ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-ninth Legislature – First Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 3 -- 2:00 p.m.
Chairman Crandall called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. and roll call was taken by the secretary.
|
Mrs. Barto |
Mr. Schapira |
Ms. Young Wright |
|
Mr. Court |
Ms. Waters |
Mrs. Goodale, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mr. Hendrix |
Mr. Williams |
Mr. Crandall, Chairman |
|
Mr. Meyer |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
HB2013 – DP (10-0-0-0) |
HB2295 – DPA (8-1-0-1) |
|
HB2099 – DPA (5-4-0-1) |
HB2332 – DPA (10-0-0-0) |
|
HB2100 – DPA (8-0-0-2) |
HB2456 – DPA (9-0-0-1) |
|
HB2122 – DPA – S/E (10-0-0-0) |
HB2459 – DPA (8-0-0-2) |
|
HB2175 – |
HB2515 – DPA (6-2-0-2) |
|
HB2197 – |
HB2516 – DPA (8-0-0-2) |
Chairman Crandall thanked everyone who had the opportunity to attend the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Conference in the last three days in Scottsdale. He said it was exciting to talk to so many legislators from around the country. There were discussions about the federal stimulus package and reform opportunities over the next two years.
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
HB2013 – community colleges; nonresidents; reimbursement – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2013 do pass.
Cassondra Warney, Majority Intern, explained that HB2013 allows a county and a community college district to specify the reimbursement due to the community college district for nonresident students without an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) if the county pays part of the reimbursement with in-kind contributions (Attachment 1).
Representative Bill Konopnicki, Sponsor, stated that with all of the budget opportunities, this bill can be used as a “fallback piece” if problems occur.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2013 but did not speak:
Barry Aarons, Lobbyist, Apache and Greenlee Counties
Question was called on the motion that HB2013 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 10-0-0-0 (Attachment 2).
HB2175 – eastern Arizona college – DO PASS AMENDED FAILED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2175 do pass.
Jennifer Anderson, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2175 authorizes Eastern Arizona College (EAC) to offer four-year Baccalaureate degrees (Attachment 3).
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall seven-line amendment to HB2175 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 4) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 4) removes language stating that the district is required to set a limit on the tax rate it would be able to collect and removes unspecified appropriations for setup of the district.
Representative Bill Konopnicki, Sponsor, stated that this bill will allow people who do not have an opportunity to obtain a Baccalaureate degree to have that opportunity. In response to questions, he clarified that the bill is worded so the local district board would decide if the community college should join the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR); it would not be a vote of the people, but approval would be needed by the legislature. He indicated that he believes this could be done for less than $16 million and advised that EAC has campuses in Graham, Greenlee and Gila counties. He said there is no intent to set a precedent for other community college districts to begin offering Baccalaureate degrees. There will be some community college districts that will want to do this, if this is successful and it makes sense, but Arizona State University (ASU), the University of Arizona (UA) and Northern Arizona University (NAU) already fill that need; this bill addresses places with needs that cannot be filled.
Chairman Crandall recognized several teachers from the Phoenix Union High School District and Isaac School District.
Christine Thompson, Assistant Executive Director for Government Affairs, Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR), opposed HB2175. She submitted that opening up a new paradigm of allowing community colleges to offer Baccalaureate degrees is not the right way for the state to proceed in these tough economic times. The current system of a 2+2 model is working very well with NAU and the other institutions partnering with community colleges to provide degrees in high need areas. She said there are opportunities to grow those programs and more needs to be done to supply the Baccalaureate degrees the state needs, so the ABOR set a goal of doubling degree production by 2020.
Mike Gardner, Eastern Arizona College (EAC), spoke in favor of HB2175. He related that the fact sheet indicates there is a $16 million allocation, but that is a guarantee of state aid. Currently, state aid to EAC is $19 million, and the bill stipulates that state aid to EAC shall never be below $16 million; it is not new money. There will be no cost, and in fact, the amendment removes that guaranteed floor. He added that a fiscal note on a similar bill several years ago indicated that this bill might cost up to $1.3 million if the program is successful and attracts students in rural Arizona that were not attending school before. That is the upper range, which would occur after EAC becomes accredited in a few years. He said the state will save money because students that would have gone to ASU, UA or NAU at a much higher state-subsidized rate will now be going to EAC.
In response to questions, Mr. Gardner related that the 2+2 model does not work for Safford, Thatcher, or Pima because students do not want to learn in an on-line environment, which is what NAU is offering; it works for some students, but not all students. Also, nursing or teaching programs cannot be offered on-line. He indicated that EAC does not do research, so that does not need to be paid for by the state; all that has to be paid for are the students and teachers. He indicated that the two Native American tribes in the area supported this type of legislation in the past. He anticipated that enrollment will double in the next five years from the current enrollment of 2,500 students.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2175 but did not speak:
Don Isaacson, Independent Colleges and Universities of Arizona
Paul Berumen, Director of Local Government Relations, Arizona State University
Mitch Menlove, Arizona State University; Grand Canyon University
Greg Fahey, Associate Vice President, University of Arizona
Kate Dillon Hogan, Vice President for State Compliance, Grand Canyon University
Christy Farley, Assoc. Vice President, Government Affairs, Northern Arizona University
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2175 but did not speak:
Barry Aarons, Lobbyist, Apache and Greenlee Counties
James Palmer, Supervisor, Graham County
Terry Cooper, Manager, Graham County
Mark Herrington, Supervisor, Graham County
Lyn White, Manager, Government Relations, Freeport McMoRan Copper Gold
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2175 but did not speak:
Jay Zsorey, Financial Audit Director, Arizona Office of the Auditor General
Question was called on the motion that the Crandall seven-line amendment to HB2175 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 4) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2175 as amended do pass. The motion failed by a roll call vote of 4-6-0-0 (Attachment 5).
