Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/07/1995 09:15 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 132 JUDICIAL REVIEW:TEACHER TENURE DECISIONS
Number 343
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 132 as the next order of business
before the committee.
SENATOR MILLER moved, for discussion purpose, the CS Cramer 4/6/95
version labelled 9-LSO838\G. SENATOR ELLIS and SENATOR SALO
objected.
SENATOR SALO said that she would be happy to speak to her objection
and review the bill. Usually when there is a CS, someone explains
the CS. She inquired as to whose bill this is.
SENATOR LEMAN indicated that normally a CS would be adopted for
discussion purposes and then there is an explanation of the CS.
The motion that Senator Miller made was to put the CS before the
committee. He commented that the Aide was already present at the
table, whom he assumed would explain the CS.
SENATOR ELLIS said that the CS process could be done either way,
however sometimes problems are avoided if the vote on the CS is not
forced. If there is an objection, then there is an explanation,
discussion and then a vote. He asked if that could be done.
PORTIA BABCOCK, staff to Senator Green, reviewed the sectional
analysis of the draft CS which was in the committee packets.
Number 432
SENATOR SALO maintained her objection to the adoption of the CS.
She explained that the original bill was a simple bill which dealt
with the de Novo trial, however, the current bill, the CS, is very
complex which deserves time and attention. She hoped that the HESS
committee would devote the necessary time and attention to this
omnibus bill. This CS would negatively affect the educational
employees of Alaska. She stated that the CS is a serious reduction
in due process rights.
Senator Salo addressed why she considered it a negative bill for
the education employees in Alaska. She informed the committee that
Alaska 2000 surveys and hearings found that tenure was not a major
concern; of a survey of 100 issues, tenure was listed as 98. The
overwhelming problems were class size and the basic funding level
going to education. This lengthening of the probationary period
would create an increased time of uncertainty for employees while
increasing the power and authority of administrators. She said
that in her 25 years of educational experience, the administrators
authority should not be increased. She explained that tenure had
stemmed from a Supreme Court case in Seward in which two teachers
wrote letters to the local paper stating that the Superintendent
was misspending the school district's money. Those two teachers
were fired the next day. The Supreme Court found that a public
employee should not have a reduced freedom of speech right which
ultimately lead to the passage of tenure rights in Alaska. She did
not believe the complaints from districts that said removing
tenured teachers was difficult. When someone's career is being
ended, the procedure should not be easy. She opposed Section 1.
Senator Salo commented that the most outrageous part of this is
Section 5 regarding the lay off status. The lay off provisions
eliminate tenure in another way. She questioned why an
administrator would conduct good evaluations, document performance
problems or help the person become a better instructor if the
administrator can lay off a teacher "to better meet the academic
program needs of the district." Another seemingly easy way to lay
off a tenured teacher under this bill would be in the case of
decreased revenues of the school. The early retirement program
seems to be a "carrot" which does not equal the "stick" in this
bill.
Senator Salo emphasized that a good and thorough discussion of the
original bill should have happened. The de Novo trial is an area
worth exploring. Currently when a teacher is fired, there is a
hearing. If there is a dispute over the facts involved at the
hearing level, the teacher can go to court. The judge would review
the documents from the hearing as well as allowing evidence to be
presented directly to him. She noted that the de Novo trial is
relatively expensive and seldom used. Perhaps, there is a better
manner in which to ensure due process without the cost. She stated
that the original bill could have been scrutinized and served the
educational interests in Alaska. In conclusion, Senator Salo
expressed disappointment in the current omnibus bill and she
strongly objected to the adoption of the CS.
Number 505
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Leman, Miller, and Green voted
"Yeah" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay." The CS was
adopted.
JERRY MCBETH, President of the University of Alaska Fairbanks and
Board of Education member of the Fairbanks North Star Borough,
spoke in favor of SB 132, the trial de Novo bill, not the adopted
CS.
SENATOR SALO asked if the meeting was on teleconference and if the
teleconference had been noticed on SB 132. CHAIRMAN GREEN said
that she did not know. PORTIA BABCOCK said yes.
The teleconference moderator clarified that the bill was on
teleconference, but the Fairbanks Legislative Information Office
(LIO) was only added at the last minute. It was not actually
advertised.
