Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/10/1996 09:08 AM HES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 465 TEACHERS/ADMINISTRATORS/COLL. BARGAINING Number 001 CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:08 a.m. and introduced HB 465 as the only order of business before the committee. JOE JOSEPHSON, Legal Counsel for NEA-AK, said that the committee was presented with the concept that if there is judicial review there can be a de Novo proceeding before the Superior Court. Mr. Josephson submitted that was incorrect. The Administrative Procedures Act, AS 44.62, refers to the fact that a Superior Court judge may call for a Trial de Novo. He emphasized that only applies to appeals under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). There are many appeals to the Superior Court that do not fall under the APA. Furthermore, Mr. Josephson felt that most lawyers would agree it rare for a Superior Court judge to grant a Trial de Novo, even under APA. He read the appellate rule for appeals which does not offer recourse through a Trial de Novo for those appeals not under the APA. The problem is that the Superior Court judge would only be able to consider if there was an evidentiary basis for the board's decision to nonretain or dismiss a teacher. The judge cannot substitute his or her judgement for the ruling of the board. Mr. Josephson pointed out that the Alaska Supreme Court has said that boards do not have expertise in these matters. Number 064 Mr. Josephson believed that Mr. Trickey was correct in that many school boards do make the effort to ensure due process in the administrative proceedings. However, having due process is not the same as fairness. Due process is the minimum required by the constitution for a proceeding to be valid. Fairness, from the point of view of teachers, means that there should be a hearing before a neutral party not implicated in the nonretention or dismissal. Mr. Josephson believed that to be the problem with a pending amendment which would eliminate the fairness. SENATOR GREEN inquired as to who an employee in another agency would first contact. JOE JOSEPHSON specified that the employee could appeal to the State Personnel Board. If there was a statewide personnel board for teachers which was not appointed by school districts, then there would be an analogy for a fair administrative hearing. Mr. Josephson did not believe that school districts wanted that type of board. Number 105 JOE JOSEPHSON acknowledged that everyone would like better education, teachers, administrators, and students. The concept of incompetence already exists and is a well known standard applicable throughout the nation. Mr. Josephson left a text on teacher discharge which discusses what incompetency means nationally with the committee. He was concerned that the legislature would be jettisoning the concept of incompetency and allow nonretention for failure to meet a set of standards. Furthermore, a teacher could be placed on a plan of improvement even when the teacher's competency is not in question. Mr. Josephson believed that would leave school districts the opportunity to cease employment of those teachers whose competence is not in question. HB 465 does not say that only an incompetent teacher can be placed under a plan of improvement, any teacher can be placed under such a plan. In conclusion, Mr. Josephson did not believe that there are many incompetent teachers because by and large administrators do their jobs with the tools already available. This is a nonproblem with no supporting evidence; therefore, the legislature should move slowly to overturn a standard that exists nationwide. Number 165 CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President of NEA-AK, appreciated the time given to this issue. With regards to a comment in a previous meeting about whether teaching 2+2=5 was considered academic freedom, Ms. Douglas said that was incompetence and the teacher should be fired. Academic freedom is a search for truth. Children should be allowed to question, think, and make decisions based upon a variety of information and curriculum established in that community. Ms. Douglas informed the committee that teacher education standards were established by the state board. These standards are what a teacher should know after finishing a college program, however, these standards are not based on what is done in the classroom. Academic freedom is how one applies their education to their students in the classroom. Students have different learning styles and teachers have different teaching styles. Ms. Douglas urged the committee not to confuse academic freedom and to review the evaluation procedure and the deletion of the incompetence standard. She left the committee some relevant information. SENATOR SALO noted that many districts argue that the process is expensive and long to terminate a teacher who should not be in the classroom. How can that issue be addressed while maintaining fairness? CLAUDIA DOUGLAS said that HB 465 does address the need for an evaluation system that is actually in law. Decisions made at the local level regarding all aspects of the evaluation system, would allow the district to prove that the evaluations have been fair and that due process has been followed which would eliminate the need for lengthy court battles. Ms. Douglas said that often the process has not been followed. Number 249 SENATOR SALO pointed out that HB 