HB2332 – schools; energy contracts – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2332 do pass.
Rene Guillen, Majority Research Analyst, Water and Energy Committee, explained that HB2332 allows school districts to enter into energy performance and renewable energy power purchase contracts and utilize the savings realized from these contracts (Attachment 6). Additionally, HB2332 includes stipulations for the implementation of the contracts and includes reporting requirements.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall two-page amendment to HB2332 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 7) be adopted.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall two-page amendment to HB2332 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 7) be amended as follows:
Page 1, line 13, strike “30 and 31” insert “31 and 32”
Page 2, line 1, after the comma insert “line 28”
Jennifer Anderson, Majority Research Analyst, clarified that the Committee Rules allow a non-substantive verbal amendment with the permission of the Chairman, and it does not have to be distributed beforehand.
Mr. Guillen explained that the amendment (Attachment 7) contains the following provisions:
Mr. Guillen added that the verbal amendment to the amendment makes conforming changes.
Representative Tom Boone, Sponsor, stated that he has been working with several groups on this bill, which is meant to encourage school districts to invest in energy cost saving measures, mainly equipment installations, to be financed with savings generated by the projects. He said this is so complex because several years ago there were some issues with school district contracts that resulted in involvement by the Auditor General’s Office, but he believes all of those issues have been ironed out.
Russell Smoldon, Manager, Government Relations, Salt River Project (SRP), spoke in support of HB2332. He indicated that schools are the best facilities in which to promote conservation; however, legislation was passed in the 1990s and numerous items were going to be done to fix schools, but some contractors took advantage of school districts, which resulted in higher energy bills instead of lower energy bills. Each utility has a list of contractors that are used for energy efficiency work, so he hopes the utilities’ qualified providers can be used to make sure the contractors are licensed, bonded, etc.
In response to questions, he indicated that SRP allows net metering, but it is a short-term issue primarily for residential customers. For commercial applications of solar on the roof of a school, the best method would be a power purchase agreement with a third party. He related that SRP looks at a school’s heating and cooling systems to see how old they are, the size and whether the ventilation system works, weatherization of the doors and windows, occupancy sensors for the classroom, and talks about commercial-type lighting, which has been successful in saving schools money. Renewables would be another part of the equation. With the federal stimulus package, the Department of Energy has a grant program, so consideration is being given to creating net zero schools, which would involve weatherization and renewables so schools could provide their own power or at least enough to get through the daytime hours. The amortization cost depends on the footage of the school, usage by people in the school, etc.
Ms. Young Wright indicated that new schools should be encouraged to follow Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and she is excited to see the inclusion of water harvesting. Mr. Smoldon responded that SRP has a desert-wise program in which businesses, schools and residents are advised on how to save water and use gray water on the premises. In response to a question, Mr. Smoldon said the school would work with the local utility to provide an audit of the facility, which would be used by the contractor, and SRP would make sure the contractor did everything it said it would for the school. SRP has several devices that can tell where air is leaking, where there is too much exposure to the sun, etc.
Mr. Boone stated that this is much broader than the typical changing of light bulbs or replacing thermostats; in fact, the items that would qualify as energy cost savings measures are listed on Page 7 and most of Page 8 of the bill, including the water savings issues Ms. Young Wright mentioned.
Jeff Schlegel, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), spoke in support of HB2332. He testified that the gist of the bill is to save energy and money for school districts and taxpayers. An energy performance contract will be used where energy efficiency measures or renewable energy measures are installed at the schools with no upfront cost to the schools or state coffers. Either the utility or the energy performance contractor, as the qualified provider, will pay for the measures, and the school will repay the cost of the measures over time through the energy savings. The contract terms would be for two to six years and may be slightly longer for some of the measures, but the term is limited to the life of the measure or no greater than 25 years. The measures include traditional energy efficiency measures, renewable energy measures, water conservation measures, and water harvesting. Some schools in the past used building renewal money for lighting, but this bill allows schools to use much more comprehensive measures that would significantly reduce the utility costs of the schools.
Justin Olson, Senior Research Analyst, Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA), opposed HB2332. He indicated that the bill repeals the voter approval requirement for a school district to lease purchase items greater than $50,000, which is a problem. School districts could still enter into these energy contracts even with the voter approval requirement intact, but would have to obtain approval from the voters. If the school districts are going to commit taxpayer dollars several years into the future, taxpayers should be involved in that decision.
Chairman Crandall noted that school elections are now only held once a year with several other items on the ballot at the same time, and it is expensive to go to the voters, which limits opportunities.
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association, spoke in support of HB2332. She stated that a few years ago, there was an issue as far as school districts being able to pay back the savings with maintenance and operations (M&O) funds for capital expenses, so obtaining documentation from the Auditor General allowing them to do so would provide reassurance. Also, the amendment removes the ability of the SBE to procure rules for some of the bigger projects, but for items like solar panels on roofs that are more expensive, there may be some merit to having rules to ensure a productive process.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2332 but did not speak:
Michael Neary, Executive Director, Arizona Solar Energy industries Association
Thomas Alston, Solar Alliance
Sandy Bahr, Conservation Director, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter
Gretchen Kitchel, Senior Public Affairs Representative, Arizona Public Service Company
Mitch Menlove, Solar Alliance
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2332 but did not speak:
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators
In response to a question, Mr.
Guillen advised that if the school district cannot achieve the projected
savings, the qualified provider must reimburse the school, which is specified
on
Page 7, Subsection J, of the bill.