JERRY MCBETH expressed appreciation for the introduction of the
trial de Novo legislative provisions. He explained that up until
a Supreme Court decision from the Anchorage school district in
1989, the trial de Novo meant that after a hearing in front of a
school board a tenured teacher could contest the issue. Then there
would be an administrative review before the Superior Court. There
was no re-trial of the substantive issue. After that late 1980s
Supreme Court decision, de Novo was interpreted as from the
beginning and was applied to the substance as well as the
procedure.
In response to Senator Salo's comments that this provision is
rarely used, Mr. McBeth pointed out that Fairbanks has had two
cases in the 1990s which have applied the new judicial
interpretation. The Fairbanks district objects to that application
because a double trial is very costly to school districts. Close
to $200,000 in Superior Court costs has been spent in the two
Fairbanks' cases. He noted that the amount spent on those two
cases could employ two or three teachers. Another objection to the
judicial interpretation of the de Novo provisions is the delay
brought about by the second trial process. Often those witnesses
before the school board and administration in the initial hearing
have graduated and no longer reside in the school district
boundaries which increases the board's effort to present evidence;
this is due to the delay between the trials.
Mr. McBeth pointed out that having a double trial throws off the
balance in our adversarial system of justice between the school
district and the school board and the teacher. A double trial
affords the teacher and their representative the opportunity to use
the first hearing as a discovery process which seems to be an
advantage. The district or the board are not allowed to give new
evidence at the second trial. He informed the committee that the
second trial is an open proceeding, as declared by judges, which
exposes student witnesses. A trial in front of the school board
would allow the protection of student witnesses. He suggested
changing the legislation to allow a teacher to proceed to court at
the Superior Court level. That would remove the necessity of the
school board's involvement as hearing officers in the process.
Number 572
SENATOR SALO thought that Mr. McBeth's suggestion was excellent,
however, that would create a different approach than the bill. She
inquired as to what Mr. McBeth meant when he referred to the two
trials. JERRY MCBETH explained that currently when the
administration proposes to remove a tenured teacher, that teacher
has a right to a full hearing in front of the school board. If
after that process the school board agrees with the administration
that the teacher should be dismissed, the teacher has a right to
appeal to the Superior Court. Until the Supreme Court decision in
the late 1980s, that meant the judge would examine the fairness of
the proceedings; the case was not retried. Mr. McBeth objected to
the substantive retrial of the case. Mr. McBeth discussed the Dave
Tony case in Fairbanks in which Mr. Tony was represented by his
union at the Superior and Supreme Court levels after his
certificate was taken. That was allowed although there were no
substantive issues in his case.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Mr. Tony's union represented him although
there were no substantive issues in that case.
TAPE 95-27, SIDE B
Number 587
JERRY MCBETH believed that a teacher is entitled, if a member of
the National Education Association, to full representation up to
the Supreme Court level.
SENATOR SALO said that whether or not substantive issues were
present could differ from your point of view. In regards to the
two cases in Fairbanks in the 1990s, that seems relatively small
considering that Fairbanks is the second largest school district in
Alaska. She asked if those two cases were won. JERRY MCBETH said
that the district did win in the first case which is resolved. The
second case has been heard in the Superior Court and there has not
yet been a decision.
SENATOR SALO acknowledged that there is a delay in the process,
however, rights probably should not be aggregated merely to save
time.
SENATOR MILLER stated that the Fairbanks school district did win
the case with Mr. Tony. He inquired as to who paid the legal bills
for the district. JERRY MCBETH said that the district paid its own
legal bills. The total costs of Mr. Tony's case was $100,000.
Some of those costs include the hearing in front of the school
board, probably $30,000. SENATOR MILLER concluded from that, over
50 percent of the costs were those associated with the Superior
Court.
Number 558
CYNTHIA HENRY, representing the Fairbanks School Board, emphasized
that the role of the school board is to provide students with the
best teachers. The current law restricts the board's ability to do
that when in the situation of a dismissal. She stated that the
current law places undue hardships on the district as Mr. McBeth
outlined. She indicated that the cost and the length of time for
two cases are the reasons that there are not more competency case
dismissals. The school board has to present its case twice if the
case is contested which favors the defendant. She explained that
even if new evidence or witnesses surface following the review of
the school board, that cannot be introduced in the court trial.
She urged the committee to pass the original bill.
SENATOR MILLER inquired as to the prior position of the Fairbanks
School Board regarding tenure.
