Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/28/1995 03:15 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR & COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 1995
3:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Gene Kubina
Representative Brian Porter
MEMBER ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 25: "An Act repealing vegetable dealer licensing and
regulation."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 217: "An Act relating to employment of teachers."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 284: "An Act relating to the Alaska Commercial Fishing
and Agriculture Bank."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 249: "An Act authorizing the McGrath Kuskokwim River
Ice Classic."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HB 263: "An Act relating to certification of workers who
handle hazardous waste; and providing for an
effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HB 109: "An Act relating to telephone directory listings
and solicitations."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CSSB 53(JUD): "An Act relating to regulation of risk retention
or purchasing groups; to preemption of the
regulation of insurance agents and insurance
producers; to the general powers of the director
of the division of insurance; to insurance
examination hearings; to insurer certificates of
authority; to annual and quarterly statements,
taxes, and prohibited acts of insurers; to
reinsurance credit allowed a domestic insurer; to
risk based capital for insurers; to insurer assets
and liabilities; to insurer investments; to
insurance holding companies; to regulation,
licensing, examination, and trade practices of
insurance producers, managing general agents,
third-party administrators, brokers, independent
adjusters, and reinsurance intermediary managers;
to surplus lines insurance; to criminal insurance
acts; to premium increases in automobile
insurance; to insurance rating; to assigned risk
pools; to filing and approval of certain insurance
policy forms; to required insurance coverage for
acupuncture, nurse midwives' services,
mammography, and phenylketonuria; to health
insurance provided by small employers; to transfer
of an insurer's status as a domestic insurer; to
quarterly statements of benevolent associations,
fraternal benefit societies, and health
maintenance organizations; to reciprocal insurers;
to the definition of 'member insurer' for purposes
of the Alaska Life and Disability Insurance
Guaranty Association; to electronic insurance data
transfer and insurance funds transfer; to the
definitions of `managing general agent' and
`person' applicable to insurance law; to
automobile assigned risk plans; placing a person
employed by the division of insurance as an
actuary or assistant actuary into the exempt
service; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure
45; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HB 288: "An Act relating to procurement preferences for
corporations and partnerships owned by persons
with disabilities."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 11
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 25
ED KERN
Marketing & Product Inspection
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 949
Palmer, AK 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-7200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 25
GUY STRINGHAM, Teacher
P.O. Box 991
Dillingham, AK 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-1075
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 217
BOB COLLINS, Principal
Valdez Junior/Senior High School
P.O. Box 2535
Valdez, AK 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2313
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217
JOE JOSEPHSON
Attorney at Law
880 "H" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-0151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
MARTI HUGHES, Vice President
Anchorage Council of the PTA; and
President, Hanshew Junior High
12825 Lindsay Circle
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-8337
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
BOB DOYLE, Assistant Superintendent
Finance
Mat-Su School District
1900 Porcupine Trail
Wasilla, AK 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-3172
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
JOHN CYR, Teacher; and
Vice President, NEA-Alaska
P.O. Box 2776
Palmer, AK 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-2015
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
KATHI GILLESPIE, Representative
Alaska PTA
2741 Seafarer Loop
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-5335
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217
JOHN GILLESPIE
2741 Seafarer Loop
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-5335
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217
LUCY HOPE, President
Mat-Su Education Association
P.O. Box 870887
Wasilla, AK 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-4796
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 217
ROBERT VAN SLYKE, Superintendent
Juneau School District
10014 Crazy Horse Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-1700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS
NEA-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 217
DAN BECK, Assistant Superintendent
Delta/Greely School District
P.O. Box 527
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4658
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217
RON GLEASON, Principal
Juneau/Douglas High School
10014 Crazy Horse Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-1900
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
MARILYN LEAHY, Member
Valdez School Board
P.O. Box 689
Valdez, AK 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217
WILLIE ANDERSON
NEA-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 217
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
NEA-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 217
BOB DEITRICK, President-Elect
Juneau Education Association
4421 Teel Court
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-0951
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 217
CHERYL SUTTON, Administrative Assistant
to Representative Carl E. Moses
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6848
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 284
ED CRANE, President
Alaska Commercial Fishing & Agriculture Bank
2550 Denali, Suite 1201
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-2007
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 284
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 217
CARL ROSE
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West Eleventh Street
Juneau, AK 99801-1510
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 25
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL VEGETABLE DEALER LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Ellis, Halford, Miller, Taylor,
Torgerson, Green; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Navarre, Brown
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/95 20 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/13/95
01/16/95 20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 20 (S) L&C, FIN
03/07/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/07/95 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/11/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/11/95 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/12/95 994 (S) L&C RPT 4DP
04/12/95 994 (S) FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
04/20/95 1125 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
04/22/95 (S) RLS AT 02:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/24/95 1208 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/24/95
04/24/95 1208 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/24/95 1209 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/24/95 1209 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 25
04/24/95 1209 (S) COSPONSOR(S): HALFORD, MILLER,
TAYLOR
04/24/95 1209 (S) TORGERSON, GREEN
04/24/95 1209 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
04/24/95 1215 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/25/95 1490 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/25/95 1491 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/25/95 1520 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): NAVARRE
04/26/95 1560 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): BROWN
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS & RETIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/29/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/95 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/29/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/18/95 1344 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 2DP 1NR 1AM
04/18/95 1344 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY
04/18/95 1345 (H) NR: G.DAVIS
04/18/95 1345 (H) AM: ROBINSON
04/18/95 1345 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
04/19/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/20/95 1408 (H) L&C REFERRAL ADDED
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/21/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/22/95 1446 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 5DP 1DNP
04/22/95 1446 (H) DP: VEZEY, PORTER, GREEN, BUNDE,
TOOHEY
04/22/95 1446 (H) DNP: FINKELSTEIN
04/22/95 1446 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
04/26/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/26/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/27/95 (H) L&C AT 07:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
BILL: HB 284
SHORT TITLE: AK COMMERCIAL FISHING & AGRICULTURE BANK
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/27/95 933 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/27/95 933 (H) FSH, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
04/05/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/19/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/20/95 1398 (H) FSH RPT 2DP 2NR
04/20/95 1398 (H) DP: MOSES, ELTON
04/20/95 1398 (H) NR: OGAN, AUSTERMAN
04/20/95 1399 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV, F&G)
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 249
SHORT TITLE: MCGRATH KUSKOKWIM RIVER ICE CLASSIC
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NICHOLIA
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/95 701 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/10/95 701 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 263
SHORT TITLE: CERTIF. OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WORKERS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/17/95 778 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 778 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
03/29/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/31/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/31/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: TELEPHONE DIRECTORY LISTING/SOLICITATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN,Navarre,B.Davis
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/23/95 115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/95 116 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
01/26/95 148 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 53
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 83 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 84 (S) L&C, JUD
02/28/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/02/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/02/95 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/07/95 515 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE
03/07/95 516 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
03/27/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/05/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/05/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/95 891 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/06/95 892 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
04/10/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 211
04/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/18/95 1058 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/18/95
04/18/95 1065 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/18/95 1065 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/18/95 1066 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/18/95 1066 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 53(JUD)
04/18/95 1067 (S) PASSED Y16 N3 E1
04/18/95 1067 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/18/95 1068 (S) COURT RULE(S) FAILED Y12 N7 E1
04/18/95 1068 (S) TAYLOR NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/19/95 1088 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/20
04/20/95 1122 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/20/95 1123 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N3
04/20/95 1123 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/20/95 1123 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/20/95 1126 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/21/95 1417 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/95 1417 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
04/28/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 288
SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT PREFERENCES/STATE LEASES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/29/95 979 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/29/95 979 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/03/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/03/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/07/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/07/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/21/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/24/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-49, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Labor and Commerce Committee meeting of April 27 was
reconvened by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:15 p.m., April 28, 1995.
He then adjourned the meeting of April 27.
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT then called the April 28, 1995, meeting to
order at 3:16 p.m. All members were present.
SB 25 - REPEAL VEGETABLE DEALER LICENSING
Number 031
The first order of business was SB 25, "An Act repealing
vegetable dealer licensing and regulation."
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE, sponsor of SB 25,
said the bill repeals the existing statute regarding vegetable
licensing. The current statutes require that anybody in Alaska
who wishes to purchase and sell vegetables has to get a special
license and post a special bond to do so. It seems like an
unnecessary involvement of state government. In the effort of
trying to reduce the number of laws we currently have, this is a
prime candidate. He said he would be happy to address any
questions.
Number 047
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA moved to pass SB 25 out of the House
Labor and Commerce Committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK and CHAIRMAN KOTT objected in order
to hear from a person who wanted to testify via teleconference.
Number 067
ED KERN, Marketing & Product Inspection, Division of Agriculture,
Department of Natural Resources, Palmer, testifying via
teleconference, was in opposition to SB 25. He said a resolution
from the Mat-Su Chapter of the Alaska Farm Bureau was passed the
previous day which he read into the record:
"The Mat-Su Chapter of the Alaska Farm Bureau opposes the passage
of SB 25 and HB 134. This legislation would do away with the
requirement for licensing and bonding of buyers of vegetables in
Alaska. It can only hurt Alaskan producers. This law presently
costs the state of Alaska nothing and guarantees that the
background of vegetable buyers will be checked out by the bonding
company before they can be licensed by the state.
"HB 133 advocates prompt payment to truckers and committee
substitute (CS) for HB 140 is a bill pertaining to bonding of
fish buyers. We find it hard to understand why, since both of
these bills are reasonable, bonding to pay farmers is
unreasonable."
MR. KERN noted the resolution is signed by Preston Pyrah,
President, Alaska Farm Bureau, Mat-Su Chapter.
Number 110
CHAIRMAN KOTT removed his objection. He said there is a motion
to move SB 25 out of committee with individual recommendations.
He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, SB 25 was
passed out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
HB 217 - TEACHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS & RETIREMENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business would be HB
217, "An Act relating to employment of teachers." He noted there
were people wishing to testify via teleconference.
GUY STRINGHAM, Teacher, testified via teleconference from
Dillingham. He said he is a high school teacher and has taught
American Government and American History for a number of years.
He noted he has been involved with labor relations - employee
representative kind of work. He said he would make two
observations regarding the legislation.
MR. STRINGHAM said his first observation in reading the bill is
that it will complete the slide of teachers into second class
citizenship in that one of the great rights all American citizens
have under the Constitution is the right to a hearing before the
court and their peers. If the bill is passed in its present
form, they would lose that right. He suggested adding wording to
the bill to say the cost of any hearings, trials or any kind of
court hearing be born by the people and not with public money.
He said he thinks this would then preclude a lot of the kinds of
releases, the kinds of taking away of teacher's jobs.
MR. STRINGHAM referred to the area of administration and said he
disagrees with the meaning of the bill. He said he finds most
administrators fairly (indisc.). If he reads the bill correctly,
teaching will be the only profession in the world where somebody
has to take two to five years to decide if they've got a good
employee. Mr. Stringham said what has happened in the past with
this tenure bill is that because of the lack of (indisc.)
evaluation and good progressive discipline to help teachers
overcome weaknesses or to help their (indisc.) strength, they
have seen an erosion of a PR campaign. When a teacher reaches
tenure, they have the right to a job forever. He said anybody
who knows how this operates or how it should operate knows that
any teacher can be removed in six months with a good progressive
discipline program carried out by competent administrators. Mr.
Stringham said he works for competent administrators and he
doesn't see a need for the bill at all unless we're trying to
allow incompetent (indisc.) system.
MR. STRINGHAM referred to the status of teachers in general. He
said for him to have to go forward to a court only in a due
process which says he is going to have a hearing at a local level
with people. The way hearings are currently, people don't really
have good a judicial background unless a lot of high priced
lawyers are brought in. He said they are going forward with
little legal expertise into the court of law and they are not
going to get due process. He thanked the committee for allowing
him to testify.
Number 190
BOB COLLINS, Principal, Valdez Junior/Senior High School, said he
would speak briefly on behalf of Harry Rogers, Superintendent,
Valdez City Schools, on the issue of teacher tenure which is
related to HB 217. Mr. Rogers recommends extending the tenure
from two to four years. He feels very strongly about tenure for
certificated teachers in Alaska. Very seldom, if ever, does a
certificated teacher lose their job based upon a certificated
evaluation process. Mr. Collins said after two years, an
administrator is involved in evaluating teachers. It is a major
and difficult decision to make regarding recommending tenure or
nonretention for a teacher. It is not uncommon for teachers new
to a district, especially teachers new to the profession, to have
a year or two where they struggle to adjust to the rigors of a
classroom and the demands of being a teacher. It is their belief
that presently most administrators who evaluate teachers do a
good job and they give the benefit of the doubt to the struggling
or marginal teacher rather than making the decision on what is
best for kids - the students in the school. By lengthening or
strengthening the tenure requirements, they believe it will
provide teachers, especially new ones to the profession, more
time to make the necessary adjustments to the challenges of
teaching and to demonstrate their skills. In the long run, the
extended time period will allow a more accurate assessment of the
teacher's capabilities after they progress throughout the tough
and typical adjustment to functioning successfully in the
classroom. Lengthening tenure (indisc.) would permit
administrators evaluating teachers more time to make accurate
assessments of the teacher's strengths, weaknesses and potential
as a quality teacher and, therefore, be able to make that
critical employment recommendation based upon a true measure of a
teacher's ability and what is right for students.