Question was called on the motion that the Crandall two-page amendment to HB2332 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 7) be amended as follows:
Page 1, line 13, strike “30 and 31” insert “31 and 32”
Page 2, line 1, after the comma insert “line 28”
The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall two-page amendment to HB2332 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 7) as amended be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2332 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 10-0-0-0 (Attachment 8).
HB2122 – school districts; override elections – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: same subject
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2122 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall 25-page strike-everything amendment to HB2122 dated 2/24/09 (Attachment 9) be adopted.
Jennifer Anderson, Majority Research Analyst, explained that the strike-everything amendment to HB2122 raises the maximum amount for a maintenance and operations (M&O) override from 10 percent of a school district’s revenue control limit (RCL) to 15 percent of the RCL, expands the K-3 override to include special programs for grades K-12 and allows a school district to request either a 15 percent M&O override or a 10 percent M&O override and a 5 percent special program override (Attachment 10). She responded to questions concerning language on Page 25, line 8, of the strike-everything amendment regarding temporary authorization of a 17 percent increase for a common school district currently carrying a K-3 override and an M&O override.
Representative Tom Boone, Sponsor, stated that this measure creates more flexibility and equity with the override laws. It was sponsored at the request of school districts. He noted that authorization for a March 2010 election is a one-time option that is basically for transition.
Justin Olson, Senior Research Analyst, Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA), in opposition to the strike-everything amendment, stated that it increases the capacity of property tax overrides by $193 million and will most likely result in an actual property tax increase statewide of about $143 million. It will undermine the equity of the equalization formula.
Jim Dicello, Assistant Superintendent - Business, Deer Valley, Paradise Valley, Glendale Elementary School Districts, spoke in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2122. He related that the school districts he works with would like this opportunity. He pointed out that the 17 percent increase is only for K-8 districts (common schools), so only an elementary district that currently has a 10 percent and 5 percent override in place would be eligible.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2122 but did not speak:
Dan Lawrence, representing self
Charles Essigs, Arizona Association of School Business Officials
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators
Sam Polito, Tucson Area Schools
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association
Jennifer Loredo, Arizona Education Association
John Kaites, Education Finance Reform Group
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2122 but did not speak:
Steve Voeller, President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Chairman Crandall commented that Mr. Olson brought up legitimate issues as far as school funding formulas; there are issues with equity, but he is still waiting for certain groups to bring forward a comprehensive reform package, and in the meantime, bandages are being applied to various items because children are still going to school and cannot wait for reform. He believes this is a big step forward in allowing school districts the flexibility that is needed to offer programs.
Representative Boone contended that this proposal creates more equity in terms of the 15 percent versus the current system. The Arizona Supreme Court was clear that local taxpayers can go above the minimums and specifically address such items as the overrides as long as they are reasonable amounts. Fifteen percent additional above the current operating limits for M&O would not violate any general and uniform standards of any kind. Also, school districts need some options, and if the local taxpayers are willing, school districts need to have the ability to do that, especially considering the present challenges of the state budget.
Ms. Young Wright remarked that the Amphitheater School District did not pass an override for 20 years, but she would not want to penalize every other school district in the state for that reason. Every school district in the state should have the ability to be able to do what it wants to do; for example, Flowing Wells passed an override that lowered class sizes and did many wonderful things for the district.
Question was called on the motion that the Crandall 25-page strike-everything amendment to HB2122 dated 2/24/09 (Attachment 9) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2122 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 10-0-0-0 (Attachment 11).
HB2456 – high schools; pilot; achievement profile – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2456 do pass.
Jennifer Anderson, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2456 requires the State Board of Education (SBE) and the State Board of Charter Schools (SBCS) to establish a 10-year pilot program to develop separate high school achievement profiles (Attachment 12).
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall 17-line amendment to HB2456 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 13) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment contains the following provisions:
Representative David Lujan, Sponsor, conveyed that members of the business community and community leaders want to see schools produce graduates who are ready for college and career. The governing board at the Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD) determined a year ago that their objective is to prepare all students to be college ready and able to have successful careers beyond college. This bill establishes a pilot program to look at allowing certain school districts and charter schools to establish their own school achievement profiles that focus on college and career readiness that would be adopted by the SBE or SBCS, and perhaps, statewide at some point. While PUHSD qualifies to participate in the program, the bill is written so any high school district that qualifies could also be selected to participate. He hopes data already collected by Arizona State University (ASU) can be used as a measurement tool to determine how many students have to take remedial classes before taking entry level college classes.
In response to questions,
Representative Lujan said he understands that this philosophy is consistent
with the work of the AIMS Task Force. He noted that whether PUHSD is selected
or not, the students should be commended for wanting to achieve a higher
standard, noting that in
April 2009, all of the juniors in the district will be taking the American College
Test (ACT) as part of a pilot program Chairman Crandall established last year. He
speculated that union high school districts that may want to participate in the
pilot program are PUHSD, Glendale, Tempe, Agua Fria, Tolleson and Buckeye.
Dr. Kent Scribner, Superintendent, Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD), spoke in support of HB2456. He stated that should the bill move forward, he hopes PUHSD will receive strong consideration to participate in the pilot program. The governing board established a mission of preparing every student for success, so hopefully, students will not need remediation upon graduation. Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) is a very good measure of standards, but it is a beginning point. The AIMS Task Force agreed that AIMS is important, but not sufficient in determining college and career readiness. This pilot will help create a formula that looks at high school content area standards and orientation toward ensuring students are prepared for college and the workplace.
Art Harding, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Education (ADE), opposed HB2456. He related that he likes the idea of increasing the standards and adding new requirements to the achievement profiles, but he is concerned about the language stating that any schools in the pilot program are completely exempt from AZ LEARNS, which is the state accountability system, and may jeopardize Proposition 301 funds (Classroom Site Fund monies). It would be good to do this in addition to AZ LEARNS. In response to questions, he advised that the designation of performing and above will include most schools.
