Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/07/2000 01:25 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 253 - SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY AND SAFETY PROGRAM Number 0146 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 253, "An Act establishing a school disciplinary and safety program; and providing for an effective date." The committee had adopted a proposed committee substitute, Version K, as a work draft on February 2, 2000, and had heard considerable testimony. Number 0156 JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She noted that she had faxed a position paper to the committee in opposition to HB 253. Ms. Rudinger explained that, in a nutshell, AkCLU's opposition to HB 253 stems from a lack of balance between the legitimate need for order in the classrooms and the need to respect students' constitutional rights. Furthermore, she believes this bill is bureaucracy at its worst and is bad public policy, with state government telling local school districts that they must adopt community standards and then deciding whether that has been accomplished. MS. RUDINGER indicated both statewide and national branches of the organization have heard from hundreds of students and parents over the past ten months, especially, about concerns of overreaction by schools to the tragedy at Columbine High School in Colorado. Although acknowledging the need for order in the classrooms, the AkCLU believes students have constitutional rights, as upheld by both the Alaska Supreme Court and courts around the country when it comes to free expression, individuality and due process - sorely lacking in HB 253. MS. RUDINGER reported that the AkCLU has heard from students around the state about new "one strike and you're out" policies, under which groups of students are being hauled in for disciplinary action and suspended or harshly sanctioned when even the alleged victim claims he wasn't a victim; she cited an example at Service High School in Anchorage involving a football team. Ms. Rudinger acknowledged that HB 253 only deals with incidents in the classroom but said she was using this as an example of how school administrators overreact and crack down on innocent behavior. MS. RUDINGER agreed that anything truly disruptive in the classroom should be dealt with. However, the AkCLU believes there is a problem with vagueness in HB 253. At a minimum, it talks about standards for respect and honesty. However, respect is not behavior; it is internal, something one feels. She recalled the Louisiana legislature's decision to enforce respect by passing a bill requiring students to address teachers by "sir" or "ma'am"; there was even a proposal that students stand at attention when the teacher walked in the room. Different people have different ideas of what respect is, and she believes HB 253 goes way too far regarding the extent to which the government mandates that. She referred members to the AkCLU's position paper, then restated that enforcing respect and honesty can lead to a lot of problems when not clearly defined, and when the state will decide whether communities have actually set their own standards sufficiently to meet the state's requirements. Number 0381 MS. RUDINGER challenged the assertion that there won't be a fiscal note associated with this. Although she couldn't provide specifics, she pointed out that the state will have to decide whether schools are complying and school districts are enforcing community standards of respect and honest. That could lead to a lot of bureaucracy. If not additional staff, it will certainly require staff time and pay that goes to people already working for the Department of Education and Early Development. Ms. Rudinger concluded by saying students understand that adults making these rules have good intentions, and students want safe schools. Despite the tragedies of the previous year, however, incidents of school violence have decreased significantly for the past five years. She believes there is not the urgent need for marshal law that seems to be imposed in well-intentioned by way-too-broad legislation like HB 253. Number 0456 CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Ms. Rudinger. He noted the arrival a few minutes earlier of Representative Dyson, who had been attending another hearing. He invited Representative Dyson to comment. Number 0465 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 253, explained to Ms. Rudinger that the sole intention was to protect teachers from being disciplined by school boards when the teachers effect and enforce the pre-agreed-upon standards and use the pre-agreed-upon procedures. Everything else was just an effort to get communities to go through a process of their own choosing, to come up with whatever behavior and safety standards they want, "not to impose any state version of those." He asked Ms. Rudinger how he could accomplish that goal in a way that is less objectionable to her. MS. RUDINGER recalled that a provision in the bill talks about immunity from civil liability. She said teachers are already immune from civil liability for damages from implementing a policy that the school tells the teacher to implement. And certainly courts have upheld teachers' rights to maintain order in the classroom. However, as noted in their position paper, the AkCLU fears that HB 253 goes too far in immunizing teachers, and that it arguably would allow teachers to be physically violent against students when it perhaps wasn't warranted. If school boards or school districts aren't backing up teachers because they feel the teacher went too far, she believes the school board or school district should have that discretion to say so. Number 0572 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how to protect a teacher who does the right thing, though, and enforces a standard that the community agrees upon, but who is fired by the superintendent or school board because one of its members is the parent of the student involved. MS. RUDINGER answered that she isn't an expert on employment law. However, she believes that any employee who is wrongfully discharged despite the fact that the person wasn't violating any policies of the employer - the school district in this case - would have a