Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/19/1999 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
HB 85 - TEACHERS' LICENSES, DISCIPLINE & ETHICS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 85, "An
Act relating to licensure and professional discipline of members of
the teaching profession and providing for related penalties;
relating to grounds for dismissal of a teacher; relating to the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission; relating to limited
immunity for procedures under the Educator Ethics Act; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2166
SANNA GREEN, Executive Director, Professional Teaching Practices
Commission, Department of Education, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage in support of the bill. The bill was proposed
because the procedures, regulations and statutes need to be
upgraded. She announced there is an amendment to clarify the
language more. She also announced that Teresa Williams from the
Department of Law is here to explain the bill.
Number 2220
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business
Practices Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She referred to a side-by-side
analysis of the bill dated April 16, 1999 with two attachments -
Version "A" and "B". She explained Version "B". She referred to
Section 1 and noted that the term "teacher certificate" is being
changed throughout the bill. She referred to Section 2 and noted
that it alternatively provides an opportunity to take an
examination in lieu of taking classes on cross-cultural
communication. It was pointed out that many applicants have
sufficient enough knowledge to teach a course on cross-cultural
communication and they shouldn't be required to take one. She
referred to Section 3 and noted that it is new requiring a criminal
history background check. It strengthens the existing law and
allows for information from a background check to be disclosed if
a person has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The
purpose of a background check is for that information to go to the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission so that it can inquire
further as to whether or not such a conviction is grounds for
denial. The amendment spells out the circumstances for checking
a license renewal based on (indisc.) from the Alaska Association of
School Administrators. There is a feeling that this would be
helpful in knowing that all staff has had a criminal background
check. Alaska used to be a dumping ground for teachers who were
fleeing from other jurisdictions or who had problems in other
jurisdictions. Once the finger printing requirement went into
place that stopped. She referred to Section 4 and noted that,
currently, there are no grounds for denial of a license. The
section pulls together the...
TAPE 99-35, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. WILLIAMS continued. She referred to subsection (b) and noted
that it sets the preventative grounds for denying a license. The
department can suspend processing an application if the applicant
has an unresolved criminal or discipline proceeding related to
licensing.
Number 0063
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he is concerned that Alaska used to be a
dumping ground for teachers who have committed crimes elsewhere.
He asked Ms. Williams whether the finger printing part has been
tightened up.
MS. WILLIAMS replied the finger printing requirement was put in
regulation by the Department of Education, but it was only for new
applicants. This bill makes it stronger in the event of a
challenge. It requires people coming in for renewal to be finger
printed at which time a criminal background check is done.
Number 0126
MS. WILLIAMS further explained Version "B." It allows for the
Department of Education to issue a conditional license and requires
steps to be taken appropriate for those circumstances. She cited
a person with a drinking problem as an example. Currently, if a
person is denied a license there are no provisions to deal with the
next step. This provision spells out the process after a denial
and provides for an appeal to the Educators Ethics Commission and
on to superior court from there. This provision also codifies the
current reporting to any national clearinghouse that maintains
records of professional discipline. She referred to Section 5 and
noted that it makes the Administrative Procedure Act applicable to
the tribunal's denial decision. She referred to Section 6 and
noted that it amends the basis for disciplining employees to mirror
the reasons for discipline by the commission. It simply
cross-references them, which is important because sometimes one
changes and the other doesn't. It's important to keep them
mirrored.
Number 0265
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Williams whether she is referring to AS
14.20.375.
MS. WILLIAMS replied she is referring to AS 14.20.170 which
cross-references AS 14.20.372 - "Grounds for discipline."
Number 0425
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Williams what would be a reason why the
Educators Ethics Commission would not take disciplinary action for
the reasons numerically listed in the bill. They seem to be
serious issues, but the language reads "may."
Number 0447
MS. WILLIAMS replied it might be a "may" rather than a "shall" when
the commission's resources are such that the most important cases
have to be picked. In addition, competency requires a level of
discretion for the commission to step in and begin a proceeding.
Number 0494
MS. GREEN referred to number (5) and noted that there have been
many cases on the omission of material when applying for
employment. This is a way to apply judgement on the provisions in
the bill, especially (5), (6) and (7).