MR. COLLINS said he believes that extending the tenure
requirements will benefit teachers, administrators and students.
Teachers can more accurately demonstrate their true professional
skills. Administrators can make more accurate assessments of a
teacher's capabilities without a rushed judgement. He said
Valdez city schools have 66 certificated staff members and as of
FY 96, it is very possible that there would be zero or no
nontenured teachers in the district under the current system. He
thanked the committee for listening to him.
Number 260
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the committee had adopted CSHB 217(L&C),
dated 4/25/95 the previous day.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he would like to state a conflict. He
said Mr. Collins is his wife's boss. He asked Mr. Collins how
many nontenured teachers they did not retain because he felt
there wasn't enough of a time period to evaluate them properly.
MR. COLLINS stated the answer is one.
Number 277
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said it shouldn't take two years to
decide if he has a good employee or not. He said he is assuming,
per testimony the previous day, that one of the most important
jobs an administrator has is teacher evaluation and development.
He said he still needs to be convinced why they need four years
rather than two years to make a determination on whether somebody
will be good teacher or not. He noted he is making an
assumption, based on experience in Juneau, that there are a lot
of good teachers that are waiting be hired. It may be cost
efficient to dip into the pool of talented people who are waiting
to teach.
MR. COLLINS said it is his feeling as an administrator that it
benefits all parties involved in making the assessment. It
benefits the teachers by being able to "show their stuff." Mr.
Collins said it has been his experience that teachers in the
adjustment process of becoming a quality individual in the
classroom go through a very rigorous adjustment process in both
student management, content orientation, etc. He said it takes
an extended period of time to successfully adjust. Two years
isn't an adequate amount of time for a teacher to be able to go
through that process and for administrators to be able to make a
quality judgement.
Number 313
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to parents he has spoken with and
said the problem they have with teacher tenure isn't the two year
or four year period at the beginning, it is teachers who have
been in the system for a long period of time. He said Mr.
Collins is saying those bad teachers in the system, who are
tenured, are there because of the two year period up-front. A
good judgement wasn't made because there wasn't a long enough
period of time to train or make a decision.
MR. COLLINS said he doesn't think that is the case at all. He
said they have a fine cabaret of teachers in Valdez. Mr. Collins
said what he is indicating is that it would be beneficial to the
teachers, students and the administrators to have an additional
period of time to make a better assessment regarding the
capabilities of a potential teacher. He noted he isn't making a
judgement based upon the individuals already on staff. Mr.
Collins said he is talking about those who are nontenured and are
new to the district.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said all of the current tenured teachers are
a result of a two year tenure program. MR. COLLINS said that
would be his understanding.
Number 338
JOE JOSEPHSON, Attorney at Law, said he does some work for the
National Education Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska) and its
affiliates. He said it seems to him that from the previous
testimony there is a paradox in the bill. The previous testifier
said that you can't judge a teacher on the question of tenure in
less than four years. But under the draft, one would turn around
and say in the case of layoffs, we will fire teachers who have
passed tenure and who have served the district well. We will
have a formula for laying them off regardless of their tenure
rights, and keep working with those who have not proved
themselves. Mr. Josephson said it seems to him that there is a
philosophical inconsistency in having a four year provision
coupled with the layoff language that he has seen.
MR. JOSEPHSON referred to the question of de novo hearing and the
judicial review and said Mr. Stringham made some interesting
points. He used the phrase "second class citizen," and he is
right. Mr. Josephson said if he fired an employee in his office
and the employee believes that Mr. Josephson acted in bad faith,
the employee can go directly to court and get a hearing before a
mutual judge. If a teacher who is tenured is dismissed by a
school board, the teacher's rights are merely to have a hearing
before the school board or a hearing officer hired by the school
board. If the teacher loses, he/she can could go to court and
the judge, under the language in the bill, would be bound to
affirm the dismissal of the teacher if there is any substantial
basis for that dismissal even if the judge disagrees with it and
thinks the school board was wrong.
MR. JOSEPHSON said there was a Supreme Court case saying that
school boards don't have expertise in these matters and that,
under existing law, (indisc.) shouldn't be (indisc.) them. Mr.
Josephson said what teachers want, and should have, is at least
one neutral fair hearing on the question of dismissal whether the
legislature decides it should be through arbitration or through
the present de novo hearing. He thanked the committee for
letting him speak.
Number 381
MARTI HUGHES, Vice President, Anchorage Council of the PTA; and
President, Hanshew Junior High, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. She said she would like to urge the committee to
include the minimum of a five year probationary period before
tenure is granted, and to (indisc.) collective bargaining in the
bill. Anchorage Council of the PTA, representing over 12,000
parents and guardians, has passed resolutions supporting a
minimum of a five year probationary period before tenure is
granted and supporting open collective bargaining. Nationwide,
the move is to do away with tenure and go to annual renewable
contracts. Nine states currently do not have tenure. She gave
an illustration of a scenario regarding teacher tenure.
MS. HUGHES said with the budget constraints and cutbacks, the
administrators who are responsible for the evaluation are some of
the work forces in jeopardy in facing cutbacks. Everyday
citizens in their jobs are not protected by tenure. She urged
the committee to support the resolution passed by the Anchorage
Council of the PTA. Ms. Hughes thanked the committee for
listening to her testimony.
Number 407
BOB DOYLE, Assistant Superintendent, Finance, Mat-Su School
District, testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su
Legislative Information Office. He said the district would
support taking a look at the issues being addressed by HB 217 and
SB 132. Anytime there is an opportunity to allow school boards
greater local control, it will improve instruction. He said the
state should seriously consider any of those suggestions. Mr.
Doyle said he doesn't think HB 217 is "teacher bashing." It is
important to look at any kind of tool, in a time of fiscal
deficit that we currently have, that would give local school
boards some flexibility to deal with the issues that confront
them on an every day basis. Anytime we have unfunded mandates or
underfunded mandates and we cut budgets without giving boards
some flexibility, we're headed towards a disaster.
MR. DOYLE said he does support any effort to (indisc.) to
improving student achievement. That would include such things as
looking at the areas of career paths for teachers, merit pay for
teachers, retirement incentive programs and any other issues
along those lines.
MR. DOYLE referred to the bill and said by eliminating the de
novo trial, you aren't removing all judicial review after the
school board has actually heard the case. He said he would
differ from testimony given by Mr. Josephson in that the private
sector doesn't have due process requirements that the public
sector employer does. A private sector company can dismiss an
employee and they do get one fair hearing before the judge. The
public sector employer has to provide due process and that
employer has to give a fair hearing. In this case, if a de novo
trial is granted, there is an additional hearing where the entire
record is thrown out and the previous hearing (indisc.) new. The
cost of that can get to the point of $200,000 or more. In these
tight budget times, that money can be better used directly in the
classrooms.
MR. DOYLE said he would support some extensions of tenure and he
does think compromises are in order. He said he does think in
cases, such as transfer rights where a teacher can be hired into
a school for one year and is transferred to another school the
following year, does allow a situation where people think that
the person is being directly supervised by the same employer both
years and that may not be the case. They could have had two
different principals during that time and they are going to have
to conduct their own independent observations. In many cases, he
believes it takes more than two years to do that.
MR. DOYLE referred to the 3 percent funding provision and said
his concern is that by the time you have actually determined the
basic needs (indisc.) enrollment calculations in October, they
have already issued year long contracts. They probably won't be
issuing layoff notices until the subsequent year. He does think
that it is appropriate for school boards to have some latitude
but the timing of which to determine that basic need in the 3
percent reduction is critical because they are issuing contracts
to tenured teacher for the following year in March and to
nontenured teachers by the last day of the school year.
Number 463
JOHN CYR, Teacher; and Vice President, NEA-Alaska, testified via
teleconference. He said he believes his comments have been faxed
to the committee. Mr. Cyr requested the committee postpone
passing the bill out of committee as there are so many issues
that affect so many people, statewide. It should be dealt with
during the interim when all those parties concerned can sit down
in a less heated atmosphere and make decisions that everybody can
live with. He said he is extremely concerned about the tenure
provision. Administrators all over the state have said they need
more time to evaluate and yet he sees nothing on the table about
mandatory evaluation. There is an awful lot of "smoke and
mirrors" that seems to be going on when people want one side of
the issue to go one way but they refuse to talk about true
evaluation procedure. Mr. Cyr said nobody wants bad teachers in
the classroom.
MR. CYR referred to the de novo hearing and said he finds it
interesting that it takes longer to become a tenure teacher and
after you are tenured, it takes employment away from you. It is
real clear that school boards are political bodies and sometimes
act in a political fashion. To consider a school board hearing a
fair hearing is sometimes a stretch of the imagination.
MR. CYR referred to the reduction for budgetary constraints and
said he agrees with Mr. Doyle. If we're going to look at that,
we need to be sure of exactly what kind of conditions exist. He
suggested reviewing independent audits of school districts. Mr.
Cyr said the issues are very complex and more time is needed to
look the issue over.
Number 501
KATHI GILLESPIE, Representative, Alaska PTA, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She said last Saturday, the
Alaska PTA, which represents over 19,000 members statewide,
passed two resolutions that pertain to HB 217. The Alaska PTA
supports extending the probationary period for teacher tenure
from two to five years. The Alaska Conference of Parents and
Teachers recommends that AS 14.150 A and B be amended to require
a minimum of five full school years of employment as a teacher to
obtain tenure in the school systems of the state of Alaska
(indisc.) teachers who retire on or after the effective date of
the act.
MS. GILLESPIE said the Alaska PTA supports the opening of
contract negotiations to public scrutiny. She said their
resolution RESOLVED reads that the Alaska Conference of Parents
and Teachers supports rules and collective bargaining and
provides (indisc.) and reasonable time for public comment of all
issues being considered between the bargaining group and the
school board. Therefore, be it further resolved that the Alaska
Conference of Parents and Teachers actively seek and support
changes to state legislation or regulations which allow for
public disclosure and a reasonable time for public comment of all
issues being considered between a bargaining group and the school
board for collective bargaining. The PTA can no longer stand by
silently as the policy of public education and public support for
public education (indisc.). There is no smoke and mirrors here
except the part that is being born by the NEA.
MS. GILLESPIE said parameters for evaluation are negotiated
behind closed doors and out of the public eye. In Anchorage,
they have negotiated an evaluation process that never holds them
accountable for teaching the curriculum that we pay them to
teach. For them to use the evaluation process that they wrote to
deny the children of this community of quality education is
ludicrous. We all know that as oil revenues decline, significant
downsizing will occur. Give us some tools to manage our work
forces as (indisc.) and effectively. She indicated there is an
incredible level of frustration felt by parents and taxpayers.
Our kids are the second class citizens here in a system that is
set up to protect the employees regardless of their performance.
She asked the committee to support HB 217.
Number 520
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to open negotiations and asked Ms.
Gillespie if she is addressing the negotiating process or is the
PTA interested in understanding or knowing the issues that will
be negotiated.
MS. GILLESPIE said the frustration is that they are not aware of
the issues that are being negotiated. She said they don't
necessarily have to sit at the table. In Minnesota, everything
is open except for the strategy sessions that the two groups
hold. In California, they come before the public with their
issues that they will be negotiating. After public comment
disclosure, they go into negotiations. If there are any new
issues, there is a time for public comment. Ms. Gillespie said
our elected officials don't know what the will of the people is
on issues that have never been publicly discussed. In Anchorage,
87 percent of the budget is negotiated in the contracts. They
are at a disadvantage. She said they are concerned that the
budget is being negotiated behind closed doors for a period of
three years at a time.
Number 533
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA inquired if Ms. Gillespie had just been
elected to the school board. MS. GILLESPIE indicated she was.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he doesn't know of anything in the law
which requires that the negotiations be behind closed doors. He
said he thinks that all the school board has to do is say that
they will be open. He said Ms. Gillespie is in a position to do
so.
MS. GILLESPIE said that isn't her understanding. She said it is
her understanding that the labor relations law doesn't speak to
the issue at all. What they have been told by their labor
relations person is that both parties have to agree in order for
them to be open and the union will never agree to that. Ms.
Gillespie said she thinks the public deserves to oversee the
spending of public dollars. The development of public policies
shouldn't be an option; it should be a guarantee to the children
of this state.
Number 564
JOHN GILLESPIE was next to testify via teleconference from
Anchorage. He indicated his family are products of the public
education system of this country. He said their success, as a
family and individuals, in the fields of engineering, management,
education, space exploration and aviation can be directly
attributed to the quality and availability of a publicly
supported education system between the period of 1930 to 1975.
He said HB 217 will be a good first step in reversing the spiral
down that we are currently in. The time has come for business,
interested taxpayer, voters and legislators to take a stand for
their kids. Mr. Gillespie said he supports HB 217. He asked the
committee to include an amendment to provide for open
negotiations with public school employees. Allowing open
negotiations will involve the public in a meaningful way by
allowing public comment in issues critical to their children's
education. He said he believes this will result in an increase
of public support for the system.
MR. GILLESPIE said rolling back teacher tenure will result in
improved performance. He informed the committee he has been a
supervisor in private industry for the past 15 years and has had
to deal with many employee performance issues as well as
downsizing operations. Individuals who feel they have been
wrongly terminated have the right to (indisc.) against employers.
He said he doesn't believe special provisions are necessary over
and above the rights of other citizens. Mr. Gillespie urged the
committee to report HB 217, with an amendment for open
negotiations, to the floor.