465 has the option of an appeal hearing at the district level or to go directly to Superior Court. Some have characterized this option as being more cost and time efficient; does NEA agree or are there other alternatives that would be fair and more expeditious? CLAUDIA DOUGLAS emphasized that part of NEA's responsibility as a bargaining agent is to represent those people that are dismissed. Currently, a grievance procedure is followed if there is a disciplinary action. If the district and the teacher cannot agree at the end of the grievance procedure, a third party is brought in to make a decision. Ms. Douglas clarified that it is a binding arbitration in the grievance process. Every district has a grievance procedure for disciplinary action. NEA had agreed at one point to this option. CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the approval that option has met. CLAUDIA DOUGLAS said that option met approval in the form of HB 398, the compromise bill. Ms. Douglas informed the committee that she was part of the task force that met over the summer. There was an effort to bring people together that were not staff, political organizations, or special interest groups. Ms. Douglas emphasized that no legislators were on the task force. The intent was to bring together a neutral group. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that much of the work from the task force has manifested itself in HB 465. Number 315 VERNON MARSHALL, NEA-AK, stated that HB 465 is designed to modify existing tenure statutes in order to expose tenured teachers to layoff and make it easier for administrators to get rid of tenured teachers. HB 465 gives teachers three years of probation during which the teacher can be nonretained by administrators for no reason. With that three year window, Mr. Marshall expected administrators to do a better job in preparing teachers for jobs. Tenure is not portable. Theoretically, a teacher could work six years in two districts and never receive tenure. Under such a circumstance, a nonretained teacher would not be entitled to any justification of nonretention during the first three years of work in any employing school district regardless of the total year of teaching experience for that teacher. The nonretention of a teacher has been made easier for administrators by the removal of incompetence as a cause for nonretention. Mr. Marshall noted that the argument for the removal of incompetence is that the standard is too low, and is too hard to prove. Due to this allegation, he questioned the competence of those responsible for evaluating and developing teachers. Mr. Marshall emphasized that good standards do not fail, but the people who execute those standards often fail. Mr. Marshall informed the committee that he had asked himself the following questions: what is the motive for passage of HB 465, what is not working? Mr. Marshall identified the following as already occurring: *No district has been identified as having lost revenue. *Schools have evaluation, layoff and recall systems in place. *Some administrators are working hard to evaluate their staff. *Tenured teachers are being nonretained for incompetence. *Teacher preparation institutions are improving in Alaska. *Bargaining occurs within the eye of the public in many school districts. *Nontenured teachers are being nonretained during their first and second years of employment. *Progressive school districts have staff development plans. *No school district has identified any teacher that the district has been unable to nonretain for incompetence or substantial noncompliance. HB 465 allows school districts to eliminate academic and program areas of the curriculum and layoff tenured teachers. It is clear that if teachers are to survive in Alaska, especially in the bush, teachers must be multiply certified or endorsed. The layoff section ensures a three year recall which Mr. Marshall did not believe was much of a benefit. No one has considered triggering a RIP for employees; there is no incentive to keep experienced teachers. HB 465 allows school districts to decide which teachers to layoff by using performance evaluations. Under this bill, those evaluations will have direct input from the public. The statute specifies that it must be based on a classroom observation. If a teacher is laid off because a performance evaluation, the teacher would not have the right to appeal to the Superior Court. Since evaluations take on new importance, will tenured teachers compromise innovation, disciplinary standards, and utilization of new techniques in order to please the principal or the public for a good evaluation. Mr. Marshall recalled President Clinton's quote which demanded tougher standards for schools. Should one assume that the teacher standards of 1994 to prepare students to teach will now be the criteria for local school districts to develop standards for evaluation? The President also emphasized the need for assessments. The teacher education standards adopted through regulation have no assessments. Mr. Marshall indicated concerns with the notion that teacher preparation standards could be used to establish evaluation criteria for all teachers. Are teacher preparation standards suitable as measures of teacher performance or should the task of developing performance standards be developed by local school districts with assistance from the department? Mr. Marshall indicated that the department should be afforded the