JERRY MCBETH said that the consistent position, over the nine years
in which he has served, of the Fairbanks School Board has been to
seek an increase in the probationary period of teachers. The
increase has varied, but there has been no question that the board
feels that two years is too short to fairly assess the
contributions that a teacher would be likely to make to the
district. He implied that other school districts in Alaska would
hold the same position while NEA probably would not agree. He
commented that at the university level the probationary period is
six years. He expressed amazement that virtually everyone is
tenured. The additional years of scrutiny would occasionally
reveal those who are not satisfactory for the interests of the
students. He emphasized that two years probation really means one
and a half years.
SENATOR SALO stated that if that argument was true, then there are
a large number of marginal teachers which should be watched longer.
Perhaps, it would be more beneficial to eliminate those marginal
teachers sooner. JERRY MCBETH said that his districts teachers are
good. The issue is those teachers which cannot be fairly assessed
and evaluated in two years.
SENATOR SALO indicated that two years is enough time to evaluate a
teacher and their skills, if that cannot be done then someone is
not doing their job. JERRY MCBETH explained that teachers are not
certified at a particular grade level or a series of courses. For
example, teachers are certified as elementary. He questioned how
a teacher could be properly evaluated when they may teach different
grades within that two year probationary period. Mr. McBeth posed
the example of a high school teacher certified in Secondary with a
specialization in Social Studies. If that teacher teaches American
History, World History, and American Government; how can that
teacher be fairly evaluated in two years? He said that evaluating
a teacher in two years based upon the teachers ability to
proficiently cover those subjects cannot be accomplished.
SENATOR SALO said that was an entirely different subject.
Number 493
KIMBERLY HOMME, an Anchorage teacher at Greening Middle School,
commented that she supported Representative Con Bunde's legislation
that the committee had heard today. She explained that she was
present because children rely on her to provide a quality education
which has become increasingly difficult due to the increased class
size. She indicated that the committee should support the children
of their constituents by fully funding education. SB 132 is a slap
in the face to the education community. She pointed out that SB
132 began as a bill to weaken teacher appeal rights, but it
transformed into a "Christmas Tree" bill. The current bill weakens
tenure and made bargaining available in public. Bargaining in
public would create much political posturing. She questioned how
the committee would like minority and majority caucuses being held
in public. The process of this bill is unacceptable, she did not
understand how the bill could already be scheduled for the
Judiciary Committee when the public has not had a chance to
comment. She emphasized that the education community is being
defocused from the important issues of funding education with
reduced funding and increased enrollments.
Ms. Homme said that with regard to tenure, instruction in schools
should be improved. She suggested that one way to achieve
instructional improvement would be through evaluation by
principals. She informed the committee of a course she had taken
relating to the improvement of instruction which is the same course
a principal takes. There is good system of evaluation of teachers
which provides feedback to the teacher. Ms. Homme stated that in
Anchorage non tenured teachers are always given pink slips. She
questioned why a bad teacher would be kept for more than two years.
She noted that the Anchorage school district does have a mentor
program, however it is not available to everyone due to the lack of
funding. The mentor program is a good manner in which to provide
a teacher with feedback, especially new teachers.
Ms. Homme stated that this new bill looked at the financial savings
with regard to the de Novo trial. She did not believe there would
be any savings because the administrative procedure, as the final
process for the dismissal, would increase the costs for the
teacher. Currently, the teacher has the opportunity to use a
hearing officer in order to determine if their dismissal was
appropriate or illegal. The teacher can then appeal to Superior
Court. She asked if under this legislation, would the school board
members be the hearing officers. Would the school board members
decide whether the administrators who work for the board had
sufficient grounds to dismiss the employee? In conclusion, Ms.
Homme commented that there are some problems with SB 132 which
should be worked out in the HESS committee.
Number 440
MARY BETH SHADY, an Anchorage teacher at Dimond High School,
informed the committee that she had taught at Dimond for 18 years
and in addition to that she had taught outside of Alaska for three
years. She expressed concern with Section 1 of SB 132. In the
Anchorage school district the process for evaluation already
exists. The administration is responsible for the evaluation. She
informed the committee that she had not been evaluated since 1987,
although she has an open door policy which is signified outside her
door. Although she is well respected in her building and sponsors
several organizations in her building as well as sitting on several
committees in the Anchorage school district, she was amazed that
she never has an administrator in her room to perform the mandatory
two year evaluation. She noted that there are five administrators
in her building. She believed that if the evaluation process was
utilized, it would be effective. New teachers need administrative
evaluation as well as mentoring from other teachers. She explained
that the school district does not provide a mentoring program,
although her department does.