Chairman Crandall asked, as the pilot happens, how parents who are shopping around will know a good high school from a bad high school. Representative Lujan replied that AIMS scores would still be a basis for measurement and the data he mentioned previously could be made available on the Internet. Regarding Mr. Harding’s concern, he stated that he believes language can be worked out to establish a program that meets the requirements of the Classroom Site Fund and federal laws.
Chairman Crandall said that if any school districts wish to pilot this unofficially, he hopes any information or resources would be made available to them. Representative Lujan stated that he would be more than willing to share the information and include school districts in the process to participate unofficially as well.
Dr. David Garcia, Assistant Professor, College of Education, Arizona State University (ASU), spoke in support of HB2456. He related that this bill will mean that more of the students in the chosen school district will be ready for college than before. The school district that is chosen has a chance to be innovative and there is an opportunity to learn about what they are doing well and what needs to be improved because he believes there will be some changes to accountability, both state and federal, with the new administration. This bill is an opportunity to get in front of those issues and think about accountability differently before those changes come along.
In response to questions, Dr. Garcia stated that students who enter the universities or community college system could be tracked to determine if they enroll into a college level algebra, English or math course. There is a benchmark in that he prepared a report about how well Maricopa Community Colleges prepare students for community colleges and postsecondary education. He believes a more articulated baseline can be developed and then PUHSD or any school district can pay attention to the growth over time. The baseline is from 2006, but he can provide the most updated information that is available. He clarified that all students will be in the accountability system somehow. The students will still take AIMS, but above and beyond that, will receive not only a report, but an indication of whether or not they are ready for college.
Vince Yanez, Executive Director, State Board of Education (SBE), said he signed in as neutral on HB2456 but he has some concerns. The SBE is not concerned about the possibility of including college readiness measures into the existing accountability system. The concern is with respect to ensuring that if this type of pilot program moves forward, there should be meaningful accountability measures attached to it, which appears to be the intent of the bill, but as it is written, it does not hold schools truly accountable by having consequences for success or failure with respect to the measures put into place. He added that he would like to work on the language to ensure that is in place for the participating schools.
Chairman Crandall stated that he will work with Mr. Yanez, Mr. Harding and other stakeholders to refine the bill.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2456 but did not speak:
Sam Polito, Tucson Area Schools
Charles Essigs, Arizona Association of School Business Officials
Jennifer Loredo, Arizona Education Association
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2456 but did not speak:
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association
Question was called on the motion that the Crandall 17-line amendment to HB2456 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 13) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2456 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-1 (Attachment 14).
HB2099 – charter schools; zoning – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2099 do pass.
Jennifer Anderson, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2099 classifies charter schools as public schools for the purposes of municipal and county zoning districts (Attachment 15).
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall four-line amendment to HB2099 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 16) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 16) clarifies that charter schools would also be subject to any building codes, including life and safety building codes, that the municipality or county may require.
Patrice Kraus, Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator, City of Chandler, opposed HB2099. She related that charter schools are different in relation to location decisions than traditional public schools. Most charter schools retrofit into existing buildings, often in commercial areas and occasionally industrial areas, usually on sites never intended for schools. Charter schools can locate in certain commercial areas, but the city likes to work with them to ensure compatibility with neighbors and other tenants and that the safety of the children attending the schools is addressed, such as the parking, playgrounds, etc. Charter schools are not allowed in industrial areas without going through a rezoning or use permit process.
Jay Kaprosy, Senior Government Relations Advisor, Arizona Charter Schools Association, spoke in favor of HB2099. He said that in the last few years, many factors impacted the ability of charter schools to find facilities, such as increased construction costs and lease rates. Since there is no differentiation between maintenance and operation (M&O) dollars and capital dollars, if a charter school goes through the cumbersome and expensive process for zoning, the dollars spent are no longer available for the classroom. The intent is to work with the cities to identify where zoning requirements can be minimized and recognize charter schools as public schools similarly to how district schools are handled. He said he wanted to obtain input from the League of Cities and Towns, but time constraints prevented that from happening. He pointed out that the bill does not exempt charter schools from the building codes on health, safety and welfare. He asked for the Members’ support so conversations with the League and cities can continue.
Ms. Kraus indicated that she met with Mr. Kaprosy and his clients and she understood that charter schools want to be exempt from zoning. She tried to work on language to codify everything the City of Chandler (City) would want charter schools to do, which is beyond the traditional public health and safety building codes.
Chairman Crandall asked what recourse a group of citizens that are opposed to where a traditional school is sited would have with the City. Ms. Kraus replied that there would be no recourse with the City, but there would be recourse with the elected governing body of the school board.
Ms. Kraus acknowledged that the City has a good working relationship with school districts whose staff is often aware of any requirements, etc., but charter schools do not always have that expertise. Industrial areas are often attractive for charter schools because of the low rent, but often compatibility with truck traffic and children playing are a huge concern. In addition, sometimes the City may be prohibited from bringing in another industrial user for which the area was planned. By right, charter schools are allowed to locate in commercial areas, but the City still wants to know where the playground will be, etc. The City considers charter schools as amenities and wants to be fair and expeditious in their review, but it has a responsibility to the other residents of the area and the City, to make sure the children going to the school are safe and the use is compatible with the surrounding area. In 1996, the City developed an expedited process so charter schools would not be tied up a long time on plan reviews. Perhaps some middle ground can be reached, but the way this bill is written she said she has to oppose it.