Number 598
LUCY HOPE, President, Mat-Su Education Association, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su. She indicated concern with some of
the effects of the bill. Ms. Hope said she believes that two
years is an adequate time to evaluate teachers on a probationary
period. The Mat-Su School District has an excellent evaluation
tool that was developed jointly by teachers and administrators.
It is very effective. She said she believes that is the most
important component in improving instruction. Ms. Hope said
extending the probationary period without improving the
evaluation process will not do this. Extending the tenure
provision can have some economic impact. She said the previous
week, she received a phone call from a teacher who has taught in
the school district for two and a half years. He has not
achieved tenure. He asked what the status was of HB 217 as he
had applied for a loan for a house at his bank and the bank told
him he would denied until he achieved tenure.
MS. HOPE said she is concerned about the teachers who live in a
community for four or five years before being allowed to purchase
a house. It is another example of teachers being second class
citizens. Ms. Hope said she is also concerned about extending
the ability of school districts to layoff tenured teachers.
Revenue is declining but Mat-Su is growing at a rate of 4 percent
to 5 percent a year. Next fall that will equate to about 500 new
students. The ability to layoff more teachers will not help kids
in the school district. Ms. Hope urged the committee to hold the
bill.
Number 617
ROBERT VAN SLYKE, Superintendent, Juneau School District, was
next to testify in Juneau. He said he believes there is
something to be gained by extending tenure. Two years tends to
be a bit short, but whether four or five years is necessary, he
doesn't know. Two years is certainly short. Mr. Van Slyke said
he thinks there are times when we don't give our nontenured
employees a fair shake. He said the district firmly believes
that when they hire somebody, they make an investment in them.
They would like to have an opportunity to help them be
successful. If the period is too short, there is a tendency to
cut them loose, and some of those people, with a little more
time, may have turned out to be very good teachers in the long
run. On the other hand, they have kept people in an attempt to
be fair and have regretted it.
MR. VAN SLYKE referred to the layoff provision and said they
would like to see it. He said they reduced staff by
approximately 40 teaching positions last year because of
financial constraints. Mr. Van Slyke said if anything happens
where they don't receive all of their funding, either locally or
from the foundation program, they are going to be in trouble. He
said they would be at the point where they will have very few
nontenured people to layoff. If this situation were to continue
in subsequent years, they would be in a position where they
wouldn't be able to afford to pay the salaries of all the tenured
people unless there were people retiring.
MR. VAN SLYKE referred to the language in the bill and said he
has concern with the 3 percent figure. He said this is because
they have been wringing their budget for three years and they had
to make drastic cuts last year and will this year. He said we
can have the same level of basic need and still be in
trouble...(END OF TAPE)
TAPE 95-49, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. VAN SLYKE referred to the elimination of de novo and said
they support it. Employees who are nonretained or dismissed can
be afforded a hearing that is fair and equitable. If there are
any due process violations, the person would have a recourse to
court. He said they have concerns about the lengthy process when
you have to go to superior court and start over as there are
expenses associated with that. Mr. Van Slyke said he applauds
the efforts put forth in drafting the bill and he thinks it has
some positive features.
Number 070
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said there are several proposals regarding
education this year. There is HB 217. Currently there is a
proposal by the House majority to retain funding at last year's
level which is about an $18 million cut to education. The
Governor has a retirement incentive program (RIP) bill in place.
He asked Mr. Van Slyke to prioritize those three things.
MR. VAN SLYKE said first and foremost should be full funding.
That is the number one priority. He said he would also like a
RIP bill so maybe they could get through negotiations
successfully. He said they are currently in negotiations and
have asked for some concessions from their bargaining units in
order to get by. Mr. Van Slyke said they would also like some
money and latitude the RIP bill might provide to bring back some
of the teachers that they had to layoff. He noted they have
approximately 20 teachers on recall.
Number 094
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that Juneau is extremely lucky to
have Chief Administrator Bob Van Slyke. He noted he is leaving
soon and will be replaced by Mary Robidoux.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG referred to the 3 percent funding
and contract timing problems and asked Mr. Van Slyke to expand on
the issue.
MR. VAN SLYKE said, "I think on the 3 percent figure, for
example, the so called flat funding, you know, that's proposed,
which I consider a cut because it would cut our revenue by about
$500,000 at the state level plus it would reduce the amount that
the local assembly could contribute under the cap by another
$115,000 - well that's about ten teaching positions, but that's
still under $300,000 - I mean under 3 percent. And, I think --
you know my figures are that we've got about eight people that we
could nonretain and, you know, we could have a reduction. My
point is we could have a reduction of less than 3 percent and
still be in a world of hurt. In fact, we're in a world of hurt
now because we've just run out of wiggle room. As far as the
contract period, you know it's a -- I'm not exactly sure how it
would work. I guess there would have to be some regulations
established to implement you know whatever statute the
legislature did enact. I don't know whether that gets at your
question or not."
Number 130
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if Juneau was at the cap.
MR. VAN SLYKE said Juneau is at the cap and has been at the cap.
He noted there are six districts, Juneau, Kenai, Valdez,
Ketchikan, Sitka and Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the cap is because of the
disparity calculation in the formula. MR. VAN SLYKE said it is
because the state chooses to take into account federal impact
data. It is not a federal requirement, it is a state choice
under the current foundation system.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the disparity has an impact.
MR. VAN SLYKE responded the disparity test does. It results in
the cap.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said there is a state solution. MR. VAN
SLYKE responded in the affirmative.
Number 160
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, NEA-Alaska, was the next witness to come before
the committee. She said she is sorry that the education
community has not been able to come together and come to a
resolution on some of the issues, because she truly doesn't
believe this is in the best interest of kids and public school
systems. Ms. Douglas referred to Ms. Gillespie and said she will
play a very important role and hopes she will look at the
evaluation procedure very carefully.
MS. DOUGLAS said she happens to have the Alaska regulation that
says, "Responsibility for evaluation of performance of
professional employees results with the individual school
districts." She said it goes on to describe how that process can
be followed.
MS. DOUGLAS gave committee members some information on tenure.
She also gave them a survey conducted on tenure around the state.
According to the figures, there are 41 states that have either a
two or three year period of tenure and different continuing
contract provisions. She said there are two states that have a
five year tenure process and two states that have a four year
tenure process. Ms. Douglas noted Colorado wasn't listed in the
information but currently has a three year provision with a
renewal contract.
MS. DOUGLAS gave the committee information regarding a survey in
terms of the appeal process and said if Alaska teachers lose the
de novo hearing, we would be the only state that has an impartial
hearing officer or arbitrator at some point in the review
process.
MS. DOUGLAS referred to tenure and said it is a very sensitive
issue. It is simply going from nontenure to a tenure position or
from temporary employment to permanent employment. School
districts have high standards for hiring new teachers and NEA-
Alaska supports those standards. She said they support high
standards for people that enter the profession. They would even
consider some sort of an extension of the two year provision if
there was something included in the evaluation that said it had
to be conducted in some way.
MS. DOUGLAS referred to the National Teacher of the Year being
from Kodiak, Alaska, and said the model established in Kodiak
involving the parents and the community in changing the way that
they offer education is the way we should be going. She said
they shouldn't have to come to the legislature and ask them to
make laws to make changes.
MS. DOUGLAS referred to the way the bill is structured and said
she thinks it is an insult to many practicing teachers that go
into their classrooms every day who are trying to do the best job
they can. She urged the committee to give them the task to go
back and work with the community to try to work out some sort of
solution. Ms. Douglas said she doesn't believe having this in
law and making the changes this way is best for kids.
MS. DOUGLAS referred to the layoff provisions and said she can't
accept the fact that there is going to be less money for school
districts than what they currently get. She urged the committee
not to pass the bill out.
Number 246
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the university system has tenure.
MS. DOUGLAS said she believes they have a seven year tenure
period. After the seventh year, she doesn't believe they are
required to have evaluations. Currently, in public schools even
tenured teachers have a year requirement for an evaluation. She
said she believes that at the university level, once you do have
tenure, there isn't a requirement for an evaluation procedure.
She noted it may vary from university to university.
Number 264
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said the committee has heard people
from both sides of the issue say they really don't think it is
appropriate to have to come here and deal with these issues. He
said he would subscribe to that notion also. He asked Ms.
Douglas if she would support repealing everything.
MS. DOUGLAS said there should be some kind of a task force,
seminar or something to say to the people in the education
community, parents, etc., to work on during the interim to try
and reach some kind of consensus based on research or what is
going on in other school districts. She said she would like to
work on some of the ideas of things occurring around the nation.
Number 284
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the termination of the de
novo trial proceedings and asked MS. DOUGLAS to explain the
current process.
MS. DOUGLAS said currently, a tenured teacher that is dismissed
has an opportunity to request a hearing in front of the school
district. She said she believes that can be done either in front
of the district or a hearing officer appointed by the school
district. Those are the same group of people that sign and
negotiate contracts and hire teachers. She said she believes
that board members are often very close to the criticism or
comments. It seems very difficult to have a fair hearing at that
level. Lets say the teacher is denied retention. At that point
the teacher can request to have a de novo hearing in front of the
superior court judge. At that point, the judge can review and
hear the evidence. There can be no additional charges made but
the school districts or the teacher can bring in new evidence,
but they can't change the charge. At that point, the judge can
make a decision.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what happens if the teacher doesn't
request a hearing. MS. DOUGLAS said they have lost their job.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if they have a right at that time
to ask for judicial review. MS. DOUGLAS said it has to go before
the board first.
Number 314
CHAIRMAN KOTT said if the board denies the teacher the job or
tenure and it is taken to de novo trial, who would pay the bill.
MS. DOUGLAS said the teacher has come through the association and
the association has had a motion to support that, the association
will pay for part of the teacher's expenses. The district picks
up the district expenses. She said it is her understanding that
it is a shared responsibility. Each side pays their own. Ms.
Douglas referred to binding arbitration and said some things are
different. Sometimes the district has to pay all or the
association has to pay all.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked what the hearings cost. MS. DOUGLAS said
some are $100,000. She noted she doesn't have the statistics.
Number 337
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Douglas if she could
distinguish between the cost of having a hearing and a de novo
trial. MS. DOUGLAS said in the current situation, having the
hearing usually is less expensive. If it goes to a de novo
trial, it usually involves attorneys.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if attorneys aren't normally
present at the hearing level. MS. DOUGLAS responded not always
on the association's part, but they can be sometimes.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to a section of the bill and asked
why the word "arbitration" was included.
MS. DOUGLAS said she believes it should have been deleted from
the CS that came from the Judiciary Committee. She said they
currently are not entitled to it, so it doesn't need to say that
they aren't entitled to it, because they're not.
Number 403
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Ms. Douglas if she could give an idea
of how often a de novo trial occurs annually.
MS. DOUGLAS said at the most, five a year. She indicated she
wasn't exactly sure.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to a House Health, Education and Social
Services Committee meeting, and said de novo costs were discussed
and there were five recent cases that dealt with nonretention and
the total cost was $721,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if we're talking about two to five
cases a year, we may be talking about the wrong end of the
problem. He said he thinks the cost of buying out the contract
for the previous superintendent in Juneau was two years of salary
and legal costs in excess of $300,000. He said it still hasn't
been resolved and is ongoing.
Number 440
DAN BECK, Assistant Superintendent, Delta/Greely School District,
was next to testify from Delta Junction. He referred to Section
6(c) and said in times of reduced revenues and increased
(indisc.) costs the school districts must have the effective
tools to deal with staff reduction. He informed the committee
they were preparing to deal with the massive layoffs associated
with the realignment of Fort Greely. Although they may be in
somewhat of a unique situation, he believes that many or all of
the school districts can more effectively deal with programmatic
and sensible reductions enforced to put student needs first. He
encouraged passage of HB 217. He noted the section he should
have referred to was Section 5 that deals with layoffs and the
ability of districts to layoff not on seniority, but on
programmatic needs. If a district has primary needs and a
secondary teacher is more senior, the district should be able to
layoff a secondary teacher and place programmatic needs first.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the law specifically says it has
to be by seniority. MR. BECK said it doesn't, but noted HB 217
would define that a lot clearer. He referred to the local
bargaining unit trying to set ground rules in anticipation of the
bill and said they don't know what is going to happen the first
time it comes up with an individual teacher. They could end up
in court.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the Delta/Fort Greely area is
anticipating some real problems because of the closure of the
base. He said we're certainly hopeful that the RIP bill will
pass which will help them immensely.
Number 478
RON GLEASON, Principal, Juneau/Douglas High School, testified in
support the committee substitute for the extension of tenure from
two to four years. He said as a building practitioner, he found
himself wanting to respond to questions he heard earlier. Mr.
Gleason said there are two points as to why he would support the
committee substitute. The first is as a building principal, he
would love to have the luxury of having evaluation being his only
responsibility. Implementation of instructional programs,
providing educational leadership, supporting staff, community
school relations, dealing with school discipline, violence, drug
and alcohol issues are all extremely time consuming components of
his job. The second point is, "What is a good teacher?" He said
in Juneau we think that teaching is a complex process.