cause of action against the employer for wrongful discharge. These cases are fact-driven, and the outcome would depend on what had happened. Referring to Representative Dyson's example of a politically connected student, she said she hasn't heard complaints from teachers that they aren't being supported or given enough discretion in the classroom; therefore, she can't speak to that. MS. RUDINGER mentioned the importance of two things: 1) giving teachers the ability to maintain order and 2) providing due process to students. Referring to her earlier discussion of the football team incident, she said the 20-some parents who crammed into her office were upset because their children weren't given a chance to appeal or to even call their parents until they had written a statement of "confession" to the principal's liking. Many parents are upset that schools are overreacting. Ms. Rudinger contended that bills like HB 253 divert attention from - and reinforce - the underlying root causes of alienation and intolerance, by focusing on "surface issues" like respect, honesty, dress codes and what a person looks like and sounds like, and by saying that anyone different from the norm is to be sanctioned and further outcast. There is a need to include students in the educational process and to work on the underlying root causes, which are alienation and problems having to do with class, poverty or just a lack of feeling included in the school. CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Ms. Rudinger and called upon Paula Harrison. Number 0790 PAULA HARRISON testified via teleconference from the Matanuska-Susitna Legislative Information Office (LIO), speaking on behalf of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District. Noting that the superintendent was unable to testify that day, Ms. Harrison expressed concerns about HB 253, some relating to the due process rights of students just discussed by Ms. Rudinger. Referring to Representative Dyson's comments about protecting teachers from discipline, Ms. Harrison indicated she isn't aware of that being a big issue in the state. She expressed curiosity about the incidents generating the sponsor's concern. MS. HARRISON advised members that the bigger concern with her own school district involves how HB 253 correlates with special education students and the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] laws. Furthermore, removing a student from a classroom is typically something for which her district's principals have responsibility. One concern is that authority of the principal may be delegated, through this legislation, to teachers, teacher assistants or other persons who may be responsible for students; she asked whether "other persons" includes volunteers or parents in the schools, and she expressed concern about how far that goes. MS. HARRISON said although a reasonable degree of authority is necessary, and although the district supports teachers in maintaining order in their classrooms, extending the full responsibility of discipline to individuals other than the principal may have ramifications for not only her district but also districts statewide. She told members, "Our principals, as well as our student support services, the special education director, are those who give guidance in these specific areas. We believe that every school district should be responsible enough to adopt policy and regulations that ensure that we do have safe schools." Ms. Harrison acknowledged that events at Columbine High School in Colorado have created a new awareness nationwide. However, her district believes it is the responsibility of good school boards, superintendents and administrations to ensure that teachers are not harmed for maintaining order in their classrooms. CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Ms. Harrison and asked whether anyone else wished to testify via teleconference. He then called upon Ms. Watts in Juneau. Number 0977 PAMELA WATTS, Executive Director, Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (ABADA), Department of Health and Social Services, came forward, extending the board's appreciation to Representative Dyson for addressing this important issue. Although supporting his commitment to increasing safety in Alaska's schools and supporting teachers who keep classrooms and schools safe, the board believes omission of a provision for screening students who may have substance abuse problems weakens school disciplinary plans. Ms. Watts referred to a letter sent to the committee by the ABADA that reviews links between students with substance abuse problems and school violence, vandalism, truancy and other issues; she cited some statistics from that. She emphasized that a provision for taking into account the role of substance abuse - as well as mental illness or developmental disability - is a critical one. On behalf of the board, therefore, she requested that CSHB 253(HES) be revised to include some provision for screening students who might have substance abuse disorders. Number 1115 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what sort of screening Ms. Watts suggests. For example, would a teacher not have authority to discipline, or would there be other measures? MS. WATTS replied: Not at all. What we had in mind was more that if a student was found to be in violation of school disciplinary policy - and that whatever mechanism that particular school or district had ... for reviewing the violations and coming up with some consequences to those violations - that if there was any indication at all that there were reports from teachers or staff - or any initial screening, minimal screening tool, even - that the student might have a problem with alcohol or other drugs, that that be taken into consideration, so that, hopefully, some early intervention might prevent subsequent violations of school policy for that student, and maybe get them the type of assistance that they might need to remediate the problem. And this would vary from district to district because, of course, resources ... are different in districts statewide. Number 1178 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN requested clarification about the process. For example, would this plan require the teacher having information