CSHB 551(JUD) am-DRUG FELONY DISQUALIFIES TEACHER  CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced CSHB 551(JUD) am to be up for consideration. RYAN MAKINSTER, staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, introduced the bill and explained that the bill requires the Department of Education to either revoke or not permit the certification of a teacher that has been convicted of a felony drug charge. Some people have charged that the bill doesn't give anyone credit for making changes in their lives after having made a mistake. His response is that children are impressionable and convicted felons in the classroom don't provide good role models. Also, he posited, convicted drug felons have probably participated in other criminal activities; they just got caught on this one. The House Judiciary Committee amended the original bill to exclude felonies in the fourth degree, which includes possession of minor substances including marijuana. In the current form, the bill pertains to felony drug convictions at a "criminal enterprise" level, which is selling, manufacturing or distributing controlled substances or felony drug charges related to minors. Another question that was raised was whether a 19 year old selling a drug to an 18 year old would you fall under the statute and the answer is no. There's a three year age difference for that requirement to come into play, he said. CHAIR GARY STEVENS stated that he has serious concerns about the bill. He is familiar with what the Professional Teaching Practices Commission (PTPC) does and he questioned the need for the bill. The other issue is rehabilitation. Certainly, as a parent, he wouldn't want someone who was recently convicted of a drug offense to be teaching his children, but if someone was convicted of a crime 35 years ago, it's possible that they have made changes and to revoke or not issue a teacher certificate doesn't take rehabilitation into consideration at all. He asked if it is true that someone could lose his or her certification for something that happened years ago. MR. MAKINSTER said that's true. Although they aren't including a statutory requirement to look back, it's just if something comes to light. Also the current version removes "for life" as the term of revocation, which gives the Professional Teaching Practices Commission more latitude. SENATOR COWDERY asked how DUI convictions might relate. MR. MAKINSTER said that AS 11.71 describes felony drug convictions. Certain felony classes are actually drug convictions and aren't related to DUIs. LARRY WIGET, executive director of public affairs for the Anchorage School District, testified via teleconference to state that as laudable as the legislation may appear, it is unnecessary. The bill is a direct result and reaction to a recent incident in the Anchorage School District teacher that was ultimately fired by the district after a conviction for possession of drugs. The Anchorage School District believes and the Professional Teaching Practices Commission concurs that the changes brought forth in this legislation can best be handled through regulation. Changes in regulation on moral turpitude within the Professional Teaching Practices Commission regulations would probably accomplish the same thing, he asserted. CHAIR GARY STEVENS reiterated his original question regarding the need for the legislation and asked Mr. Wiget if it was his position that this isn't a step forward. MR. WIGET said, "That would be the position of the Anchorage School District." BONNIE BARBER, executive director of the Professional Teaching Practices Commission, testified via teleconference to say that the commission questions the need for the legislation. She said: The commission has a history of investigating adjudicating and disciplining educators who have used drugs using current law and regulations. The commission agrees that teachers convicted of felony level misconduct involving a controlled substance could pose a severe threat to the health and safety of students. However, the commission also believes that there may be extenuating circumstances that would warrant a discretionary review of the facts presented so as to determine whether a revocation or denial would be an appropriate sanction for these offenses. As you mentioned, under some circumstances it would be deemed appropriate to consider the length of time that has lapsed since the conviction as well as any documented...end of tape TAPE 04-32, SIDE B  4:30 p.m. I did have a case of a Vietnam veteran who had offenses from the end of the war and then was clean and sober for 30 some years. Under this proposal, this person would not be allowed to get a certificate because we do a background check on every single applicant who applies for a certificate in the state of Alaska. So any conviction shows up on the FBI fingerprint report and under this proposal, the Office of Certification would be required to deny a person a certificate no matter when the offense occurred. The commission feels this is unnecessary. The commission is a group of nine educators who review decisions and they have the expertise to make the appropriate decision regarding whether a certificate should be denied or not. I'd also like to mention that right now we can revoke or suspend a certificate for crimes of immorality and in the list of crimes of immorality is unlawful distribution or possession for distribution of a controlled substance. So we can revoke now for those crimes that this proposal delineates. The commission believes that the current system works and that we do not need to make the changes that are proposed. CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Ms. Barber and said he was sure she couldn't comment on the Anchorage case that Mr. Wiget mentioned earlier. MS. BARBER said she could say that it is the commission's position that they can take action for crimes of felony possession of a controlled substance, but she can't talk about a specific case. CHAIR GARY STEVENS commented that the process did work then asked if the other issue was Section 3. (c). MS. BARBER said she was concerned with the proposed addition to Section 1. (f). She said she understands that to be a requirement that a certificate not be issued. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Makinster to clarify the issue. MR. MAKINSTER said he first wanted to address a point made earlier about someone that had a drug problem when they were younger and had been rehabilitated. He went on to say: This bill does not approach that. It doesn't approach anywhere revoking their certificate for some kind of similar situation as that. The highest level is criminal enterprise, that's five or more actions of manufacturing and distributing with the intent to profit. The other misconducts under AS 11.71.030 are the delivery with an intent to sell or distribute to a minor. This is not possessing drugs. This is not sharing drugs with a minor. This is intent to distribute. ... So it isn't any possession issue. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Barber whether she had a response. MS. BARBER said the commission can and does take action on all those issues. She then reiterated that she reads the amendment to require that the commission deny a certificate to a person that had a conviction in the past. She disagreed with Mr. Makinster's statement that the amendment doesn't deal with someone's rehabilitation. She asserted that, "A person that had a conviction 30 years ago and had no conviction since then, - under this proposal it says the department may not issue a teaching certificate. So in fact it does not take into consideration any rehabilitation." Continuing she said that the misuse of a controlled substance is a very serious conviction, but there are other serious convictions such as assault and kidnapping that aren't delineated. Those are crimes for which they revoke and or deny certificates so it doesn't make sense that just this one crime is delineated. The bill isn't necessary because they already do what the bill outlines, but it wouldn't allow the commission to use its discretion. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked her to give a background explanation of the Professional Teaching Practices Commission telling who they are and how the members are appointed. MS. BARBER explained that the commission was established in statute in 1966 and given the responsibility of disciplining educators who commit immoral, unethical or illegal acts. The nine commissioners are appointed by the governor are approved by the Legislature. There are five teachers, two administrators and a representative from higher education and a representative from the Department of Education and Early Development. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked how many cases the commission hears each year and the result of the hearings. MS. BARBER said it varies from year to year, but they hear about 70 cases a year and about 10 of those result in some sanction. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Makinster whether he had any closing comments. MR. MAKINSTER thanked the committee for hearing the bill. CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that he didn't have a quorum so no action could be taken in any case, but the issue was in need of additional scrutiny. CSHB 551(JUD) am was held in committee.