Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/06/2003 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for
retired teachers and principals, including those who
participated in retirement incentive programs, and to
the employment as teachers of members of the public
employees' retirement system who participated in a
retirement incentive program; and providing for an
effective date.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS commented that Alaska, like the rest of
the nation is experiencing a severe shortage of qualified
teachers and principals. Research has shown that a
qualified teacher in the classroom is the single most
important school-based factor in a student's success. It is
incumbent upon the Legislature to provide additional tools
to Alaskan school districts to ameliorate the current
teacher shortage to assist school districts in their efforts
to improve student learning.
HB 20 would allow schools experiencing a shortage of
education professionals to reemploy teachers and principals
who had retired under a Retirement Incentive Program (RIP).
The bill would not require any school district to reemploy
any particular retired individual; it would only give them
the 'option' to do so.
Senator Stevens continued, school districts would be
required to certify that they are experiencing a shortage in
order to reemploy a RIP-retired teacher or principal. Those
reemployed under the provision would not be required to pay
back their retirement incentive and could elect to either
continue receiving their retirement benefits or to accrue
new Teacher Retirement System (TRS) credited service during
that re-hire period. The Department of Education would also
be able to hire RIP-retired teachers and principals for
Alyeska Central School, Mt. Edgecumbe, the Alaska State
School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and the Alaska
Vocational Technical Center.
Statute allowing school districts to hire any retired
personnel without penalty sunsets on July 1, 2005; school
districts would not be able to reemploy any additional
retirees after that date.
Co-Chair Harris asked what would happen in a district where
there was not a shortage of teachers.
Senator Stevens emphasized that the district would have to
indicate that there was a 'shortage'. The inability to find
a teacher with the specific criterion needed for that
position in that school district would have to be present.
Co-Chair Harris wanted to guarantee that the legislation
would only fill areas where there just were not enough
teachers. He pointed out that there are new teachers coming
up and that the proposed hirees had gone through the RIP
program and had benefited from it. He stressed that he
would not want to see an advantage for the retired employees
coming back, over and above the new teachers coming in.
Senator Stevens suggested that the Department remark
regarding that concern.
Representative Joule commented that the legislation
attempted to reach an element of 'quality'. Those teachers
that 'ripped' were often very valuable. He reiterated that
it is important to guarantee that the children have quality
in their classrooms, particularly in rural areas, where
quality teachers are seriously needed.
Co-Chair Williams interjected that the Committee's time be
used for questions rather than debate.
Representative Chenault observed that there has been concern
voiced regarding the 105% retirement benefit pay back. He
asked if these hired back teachers would continue to build
retirement benefits.
Senator Stevens explained that under present law, a teacher
who ripped can return to employment at 105% of the benefits
they received. They would come back into the system as a
full tenured teachers and would continue to accrue time in
the retirement system. The advantage of the proposed
legislation is that it would allow the district to hire
someone if there was a need. That person would have no
tenure and no guarantee of a job in the future. They would
have the option of returning to teach and getting back 105%
from the retirement system, or under HB 20, they could
continue to receive their retirement and benefits,
negotiating a deal with the school district for salary
without tenure or insurance. From the district's
standpoint, there would be financial advantages.
Representative Hawker referenced language 'adopt a policy',
which would allow the school district to adopt the policy
that permits the employment of retired teachers. He asked
if there was any information on that policy that could
provide guidance in defining 'shortage'. Senator Stevens
understood that language would be found in the Department's
regulations.
GUY BELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, noted that the Department had
submitted a zero fiscal note because the full cost of the
retirement incentive program was paid at the time that the
teacher retired.
Mr. Bell spoke to the declaration of shortage. The law
allows that the declaration of shortage be self-policing and
that each school district makes their own determination
regarding shortage. They will need to notify the Division
and then the school district would hire the retired teacher
under that provision. Regarding the statistical
information, only 80 of the 4,000 teachers have returned to
teaching under these provision waivers. There has been a
fairly limited use and it has been used judiciously when
there is a shortage. He did not foresee a need to go beyond
that self-policing arrangement.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the sponsor statement
indicates that they would not be required to pay back their
retirement incentive and could continue to receive those
benefits or to accrue new teacher retirement system credit
service during the rehire period. Mr. Bell explained that
they could continue to receive the rehire service during
that period but they would still be subject to the RIP
penalty. The only way to avoid that penalty would be to
file to elect the waiver and not accrue additional
retirement credit.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the penalty was the payback. Mr.