beforehand or would it be implemented out of the classroom after a problem occurred? MS. WATTS explained that the teacher wouldn't necessarily have to know this, and the student would still be accountable for his or her behavior. However, the board feels that when alcohol or other drugs are a factor in acting out behaviors, that should be considered in the larger picture of recommendations made for that student. It is likely that the student would still be held accountable. But in order to intervene and hopefully remediate with that type of behavior in the future, the student would be identified as having a substance abuse problem, and would receive help to the extent that resources were available. Number 1278 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON briefly discussed a comprehensive school safety bill that he considered ideal, presented the previous year by Representative Brice; it included diagnoses, early intervention and parallel programs for students. Unfortunately, it had failed because of a large fiscal note. Therefore, this present bill aims at one small target: protecting the teachers who did the right thing. Representative Dyson said he assumes every school board and district would identify and take into account the kids with disabilities and substance abuse problems; many of those students would have Individual Education Plans (IEPs), for example, and teachers would take into account each student's particular challenges. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated he'd grown up in a home with alcoholism and is sympathetic to these problems. He mentioned that he'd sponsored HCR 11, which had made it to the Senate floor; that legislation makes alcohol and substance abuse treatment the highest priority of all treatments offered by the state. Next he referred to Walter Majoros, Executive Director, Alaska Mental Health Board, confirming with Ms. Watts that she had seen language that he and Mr. Majoros had worked on. [Apparently proposed amendment 1-LS0599\K.2, Ford, 2/7/00, not offered, which read: Page 2, line 26, following "AS 11.81.430(a)(2)": Insert "; (7) procedures and actions necessary to comply with 20 U.S.C. 1400-1485 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)"] REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Watts whether that amendment starts to satisfy her. MS. WATTS said she'd had a brief look but should take an additional look and carry that through to the board, to see what their position might be on that. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded: We're assuming that they are responsible enough and professional enough that they're going to ... do this consistent with what ... is required under IDEA law, and so on, and will be ... quite sensitive. And they're sensitive not only because they care about kids, but there's some funding that comes with it, you know. So I think those issues have their attention. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON expressed appreciation for Ms. Watts' advocacy for these children. Number 1492 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), came forward to clarify his organization's position on this bill, noting that he had testified in the previous committee. He hadn't opposed the bill, he said, because he agrees with the intent and wants to address two areas: 1) the "criminalization" of school board members who provide a volunteer service to their communities and 2) interpretation. Also agreeing with the intent of implementing community-based strategies, protecting teachers and facilitating the creation of standards, Mr. Rose commented, "We've done this as an association for school boards." He said the question is how to go about this. He pointed out that Anchorage has 86 schools, and the bill is designed so that each school would prepare policies and procedures. MR. ROSE explained that in terms of governance of school districts, as understood by the AASB, a policy is a broad statement of what one wants to have done, whereas a procedure is the process by which those policies are carried out. He likened it to legislation and the administrative regulations that get adopted. There are two issues: what to do, and how to do it. A school district policy determines how discipline and safety issues will be dealt with; however, the bill asks for that discussion to take place at each school level. The problem is that AASB's membership would be responsible for decisions made across the state at each school board level. MR. ROSE pointed out that the school board is the group that can and will be sued. He believes teachers are already indemnified: when one sues a teacher in a school district who is carrying out the duties of the job, one is actually suing the school district; the weight of the school district is behind that teacher. Mr. Rose asked, "If you authorize someone to act, but there's no method of appeal, where's the responsibility for that action?" For example, he said, a school could decide the policy, and a teacher could act in what he or she believes to be good faith; that interpretation may be very different from the school board's. If the teacher's interpretation were challenged by the school board, there could be an area of dispute. MR. ROSE voiced the belief that a process and safeguards are in place now. When there is an infraction, there are numerous processes of appeal, from the local level up to the school district office. A school board is the quasi-judicial body of the district; if there is an appeal before that body, they can't review the record on that but must sit as an unbiased, objective body to render that decision. Number 1799 MR. ROSE brought attention to page 1, lines 12 through 14, of CSHB 253(HES), which read: "(1) implement and maintain community-based standards of school behavior that are understood, accepted, and upheld by students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and the community". He suggested those would become points of contention if there were a challenge. He asked the committee to hold this bill over to try to iron these issues out. Noting that each school has a student handbook, he said the community-based activity called for in the bill is being addressed in part. He offered to work to improve that, but emphasized