Therefore, accessing the quality of a person's current
performance, also interjecting a projection of what that person
will be, is an extremely complex process. Angry parents calling,
which may lead to an investigation, is also a component. In many
cases if not most, in his experience, we find a cadre of people
that feel strongly in support of a teacher for whom they have
received a number of angry calls. It always boils down to
nothing but time and hard work. He asked do we look at classroom
management as a tool? Do we look at student performance? Do we
look at the ability to communicate - interpersonal skills. That
is another critical component of an effective teacher. Not only
is a person being assessed as to their current performance, but
they have to make a read as to their ability to pursue
professional growth. Are they compatible with the desires of
that particular community regardless of their pre-service
training. It is an extremely complex situation. A four year
period would provide much better results for our students and
employees than a two year period.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Gleason how many evaluations he is
responsible for.
MR. GLEASON responded 30 certified teacher and 15 classified
support staff, annually.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked how long it takes to evaluate the
individuals.
MR. GLEASON explained they are predicated on at least a single
direct classroom observation and typically, multiple
observations. For a nontenured teacher in Juneau, they make four
observations a year.
Number 563
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said being an administrator of a school
isn't a simple thing. Being a teacher isn't a simple thing any
more. He said it is very complicated and he thinks too many
things are being pushed off on the schools. If we could get rid
of them and do our function of teaching and administering a
teacher in a school, the whole thing would be simplified.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if all administrators were like Mr.
Gleason, we wouldn't have the need for any laws to regulate
behavior in the district. We expect good judgement and
reasonable application of common sense. Representative Elton
said he would be interested in Mr. Gleason's discussions with
parents.
MR. GLEASON said in his experience with parents, they feel
relatively powerless regarding addressing concerns with tenured
teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he can see where the extension of
tenure would be a good and helpful managerial tool for Mr.
Gleason. He asked Mr. Gleason if he thinks it will resolve the
concerns of the PTA people who have testified.
MR. GLEASON said he liked Ms. Douglas' view in developing an
effective tool that involves the professionals, parents and all
interested constituents. He said he would like to see the
evaluation tool addressed at the level of the constituents.
Number 614
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Gleason if he sees any reason why
an evaluation tool would have to be in statute.
MR. GLEASON said he doesn't think that would be a good thing to
do.
Number 617
MARILYN LEAHY, Member, Valdez School Board, testified via
teleconference from Valdez. She said Mr. Gleason put their case
forward very well in that not only is the public scrutinizing the
performance of our schools, but they're also escalating their
demands of what subjects need to be taught. They are also
demanding that the schools continue to educate at higher and
higher levels of competence. Ms. Leahy noted unlike other
professions, the market forces don't apply to teachers. She said
as a school board member, she wishes she could believe that we
are going to continue to support and increase support for
education. Ms. Leahy stated budgets are shrinking both at the
state and local levels. We still need to ensure that the people
selected to be in the classroom are going to be able to deliver a
high quality of instruction over the long term. Ms. Leahy
explained that the issues have to do with ensuring the quality in
our school systems that the parents and the public are demanding.
MS. LEAHY referred to the layoff provisions and said they have to
do with the financial status. She doesn't see this as an
abstract discussion. We don't want to get rid of our teachers.
We would like to have as many teachers as possible and as small
as possible student/teacher ratio.
TAPE 95-50, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. LEAHY said she thinks the bill is fair to teachers and
protects the best interest of the students. She asked the
committee to support the bill and move it out of committee.
Number 014
WILLIE ANDERSON, NEA-Alaska, was the next to come before the
committee. He said he would focus on the de novo trial judicial
review. Mr. Anderson said he would review what happens when you
terminate a teacher's employment. First, the principal makes the
recommendation to the superintendent. The superintendent concurs
with that recommendation. Then the superintendent makes the
recommendation to the board. The board concurs with that
recommendation. After the board concurs with that
recommendation, the superintendent has the right to send a letter
of nonretention or dismissal to a teacher. So the board
participates in part of the decision to nonretain the teacher.
Then the teacher has 15 days to request a hearing before that
board. The hearing is requested and the board reviews the
information again. He noted he has handled a number of these
cases and in every case, the board retains its earlier decision.
He said what we're seeking is a fair hearing. Mr. Anderson asked
how do you get a fair hearing when the board that makes the final
decision about your retention has already made a decision about
your nonretention. The process is convoluted and you cannot get
a fair hearing from a board that has already made a decision.
For the board to make a fair hearing, they would have to reverse
their earlier decision. Mr. Anderson stated there are no other
employees, state, public or private, who has that type of
situation. Under the provisions in the bill, that is what would
happen.
MR. ANDERSON said currently there are negotiated agreements in
many of the school districts around the state. He said they can
negotiate and arbitrate a ten-day suspension without pay. An
independent arbitrator comes in and renders a decision on that
cause and he/she can reinstate the ten-day suspension. We can
arbitrate a transfer denial. An independent arbitrator comes in
and makes a decision about that decision, but we are denying an
independent hearing officer to make a decision about the
retention of a person's career. Mr. Anderson said that is the
problem with the bill as it is currently structured.
MR. ANDERSON said he tends to believe that people have the belief
that we are going to get an independent hearing from a school
board. Mr. Josephson stated that the court in Mat-Su has stated
that the board has no independent judicial review training.
Administrative procedure, as currently constituted in state law,
is different than what is constituted here. He said what he is
asking of the committee is a fair hearing whether it is a de novo
trial which is currently in law, or a binding arbitration
decision. He said they want one shot at the apple for a fair
hearing. People have characterized that you get two shots at the
apple. You get a board hearing and you get a de novo trial. He
said get rid of the board hearing because we know the outcome of
the board hearing. They've already made their decision earlier
when they concurred with the superintendent's recommendation.
Mr. Anderson said his request is one fair hearing. He thanked
the committee.
Number 103
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said Mr. Anderson brought up a very good
point in where it is one where Valdez has had only two grievances
in the 17 years that he has been involved in Valdez. He noted he
served as president of the union for many years. Representative
Kubina said Mr. Anderson raised a good point. A superintendent
goes to a school board and they talk about it. He said that
board not backing up that superintendent is almost like a vote of
no competence. That board, 99 percent of the time, will go along
with what the superintendent has done and especially if it is
public knowledge. If they didn't agree with the superintendent,
it is like giving the superintendent a vote of no competence.
He/she would be humiliated or contradicted to all their
employees.
Number 134
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said this is similar to some experiences he
has been involved in during his service on the local assembly.
The assembly would make a determination on issuing a major mine
permit to an operator who wanted to invest hundreds of millions
of dollars in this community. That permit decision made by the
assembly can be appealed and it is heard by the assembly again.
They would be sitting as a quasi-judicial body. He said when the
assembly heard the appeal for the second time, it was compelling
to know that their decision sitting as a quasi-judicial body was
appealable to the superior court. Without that appeal, you're
more apt to make a political decision than not. He said that may
also be the case here because if a school board knows that their
second hearing process can be reviewed and can be second guessed,
you induce a much better second hearing on the part of the school
board.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he thinks there is a bit of a problem in the
way the bill is set up. He said he would agree that the school
board would reaffirm their earlier decision.
Number 172
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Anderson how prevalent is it to
use hearing officers in the state.
MR. ANDERSON informed him that the Anchorage School District uses
hearing officers. Generally, the school board concurs with the
hearing officer's decision. He said he hasn't seen a case in
Anchorage where the school board hasn't concurred with the
hearing officer's decision.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the hearings and asked if
counsel is present.
MR. ANDERSON explained that generally for a tenured teacher there
is counsel representatives on both sides. For a nontenured
teacher, there is generally counsel representing the school board
and a person who doesn't have legal training, like himself,
representing the teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked who are the hearing officers.
MR. ANDERSON explained there is a panel of hearing officers that
the Anchorage School District has impaneled.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Anderson how many cases he has observed.
MR. ANDERSON said he has participated in twelve of the cases in
Alaska during the last eight years.
Number 198
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, came before the
committee to give his testimony. He said Mr. Gleason made a
great point relating to the time it takes to evaluate staff. He
said maybe we should be saying that the time should be
prioritized because the development of any staff is critical to
management of any system, whether it is a school district, a
newspaper or a police force. If you assume that you have 50
staff members, 35 teachers and 15 support staff, and if we spent
three hours on three people on the average, that is 150 hours a
year. He said if we really did well and get 300 hours a year,
we're only looking at maybe 4 percent of this individual's time
if they put in eight hours a day, five days a week, for 180 days
of instruction or 7,200 hours. The critical issue is still time.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks a beginning teacher does need help
and assistance. They need more than a set of keys and a box of
chalk to do their jobs. They need the mentoring and the
assistance that valuable administrators can provide them. Mr.
Marshall said he thinks that if we set up a system that delays
that process two more years, we are doing not only a disservice
to children, but we're doing a disservice to that teacher.
Nothing currently in the bill prescribes any kind of mentoring,
any kind of in-service, any kind of accelerated certification, or
any kind of classroom management training. He said we're not
even talking about five year programs at the college level to
prepare teachers for the classroom. We're not talking about
site-based decision making, but yet for some reason it is in the
wisdom of someone to indicate that we need to move from two to
four years of probation.
MR. MARSHALL referred to the layoff provision and said they are
concerned about that section. He referred to page 3, line 7, and
said it does provide for a layoff of teachers because of
decreased school attendance. It also indicates that if the basic
need of the school district, determined and adjusted under the
law, decreases by 3 percent or more from the previous year. Mr.
Marshall said he sees this as a tremendous safety valve. He said
in other words, there are bills before the legislature that will
fund schools next year at about $59,000. Mr. Marshall said he
feels that if the basic need in the school district is $61,000
and if you reduce that basic need by 3 percent or $1,830, you
have a value of $59,170. The disincentive here is not to fund
the unit. There is a burden and a responsibility on government
to ensure that schools are adequately funded and that they are
provided the necessary resources to be innovative, different, and
meet the challenges of the new decade. Mr. Marshall said it is
unfair to expect both administrators, school boards, systems and
teachers to do more with less. Every year they have to deal with
the fact that they aren't getting any kind of adjustment for
inflation, but yet they're expected to, in a sense, absorb those
costs into the system. Now we come forward with a provision in
the law that mandates that the state will allow a school district
to balance budgets on the backs of children and tenured teachers.
MR. MARSHALL referred to line 8 and said that section only
applies to tenured teachers. So in effect, we could apply this
section if this adjustment takes place. We get rid of tenured
teachers. There is no responsibility or requirement to get rid
of nontenured teachers. For the most part, the seniority system
is not effective or operative at all if this provision is
triggered. He said at the same time, class sizes will likely
increase.
MR. MARSHALL referred to page 3, line 17, relating to the layoff
provision and said that is all permissive. It is indicating a
school district may do that. There is nothing in there that
requires a school district to provide for provisions that deal
with layoff or retention. The same is carried through on line 24
where the section may not be inconsistent with provisions of this
section. He referred to lines 21 through 25, and said they do
feel they have many collective bargaining agreements in school
districts throughout the state. These have been decided locally.
They deal with this issue, but yet this particular provision will
circumvent what has been decided over time on the local level.
Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about line 31. He said if a
person is laid off in September, October, November or December,
they may look very carefully at line 31. They have no job and
will probably be drawing unemployment. They will probably will
look for extra funds so they will go and be treated as a
terminated employee for the purposes of pulling out money from
their teacher retirement account. If they have spent their
retirement and if they ever enter the system again, it will be
too hard to pay back that money plus the interest to get back
into the system if they have another ten years of service and
wanted to achieve retirement.
MR. VERNON referred to judicial review and said what they are
most concerned with is relative to judicial review based on the
record and what the judge will do. It is his understanding that
the judge will apply what is called a substantial basis test.
Basically, that test will be, "Is there any rationale or evidence
evident in the record to support the decision." In other words,
a decision was made to nonrenew a teacher. Is there any rational
evidence or is there any rationale that supports the decision.
He said he has been told by their lawyer that the judge is not
going to have the ability to go back and say, "Well I believe
this record is wrong. I believe the school board was wrong and
based on what I believe..." He said the judge cannot overturn
that particular decision.
MR. VERNON referred to the burden of proof and asked if the
burden shifts when you send the record to the judge. Now is the
burden of proving that the school district was wrong shifted to
the teacher or does the school district still have the burden of
proving its case against the tenured teacher. He explained
another step in this process that hasn't been discussed relates
to the Professional Teachers Practice Commission (PTPC). The
PTPC can very well take up the case after the dismissal if it is
an incompetence immorality charge and the teacher can lose their
license to practice in the state of Alaska.
MR. VERNON referred to the terms of probation and before the bill
was in the HESS Committee, it was argued that basically what we
want to do is set up a system that somewhat equates to what
applies to state employees. Currently, if you are a range 13 or
below, you have a six month probationary period. After the six
month probationary period, you have a just cause standard to
dismiss that individual. If you are a range 14 and above, you
have a one year probationary period and just cause becomes the
standard for dismissal of that employee. Mr. Vernon indicated in
the case of the bill, we are saying, "You are an at will
employee, you can be dismissed for no reason, any reason, just
because." For four years within a district, you're gone. There
is no reason. He referred to denial of tenure and said if tenure
is denied to him in a school district, he has no recourse to the
courts. When you compare that to other public employees, it is
not fair. He said they are willing to look at ways to improve
evaluation.
