Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/19/1996 02:09 PM HES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 465 - TEACHER EMPLOYMENT/PUB SCHL BARGAINING Number 0154 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 465 would be discussed, an act relating to employment of teachers and school administrators and to public school collective bargaining. Number 190 CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 465 ( ), version 9-LS1586\O, Cramer, dated March 18, 1996, as the working document. Number 0233 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE objected for purposes of discussion and said there had been many proposed amendments to HB 465. Number 0285 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said CSHB 465, version O, adopts amendments 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. He said Amendment 4, on page four, line two, deletes "shall" and inserts "may" to make the language more permissive and deals with the administrator's evaluation. Amendment 5, page three, line nine, after "community members," deletes "peers" and inserts "teachers". He said Amendment 7, page three, line seven, after "dismissal", inserts "under AS 14.20.170(a);" to add a statutory reference. Amendment 8, page eight, line eight, inserts "a teacher who has acquired tenure who is dismissed or non-retained may waive the post-termination procedures set out in Section C and within 60 days after receipt of notice of dismissal or non- retention file an action in the superior court", allowing direct access to the superior court, rather than going through the procedure. Number 0473 TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Aide to Representative Ivan, said Amendment 8 was modified by the sponsor, Representative Ivan, but retains the same meaning. Number 0487 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the intent of Amendment 8 is that a non- retained or a dismissed teacher can go directly to superior court if they chose to do so. He said Amendment 9, on page three, line 22, after "last", delete "no more than one year" and more clearly define the year by inserting "no less than nine months, no more than 12 months". Number 0541 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that Amendment 9 involved the plan for improvement. He then withdrew his objection to the motion to adopt CSHB 465 (HES), version O, as the working document. Hearing no other objection, CSHB 465 (HES), version O, was adopted as the working draft by the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 0566 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, Incorporated, expressed his concerns regarding CSHB 465. He said on page five, line 13, regarding the stipulation, that failure to receive an acceptable performance in the teacher evaluation system after the implementation of a plan of improvement, would serve as a reason to non-retain a tenured teacher. He said this particular clause stipulates a process. He said it is important to refer to the established standards, especially in the evaluation section, as being the professional performance standards adopted by the Department of Education (DOE). He said those standards, or criteria, by which individuals who are teaching in the classroom, are measured in accordance with the word incompetence. MR. MARSHALL said his organization does not have a problem with the utilization of the evaluation procedure or a system to prove incompetence by showing that an individual is not performing at an adequate level relative to the professional performance standards adopted by the DOE. He said a failure to execute a plan of improvement or not receiving an acceptable evaluation could be applied to any number of principals in the state. He said, "theoretically you could have, a person saying while I assume good performance is 100 percent accountability 100 percent of the time." He said there should be an acknowledged measure or criteria by which teachers are judged. He added that plans of improvement should be developed in accordance with these standards. Number 0758 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that he was referring to standards that the DOE developed and he then asked Mr. Marshall if that should be used as a baseline. Number 0770 MR. MARSHALL said either the DOE standards could be used, or the deleted language of HB 465 which involves incompetency. He said competency will either be shown or not shown, reflected in the evaluation system or the plan of improvement. He said the plan of improvement should deal with the issue of incompetency. He said language could be added on line 18, tying the incompetency standard to the evaluation and plan of improvement. He said his organization would like to see people removed for incompetency and to do this the classroom must be monitored and evaluations must be done. Number 0820 MR. MARSHALL said the other section of concern was the reduction in force, on page five, line 27. He said some work was done on this same issue in HB 217 which had more specific requirement before a reduction in force was allowed to happen. He said HB 217 required a 1 percent reduction in basic need. Number 0867 MR. MARSHALL said on line 31 and 32, page five, the reduction of the work force requirement in CSHB 465 is a demonstrated significant reduction in per pupil expenditure, from one year to the next. He said this language is broader and more general than the language in HB 217. Number 0896 MR. MARSHALL said HB 217 established that non-tenured teachers would be laid off, or non-retained first, followed by tenured teachers. He said CSHB 465, on page six, line six, a notice of non-retention to all non-tenured teachers has to be given and does not say that you non-retain non-tenured teachers. He said HB 217 referred to the primary and secondary program and tried to reduce staff at those points. Number 0962 MR. MARSHALL referred to page six, line two, and said the layoff plan must identify academic or other programs which the district intends to maintain. He presented a scenario where the instrumental music program would be eliminated under the provisions of CSHB 465. He said there is no notification requirement that, two years or one year prior to the elimination of the program, teachers are notified and encouraged to get additional schooling so that they can obtain an extra endorsement. He said the notification process is a humane way to retain competent teachers, even though it might not be the intent of CSHB 465. He said there should at least be the opportunity for individuals to have an opportunity to stay in the system. Number 1041 MR. MARSHALL complicated the scenario, referring to the instrumental teacher who has received his additional endorsement allowing him to teach