REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? The quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Hughes to introduce our pastor of the day.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it's my pleasure to introduce to you someone who we've gotten to know well over the last couple of sessions. Don has been in many of your homes and many of your offices back home and, of course, here we have (inaudible) with him and studied the word with him, and continue to during special session. Don Garner, our state director for capitol commission will lead us this morning. Don? Pastor: Please join me in prayer. Father, we are grateful for another day and, Lord God, I pray for those that are here with important business to do on behalf people of the State of Texas. And I pray a special -- special blessing upon them. Father, lavish your grace upon them as they seek to do that which is right in your eyes, and for the good of this state. Father, continue to strengthen them after such a long session, and now into this special session and, all of the pressures that have been built up over that time, and the special burdens that so many of them carry. Father, I pray that you might, Lord God, exalt yourself in our midst that you might unite our hearts to fear your name that, Father, we might know that you are fearful in judgment, but that you are great in mercy. We thank you so much for loving us, that you have not left us nor forsaken, us but Father you extend your love and compassion, mercy and forgiveness through your son, Jesus Christ. It is in his name we pray. Amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: If you'd join me in the pledge? [PLEDGE]
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden moves that the reading and referral of bills be moved to the end of today's calendar. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Gonzales? Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 115.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 115 by Gonzales of Williamson. Congratulating Gretchen Zamora on her retirement from Austin State Hospital Support Services.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse Representative Frullo because of family business, on the motion of Representative Shelton. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd like to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider House Resolution No. 66.
THE CHAIR: You heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So moved. Following resolution, the clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 66 by Menendez. Congratulating the Michelle Thomas on her promotion to the position of executive director of financial analysis with AT&T in Dallas and honoring her for her many contributions to the San Antonio community.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd like you to join me today in recognizing a friend. She and her family and Michelle Thomas is in the east -- no, the north gallery over here with her husband, Major, and her son, Major. And would you please stand and be recognized? Folks, I'm going to tell you a little bit, more about the Thomas'. But let me tell you, first and foremost, they are great friends of ours. They're friends of San Antonio's and they've done so much to contribute to San Antonio. They're joined today by my lovely wife and our children. So let's welcome them to our House, as I tell you a little bit more about them. First of all, let me thank you for this opportunity to recognize a great friend and a community leader from San Antonio this morning. Many of you have met and talked to Michelle in her role as government affairs executive for AT&T. But in San Antonio she and her husband, Major, and their son Major, III, are a lot more than that; they're part of the heart and soul of our community. Michelle has become one of the most involved business executives in a long time in our community. There's not a major event that involves the Girl Scouts, the San Antonio Foundation providing scholarships for young Hispanic students, the United Negro College Fund, Leadership Counsel or securing a multi million dollar contribution for the AT&T Foundation for supporting the Haven For Hope, that doesn't have Michelle's imprint and influence behind these efforts. You -- And we would have heard the clerk list many of her community service programs which Michelle's deeply committed to. Some of which are the Infant Welfare Society of Chicago, providing auditing for Jack and Jill of America, and a board member of Hope Worldwide are just of a few of the charities and service organizations that benefit from her involvement. On top of the tremendous job she does for AT&T she somehow finds time for the commitment to make San Antonio and everywhere she lives a better place. So today, unfortunately, we are saying a sort of goodbye to Michelle. Like many of who are a cut above in their professional and personal lives, AT&T has decided that it needs to do more with her and in new executive director of financial analysis at the company headquarters in Dallas. So to my friends from Dallas, I can only say this, as we were getting over you swiping our headquarters away a couple of years ago, it's probably going to take longer for us to take getting over you taking Michelle now. But we're all excited about -- we're all excited about her future and we know that AT&T's future is brighter with Michelle and her family. And so Michelle is joined in the gallery, as I mentioned earlier, by her husband Major, and her son Major, III; and a great contingent of her AT&T friends who are here to wish her well. And I ask you once again to join me in recognizing them and congratulating them for the continued success in their new home. Michelle and Major and little Major, thank you again for everything, we appreciate all of you and you've been great friends of the community. And, members, I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So moved.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you, members.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we're going to go on items eligible. Chair recognizes Representative Otto for a motion to concur on the Senate's request to adopt a conference committee on Senate Bill 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move we concur with the Senate's request on a conference committee on SB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, are there any motions to instruct? Chair recognizes Representative Murphy.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to instruct the House conference committee on Senate Bill 1 to include in the conference committee report the amendments adopted by the House on June 9th. Specifically House Amendment No. 100, by Representative Christian. And Representative King's Amendment No. 141. These were adopted by votes of 102 to 38 and 128 to 11. And so I move to instruct the conference committee on these two items.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If the gentleman would yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Murphy, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I would be happy to, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If you will tell us what those amendments pertain to?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I'd be happy to, Sylvester. These are two true of the pro-life amendments that were adopted. The Christian amendment was about prohibiting the hospital districts from using tax revenues for the performance of referral of abortions. And the King amendment was about the judicial bypass recording information, about the state funds used; and the guardian appointed and attorneys appointed, but not identifying the minor's information. None would be collected, reported or released on the minors.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? There is. Record vote's been requested. Record vote is granted. This is on the motion to instruct. Murphy's motion to instruct. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Murphy voting aye. Have all voted? There being 100 and 41 nays, the motion is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to instruct the conference committee on SB 1 to retain the language relating to the adjudication of claims arising under written contracts for state agencies. This is Amendment 24. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the motion is adopted. Any other motions to instruct? If not, the clerk will read the conferees.
THE CLERK: House conferees for the conference committee on SB 1: Pitts, chair. Eissler, Geren, Otto, Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to concur with the Senate and have a conference committee appointed for SB 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Members, this would be a -- I would move to instruct the conferees on SB 2 to exclude any language extending funds from the economic stabilization fund. Specifically including Amendments 22 and 24, and those were the Howard amendments on House second reading from the conference committee report on SB 2.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative King, you are asking the conferees to take out the Howard Farrar amendment with respect to the schools?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: What I'm asking them to do is -- Yes, I'm asking them to, but in a broader stance, the broader at statement is to exclude -- to not allow any language in the conference committee, including what might go outside the bounds to spend anymore of the economic stabilization fund at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So is it -- is it your intent for the House to make the statement that if there is any money that goes beyond the $6.2 billion that we generally agree will remain in the Rainy Day Fund, that those dollars should not be prioritized for our public schools?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: The intent -- The intent of the motion, and all those who signed it, I think, is to give an instruction that no additional funds be spent out of the economic stabilization fund through this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that. But the -- but the amendment that was put on by Dawnna Howard essentially says that if there's any excess dollars in the Rainy Day Fund, beyond the $6.2 billion that is there now --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: That amount is not there now. It's 5 billion right now.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, at the end -- at the end (inaudible) (inaudible) of 2012-2013.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: That's up to
(inaudible) up to 6.3 or something.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. That those -- The Dawnna Howard amendment says that those dollars will be prioritized, and that public education would receive -- the foundation school program would receive those excess dollars, to the extent there are any. Are you -- are you seeking -- are you seeking now to say you want us to vote not to make our public schools a top priority, even on the excess dollars to the extent therein?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Not at all. Not at all. The way that the Howard amendment was constructed, is it will bind our next legislature when they come in. We know that as in every session there's going to be a supplemental budget action.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And what this would do is if any excess funds were going to arise, and at that time they still may not know, but they would be bound on those excess funds as they go into that supplemental budget. In addition, many of us, and I know you are on a different side of this, and it is a legitimate debate --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And that's why I want -- And that's why I want (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: But many of us have made a commitment that we believe the state needs, in my opinion, at least a 5 percent reserve fund.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And even at 6.3, it is below a 5 percent --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that. And let me -- let me make -- and let me be very clear, let me lay all of my cards on the table. I believe public education should be a top priority, the top priority for the State of Texas. And the the focal point of the Dawnna Howard amendment is to say that if there is any excess dollars at the end of the 2012-2013 session, even when we come in at the beginning of the next session, that those excess dollars in the Rainy Day Fund would be prioritized to public education. Now, I firmly believe that that, in part, demonstrates a top priority -- where your hearts, minds, beliefs are. If people vote for this amendment. If people vote for your amendment and (inaudible) Howard saying that public education is, in fact, not a top priority; which I believe we've already demonstrated that it's not a top priority --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I disagree with that wholeheartedly.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: We amplify that is (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Wholeheartedly, I disagree with that characterization.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I understand we don't like the characterization. But the point is for people like me, who believe we have not placed education at the top, to vote for this amendment further places a stamp on the belief that public education is not a top priority in this legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. Chair recognizes Representative Howard to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I really would like for you to listen to me for just a moment here, because I think that we need to make sure we're making a decision based on real information and on an opportunity to come together around something that allows all of us to go back to our districts representing them in a way that we promised to. This is all about having a reasonable, rational compromise. We're not touching any of the current Rainy Day Fund, which actually, the last report that I have from March from the comptroller, the current balance is 8.2 billion, anticipated to be 9.4 billion by be the end of this biennium. This next biennium, I'm sorry. And we have appropriated a certain amount to -- covering the shortfall in this current biennium. But listen to me, please. We're talking about going above and beyond the current amount that's projected to be in the Rainy Day Fund, and to fund -- use the money that's been for enrollment growth of our students in school districts across the state, based on the amount that's projected by the legislative budget board of 2.2 billion. So to go above and beyond what's currently there, to capped at 2.2 billion, not to go above that; which is still a destruction in funds going to our school districts. I don't know how we can get more of a compromise than that, when you're talking about protecting the fund and also trying to get more money to our students. This is about us coming together as legislators and trying to find common ground, best solutions for our constituents. And it's not any surprise that the first time this amendment got brought up, there was no objection to it. The objection came after some narrow, special interest groups came to legislators and said oh, no, no, you're reneging on a pledge. That was not a pledge. The pledge was to not touch the Rainy Day Fund in this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hilderbran , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: You will not be reneging on any pledge other than your pledge as a legislator --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: -- to adequately represent your districts and your school districts, and the school children in your districts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Ms. Howard. I share your concerns and I sympathize with the intent of what you are trying to do, because public education is my number one funding objective. However, I'm concerned. I think when you're choosing when that decision is made, and if we pass forward and come back next session and we know exactly how much money we have, we know exactly what the liabilities are, what the demands on that money is, and we can make a supplemental appropriation from, with 90 votes mind you, from that --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I'm sorry
(inaudible) (inaudible) let me one second and say yes, we can do that. But that means we are short changing our schools and our children for the next two years.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: No, we're not.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, we are. If we're not going to be paying for it now.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Before that session is over we'll be here in January, and we can do exactly what you're proposing to do right then --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: (Inaudible) upcoming school year.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: We will still have the bill to do it, because the last year
(inaudible) it's not paid the payments to the foundation school program. And, by the way, you did yours for growth only. I don't have a fast growing district like you, do but immaterial (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: (inaudible)
(inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I want to make sure I get my share, and that's an addition we can make in January of the next session (inaudible)
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I appreciate
(inaudible)
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: (Inaudi ble) all the way through August and that's what I'd like to see done.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: That would be after the fact and some of these children --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order (inaudible)
(inaudible) the lady's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: This is not what the governor might do, but doing what is right for our schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady's time is expired. Members, Representative King sends up a motion to instruct. Is there objection? There is. A record vote. Vote aye, vote nay. This is on the motion to instruct. Have all voted? There being 87 ayes and 59 nays, the motion to instruct is adopted. Are there any other motions to instruct? If not, the clerk will read the following conferees.