Ms. Shady pointed out a problem with Section 5 regarding the
meaning of "academic program" on line 6, page 3 of the CS. How is
that term to be interpreted? She noted that as an English teacher
she would circle this language and ask the student for
clarification. Also the reference to decreased enrollment in
Section 5 would not apply to Anchorage; there would not be a
decrease in enrollment in Anchorage. She said that the bill gives
a carte blanche for the removal of teachers on ambiguous grounds.
Ms. Shady emphasized that she was a professional who expected more
continuity and professional treatment for a career in which a great
deal of time, energy and money had been invested.
Ms. Shady continued with her concerns regarding Section 7. In
Anchorage where there was a recent strike and a very difficult and
antagonistic period of negotiations, everyone is trying to build
bridges with the community and the school board and throughout the
district. Open negotiations would be a mess. She informed the
committee that currently avenues exist to convey information from
negotiations to the public through the media. That should be
continued.
In conclusion, Ms. Shady explained that she had come to Juneau,
taking leave from her classroom, in order to lobby for the full
funding of education. She reiterated the concern with the
defocusing of the need for full funding of education. The Alaska
Constitution states that the state must provide a public education,
of which she hoped would be a quality education. She indicated
that the suggested funding cuts to education would merely fund a
mediocre education. If CS SB 132 is adopted, what would happen to
the current negotiated contracts with teachers and districts? She
asked if that was clearly stated in the bill. Ms. Shady expressed
the need to clarify the language before the bill is moved from this
committee otherwise, teachers would not be afforded their entitled
due process.
SENATOR LEMAN assumed that people do get to see some of the results
of Ms. Shady's teaching through her productions with her students.
He asked if Ms. Shady was also referring to parents when she stated
that no one comes in even with her open door policy. MARY BETH
SHADY stated that at the high school level she sees the lack of
parental involvement; parents are not involved for a variety of
reasons. Ms. Shady felt that adults seem to be intimidated to come
into a high school with 1,800 teenagers. Ms. Shady had one parent
come in this year when she invited every member of the Language
Arts Curriculum Committee during the meeting time in the classroom.
SENATOR LEMAN felt that the lack of parental involvement in their
children's education is a travesty. MARY BETH SHADY interjected
that parents do pick up their child's report card, although that is
not a classroom setting.
SENATOR LEMAN said that he had been in a number of Dimond High
School classrooms in the past. He discussed his recollection of
his visits.
CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated that the committee faced strict time
constraints; the testimony would need to be briefer in order to
here as many people as possible.
Number 336
JAMES SIMEROFF, and eighth grade Math teacher at Kenai Middle
School, agreed with Ms. Shady with respect to the changing
environment of public schools. If everyone was an eighth grade
teacher, there would not be a question as to the need for tenure.
He informed the committee that he had taken a day of personal leave
for another reason, however, he discovered there was a hearing. He
noted that tenure has been a traditional aspect of public school
education for many years across the entire nation. The length of
the probationary period is an important part of that tradition. He
noted that for many years the probationary period was two years,
now some have been extended to three years. Mr. Simeroff knew of
very few places with five year probationary periods. In his
opinion, the issue is not tenure, but rather proper evaluation.
The length of the probationary period will not matter if an
effective evaluation method is not utilized. He informed the
committee that in his experience, most evaluations occur just
before teachers obtain tenure. With a five year probationary
period, there is the likelihood that there would be incompetent or
ineffective teachers in the system through five years and then they
would be asked to move on. He expressed concern that it would make
the environment in public schools worse.
With regards to the de Novo trial, Mr. Simeroff pointed out that it
was seldom used. The de Novo trial is needed for certain cases.
He indicated that school boards are opposed to the de Novo trial
because they often lose the trial. The lay off section of the bill
is vague and does not specify who decides the program needs that
may impact teacher lay offs. He stated that the lay off section
would conflict with the negotiated contract agreements in his
school district. Teachers may be forced to give up something that
has been mutually agreed upon.
Mr. Simeroff did not believe that open negotiations would create an
environment that would achieve settlements easily. Open
negotiations would create much posturing which is not conducive to
an agreement. He believed that if this section were law, Anchorage
and Fairbanks would still be striking because an acceptable
agreement would not result in these open negotiations; there would
be no room to maneuver in a public forum. Mr. Simeroff did support
the retirement incentive program, but did not understand its
presence in this bill. Mr. Simeroff did not support the retirement
incentive program as a part of this bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN informed everyone that testimony would be limited to
two minutes.