Bell advised that the penalty is a determination made by the
Legislature and if that person comes back, the 110%
additional benefit received, the person would loose the
credit received by virtue of their ripping. The only way in
which it makes sense is if the teacher was intending to work
more than three years; otherwise, the teacher would be
taking a 'big hit' in lost benefits.
Co-Chair Harris asked if it would be up to each individual
school district to determine the level of pay for the
returning teacher.
Mr. Bell noted that the bill is 'silent' regarding the pay
scale. The issue of pay is subject between the bargaining
agreement between the school district and its employee
union. Whatever is in place for that school district, would
apply.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the teacher would be hired back
with their longevity. Mr. Bell advised that could happen if
it was indicated in the school's contract.
Co-Chair Harris believed that the only way that the contract
would indicate that would be an inclusion stipulated in the
contract about retired teachers returning to work. Mr. Bell
acknowledged that he did not know about the law and how it
would apply to salary scales.
Mr. Bell advised that today, a non-ripped teacher could come
back under these provisions. The salary scale that they are
hired back at is subject to their school district's call.
They could come back at an entry-level position or with some
level of seniority. He reiterated that the Department does
not make that determination.
Co-Chair Harris commented that it might not be a cost
savings to the district to hire them back. Mr. Bell replied
that the State would no longer contribute to the retirement
system on that person's behalf, creating a savings.
Currently, the retirement system requires that the school
district pay 12% of the salary to the retirement system,
which would be waived.
Co-Chair Williams inquired about the health care costs. Mr.
Bell responded that as long as the person stays as a
retiree, they are subject to the retiree medical plan.
Representative Stoltze suggested that the intent should be
that the teachers come in at entry-level positions. He
believed that legislative intent should be added to indicate
that language.
Co-Chair Williams responded that had not been used in the
statewide school system information. Representative Stoltze
mentioned the 'unintended consequences' of not implementing
it.
KEVIN SWEENEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, impressed upon members of the
Committee that there exists a serious problem with teacher
shortages in the State of Alaska. There is a chronic
difficulty in attracting and retaining teachers in certain
areas of the State and in certain education fields. He
provided members with a handout, RETAINING QUALITY TEACHERS
FOR ALASKA, written by the Institute of Social & Economic
Research. (Copy on File).
Mr. Sweeney commended the Legislature in recognizing that
the challenge exists. He acknowledged that there were
several bills that deal with teacher shortages. Some of the
bills will help the Department and the individual districts
attract and retain qualified teachers for the communities.
He stressed that HB 20 is one of those bills and that the
Department supports it.
Mr. Sweeney clarified that the bill as amended by the House
State Affairs will assist the Department to attract
qualified people to fill positions within the Division of
teaching and learning support. These positions provide
support and monitoring of programs throughout the State and
as such, the positions require that they be certified
teachers. He noted that he was speaking to about 30
positions Division-wide and that there have been high rates
of turnover and positions have gone unfilled for extended
periods of time.
Mr. Sweeney reiterated that HB 20 addresses areas in which
shortages have been experienced and where the Department or
the district can declare a shortage. He reiterated that for
those reasons, the Department supports HB 20.
Co-Chair Harris reiterated his concern regarding multiple
applications for certain positions and who would be chosen
to fill them. Mr. Sweeney responded that multiple
applications would not indicate a shortage. The bill talks
about a place where shortages have been identified.
Co-Chair Harris commented that 'sometimes, politics rears
its ugly head', in these types of situations. Mr. Sweeney
hoped that would not happen and did not believe that was the
situation experienced in many of these districts.
Co-Chair Harris stated that his concern addresses those
areas where new teachers want to come and then perhaps
certain people are given an advantage over the new ones.
Mr. Sweeney reiterated that was not the intent of the
proposed legislation.
Representative Joule inquired if there would be a quick turn
around time for the people needing this certification. Mr.
Sweeney did not know if the legislation would require the
Department to oversee certification of the shortage.
Representative Joule asked who would verify that there was a
shortage. Mr. Sweeney stated that would be addressed by
each individual district. He emphasized that these
shortages are 'real'; in some areas, there is a 30% turnover
rate.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 20 (STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 20 (STA) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Administration
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|