THE CLERK: House conferees conference committee on SB 2: Pitts, chair. Crownover, Darby, Aycock, McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Johnson because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Gooden. Excuse Representatives Keffer and Chisum because of business in the district, on the motion of Representative Hancock. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 8. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 8 by Shapiro. Relating to methods of operating public schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, today I present Senate Bill 8, the bill allowing our schools to operate more efficiently. Senate Bill 8 is similar to the bill during the regular session, but with some significant changes. Before outlining the major provisions of the bill, I would like to remind the chamber that educating our students is our most important responsibility and our top priority. Our schools are facing complex challenges, much like the challenges we face this session. I strongly believe the decisions are best made locally, not micro managed from Austin. The state's role is to is to set standards, provide resources, hold schools accountable and then get out of the way. Especially in these challenging budgetary times we need to limit burdensome mandates and focus on core mission. This bill is about maximum flexibility for our local districts, to save teachers' jobs, while prioritizing what is best for students. Members, here are the main provisions for this bill: To allow for effective resource management, allow teacher contract nonrenewal notices that are not later than the last day of state assessment. I've got an amendment that moves that to 10 days prior, as the Senate passed it, due to the testing fluctuations. And this way teachers can focus on the state assessments. It allows reductions in force for budgetary reasons to be conducted through the less costly, nonrenewal process instead of the very costly termination process. It maintains a 180 instructional day requirement, that allows districts to furlough all contract employees equally, no more than six non instructional days. This provision is temporary until funding returns to the 2010-2011 levels. Removes seniority as the only criteria to implement a risk for continuing contract. Voids contracts for employees if they do not maintain certification. Removes the provision in law entitling teachers to no less than the 2010-11 salaries. This only applies to teachers and other minimum salary scheduled employees, because no other employees are guaranteed a salary level. This provides for financial transparency and responsibility. Establishes a public process to enter and exit financial exigency, and requires districts to notify the commissioner if they declare one. Reserves -- It preserves the minimum current salary schedule dollar amount, and directs the commissioner to recommend a method for determining future schedules. The bill eliminates unnecessary mandates on school districts. Fitness grant for Phys Ed only. Allows school districts to collect unpaid charges for public information requests. Maintains the current 22 to 1 class size limit, while specifying that the commissioner may consider a reduction in funding when granting class size. This is exactly like the language in House Bill 18 that we just passed. We've asked our schools to educate more students to a higher standard, and in return we need to give them the -- we need to give them the flexibility to meet those expectations. Senate Bill 8 accomplishes this goal and I've got a couple of amendments to add.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: This first amendment is a technical clean up, and it's acceptable to the author, and I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Eissler sends up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you. This Second amendment does move that nonrenewal date to 10 days, because of testing -- Well, the indefinite last day of testing. So -- And it also matches the -- the Senate wording. And yes, I'll yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to make sure I understand. This is -- When you're going to notify a teacher that you're not going to renew their contract --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: -- current law, that has been in existence for numerous years, is 45 days; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And there was debate about this, and this bill as it stands today says 15 days?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. Fifteen was kind of plus or minus a day when that final day of testing was going to occur. So this -- In fact, I would say both sides of this issue thought they needed a date certain, and that's why we picked 10, because it's already in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. But I don't understand why you're going from 15 to 10.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Because the last day of testing could be like the 15th day, could be the 14th day. What we have put in this bill was the last day after the last day, which got a little bit confusing. So we just picked a safe day, post testing.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So you've -- you're going to propose to take 35 days notice from teachers currently that, you know what, you're not going to be here next year. You need to go ahead and while this school district is making a budget decision, to go try to find another job. You're going to reduce that? You're going to take away even more days, five extra days?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Rob, we've had a lot of discussions in committee about impact of what we do here on existing contracts. And you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that no matter what we put in statute, existing contracts it's not your intent to advocate existing contracts --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I don't think we could do that if we wanted to. And no, I'm not. A lot of this is prospective, especially in the continuing.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So this would not -- This would not change the circumstance for anybody who is currently on a contract, probably would not change the circumstance that happens this year. Or obviously wouldn't, because we're past that point?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Most likely.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: -- probably be in how a district may choose a to draft a new contract (inaudible) if it does? Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Eissler sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment will keep in place protections afforded to teachers who have continuing contracts, by striking provisions of the bill that apply to these contracts. This protection is important to experienced teachers who have higher pay and are concerned that without some seniority protection they would be particularly targeted by districts for layoff. This amendment also strikes language that would allow school districts to deny teachers with continuing contracts the right to a hearing, if they are terminated during financial expediency. Again, these are teachers who serve our students and deserve due process. And, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah. Mr. Speaker I -- this -- this amendment would take away the streamlined reduction in force capacity for continuing contracts only. And, as Mr. Hochberg and I just talked about, I believe what's going to happen would be prospective. So I move to table this because I think it's important to just to have more than seniority as an indicator of keeping a teacher, so I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is to try to get some due process to teachers that serve our students, and I move against the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Walle sends up and amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. It's on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Eissler voting aye. Representative Walle voting no. Show Representative Marquez voting no. Have all voted? There being 88 ayes, 52 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Miller of Comal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment is a compromise between the current language in the bill that gives school districts the unilateral right to withhold information if a requester hasn't paid for charges from a previous request, in current law. It would require a requester who fails to pay for a previous request within the last six months to pay in advance before a new request would be fulfilled. Just like we do in business. COD. Cash or delivery. This amendment strikes a balance between the public's right to receive the information and the use of tax dollars to provide that information. And I'm sure many of us have heard complaints and had input from all types of governmental entities about this. I know I had a bill last year or last session, and there have been several other bills. This strikes a balance. And it is supported by a number of open government groups, including the Texas Daily Newspaper Association and the Texas Press Association, and I would move passage. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Miller sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment repeals automatic increases in charter schools teacher salary, and I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If the gentleman will yield? Doctor Shelton?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Dr. Shelton, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Dr. Shel ton? I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I yield, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Can you explain to me about the amendment again? I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, sir this amendment repeals part of section 12.1331 of the education code, and specifically the part where it gives full-time employees automatic increases in salary.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm sorry, it does what again?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: It repeals automatic increases in salaries.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It repeals automatic in whose salaries? Teachers' salaries?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Classroom teachers, speech pathologists, librarians, counselors and nurses in open enrollment charter schools only. It's (inaudible), effect traditional public schools, but only open enrollment charter schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And why -- Why are we doing this? Tell me why are we doing this.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: We are trying to give them the same flexibility we're trying to give traditional public schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Let me -- Let me make sure I understand this --
(inaudible) let me make sure I understand. Explain to me the status quo right now. What happens right now under the status quo?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Right now the status quo is that there are provisions in the education code for automatic salary increases.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And your amendment would eliminate those automatic increases?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes. And it would give the schools -- charter schools flexibility to do salary increases based on need and merit.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And do you know whether or not Chairman Eissler intends to accept this amendment, or not?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, he's accepted the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And how many teachers would this impact? Do you know how many teachers would be impacted by this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: No, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you know -- Do you know what the cost savings on your amendment would be, if any?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Not directly, no, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you know whether or not this amendment would keep any teacher with a job or not, with a job?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I think if the schools have more flexibility, then they will be able to have increased jobs savings. Because, in our budgetary time that we're in, we have -- have some limitation on the number of dollars that we're giving to public schools and to public charter schools, and we need to give them all the flexibility we can so they can get through the next few years.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you know whether or not what the impact on charter schools, that it would have on charter schools? And what I mean by that, whether or not, for example, there are some who are teaching now that would be no longer teaching within a charter school? Or what the impact would be on -- on the children themselves, on the quality of education? I mean, do we have any --
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Mr. Turner, I would think that if we had more flexibility in the charter schools then what they would be able to do is they would be able to retain teachers, rather than lay them off. And that is the intent of this amendment, to save teacher jobs and make sure we have as many teachers in the public charter schools as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And are you saying with regard to Senate Bill 8, are you trying to make the teachers that are in charter schools, this, their status to parallel that of the main -- mainstream teachers? Is that what -- is that what you are attempting to do?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: That is part of my intent. But mostly it is to give open enrollment charter schools flexibility in their hiring practices so that they can retain teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do the mainstream teachers receive automatic pay increases?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I believe they do, under current Texas law.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And are we eliminating automatic pay increases for our mainstream -- for the teachers in the main -- in the other campuses?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: That would be a question for Mr. Eissler. I am not sure if that's in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: What's wrong with making then the teachers in the charter school, their status parallel with that of teachers on the -- on the mainstream campuses; which means make your amendment conditioned on what -- on how we are treating teachers on our main campuses?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: They're under different types of contracts --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: That is not this bill. This bill is to give flexibility to public charter schools in their hiring practices so that they can retain their teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, the best way to retain teachers is to make sure that the school districts get the necessary monies in order to pay them. You know, I'm a little bit -- I'm a little bit taken a aback by people's position on this floor that the best way to keep teachers is to lower their pay, instead of us paying the school districts so that they can adequately pay our teachers. So I'm a little bit taken aback, and I'm taken aback by this amendment that is -- an additional attack on teachers. Help me to understand why we are attacking teachers in this session. Because this is nothing but an additional attack on our teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Mr. Turner, this amendment will make it where open enrollment public charter schools can retain their teachers during these tough economic times. This is not an attack on teachers. This is trying to save teachers' jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But it's based on what? Who came to you with this information and said if we accept your amendment that this is going to improve the charter schools' program, or is going improve the quality of education for our teachers? What are we basing this on? What are you basing this amendment on? Who passed this (inaudible) for it?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: This amendment is based on improving flexibility of open enrollment charter schools so they can retain as many --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Did anyone testify in favor of this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I don't recall.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is this -- was this amendment a separate bill filed by you or someone else?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: No, I do not believe it was.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then why should we do this just based on the opinion of -- With all due respect, Dr. Shelton, I respect you highly; but why are we making this type of change in a special session that impacts so many teachers, whether they're in charter schools or main campuses? I don't understand why we're doing this.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: This is to give flexibility to open enrollment charter schools in their hiring and practices.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: With all due respect, I just don't think this is the best thing for us to be doing in this special session at this particular time. I would rather it go through the public education committee, let it be thoroughly vetted, discussed; and then let's come back and deal with it at the proper time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Dr. Shelton, good morning.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Good morning.