Mr. Kaprosy stated that charter schools are public schools with an obligation to educate students and additional obligations to parents and individuals who keep the doors open to make sure the students are safe and have a great learning environment. The cities have valid points that need to be addressed and he is committed to doing that.
Chairman Crandall commented that it sounds as if even one rogue owner is not accountable to anyone. There is no school board for the public to weigh in, there is no public hearing, and there would not be an opportunity for a public hearing if this bill passed. Mr. Kaprosy said that is correct. There is different accountability for charter schools and school districts, which are accountable because of elected governing boards; but for charter schools, if no one shows up for the school, there is no longer a school. The bottom line is the difficulty of procuring facilities. The intent is to make sure that education dollars that go to charter schools are used effectively, efficiently and go into the classroom.
Question was called on the motion that the Crandall four-line amendment to HB2099 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 16) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2099 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-4-0-1 (Attachment 17).
HB2197 – day care centers;
licensing; exemptions – DO PASS AMENDED – SE
S/E: same subject
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2197 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall two-page strike-everything amendment to HB2197 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 18) be adopted.
Cassondra Warney, Majority
Intern, explained that the strike-everything amendment to HB2197 grants an
exemption from the Department of Health Services (DHS) child care center
licensure for after-school educational services provided by a school district
or charter school
(Attachment 19).
Jay Kaprosy, Senior Government Relations Advisor, Arizona Charter Schools Association, spoke in favor of the strike-everything amendment to HB2197. He stated that this measure arises from a concern by charter schools and school districts about a determination by DHS that some after-school programs require DHS licensure. The strike-everything amendment attempts to define after-school programs as educational programs and a continuation of the school day, which is why there should be an exemption. There is also an exemption for group tutoring, tutoring in multiple subjects, or other programs that supplement the curriculum provided by the school, which are all legitimate educational exercises that are part of the school day. The language limits the exemption to pupils attending the school and programs at no cost. He added that child care licensure, in most circumstances, is to make sure students are safe. School districts and charter schools are required to abide by building codes, etc., to keep children safe during the school day, and will continue to keep children safe in after-school hours as well.
James Emch, Valley Child Care & Learning Centers, representing self, testified in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2197. He said he operates 10 family-owned child care centers in the Phoenix area. In the past few years, all-day kindergarten came about, which took 80 to 100 students out of the facilities and about $400,000 in gross revenue from the programs. With the budget situation, DES has been cut and facilities are threatened within 10 days of any time DES sends out a letter, with losing another 30 percent of children. He submitted that there is not a huge difference between after-school programs in public schools and child care centers, and it is frustrating to say after-school programs are at no cost in schools because he pays taxes, which go to education. He added that in the last few years, he was on a committee with DHS that was trying to develop a new set of rules, which was stopped when Governor Brewer took office. The public schools and charter schools had opportunities to attend the meetings and address the rules, and some did, but some of these issues were never brought up until now, which is not right. There is an avenue to take care of this besides the legislature where everyone can have an equal playing ground.
Kevin B. DeMenna, Arizona Child Care Association, stated that he opposes the strike-everything amendment to HB2197, but he believes an interim review of these regulations would be appropriate.
Bruce Liggett, Executive Director, Arizona Child Care Association, in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2197, conveyed that he represents private, licensed, non-profit and for-profit child care centers. He stated that the strike-everything amendment only gives an exemption to public schools or charter schools, but private operators also provide tutoring. Also, if a provider is providing with a grant and does not charge parents, a child care license is still required because compensation is being provided to the person providing the care. He opposes a different standard for children in public facilities versus private facilities.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2197 but did not speak:
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators
Sam Polito, Tucson Area Schools
Charles Essigs, Arizona Association of School Business Officials
Gary Bae, Director of Public Affairs, The Leona Group
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to HB2197 but did not speak:
Duane Huffman, Chief Legislative Liaison, Department of Health Services
Question was called on the motion that the Crandall two-page amendment to HB2197 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 18) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2197 as amended do pass. The motion failed by a roll call vote of 3-5-0-2 (Attachment 20).
HB2295 – pupils with chronic health problems – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2295 do pass.
Cassondra Warney, Majority Intern, explained that HB2295 expands the types of health professionals who may certify that a pupil has a chronic health problem (Attachment 21).
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Schapira seven-line amendment to HB2295 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 22) be adopted.
Ms. Warney explained that the amendment (Attachment 22) removes health professionals from the bill, i.e., dentistry, naturopathic medicine, optometry, respiratory care and acupuncture, and removes the ability of a podiatrist to certify if the child suffers a chronic health care condition or if the pupil has an infant with a severe health problem, which is provided in current statute.
Mr. Schapira, Sponsor, stated that he sponsored this bill last year for a constituent who had an issue with her child, but the bill was caught up in the activity on the last day of Session. This is a narrowed-down version by the removal of some health professionals and the inadvertent removal of one health professional that will be added back in the Health Committee.
Machelle Pickens, representing self, spoke in support of HB2295. She said she has an 18-year-old son who will graduate this May and will no longer be caught up in this. He suffered from chronic migraine headaches for 10 years and went through every treatment option available without any improvement. Acupuncture is the last treatment option, so she is concerned about removal of that profession from the amendment. She said parents only want the right to be able to seek the most comprehensive treatment that will help their children and unfortunately, it is not always what is deemed mainstream medicine. Her son was seen by a neurologist for the last three years, who has not been able to help him. The only care that helped him in the least was a chiropractor. The previous school administration allowed the chiropractor to sign the form, but a new principal would not, which almost resulted in a lawsuit. Parents do not need the added stress of fighting with the school district.
Mr. Schapira stated that he and Chairman Crandall narrowed down the list of health professionals to those on which there is probably a good consensus. When the bill gets to the Floor, there will be discussion about other health professionals people might want to include.