ability to develop assessments in order to measure teacher education standards before being adopted. In conclusion, Mr. Marshall emphasized the need to return incompetence as a standard, the layoff section is too constraining. Mr. Marshall wished the meeting was regarding more money for schools, spending the money more wisely, and increasing the accountability. The needs of children should be addressed. This type of legislation tends to bash those who are trying to do good jobs. The tenured teacher is being placed on the line for layoff and no one else. Mr. Marshall opposed HB 465, but offered to work with the committee to improve the bill in the aforementioned areas. Number 463 SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to the number of tenured teachers who were nonretained in 1995. VERNON MARSHALL said that would be difficult to say for the 1995-1996 term because some teachers may be going through the process now. In the 1994-1995 term, there were about three teachers that requested hearings which resulted in Superior Court action. Mr. Marshall informed the committee that about 10 teachers per year resign in a district the size of Anchorage. Mr. Marshall discussed a case that went to the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the teacher. SENATOR LEMAN asked out of how many teachers were these statistics taken. VERNON MARSHALL clarified that the 10 teachers that resigned were in the Anchorage School District. Mr. Marshall offered to do a survey on this issue. Mr. Marshall questioned the hiring procedures of those in the bush. SENATOR SALO acknowledged the host of amendments before the committee. She questioned how should these amendments be approached in order to make the bill more palatable to the teaching force in Alaska. VERNON MARSHALL pointed out that Alaska is a growing state that has consistently ranked in the top 10 relative to the student growth. He emphasized that Alaska's public schools are doing an excellent job in graduating students. The public is generally concerned with the large class sizes in public schools. There should be an effort to reduce class sizes. Mr. Marshall did not know how class sizes could be reduced while reducing the number of teachers. If the layoff provision is applied, what incentive would the legislature or local government have to fund the schools? Mr. Marshall believed the layoff provision to be too directed on tenured teachers, therefore, he suggested deleting the term tenure. He believed that costs would shift under the layoff provision. Number 559 RICK CROSS, Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Education, informed the committee that he was present by request of Commissioner Holloway after a consultation with the Governor's office. Mr. Cross reiterated his previous testimony that the Governor supports his bills, SB 204 and HB 398. He acknowledged that Representative Ivan has had an open process involving many people and improving HB 465. The major difference between the Governor's bill and HB 465 is that the Governor's bill has more local decision making. With regard to Amendment 6, all of the discussions have attempted to address the duplicate, lengthy and costly process of the current layoff and nonretention system. The other principal discussed in this debate has been the notion that teachers are entitled to fairness. Generally, fairness has meant a complete independent review. Mr. Cross pointed out that the Governor's bill and the current CS of HB 465 both pass those tests. Whether or not Amendment 6 would pass both tests, depends upon who you listen to. TAPE 96-30, SIDE B Mr. Cross concluded that Amendment 6 meets either one of the two tests or neither of the two tests. Amendment 6 requires a full school board hearing as well as a second process. If the court can decide not to have a costly second process, then the amendment does not meet the independent review test. Mr. Cross suggested those two fundamental tests are not meet by Amendment 6. SENATOR SALO asked Mr. Cross if he had a chance to review Amendment 14 because she was interested in the department's position on the amendment. RICK CROSS said that it would not be appropriate to speak on Amendment 14 since he had only received it this morning in the hall. Number 566 BETH BEHNER, Director of Personnel and Labor Relations in the Fairbanks district, agreed with Mr. Cross regarding the districts' desire to avoid duplicate process. Districts are overly cautious when dismissing or nonretaining a tenured teacher. The current bill does not preserve the local districts ability to have oversight on dismissal and nonretention decisions because the teacher has the option to go directly to court. The bill does minimize the duplicate process. Ms. Behner said that her amendment would suggest that the teacher would go before the board first and then have a limited review by the court on the record unless the teacher shows that due process has been denied. That would provide a full independent review when necessary. Furthermore, this would reduce the costs for districts. Ms. Behner opposed the option to go directly to court because she believed that a teacher would see the full value of using the cost issue as leverage against the district to settle meritless cases. Ms. Behner assured the committee that the Fairbanks School Board was intent on maintaining their impartial and independent review status. SENATOR SALO inquired as to how many dismissal cases of