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Just real quickly, are we speaking of the career ladder increases to school district teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I'm sorry I did not hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Are we speaking of career ladder increases?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: This does not apply to traditional public schools, this applies to public charter schools only.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Okay. Now, do school districts or charter school districts, do they have the privilege of the amount of increase that they're going to provide for their teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Not right now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Is it based on the -- on performance or just years of service?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Right now it's just based on this formula to increase their salaries on a regular basis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: So, the charter schools don't have the -- I guess if they have the authority to give the raise or the amount, they can give zero if they want; is that correct? Or they can give ten percent?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Okay. Is it also -- are they able to provide a higher pay raise for the senior teachers and a lower increase for the less senior people?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I think this will give them the flexibility to reward teachers for good work.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: How do they determine good work?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, that would be up to the charter schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Would you say that this is an employee evaluation?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I'm sorry, sir?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: A teachers' evaluation, based on on the salary increase?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I think that would probably be a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: My understanding of evaluation, an employee evaluation is always to increase an individual's performance, not to determine whether you get a raise or not. It's to identify where your weaknesses and your strengths are, not to give raises based on a personal evaluation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Shelton sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is objection. A record vote has been requested. A record rote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Shelton voting aye. Representative Eissler voting aye. Representative Walle voting no. Have all members voted? Being 84 ayes, 54 nays, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Huberty. Chair recognizes Representative Hughes for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thanks Mr. Speaker, members, I'm honored to be joined by (inaudible ) and Sidney (inaudible) from Pittsburgh. Would you ladies come up here? And also their mother, who is a public school teacher and dad who is an administrator, we're thankful for them. And can you stand up so we can recognize you? Mom is in the east (inaudible). Welcome them to their Capitol, if you would. Thank you. Thanks Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Bohac because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Howard. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is an adjustment to the contract notification date. Originally, or Chairman Eissler changed the notification day from the last day of testing to the tenth day. But there is some clarification that I believe is needed into actually how the notice is delivered. And we want to make sure that the notice is personally delivered to the teacher, so that there is not a misinterpretation at all as to when the notice was received. And we want to make sure that if we are going to give notice that the notice is personally hand delivered. And then all the provision stays the same, where they have then 15 days to be able to then appeal that determination to the board of trustees.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Thompson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Hu berty, will this have a retroactive effect on present contracts?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: No, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: So it's going to be prospective?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And how many days of notification will there be (inaudible) a 45-day notice now?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: It is 45 days and it's a ten days -- What Chairman Eissler put into his bill was -- originally I had a bill that was at 15 days. The committee substitute for SB 8 had the last day of testing, and there was some concern that testing would go beyond that. And so Chairman Eissler actually put it at ten days. And what I wanted to do was make sure that the language that I have in here, I'm not changing what he already changed, I'm changing it to have -- that the notice has to be personally delivered. I think that the language in the bill itself was -- was not teacher friendly. And so I wanted to make sure that -- I've worked with this language with ATTE (inaudible) to make sure the language got in, and would make sure that we have to personally deliver that notification to the teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Okay. Let me see if I understand it. We have a 45-day notice now, we going reduce it to a 10-day notice, right, according to this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Well, Chairman Eissler already did that. My language was written up because I was originally going to do the 15 days. So I just made the 10 days co-signing with what he already did. What I'm trying to do is lines 12 through 19, and on page 1 and 27 -- through -- 27 through 29, and then on page 2, lines 1 through 6 and then 17 through 20 is the language that I wanted to make sure got in the bill, because it requires that the teacher notice is personally hand delivered then.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Okay. You're going to hand deliver each person a notice that they -- that they -- that they have -- that their contract is not going to be renewed, right?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And according to this bill, it's going to be a reduction from the 45-day notice to a 10-day notice?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Huberty, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to make sure I understand this amendment, because we've gone, you know -- you've held pretty steadfast to 15, and now we're looking at 10, from 45. There was discussions all the way up to 30. I know when I had an amendment related to this -- I'm just trying to make sure we understand. If we vote -- Do you believe your amendment provides greater protection for teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes. I believe the -- Because they've already -- they've already changed the notification date to 10 days. Chairman Eissler already did is that (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I was just going to make sure that's clear. Now had he not done that, we could have a debate whether we should vote for your amendment, because it reduces the notice period; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Fifteen days. That's correct. What I had -- but --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: But that's not that's not really in this amendment, that's not really before us, that's already happened?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir. And I -- it says 10 days because I had already written the amendment up to offer that, but Chairman Eissler had already changed it to the tenth day, so I just want to make sure this language gets in that we have to personally deliver notice to the teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. Explain that to me. Because that's the only thing that's really left in your amendment; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And explain that to us, to make sure that we know why is that good for teachers? Because I, you know, I want to see -- if we're going to vote on these amendments we need to understand how that affects teachers, which ultimately effects our kids.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Right. I'll read -- I'll read the language that I think is important. It says the notice must be delivered personally by hand delivered to the teacher on the campus where the teacher is employed, except that the teacher is not present on the campus that date, the hand delivery's attempt and the notice must be mailed by pre-certified -- pre-paid certified mail, or delivered express mail delivery service to the teacher's address of record with the district.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Why do we have to have that? What do they currently do? Is there just no guidance?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Right. Now I don't believe there's any proper guidance.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And you stated that you worked with some groups that advocate with that language on (inaudible)?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Is there anything else in your bill that's relevant -- or I mean not relevant, that is applicable, that will affect teachers besides what we -- that portion you're discussing now? And again, let me back up. Scratch that. There's nothing else in there that affects teachers besides what you just -- what you just read; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Because Chairman Eissler had already done the work of reducing it from 45 days to 10?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Huberty, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, Representative Huberty, you are amending Chairman Eissler's portion of the bill, Senate Bill 8, with regards to the 10 -- hand delivered 10-day notice?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: On to his bill, which reduces the notice from 45 to 15 days; is that the understanding?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: He took it from 45 to 10. Actually, in the bill, it wasn't 45. The bill was the last day of testing. Last day of assessment testing is what was in the committee substitute. Current law is 45 days. Committee substitute was last day of testing, then he took it to 10 days. What I'm trying to get into the bill is how do we deliver that notice? We want to make sure that we're giving that notice -- we're not just, you know, emailing it or saying well, we notified you when we really didn't notify you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Give me some idea of how many days will be remaining in the school year with regards to the last day of testing. Any idea?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: It varies. Somewhere between 15 to 12 is what, you know, where the testing's at.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Fifteen to twelve?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir. I think school days. Now, I believe that the last day of testing, that I'm aware of, my daughter had testing in fifth grade this past May, and I think her last day of testing was around the middle of May, if I recall correctly.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Around the middle of May?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So, okay so if -- if -- if the last day of a school for example will be --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: May 30th, so about 15 days.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So about 15 days?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, give me -- and I understand what your amendment is doing, but you're amending his bill. Now, and I know you have served on the school board yourself. Now, where does that leave the teacher? How much -- does that -- that significantly, does it not, restrict a teacher's flexibility to go from one campus trying to seek a job some place else? Even with your amendment, it still makes it much more difficult for a teacher to make a transition, does it not?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Well, I think what we've seen this legislative session, or this budget year, is that -- and I'll give you the best example. My school district had to give notice to 350 teachers, by law, because at 45 days they were not going -- they didn't know if they would have the resources based on where we were in the budget process. And so they gave notice --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: (Inaudib le) we choose to be, during the budgetary --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir. And so there's 350 teachers now. Based on where we ended up in the budget, they are hiring almost all of those teachers back. So we had to give notice because of the law that said you may or may not have a job, and those people are now being notified that they are coming back. I think what this does is it gives school districts a little bit more flexibility in determining when can they bring these people -- and again, we've really already talked about the tenth day. So what my amendment's about, my amendment's about personally delivering it. And, you know, really, it's about giving a little bit more time, you know, what Chairman Eissler's amendment did, it gives them a little bit more time to determine where their budget's going to flow. And if the teachers are on the kind of the edge of whether they're going stay of not stay, gives them another 30 days to be able to prove themselves to the school district. So I think there's some flexibility there. Hirings for -- Job hirings start in May and they run all the way through July. So there is, you know, up until, you know, really, the beginning of school --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I think you indicated that you talked with some teachers, all right. Have you talked with some of the teachers -- teachers and you're having an assessment from them, or a feel from them as to whether or not the changes that are invited in Senate Bill 8, even with your amendment, whether or not those changes are acceptable to them?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: There are mixed feelings on that. There are some -- And I'm not talking about the specific groups, I am talking individual teachers. I will tell you that my best friend's wife got notice, because she was a second year teacher, that she may not be renewed. And so for 30 days I had to listen to her complain to me about she may or may not be renewed. She got notice that she is coming back. Her comment was I would have rather waited to be able to find out where we're going to end up in the budget versus spending 30 days wondering if I was going to have a job or not have a job.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I will tell you the comments that I've received from many of my teachers, if not most of them, is not understanding whether the legislature has done what it has done in terms -- in terms of cutting back on funding. And now they're not understanding cutting it down to 15 days -- whether it's 12 or 15 days, restricting their flexibility to try to find something else. I understand that what your amendment is doing, your amendment is simply tagging what is already in the bill. I understand that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gonzales, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Huberty, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Representa tive Huberty, there's a lot of conversation currently about notification of the days. And I just want to clarify right now your amendment deals with the notification by hand, the delivery of that notification by hand to the teachers, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Because we're sitting here, there's a lot of conversations about 45, 10, 15 last day. Your amendment, what we're talking about, is how that is physically delivered, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: And we're talking about hand delivered to teachers. And am I correct in -- What I'm hearing is it will help eliminate some of the opportunity for miscommunication, that you understand that it's been hand delivered, the opportunity and the effort has been hand delivered, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: And we're helping to get rid of the ideas and miscommunications, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you very much, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: You're welcome.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, members, what my amendment does is makes all this language consistent and changes it to the 30th day, you know, so we're operating within the lines here; 45 and now it's down to 10. I move it back up to 30 and let me give you a few of the reasons why: The first is that a lot of our superintendents and board members came to us earlier in the session and asked for an adjustment because of the fiscal situation going on in this legislative year. Well, school is now out, so obviously the legislature didn't address this before the end of school year. The changes we are making now are permanent changes to the policy, and we don't -- We are hoping, and don't expect, that we'll be in the same fiscal crunch when we come back. So the same imminent reason doesn't exist to give them this much leeway in dropping it from the 45th day to the 10th day. So this amendment would move the notice provision back to the 30th day. It doesn't change the fact that they've got to be given personal notice. Again, it makes it consistent. It makes it on the 30th day.