Number 369
BOB DEITRICK, President-Elect, Juneau Education Association, came
before the committee to testify. He said he is beginning his
third term with the Juneau Education Association. During his
tenure as an association representative as well as a teacher in
the Juneau School District, he has had the opportunity to
observe, witness and participate in many of the issues the
committee is addressing in the bill. The first issue he would
like to address is the acquisition of tenure. He explained he
has testified before the Alaska 2000 Committee that we do need to
take a look at how tenure is granted in Alaska. Mr. Deitrick
said he does not believe that somebody who teaches for two years
should automatically be granted tenure. He does believe that
somebody who has taught two years should have an opportunity to
apply for tenure. There should be a built in provision and
funding provided to local school districts to provide a peer
review committee, master teachers, and to provide a mentoring
process so that when we are granting tenure to a person in the
school district that we, as a school district, believe this is an
individual that we want to keep in our community to work with our
children. Mr. Deitrick said he believes four years is a lengthy
time period. If we have an inadequate teacher, we shouldn't be
dumping money into their pockets for four years. He said he
thinks if a person, after two years, applies for and is not
granted tenure, they should have one year to get their act
together in working with a mentor or master teachers, etc.
MR. DEITRICK referred to the area of layoffs and said we have a
layoff provision in our negotiated agreement. He said he thinks
the negotiated agreement speaks well to the process for layoffs
of nontenured teachers and can, in fact, go into a tenured
teacher layoff under certain conditions.
MR. DEITRICK said the 3 percent figure in the bill causes him
great concern. If the 3 percent figure is a result of a drop in
enrollment, then how are we going to define what a substantial
drop in enrollment is in order to (indisc.) attack the tenured
teaching force. If any bills are passed that lowers the value of
the instructional unit, it will be a major impact on our
professional, experienced staff that are in our communities. He
referred to the 3 percent figure and said in the Juneau School
District last year, about 50 teachers were laid off and nearly
half of them were rehired so they didn't have a break in service.
During this school year, when we have about 20 teachers out there
on a recall list, our school board hired additional
administration. They increased the number of administrators in
the bargaining unit. They have also increased the school board
budget so they can pay their Alaska Association of School Board
dues while we have teachers sitting out there waiting for jobs.
He said he doesn't believe the 3 percent figure is going to allow
equal treatment in our system. He thinks that the administrative
direction that he has been observing in our community is a
concern. In 1987, we had a number of teachers on layoff and
there was also a unilaterally imposed salary cut in their
bargaining unit. At the same time, school administrators
received a salary increase. He asked who is going to monitor how
school districts are laying off and spending money.
MR. DEITRICK referred to hiring preference and said a number of
negotiated agreements speak to this. At the same time, we've
seen a number of grievances occur and what defines preference.
There is no definition of preference in the bill. Who is going
to define preference in a hiring or rehiring process as well as
qualifications. He said they attempted to negotiate language
which provides definition for qualifications and when they try to
deal with qualifications in working with the school board or
administration, there is always an attack on what is the
definition of qualifications. Mr. Deitrick asked if it is based
on being endorsed in a certain area or is it having a Type A
Certificate.
MR. DEITRICK said we also need to be careful with local control.
He believes local control is a key point that we need to consider
when legislation is being written that will affect negotiated
agreements. He said we sit down with school boards and negotiate
a contract that we believe we can all live with. If we truly
believe that the bargaining process is a valid process in this
state, lets not mess with local control.
MR. DEITRICK referred to the teacher retirement system refunds
and said people coming back into the system to work wish that
they had not taken that money out. He said it impacts them the
rest of their lives.
MR. DEITRICK referred to budget considerations for layoff and
said we need to encourage an early retirement bill. We also need
to encourage local retirement incentives. Last year, the school
district and the Association of School Boards negotiated an early
retirement incentive plan where teachers received $10,000 if they
resigned or retired. They had to meet certain conditions on the
salary schedule to save money for the district. The Juneau
School District saved nearly $1 million and that is what allowed
the rehire of about half of the teachers that were laid off the
previous spring.
MR. DEITRICK referred to the trial de novo and said he thinks Mr.
Anderson spoke to it very well. He said you need to be aware of
what goes into the evaluations. He said he questions the types
of comments that are going into evaluations and whether they are
valid and whether they are observable. Trying to get them
removed is like pulling teeth. He said they can't go in and say,
"This is an unfair statement. This is an inadequate statement.
Remove it from the evaluation." All they can do is attach a
rebuttal. Mr. Deitrick said if evaluations are going to be used
for a board hearing in proving a teacher's incompetence, they
need to have some way of having a counter position and an
impartial hearing in order to present their case. He said he
believes that as an association, we can work jointly with school
districts on nonretention of even tenured teachers.
MR. DEITRICK said we are here as professionals, we can work
together and the bill takes away that opportunity and takes away
what he believes is their professional right. He urged the
committee not to move the bill.
Number 462
There being no further testimony, CHAIRMAN KOTT closed public
testimony. He said it is the intent of the chair to recess until
7:00 p.m.
Number 470
CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 7:17 p.m.
Members present were Representatives Kott, Porter, Kubina, Elton,
Rokeberg and Masek.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there is a work draft of the bill
before the committee. He said he has a technical amendment on
page 2, to remove lines 10 and 11. Because of the removal of a
previous paragraph, that wording isn't necessary.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would concur with that. He said
Representative Porter made a motion to delete on page 2, lines 10
and 11. Chairman Kott asked if there was an objection to
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he doesn't object, but he assumes that
means they are going to have to make a minor adjustment on line 9
to move the "and" up to line 6. He said he would assume it is
incorporated in the motion that Representative Porter made.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said they will delete the semicolon and add "and".
He asked if there was an objection to that motion as amended.
Hearing none, the motion carried.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA moved to delete Section 6.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he made the motion because of the
discussion about school boards and them already making their
decision and they're the ones the teachers will appeal to. He
said he was uncomfortable working on the whole bill.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, "There is an objection, we'll just discuss
it. I would agree, based on what I heard, that there is a little
bit of a problem here but I think if we delete Section 6 in its
entirety, then we have nothing. In the event that there is a
teacher that is fighting tenureship available...."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "No, I don't agree with that."
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, "(Indisc.) over the status quo."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "We'd go back to status quo which
would be get rid of the judicial review and still have a de novo
trial."
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, "I think based on some of the discussion we
heard, a de novo trial is an expensive proposition."
Number 537
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he has a degree of discomfort of the
total process that is left. He indicated he has more discomfort
with the requirement for de novo trial and the expenses that can
be incurred. Representative Porter said revenues are such that
they are going to have to come down more. Now is the time to
provide opportunities for school administrations to manage...
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated concern with the bill as there are
some elements he likes and some he dislikes. He said there are
some elements that address some problems but he isn't sure they
are the right answers. He said he doesn't think parents are all
that concerned about extending teacher tenure from two to four
years. He said the parents that he has spoken to are more
concerned about teachers who are tenured that are in the system.
HB 217 doesn't address that problem. Representative Elton
referred to the problems the administrators have discussed and
said the bill may be a small managerial tool. The problems they
have discussed are funding and the RIP management provision. He
suggested the committee set up a subcommittee and incorporate
some of the different suggestions.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA withdrew his motion.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said for the last two years these issues
have been in the legislature. He said he thinks that passing the
bill out, the closer it gets to fruition and the closer people
are going to be forced together and maybe come up with a solution
before it gets passed into law. He said there is just too much
diverse opinion on these issue. To him, the further the bill
moves along the process of being passed, the more motivation
there will be for the parties involved to work something out.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the closer the bill gets to fruition,
the less the school boards and the PTA are going to be inclined
to want to talk.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the issue has been dealt with over the last
two years and it is frustrating to see things not move forward.
He said he hates to invoke any kind of legislation action in
these areas as he would much rather see the sides come together.
TAPE 95-50, SIDE B
Number 006
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she has some serious problems with the
bill. She said people from her district have been contacting her
regarding the bill. There are many teachers who are really
concerned with what the legislation will do. She noted she is a
freshman legislator and this is the first time she has heard
about the issue. She said the issue is a really complex issue
and there are many different sides and people who the bill will
affect statewide. Representative Masek said rural Alaska is
completely different from the urban areas. She is afraid the
ramifications that the bill will bring about is going to hurt the
quality of education for our children. Representative Masek said
she would like to see more work done on the bill. We need to do
what is best for the state. She said she is proud of the fact
that the Mat-Su Valley has the highest SAT scores. The quality
of education can be improved, however, she doesn't believe the
bill falls within those lines. She feels there is a need to do
more work on the bill.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the goal for better education in the state is
a goal for the whole committee. He said he appreciates
Representative Masek's concerns and comments.
Number 073
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out the bill had substantial work
done on it in the House HESS Committee. There was a very large
subcommittee where numerous people were involved. The bill was
substantially changed and substantial compromises have already
been made. He said he has problems with certain aspects of the
bill, particularly the judicial review provisions. The bill is
needed to provide the administrations of the various school
districts in the state a tool in which they can manage their
budgets and their personnel. Without the layoff provisions,
there is going to be a major crisis occurring overnight because
the districts will find themselves in a position where their
hands will be tied in managing their budget and personnel
problems. The biggest advantage of the bill would be in the
rural areas.
Number 115
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he must apologize because when the bill was
read across, he saw the word "arbitration" and requested it be
referred to the House Labor and Commerce Committee. He said he
never even look at it and probably shouldn't have made the
request.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the fact is there is only one part of
the bill that is really clear cut and that is the tenure. The
layoff clause is not clear cut at all. There has to be more to
the lay off provision than just saying the board can layoff. How
does it relate to nontenured teachers? He asked if anyone is
going to look at it to approve some kind of a plan besides a
school board who could then just arbitrarily start laying people
off. Is there something that needs to go to the commissioner?
Have they looked at other things? Is it fair to hire
administrators and then layoff teachers? The problems that were
mentioned on the judicial review. He said there is only one part
of the bill he sees is clear cut and dry. Representative Kubina
indicated concern with the layoff provision. He said he would
suspect the layoff provision would cause far more court battles.
There hasn't been any testimony from Legislative Legal Services
to explain the ramifications of what the layoff provision or the
judicial review provision means.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said in the House Judiciary Committee,
there didn't seem to be any indication that this would foster
litigation. Unfortunately, that is the way disputes are
resolved. Whenever there is a new statute that doesn't please
everyone, it more than likely will be tested. Nobody said this
is unconstitutional or this is in violation of an existing case
law that would be struck immediately upon being presented.
Number 180
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 3, line 8, "This section does not
apply to a teacher who has not acquired tenure rights," and said
he thinks it was inserted by the Judiciary Committee. It was
supposed to be a clarifier but to him it is confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained there is another section in
existing law that deals with tenured teacher. He said he wanted
to make sure this wasn't to be held in conflict with that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said when he read this he thought now we're just
hitting the tenured teachers and the nontenured teachers were off
the hook. He said in essence, there is another provision in law
that does cover nontenured teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he doesn't think there is a clause
that says you have to let go of nontenured people before you can
layoff tenured people.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there is nothing in the section that
would conflict with that statement if it is in law some place.
That would be the deciding factor. This section doesn't apply to
nontenured teacher layoff. In other words, he doesn't know what
the requirements of the statute are for laying off a nontenured
teacher. What is being said on line 8 is that whatever it is, it
isn't that the school district has to establish a 3 percent basic
need loss or a loss of attendance. He noted he doesn't know what
it says.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he has the same interpretation as
Representative Kubina. We're talking about a new section. We're
not talking about an existing section. The sentence on line 8
leads him to believe that when basic need is determined under
statute, it decreases by 3 percent or more, and districts may
place teachers in a layoff status. But then when you read the
last sentence, it makes it seem as if when that circumstance
arises, the 3 percent decrease, it would only apply to the
tenured teacher. Representative Elton said he thinks he
understands what the provision was meant to do, but in the
context of the new section, his interpretation is a lot like the
chairman's.
Number 237
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said with the information that
Representative Kubina has furnished, there is no doubt in his
mind that the law which says nontenured teachers must be laid off
before tenured teachers is the driving law on that issue. He
said what line 8 means is defining criteria set up in lines 3
through 7. It is clear that they are not talking about
nontenured teachers, they're talking about tenured teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said that sentence only applies to AS
14.20.177 (a).
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Why couldn't we say, `This paragraph'
then."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Because it goes on to (b) and
(c)."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if they wouldn't want (b) and (c)
to apply to both tenured and nontenured teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that is why it says "section."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to talking about primary,
secondary, seniority and things like that, you don't want to take
those other people into account. He asked if you wouldn't have
to amend the other statute with the same kind of criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "The sponsor of the legislation and
those testifying for it said this section -- whole section
applies to tenured teachers. There is another total section that
deals with nontenured teachers and they wanted to make sure that
this section only applied to tenured teachers."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if (b) and (c) wouldn't have to be
put in the nontenured provisions in the statute if that were to
be balanced.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said this bill doesn't deal with the
nontenured teachers and he would just as soon not open that up.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the committee heard testimony that this
is a problem. He said he doesn't know if this is a problem or
not.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said since there evidently is another section that
covers nontenured teachers, it is probably not as much of a
problem that he had initially thought. He said he wasn't aware
that there was another section.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there is another section that
covers nontenured teachers. He said his understanding was that
the nontenured were covered under contractual provisions and not
under statutory provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA explained there is a nonretention section
that says, "A teacher who has not acquired tenure rights is
subject to nonretention the following school year. (Indisc.)
expression of contract for any cause that the employer determines
adequate." He said you could dump a nontenured teacher for two
years because of anything. You don't even need to give a reason.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA discussed a situation he encountered as a
nontenured teacher.