Number 255
RICK CROSS, Superintendent of the Fairbanks North Star Borough
School District, informed the committee that he had been
superintendent for the past eight years. He urged the committee to
keep the trial de Novo separate from other issues which have been
combined into this bill. The trial de Novo is worthy of
consideration on its own merit. He stated that the district was
concerned about the issues Dr. McBeth had outlined. He explained
that the current law requires that the school board conduct a full
hearing and there is no abbreviated hearing at the school board
level because any information not introduced at the school district
level may not be introduced by the district at the court level.
Two duplicate trials are required. He stated that the Tony case
seems to be a good example of the minimum costs of a teacher
dismissal. The Tony case was merely an interpretation of the law.
He informed the committee that the Tony case cost approximately
$100,000 of which half of those costs could be attributed to the
subsequent retrial and ultimately at the Supreme Court level. He
felt that a more realistic cost would be twice that amount.
Mr. Cross also expressed concern with student witnesses in open
court as well as having them testify twice. Time delays are a part
of the court system. He discussed the problems in keeping track of
student witnesses during those court delays. He agreed that the
trial de Novo is a procedure that has not been used often. He
suggested that the reason for that is the incurred costs of the
school district which could fund teaching positions. He urged the
committee to consider the trial de Novo on its own merit in
separate legislation. The Anchorage Supreme Court decision has
placed school districts in an unfair situation with regard to the
dismissal of tenured teachers.
SENATOR SALO stated that regarding the protection of teachers, the
concern is that the school board is not an unbiased group in terms
of making the final decision. Is there anything, between the
school board hearing and the de Novo trial, that could be workable
and would ensure a neutral third party decision? RICK CROSS
informed the committee that in his experience the boards have
proven to be fairly balanced in their decisions. Mr. Cross
emphasized that the major concern is to have only one trial.
Having one trial seems fair especially when, as is often the case,
children are involved. Mr. Cross stated that he would rather go
directly to court because the school board hearing is merely
advanced discovery; the board must put on a full trial. The
current process is untenable.
Number 163
MARILYN PILLIFANT, teacher at Chinook Elementary in Anchorage,
informed the committee that she was in her sixth year of teaching
for the Anchorage School District. She noted that she is currently
a second grade teacher. She explained that her role as a teacher
encompasses many other roles: social worker, counselor, mediator,
disciplinarian, nutritionist, and health care provider not to
mention that she volunteers much of her time to the school. Ms.
Pillifant expressed concern with the CS because it seems to
circumvent her rights as a citizen to a fair and impartial review
process. She reiterated Ms. Homme's point that the tenure issue
should be refocused on the administration.
Ms. Pillifant noted that she is currently in an evaluation process
in her building. This year it seems to be working. She emphasized
that this is the first year that she has received constructive and
mutually helpful feedback on her teaching skills. Teachers are
professionals. She questioned the motivation for SB 132. Ms.
Pillifant urged the committee to reconsider the passage of SB 132
to the Judiciary Committee. Teachers deserve respect and they
should be provided the opportunity to testify on SB 132.
MIRIAM KIEGANDEAN, representing the Anchorage School District,
informed the committee that she was speaking on behalf of parents.
Currently, she is a counselor at Mears Junior High. She discussed
her background in the elementary system and her eight years as a
Vocational Work Counselor with the Save Alternative Program. Ms.
Kiegandean urged the committee to pass the governor's full funding
of education as well as the increased enrollment funding. As a
parent, teacher and counselor, Ms. Kiegandean expressed concern
with the issue of tenure. She supported the current tenure
process. NEA supports tenure. Tenure does not give life-time
appointment. If the administration does their job correctly, there
should not be a problem with unsatisfactory teachers especially
when they are in the probationary period. Ms. Kiegandean explained
her evaluation process. There should not be a problem with the two
year probationary period, if administrators evaluate teachers every
quarter which equals four evaluations each year. She expressed
concern with the notion that a mediocre teacher would be kept on
for five more years with this new probationary period. The two
year probationary period is long enough.
Number 050
VERNON MARSHALL, NEA-AK, said that if he is held to a two minute
limit, then he would prefer to discuss the need for school funding.