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I just wanted to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure Mr. Castro is the right person, but let me ask him if he would yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure. Do you want have an (inaudible) to answer?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: No, you might be (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Castro. As I understand this amendment, it affects only probationary contracts, is that your understanding?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I believe so, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yeah. And can you tell me how these probationary contracts work? Do they have a beginning date and an end date?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yeah, they basically sign on for a certain specific amount of time.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And so they end at the end of that period?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And then they either have to be renewed or non-renewed by the district?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So when that happens, when it's non -- I'm sorry, when it's going to be renewed, that renewal period would trigger this particular amendment; would it not?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yes. They would have to be given notice, essentially, if they are going to be terminated or renewed, or what's going to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So -- So rather -- And the point, I guess, I'm getting at, is the question whether or not this was retrospective or prospective. And the answer is that it is neither, because what happens is when the probationary contracts are renewed they all will come under this particular bill and this particular amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. That's what I thought. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Huberty to speak -- speak against the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Members, what Representative Castro -- and I respect what he's doing. We talked about this for the last several -- several months. I'm talking about notification days, and he's taking it to 30 days. And while I appreciate and understand what he's doing, I still -- that puts us clearly into the period of testing. And, on top of that, you're changing the dates that the board shall provide for a hearing to be held not later than the 15th day right now, when they receive notice of the 30th day. So it really pushes them to a point where you would basically put it outside of the school year, which is not a huge issue. But I don't think that was ever the intention of changing the notification, they get 15 days to give notice to the board. It would change it to 30 days. And I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Members, I would reiterate that the reason that this provision has come up at all is because of what was going on in this legislative year. Yet the bill that we're going to pass -- or the legislature will likely pass, has to do with the years going forward, no longer this year, this calendar year. So, my argument is that there is no reason to go from 45 days all the way down to 10 days now, when the justifications for that no longer exists. So we're really doing a disservice to teachers by moving it down from 45 all the way to 10. My amendment is a compromise that goes from 45 to 30. Remember, the existing law is 45 days, so now my amendment takes it down to 30, which is a recognition of flexibility for superintendents and trustees; but also recognizes that you're not in the same conditions in two years or four years or six years, that the you're at now. And if that is the case, then we should be dealing with it in the future legislature and not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Naishtat, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro, do you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: We're talking about putting either 15 days or 30 days in statute for an indefinite time; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: And we don't really have the problem that we initially had for this session?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. The reason that we're here debating this is because of what was going on for this past school year. Well, whatever troubles the school districts had or the superintendents or the boards of trustees, that period is over. We're now dealing with the future.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Would -- would any of the tens of thousands of public school teachers we have in this state, would any of them be supportive of going from 15 from 45 days to 10 days? Can you imagine?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: No, none of them would support going from 45, going all the way down to 10. And I suspect that if you talk to some of the superintendents and board members, they would probably tell you that going all the way down to 10 is unnecessary. And as I recall, Representative, I don't believe that they were asking for a number that low in the first place. At least none of the school districts that came and talked to me near the beginning of the session, as they were anticipating this fiscal crunch, were even asking to be brought down to 10 days.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: So you would agree that 30 days would be a reasonable compromise?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: It's a reasonable compromise, it's more flexible; but it also respects our teachers. One more point that I would like to make with respect to that is imagine now, and -- and I'll yield to Representative Bonnen in a second; but imagine that you have been terminated with 10 days left in the school year, okay? And it's now May 20th or 21st, or somewhere around there; and all of a sudden you've got to make summer plans to find a job, and you're sitting on May 20th. Well, if you're going to trying to find a way to survive and pay your rent and pay your bills and support your family, how in the world are you going to start applying for jobs on May 21st in a competitive summer market? You simply need more time than 10 days to prepare for not having a job in the summer, and this amendment respects that fact.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you. The gentleman yields. I've been very torn on this issue. But I want to ask you if you're aware of a real life scenario that just occurred in my hometown of Angleton. On April the 18th eighty-five probationary teachers at the Angleton school board, they took a vote and they were all fired on April the 18th. And then, I don't know if you're aware, but on May 31st that school board voted and rehired 77 of those 85.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And that's what's convinced me that 10 days is beyond appropriate, because those teachers were put through hell --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: -- of uncertainty. And what that 10 days does is it doesn't force a district to put a family -- as I know you're worried about this amendment -- through the hell, the uncertainty of whether they will or will not have that opportunity. And the eight teachers that were not rehired chose not to be. They found had other jobs and done other things. So it's an issue that these districts are in a bad spot if they're 30 days out, having to decide whether they want tell a teacher whether they do or not have a job, because our legislative actions are not
(inaudible). They don't know what our budget may be at that point. And that's why I think you would agree 10 days is a rational in the lives of a teacher knowing what their future is on real numbers and realtime.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And I can certainly -- I can see the point of your argument. But I would argue that by 30 days out, by May -- I guess, let's say May 1st right, or April 29th or something. You have a pretty good idea in the legislature about what's going to happen on education funding, for example. And you have a pretty good sense of what's going to happen. And remember that it was 45 days in the past. So I know fast difficult issue and I agree with you but, on the whole, I would rather take a more conservative approach and move it to 30 then move it all the way to 10.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And I want to say I respect where you're coming from, and I think we can both agree to disagree that most every member here is coming from the concern of what is an appropriate day that ensures teachers are not put through any more uncertainty of their future. And I respect you think 30 is the case, and I think 10 is case. And I think 10 is the case because of a real life experience that happened. But I respect what you're trying to do.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Legler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: A good question here I have. Now, the school district and the elected local school board, if they wanted 45, they can still get 45; can they not?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yes, I imagine so.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: So actually what we're doing, we're just saying -- we're giving the figures that you can give whatever time you want, you just must give at least 10?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yeah. You're putting in a minimum requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Right. But we're not telling them they can't give more or anything else; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yes. I think in theory you're right, Representative Legler. But, in fact, if you look at what districts do, you know, hardly any of them give -- you know, nobody announces in January what they're going to do, usually. But yes, theoretically, you're right.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. We are (inaudible) school board members to do what they think is best? Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Castro sends up an amendment to the amendment. Representative Huberty moves to table. Question's on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Eissler voting aye, show Representative Castro voting no. Have all members voted? There being 84 ayes and 56 nays, the motion to table prevails. We're waiting on an amendment to the amendment. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Mr. Speaker, members, this fixes on page 1, on line 18, the 15th day the ten. And on line two, the -- on page 2, line 5, the 15th day to 10 (inaudible) because Chairman Eissler already fixed that. This amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Huberty sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Huberty amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this amendment again, what it does is it really clarifies how the notification's going to be delivered. Land I know we've already talked about the tenth day, but I think Representative Bonnen had a great point. We have had, you know, that my particular school district had to give notice to 350 teachers. Those teachers were then allowed and hired back after -- after a little bit more time was given. So I move adoption of this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield, please?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Huberty, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Of course.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. So I'm not sure I understand. You just went through a whole explanation that had nothing to do with what I thought your amendment had to do with. So I just want to make sure I understand. And I apologize, because you just said you -- just brought in a defense about moving it from 45 to 10 days.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Well, I was -- I was -- I was -- My amendment -- Unfortunately -- The way I drafted this amendment, I had 15th day in here. Okay. And so I had to -- Chairman Eissler already adopted the 10th day, and I made a mistake in not crossing out 2 of the 15 days to 10 days. He already adopted the 10 day. So I was just making that part match what he's already adopted. My amendment -- All my amendment deals with is the personal notification. I was just making sure that my dates that were written into this amendment, I had written a whole amendment to change to it 15 days, and I put it to 10 days.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to make sure that I understand that if we vote for your amendment, and we're opposed to decreasing the number of days that teachers have before they're terminated, and they only have 10 days left in school to go out and try to find another job before they're gone --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: -- that if we vote for that, if we are against that, if you -- and we support your amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: You should support this amendment, because what this does is it gives additional rights to the teachers by making sure that we're giving them personal notification, by hand delivery of their notification. The 10 day issue has already been adopted by Chairman Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to make sure, because when you got up and you said why it was (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I understand that. The way I originally had drafted the memo, the amendment, I was trying to get the 15 days in there. This would not have been acceptable had it been in the 15 days. So I was trying to, you know, it was kind of getting a half a loaf of bread here, I'm trying to get some fixes to this language.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And the language you said you had, you said you talked to folks that had have advocate on behalf of teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, yes, sir. They actually wrote it.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. That portion?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. So you think that probably there really should not be an objection now because the other issue was already taken care of?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Huberty, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Huberty, tell me again how you came to this amendment or the conversation that (inaudible) --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I was working -- Originally I had filed a bill, which was HB 20. And this was language that I had ready to go in an amendment. I've worked with one of the teacher groups to draft this language that's very specific about how does the actual -- forget the 10 days for a second, how do you actually deliver the notification? How are we going to deliver a notice to a teacher?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And that's the part that I have a question about.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Because it seems to me if you've ever been served with process in public, or you have ever been -- a warrant has ever been executed on you, when you are a -- you have a teacher who's teaching a class and somebody walks in to hand her a letter or him a letter, or somebody walks in in public, and suddenly that person is humiliated in front of a classroom --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: That's not how it happens, Mr. Gallego. Absolutely not. What happens (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But the language does not preclude that from happening.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: You're making assumptions that people would, you know, maliciously try and go and embarrass a teacher. That is not the intent
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: No, I'm not making any assumption about (inaudible) (inaudible). What I'm just making an assumption that sometimes people are, for whatever reason, not necessarily deliberately but somewhat insensitive; and don't really realize what it is, or don't look downstream to see what the impact of their action (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I understand and I agree with you. And I believe that the sensitivity of this issue provides for the HR departments to deal with this in a very discreet basis. And so you'll make sure that the notifications are delivered -- You know, typically what happens is if --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You're assuming that everybody has common sense, and I stopped assuming that a long time ago.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Well, this is actually an improvement to what the law currently is, because the way they can do it right now is they can just mail a letter to the house that's not certified and -- or send an email that they don't have to open. So this actually improves what is already in existing statute, to make sure that they are, you know, being given notification on a personal level.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Because these are big -- For that individual teacher, this is a big deal.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I would hope that school districts would find a way to do it respectfully, as opposed to find a way to do it --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I agree with you. I agree with you.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Huberty, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Mr. Huber ty, I think I know what you're trying to do here but I think I have some of the same concerns that Pete just raised. And I wonder if, you know, if you would be willing to pull it down and maybe do an amendment to your amendment that says something like the principal or administrator, something like that that would give it to them in the office. Because I know you are -- I know you're making -- you're making an assumption that it will be handled in a way that you would do it. But I certainly have seen -- I mean at a personal level, my mother was a school teacher. She was fired because I was fighting political corruption. Took her two years to get her job back. I mean, so I've seen a lot of examples where they weren't quite as concerned with doing the things the right way as I think you would be. So I know you said you worked on -- When you worked on it, did you think about maybe saying something where they would meet with the principal, or the principal would, you know -- It's not hard for the principal to ask to meet with them, or that they don't do it in front of the class or something, you know?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: At some point I think that we have got get beyond the point of assuming that Austin has to micro manage every piece of this business. And I think if we take that next step, I think that takes it to the point where we're going too far and that this -- this language is an improvement to what already exists, I believe, it is a significant improvement to what already exists in the current law. And so --
