Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/04/2004 03:42 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSHB 551(JUD) am-DRUG FELONY DISQUALIFIES TEACHER
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced CSHB 551(JUD) am to be up for
consideration.
RYAN MAKINSTER, staff to Representative Lesil McGuire,
introduced the bill and explained that the bill requires the
Department of Education to either revoke or not permit the
certification of a teacher that has been convicted of a felony
drug charge. Some people have charged that the bill doesn't give
anyone credit for making changes in their lives after having
made a mistake. His response is that children are impressionable
and convicted felons in the classroom don't provide good role
models. Also, he posited, convicted drug felons have probably
participated in other criminal activities; they just got caught
on this one.
The House Judiciary Committee amended the original bill to
exclude felonies in the fourth degree, which includes possession
of minor substances including marijuana. In the current form,
the bill pertains to felony drug convictions at a "criminal
enterprise" level, which is selling, manufacturing or
distributing controlled substances or felony drug charges
related to minors. Another question that was raised was whether
a 19 year old selling a drug to an 18 year old would you fall
under the statute and the answer is no. There's a three year age
difference for that requirement to come into play, he said.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS stated that he has serious concerns about the
bill. He is familiar with what the Professional Teaching
Practices Commission (PTPC) does and he questioned the need for
the bill. The other issue is rehabilitation. Certainly, as a
parent, he wouldn't want someone who was recently convicted of a
drug offense to be teaching his children, but if someone was
convicted of a crime 35 years ago, it's possible that they have
made changes and to revoke or not issue a teacher certificate
doesn't take rehabilitation into consideration at all. He asked
if it is true that someone could lose his or her certification
for something that happened years ago.
MR. MAKINSTER said that's true. Although they aren't including a
statutory requirement to look back, it's just if something comes
to light. Also the current version removes "for life" as the
term of revocation, which gives the Professional Teaching
Practices Commission more latitude.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how DUI convictions might relate.
MR. MAKINSTER said that AS 11.71 describes felony drug
convictions. Certain felony classes are actually drug
convictions and aren't related to DUIs.
LARRY WIGET, executive director of public affairs for the
Anchorage School District, testified via teleconference to state
that as laudable as the legislation may appear, it is
unnecessary. The bill is a direct result and reaction to a
recent incident in the Anchorage School District teacher that
was ultimately fired by the district after a conviction for
possession of drugs. The Anchorage School District believes and
the Professional Teaching Practices Commission concurs that the
changes brought forth in this legislation can best be handled
through regulation. Changes in regulation on moral turpitude
within the Professional Teaching Practices Commission
regulations would probably accomplish the same thing, he
asserted.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS reiterated his original question regarding
the need for the legislation and asked Mr. Wiget if it was his
position that this isn't a step forward.
MR. WIGET said, "That would be the position of the Anchorage
School District."
BONNIE BARBER, executive director of the Professional Teaching
Practices Commission, testified via teleconference to say that
the commission questions the need for the legislation. She said:
The commission has a history of investigating
adjudicating and disciplining educators who have used
drugs using current law and regulations. The
commission agrees that teachers convicted of felony
level misconduct involving a controlled substance
could pose a severe threat to the health and safety of
students. However, the commission also believes that
there may be extenuating circumstances that would
warrant a discretionary review of the facts presented
so as to determine whether a revocation or denial
would be an appropriate sanction for these offenses.
As you mentioned, under some circumstances it would be
deemed appropriate to consider the length of time that
has lapsed since the conviction as well as any
documented...end of tape
TAPE 04-32, SIDE B
4:30 p.m.
I did have a case of a Vietnam veteran who had
offenses from the end of the war and then was clean
and sober for 30 some years. Under this proposal, this
person would not be allowed to get a certificate
because we do a background check on every single
applicant who applies for a certificate in the state
of Alaska. So any conviction shows up on the FBI
fingerprint report and under this proposal, the Office
of Certification would be required to deny a person a
certificate no matter when the offense occurred. The
commission feels this is unnecessary. The commission
is a group of nine educators who review decisions and
they have the expertise to make the appropriate
decision regarding whether a certificate should be
denied or not.
I'd also like to mention that right now we can revoke
or suspend a certificate for crimes of immorality and
in the list of crimes of immorality is unlawful
distribution or possession for distribution of a
controlled substance. So we can revoke now for those
crimes that this proposal delineates.
The commission believes that the current system works
and that we do not need to make the changes that are
proposed.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Ms. Barber and said he was sure she
couldn't comment on the Anchorage case that Mr. Wiget mentioned
earlier.
MS. BARBER said she could say that it is the commission's
position that they can take action for crimes of felony
possession of a controlled substance, but she can't talk about a
specific case.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS commented that the process did work then
asked if the other issue was Section 3. (c).
MS. BARBER said she was concerned with the proposed addition to
Section 1. (f). She said she understands that to be a
requirement that a certificate not be issued.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Makinster to clarify the issue.
MR. MAKINSTER said he first wanted to address a point made
earlier about someone that had a drug problem when they were
younger and had been rehabilitated. He went on to say:
This bill does not approach that. It doesn't approach
anywhere revoking their certificate for some kind of
similar situation as that. The highest level is
criminal enterprise, that's five or more actions of
manufacturing and distributing with the intent to
profit. The other misconducts under AS 11.71.030 are
the delivery with an intent to sell or distribute to a
minor. This is not possessing drugs. This is not
sharing drugs with a minor. This is intent to
distribute. ... So it isn't any possession issue.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Barber whether she had a response.
MS. BARBER said the commission can and does take action on all
those issues. She then reiterated that she reads the amendment
to require that the commission deny a certificate to a person
that had a conviction in the past. She disagreed with Mr.
Makinster's statement that the amendment doesn't deal with
someone's rehabilitation. She asserted that, "A person that had
a conviction 30 years ago and had no conviction since then, -
under this proposal it says the department may not issue a
teaching certificate. So in fact it does not take into
consideration any rehabilitation."
Continuing she said that the misuse of a controlled substance is
a very serious conviction, but there are other serious
convictions such as assault and kidnapping that aren't
delineated. Those are crimes for which they revoke and or deny
certificates so it doesn't make sense that just this one crime
is delineated. The bill isn't necessary because they already do
what the bill outlines, but it wouldn't allow the commission to
use its discretion.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked her to give a background explanation of
the Professional Teaching Practices Commission telling who they
are and how the members are appointed.
MS. BARBER explained that the commission was established in
statute in 1966 and given the responsibility of disciplining
educators who commit immoral, unethical or illegal acts. The
nine commissioners are appointed by the governor are approved by
the Legislature. There are five teachers, two administrators and
a representative from higher education and a representative from
the Department of Education and Early Development.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked how many cases the commission hears
each year and the result of the hearings.
MS. BARBER said it varies from year to year, but they hear about
70 cases a year and about 10 of those result in some sanction.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Makinster whether he had any
closing comments.
MR. MAKINSTER thanked the committee for hearing the bill.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that he didn't have a quorum so no
action could be taken in any case, but the issue was in need of
additional scrutiny. CSHB 551(JUD) am was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|