that having the whole group of people liable for a class A misdemeanor - on issues over which they may have no control - is fraught with problems. Number 1897 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there are any pre-qualifications for school board members, such as not having been convicted of a misdemeanor in the last 12 months. MR. ROSE answered that a person must be 18 years of age and have 30 days' residency in a community. In terms of convictions, however, he would have to check the statutes. He said the two areas of access to a school board member in question are the election process and the ability to be recalled. In that way, the public does have access to those elected officials. He then suggested a person would have to be a citizen of the state for 30 days. Number 2001 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA also expressed concern about the misdemeanor section of the bill. She said she tends to agree that the bill needs some work to flesh this out. She asked what happens if a teacher is fired now, even though the teacher was correctly implementing a procedure. If the school board recommended firing the teacher, for example, it could have been acting in good faith but somehow have made the wrong decision. She asked whether a teacher can file a wrongful termination case but cannot file an individual tort case against school board members. MR. ROSE replied that there are two ways: dismissal or termination, both for cause. In place now is the opportunity for a teacher to choose a full, formal hearing before the board or arbitration. In either case, the school district will make its case one time. Mr. Rose explained: This is the issue of de novo that we moved away from some years ago. I believe that a portion of this bill may bring an awful lot of legal costs to bear on a school district .... We'd receive dollars for education, but a large portion of that money would be spent on litigation and defending the school district. There are a lot of people who would be identified here. In answer to your question, the process right now is a teacher has a choice. ... If they want to appeal, they can go through a formal process before the board, for a full hearing, the record of which will be reviewed by superior court, or ... have their hearing heard before an arbitrator, the results of which would be binding, if they do this arbitration. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated her understanding that individual school board members can't be sued in tort for individual liability, if they are acting in good faith. MR. ROSE said he believes school board members are indemnified by the school district, unless the school board member has done something specifically that wasn't covered under the board members' responsibilities. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether, then, school board members can be sued and have a judgment issued against them, but the school would be indemnifying them and paying for it. MR. ROSE nodded in affirmation, adding, "In the carrying out of their duties." Number 2227 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether Mr. Rose was saying he doesn't like the idea of the parents and community in each school having input on the behavior and safety standards. MR. ROSE responded: Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify: We are about community involvement, and I think that's the basis of where these discussions should take place. As a matter of fact, we're involved heavily ... in community engagement. The issue of setting policy at the school level is an area that causes me great concern. The implementation of the policy - the regulation of how they're going to be put in place - I think is ... within the realm of the community. But the policy that would be put in place, that the district will stand behind, should be with the elected officials, the elected body. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied: That was certainly our intention. We want the school district and/or the schools to get input from the community: what do you want the standards ... to be? And the policy will be approved by - the final thing, approved by - the school board for it. If they choose, in a widely divergent school district that covers several hundred square miles, to have slightly different behavior standards in a small rural school than a large urban one, we wanted to allow them the flexibility, but it still has to be approved by the school board who sets the policy. But I understood you to say it's too clumsy to get all the people ... in the community out there to have input. And you didn't mean to imply that. MR. ROSE confirmed that he didn't mean to imply that. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated the desire to have Mr. Rose help make this clearer. He indicated the intent to have everybody who wants to in a community have input; the policy would come back to the school board, which is exactly where he is hearing Mr. Rose say he wants it. Next, he brought attention to page 3, line 13, saying the only thing this bill would require an appeal on is if the governing body, the school board, knowingly - he emphasized "knowingly" - allows a teacher or others here to be terminated or punished in violation of this section. TAPE 00-10, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON mentioned one district where 85 students told a principal they weren't going to school, cussed at the principal, and then spent three weeks roaming the halls and terrorizing people; the school board let it go on. He said that ought not to be; the school board didn't do its job. He asked, in that case, what appeal process Mr. Rose wants before the Alaska State Troopers put those people in jail. He acknowledged he may be preaching. Number 0064 MR. ROSE noted that most districts have a policy process, with a first and second reading, then a third reading for final passage. He pointed out page 2 of the bill, lines 8 through 12, which read: (a) Each school shall adopt a written school disciplinary and safety program that is developed with the collaboration of members of the community, parents, teachers, and other persons responsible for the students at that school. A disciplinary and safety program adopted by a school