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Well, let me ask you this: Let's say you were a principal. Let's say you were a principal in a high school and you were going to have to lay off ten teachers, okay. How would you do it?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I would call each of them individually into my office.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: There you go. Why don't we just do an amendment that says that?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: But let's allow -- Let's allow the school boards and the superintendents and the HR departments and the teachers to be able to manage -- You know, they manage multi million dollar businesses. I don't want us to get into the point of getting too far into the weeds on this. This fixes what I believe to be an issue. I'd rather leave it -- I'd rather leave it the way it is. Chairman, it is -- it is -- it is -- Believe me, this is an improvement to what already exists.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: I understand that. I asked how you would handle it, the way you would handle it is the way I would handle it. Finally, I'll just ask you this: Are you convinced that there won't be some that will be mishandled, or done the way that you wouldn't --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Even if we put it into law, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not going to mishandled.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Well, I understand that there's not a single law that there's some level of noncompliance. I know that all laws are broken to some extend. However, you set the bar with a law. We set the bar with a law. And I wish you would reconsider that, but if you don't I mean I just have to disagree. I would like to do a Huberty amendment to the Huberty amendment that does it the Huberty way.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I'd like to move this along, and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Huberty sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is objection. The clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote nay, on the Huberty amendment. Show Representative Villarreal voting no. Have all voted? Being 88 ayes and 52 nays, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment strikes Section 3 of the bill and Section 5 and Section 7 and 8, which causes it to revert to present law pertaining to the use of the administrative hearings when there is a mid year -- a mid contract dismissal; because of a risk due to financial expediency. The bill changes it to where the school board may act as a hearing officer, or that they may choose to hire an attorney. And so this simply reverts to present law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment removes the provision in this bill that allows districts to use the expedited rip process authorized in this bill for financial exigency. The removal of these provisions will result in fewer resources being available because districts will have to spend an average of 20 to $40,000 per teacher on a hearing examiner when faced with the risk due to financial and exigency. Districts will be paying more lawyers and less teachers without these provisions. Members, please remember this expedited process is only for districts in financial exigency. I do not think it is responsible for the state to micro-manage district human resource practices, especially when our schools have less money.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to make sure I understand a few things. You've made some statements and I want to make sure we understand where you get your support from that. Okay. Can you show me something that shows that it's an average of 20 -- did you say 30 or 40,000 to terminate a teacher? Where does that happen?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In the -- In the process for a -- for a removal of a teacher, you've got -- you've got hearing with a legal team that goes on and on.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Who has -- all that, that's what I'm trying to understand.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: 30,000 -- that was the whole idea for this, Larry.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I thought it was because of financial exigency. So now I'm not sure. But what I don't understand, though is where is that happening? Where are those reports? I just haven't seen those studies that show that in every case --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I sat on the school board for 18 years. I went through a few of these.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: But a few of these, we're talking about this happens for all of these. I just want to make sure I understand, because we're talking about due process for teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Due process is -- is protected in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. But we're just taking something away from them that you say costs money, which is a hearing officer -- I mean a hearing procedure. I just want to make sure we understand.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: An independent hearing examiner.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So we're going to have somebody that is dependent on the school district --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, you're going to have somebody that's independent. And if you read the bill it shows that they can't be working for any school district, or even any organization that defends teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Well, who pays them?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Who pays them?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yeah, who's going to pay these folks?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The school district.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Who are they going to be?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Who are they going to be? It could be you.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Well, I mean that's not an -- There's qualifications?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah, a licensed attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. They have to be a attorneys. So we are going to have an attorney making a decision about whether you should discharge a teacher for financial exigency? I'm having a hard time understanding --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: -- why it costs money to have it -- why you're going to have all these costs. Because you said it takes 30 to $40,000. --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: 20 to 40.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. And I've asked superintendents and I'm just not hearing that that's -- that that's the norm. So it sounds like that's an ab-norm. I just want to make sure we know what is the norm when it costs -- that sounds like it's pretty contested where there's an issue where the teacher thinks there's an issue and there's a --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It's for financial exigency. That's what it's for. But it's like -- it's like having a check returned for insufficient funds and having to pay a penalty. The check wasn't any good, because you didn't have any money. And now you've got to pay a penalty? Well, that's what this is.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I'm just having a hard time understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I understand you're having a hard time understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And I'm not trying to be -- I'm not trying to be flippant, because I think it's important. I'm just having a hard time having you explain it, that it's going to cost 20 to $30,000 --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: 20 to 40.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: 20 to $40,000, that that's an average across state, any time you non-renew a teacher; that's what you're -- the statement you're making and I don't --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. I am making that statement.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And I don't -- I'm just haven't seen any documentation to back that up, and I just wanted you to help us.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You're an attorney, aren't you?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Sure. And I don't understand, though, that you -- there's numbers out there that support that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's what it is.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And where is that found, that average? I mean, I've asked my superintendents and they don't like to spend money that --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Larry, I was there. I was there. This is for financial exigency.
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So this is in your school district.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- attorney designee. Okay. For non-renews -- for non-renews, yes, for financial exigency. (Inaudible) it's not a -- compromise --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: You're taking it away from the school board, is what you're doing?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The money?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: No. Currently the school board makes this decision, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, they still make this decision. But the independent -- this designee does the finding of fact and it makes the -- makes the report to the school district. And they have oral arguments. It's the same thing.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So does it save money, then?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Because it's a lot cheeper. It's an expedited process.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. So -- But they're going to have the same rights they have today --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: But there is going to be expedited?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. And they can go all the way to the Supreme Court with appeals.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. So they're not losing any rights if we vote this, but it's cheaper?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Only because there's a lawyer that's going to make the decision, instead of the school board.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No. The school board still makes the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. I'm -- Thank you for trying to clear that up, but I still -- Maybe Ms. Patrick can clear it up when she gets back up.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are three types of contacts: Term, probationary and continuing; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And there are presently two types of hearings when you go to non-renew or terminate contracts; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And those types, I believe, are what we call subchapter F hearings would constitute an IHE hearing, as sometime referred. To and the IHE hearings basically require, in many cases, two to three days with lawyers for both the school and the --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Deposit ion.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Statements and yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. So there's at least, in most cases, three days of hearings involving at least two lawyers in most of those IHE hearings?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The other hearing that is available to the board is what I believe is what we call board hearings for Section 207 hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right. And that's like a term contract nonrenewal or probationary.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And in one of those hearings what really happens? I believe the school board just sits and listens to them; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And those of us on the school board have listened for many hours to some of those hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I was on the school board for about six weeks, and we had about thirty-four hours of hearings on one -- on one issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: On one petitioner? So, the intent of the bill is in cases of financial exigency, where significant numbers of teachers will be unfortunately reduced in number. This provides a third methodology; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And the so-called B1 hearings, if I am understanding this correct, would allow the board to designate someone to listen to those many hours of testimony, still each one of them having their right to due process, to appear before that designee; and they would sit there and listen to those hearings, and then report to the board their recommendation on each of those individually; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right. And also have -- they'll also have arguments before the board, but it will be compact, so both sides get full opportunity to tell their story.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: So, unfortunately, if there's some of these districts that are going to be dismissing, in some cases, in large districts, maybe a hundred two hundred people or even more; this would allow mechanical processing of that, in an orderly manner to give them due process?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And in saving districts money they'll be able to pay teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And I believe the -- I believe the facilities in this aspect are only language that the school districts are larger than five thousand. If they're less than five thousand they'll still have to go to either IHE hearing, or the board sits and listens; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And so, yes, outside the financial exigency, the smaller boards still have to do it. The five thousand and above, which if -- there's about 168 districts that have five thousand or more, and they comprise just under 80 percent of all the students in Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And that's mainly because those large districts might have so many people that it would not be physically present -- possible for those board to hear those things?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, that's true.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm sure we'll discuss this some more, but thank you for your information.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. As you know, Chairman, we spent a lot of time talking about this in committee, because it's confusing. So I want to make sure I understand maybe just a couple of basic points, and maybe I should have Dr. Aycock's charts. Are the basic difference -- Tell me if these are two basic differences: First, the independent hearing examiner that the teacher has access to after the board -- after the board makes its ruling, currently the teachers can go to an independent hearing examiner appointed by the commissioner. That would no longer be the case, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In a financial exigency (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: If the school district declares -- if the board declares they're that they have a financial --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Exigency. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Which is not particularly defined, but which they have to do, then there would be no hearing examiner above the board level; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, there would be -- there would be an attorney designee.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: But that would be replacing the board?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: But once that was -- Currently they have a hearing before the board, once they have a hearing before the board they have a right to an independent hearing examiner appointed by the commissioner; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And under this, they would no longer have that method of review, they would have to go to court.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And they could do that.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And they would have to -- Yeah, they wouldn't --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: They can appeal all decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Which would be a more expensive process, once they jump the hearing --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And you've got to remember, this is not, you know, dismissing somebody for cause or poor performance.