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators, opposed HB2295. He said he and Mr. Schapira agreed to try to resolve any issues. He stated that the list of health professionals identified in the bill will diagnose and certify that the individual has a chronic health problem, but some do not have diagnostic authority in their licensure procedure. This places their license at risk and the school district at risk for accepting certification from a health professional not certified to make a diagnosis. The amendment goes a long way to addressing the issue. Another issue is the new language about providing medication that may not even be necessary with the current laws.
Mr. Schapira stated that if there was a conflict in the licensure of the medical profession that a diagnosis could not be made, this language does not supersede that. The section about medication is an amendment that was added in the Senate last year because someone thought the bill allowed school nurses to prescribe psychotropic drugs. He is willing to draft an amendment to clarify the language so to not construe that it supersedes the abilities of the board or administrators to implement policies.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2295 but did not speak:
Pat Vanmaanen, Arizona Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2295 but did not speak:
William Parks, representing self
Question was called on the motion that the Schapira seven-line amendment to HB2295 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 22) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2295 as amended do pass.
Ms. Anderson clarified that with the amendment, the bill allows chiropractors, doctors of medicine and surgery, an osteopathic physician or surgeon, a physician assistant or registered nurse practitioner to certify that a pupil has a chronic health problem. The amendment removes podiatrists from current statute, which will be addressed in the Health Committee.
Question was called on the motion that HB2295 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-1-0-1 (Attachment 23).
HB2100 – schools; electronic data – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2100 do pass.
Cassondra Warney, Majority Intern, explained that HB2100 directs the Department of Education (ADE) to develop a system for the electronic transfer of student transcripts and requires school districts, charter schools and teacher preparation programs (TPPs) to submit teacher and classroom data to ADE (Attachment 24).
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall 18-line amendment to HB2100 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 25) be adopted.
Ms. Warney explained that the Crandall amendment (Attachment 25) contains the following provisions:
Art Harding, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Education, stated that he opposes the bill, but supports it with the Crandall amendment, which establishes a data steering committee.
Mr. Court made a substitute motion that the Court 18-line amendment to HB2100 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 26) be adopted.
Cassondra Warney, Majority Intern, explained that the Court amendment (Attachment 26) contains the following provisions:
Andrew Morill, Vice President, Arizona Education Association (AEA), spoke in support of HB2100 with the Court amendment, which rightfully leaves authority and oversight for the collection of data with the SBE.
Chairman Crandall advised that the National Data Campaign identified 10 elements that need to be tracked for a state to be all star, and Arizona is collecting seven of those now. One of the most critical is tying a teacher’s preparation to students over a period of time to determine what makes a good teacher and what makes a poor teacher. Currently, ADE has the power to do this on a voluntary basis, but if school districts do not provide any data to ADE it is not possible to get to the next step of data elements eight and nine. Most school districts this has been discussed with are pleased about it because it will provide them with data that can be used to improve. As far as cost to implement, a large federal grant of $6 million was awarded.
Mr. Morill addressed the differences between the Crandall amendment and the Court amendment.
Donald Hood, Chief Information Officer, Arizona Department of Education, stated that this is the third year ADE attempted to get this type of data collection put into place. ADE is focusing on becoming more transparent and more mature stewards of the data that is collected on behalf of school districts for the state. He stated that how the data is used is a policy decision, but responding to the requirements of how the data will be used needs to be left to technicians.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2100 but did not speak:
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators
Jason Bagley, Government Affairs Manager, Intel Corporation
Allison Bell, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association
Nicole Gonzalez, Manager, Public Affairs, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
Vince Yanez, Executive Director, State Board of Education
Question was called on the substitute motion that the Court 18-line amendment to HB2100 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 26) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2100 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-2 (Attachment 27).
HB2516 – schools; administrative reduction – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2516 do pass.
Jennifer Anderson, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2516 makes changes to statutes regulating school districts and charter schools, including the regulation of intergovernmental agreements, procurement practices, school district buffer zones, documentation of incidents of bullying, harassment, and intimidation, pupil disciplinary proceedings, advertising, teacher dismissal, oaths of office for elected officers and lobbyist registration (Attachment 28).
Chairman Crandall, Sponsor, stated that with the budget crisis looming, visits were made to several school districts last summer that were asked for a list of items that impede the ability to teach students, so this bill touches on several items that will help school districts achieve the mission of being better instructors.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Court 12-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 3:10 PM (Attachment 29) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 29) removes provisions defining charter schools as public agencies under Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) and makes a conforming change by removing the requirement for charter schools to maintain a quarter mile buffer zone from agricultural land.
Chairman Crandall related that it is not the intent to allow schools to abut a field where crop dusting, etc., will be done, so he asked the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) to work on language.
Mr. Court, co-sponsor, stated that the bill will clean things up for school districts overall and make items more relevant in timing.
Question was called on the motion that the Court 12-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 3:10 PM (Attachment 29) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Court 12-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 3:22 PM (Attachment 30) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that a verbal amendment is needed because the term school district is used in a section of statute that addresses charter schools.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Court 12-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 3:22 PM (Attachment 30) be amended as follows:
Page 2, lines 7, 10, 12, 17, 20 and 22, strike “SCHOOL DISTRICT” insert “CHARTER SCHOOL”
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 30) will allow a school district or charter school to convert to a biennial audit schedule for internal audits if they are allowed to do so under federal law, but stipulates that if one of the audits produces negative findings, the school district would be required to go back to the annual audit schedule, and allows school districts to submit preventative maintenance guidelines and building renewal reports to the School Facilities Board (SFB) once every two years rather than annually.