tenured teachers did Fairbanks experience in the last year. BETH BEHNER said that the Fairbanks district had about three such cases. Ms. Behner commented that due to the cost prohibitive nature of this, borderline cases of teacher incompetence are not taken up. SENATOR SALO asked how many incompetent teachers is the Fairbanks' district unable to terminate. BETH BEHNER did not know. There are about 950 certificated employees. Teachers are no different than other employees, there are good teachers and nonsatisfactory teachers. If the current financial constraints were lifted, the school district would probably process more nonretentions for incompetence or under performing reasons. SENATOR SALO noted that Ms. Behner was implying that the Fairbanks district has many incompetent teachers. BETH BEHNER clarified that she was saying that the district has several cases which should be moved forward, but cannot because of financial constraints. SENATOR SALO did not understand the district's fear in going to court. The only difference in court is the neutrality of the court. Senator Salo inquired as to why the district would be so disadvantaged by going directly to court. BETH BEHNER said that having a possibility of an original action in Superior Court would give the teacher the right to join other claims. There could be the potential of a jury trial which would increase the cost. She noted that her amendment would limit a full evidentiary hearing which is a very expensive process. Ms. Behner agreed that teachers should have an impartial review, but a full review is not always required. The teacher could be asked to demonstrate that before the district is required to pay. She noted that the teacher's union does not always fund the evidentiary part of the trial, therefore, this is a district funding issue. SENATOR SALO surmised that the teacher would face a disincentive due to the cost of the process. BETH BEHNER agreed with that assumption, but pointed out that the district is responsible for funding all public education while the individual can make their own decision as to whether it would be wise. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the committee had a number of amendments before them and that she intended to go through the amendments today. Number 491 SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 1 be adopted. SENATOR ELLIS objected. CHAIRMAN GREEN addressed the calls for the local district to be more involved with the formation of their standards. The district would use this set of performance standards as the basis for their own customized standards. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman, Miller, Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Therefore, Amendment 1 passed with unanimous consent. SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 2 be adopted. SENATOR ELLIS and SENATOR SALO objected. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that Amendment 2 would allow teachers who taught in an area outside of their certification or endorsement to be recalled for a position in that area if they received a satisfactory evaluation in the last five years. SENATOR SALO referred to page 7, line 14 when asking if the language was and/or. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the "or" is not removed. SENATOR SALO maintained her objection. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman, and Miller voted "Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay." Amendment 2 was adopted. SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 3 be adopted. SENATOR SALO objected. She believed that Amendment 1 eliminated the need for Amendment 3. CHAIRMAN GREEN said this would eliminate the double negatives. This was for clarification and was not meant to change the intent of the original language. SENATOR SALO asked Chairman Green if it would be acceptable for the School Board Association and NEA-AK to come to the table and provide their interpretation of Amendment 3. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that she would like to come back to Amendment 3. SENATOR LEMAN withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 3. Number 410 SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 4 would amend the effective date which would postpone enactment of this law until the performance standards are in place. Senator Salo was not sure that it allowed enough time for the district standards to follow. Senator Salo moved that Amendment 4 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected. Chairman Green moved an amendment to Amendment 4 which would refer to "Sec. 4." SENATOR SALO did not consider Chairman Green's amendment to Amendment 4 to be a friendly amendment. Senator Salo emphasized that the effective date clause in Amendment 4 is for the entire bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN withdrew her amendment to Amendment 4. She said that she would not be supporting Amendment 4. SENATOR ELLIS asked if Amendment 4 was necessary because the state does not have the standards in place for school districts to use in order to achieve what the bill wants. SENATOR SALO understood that there are regulations in place for teacher education standards for universities. The student performance standards are being worked on and are to be followed with teaching performance standards. The latter of the standards is not ready. Furthermore, fair warning is necessary because of the substantial changes in layoff and tenure under this bill. Senator Salo said that she was not opposed to thinking about Chairman Green's amendment. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that Amendment 4 could also be left to the end. SENATOR SALO withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 4. SENATOR SALO moved that Amendment 5 be adopted. SENATOR MILLER objected. SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 5 addresses the concern that not having tenure would be bad for teachers, education, and children. Amendment 5 would add a nondiscrimination clause which Senator Salo hoped would protect free speech rights. SENATOR LEMAN expressed concern with Amendment 5 in that it may create some unintended consequences. SENATOR SALO noted that she had given Chairman Green a definition of academic freedom from Black's Law Dictionary. She recalled that the definition referred to the standard of evil. SENATOR LEMAN said that he would prefer a standard a bit higher than evil. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea." Amendment 5 failed to be adopted. Number 344 SENATOR MILLER moved that Amendment 6 be adopted. SENATOR SALO objected. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Amendment 6 was adopted. SENATOR MILLER moved that Amendment 7 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the committee that she had received concerns regarding the minimum time. She suggested that the language "90 work days and" be deleted leaving "not more than 180 work days" to be inserted on page 4, line 7. This is the portion that pertains to teachers on a 180 day work contract. The second portion of Amendment 7 would delete the following language, "90 work days and not more than 180 work days" and insert "not more than 210 work days". This portion refers to supervisors, principals and other staff who are on a longer contract period than teachers. SENATOR SALO objected. CHAIRMAN GREEN viewed her amendment to Amendment 7 to be the least obtrusive manner for everyone effected. SENATOR SALO posed the following situation: a person on a plan of improvement is not showing improvement and there is no minimum time for improvement to be illustrated. What happens to that person? CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the "not more than 180 work days" language which is retained in the amendment. Chairman Green said that she did not have a problem with returning to the original wording of Amendment 7, but the language she offered seemed to be better, especially for the staff that are on a plan of improvement for a very minor issue. SENATOR ELLIS asked what would happen if a person had a significant problem to be improved and there is not a reasonable amount of time to improve. CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the person would have 180 work days from the implementation of the plan of improvement. SENATOR SALO said that 180 work days would be a minimum. Therefore, a person with a messy room would have 180 work days to improve the situation. CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed and specified that the person would not have to be on the plan for a semester. SENATOR SALO inquired as to the difference. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the problem could be resolved and the plan of improvement could be signed off accordingly. Therefore, on that issue the plan of improvement would be completed. Chairman Green felt that what she proposed was more equitable. Number 251 JOE JOSEPHSON understood this to delete the minimum which interprets into a shape up or ship out amendment. Under this, Mr. Josephson felt that the principal could determine the time allotted for the plan of improvement to be completed since there is no statutory minimum. He felt that a minimum would provide a reasonable time for the teacher to complete a plan of improvement. SENATOR LEMAN suggested that language could be added allowing a shorter time if the teacher and the school district agreed. CHAIRMAN GREEN thought that would be fine. SENATOR SALO felt that a mutually agreed upon time and a maximum would be reasonable. BETH BEHNER suggested that it would not be in the district's interest to allow the teacher to insist on a minimum of 180 work days. The district would want to establish a time frame that the district considers reasonable which would fall between 90 and 180 work days. SENATOR LEMAN clarified that he was trying to get to the less than 90 days with mutual agreement of both parties. BETH BEHNER thought that would be fine if that were an option. SENATOR LEMAN interjected that if the school district did not agree then it would not be a mutual agreement. BETH BEHNER expressed the need to avoid the teacher interpreting this so as to insist upon 180 days as a minimum. SENATOR SALO suggested that the mistake in this approach is relative to the nine or 12 months. She could foresee a problem if a plan of improvement of 180 days was adopted in March which would result in a mid-year situation. CHAIRMAN GREEN believed that any way this is done there remains the possibility of disruption. She said that she could withdraw her amendment and come back to this. She emphasized that the "nine and not more than 12 months" does not move in the desired direction. Chairman Green withdrew her amendment to Amendment 7. Number 158 SENATOR LEMAN suggested that Amendment 7 be changed so that page 4, lines 16-17 inserts the following language, "90 work days and not more