If the CS of SB 132 passes, the current problem of class size would
continue to increase while teachers would be placed in situations
where they cannot succeed. Public frustration would increase and
the public school system would suffer. Mr. Marshall explained that
he was prepared to speak to SB 132 in its original form as it
applied to the administrative hearing. He said that he could
attempt to dissect the CS, but the two minute limit on testimony
would not be enough. Mr. Marshall deferred to the Chair.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the choice was Mr. Marshall's. Chairman
Green said that Mr. Marshall could testify for his one minute
however he chose.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Mr. Marshall was down to one minute.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said yes that Mr. Marshall had spent about one
minute in his introduction and there are others to testify.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if this would be the only HESS committee
hearing on the CS for SB 132. CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that she
thought it would be the only hearing in HESS for this bill.
VERNON MARSHALL noted that the committee had been provided
information regarding the history of tenure as well as the de Novo
hearing. July 1, 1966 teachers were given the right to a de Novo
hearing.
TAPE 95-28, SIDE A
Number 010
Mr. Marshall explained that the standard of review under the
Administrative Procedures Act is the substantial evidence test
which is not applied consistently. He pointed out that using the
Administrative Procedures Act as the vehicle for hearing
nonretentions would place a teacher in a quandary. The first
aspect of that quandary would involve the teacher having to go to
a school board. The school board is acting on the advice of staff
and does not know the teachers side of the story; the board votes
to dismiss the teacher. The teacher would then face a hearing
officer that had been unilaterally selected by the school board
which is the second aspect of the quandary. The third aspect of
the quandary would be the recommendation of dismissal of the
teacher by the hearing officer due to the knowledge of the staff
and the board' s objections. Fourthly, the teacher would be there
because the board would have reconfirmed its initial decision to
dismiss the teacher. Mr. Marshall asserted that the problem was
the lack of an objective and impartial authority to decide if their
was cause to dismiss the teacher. He noted that this was in
reference to the original version of SB 132. He encouraged the
committee to review the Lum decision. Mr. Marshall stated that
school boards do not have expertise with regard to teacher quality.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that currently the trial de Novo is an
opportunity for a teacher who would very likely face the loss of
their certificate. The trial de Novo provides a safety valve or a
fairness to tenured teachers in this process. He clarified that
NEA-AK does not guarantee their members an automatic right to
appeal to the Supreme Court. NEA-AK attempts to provide a teacher
the chance to appear before the administrative level which would
generate a decision. Then the decision is made by NEA-AK to
determine whether or not to fund the appeal to the Superior Court
and further to the Supreme Court. Mr. Marshall clarified that in
the two cases in Fairbanks, the cases were not funded by them at
the Superior Court level. NEA-AK did provide the administrative
step. He emphasized that NEA-AK would not restrict an individual's
rights to appeal a decision at the Superior Court or the Supreme
Court as well as the administrative level.
Mr. Marshall felt that Mr. McBeth had a good idea regarding going
directly to court without an administrative hearing. He said that
NEA-AK was willingly to review that suggestion. Without the option
to go directly to court, tenured teachers should be guaranteed an
unbiased hearing body which is not likely from a biased school
board. The school board employees the superintendent and
principals and also determines the direction of the school. He
indicated that binding arbitration could be an option for review.
In conclusion, Mr. Marshall said that NEA-AK supported retirement
incentive programs and SB 137. NEA-AK does not support retirement
incentive programs if that means trading tenure rights to gain a
retirement incentive program process.
Number 117
SHELIA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of
Education, explained that at the last State Board of Education
meeting, the board discussed many of the concepts that are in the
CS. The board could not come up within a consensus. However, the
board wanted to relay to the committee their strong support for the
full funding of education. Even with full funding of education,
the school districts will have a difficult time addressing all the
educational needs in each school district. The provision in the CS
for the early retirement incentive would help those school
districts; the provision would allow the school district to decide
whether or not to participate as well as the designation of
categories of employees to participate. The school board felt that
it does ensure that the quality of education will continue while
giving the school districts some management tools. As the CS is
currently written, the Department of Education would be responsible
to write the regulations to promulgate the lay-off of tenured
teachers; the process would be done in a very cautious manner and
involve the public in every step of the way. In conclusion, Ms.
Peterson reiterated the board's strong commitment to full funding
of education.