Question was called on the motion that the Court 12-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 3:22 PM (Attachment 30) be amended as follows:
Page 2, lines 7, 10, 12, 17, 20 and 22, strike “SCHOOL DISTRICT” insert “CHARTER SCHOOL”
The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Court 12-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 3:22 PM (Attachment 30) as amended be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Barto 13-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 31) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 31) changes the threshold for when a school district is required to hold a public meeting before adopting a revised budget, i.e., if the budget is exceeded by one percent or $100,000, whichever is less.
Question was called on the motion that the Barto 13-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 31) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall four-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 32) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 32) extends the limit on issuance of bonds from six years after voter approval to ten years.
Chairman Crandall noted that the only political entity with a time frame on the ability to bond is school districts.
Charles Essigs, Arizona Association of School Business Officials, related that the Dysart School District had a huge bond election because Sun City was building a large development in the area with the idea to have enough bonds for the next 30 years and all the new people would be responsible for paying for the bonds, which is when the six-year limit was put in place. He added that the amendment will allow for more reasonable planning by school districts. He questioned whether it would pertain to bonds that were passed prior to the amendment taking effect.
Chairman Crandall said the intent is going forward.
Question was called on the motion that the Crandall four-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 32) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Goodale nine-line amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 33) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 33) repeals the excess utilities funding plan that is currently required to be annually submitted by school districts, the capacity for school districts to budget for excess utilities, and at the end of FY 2009, the report would still be required to be submitted for FY 2010, and repeals the Local Education Accountability Program (LEEP), which was designed to provide direct funding associated with teacher salaries, Average Daily Membership (ADM) and transportation of pupils to local schools within the district. Rather than funding going to a district and apportioned out to the schools, the school participating in the program would be financially responsible for the money associated with operation of the school.
Question was called on the motion that the Goodale nine-line amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 33) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Hendrix 26-line amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 34) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 34) clarifies that retired teachers who return to work at a school district are not entitled to due process. The return to work statute already excludes these teachers from many of the due process statutes, and this adds another provision dealing with notification of the intent to renew or not renew a teacher’s contract.
Art Harding, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Education (ADE), stated that he believes the bulk of the bill is okay, noting that school finance people are reviewing it to make sure there will be no unintended consequences. The main concern is the continual chipping away at the 180 days of instruction requirement. Ms. Anderson did say the language that is removed is being replaced somewhere else, but he is not sure. Also, in relation to the audit portion, the question was raised whether the period of a single audit can be extended since federal law states that if more than $500,000 is used, it must be done every year.
Chairman Crandall said that is a good point and it may be necessary to clarify which audits.
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association, spoke in support of HB2516. She opined that it will be a huge benefit to school districts to get some of these items reduced in administrative areas and those that cost money, while still holding school districts accountable but in a very reasonable manner. She indicated that she will work with agriculture people on language relating to the agriculture buffer zone. Also, in relation to due process, there was concern by the Arizona Education Association (AEA) about items on the reasonableness issue, which is contained in Mr. Schapira’s amendment.
Rick Lavis, Executive Vice President, Arizona Cotton Growers Association, spoke in opposition to HB2516. He conveyed that it is important for a school district that is going to buy a piece of land that will affect the quarter-mile buffer zone to talk to the farmer and work things out.
Question was called on the motion that the Hendrix 26-line amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 34) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Schapira two-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 35) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 35) grants more time for a teacher to appeal a decision by a school district that gives notification to a teacher of inadequate performance or intent to dismiss or suspend from the current 10 to 25 days to 15 to 30 days.
Jennifer Loredo, Arizona Education Association (AEA), said this is a compromise that was worked out with the Arizona School Boards Association.
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Board Association, clarified that currently there is a 30-day time frame for a teacher that has not performed to determine whether or not to exercise due process, which is changed to 10 days, and during that time, the teacher is on the payroll, so this reduces 20 days off the payroll for school districts. In discussions with AEA, there was the issue of allowing enough time to prepare an adequate case if a teacher does go forward and exercise due process rights to show that the teacher improved instructional delivery and should be retained as a productive teacher. This provides some cost savings, yet allows adequate time for the teacher to prepare a competent case.
Question was called on the motion that Schapira two-page amendment to HB2516 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 35) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2516 as amended do pass.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2516 but did not speak:
Dan Lawrence, representing self
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators
Sam Polito, Tucson Area Schools
Elizabeth Hatch, Mesa Public Schools
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2516 but did not speak:
Joe Sigg, Lobbyist, Arizona Farm Bureau
Jerry Spreitzer, Arizona Federation of Teachers
Shelly Tunis, Attorney, Yuma Fresh Vegetable Association
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2516 but did not speak:
Andrew Morrill, Vice President, Arizona Education Association
Question was called on the motion that HB2516 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-2 (Attachment 36).
HB2515 – school district overexpenditures; correction; reduction – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2515 do pass.
Jennifer Anderson, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2515 reduces, by $500,000, the amount to be repaid by the Peach Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) as the result of overexpenditures, if PSUSD successfully conducts an election to exclude all real property not located on the Indian Reservation from PSUSD’s boundaries (Attachment 37).
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Crandall two-line amendment to HB2515 dated 2/19/09 (Attachment 38) be adopted.
Ms. Anderson explained that the amendment (Attachment 38) stipulates that an election would have to be conducted no later than December 31, 2009 in order for the school district to take advantage of the $500,000 reduction.