than 210 work days unless shortened by mutual agreement". Senator Leman's amendment to Amendment 7 would also insert "90 work days and not more than 180 work days unless shortened by mutual agreement" on page 4, line 7. SENATOR MILLER felt that this language would guarantee that the plan of improvement would last 180 days if both parties do not agree. SENATOR LEMAN clarified that his amendment did not delete the "90 work days" language. SENATOR SALO agreed with Chairman Green that Senator Leman's amendment to Amendment 7 was better. SENATOR LEMAN moved that his amendment to Amendment 7 be adopted. SENATOR SALO said that when the amendment is worked into the bill that it should be very clear who the mutual agreement is between. SENATOR LEMAN said that the drafter could clarify the language. Number 114 TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Ivan, suggested that the language should specify "unless shortened by mutual agreement between the evaluator and the teacher". SENATOR SALO agreed with that language. SENATOR LEMAN noted that in order to have consistent language it should read as follows, "unless shortened by mutual agreement between the evaluating administrator and the teacher". SENATOR SALO asked if under this bill there would be anything to prohibit a new plan of improvement being established at the end of the 210 days. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that would be a new plan of improvement. TOM WRIGHT suggested that the language change on page 4, lines 16- 17, the amendment to Amendment 7 should read "unless shortened by mutual agreement between the evaluating administrator and the administrator". Mr. Wright agreed with Chairman Green that one plan of improvement could be worked through and then six months later another plan of improvement could be established. SENATOR SALO posed the following situation: at the end of the 210 days the district is not satisfied enough to sign off on the plan of improvement, but the district does not want to dismiss the teacher either. Can the district extend or continue the plan of improvement or is the district obliged to dismiss the teacher? TOM WRIGHT pointed out the "may" language. In response to Senator Salo, CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the 210 days applied to those employees that are not on a typical 180 day contract. Without objection the amendment to Amendment 7 was adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that Amendment 7 was now before the committee. SENATOR SALO objected. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea" and Senators Salo and Ellis voted "Nay". Amendment 7 as amended was adopted. Number 037 SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 8 be adopted. SENATOR ELLIS objected. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that this amendment would address the confusion regarding whether the language dealt with decreased school attendance or decreased revenues from one school year to the next. The amendment would allow for either to be the trigger. SENATOR ELLIS surmised that to mean that would make it easier to reduce force. Senator Ellis continued to opposed Amendment 8. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Amendment 8 was adopted. TAPE 96-31, SIDE A SENATOR SALO did not move Amendment 9 at this time. She did move that Amendment 10 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected. SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 10 would allow a district's layoff procedures to be individually negotiated and crafted with input from the teachers' groups and the district. Maintaining this ability is very important. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Amendment 10 failed to be adopted. Number 042 SENATOR SALO explained Amendment 11. She felt that the bill afforded broader development in the evaluation tool. However, it would be foolish to assume that the community's interest or the student's interest is the same as the employee's interest. Amendment 11 would provide for bargaining between the school board and the employee's bargaining organization on an evaluation system which includes professional performance standards. Amendment 1 recognized the importance of having district performance standards. Amendment 11 would provide the process by which the performance standards would be established. Senator Salo moved that Amendment 11 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Amendment 11 failed to be adopted. SENATOR MILLER moved that Amendment 12 be adopted. Amendment 12 would change the language to refer to a "tenured" administrator. The language in Amendment 12 would provide consistent language for a tenured administrator and a tenured teacher. SENATOR SALO objected. She expressed concern with assigning a failed administrator to teach. Often administrators should be fired, but instead are placed in a classroom. SENATOR LEMAN agreed. SENATOR MILLER pointed out another side to that argument. There probably are a number of good teachers that tried being an administrator and did not work well. Should those people be fired when they are good teachers? SENATOR SALO agreed with that possibility. CHAIRMAN GREEN believed this was dealt with in another part of statute. Because an administrator is a class A certification, the administrator is tenured. SENATOR SALO clarified that administrators are tenured as teachers not administrators. There in lies the problem with education in Alaska