must include the following: MR. ROSE said that is to be approved by the school board. He referred to testimony in the previous committee. He said the board, the governing body of a school district, should describe in policy what it is that they believe should happen. How that happens, however, is a discussion that can take place at the school level. He reminded members that school districts cannot set policy in excess of the law and regulations; in the absence of law, regulations have the weight of law. MR. ROSE said all he is asking is that individual schools operate within the parameters described by the board. He believes the policy should be clear, and the process for carrying it out should be at the local level. But to ask the public what they want - which may be inconsistent with district policy, state regulations or state law - could be inviting people to come back and be rejected at the local level. He noted that the policy determined at the district level is open to public review and public access, through a public process. Number 0250 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to CSHB 253(HES), page 2, lines 29 and 30, which read: "A school disciplinary and safety program adopted by a school is not effective until approved by the governing body of the school district." He suggested that a governing body that didn't like the program could ask that it be modified. He requested confirmation that Mr. Rose wasn't suggesting that the school behavior standards shouldn't be in the hands of the common people but should be in the hands of professionals. MR. ROSE confirmed that he hadn't said that. He reiterated that school districts operate within the confines of state law and regulations, which they can't exceed. This bill has the potential of allowing local schools to maybe exceed that in their desire, only to be turned back when they come back to the board; that would be very cumbersome. He specified that he doesn't want to stop the public from having access, but he doesn't want to raise the expectation, create a problem, and have to be the one to tell them "no." Number 0340 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Rose whether adding "district" after "school" on line 8, page 2, would satisfy him. MR. ROSE said that would be very helpful, as what they are talking about is the school district being able to set the parameters. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded: I think what we lose is mandating that the schools - each one of them - be out there and get involved with their PTA and find out what the parents want. If that gets the knot out of your knickers, I'd be glad to do it, ... rather than foul this up. But I think we'll lose more than we gain. Number 0391 MR. ROSE remarked that at no time do school boards knowingly go out and tread on teachers. If that has happened in the past, it has been isolated instances. Personally, he takes great offense because that isn't how he lives his life, and those aren't the people whom he represents. Restating that these things may have happened in isolation, he asked whether they haven't happened in every public institution. He offered his efforts to fix that. MR. ROSE pointed out that in any school district, when there is a violation, there are three things to do: investigate, validate and take appropriate action. He hadn't had the opportunity to investigate or validate what happened for instances discussed here. However, he is aware of instances where the system has righted itself. School board members have been recalled. Superintendents have been relieved of their duties. And teachers have been fired and gone to court, with alarming costs to uphold that. Noting that the system is ongoing, Mr. Rose concluded, "If the intent of the bill ... and the purposes of the bill are what we want to do, I'm willing to reshape and work with you to try to accomplish that. But I do think criminalizing the volunteer members is ... a bit large for me." Number 0538 CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would certainly appreciate any assistance in getting to the final objective of the sponsor. [Although the comment regarding Representative Rokeberg indicated his presence, he was in fact chairing another meeting.] Number 0562 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed his understanding that, under the bill, whatever the schools themselves came up with as appropriate action would have to fit under an umbrella of the school district, and be approved by it. He asked why the existing policy booklet sent out to students and parents is acceptable, with its potential for misunderstanding, and yet a new one wouldn't be. MR. ROSE referred to the potential addition of "district" [on page 2, line 8]. He stated the belief that if each school district shall adopt a written disciplinary and safety policy, it is consistent with what happens now. However, if it reads "Each school," then 86 schools in Anchorage, for example, would determine the policy. He said schools should have input, approved through a district policy for all the schools. How to administer those policies through a set of regulations is, he believes, an issue that could be talked about a number of different ways. Mr. Rose concluded: But I think what we want is something that is consistent across the district. To be in a position of having to defend 86 different determinations would be very, very difficult for us. But I think what Representative Dyson has said, "Each school district", that means you have an overall template .... If we have a template of what the policy is going to be, then that provides continuity across the district. Now, district to district, that may change. Number 0718 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said to him that kind of guts the bill. There are reasons why schools would want different rules, and any differences in school policies in a district would have to be approved by the district. He questioned the need for the bill if "district" is added there. Number 0780 MR. ROSE restated that school districts don't have the authority to exceed the law or regulation. He indicated his organization is asking that each school district maintain that same standard; all their policies reflect their authority under statutes and regulations, and they are asking for continuity throughout a district. However, regarding how individual schools and their committees deal with specific issues relative to the school, those things happen now and there is latitude for that within the law. Mr. Rose added, "I don't think that you're suggesting that each school may have the opportunity to exceed the law." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN affirmed that. MR. ROSE reiterated that he is asking that the policy be the template for each individual school. Within schools, they do have authority, through their local councils, to do things differently. Number 0856 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that adding "district" to page 2, line 8, isn't a complete resolution of the important choice being discussed. He cited examples: lines 11 and 12, which read in part, "A disciplinary and safety program adopted by a school", and lines 29 and 30, which read in part, "A school disciplinary and safety program adopted by a school". He pointed out the need to decide whether it is the school or the district. He doesn't believe that just adding "district" [to line 8] makes it clear which choice has been made. He suggested that the committee and the sponsor need to make that call. Number 0920 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT next brought up a subject raised to him as a concern. He said he doesn't know what goes on in most school districts, and doesn't have enough information to have an informed opinion about it. However, some people say that part of the problem in rural Alaska is largely white teachers disciplining largely Native students and not, then, getting supported by largely Native school boards. He acknowledged that it raises difficult urban-rural issues, racial issues, and questions of where the ultimate authority should lie. He asked whether that is a problem in rural Alaska - that teachers aren't given needed support - and, if so, whether this is an appropriate way to meet that. Number 1002 MR. ROSE responded: I think you bring up a very important point. As you know, we've been struggling with some state policy issues here of late: the issue of "Indian country," the issue of subsistence, a lawsuit over equity in how we build our schools, a lawsuit over village safety. More and more, we're finding that there is a large ... difference in the views of rural Alaska, in terms of where we're going as a state. I think that that would have an impact, in terms of ... a people looking at what they value, their culture, their tradition, and looking at a system that would impose, maybe, some other values, a Western education. And a lot of this could be an extension of what they see as a state. You raise a very valid issue, because I believe in much of my membership there is some hesitation. What is the message when we have a state that doesn't recognize the issues of running water and sewer ... that would serve citizens of the state? ... This is far bigger issue than I mean to speak about here, but I would say yes, in answer to your question. In rural Alaska, there are some differences because ... the prism that they view the state through is very, very different. And this does not mean that they are any less. It simply means that, from their point of view, they look at how the state administers its state policies and see ... a great difference there. I think that's why we're going to the courts as much as we are. But with regard to a bill such as this, when we talk about rural Alaska, things are very, very different there. ... It does not relieve them from their responsibility of doing the right thing. And so, if they are terminations that are unjust, they need to be addressed. They need to come forward. I would never stand in the way and say that that is appropriate, because it's not appropriate. But there are a lot of people out there who feel they aren't treated fairly, and if they don't have a right to appeal, ... they feel very badly that they don't ever get their day in court, if you will. And I'm not talking formal court. ... I'm saying to you that many people that I deal with - and it's not just school board members, when I go out into communities - they look at what they have available to them, they look at what's available to others, and I know the issue of who pays and all that comes into play. But the actual quality of life is extremely different. And I think we need to account for that. Number 1177 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON agreed this is an excellent question. He said his primary motivation for mandating community involvement is for the very reason just discussed. If the teacher has, in hand, what the community wants, then at least the teacher knows. He also agreed with Mr. Rose about not having the school board be in the uncomfortable position of having to tell an individual school community that what they want is illegal, for example. He briefly discussed an Anchorage school where "gang colors" weren't allowed; although a legitimate concern there, he said, it may be meaningless in smaller communities. He mentioned other examples such as locker searches, suggesting those aren't the kinds of things that Mr. Rose believes the district must sweep together and have all be standard. MR. ROSE answered that he just thinks the district needs the opportunity to be consistent with law across the district, because those elected officials are the ones who can and will be sued. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON returned to Representative Croft's point regarding page 2, lines 29 and 30, which read: "A school disciplinary and safety program adopted by a school is not effective until approved by the governing body of the school district." Representative Dyson proposed just saying that the school district, while allowing individual schools to have some variation of the behavior standards, will make sure that the policies are within law, and so forth. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Rose's testimony. Number 1356 CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Mr. Rose as well. He apologized to Mr. Majoros and Mr. Cyr for not getting to their testimony that day. [HB 253 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|