Number 330
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further debate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Section 6 and said he doesn't
know if it is right or wrong.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 6, line 7, page 4, and said it
refers to arbitration. Since that was removed in the original
bill it should probably read, "attain tenure rights is not
entitled to judicial review if arbitration has been removed."
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would like to know the views of the sponsor
of the bill.
Number 347
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said the committees have worked hard on
the bill and this is the third committee of referral. Some
amendments were made in the HESS Committee. We compromised on
the amendments were made. He said he has heard debate from both
sides and he feels the bill is a good bill that will give some
flexibility to the school districts in the event of declining
revenues. He said he would like to see the bill move forward.
He said he felt discussion was provided and an ample opportunity
was given to all parties throughout the process.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said in light of it being late in the legislative
session and the bill still needs to go to the House floor and
then through the Senate, he would be extremely surprised if the
bill made it to the Governor for his signature. He said he would
suspect that wherever the bill ends up, Representative Ivan would
be willing to work with both sides in coming up with a
compromise.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said his interest is to see the bill pass.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I don't know if this is a good idea
or not, so I'll fess up before I make this suggestion. I wonder,
Representative Ivan, if this would be a possible solution. If we
amended tenure, it's now four years in this bill - I think
Sections 1 and 2, if we amended that to three years, moved
Sections 1 and 2 forward and then worked on the interim on the
layoff and the binding arb or de novo trial or judicial review
provisions in the interim, would that be acceptable? Move it
forward as a simpler bill addressing tenure at three years
perhaps and then keeping the more complicated portions behind for
interim work?
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he presented the bill as it is and he
would like to see it advance and become law as it is.
Number 406
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he moved that on line 7, strike the words
"arbitration or." He asked if there was an objection. Hearing
none, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved CSHB 217(L&C), Version R, out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON AND CHAIRMAN KOTT objected. Chairman Kott
said there is additional work that needs to be done. He asked
Representative Rokeberg to respectfully withdraw his motion.
Number 422
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his motion.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he understands a similar bill was
introduced in the previous two sessions. He said they have not
received anything from NEA-Alaska throughout the committee
process except they explained what was wrong with the bill and
that they didn't agree with it. He said there has not been any
suggested language, changes or negotiations until it reached the
House Labor and Commerce Committee. It has gone through the
committee process as all bills do.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if he knew whether either side has come to
the table and tried to work things out.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he believes that in the HESS
subcommittee, NEA-Alaska was involved in working on the bill. He
said he feels they were given full opportunity to address the
bill.
Number 452
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a five minute at ease at 8:04 p.m.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 8:15 p.m. He
said his intent is to lay HB 217 aside and bring up HB 284.
HB 284 - AK COMMERCIAL FISHING & AGRICULTURE BANK
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced HB 284, "An Act relating to the Alaska
Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank," was before the
committee.
CHERYL SUTTON, Administrative Assistant to Representative Carl E.
Moses, came forward to explain the bill. She said the bill was
sponsored by the House Special Committee on Fisheries. Ms.
Sutton said the committee packets include sectional summaries
from Legislative Legal Services and Alaska Commercial Fishing &
Agriculture Bank (CFAB). She noted CFAB did an excellent job of
doing cross references to the sections of the statute and the
sections of the bill. In addition, there is a sponsor statement,
two zero fiscal notes and numerous letters of support. She said
she would like to add that the numerous letters of support, it
does not represent a small portion of the numbers of letters that
have been sent to Representative Austerman in support of the
bill.
MS. SUTTON explained HB 284 seeks to modify and refit CFAB's
enabling statute to reflect the evolving commercial law and the
present day fishing economy's needs. CFAB was created in 1978
and much has changed in both commercial law and the fishing
economy since that time. There are two significant changes that
would be enacted with the passage of HB 284. First, is permanent
ownership by the state through retirement of all but $1 million
of the state's initial investment of $32 million. Second, the
broadening of the purposes and circumstances for which a
fisherman may use his limited entry permit as collateral. The
intent of the changes is to make CFAB's loan program more
compatible with the needs of the seafood industry. She noted Ed
Crane, President, CFAB, is in attendance to offer testimony and
answer technical questions. Ms. Sutton said it is an 18-page
bill and appears to be very intimidating, but it is not.
Number 500
ED CRANE, PRESIDENT, CFAB, said as Ms. Sutton indicated CFAB was
an effort of the 1978 legislature to approach a form of
privatization of financing of the seafood and agriculture
industries and Alaska. The concept was one which was an effort
to replicate institutions in what is known as a federal farm
credit system in the Lower 48. It was essentially to create a
private financing cooperative which would serve only Alaska
residents and companies, in which ultimately would become self-
sustaining. The state of Alaska invested initially $32 million
as seed capital so that this new institution would have equity.
Over the years, CFAB on the strength and with the use of that
equity has borrowed consistently. They borrow from an
institution called "A Bank For Cooperatives" located in Denver,
to the point where they have at times had over $100 million of
loans outstanding even though there has never been more than $32
million of state capital. In total over the years, they have
made over $600 million in loan advances. The theory was that
over time, the equity owned by borrowing members would be
accumulated and replace the state's equity. Mr. Crane said when
you become a borrower, you must buy stock in CFAB. They do
business only with stockholders and every customer must become a
stockholder. Mr. Crane said as of today, they have a little over
$17 million of money that has been invested by the borrowing
members.
MR. CRANE said another part of the concept is embodied in the
existing statute which said that by the year 2000 or within 20
years of the state's initial investment, which took place in
1980, CFAB must retire or repurchase that stock from the state,
the entire $32 million. As of today, they have retired $22
million of it and there is still $10 million left and five years
to do it in.
MR. CRANE said the most significant thing the bill does is to
modify that requirement so that CFAB will only retire $31 million
of the total $32 million. He said $1 million of state capital
will remain as permanent equity. CFAB will survive with the $1
million of state capital in addition to whatever member capital
is acquired. Mr. Crane said there was a reasons for that. One
is there is an unintended anomaly in the original statute which
says that when the entire $32 million is retired, the statute
lapses. If the statute lapses, there is no CFAB.
MR. CRANE explained the other more significant thing is a large
part of CFAB's service to commercial fishermen and the needs of
commercial fishermen is premised on the fact that CFAB is the
only private lender which has the statutory authority to take a
lien on limited entry permits. No other lender, other than the
state's own fishing loan program, can do that. Because limited
entry permits are such a significant part of any fisherman's
capitalization, it is an increasingly important part of CFAB's
business, as they finance for new permits and use permits as
collateral for loans for other purposes. In an effort to
maintain that special status, CFAB believes it is important to
continue the relationship of the state as an owner with CFAB,
which in turn rationalizes not only that special status but the
other points of relationship between CFAB and the state.
MR. CRANE explained the other points of relationship is the
legislature does have, both under the existing statute and the
proposed revision, the authority to direct the legislative
auditor to make any sort of audit on CFAB which it chooses. It
was done several years ago. In addition to that, state bank
examiners in the Department of Commerce and Economic Development
examine CFAB each year. It is recorded and submitted to the
legislature and the Administration. Mr. Crane explained the
legislative auditor has access to CFAB's independent outside
auditors. Finally, the Governor of Alaska appoints two of CFAB's
seven directors. The other five are elected from among the
borrowing members.
MR. CRANE said CFAB is strange in structure. He noted the state
Supreme Court has on occasion commented in effect that CFAB is a
little bit further removed from the state than the Alaska
Railroad and some other institutions.
MR. CRANE said the change he referred to is in Section 9 of the
bill, which is somewhat convoluted language. It does not
specifically mention $32 million, but what it does say is that it
continues to require CFAB to repurchase all the shares of the
stock owned by the state except for $1 million, whatever amount
exceeds $1 million.
MR. CRANE explained the remainder of the bill is essentially a
revision of CFAB's statute, 44.81. He said there is much that
wasn't changed. He referred to Sections 10 through 26 and said
they relate to the experience CFAB has had over the past 15
years, and some of the inconsistencies and gaps that they have
encountered in the existing statute. There is also some
conformity with some of the ways fishing economics have changed
and the variety of laws affecting commercial lenders. Mr. Crane
said there are broader powers in respect to permit financing and
that is found in Section 20. He said he would be happy to answer
questions.
Number 630
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if CFAB is the entity that makes the
agriculture loans also.
MR. CRANE indicated it was. He noted in practice, and if you
exclude the certain kinds of timber loans that we classify as
agriculture, they do very little in the way of farm loans. He
said he believes they only have one loan on the books.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Crane what CFAB's relationship is with
the federal farm credit system.
MR. CRANE said CFAB is a borrower of what is called the National
Bank for Cooperatives, which is one of the institutions of the
federal farm credit system. He noted there is a variety of
institutions in that system and each of them have undergone quite
a few changes over the last few years.
TAPE 95-51, SIDE A
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "...substantive change I wanted to
note for the other committee members and one that I thought a lot
about and we had some discussion on it in the previous committee
was there is an expansion of power for CFAB into getting into --
I hesitate to use the word `venture capital' because it's not --
it allows the bank to acquire an equity interest in businesses or
enterprises that will advance commercial fishing and agriculture
in the state. At first I was a little bit bothered by that but
the more I think about it, I think the better I feel about it. I
think the bank has an extensive history, especially over the last
eight or nine years, and has demonstrated that they have the
ability to do that kind of stuff, and frankly, I think it is
probably good for those two economic sectors. So, I have no
problems with it and I'm prepared to move the bill with
individual recommendations if there are no further questions."
Number 022
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the eventual goal is to devest
that interest.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that is probably the goal. He gave an
example of the bank foreclosing on a fish cannery and not having
the ability to operate that cannery. He said that is one
provision that he isn't sure how it evolved. The second
provision does allow them to acquire equity interest.
Representative Elton said he would guess that the best picture
would be a business decision made by his board of directors.
MR. CRANE said what Representative Elton is referring to is on
page 8, Section 17, subparagraph 14 which addresses subsidiaries.
That is an example of the type of situation that they have run
into. Several years ago, CFAB acquired, through foreclosure, a
processing plant on Ugamak Bay near Kodiak Island. They could
not find a buyer but found a company that wished to lease and
operate it for at least a season. CFAB had a great deal of
concern about exposing the total bank assets to whatever
liabilities might arise from being the landlord of an operating
food factory. So CFAB created a subsidiary and incorporated it
under the general business statute and transferred the plant to
it and passed the paperwork back and forth to try and legally
insulate the bank from whatever might occur. He noted nothing
did occur. CFAB's attorneys said the statute doesn't say they
could have a subsidiary. The statute is one which will always be
strictly interpreted that says you can do this, this, this and
this. It doesn't mention that you maybe can't do that. Mr.
Crane said that is the genesis of that particular paragraph.
MR. CRANE said another thing the CFAB has considered, which would
have relevance, is the documentation from marine mortgages and
Coast Guard documentation and registration of vessels. Now there
is the processing of individual fishing quotas regarding
transfers and applications which are fairly technical. CFAB has
developed some expertise in the area and they have thought about
creating a subsidiary, at least on paper, to offer those services
to commercial banks and other institutions that would have
occasion to use them.
MR. CRANE referred to paragraph 15 and said venture capital does
seem like a much grander concept than anything they have interest
in. This is inspired because quite frequently CFAB is approached
by fishermen, groups of fishermen or people (indisc.) on the
street who have an idea for some type of value added processing
or a new product. He said there are times when it looks like
there might be some potential but those ideas may not be
bankable. They are not anything that would meet the standards
for credit and there is a very clear and definite higher level of
risk than is appropriate for a lender. CFAB has looked at many
of those ideas and have thought it might be worthwhile to perhaps
invest some of CFAB's money, not as a lender but with full
knowledge that it is "X" dollars of capital that you're prepared
to put at risk just as any venture capitalist does. The
objective would be to divest it. It is purely to act as a
development institution. Mr. Crane explained CFAB is not a large
institution; their total footing is a little less than $40
million. He said he isn't talking about investing millions of
dollars but perhaps several thousand.
MR. CRANE said, "We do spend money, not a lot of money, but we do
spend money each year to advertise, to support things like
fishing seminars and other things that go on for commercial
fishermen. We see this really as potentially another form of
that. One of our directors, former Senator Eliason of Sitka, is
one of CFAB's directors and he did appear before the Fisheries
Committee and Representative Elton posed that question to him as
to the extent the board had discussed this particular point and
if the board was comfortable. I believe he was quite positive in
his affirmation there."
Number 166
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA made a motion to pass HB 284 out of the
House Labor and Commerce Committee with individual
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of a question.
He asked Mr. Crane what the equity portion of CFAB's balance
sheet is.
MR. CRANE said approximately $27 million to $28 million. He
noted that is $10 million of state equity and a little over $17
million of members' equity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to subsection 15 being the
venture capital provision and asked if it was a new provision.
MR. CRANE responded that is new.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there have been loans against
limited entry permits. MR. CRANE responded they have given loans
for 15 years.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what kind of a loan to equity ratio
they use on those types of loans. He said there is volatile
pricing.
MR. CRANE said there is volatile pricing and for that reason,
they do not approach it in terms of loan to equity. He said
their loans are based on projected cash flow and the borrower's
ability to service the debt. That may mean they will lend a
person 82 percent of what he is paying for the permit or they may
lend 45 percent. He said they don't have a flat standard.
