HB 85 - TEACHERS' LICENSES, DISCIPLINE & ETHICS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 85, "An Act relating to licensure and professional discipline of members of the teaching profession and providing for related penalties; relating to grounds for dismissal of a teacher; relating to the Professional Teaching Practices Commission; relating to limited immunity for procedures under the Educator Ethics Act; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." Number 2166 SANNA GREEN, Executive Director, Professional Teaching Practices Commission, Department of Education, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of the bill. The bill was proposed because the procedures, regulations and statutes need to be upgraded. She announced there is an amendment to clarify the language more. She also announced that Teresa Williams from the Department of Law is here to explain the bill. Number 2220 TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She referred to a side-by-side analysis of the bill dated April 16, 1999 with two attachments - Version "A" and "B". She explained Version "B". She referred to Section 1 and noted that the term "teacher certificate" is being changed throughout the bill. She referred to Section 2 and noted that it alternatively provides an opportunity to take an examination in lieu of taking classes on cross-cultural communication. It was pointed out that many applicants have sufficient enough knowledge to teach a course on cross-cultural communication and they shouldn't be required to take one. She referred to Section 3 and noted that it is new requiring a criminal history background check. It strengthens the existing law and allows for information from a background check to be disclosed if a person has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The purpose of a background check is for that information to go to the Professional Teaching Practices Commission so that it can inquire further as to whether or not such a conviction is grounds for denial. The amendment spells out the circumstances for checking a license renewal based on (indisc.) from the Alaska Association of School Administrators. There is a feeling that this would be helpful in knowing that all staff has had a criminal background check. Alaska used to be a dumping ground for teachers who were fleeing from other jurisdictions or who had problems in other jurisdictions. Once the finger printing requirement went into place that stopped. She referred to Section 4 and noted that, currently, there are no grounds for denial of a license. The section pulls together the... TAPE 99-35, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. WILLIAMS continued. She referred to subsection (b) and noted that it sets the preventative grounds for denying a license. The department can suspend processing an application if the applicant has an unresolved criminal or discipline proceeding related to licensing. Number 0063 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he is concerned that Alaska used to be a dumping ground for teachers who have committed crimes elsewhere. He asked Ms. Williams whether the finger printing part has been tightened up. MS. WILLIAMS replied the finger printing requirement was put in regulation by the Department of Education, but it was only for new applicants. This bill makes it stronger in the event of a challenge. It requires people coming in for renewal to be finger printed at which time a criminal background check is done. Number 0126 MS. WILLIAMS further explained Version "B." It allows for the Department of Education to issue a conditional license and requires steps to be taken appropriate for those circumstances. She cited a person with a drinking problem as an example. Currently, if a person is denied a license there are no provisions to deal with the next step. This provision spells out the process after a denial and provides for an appeal to the Educators Ethics Commission and on to superior court from there. This provision also codifies the current reporting to any national clearinghouse that maintains records of professional discipline. She referred to Section 5 and noted that it makes the Administrative Procedure Act applicable to the tribunal's denial decision. She referred to Section 6 and noted that it amends the basis for disciplining employees to mirror the reasons for discipline by the commission. It simply cross-references them, which is important because sometimes one changes and the other doesn't. It's important to keep them mirrored. Number 0265 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Williams whether she is referring to AS 14.20.375. MS. WILLIAMS replied she is referring to AS 14.20.170 which cross-references AS 14.20.372 - "Grounds for discipline." Number 0425 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Williams what would be a reason why the Educators Ethics Commission would not take disciplinary action for the reasons numerically listed in the bill. They seem to be serious issues, but the language reads "may." Number 0447 MS. WILLIAMS replied it might be a "may" rather than a "shall" when the commission's resources are such that the most important cases have to be picked. In addition, competency requires a level of discretion for the commission to step in and begin a proceeding. Number 0494 MS. GREEN referred to number (5) and noted that there have been many cases on