Number 0518
MS. WILLIAMS noted, in reference to competency, the department
likes for the school district to take the lead. They generally
tend to be fact-specific cases requiring a lot of foot work.
Number 0535
MS. WILLIAMS continued explaining Version "B." She referred to
Section 14.20.375 and noted that it expands and compiles the
disciplinary actions imposed by the Department of Education. She
noted that many of the changes come from the licensing statute.
Subsection (c) says a person may not surrender a license without
approval of the commission. A lot of people who are facing serious
discipline think that surrendering a license avoids a record on the
basis of that action. Subsection (d) says that the commission may
suspend a license on grounds of immediate danger to public health.
Subsection (e) says that the commission is not bound by a school
district's decision. It benefits a teacher by not having to defend
himself in two proceedings. It benefits the commission by having
school districts do their homework.
Number 0655
MS. GREEN noted that this is the current practice now. It is just
being put in statute.
MS. WILLIAMS continued explaining Version "B." She referred to
subsection (f) and noted that it has been moved from a different
section. Subsection (g) has been moved and allows for a civil fine
to be assessed against a member of the teaching profession who is
not required to be licensed for ethical violations. Subsection (h)
codifies the reporting requirements to any national clearinghouse.
Subsection (i) is new and precludes a person from employment in the
teaching profession, even if a license is not required, if that
person's license has been suspended or revoked.
Number 0706
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the original version of the bill was
noncontroversial. In the interest of time, he asked Ms. Williams
whether the Department of Law and the Professional Teaching
Practices Commission like the amendment.
MS. WILLIAMS replied the Professional Teaching Practices Commission
has gone over the changes and has approved them. The Department of
Law made some of the changes in the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he appreciates the side-by-side analysis
that she has provided. It's not necessary to go through the rest
of it, except for the fundamental changes.
MS. WILLIAMS noted that there are changes to the limitations on
reinstatement after a suspension or revocation. Currently, a
person can reapply after one year. This places a procedure for
reinstatement. Another change is the penalty for fraudulently
teaching under a forged certificate. Currently, there is no
specific provision on how to deal with that, and remarkably there
have been two cases in the last year.
Number 0820
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted his appreciation of the side-by-side analysis
that she provided to the committee members.
Number 0839
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There
being no objection, it was so adopted. It reads as follows:
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "the reports"
Insert "a report that indicates grounds for denial of a
license under AS 14.20.029"
Page 2, lines 9-10:
Delete "this chapter"
Insert "AS 14.20.029"
Page 2, line 12, following "has":
Insert "received and"
Page 2, lines 12-13:
Delete "received under this section and has determined
the applicant's suitability for licensing under this
chapter"
Insert "under this subsection"
Page 2, lines 17-18:
Delete "the department, by regulation, requires a
criminal history background check before a license may be
renewed"
Insert:
(1) a criminal history background check has not been
previously conducted on the licensee:
(2) the licensee was not employed in a position
requiring a license for the entire duration of the
previous license period; or
(3) the licensee has resided out of state for a
portion of the previous license period
Page 2, line 27:
Delete "has been"
Insert "is"
Page 3, line 2, following "investigation"
Insert "for an allegation suggesting unfitness to teach"
Page 3, line 6, following "jurisdiction":
Insert "for reasons that would be grounds for denial
under AS 14.20.029"
Page 3, lines 15-16:
Delete "this chapter"
Insert "AS 14.20.029"
Page 3, line 17:
Delete "complaint, review procedure, or"
Page 3, line 18, following "agency"
Insert "on grounds that relate to suitability for
licensing under AS 14.20.029"
Page 3, lines 29-30:
Delete "are otherwise in the best interests of the
public"
Insert "will otherwise protect the physical and mental
well-being of students"
Page 5, lines 17-18:
Delete "as defined by the commission in regulation"
Page 7, line 6, following "chapter":
Insert "and the commission finds grounds for discipline
under AS 14.20.372"
Page 7, line 7:
Delete "if the commission finds grounds for discipline
under AS 14.20.372"
Insert "as appropriate to the finding of grounds for
discipline"
Page 8, line 18:
Insert a new subsection to read:
(e) The commission shall stay a hearing on an
accusation under this section if the teacher has requested a
hearing before the school board or invoked grievance
procedures.
Number 0849
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move HB 85, as amended, from
the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 85(JUD) was so
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|