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I understand. I'm just trying to goat what this actually does, and I guess I'll save that for Ms. Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired. Chair recognizes Representative Patrick to close on her amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Chair, members, this is confusing, so let me see if I can clarify it for you. Basically, everyone but continuing contracts can be non-renewed for free. The only thing that we're talking about here are mid contract risks. And I believe that school districts have been responsible enough that they've already taken action for this school year under current law, and non-renewed the teachers through the process that exists in current law. And, in fact, for the future, this would ensure that if teachers are going to be riffed mid contract, that they would have the right to request to have an independent hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Certainly, Mr. Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Ms. Patrick. So, Ms. Patrick, let's see if we can figure out what this provision in Mr. Eissler's bill does. Currently, if you are a teacher and it's during the year, and the school district decides -- and you're under contract, and you've signed a contract with the school district; and what you've said is I agree to work for the term of the contract, and you agree to keep paying me for the term of the contract. And if I leave, if I just decide I can make more money as a state legislator or if I decide I can make well, you know, per diem; sort of keep going on and on, if I can decide that if I can make more money somewhere else; if I have a financial exigency in my household, if my spouse gets a job in another city, if my spouse gets a job in another city; then I can't leave without risking my teacher certification, right? If I walk that contract I can be prohibited from teaching in this state forever.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And with this, we're giving the board the authority to say oh, heck, we ran out of money during the year; so we can tear up your contract and you no longer have the ability to say to the commissioner hey, wait a minute, they violated the contract. Don't let them do this. Is that about what this does?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: I believe so. And they were only talking about the mid-contract situations. This is only about the mid-contract situations. And again, I think that as we've seen, this year, which in some cases some districts have chosen to have reductions enforced, they have done that through the existing law.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Now there's a provision in here that the chairman talks about that I think I support, sort of. That says the board in the district above, I guess about five thousand students or something, doesn't have to personally sit through all of these hearings and they can delegate it out. I'm a little concerned about that because they're -- they're I don't care if that person's particularly independent of the board, but the board isn't independent either so --
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Well, it seems to me that that's a bit like asking for a divorce, and the petitioner would you say to their spouse let me hire the attorney for you.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, I am not as concerned about that provision, simply because it's replacing the board making the decisions themselves; as long as there's this method of appeal above and beyond. But this is a one-directional out from the contract, without a similar right being given the teacher in the other direction. Do you think maybe we should put an amendment on that says that a teacher who declares financial exigency should be able to leave the school district in mid-contract, in the middle of the school year, in the middle of the semester; without penalty?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Well, under current law the teacher's required to notify the school district without later than the 45th day before the start of the school year.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. And if they don't do that, that is grounds for removing their teacher certification, isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And they wouldn't be ever able to teach again?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: I'm not certain of the appealability of that.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I think that's -- that is -- that was, in fact, the testimony that we had in committee. Thank you, Ms. Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Hochberg. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Patrick sends up an amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. It's on the motion to table. Show Representative Eissler voting aye. Representative Patrick voting no. Have all voted? There being 74 ayes and 65 nays, the motion to table prevails. Excuse Representative Deshotel because of a death in the family, on the motion of Representative Raymond. Excuse Representative Strama because of important business, on the motion of Representative Scott. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, all this amendment does is it limits the new hearing procedures to layoffs caused by reduction of state funding through financial exigency that's been used, or the definition of financial exigency. So my amendment, therefore, uses the same financial exigency to trigger that is already defined in the bill as a basis for another emergency response waiver, just as class size is limited by the commissioner. It's same wording that's used on page 12, line 7 by Representative Eissler, Chairman Eissler. As in that provision, this amendment says that the requirement of an independent hearing examiner in cases of mid-contract termination can be bypassed if the layoffs are due financial hardship caused by a reduction in state funding levels only. So as compared to the level of funding available in the preceding year. So all this is saying is that the bypass around the usual hearing requirements should not be available for just any situation, so we're not going to allow it to be used for just any situation; only as defined under the declaration of financial exigency. And that's exactly what this amendment does. It amends three sections on the bill, and -- and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah. Mr. Speaker, I move to table this amendment because it's being a little bit, or I think prescriptive, in terms of needing to call a financial exigency instead of reduced funding, which is something we've already passed in this House. So I move to table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is just using the same wording that Mr. Eissler is already using on page 12, line 7. And it's financial exigency on the layoffs of teachers, only if the state is reduced. It's not changing anything, not allowing them to use it for any other reason other than for state funding that is being reduced. He's already utilizing the wording on page 12, line 7. We're just using it and adding to the sections of layoffs that people can have hearings for that reason. There's nothing else going on with this amendment other than that. Financial exigency is already defined on page 12, line 7. This is just identifying that in different sections. And I ask for you not to table this motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Martinez sends up an amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Eissler voting aye. Representative Martinez voting no. Have all voted? There being 87 ayes and 54 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Excuse Representative Mallory Caraway because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Carter. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farias.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Farias.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, members, during our conversations this morning regarding the termination of teachers, this amendment requires fair procedure for (inaudible) termination and nonrenewal hearings under Senate Bill 8. Senate Bill 8 creates a new type of hearing procedure for termination of teachers. With this new type of hearing school districts can delegate the task of holding the hearing to an attorney chosen by the district. The attorney chosen by the district to preside in these if cases will not have the same power as the independent examiner does now to ensure a fair process by compelling the production of documents and witnesses. My amendment corrects that problem by specifically granting to the districts the attorney designee who presides over this hearings the same power as an independent hearing examiner to issue subpoenas at the request of either party, and the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents at the hearing. My amendment merely gives a teacher in one of these new type hearings a basis for requesting that essential evidence be placed into the record. The more a teacher feels he or she got a fair administrative hearing at the district level, the less likely he or she is to pursue a court case against the district concerning the reduction in force that led to the teacher's layoff. Providing this basic level of procedural safeguards in administrative hearings will save districts time and money. And during my eight years on the school board I did go through similar hearings on termination of teachers. And one of the things that I did find out is a lot of times they do make mistakes. They try and follow the procedures but a lot of times they don't, so there are mistakes and errors made in the evaluation of teachers. Some districts, as earlier I mentioned from the back mic, school districts use the evaluations for terminations or reduction in force, and those -- those evaluations are supposed to develop the teacher in identifying shortcomings and/or identify her -- her -- her skills. So when districts use that, I think they violate the teacher's rights and they -- they are terminated without just cause. With this amendment, we ensure that we do give teachers due process in a right and respectful way. And, with that, members, I move adoption of my amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Mr. Speaker, members. And Mr. Farias is a former school board member. And again, what this does is turns that designee into an IHE, which is the high cost, high price one. Remember, members, this is for financial exigency. It's not to determine malfeasance of the teacher or for poor performance, it's for a reduction in force due to finance, and that's what it's for. And, therefore, I move to table. With all due respect, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Farias to close.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Chairman Eissler makes a point. It is just not the point that we're trying to express and share with you is that when individuals are terminated they're not based -- how are we going to know they're not based on performance? How are we going to know that they are not based on seniority? How we are going to know that the favorite teacher is going to be kept, but the one that is a high performer but there is a personality conflict between the teacher and the board, or the teacher and the superintendent; how do we know that that's not going to happen? We can't say it's not going to happen. And I assure you it happens all over the State of Texas, where teachers are terminated just because there's a personality conflict between the teacher and the principal, the teacher and the administrator or the school board. If it's not my cousin, I'm going to terminate them. And every one of y'all know this exists in our school districts. There's an unfair advantage to our teachers who are good performance and are doing their jobs, and they are terminated just because you don't fit the pattern that I want. And so we're just trying to establish some form of check and balances to where they're not going to be terminated just because I don't like the color of your hair, or I don't like the way you do certain things. And that is the issue I have with it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Farias sends up an amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Eissler voting aye. Representative Farias voting no. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 90 ayes, 45 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an amendment everybody's going to like. It says that if a school districts reduces teacher salaries then the district shall reduce the administrative salaries by a corresponding amount. In other words, if the rank and file are required to have lower salaries, that that ought to extend to the bosses as well. That's what all do in our businesses, that's what everybody ought to do. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Marquez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this was such a good idea I wanted to join my other colleagues. All this does is give them some flexibility. What this amendment does is it extends contract changes and terminations to include superintendents as well as teachers. So the highest paid employee and the district employee most responsible for the district's financial conditions. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Marquez sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. We're back on the Callegari amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I move passage. I think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Callegari sends up an amendment. A record vote's been requested, a record vote's granted on the Callegari amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Callegari voting aye. Show Representative Eissler voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 137 ayes and 1 nay, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment says that any reduction that's taken from the annual salary paid to an employee must be equally distributed over the course of the employee's current contract with the school district. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Patrick sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment simply adds the language that when the school district holds a meeting with reference to financial exigency, and they have to discuss such issues as their fund balance, they have to discuss such issues as their tax rate; it adds that they will also provide information regarding any local option, residence homestead exemption. And I believe it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Patrick sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening, members. The word -- The words, rather, financial exigency, has been said from this mic 24 times this morning. And what I would ask you is what is it? I mean what is the financial exigency? Well, I'm not sure that's what it is. But I tell you what, I'll bet you I can get a 150 answers out here about what it is. And for school districts I can get probably a 1,039 different answers. And so what I thought I would do is that at least in this amendment simply specify what a financial exigency is. And if you'll look and follow the amendment with me, I think you'll understand what this amendment proposes to do. It doesn't do any violence to any of this bill, to Senate Bill 8. But what it does is specifies what a financial exigency is. It also specifies how you go about determining when a school district has a financial exigency. So that all school districts will play by the same rules, that's what this amendment seeks to do, members. And if there are no questions, I would seek to move adoption of the Dutton amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is not acceptable to the author. This is a very, very prescriptive definition. It's a very difficult process, it makes it even tougher. School districts have no inducement to -- to declare financial exigency, because it's not a good deal for school districts. This looks at continuing insolvency, when it's a very difficult measure to attain. And I believe this was -- this was a bill filed by Mr. Dutton that --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I would be happy to.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Can you tell me what the definition of a financial exigency is now in the code, Rob?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: As a definition? I don't have a definition other than it's a very difficult place to be. It's revenues down, expenses up. How are we going to continue paying all the people we have? We don't have to prove that we're going to -- that we're actually going broke, but that we have a very difficult time. Yours -- (inaudible) (inaudible) -- your bill --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, let me ask you because --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: (inaudible)