math. He said CSHB 465 requires that the teacher show experience in the subject area in secondary and elementary programs, but added that there is an "or" inclusion in line 18. He said he would hope that if teachers showed themselves capable to teach one subject, they would be allowed to teach another subject. Number 1085 MR. MARSHALL referred to Section D, line 10 to line 23, and said it appears that CSHB 465 eliminates seniority. He said there is an elementary, middle school and a secondary set of teachers who can be listed according to program or academic areas. He said if a school district moves to lay off staff, there is nothing in CSHB 465 to protect any tenured teacher from possible layoff. He said to subject all staff from possible layoff seems excessive, especially when you can limit the layoff based on a seniority list. He said there is no requirement that non-tenured teachers be laid off first, CSHB 465 exposes everyone to possible layoff. Number 1158 MR. MARSHALL referred to another scenario where good teachers, who the school district would want to retain if there were better economic circumstances, left the state of Alaska to teach in other states. He said the language in page six, line 32, would not allow those teachers to be on the recall list. He said he did know the intent of CSHB 465, but felt that the term "state" on line 32 should be eliminated. Number 1240 MR. MARSHALL said the concerns his organization had regarding the opportunity to appeal directly to the superior court have been eliminated in language on page seven and on page eight. He said, in conclusion, districts might want to use the grievance process to adjudicate a dismissal or a non-retention through binding arbitration. He said that this scenario would not prevent lawyers from being present on both sides, but it does give the option to districts that might want to utilize arbitration. He said the use of arbitration could result in a quicker and less expensive way to deal with a grievance issue. MR. MARSHALL said the provisions of HB 217 should be included in CSHB 465, as the language is clearer and provides a larger degree of security to those tenured teachers and does not expose them to the possibility of layoff. Number 1354 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that makes two people who would wish to discuss arbitration. He added that utilizing arbitration would result in the lost ability to strike in those districts. MR. MARSHALL said CSHB 465 is relative only to employment. CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony. He asked Representative Ivan and his staff, Tom Wright to join the committee in reviewing the amendments. He asked the committee members, in the future, to submit amendments in writing to avoid confusion. Number 1414 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page five, line 15, and said there was some confusion regarding the definition of "acceptable" and "least acceptable" performance and added Mr. Marshall's reference to HB 217. He asked Representative Ivan to address that concern. Number 1435 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said as a result of discussions with Mr. Marshall he is submitting amendments; Amendments 10, 11 and 12. He said, in regards to this particular section, Amendment 12 would modify the language in CSHB 465 to address this concern. Number 1459 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if everyone had received Amendment 12. Number 1473 MR. WRIGHT said the language in Amendment 12 is similar, but not the same as the language proposed by Mr. Marshall and Ms. Douglas. Number 1486 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON requested that Mr. Marshall be asked for his comments regarding the amendment. Mr. Marshall joined Representative Ivan and Mr. Wright at the witness table. Number 1515 MR. MARSHALL said his organization had wanted professional performance standards to be set up in local school district evaluation procedures. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Amendment 12 was acceptable. Number 1538 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether these performance standards would be more stringent in regards to regulations and asked if the standards would be in conflict with the provision located on page two, lines 25 and 26. Number 1567 MR. WRIGHT said two proposed amendments, which are based in (b)(1), are based on professional performance standards adopted by the Department of Regulations. He said the local school board has to use that as a basis for any adopted standards. He said it is a decision of the local school board or if they want to exceed or adopt the same standard as developed by the Department of Regulations. He said the language incorporated in CSHB 465 was requested by the local school districts. Number 1587 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the state standard is the minimum standard, and the local school board can opt to make it more stringent but cannot decrease the standard. He said the state standard is addressed in regulations. MR. WRIGHT said the regulation is in Alaska Administrative Code 04.200. Number 1613 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Section 3, regarding performance standards and asked if performance objectives were defined in the plan of improvement included in this section. Number 1630 MR. WRIGHT said Section 14.20.149 outlines the evaluation procedures, known as the professional department standards, and mentions the plan of improvement. He said, instead of reciting one specific portion or one subsection, it was left broad and all encompassing. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that it is universal (indiscernible) to that section. Number 1665 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 12 to CSHB 465. Number 1671 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a point of order and said the committee needed to address Amendments 1,2,3 in that order first. After committee discussion regarding the point of order, Representative Brice contended that these first proposed amendments would have bearing on Amendment 12. Number 1691 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 12 to CSHB 465. Number 1699 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page five, line 27, regarding the reduction in force, and said it wasn't a specific line reference, but it addressed the whole notion of the reduction in force. He referred to the inclusion in HB 217 of a 1 percent reduction rather then a significant and demonstrated reduction. He asked Representative Ivan to comment on this concern. Number 1732 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said at this time he could not agree to the proposed layoff language and said he preferred