and nothing has been done to address the problem. Number 137 BETH BEHNER pointed out that the bill does not consistently refer to administrators. These particular sections specifically refer to administrators. If a teacher becomes tenured and then becomes an administrator, the tenure would carry over. However, many administrators are hired that do not have tenure in Alaska. Ms. Behner would not want this to apply to nontenured administrators, if the intent is not to apply it to tenured teachers. She informed the committee that her district's current bargaining agreement with principals specifies that the principal can be reassigned at any time to a teaching position. Ms. Behner interpreted removing an employment contract meant the equivalent of nonretention. CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected that the amendment would still leave it to the discretion of the district. BETH BEHNER agreed. SENATOR SALO maintained her objection. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Amendment 12 was adopted. SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 13 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Amendment 13 regarding basic need was developed from discussion at the last meeting and with Vernon Marshall. VERNON MARSHALL pointed out that this item was in the original draft of SB 217 and does provide a specific trigger to initiate layoff. Mr. Marshall felt that Amendment 13 would be preferable to the "significant, demonstrated reduction in per-pupil expenditures" language. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was objection to Amendment 13. SENATOR LEMAN objected. He believed that this would be approximately $8 million in the Anchorage school district. LARRY WIGET, Anchorage School District, agreed. SENATOR LEMAN believed that to be a lot money to reduce before this would take into effect. CHAIRMAN GREEN said this was only the basic need portion; would that still be $8 million? LARRY WIGET clarified that the entire Anchorage school district budget is about $349 million. Number 194 SENATOR SALO said that this amendment speaks to the reduction in force of tenured teachers. How many nontenured teachers does Anchorage have? LARRY WIGET replied several hundred. SENATOR SALO assumed that the Anchorage school district would oppose this because the district would lose $8 million before being able to layoff tenured teachers. LARRY WIGET said that the Anchorage school district has not yet taken a position on this part. SENATOR LEMAN maintained his objection. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Miller, Ellis and Salo voted "Yea" and Senator Leman voted "Nay". Amendment 13 was adopted. SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 14 would insert incompetency as a standard for nonretention of a tenured teacher. This would establish a more quantifiable standard. In the legal sense at least, incompetency is understood. Amendment 14 also moves some of the language regarding the cause for nonretention of tenured teachers to Section 4, the evaluation section. Senator Salo was most bothered by the confusing nature of many parts of HB 465. Amendment 14 attempts to clear up some of the confusion. Amendment 14 deletes Section 10 and inserts Section 15, the layoff status, from HB 398. Senator Salo believed that Amendment 14 attempts to insert some of the best work done by the task force. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected to the adoption of Amendment 14. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Amendment 14 failed to be adopted. Number 253 SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 3 be adopted. He explained that the amendment was a rewrite of the language in order to make the language understandable. TOM WRIGHT informed the committee that Representative Ivan had requested clarification of this language. Mr. Wright said the intent of the language is the same. SENATOR SALO objected for the purposes of an amendment. She offered the following amendment: line 10, after " has " insert "by clear and convincing evidence". SENATOR LEMAN objected. SENATOR SALO changed her amendment to insert "by clear and convincing evidence", after " demonstrates " on line 9. SENATOR LEMAN maintained his objection. This would raise the standard. Upon a roll call vote on the amendment to Amendment 3, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". The amendment to Amendment 3 failed to be adopted. Upon a roll call on Amendment 3, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 287 SENATOR SALO moved that Amendment 4 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Amendment 4 was adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it would be judicious to move the amendment concerning the effective date in Section 4. SENATOR SALO would like to have a CS in committee to review the bill in total with all the adopted amendments. SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 15 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that Amendment 15 would insert a new section on page 9, after line 27 saying "Sec. applicability of employee evaluation Section 4 of this act takes effect on July 1, 1997." Without objection, Amendment 15 was adopted. SENATOR LEMAN moved SCS CSHB 465(HES) be reported out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. SENATOR ELLIS and SENATOR SALO objected. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". SCS CSHB 465(HES) was reported out of committee.