(inaudible) Your amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Because if you don't have a definition in the statute, how are districts going to know whether it exists or not?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: They know.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I mean what -- Is each district is going o to determine it on their own?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's what has happened.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is how it works.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So each district, so you could have one district that's a dollar short, and another one that's a hundred dollars short, one that's a million dollars short; and everybody's going to just decide --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It's not a good deal to be -- to declare a financial exigency. Okay. Your credit is harmed, your community loses confidence in your ability to operate the school district. It's not something that's handled lightly.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But, Rob, at the end of the day --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I think --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- this will hold school districts accountable, wouldn't it not? Wouldn't you agree with me? That it will hold school districts absolutely accountable. It doesn't get in the way of them doing it, it just says this is what it is and this is how you get there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: So what happens if a school district doesn't qualify under your definitions, and still can't afford to pay its teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I don't see how that can happen, Rob, if you'll read the definition of what a financial exigency is.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, here's another thing, why don't --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: (inaudible) if you read the amendments the school districts is not the one that makes the determination as to whether it exists.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, there you go.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So there's an independent body --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: So you have to qualifier.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I think (inaudible) no qualification necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay. Why -- Why is it not in statute now?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Because nobody's as smart as we are.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I'll agree with that.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: We haven't had -- We haven't had one before. I want to let the other members ask a question, but what -- I'm just -- I don't understand your opposition to this, because it doesn't do any violence to Senate Bill 8. And what it essentially does is makes the whole system accountable that exists today, and you'll have 1,039 school districts out there running off in 1,039 different ways trying to get at at same result.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I think -- I think this would be a better opportunity to vet this through the process, to look at -- the
(inaudible) gives school districts an opportunity to
(inaudible) (inaudible) to define it. Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Sorry to interrupt. I wish we had had the opportunity to do this through the process, but I wish -- I wish there had been that opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to do this through the process. You have new -- The legislation that you're presenting makes a number of things dependent on the declaration of a financial exigency, and that's never been there before, right? We haven't had it --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Some of those aspects of it, but it's always been a difficult call for a school district to make.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It has never given them the right to void contracts, for example? In fact, the term, financial exigency, hasn't been in the contract section of the code at all; if it's in the code at all anywhere, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So there's not been a need to define it because it hasn't had a legal consequence for other parts of the -- of the code. So let me ask you a question, you just accepted an amendment that Ms. Marquez put on -- somebody else's amendment, I don't remember.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Callegari's.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Calleg ari's amendment, that says that in cases of financial exigency the school district can essentially fire a superintendent mid-contract.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Make a -- May -- Yeah, may review. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: May fire the superintendent mid-contract. And the superintendent -- and/or change the terms of superintendent can leave. That's hard to do now because of the terms of contract, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Or hard to do now even with this, because you can't change the current contract with this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, this would appear to allow you to void that -- I mean what you just accepted would allow you to change a contract at some point, as a result of a declaration of financial exigency. So wouldn't -- Without Mr. Dutton's amendment, or something like it, wouldn't that allow a district that wants to get out of a superintendent contract; which happens pretty regularly, to simply say, oh, financial exigency, you're fired, we'll see you? I mean, I think that's what the result is that you have. I think that particularly with the amendment you accepted, and I think that Mr. Dutton's amendment at least tries to put some box around that to say a financial exigency has to rise to some threshold.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I agree that it tries, and I don't believe it's appropriate for this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I don't know what other bill that we have that would make it appropriate, because this is (inaudible) Mr. Callegari's amendment is on and Mrs. Marquez's amendment is on and your language is about financial exigency.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It is.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton to close.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Again, members, to have -- to impose all of the conditions related to financial exigency that we have done now, without describing what that is, or without providing school districts at least some means in which to determine whether that exists or does not exist simply makes no -- absolutely no sense; and so --
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Would the gentleman yield for a couple of questions regarding his amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'll yield for any questions you may have, sir.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Dut ton, in line 6, page 1 of your bill it says substantial and reoccurring financial deficits.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Define reoccurring for me, please.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I could define and, too. I mean what -- The point is that --
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: (Inaudi ble).
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Hold on, let me explain it to you. This is not designed to be proscriptive to the point where it limits school districts from doing anything. But it does set a bar by which a measure by which you can accomplish the whole idea of financial exigency. Reoccurring obviously means what it says, that it didn't -- that's it's not expected to happen once.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Is it occurring over months or years?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It just simply -- That -- If you'll read the bill, if you'll read the rest of the amendment it will help you get there. And you can pick this -- you can pick this. I mean if you don't like this, I suppose you can pick this down to (inaudible) okay. But what I'm trying to share with you, Mr. Aycock, is that all you have to do is look at what the definition of financial exigency is, and you can make the determination. I mean I'm probably sure you mean it seriously, by what reoccurring means. But I tell you what, it's far easier to determine that than it is take make the leap and determine what financial exigency is.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Under present law, as it is today --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: -- what are the requirements to do financial exigency?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: We haven't had that before. And in Section 11.128, I think, of the code, it specifies that when school districts make contracts; one of the ways they can make an out of that contract is through a financial exigency. But there's nothing in the code that defines financial exigency.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: But in SB 8 --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: In SB 8 there is a requirement that they have to do certain things.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But there's no definition -- See, yeah. That's the whole point, Mr. Aycock. It says you got to do these things, but the hurdle is back here which the bill doesn't proscribe. Which is why the amendment is needed.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. Under the proposed bill, the commissioner would have to get notice; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And under the proposed bill, if someone want to continue that financial exigency for more than a year, they would have to renew that financial exigency; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But you're getting ahead of yourself, because there's no definition of what it is.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: But your saying reoccurring and --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: No, let's start with the definition first. You see, you're getting ahead yourself. You're trying to suggest that every school district knows what it is.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: (Inaudi ble) willing to let that (inaudible) reoccurring is.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, no. Financial exigency is the definition -- is the term we're trying to define.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Well, I'm going to let the -- I'm going to let the board define that term. I want to give the --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So every school -- Your idea is to make every school district make a definition of what a financial exigency is?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I want them to be able to declare financial exigency, if they look into their books and say that we have difficult financial times, and I want to give the boards that flexibility. It's a painful decision for boards.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, see you've injected another term now. You said difficult financial, what is difficult? Difficult means you don't want to do it?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Yours says substantial and reoccurring.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And that's the definition of financial exigency. If you look -- if you look at any definition for financial exigency -- I didn't make the definition up. Actually, we did a lot of research on it to make sure that it complied with what I thought was best, and what I thought this House might consider. That is what the definition of a financial -- See, the whole idea is to distinguish between a one-time event and a succession of events that causes the district not to meet its obligation, or not to be able to meet its obligations; and therefore triggers a whole bunch of consequences that are in Senate Bill 8.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Let's take an example: Let's say the cheese plant in
(inaudible) Texas (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Say what? I can't hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Let's take an example let's say that the cheese plant in Texas, and several hundred people are laid off at once; and is that a financial exigency?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: The committee -- If you'll read the amendment, Mr. Aycock there's a committee established in here that helps a district determine that. If you don't put this in, you know, what happens? Let me tell you what happens.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think the board gets to decide.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But that's the same people who are going to do all these other things. And what you're going to expose the district to is a whole huge number of lawsuits, because the same people making the determination of financial exigency are the same people doing the terminating. And you ought to be against that, because what you're going to do is expose your district to a whole series of consequences, legal consequences; that may cause all of this to come back and haunt each one of us in this legislature. Because I can tell you, one of the first questions in a lawsuit brought by a teacher who is effected by this is going to be a wait a minute, there was no financial exigency. And somebody's going to have to stand up and defend what that was in order to trigger it.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think boards will be very reticent to declare financial exigency in every case. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I disagree with you, Mr. Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Dutton, in terms of then this definition, there -- How many school districts are there in the State of Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, excluding the charter schools, about 1,039 school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And basically what you are saying is in the absence of us defining what financial exigency is, there can be how many definitions?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: You can have 1,039 of them. Just like there could be everybody in here, if I asked here, everybody could have their own definition of what a financial exigency -- Some people may think having a special session creates a financial exigency. It certainly has for me. But somebody else may not. So, the whole idea is to make sure that we have every school district playing by the same set of rules when comes to triggering the things that are triggered in Senate Bill 8.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So separate and apart from let's say from any failure to appropriate to the local school districts, a school district can decide on its own, separate and apart from any funding coming from us; that they are in a financially strapped set of circumstances, and then trigger the terms of Senate Bill 8 by declaring financial exigency?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes. And that to me seems the wrong way for us to help school districts get through this. We ought to -- we ought to help them get through it. And the only way to do that, first of all, is we ought to define what financial exigency is. So that everybody is not out there saying well, you know, because I may be a dollar short here or there, I'm going to make that declaration.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And what happens when let's say if -- if the Dallas School Board comes up with one definition, Houston comes up with another, San Antonio comes up with another; what then ends up happening if we have all these different interpretations of financial exigency, and teachers being either laid off or terminated; superintendents, what have you; what ends up -- who ends up making a decision on --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I think what's going to happen, Mr. Turner, is you're going to have courts deciding what a financial exigency is. Because I guarantee you, when a teacher decides to bring a lawsuit on the basis that I was terminated not for a financial exigency, but I was terminated for some other cause; then the courts' going to ask the school district to explain how did you get to this definition of a financial exigency? And to the extent that another school district used some other determination, that's going to be entered also as evidence in the case to suggest that wait a minute, wait a minute, we've got a school district, a neighboring school district, decided to say that this was a financial exigency. But you said it was this. And so the courts not going to be making the determination as to whether or not -- and whether or not, what it is and whether or not it exists.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And isn't the teacher's position strengthened by the fact that the legislature, the lawmakers, that we are refusing -- we are refusing to define what the term means? We're simply throwing it out there, but we're leaving it totally open for interpretation by more than a thousand school districts?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And all of the teachers who are affected by it. They're all going to be looking at it the same way, Mr. Turner. And as a consequence, we're going to be in back here in another special session trying to help school districts out, because you will have placed an undue burden on school districts trying to make that determination. In fact, what is going to happen, I suspect, is school districts will be more reluctant to make the determination that a financial exigency exists, because they don't want to get themselves into deep water over there.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. And when they're looking at, and when their lawyers are looking at it, they will see Senate Bill 8 as putting something on them that is vague, ambiguous, undefined and therefore impossible to implement, because the terms were not defined.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It's sort of like firing the shot, and then you put up the target afterwards. And there is absolutely no way you're going to hit the target. But school districts are going to be in the position a to where --
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Vote no on the motion to table, members and (inaudible).
