more proposals, in theory could be awarded more than
$50,000."
Number 296
REP. NORDLUND asked, "Does the department have any
statistics on the number of tenured or non-tenured teachers
that are not retained by school districts? Can we get an
idea of how many, how effective school districts are in
making evaluations and getting rid of non-tenured teachers
based on those evaluations?"
MS. PETERSON stated, "I am not aware if the Department of
Education keeps those statistics, but I can certainly check
and get back with you."
Number 307
REP. PHILLIPS said, "Just for the record, I want to say I
appreciate your comments on the grant issues, because those
grants are very, very effective and certainly worthwhile,
especially with the smaller school districts. I don't know
about the larger ones. They are very much appreciated."
MS. PETERSON remarked, "Yes. We certainly got a great,
tremendous response. However, this year, there is no money
in the budget. But we're always hopeful."
REP. GREEN said, "You indicated that the department favored
a four year review. Do you have any comment on the peer
review?"
Number 323
MS. PETERSON responded, "As the committee substitute came
out of the HESS Committee, the department felt that it would
be a very unworkable situation, and is cumbersome. We would
like to have some procedure in which parents could become
involved in the evaluation process, and would encourage
local school districts to set up a procedure where there is
more public input in the evaluations. But how the bill came
out of HESS Committee, the Department of Education felt that
there were quite a few problems with it."
Number 336
KARLA FEELEY, a former teacher, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage in opposition to HB 84. Ms. Feeley reviewed
the concept of tenure from an historical perspective, saying
that it had been introduced during the depression to
introduce professionalism into the teaching profession. She
stated, "Policy makers then believed it was in the public's
interest to protect teachers from being fired except for
reasons that had to do with their performance as teachers.
This is still good public policy today. I know two non-
tenured teachers in a district in Alaska who are losing
their jobs for no apparent reason, except that the
administration wants to shovel them out or hire someone
cheaper. I've observed the classrooms of these teachers.
They are not only good, they are superior educators.
Treating employees like so many disposable nuts and bolts is
bad management policy in education, as well as in business,
and it is a waste of taxpayers' money. I've also seen non-
tenured teachers whose jobs were threatened simply because
they had the temerity to attend a public school board
meeting.
"Do legislators see the problem as bad teachers being
allowed to achieve tenure? If that's the concern, giving
administrators who are not now doing their jobs evaluating
teachers even more time not to do their jobs is not the
answer, as Alexander McFarland said from Fairbanks. I
encourage you to mandate proper evaluation and help for
beginning teachers so that the public can be assured that it
is the good teachers who are staying and the poor teachers
who are leaving our classrooms. The legislature could
certainly provide the opportunity for an additional year for
improvement where there is doubt.
"And remember, tenure only protects teachers from summary
dismissal. Incompetent tenured teachers still can and
should be dismissed under current law. No teacher wants a
bad teacher next door. We want school principals to
properly supervise and if necessary dismiss teachers while
respecting teachers' rights to decent and fair treatment. I
urge you to adopt language ensuring proper evaluation and
help for many teachers rather than extending the
probationary period."
Number 386
ROB PFISTERER, President, Anchorage Education Association,
testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 84. He
expressed agreement with the previous speaker and stated,
"Basically, the issue you need to address is adequate
evaluation and quality staff development. I think the idea
of evaluating is an important concept in education; and
administrators, if they would evaluate, have all the tools
they need to determine whether a teacher is fulfilling their
job qualifications and performance. Right now the
administrators have the power to eliminate bad teachers in a
two year time period before they get tenure and after they
get tenure. There is nothing in the tenure law that
protects incompetent teachers."
MR. PFISTERER asserted that the extended tenure process was
being promoted by school boards and administration "...to
allow school boards flexibility to cut staff, with no
concern over whether they're doing their jobs adequately.
It has nothing to do with better schools, but it does have
to do with whether they can just fire at whim a person who
may be a thorn in their side. Tenure does not protect
incompetent teachers. It does protect academic freedom
unhampered by attacks from school boards that have a
political agenda." Mr. Pfisterer refuted Rep. Bunde's
assertions concerning the difficulty of terminating tenured
teachers and said he had previously sent Rep. Bunde a letter
on this issue, and would be glad to forward a copy to the
committee.
Number 433
GUY STRINGHAM, President of the Dillingham Education
Association and a teacher in the Dillingham City School
District, testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
84. Mr. Stringham noted that he had also served as a
principal and as a district administrator. He reviewed the
day's testimony and professed embarrassment at the
characterizations of some aspects of careers in education.
He restated a disconcerting proposition he had heard: "If I
understand some of the testimony I listened to, I heard an
assistant superintendent of Kenai point out the colleges are
failing in turning out administrators in that they are
coming out incompetent in the area of evaluating employees,
and that most of these are gravitating to the rural areas,
and that in order to take care of that problem, we need to
somehow extend or do away with tenure.