Number 200
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.
Number 201
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to move HB 284 from the
House Labor and Commerce Committee with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note. He asked if there was
further objection. Hearing none, HB 284 was passed out of
committee.
HB 217 - TEACHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS & RETIREMENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee had HB 217 before them once
again. He noted he has received some proposed amendments. He
asked Representative Ivan if he wanted to make some additional
comments or offer suggestions regarding the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN noted he was in the hospital as the bill
passed through some of the committees of referral. He asked that
Tom Wright be recognized by the committee to discuss the bill.
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan Ivan,
said one of the things discussed was the judicial review, de novo
trials. One suggestion that was made, which they wouldn't have
any objection to, is having the judicial review right after the
decision to nonretain. If the school board makes a decision to
nonretain, rather than having that hearing and rather than going
to de novo and re-creating a whole new record, they would go
right straight to superior court. It will eliminate one step of
the process. It will go from the decision by the school board to
nonretain right to superior court. There would be a record
created that would only have to be done one time.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there has been any feedback from
any of the groups. It would seem to him that the initial
argument that might be advanced against that would be that you
have a local school board and you're taking away some of the
opportunity that they have to be involved in the process.
MR. WRIGHT said he spoke briefly with Mr. Rose and he can tell
the committee NEA's position. Mr. Wright said there was
testimony that the principal makes the decision, he gives his
opinion to the superintendent, the superintendent makes a
decision, then the school board makes the decision. Mr. Wright
said what he heard from NEA is that they feel the cards are
stacked on one side of the deck. He said what he is saying is de
novo is a too expensive proposition to keep on the books. We
don't have the money we had when de novo was established. Lets
eliminate one of those steps and go right to superior court. The
record will have to be established but it will not have to be re-
created.
Number 275
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he supports the suggested amendment
and he would be happy to offer it as such. He said it alleviates
some of the questions he had about due process in Section 6.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if we are then going to do away with
Section 14.20.180 and go straight to a de novo trial.
MR. WRIGHT said basically without that one step.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the step being taken out is 14.20.180
which would be the step before judicial review.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the process currently in the bill is
an administrative hearing, objective or not, and a judicial
review as opposed to a de novo trial. The option is if that
isn't satisfactory to the individual teacher, they can go
directly to a de novo trial.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he doesn't have a problem with the
conceptual amendment. He said he would like to hear, on the
record, from the different groups what their positions are.
Number 331
CARL ROSE, Association of Alaska School Boards, asked
Representative Kubina to repeat the question.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to a teacher who has tenure rights
and is nonretained and said the employer gives the notification
of dismissal. If they're laid off, they will have the choice of
appealing to the school board or to the superior court.
Number 340
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if the teacher elects to have a review
by the school board and they are still nonretained, their appeal
from that is a non de novo judicial review. Their option though
is to skip over the administrative process and go directly to
trial.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the section doesn't deal with layoffs
as he reads it. It deals with dismissals.
MR. ROSE said, "For the record, I could agree with that. I would
agree with what has been said here if people feel that they
cannot get an impartial hearing from the board that renders a
decision and chooses to go directly to court. They think that's
fair - fine. If they choose to have the hearing at the local
level and establish the record and have that record reviewed,
that's fine. I think it's a choice the teacher should be able to
make."
MR. MARSHALL said they have consistently argued that whatever the
appeal step is, should be unbiased.
Number 366
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a conceptual amendment that has been
offered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved the conceptual amendment.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to move the conceptual
amendment that provides the option either/or, skipping over the
administrative hearing and going directly into a de novo trial or
what is currently contained in Section 6. Chairman Kott asked if
there was an objection. Hearing none, Amendment 5 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Ivan or Mr. Wright if they had
additional recommendations.
MR. WRIGHT said he had one which he briefly discussed with Mr.
Rose. One of the concerns in the layoff provisions is there is
some uncertainty whether or not the layoffs will take place after
there are no nontenured teachers. There seems to be a question
of whether or not layoffs can take place when there are still
nontenured teachers within that school. He asked if there was
the possibility of incorporating language that nontenured
teachers will be laid off first prior to tenured teachers. He
noted that has been the intention throughout the bill process.
Mr. Wright said he knows that brings up some questions relating
to primary and secondary teachers. We don't want a secondary
teacher going to primary if they aren't endorsed in that category
and vis a versa.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted the terms in the bill are incorrect.
It should be elementary and not primary.
MR. WRIGHT said their intention is that the layoffs would take
place after the nontenured teachers. He said he thought that was
stated, but to clear the concept up, a sentence should be
inserted to clarify that.
Number 410
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I think, and again, I would say
conceptually but one option for this would be to put -- remove
line 8 and put it at the beginning after `layoffs' and before
`(a)' and let it say, `This section does not apply to a teacher
who has not acquired tenure rights,' and then add some kind of
language to say, `nor does it supersede the provision of'
whatever that specific cite is for the other statute that says
nontenured teachers will be laid off before tenured teachers."
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he doesn't think there is actually a
provision for layoffs.
MR. WRIGHT said Representative Kubina is right. This is a whole
new section in the layoff provision. He said he understood that
nontenured teachers would the first to undergo any action should
there be fiscal constraints or a decrease in school attendance.
He noted the primary/secondary options should also be defined.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what the terms are for laying off a
nontenured teacher.
An unidentified speaker said there wouldn't be.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said there needs to be a clear statement
that says nontenured teachers will be nonretained or laid off,
prior to tenured teachers being considered for layoff.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested changing line 8 to say, "This
section does not apply unless...." He asked if the past practice
was that nontenured teachers are let go, within a school, before
there is a layoff in that school.
MR. ROSE said it is district wide. He said the appropriate terms
are you nonretain a nontenured teacher and you lay off tenured
teachers. He said that is what we're trying to provide here
because the law is silent on how to reduce staff.
Number 445
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said this section does not apply until
there are no remaining nontenured teachers in the district.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would move that conceptually.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said on page 3, line 8, insert something to the
effect that this section does not apply until there are no
remaining nontenured teachers within the same district and
classification.
MR. ROSE suggested saying something to the effect that layoff for
tenured teachers cannot be invoked until you've exhausted all
nontenured teachers within the district.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if that would be regardless of a requirement
to fill an obligation to teach a certain course.
MR. ROSE said he thinks there may be one exception and that may
be special education. He said that may be one area where the
certification will be required.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted Alaska is very unique in that we have
many small communities. You can't strengthen a law too much or
it could be too restrictive on a district.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if there is a need to exempt special
education teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said there are certain requirements in the
law that you have to have certification in special education to
teach.
Number 487
MR. ANDERSON interjected that the reality of how the system works
is you lay the people off and then call them back; it is called
recall. You recall the people in the areas that you need. If
you lay off all the nontenured teachers and you need five special
education teachers, you recall the special education teachers
even though they may be lower in seniority status than someone
else, because that is the person you need for the job. He noted
this happened in Juneau last year. Every special education
teacher was recalled into the Juneau School District this year.
They also hired an additional special education teacher who
wasn't laid off in spite of the fact that there were still people
on the layoff list.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said special education is the only place
you do that because the law requires a certification.
Number 503
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to amend page 3, line 8, to say that
this section does not apply unless all nontenured teachers have
been nonretained in the district. He said the bill drafters
could put that in the proper form.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to Amendment 6.
Hearing none, Amendment 6 was adopted.
Number 514
MR. WRIGHT referred to the question of what triggers the layoff
and said he doesn't know. Original language in the bill said,
"Substantial decrease in revenues." That did not work. He said
they wanted to find a mechanism in place that would take into
account local, state and federal funding. The only mechanism
they found to do that was under the basic need provision which
takes into account all three funding mechanisms. He said this
was the only mechanism he found that describes what was
originally called "substantial."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the testimony in Juneau where a
witness had big problems with the 3 percent figure. He asked
about lowering the percentage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated he had the same thought.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the problem with the 3 percent is those
districts who have been responsibly funding to their cap are the
ones that are probably going to suffer the most. He said he
would like time to think about this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 3, lines 21 through 25,
paragraph (d) and said you would be moving local control. He
asked why we need that.
Number 557
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he doesn't think the paragraph is
necessary. He said he doesn't think that contracts entered into
after the effective date of this law may be anything but
consistent with this law.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if the Juneau School District found a
better way of coming to a trigger, this section would preclude
them from adopting that.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said through the negotiation process, if a
district reached a different conclusion than what is stated in
any of the paragraphs, we have precluded them from doing that by
including the paragraph. He said you can't write a statute that
changes an existing contract, but every statute you write may not
be contradicted by a future contract.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON read from line 24, "...bargaining agreement
entered into between a school district or regional educational
attendance area and a bargaining organization representing
teachers on or after the effective date of this section may not
be inconsistent with the provisions of this section." We're
saying if Juneau comes up with a better trigger mechanism, they
can't use that because it would be inconsistent with the trigger
mechanism that is in paragraph (a).
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said it is sort of like the grievance
procedure. All collective bargaining teacher contracts have to
have a grievance procedure with binding arbitration for the terms
of the contract. So the grievance procedure may be somewhat
different in each contract but they all have to have one. You
can still negotiate layoff provisions within a contract as long
as they are not inconsistent, but you can fine tune them
immensely.
Number 578
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there is anyone that thinks that
deleting (d) would change a thing.
MR. WRIGHT said he has spoken to the drafter of the bill and he
thought it is consistent to have (d) in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said when the bill comes back with the
conceptual amendments, it would be very helpful to have the
drafter in attendance.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that request will be made.
Number 597
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he still has four amendments for the
section. He suggesting hearing from the two groups present about
their thoughts.
Number 603
MR. ROSE said there are two concepts as to what would trigger the
layoff. The suggestion was that there be third party
verification and a whole bunch of hoops that we might have to
jump through to validate the need. He said he objected to those
because we're elected officials and the range of policy that we
deal in requires that we have some latitude. Mr. Rose said he is
the one that came up with the idea that we address something that
we can prove we can show. So we came up with the 5 percent
trigger, but then we found that 5 percent trigger was a lot
farther away. He said there has to be some accountability for
the public. Mr. Rose said if a trigger is set that is too low
and there isn't a fair threshold, then there is a lot of
commotion at the local level. He believes the 3 percent figure
is probably a good idea and is something that can be readily
identified. He said it would be fine to add language that it
needs to be verified by the commissioner of the Department of
Education (DOE). Mr. Rose said now we have something we can
verify. He referred to substantial and asked who verifies
substantial. Saying 3 percent, verified by a third party which
would be the commissioner of the DOE, would be a good idea for
his organization.
MR. WRIGHT said the 3 percent figure at first was an arbitrary
figure. He said he went to the DOE and asked them to do an
analysis, based on FY 96 basic need, as to what a 3 percent
decrease would look like. For some districts, it is
substantial.... (END OF TAPE)
TAPE 95-51, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. WRIGHT continued ...while the bigger school districts are
going to have to take a hugh hit before this triggers.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if the legislature decides to "flat
fund," the foundation unit will drop to about $59,000. He asked
if that alone determines basic need. What happens if the
legislature does that and then Anchorage Assembly, for example,
reduces a school district request by $3 million. If the flat
funding didn't do it, would that trigger the lowering of the....
He said what bothers him about the trigger mechanism is that
outside forces are being imposed on a district. A community,
even though they're not at the cap, could under fund and then
you'd end up laying off teachers. He said he isn't sure he is
comfortable with that.
There was discussion regarding the formula being used for
reaching the cap and how it would compare between Anchorage and
Pelican.
Number 101
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA explained tenure was designed to keep
politics out of the retention of teachers. The whole point of
tenure was to take politics out of it. At times, education can
be a real political football.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to his district of Valdez and said
its 3 percent is $156,000. Because of Sheffield's accelerated
depreciation of the pipeline and terminal, we are at our cap and
are reducing the city share, by law, by $200,000 a year. The
fact is also that the school district has a $3 million cushion in
that they have been planning for this. There really is no reason
for them to start laying off tenured teachers when they have the
money in the bank. The 3 percent doesn't take in enough of the
universe.
Number 137
MR. MARSHALL said, "We proposed I guess back in HESS and
Judiciary that the lay off provision be for -- where you have
decrease in school attendance on line 5, add in `or because of a
financial emergency in the school district.' We went through the
drill of verification. We wanted it verified by a third - you
know - some third party. You may get away from trying -- because
I think you're going to have great difficulty in getting a
percentage that everybody can walk away from the table from. I
mean because in a (indisc.) the context of trying to figure out
what kind of funding school districts are going to get for FY 96
right now. We're anxious because we know there are two bills out
there that will make this thing happen. I mean the reality of
the situation is if, you know, the House bill or the Senate bill
goes through, we're looking at an instructional unit that is
prorated down to about this area. We also have anxiety about
what's going to go on next year when we come here and we deal
with the Contract for America and the cuts that they've made to
schools. I would rather, you know us -- or I would like to
suggest that we look at, you know, a financial emergency -- and
we did craft an amendment -- and I guess that our anxiety is
that, you know, we would like to know that it is a legitimate
loss in money and we have indicated here -- and we're just saying
that the district attempts to negotiate, you know, cuts within
the budget. If you put a proposal on the table in your
management and we don't negotiate, you made the attempt. That's
all we're saying. Now if we haven't got enough sense to pick up
on the fact there is a problem and we better, you know, talk
because I think the dialogue on the local level is critical
then... You know, we've made a tragic mistake.