the omission of material when applying for employment. This is a way to apply judgement on the provisions in the bill, especially (5), (6) and (7). Number 0518 MS. WILLIAMS noted, in reference to competency, the department likes for the school district to take the lead. They generally tend to be fact-specific cases requiring a lot of foot work. Number 0535 MS. WILLIAMS continued explaining Version "B." She referred to Section 14.20.375 and noted that it expands and compiles the disciplinary actions imposed by the Department of Education. She noted that many of the changes come from the licensing statute. Subsection (c) says a person may not surrender a license without approval of the commission. A lot of people who are facing serious discipline think that surrendering a license avoids a record on the basis of that action. Subsection (d) says that the commission may suspend a license on grounds of immediate danger to public health. Subsection (e) says that the commission is not bound by a school district's decision. It benefits a teacher by not having to defend himself in two proceedings. It benefits the commission by having school districts do their homework. Number 0655 MS. GREEN noted that this is the current practice now. It is just being put in statute. MS. WILLIAMS continued explaining Version "B." She referred to subsection (f) and noted that it has been moved from a different section. Subsection (g) has been moved and allows for a civil fine to be assessed against a member of the teaching profession who is not required to be licensed for ethical violations. Subsection (h) codifies the reporting requirements to any national clearinghouse. Subsection (i) is new and precludes a person from employment in the teaching profession, even if a license is not required, if that person's license has been suspended or revoked. Number 0706 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the original version of the bill was noncontroversial. In the interest of time, he asked Ms. Williams whether the Department of Law and the Professional Teaching Practices Commission like the amendment. MS. WILLIAMS replied the Professional Teaching Practices Commission has gone over the changes and has approved them. The Department of Law made some of the changes in the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he appreciates the side-by-side analysis that she has provided. It's not necessary to go through the rest of it, except for the fundamental changes. MS. WILLIAMS noted that there are changes to the limitations on reinstatement after a suspension or revocation. Currently, a person can reapply after one year. This places a procedure for reinstatement. Another change is the penalty for fraudulently teaching under a forged certificate. Currently, there is no specific provision on how to deal with that, and remarkably there have been two cases in the last year. Number 0820 CHAIRMAN KOTT noted his appreciation of the side-by-side analysis that she provided to the committee members. Number 0839 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There being no objection, it was so adopted. It reads as follows: Page 2, line 9: Delete "the reports" Insert "a report that indicates grounds for denial of a license under AS 14.20.029" Page 2, lines 9-10: Delete "this chapter" Insert "AS 14.20.029" Page 2, line 12, following "has": Insert "received and" Page 2, lines 12-13: Delete "received under this section and has determined the applicant's suitability for licensing under this chapter" Insert "under this subsection" Page 2, lines 17-18: Delete "the department, by regulation, requires a criminal history background check before a license may be renewed" Insert: (1) a criminal history background check has not been previously conducted on the licensee: (2) the licensee was not employed in a position requiring a license for the entire duration of the previous license period; or (3) the licensee has resided out of state for a portion of the previous license period Page 2, line 27: Delete "has been" Insert "is" Page 3, line 2, following "investigation" Insert "for an allegation suggesting unfitness to teach" Page 3, line 6, following "jurisdiction": Insert "for reasons that would be grounds for denial under AS 14.20.029" Page 3, lines 15-16: Delete "this chapter" Insert "AS 14.20.029" Page 3, line 17: Delete "complaint, review procedure, or" Page 3, line 18, following "agency" Insert "on grounds that relate to suitability for licensing under AS 14.20.029" Page 3, lines 29-30: Delete "are otherwise in the best interests of the public" Insert "will otherwise protect the physical and mental well-being of students" Page 5, lines 17-18: Delete "as defined by the commission in regulation" Page 7, line 6, following "chapter": Insert "and the commission finds grounds for discipline under AS 14.20.372" Page 7, line 7: Delete "if the commission finds grounds for discipline under AS 14.20.372" Insert "as appropriate to the finding of grounds for discipline" Page 8, line 18: Insert a new subsection to read: (e) The commission shall stay a hearing on an accusation under this section if the teacher has requested a hearing before the school board or invoked grievance procedures. Number 0849 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move HB 85, as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 85(JUD) was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.