WILLIE ANDERSON, NEA-AK, informed the committee that with regards
to tenure, a recent survey found that less than 10 states have a
five year probationary period. Tenure is not the problem, the
problem is the evaluation process. He emphasized that proper
evaluation could eliminate non professional and mediocre teachers.
Mr. Anderson pointed out that many of the nonretention cases do not
come before the school board because NEA-AK often advises teachers
in this position to resign. Such situations occur on a routine
basis. The lay-off of teachers has been negotiated in retirement
incentive programs which are in practically every contract. There
is no provision for tenured teachers to be laid off unless
enrollment decreases which is not likely. He said that adding
teachers is necessary not laying them off. He asserted that the
lay off contingent is the result of the inappropriate funding of
the state legislature in the last seven years. He emphasized the
need to appropriately fund education in order that the issues of
funding and the lay off tenured teachers would not be before this
body.
Number 203
CHAIRMAN GREEN informed everyone that Senator Taylor had agreed to
hear more testimony on SB 132 as it moves through the committee
process. She assumed that testimony would be heard on Monday or
Wednesday.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if there were other teleconference sites.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that she did not know of more sites. SENATOR
ELLIS stated, in an attempt to understand, that Fairbanks was the
only site and the teleconference was not advertised.
CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated that there would be an opportunity for
interested persons to testify on Monday. She said that she did not
know how Mr. Cross knew to call in.
SENATOR SALO felt that the testimony had been interesting and could
inspire ideas to solve some of the problems SB 132 hopes to
address. There was also testimony that indicated that areas of SB
132 are unnecessary. She emphasized that the problems with SB 132
are not judiciary problems; the problems are inherent to education
and should be worked on in the HESS committee. SB 132 should not
leave the HESS committee. Senator Salo stated that she would like
to amend the bill which could be in writing if enough notice had
been given. She asked if SB 132 could be heard Monday; is that an
unreasonable request?
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that SB 132 was slated to be passed out of
committee today. She noted that the Judiciary Committee would be
happy to hear the amendment on Monday.
SENATOR SALO found that unacceptable because she is not a member of
the Judiciary Committee. Furthermore, SB 132 is a HESS committee
bill. She discussed the response she had received in regards to SB
132 which she did not even know about at the time. Senator Salo
offered an amendment to eliminate Sections 1 and 2 from the CS,
Amendment 1.
SENATOR MILLER objected.
SENATOR LEMAN indicated the need to come up with a fair bill. In
response to those who see SB 132 as a teacher bashing bill, the
bill is fair to the school districts and the public. He did not
know of many professions with tenure opportunities. A good teacher
would welcome this in order to elevate the profession to higher
levels.
Number 272
SENATOR ELLIS reiterated Senator Salo's point regarding the good
testimony heard although, the witnesses indicated surprise by the
CS. Everyone seemed to come to testify on the original bill which
Senator Ellis felt could have made some progress. He supported the
amendment. Senator Ellis expressed concern with having the CS
before the committee with little notice and opportunity of the
public to testify. He emphasized that the HESS committee's
responsibility with education. This treatment is unnecessary;
goals can be achieved while demonstrating respect to the public and
the institution. This is an insult.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that many of the provisions in this
legislation are included in legislation in the House and Senate.
These are not new issues.
Upon a roll call vote on Amendment 1, Senators Miller, Leman and
Green voted "Nay" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yeah."
Amendment 1 failed to be adopted.
Number 310
SENATOR SALO moved Amendment 2 which would delete Sections 1
through 7. SENATOR MILLER objected.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the repealers in Sections 19 and 20 were the
same as repealers or sunset dates in other bills or different.
PORTIA BABCOCK clarified that they were the same.
SENATOR SALO indicated that the sections of the bill which do not
address the de Novo trial prevent positive change to education.
She did not feel that she had adequate time to change the de Novo
issue. The testimony regarding the retirement incentive programs
does seem to indicate that in general districts do favor that
approach. That program allows flexibility and options. She wanted
to deal with the retirement incentive programs, but not in an
omnibus bill. Amendment 2 would delete Sections 1 through 7.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Leman, Miller and Green voted "Nay"
while Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yeah." Amendment 2 failed to
be adopted.
Number 351
SENATOR LEMAN moved that CS SB 132(HES) be moved out of committee
with individual recommendations. Senators Ellis and Salo objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Senatos Leman, Miller and Green voted "Yeah"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay." CS SB 132(HES) was passed
out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|