the language in CSHB 465. He said quality standards must be included in the layoff and rehire procedure. Number 1762 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page six, line six, and questioned the intent of this language. He asked whether all teachers should be notified about possible non-retention. Number 1788 MR. WRIGHT said the intent is that before a tenured teacher be placed on layoff status a notice of non-retention has to be provided to non-tenured teachers, except when utilizing the quality standards to evoke non-retention. Number 1809 MR. MARSHALL said the language in HB 217 states, "after the district has non-retained all non-tenured teachers," and added that this language is very clear. Number 1819 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the language in CSHB 465 only refers to giving notice of non-retention and does not say that the district non- retain them before you go on to the tenured teacher. He asked the intent of the sponsor, whether it was to provide notice or non- retain the teachers. He said this question does not have to be answered now, but could be addressed at a later date. Number 1843 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page six, line 32, where someone in the state receives an option of being recalled while maintaining their recall status, while they are currently working another job which prevents them from breaking their current contract. He restated Mr. Marshall's concern that if the teacher is currently working in another state, where they would have to break their contract to come back to the state, if the language in CSHB 465 could incorporate these people as well. Number 1880 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the intent is to give everyone the full opportunity to regain their former position. He said the geographic logistics were not included, but said he would concur that if someone was on layoff status they should not be limited by geography. Number 1896 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that even if laid off teachers were in another state, they could still retain recall status. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said new language could be added so that it could read another part of the state or another district. Number 1906 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this geographic language change would be listed as Amendment 13. Number 1925 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would go through the amendment process now that the questions had been addressed. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 465. Number 1937 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 1. Number 1942 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said Amendment 1 reinserts the incompetency standards that had previously existed within the statutes. He said the state has legally defined standards and he believed that Amendment 1 incorporated the language of proposed Amendment 12 with the inclusion of the incompetency standards. Number 1987 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he was against the proposed Amendment 1 because of the reversion to the original language. He said this language leaves the definition open and vague, and subject to litigation. He said the costs of associated court cases is what CSHB 465 is seeking to avoid. Number 2012 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, as it is an issue of people's livelihoods, standards should be met. He said the application of a plan of improvement should be subject to a just cause test and the plan of improvement should also meet this requirement. Number 2034 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it was important to note that the proposed Amendment 1 incorporates both the language in CSHB 465 and the language regarding a failure, after implementation of a plan of improvement, to receive an evaluation of least acceptable performance under teacher evaluations. She said Amendment 1 allows two ways to improve a teacher's performance. She asked for Mr. Rose's input as the language in the proposed Amendment 1 is a standard which has been followed and it is wording that most people understand. She believed that the proposed Amendment 1 made the language of CSHB 465 stronger. Number 2070 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards, said attempts have been made to remove the standard of incompetence, for a long time. He said this standard is too low and that the definition of incompetence is listed in Alaska case law to such a stringent degree. He said a teacher who ranks a two on a scale of ten, with ten being excellence and a one being incompetent, would still be regarded as competent. He said CSHB 465 addresses standards and acceptable performance. He said the issue of incompetence is so stringent that many administrators are unable to use it to prove the competency or incompetency of individuals in the classroom. He said the standards, adopted by the Department's regulations, allow the local districts the opportunity to examine a criteria based evaluation "in concert" with their community. He said this would establish what teachers are expected to teach and what parents can expect in the classroom. Number 2138 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the proposed Amendment 1 makes the language stronger because it gives the school district both options, either under the provision of incompetency or failure to meet the criteria set up in the plan of improvement, and asked what the objection was to providing this option in CSHB 465. Number 2161 MR. ROSE said the school districts are trying to move to a criteria based evaluation process in order to provide progressive education and also to address the quality of education instruction in the classroom. He said school districts are trying to focus on performance and quality, but that they are dealing with protectionism. He said this is a difficult transition to make if the state is more concerned with the consequences than the efforts to improve the quality of education. He said the employees should be protected, but lowering the education standards to protect those employees causes concern. Number 2184 A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 1 to CSHB 465. Representatives Brice and Robinson voted yea. Representatives G. Davis, Rokeberg, Co-Chair Toohey and Co-Chair Bunde voted nay. Amendment 1 failed to be adopted to in the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 2222 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB 465. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 2. Number 2277 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the proposed Amendment 2 changes the language from an acceptable level to a satisfactory level, or less than acceptable level to an incompetent level. He said it re- defines the definition of incompetence as the inability or the unintentional or intentional failure to perform the teachers' customary duties in a satisfactory manner. He said the proposed Amendment 2 adds clarity to the concerns that were just raised regarding incompetence. CO-CHAIR BUNDE mentioned the discussion concerning incompetency. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said proposed Amendment 2 is a redefinition of that standard. A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 2 to CSHB 465. Representatives Brice and Robinson voted yea. Representatives G. Davis, Rokeberg, Co-Chair Toohey and Co-Chair Bunde voted nay. Amendment 2 failed to be adopted to in the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 2293 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 to CSHB 465. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 3. Number 2302 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the proposed Amendment 3 states that the evaluating administrator consult with the tenured teacher in setting clear, specific performance expectations to be included in the plan of improvement. He said a concern was raised that there was no specific language of what these plans of improvement will include. He added that specific language must be included in statute to prevent situations where unobtainable standards were established. He said the proposed Amendment 3 would allow for a working relationship between the administrators and employees to occur. Number 2347 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he found it difficult to imagine that a plan of improvement would occur without including the teacher. TAPE 96-29, SIDE B Number 0000 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Section 3 includes a requirement that observations and the establishment of criteria be found. He added that it appeared the intent was to include the teacher in developing the plan of improvement. He asked the sponsor whether the language of CSHB 465 needed to be clarified. Number 0073 MR. WRIGHT said his reading of the proposed Amendment 3 is that it would require the administration to consult with each tenured teacher within that school district or within that specific school to set up these specific expectations which would be included in the plan of improvement. Number 0086 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the language of proposed Amendment 3 states "with the" and would mean that if a plan of improvement were needed, a specific teacher would be notified. MR. WRIGHT said the issue of how a plan of improvement is going to be implemented can be addressed at a local level. He said there was language in CSHB 465 which addressees ways in which the tenured and non-tenured teachers performance can be improved. Number 0105 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said CSHB 465 clearly states "that's what will happen." Number 0110 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the sponsor to point out specific language where teachers are included in the plan of improvement. Number 0115 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked the sponsor whether the intent of the plan of improvement would include the teacher, whether it would be a "give and take" situation. He said the principal could ask for specific changes and the teacher could respond to those changes. Number 0141 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that the sponsor address his question. Number 0150 MR. WRIGHT said the plan of improvement under page three, line 20, must address ways in which the tenured teacher's performance can be improved. He said the language in CSHB 465 does not specifically provide language such as that offered in the proposed Amendment 3. He reiterated that this issue can be addressed at the local level and concluded that setting clear, specific performance expectations would be the question asked. Number 0171 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said CSHB 465 changes the whole standard for non-retaining a teacher and added that the teacher should be placed on notice regarding the establishment of a plan of improvement and what those expectations are. He said the language of the proposed Amendment 3 might not be exactly right, but there is nothing in CSHB 465 that sets these goals. Number 0205 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the issue is, in constructing the plan of improvement, whether or not the teacher is a part of that process. He said a good management tool is to include someone in the discussion in order to get them to improve their performance. Number 0214 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said CSHB 465 incorporates broad and specific language and added that he supported the proposed Amendment 3. Number 0225 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said he supported flexibility at the local level. He referred to page two, line 14, which gives some strong participation by the school board and therefore gives anyone who participates in the system the opportunity to help develop the plan of improvement. He said, at the school board level, there is the opportunity to develop the plan of improvement which should be detailed in regards to the criteria that will be evaluated. Number 2136 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the proposed Amendment 3 says that as the principal develops the plan, they will do it in consultation with the person who will ultimately implement the plan, the teacher. Number 0271 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believed that there were going to be fundamental, minimal standards in the objectives set up, as criteria, by the school board. He assumed that each plan would be modified to match the individual failings of a particular teacher and this individual plan of improvement would not be mentioned in the basic criteria. Number 0303 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said his reservation regards the fiscal note which might be required by the proposed Amendment 3. He said to meet this criteria might require traveling between villages. He said he agreed that people, who are going to be put on a plan of improvement, should be consulted. Number 0334 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that if a plan of improvement is going to be developed, the teacher should know about it and there is nothing currently in CSHB 465 which specifies this requirement. He said the travel concerns could be avoided by using the telephone or other methods than person-to-person consultation. Number 0357 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY withdrew her objection to Amendment 3. Hearing no further objection, Amendment 3 was incorporated into CSHB 465 by the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 2031 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 6 to CSHB 465. Number 0402 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 6. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her concern had to do with the absence of language in CSHB 465. She referred to Section 10, regarding procedures upon notice of dismissal or non-retention. She then pointed out that, in some original language, it states that before a teacher is dismissed or before a tenured teacher is non-retained. She said the language regarding non-retained teachers is completely absent from CSHB 465. She also expressed concern over the absence of language that the teacher must be given both oral and written notification. She asked the sponsor why the language, in both cases, was eliminated. Number 0448 MR. WRIGHT said that Section 10, (a) refers to dismissals. He referred to subsection (b) and said it referred to non-retention. He said some of the concern regards whether an impartial party would review the teachers case which could be uncomfortable if it was reviewed by the school board. He said as a result of this concern, language was inserted on page eight, line nine, to let the teacher go directly to superior court. He said, during discussions with various parties, instead of having an oral notification it was felt that written notification be given to avoid hearsay. He said it was felt that having the tapes of the meetings available would be sufficient and avoid unnecessary expense. He said a transcript could then be done. Number 0505 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON withdrew Amendment 6 to CSHB 465. Number 0529 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 10 to CSHB 465, which clarified the one year period. Hearing no objection Amendment 10 was adopted to CSHB 465 by the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 0551 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 11, page three, line 22, to CSHB 465. Hearing no objection Amendment 11 was adopted to CSHB 465 by the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 0564 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 12, page three, line 22, to CSHB 465. Number 0570 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected to the proposed Amendment 12 and said it referred to the standards as being those standards established under (b)(1) of the section. He asked if "(b)(1)" should be added to the proposed Amendment 12 to avoid confusion. Number 0594 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, in his question to the sponsor of CSHB 465, he was told that it was a universal reference to the whole section. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection. Hearing no further objection Amendment 12 was adopted to CSHB 465 by the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 0599 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred back to Amendment 13 on page six, lines 31 and 32, and said it should read, "provide professional service to another private or public educational program" deleting "in the state". REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 13 to CSHB 465. Hearing no objection Amendment 13 was adopted to CSHB 465 by the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 0657 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said procedures upon notice of dismissal, found in Section 10, there is a pre-termination hearing and that it must comport with the minimum requirements of due process. He asked if the time between notification and pre-termination would be immediate. He mentioned a scenario where notification was given 30 minutes before the pre-termination meeting. Number 0688 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this scenario would not be his interpretation of CSHB 465. Number 0696 MR. WRIGHT said, under those circumstances, the people involved would go to court and that the court would most likely rule the case in favor of the teacher in that it did not fit the requirements listed in CSHB 465. Number 0704 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that there is the understanding, given the minimum requirements of due process, of the requirement that a certain amount of preparation time be given. Number 0718 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page three, line eight, and asked the appropriateness of having students in this process. He expressed concern over this provision and said he would be willing to move Amendment 14. Number 0748 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said, regarding proposed Amendment 14, that the student involvement in the process might only want to be limited to secondary students as most elementary students love their teacher. He shared the concern over the possibility of popularity contests. Number 0762 MR. WRIGHT said there was no strong feeling regarding this issue, either for or against. He then mentioned that there are students who sit on local school boards. Number 0782 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said "they're community members too, I would assume. One of the reasons I wanted to bring this up was that I think this particular word is being used as an axe against the whole bill." He made a motion to adopt Amendment 14 to CSHB 465. Number 0799 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS objected to the proposed Amendment 14. He said CSHB 465 provides an opportunity, the extent of which can be left to the local school districts, to allow those students to be part of the process. He questioned, if this language was excluded from CSHB 465, whether it would eliminate students from the process. Number 0823 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the inclusion of "student" might prevent the passage of CSHB 465. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said students should be included in the process. Number 0851 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she had no problem with the inclusion of students in the process, but added that through community members and through parents most young people would get an opportunity to be included in the process. A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 14. Representatives Rokeberg, Brice and Bunde voted yea. Representatives Robinson, G. Davis and Toohey voted nay. Amendment 14 failed to be adopted to in the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. Number 0892 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHB 465 as amended, with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. Hearing no objection CSHB 465 was moved from the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.