HB 20-EDUCATION FUNDING CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 20 "An Act relating to a separate appropriation bill for operating expenses for primary and secondary public education and establishing a date by which the bill must be transmitted to the governor each year; and providing for an effective date." 6:22:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 20, Version 24-LS0152\F, Cook, 2/7/05, as a workdraft. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, sponsor to HB 20, said that within the committee packet are letters of support from several school districts, the NEA, and individuals. He explained that [CSSSHB 20] changes the date for notifying tenured teachers to March 15 and the deadline for the legislature to pass education funding. He said that included in [CSSSHB 20] are appropriations for operating expenses for primary and secondary education but not appropriations for other purposes. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to what would happen if the legislature does not submit [the education budget] by the deadline. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that policies and procedures are set out by the legislature and they can be utilized or ignored. He explained that what this legislation does is set a procedure so that by the fourth day of the legislative session, the administration will submit a bill with a proposed education budget and the process can begin. 6:26:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE SALMON said that in order to assure that schools would be adequately funded, schools could be supplied with the previous years' funding. He said that an amendment could be added to CSSSHB 20. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that the aforementioned amendment would not work. She explained that the financial needs of schools change each year. She offered examples of certain schools that would not be adequately funded with last year's budget, if they were given the same amount, this year. She said that the amendment sounded like a good idea, but in reality it would be a step backwards for education funding. 6:27:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that this [legislation] is separating the appropriations process so there would be a separate K-12 education bill. He said that the problem associated with this is that [the legislature] would be passing an appropriation for another legislature. He continued: the procedure that we are trying to set out here is ... the legislature will establish a separate appropriation bill for education ... we've had education and the rest of the budget all tied together ... if you have fights either within the House or between the House and the Senate, that delays the bill ... no funding goes forward until the end of the session ... that's the whole intent of this ... to create a separate appropriation bill for education ... REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to the delay of "pink slips." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the "pink slip" section has been removed from [CSSSHB 20] and the date [March 15] has not changed. He said that there is no impact on districts laying off teachers and if they did, they would be able to attend job fairs. He explained that the date was moved forward to March 5 as the date that the education budget would be completed. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented on the sectional analysis for the sponsor substitute for HB 20 and explained that section two states, "changes the date that employers are required to notify tenured teachers of lay off from March 16 to March 25." He asked if this is the sponsor substitute, which is the bill being discussed. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the bill in discussion is the committee substitute for sponsor substitute HB 20. 6:30:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSSSHB 20(EDU), Version 24-LS0152\F; Cook 2/7/05, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSHB 20(EDU) was reported from the House Special Committee on Education.