"The second is that, you know, somehow teachers, in this case,
tenured teachers aren't taking the brunt of the attack. I mean
you heard I don't know who it was that said, `Well, you know we
had a financial emergency but we hired two or three
administrators or we bought a new car or something. I'm
exaggerating on the car. I mean we'd like to see that -- you
know there is (indisc--coughing) you prorate a reduction in a
school district. I mean it's not teachers taking it all, but you
look at administration, you look at school board operating costs
and, you know, laying it out there. Create a committee, do
whatever to see if you can bring those costs down.
"Then we've said the layoff of tenured teachers are necessary
notwithstanding the district's attempt to negotiate in its
reduction in administrative and school board costs. It's
necessary, you've got to do it, fine, it's done. And then we
even threw in a provision that the necessary savings can't be
achieved by laying off nontenured teachers and go after tenured
teachers. And I think if you get the verifications in -- and I
think you'd want that, I mean you want folks to fully understand
there is no big grandiose boogie bear plan to get you. We have a
problem. Here's the problem. Here's what we're doing. And if
you could put financial emergency in, put some tests in, I think
this section -- whole section is fine."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he wouldn't have any great concerns
except the process, in his mind, should not get into other
financial decisions that the district has made.
Number 222
MR. WRIGHT referred to an amendment he thinks was offered by Mr.
Anderson in the House Judiciary Committee. He said one of the
provisions was exigent circumstances. Mr. Wright said to him
there was no clear cut definition of exigent circumstance. That
to him meant the same as substantial decrease. He said he thinks
a solution can be reached as far as a school district budget.
For instance, if there is a reserve in that school district's
budget, that can be looked into. He said he doesn't think other
budgets outside of the school district budget should be
considered.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted other budgets outside the school
district budget, in many cases, can't be applied because many of
the communities are already at the cap.
Number 240
MR. ROSE said if you have enough checks and balances, you don't
need a school board anymore. He said there are elected officials
to provide oversight for the school district and he believes they
need to be called to task. We don't control our revenue and we
build our budgets in public. The public process is there. You
can have a number of verifications and triggers but he would
encourage the legislators not to look past the local levels of
governance. He continued to discuss public process.
MR. ROSE referred to the way the foundation works and said when
you talk about basic need, you're talking about instructional
units times $61,000, times the area cost differential. That's
basic need. When you talk about state aid, you back out local
contribution and you back out 874. That gives you state aid.
The whole idea is that every local municipality is to pay a
minimum, required by law. If you go below that minimum, you
don't qualify. So you have to pay that portion. The locals can
only go up, they can't go below the minimum. Mr. Rose said that
is why he thinks basic need was selected instead of state aid.
MR. ROSE said the only thing he didn't take into consideration
was the testimony about the time lines. If you did have a
student count and it was determined that you were deficient the 3
percent, but you've already entered into contracts, that creates
another problem but at least you have a mechanism to address the
decrease in revenue.
MR. ROSE said he would ask the committee not to look past the
locally elected officials and local governments as they should be
called upon to perform. He referred to the hoops and
verifications and said he thinks it would call into question the
performance of the locally elected officials who can be replaced
if they don't perform.
Number 293
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he would always assume that whatever
is going to happen is going to happen when the contracts come out
at the end of the year.
MR. ROSE said he hadn't thought about the time lines. He thought
the 3 percent is a good figure. He said if this is a problem for
a particular school district, perhaps a supplemental is the way
you would look at that. It would probably require a supplemental
to get through the year if they didn't have the funding.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said what we're doing is changing the law,
a protection that was built in for teachers. They're giving up
that protection. This is giving them an out from that
protection, basically a guarantee of a job. There are reasons
that is not going to be there. Representative Kubina said he is
uncomfortable not having something in place so that politics
can't take place. He noted he isn't sure what that is.
Number 321
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he isn't sure they can agree on a
trigger mechanism. He referred to Section 5, the trigger
mechanisms and everything else, and said the only reason it is
needed is because the legislature isn't meeting their duty of
fully funding education. He said the legislature isn't adjusting
for inflation more than once every decade.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Wright if he would have an objection of
inserting the language after the 3 percent, "previous year as
verified by the commissioner."
MR. WRIGHT said that is fine.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the 3 percent is the problem.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he realizes that, but if the 3 percent is
included, it certainly should be verified by a third party.
MR. ROSE asked what is the threshold for an emergency.
MR. MARSHALL said he would use financial emergency in the bill
rather than the exigency provision that was in the House HESS and
Judiciary versions. Then you do provide the steps when you go
through the verification process. He said we're dealing with an
issue where we don't have school districts that are getting less
aid from one district to another unless you want to deal with
Adak. They had a financial emergency and they're gone. Mr.
Marshall said they are being asked to somehow make a
determination that they don't have a clear picture of. He said
he doesn't know that he can give a clear definition of a
financial emergency. If there is a financial emergency, let the
parties sit down and show where a district is actually losing
money.
Number 372
MR. ROSE said if you say fiscal emergency or exigency, he can see
people bringing in issues such as lack of inflation proofing. He
indicated someone could say we are fiscally strapped because of a
lack of inflation proofing, because of fixed costs, plus we've
lost a few dollars here. He said he would think a 3 percent
trigger is better. When you say fiscal emergency, you're making
a case for reducing. He said people can get real creative. Mr.
Rose said he would like to be able to deal with something that is
identifiable and agreeable. If we have something that is
identifiable and agreeable, there is a place from which we can
start.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the situation with Adak was a
financial windfall. He said he had an Adak board member lobbying
him this week and they don't even have kids anymore. He
questioned why they are spending state dollars lobbying
legislators. He said we know they have about $3 million in the
bank because of closing down. When you don't have kids anymore
or less students, we don't need any of this. There are
provisions in the bill for dismissing tenured teachers when
you've got less students. That is not the problem. The same
will be with Fort Greely. They will get federal impact aid.
They're guaranteed not to lose more than 25 percent of their
foundation. So that's not the problem. You may want early
retirements or something so that you don't dump them. The
problem is pretty much everybody else and it is very slight. He
asked if he was wrong.
Number 404
MR. ROSE said he thinks the hold harmless clause is an aid for
most of the school districts. In the case of Sitka when they
lost their mill, they qualified for that hold harmless clause.
He said that was a real help and he doesn't know if they had to
lay anyone off. If there is something we can agree on that is
identifiable and understandable, they would be agreeable. When
you say an emergency, what does an emergency mean?
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggested saying, "A financial emergency as
certified by the commissioner." The commissioner is a
noninvolved professional that could apply different criteria in a
REAA than he/she might apply in Anchorage or Juneau.
MR. ROSE said he thinks the state is diverse enough where maybe
that is the only (indisc.).
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would advance that as a conceptual
amendment.
MR. MARSHALL said the language on financial emergency verified by
the commissioner of the DOE is much better than (indisc.). Mr.
Marshall said on line 3 it would say, "A decrease in school
attendance or because of a financial emergency as verified by the
commissioner of Education."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he has difficulty with this.
There was discussion regarding the wording.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if they wouldn't again be removing local
control.
MR. ROSE said by including the 3 percent trigger, you're losing
local control. He said they would rather be able to make these
decisions and stand accountable, but it appears it is either a 3
percent trigger which is kind of uniform for an entire state, or
something that is verifiable by the commissioner which provides
us to address the diversity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he thought the local boards could
cook their budget. He asked if that isn't some portion of local
control even if you have a numeric standard.
MR. ROSE said if Representative Rokeberg is talking about the
commissioner of the DOE verifying, he would imagine he is talking
about the finance director having access to all of the state
audits. He said he thinks to invoke a lay off, you probably have
to satisfy an extraordinary standard. Mr. Rose said he believes
school boards are prepared to do that at the local level without
the trigger, but it doesn't appear that is acceptable.
MR. WRIGHT said we're not going to come up with one standard that
is going to fit Anchorage or one standard that will fit Pelican.
He said maybe this is the best solution, but he would make the
decision nonappealable. Once the commissioner makes the
decision, the decision stands.
Number 495
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA questioned what the amendment would be.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said on page 3, lines 6 and 7 would be
strickened. Line 5 would read "...decrease in school attendance
or because of a financial emergency as verified by the
commissioner of the Department of Education that is
nonappealable."
Number 504
MR. MARSHALL asked how they could deny a parent or NEA-Alaska the
right to go to court and say that they don't agree there is an
emergency. These are public schools.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained he is dealing with that exact
issue on another major piece of legislation. What you can't do
under due process is deny anybody to bring a cause of action on a
constitutional issue. Therefore, if there is a constitutional
issue about denial of schools, etc., in education which is in the
Alaska State Constitution, you probably would be able to build a
cause of action. On the other hand, by stipulating
nonappealability in the statute, they will look at a higher
standard as to what forms a cause of action. It would have to be
a pure constitutional issue.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to move Amendment 7 which
adds after the word "because" on line 5, "of a financial
emergency as verified by the commissioner of the Department of
Education", and delete lines 6 and 7. There being no objection,
Amendment 7 was adopted.
Number 548
MR. MARSHALL referred to page 3, line 17 of the layoff provision
and asked if it is permissive to say, "...a school district may
give preference..."
MR. WRIGHT said they would prefer "shall."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said by leaving it permissive, it gives
the district the flexibility rather than to mandate.
Number 562
MR. MARSHALL asked if this could be bargained.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he thinks so.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said as long as it stays within the
parameters, he would suspect most school districts will try to
bargain.
Number 570
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would move Amendment 8. He
explained it would change the tenure to three years. He said he
feels very strongly that if an administrator can't decide in two
years, the board has a problem with the administrator. This is
compromise language that makes it three years instead of four
year.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected to Amendment 8. He said with all
the testimony he has heard over the last two years, it is clear
to him that the PTAs, school board associations and
administrators want (indisc.).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would contemplate an amendment to
raise it from four years to five years.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Rokeberg if he is moving an
amendment to the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he
wouldn't do that at this time.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the original bill had five years.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there is no doubt in his mind that if
the committee put it to three years, there would be an amendment
on the House floor to put it back to two years.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thinks that the committee should set
a number that they can agree to. He said we should come to a
resolution that the committee thinks is best.
TAPE 95-52, SIDE A
Number 006
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the committee can bring up all kinds of
experiences and issues, but what he thinks they are doing is
making a substantive change in changing tenure from two years.
He said he would rather stair step up than leap up and start
falling back. Representative Elton said the tenure problem he is
hearing about is not about new teachers, it is about teachers who
are in the system and have been in the system for ten years. The
bill has nothing to do with that.
Number 028
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would like to point out for the
record that he received a fax from Kathi Gillespie, President,
Anchorage Council on PTAs, pointing out that there are 11 states
that have no tenure provisions whatsoever. He said this is a
trend because over the last four years, four states have
eliminated tenure for contractual based performance.
Representative Rokeberg said the important thing is we are going
in the right direction in following a national trend.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 8. Representatives
Kubina, Elton and Masek voted in support of the amendment.
Representatives Kott, Porter and Rokeberg voted against the
amendment. So Amendment 8 failed to be adopted.
Number 072
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT withdrew the remaining two amendments he put
on the table because they cover the judicial review section.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendments 9 and 10 have been withdrawn.
Number 079
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA moved Amendment 11.
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected so Representative Kubina could explain it
to him.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA read, "A decrease in school revenue causing
a financial emergency. The commissioner of Education shall
verify their emergency. The commissioner must also certify the
school district has done everything possible to reduce costs
including reducing administrative costs, administrative travel,
and school travel, lobbyist fees, etc. Nonessential costs." The
whole point of the amendment is to make a school district, when
they file something with the commissioner saying they're in an
emergency, that they are not just looking at teachers, but are
looking at their overall.... Representative Kubina said to him
it makes no sense to pay for things that are not related to
teaching kids and lay off teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Rose if his association is a
school board expense or is he a lobbyist.
MR. ROSE explained about 42 percent of their revenue is derived
from dues and the rest is generated through entrepreneur
(indisc.).
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the dues would be considered an
administrative or a school board expense.
MR. ROSE responded a school board expense.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated he would oppose the amendment.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it probably would induce more litigation.
Number 133
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said there are a lot of things a school
district does spend money on. He said he believes there needs to
be a statement that whatever a school district is going to submit
to the commissioner needs to state that the school district has
looked at reducing expenses in the district and not just at
teachers. He said Representative Porter's language was added
regarding the financial emergency. He suggested the second
sentence read, "The commissioner must certify that the district
has done everything possible to reduce costs."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the wording "everything possible to
reduce costs" could constitute firing the janitors. He noted it
wasn't his language, it was the language he heard everybody agree
to. Changing it now seems to be redundantly unnecessary.
Representative Porter said he would not support the amendment in
any form.
MR. WRIGHT said he thinks it will go into the wrong section of
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA agreed, and said everyone knows where it
was supposed to go.
Number 170
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA withdrew Amendment 11.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were further amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he has further amendments but they are
on the judicial review portion of the bill. He said he will hold
them.
Number 193
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any further amendments for HB
217. There were none. Chairman Kott said a new committee
substitute would be written and would be before the committee the
following Monday.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked that the drafter of the bill be in
attendance.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|