Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/12/1996 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 93 - TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME Number 120 JEANNETTE JAMES, Sponsor, said House Bill 93 eliminates the time designated in the middle of the day as duty-free mealtime. It allows that teachers be provided with one-half hour duty-free mealtime, but removes the time designation "between 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m." in current statute so there is more flexibility for school districts to determine when it's possible to give the duty- free mealtime to teachers. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVES GARY DAVIS and TOM BRICE joined the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Number 170 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON thought there had been some discussion at the last meeting about leaving the designated hours in the legislation and inserting language which would indicate something to the effect "unless the union could work out another agreement." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there had been an amendment presented for her perusal which would have allowed the teachers 30 minutes between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., but allowed for other arrangements to be made. It appeared to her that if they were going to be allowed to make other arrangements, there was no point in having the 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. time designation. She believed that unions have the opportunity to make that arrangement with the students districts currently. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired why the bill was needed if they can already do that. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded they can't do it unless the time designation is removed. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned if a person shouldn't be given an opportunity to eat between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. in most cases? REPRESENTATIVE JAMES believed that everyone should be allowed to have some duty-free mealtime, but she doesn't believe it belongs in statute. If she had her way she would delete it, because she believes the unions have the opportunity to negotiate this at the local level. She would not want to deprive anyone of duty-free mealtime, she just doesn't think it belongs in state statute. She is, however, willing to leave the provision in the statute, if the time designation can be deleted. Number 341 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards, testified in support of HB 93. School districts need to be more innovative due to the increased mandates and HB 93 allows flexibility at the local level. For example, if a school is thinking about double shifting, the time lines set forth in statute are a major obstacle and HB 93 would provide some latitude. Number 397 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, Inc., said NEA had offered an amendment to the sponsor which provided that other times could be prescribed as the bargaining unit and the school would agree to. He felt that would address some of the current issues in many school districts, including the Fairbanks problem. He understood there were teachers eating lunch after 1:00 p.m. in the Fairbanks district because the teachers and the Fairbanks School District agreed at the local level to deal with the issue in such a way. He said HB 93 sets aside the 30 minutes that is finite in the time period, and he thought the amendment would give the school districts the latitude to deal with the issue, and give employees an opportunity for a lunch period within a reasonable period of time. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if NEA-Alaska had drafted the amendment in the committee packets? MR. MARSHALL replied that NEA-Alaska offered the language "between such other hours as the two groups could agree to" which he felt in effect memorialized in state law what many districts are currently doing. It wouldn't be a disruption or cause a lot of anxiety for people who had some concern about what time they actually would have lunch if the time designation was deleted. He believed the amendment addresses the issue in the spirit of involving people in the decision and accommodates a scheduling problem, if one exists. Number 583 REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 93 out of committee with accompanying zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected for the purpose of moving the amendment. She made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON believed the amendment would allow there to be an understanding that most lunches would be 30 minutes during the time period of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. but could be allowed at other times if agreed upon by the school district and the teachers. She felt this was a win/win situation in that it would address the situation in the Fairbanks School District and also give teachers a pretty good understanding of when they would have a lunch break. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he was not going to support the amendment because of the persuasive arguments of the sponsor. Number 693 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said he didn't see any reason for the amendment in that everyone has equal opportunity to eat when they want or to negotiate, if desired, over when they want to eat. The amendment limited that to some degree. Number 738 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked how lunch schedules were established for teachers and if it was a set time so they could plan their lunch time? If so, to what degree could that time be changed by the administration and how often? CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded that his wife's lunch time was established by the school. He added that different schools have different lunch times, but he assumed they were all established at the local level. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if a teacher could take a 15-minute break in the morning and another 15-minute break in the afternoon and call that 30 minutes of duty-free mealtime? Number 847 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY said the language in the amendment sounds as if there is no confidence in local school districts. He didn't agree with that and didn't see any reason why the local school districts and school boards should be handcuffed anymore than they already are. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to Representative Brice's question regarding the two 15-minute breaks, and said although the language does not state a contiguous 30 minutes, it does say "a mealtime." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that larger school districts like Anchorage have various starting times for their schools because of the utilization of the buses. He supports the bill because it allows school districts the flexibility in managing schools that start and end at different times during the day. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote on the motion to adopt Amendment 1. Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives Brice and Robinson. Voting against the motion were Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Vezey, Rokeberg and Davis. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 93 out of committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected and asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion to pass HB 93 out of committee were Representatives Toohey, Vezey, Rokeberg and Davis. Voting against the motion were Representatives Bunde, Brice and Robinson. Co- Chair Bunde announced that HB 93 had passed out of the House HESS Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|