Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
04/01/2016 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB298 | |
| HB357 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 298 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 357 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 298-LAYOFF OF TENURED TEACHERS
8:05:47 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 298, "An Act relating to school districts; and
relating to layoff plans for tenured teachers." [Before the
committee, adopted as a work draft on 3/28/16, was the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 298, Version 29-LS1372\W,
Glover, 3/24/16.]
8:05:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 29-LS1372\H, Wayne/Glover, 3/31/16, as
the working document. Without objection Version H was before
the committee.
8:07:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, said that
the intent of HB 298 is not to jeopardize Alaska's strong tenure
rights for teachers. The provisions and rights for teacher
tenure are contained in entirely different statutes than the one
to which the proposed committee substitute (CS) applies. She
cited and synopsized: AS 14.20.150 regards acquisition and
reacquisition of tenure rights; AS 14.20.155 is the effect of
tenure rites; AS 14.20.158 contains the continued contract
provisions; and AS 14.20.160 addresses the loss of tenure right.
She emphasized:
This is important to this bill because ... this is the
statute that stipulates a teacher layoff status, as
covered in HB 298, does not lose their tenure rights.
8:09:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON continued to describe the related
statutes: AS 14.20.165 is the restoration of tenure rights; AS
14.20.170 discusses reasons for dismissal; AS 14.20.175
addresses non-retention; and AS 14.20.177 provides for reduction
in force, which is the statute proposed for amendment under HB
298.
8:10:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said the CS addresses the concerns that
were expressed through testimony, and the possibility that
districts might apply the layoff provision in an indiscriminant
fashion. She paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The 29th Legislature is considering a wide range of
measures intended to give our municipalities and
school districts greater flexibility to address budget
shortfall (local control), this is one such measure.
When I sponsored this bill, I reflected on
circumstances in businesses that I am involved in. I
have had to make the difficult decision to let
employees go, often valuable ones that I consider
friends, because either the business didn't have
sufficient revenue or they lacked the skills necessary
to move into a consolidated position. This is the
very same situation Alaska's school districts are
facing.
I listened carefully to the testimony of our teachers
last week and came up with a compromise. By putting
sideboards on HB298 to ensure and give teachers
comfort that school districts could NOT use the layoff
statute in an indiscriminate fashion.
I believe the amendment before the committee achieves
that balance.
I very much value Alaska's teachers, but I value our
kids more. It is essential that we allow school
districts to make those surgical management decisions
to ensure that the teachers with the appropriate
credentials are the ones instructing our most precious
commodity - your children - your grandchildren - our
students.
8:11:46 AM
HEATH HILLYARD, Staff, Representative Cathy Tilton, Alaska State
Legislature, directed attention to the CS and said the original
approach was to eliminate the two existing triggers; one dealing
with school attendance and the other with basic need. The CS
retains both of those provisions, previously proposed for
deletion, and inserts a third trigger that encompasses the
concerns expressed during testimony and adheres more closely to
the sponsor's intent. He directed attention to the proposed CS,
page 1, lines 9-13, which read as follows:
(3) the school district employs
(A) more tenured teachers who are qualified and
available to teach in a specific program or subject
area than the district needs; and
(B) an insufficient number of certificated
teachers qualified to teach in another program or
subject area.
MR. HILLYARD said this trigger is numerically driven, doesn't
necessarily result in a net loss of teachers, and, under certain
circumstances, allows a teacher to transfer between positions.
8:13:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how the layoff status of a tenured
teacher effects the portability of their tenure.
MR. HILLYARD said any teacher in layoff status does not lose
their tenure rights. He cited statute proposed for amending, AS
14.20.177(c), which reads as follows:
Sec. 14.20.177. Reductions in force.
(c) Except as provided in this subsection, a
school district may place a tenured teacher on layoff
status only after the district has given notice of
nonretention to all nontenured teachers. However, a
school district may retain a nontenured teacher and
place on layoff status a tenured teacher if there is
no tenured teacher in the district who is qualified to
replace the nontenured teacher.
8:14:41 AM
MR. HILLYARD stressed that the effort is to protect tenure
rights while allowing flexibility to the districts.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the length of the layoff
status effects tenure.
MR. HILLYARD responded, "No."
8:15:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that this bill
will allow districts to replace teachers, whether there is a
reduction in staff or not. Further, the bill modifies AS
14.20.177(a), and he referred to the CS, page 1, lines [3]-5,
which read as follows:
* Section 1. AS 14.20.177(a) is amended to read:
(a) A school district may implement a layoff plan
under this section if it is necessary for the district
to reduce the number of tenured teachers because
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for an explanation of how this
allows districts to replace teachers, as well as to place
qualified teachers appropriately, whether or not there is a
reduction in staff. He pointed out that the law being modified
is specific to a layoff plan that only applies to reduction of
staff.
MR. HILLYARD deferred.
8:17:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report the proposed (CS) for HB
298, Version 29-LS1372\H, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:18:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER objected, and stated that the CS may not
align with the statute as expected. Additionally, he maintained
that the CS requires further vetting.
8:18:59 AM
CHAIR KELLER said the bill is not about reduction of force.
8:19:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said the intent of the proposed CS was
clearly explained: a trigger mechanism exists, the triggers no
longer appear to be effective under certain circumstances, and
this bill alleviates that situation.
8:20:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER maintained his objection, and said this
bill does not provided for a collaborative process. He agreed
that problems exist, however, districts are responsible for
maintaining an effective teaching staff, as well as other
operations. Some of the facilities that have recently been
built, require additional maintenance funds, he pointed out, and
that has placed a further financial burden on districts. He
described situations that currently exist, to illustrate his
point. The solution will require a collaborative process, he
stressed, not the top-down approach being proposed.
8:24:14 AM
CHAIR KELLER opined that the bill does provide local control and
is not restrictive, which is an argument in favor of the bill.
8:24:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Talerico, Vazquez,
and Keller voted in favor of CSHB 298. Representatives
Drummond, Spohnholz Seaton, and Colver voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 298 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:25:16 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB298 ver CS H.pdf |
HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 298 |
| CSHB298 ver W.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 298 |
| HB298 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 298 |
| HB357 CS ver H.pdf |
HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 357 |
| HB357 ver. A.PDF |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 357 |
| HB357 Sponsors Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 357 |
| HB357 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 357 |
| HB357 Legal Opinion Seaton.pdf |
HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 357 |
| HB357 Opposition UAA.pdf |
HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 357 |