"I also heard Rep. Bunde indicate that in other professions
this kind of evaluation process is a little different. I
agree with him. It really is. Because the bottom line in
those professions in the private sector demands that there's
competence and there's ability and that the employer
representatives are required to either train people or to
remove people. And they do that rather well. The training,
however, the important ingredient, seems to be missing.
"Collective bargaining law was pointed out as some way in
which we have some kind of protection, but I believe, along
with companion bill 84, you have other pieces of legislation
right now that you're considering that would do away with my
right to the courts if I undergo some arbitrary, capricious
way of being handled by a school board or superintendent or
other administrator..." Mr. Stringham began very lightly to
outline another companion piece of legislation but turned to
what he felt was an essential facet of any discussion on
tenure.
MR. STRINGHAM concluded, "What we're really talking about, I
believe, is the fact that a teacher is on probation every
year of their teaching life. If a teacher remains who
should not, for one of the three golden reasons --
immorality, incompetence or insubordination -- for more than
one year, then you have an incompetent administrator, not an
incompetent teacher."
Number 480
BECKY CHAPEK, Cordova School Board, testified via
teleconference in support of the "D" version of HB 84 and
said, "First of all, thank you for the grants that exist in
this bill. They've been successful and we'd like to see
them continue, even though I know funding gets to be a
problem. Also, I support the "D" version of this bill."
Ms. Chapek praised the removal of the peer review committee
from the legislation and also spoke in favor of the
extension of the tenure probation period to four years. She
stated, "we certainly don't want to use this extended tenure
time as a budget balancing tool...."
MS. CHAPEK referred to the Cordova School District and said,
"We're in the bottom third of the state's starting pay
scale. Attracting good teachers to Cordova isn't easy to
do, and it's not like we're waiting every time that a
teacher is up for tenure, we just want to drop [that person]
or we go out and find another one. That's no picnic. It
doesn't benefit our district, our children, or our
administration to engage in that sort of folly. If a
teacher is dissatisfied with their evaluation process, there
is a union if they want to bring that up in negotiations,
and I'm sure they will. Our district is prepared to do more
evaluations which will become necessary for a four year
tenure situation. Doing this extra work will save us a lot
of heartache later, not only for the districts, but for the
teachers and the students."
MS. CHAPEK concluded, "In the past we have requested that
non-tenured teachers continue to improve their classroom
performance through further education. And I just feel that
we need an extension to this and I would encourage you to
consider that."
Number 535
VERNON MARSHALL, National Education Association - Alaska,
testified in opposition to HB 84. He said, "I hope I can
offer, I had a kind of a prepared statement I'd like to
offer, but then I thought, no, after hearing so much
testimony I'd just like to offer a few comments. I hope a
goal here is not to, in a sense, to dump on employees. You
know, it's easy to go out and -- let's say, you're in the
law enforcement business, or have been, that the problem
with law enforcement is the police officer. Or the problem
with the military is the soldier. Police officers,
soldiers, teachers, state employees, work in systems. And
those systems must have rules or many things can happen to
employees that are not good for the public policy. I think
it's easy to go out and be very critical of somebody else's
profession." He meditated on the realities of working
within a system.
MR. MARSHALL said, "I have had situations where
administrators have encouraged me to change grades because
some young fellow who earned an `F' wasn't going to be
allowed to play Friday night on the football team. Those
are the realities of teaching. That's why tenure in effect
is needed. Because, again, I didn't give the grade, the
grade was earned. Now we can go in and debate whether that
student actually earned the grade or not, but again, I had
the wherewithal and the information to do that. I think it
is a management problem. I remember when I first taught
school. I was basically given a set of keys and told to go
down to the second door to the left and I'll see you in
about 180 days. That was very little leadership. I hate
the teacher bashing, and I've heard a lot of teacher bashing
today.
"I would encourage you to pull the bill down, go back to the
table, and talk about trying to develop a team that involves
management and the instructors in terms of our effort to go
out and create a good system that ensures that the kids of
Alaska get the best education that we can possibly advance,
for them."
MR. MARSHALL asserted a four year tenure probation process
would delay a decision which should be achieved within two
years and would not enhance the quality of the decision. He
reminded committee members that beginning teachers want very
much to do a good job and to do this need timely guidance,
direction and advice; to be apprised of the instructional
goals of the school system and to benefit from staff
development.
MR. MARSHALL commended the concept of teacher mentors and
noted that NEA-AK was working with the state university
system to further improve the preparation of teachers for
the classrooms of Alaska. In closing, he called for
legislation "...that's professionally sound, that ensures
that our kids do get quality teachers and quality
instruction, and that helps Alaska move into a new century
and the new demands that we've got."
Number 657
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there was no time available for
hearing testimony on other bills and stated that HB 420
would be taken up on the following Monday at 1:30. He also
announced that the hearing on HB 84 would be continued
because action had not been taken by the committee, although
further testimony would not be taken. The House Judiciary
Standing Committee was then adjourned.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|