Representative Nancy McLain,
Sponsor, said this bill is a work in progress. There are taxpayers in the
southern part of PSUSD that cannot avail themselves of the school, which is in
the northern part of the district and sits on tribal land with a mountain range
between the two areas. It is a one-way trip of about 60 miles to the school. Some
of the roads are practically impassable when it rains. The school district
hired a superintendent a few years ago who misused funds and was dismissed, so
a bond issuance was made that taxpayers say was not properly noticed, and also
due to other issues, the taxpayers are saddled with an extremely high tax
rate. At the present time, no school age children live in the southern part of
the school district. There have been at least three elections to diminish the
district, but people in the northern part always vote against it, so the
taxpayers asked for this legislative solution. At her request, another
election was held in
November 2008, and while there were many more votes in the northern part of the
district, it was still not enough to diminish the district.
Representative McLain said a meeting was held with representatives of the Hualapai Tribe, ADE, the current district superintendent and a representative of the taxpayer district. The group came to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to diminish the district because as more people move into the southern part, there will likely be children that the school district will be responsible for transporting to the school, but it does not have the funds to do so. ADE is working on figures to determine the financial impact to the district if the district is diminished, which should be available by Friday, March 13, 2009. She related that the bill with the amendment is not what is needed, but she would like to keep it moving forward with the understanding that once a consensus is reached by all of the parties involved, she will either pull it because it will not be necessary or this bill will be available to accomplish the objective she is trying to achieve.
Vice-Chairman Goodale asked if it is true that the taxpayer group made attempts to speak to the tribe and was not able to talk to them and that the school board, which is composed of tribal members, may be considering overrides. Representative McLain agreed that there have been proposals on the school board agenda to extend an override and for a new override, although the meetings were cancelled due to bad weather. The taxpayers are concerned, since the board at Peach Springs is currently under receivership, that there will eventually be a different board and superintendent and the problems that occurred before could happen again.
Ms. Waters expressed concern about saying the state will provide $500,000 if the voters vote a certain way. Representative McLain said the initial idea was to offer an incentive to give the tribal members a reason to vote to diminish the district, and it was looked upon that way, which she understands. That is why she said the final bill will probably look nothing like this or maybe it will not even be needed.
In response to a question,
Representative McLain indicated that if the district is diminished, the impact
on the General Fund would also be determined by ADE. Mr. Meyer asked if this
would set the precedent of carving out the ability of whether or not to pay
taxes to support education.
Representative McLain related that all of the property involved was originally
owned by a woman referred to as Aunt Isabella who was concerned about the Hualapai
children not receiving an adequate education, so she agreed to formation of the
school district in which she was the only taxpayer, other than the railroad and
utilities. Eventually the ranch was sold and subdivided. The taxpayers live
on 40 acres of mostly unimproved property and are basically self-sufficient,
but the district boundaries would never have been created as they are if not
for the generosity of Aunt Isabella, who probably thought the ranch would never
be sold and her heirs would continue to pay the taxes, which is not the case.
Representative McLain added that she will not do anything that will hurt the
school district.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2515 but did not speak:
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators
William Russell, representing self
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2515 but did not speak:
Rob Dalager, Hualapai Tribe
Jennifer Loredo, Arizona Education Association
Question was called on the motion that the Crandall two-line amendment to HB2515 dated 2/19/09 (Attachment 38) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2515 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-2-0-2 (Attachment 39).
HB2459 – schools; superintendents; certification – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2459 do pass.
James Baumann, Majority Intern, explained that HB2459 removes the supervision and control of certification for district superintendents from the powers and duties of the Arizona State Board of Education (SBE) and authorizes school district governing boards to establish the prerequisites for the superintendent of their district (Attachment 40).
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Goodale three-page amendment to HB2459 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 41) be adopted.
Mr. Baumann explained that the amendment (Attachment 41) allows superintendents to continue being certified through the SBE, stipulates that district governing boards must set qualifications for superintendents at a public meeting, and mandates that district governing boards require superintendents to have a valid fingerprint clearance card.
Vice-Chairman Goodale, Sponsor, said the intent of the bill is to allow school boards to look at a variety of disciplines, i.e., MBAs, experts in finance, economics, organizational management, as leadership in their school district.
Question was called on the motion that the Goodale three-page amendment to HB2459 dated 2/26/09 (Attachment 41) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that the Waters three-page amendment to HB2459 dated 2/19/09 (Attachment 42) be adopted.
Mr. Baumann explained that the amendment (Attachment 42) adds a provision stating that the SBE cannot require business managers of a school district to be certified, states that a governing board may hire a business manager who has expertise in finance and defines expertise in finance.
Ms. Waters remarked that there are currently no requirements for a superintendent certification or a business manager but there are if they are called assistant superintendent. The job of a business manager is about the finances of the school district and she believes a business manager does need to have finance experience, which would help many school districts. The amendment encourages school districts to hire a person for that position with expertise in finance.
Art Harding, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Education (ADE), said he is neutral on the bill, but spoke to one issue. He said a few years ago, identity verify fingerprint card legislation was passed. As more fingerprints bills are passed, the types of fingerprint requirements are getting more scattered, so a good direction for the legislature would be to establish identity verify fingerprint cards specifically for educators. He acknowledged that fingerprint clearance cards and identity verify fingerprints cards are constantly checked.
Chairman Crandall said it may be appropriate to work with Legislative Council to follow-through on Mr. Harding’s suggestion.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2459 but did not speak:
Charles Essigs, Arizona Association of School Business Officials
Sam Polito, Tucson Area Schools
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2459 but did not speak:
Dan Lawrence, representing self
Tim Carter, Yavapai County School Superintendent
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators
Jennifer Loredo, Arizona Education Association
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2459 but did not speak:
Vince Yanez, Executive Director, State Board of Education
Question was called on the motion that the Waters three-page amendment to HB2459 dated 2/19/09 (Attachment 42) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Goodale moved that HB2459 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-2 (Attachment 43).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
March 19, 2009
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
22
March 2, 2009
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------