HB 298-LAYOFF OF TENURED TEACHERS  8:05:47 AM CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 298, "An Act relating to school districts; and relating to layoff plans for tenured teachers." [Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 3/28/16, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 298, Version 29-LS1372\W, Glover, 3/24/16.] 8:05:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 29-LS1372\H, Wayne/Glover, 3/31/16, as the working document. Without objection Version H was before the committee. 8:07:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, said that the intent of HB 298 is not to jeopardize Alaska's strong tenure rights for teachers. The provisions and rights for teacher tenure are contained in entirely different statutes than the one to which the proposed committee substitute (CS) applies. She cited and synopsized: AS 14.20.150 regards acquisition and reacquisition of tenure rights; AS 14.20.155 is the effect of tenure rites; AS 14.20.158 contains the continued contract provisions; and AS 14.20.160 addresses the loss of tenure right. She emphasized: This is important to this bill because ... this is the statute that stipulates a teacher layoff status, as covered in HB 298, does not lose their tenure rights. 8:09:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE TILTON continued to describe the related statutes: AS 14.20.165 is the restoration of tenure rights; AS 14.20.170 discusses reasons for dismissal; AS 14.20.175 addresses non-retention; and AS 14.20.177 provides for reduction in force, which is the statute proposed for amendment under HB 298. 8:10:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said the CS addresses the concerns that were expressed through testimony, and the possibility that districts might apply the layoff provision in an indiscriminant fashion. She paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The 29th Legislature is considering a wide range of measures intended to give our municipalities and school districts greater flexibility to address budget shortfall (local control), this is one such measure. When I sponsored this bill, I reflected on circumstances in businesses that I am involved in. I have had to make the difficult decision to let employees go, often valuable ones that I consider friends, because either the business didn't have sufficient revenue or they lacked the skills necessary to move into a consolidated position. This is the very same situation Alaska's school districts are facing. I listened carefully to the testimony of our teachers last week and came up with a compromise. By putting sideboards on HB298 to ensure and give teachers comfort that school districts could NOT use the layoff statute in an indiscriminate fashion. I believe the amendment before the committee achieves that balance. I very much value Alaska's teachers, but I value our kids more. It is essential that we allow school districts to make those surgical management decisions to ensure that the teachers with the appropriate credentials are the ones instructing our most precious commodity - your children - your grandchildren - our students. 8:11:46 AM HEATH HILLYARD, Staff, Representative Cathy Tilton, Alaska State Legislature, directed attention to the CS and said the original approach was to eliminate the two existing triggers; one dealing with school attendance and the other with basic need. The CS retains both of those provisions, previously proposed for deletion, and inserts a third trigger that encompasses the concerns expressed during testimony and adheres more closely to the sponsor's intent. He directed attention to the proposed CS, page 1, lines 9-13, which read as follows: (3) the school district employs  (A) more tenured teachers who are qualified and  available to teach in a specific program or subject  area than the district needs; and  (B) an insufficient number of certificated  teachers qualified to teach in another program or  subject area. MR. HILLYARD said this trigger is numerically driven, doesn't necessarily result in a net loss of teachers, and, under certain circumstances, allows a teacher to transfer between positions. 8:13:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how the layoff status of a tenured teacher effects the portability of their tenure. MR. HILLYARD said any teacher in layoff status does not lose their tenure rights. He cited statute proposed for amending, AS 14.20.177(c), which reads as follows: Sec. 14.20.177. Reductions in force. (c) Except as provided in this subsection, a school district may place a tenured teacher on layoff status only after the district has given notice of nonretention to all nontenured teachers. However, a school district may retain a nontenured teacher and place on layoff status a tenured teacher if there is no tenured teacher in the district who is qualified to replace the nontenured teacher. 8:14:41 AM MR. HILLYARD stressed that the effort is to protect tenure rights while allowing flexibility to the districts. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the length of the layoff status effects tenure. MR. HILLYARD responded, "No." 8:15:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that this bill will allow districts to replace teachers, whether there is a reduction in staff or not. Further, the bill modifies AS 14.20.177(a), and he referred to the CS, page 1, lines [3]-5, which read as follows: * Section 1. AS 14.20.177(a) is amended to read: (a) A school district may implement a layoff plan under this section if it is necessary for the district to reduce the number of tenured teachers because REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for an explanation of how this allows districts to replace teachers, as well as to place qualified teachers appropriately, whether or not there is a reduction in staff. He pointed out that the law being modified is specific to a layoff plan that only applies to reduction of staff. MR. HILLYARD deferred. 8:17:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report the proposed (CS) for HB 298, Version 29-LS1372\H, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 8:18:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER objected, and stated that the CS may not align with the statute as expected. Additionally, he maintained that the CS requires further vetting. 8:18:59 AM CHAIR KELLER said the bill is not about reduction of force. 8:19:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said the intent of the proposed CS was clearly explained: a trigger mechanism exists, the triggers no longer appear to be effective under certain circumstances, and this bill alleviates that situation. 8:20:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER maintained his objection, and said this bill does not provided for a collaborative process. He agreed that problems exist, however, districts are responsible for maintaining an effective teaching staff, as well as other operations. Some of the facilities that have recently been built, require additional maintenance funds, he pointed out, and that has placed a further financial burden on districts. He described situations that currently exist, to illustrate his point. The solution will require a collaborative process, he stressed, not the top-down approach being proposed. 8:24:14 AM CHAIR KELLER opined that the bill does provide local control and is not restrictive, which is an argument in favor of the bill. 8:24:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER maintained his objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Talerico, Vazquez, and Keller voted in favor of CSHB 298. Representatives Drummond, Spohnholz Seaton, and Colver voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 298 failed by a vote of 3-4. 8:25:16 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:25 a.m.