THE CHAIR: Representative Dutton sends up an amendment. Chairman Eissler moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye, those opposed vote nay. It's a division vote. Record vote has been requested, members, a record vote is granted. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Dutton voting no, representative Eissler voting aye. There being 80 ayes, 56 nays, 2 present not voting; motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism to meet while the House is in session at 4:45 p.m. today, June 16th, 2011, at 3W9 to consider H -- HCR 14. It's HR 14.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Culture Recreation and Tourism will at 12:45 p.m. on June the 16th, 2011, in room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider HR 104. Chair recognizes Representative Guillen for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, let's do this one more time. I request permission for the Committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism to meet while the House is in session at 12:45 p.m. today, June 16th, 2011, at 3W9 to consider HR 104.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism will meet at 12:45 p.m. on June the 16th, 2011, in room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider HR 104.
THE CHAIR: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment just allows us to ensure that we don't do anything to eliminate public access to information in districts. And the bill allows us to limit access, if we don't put an amendment in, by virtue of the fact that if you requested information and not paid the fee for reproduction, so this simply says we can always have access to inspection of records, and I think it's acceptable to the author. Move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Davis sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So moved. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Shelton.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment deals with amendment of the section that is within the bill in Section 21.57 of employees that are under continuing contract. The bill strikes the language in the reverse order of seniority, and this amendment adds language primarily based on teacher appraisals administered under Section 21.352. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Representative Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman please yield?
THE CHAIR: Will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Dr. Shel ton, explain a little bit further your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, sir. As, you know, there are three types of contracts --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: -- of public schools. And this section that was within SB 8 deals only with continuing contracts. And in the current law, which is stricken by SB 8, says that reductions, if they are necessary, will be made in the reverse order of seniority. So this is the last in, first out provision that is stricken from the law in SB 8. And, instead of that, which is already out of SB 8 it adds that they be primarily based on teacher appraisals, Section 21.352 to the law. And, as you know, that is the PBA system which is the appraisal system which is in place.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So that we are -- So that we're all clear, your amendment -- your amendment allows the school districts to take out your more experienced teachers. So teachers who have been there, for example, 20 years; under your amendment, those teachers can be let go for less experienced teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Under the continuing contract, that is possible. But it would also mean that the school districts would have to decide between a teacher who have been there 20 years versus one who may have been there for 18 years.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I understand that. I just want to make sure that we understand the full import of your amendment. And that is whether you -- if you have a senior teacher, and it doesn't matter whether that senior teacher happens to be whomever, democrat, republican, independent, whatever, whatever. Your amendment says seniority does not matter?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: No, actually, that is in SB 8 itself. What my amendment does is, as I explained, is it changes the reductions, if they are necessary, be based on teacher appraisals, under current appraisals --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Which means seniority does not matter, right?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Seniority can be taken into affect by the school district, but it is not the only criteria. Under current law, that is the only criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. I understand. So under your amendment, for example, if you've got a teacher who's been there 20 years and you've got a teacher that's been there for 1 year, the school district can eliminate that teacher that's been there for 20 years?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: If they choose to do that, and the way the amendment is worded it's primarily based upon teacher appraisal.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. I just like to -- I just like to talk in simple terms. I'm just a simple person with a simple understanding. So I just want to make sure that I understand it. If a teacher's been there for 20 years and one teacher's been there for 1 year, your amendment allows the school district to eliminate the teacher that's been there 20 years if they so desire, based on whatever appraisal that they are doing?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: What the appraisal -- the appraisal system that's already in current law, and any reductions to be made by the appraisal system.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. Again, simple terms, I'm a simple person. Teacher been there for 20 years. One teacher been there for 1 year. Under your amendment, the school district, based on an appraisal, can eliminate the teacher that's been there for 20 years.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: If they are performing --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. People are arguing about merit and real world and all of that. I'm just simple, okay? We are changing the the status quo and I just want to keep it simply. And again, I put forth the question: Teacher been there 20 years, one been there 1 year, under your amendment, school districts can eliminate the teacher that's been there 20 years?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Under the current law, it's only on the basis of seniority for teachers on continuing contract. And under SB 8, with this amendment, it would be on the basis of appraisal.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is the answer to my question yes?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: It is possible a school district can choose to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It is possible that my example, a 20 year teacher could be shown the door versus the teacher that's been there 1 year?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: If the school district chooses to do that under the appraisal.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I got you. I just wanted to add -- I just want to ask -- Dr. Shelton, the only thing I'm trying to -- Look, I'm trying to get a good understanding. I know we are eliminating the contract
(inaudible) rate of teachers. I know we are eliminating, for example, looking at the minimum salary schedule. We are doing away with that for teachers. And now we're dealing with the seniority for teachers. I got all of that. Now I thought we were dealing with the financial burden of the state, and the fact we were cutting back the money we were giving to the schools. But now I just want to be very clear, teachers are at the center of the target here. And we are doing -- and we are attacking them left and right. Doesn't matter whether they are conservative teachers, liberal teachers, progressive teachers; just the fact that they are teachers, we are digging -- we are coming at the teachers. And your amendment, your amendment just says under the status quo, if seniority exists, that the -- if they've been there for a while then they've got some protection. But under your amendment, under your amendment, this House, this legislature is simply saying seniority just doesn't matter. Now, let me ask, if we're going to do this for teachers, do you think we have a seniority system for legislators as well; where seniority should not matter? Fair enough. What you say, Dr. Shelton, that there are some people that's been on some committees, if we did an appraisal -- Hold it -- Would you accept an amendment that we should -- a -- that we should impose the same system on this legislative process as it relates to committee, as we are imposing on our teachers? Because this is my view, Dr. Shelton, before you apply -- before you start getting rid of seniority --
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: If teachers are doing a good job they should do okay under this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, if legislators are doing a good job they shouldn't have to worry about seniority, either.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, this is not about seniority in the legislature --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, it should be because --
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: It's about continuing contracts and (inaudible) contracts --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But if we are going to do to teachers, we shouldn't impose any more on teachers that what we are willing to impose on ourselves.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I would accept that amendment, Mr. Turner, to impose -- eliminating seniority from the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then let me prepare an amendment and let me bring it down there.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I don't think it would be germane.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, but would you not want it to be germane? Seems like when we protect ourselves, we don't have any problems doing it when we do it to teachers. The legislators would do anything to protect themselves, and before we start doing that to teachers maybe we need to fix our own house, maybe we need to fix our own system before we start dealing with teachers in this legislature. I view your amendment as well as Senate Bill 8, Dr. Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Mr. Turner, Mr. Turner, we do not have seniority in this House, we stand for election every two years.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Excuse me?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: We do not have seniority in this House because we have to stand before the voters every two years -- we have a two-year contract.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Dr. Shel ton, Dr. Shelton, we have seniority in this House. This House is based on seniority. It's based on seniority. Committee assignments are based on seniority, in large part. It's based on seniority. You know, oh, I know it's getting a little touchy now, but the point is before you start dealing with teachers, I think we need to fix what's happening in this House first, before we start dealing with the teachers in their House. I view your amendment as hostile to teachers, as well as Senate Bill 8; with all due respect.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield just for a quick question?
THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Dr. Shelton, if you read what your amendment says, and I completely respect Speaker Turner, what he was saying, this argument that he was making. But -- But what this does, for those of us that have children in the public school system, is it allows for the best teachers to be able to be maintained within the system; is that not what you're trying to accomplish?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes. That's exactly what we're trying to accomplish.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: And just so we're clear, the language -- I believe the -- the language on seniority is already in the committee substitute for Senate Bill 8, is that not right?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes. The committee substitute for Senate Bill 8 has the line in reverse order of seniority taken out of it, and this is an amendment to that section where there would be an appraisal under the current existing appraisal system.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: So that everybody's clear, you are actually making it to the point where you are clarifying in the bill that you're saying that we want to be able to have, and the districts will be able to use a system of having the best and the brightest in the classroom; is that not right?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: That's right.
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order well taken and sustained. Representative Shelton sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? There is objection. Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Actually, I was just trying to object. But I guess I'll speak against. What occurs to me, members, about this amendment; regardless of whether you agree that it's good public policy in general, is that it has a practical problem. Because if you are going to dismiss teachers primarily on their teacher evaluations, first of all, or their appraisal process, you have different numbers of teachers at different schools throughout the district. If you put them all on a list you may have the only art teacher that will teach at Lavender High School over here, may not rise to quite the level of the teacher who's at Sheffield High School. But you've got three of them over there, and you've got to get rid of the one at Lavender High School and keep the one at Sheffield High School. So I think there's -- I think there's a practical problem in doing what Mr. Shelton is attempting to do. It is not something we ever discussed in the committee process, and so I would move to table this amendment.
THE CHAIR: The motion to table is temporarily withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Berman to speak for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, members, I'm going to be very, very brief. This amendment, which I'm just read, introduces a very, very novel concept. You can finally fire a bad teacher. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Shelton to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this will help our schools and give teachers and schools who have teachers on continuing contracts the ability to evaluate their teachers, and I close. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Dr. Shelton , will he (inaudible) (inaudible) and then yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. Dr. Shelton, as Mr. Eissler's bill is currently written the seniority language is already struck; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, sir. That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Your amendment isn't doing that, we have already taken out -- if this bill passes without your amendment, we've eliminated the requirement that teacher (inaudible) done according to seniority?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: As the bill stands, without your amendment, the local school board then has the authority to determine how they're going to do the rips?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And determine which schools within the district should have more teachers ripped than others, and to determine what areas within the district, what subject areas, what level of teacher should be ripped, in this determination of best interest, they have that authority, under the bill if it's passed, as it currently is before us?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, that's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And your amendment would say regardless of those other factors, you have to primarily look at the results of a particular appraisal in doing this rip --
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, sir. That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: -- not just one factor, not just this one of many factors, but as the primary factor?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Why would you want to do that, given all of the other things, particularly in a large school district, that come into play?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I would imagine -- I don't have the experience, but in a small rural school district where you're trying to balance personnel loads and you have people who can do maybe one or more things, or may have the ability to -- to -- to cut down on their teaching load and work in an advisory capacity part of the time. Why would you want to take that flexibility away from school districts with your amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: We want to make sure that teachers on continuing contracts are -- in a situation where reductions necessary, are evaluated, and -- based on their appraisals.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, I understand that. But why would you make that the primary factor, when there are a lot of other things involved in personal management and in placement that may mitigate that?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, I think it'd be important that the primary goal of -- of schools is to make sure that we have good teachers who are working hard for our students.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's right. But your amendment is district-wide, right?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: It's not
(inaudible) but yes, it is (inaudible) continuing contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Across the district?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Across the district.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And so one of the problems we have, wouldn't you agree, is that in many districts it's hard to get the best teachers to teach in certain schools.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, that is a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So would you then under this be requiring that the teachers who are teaching in the more difficult schools, who may be the newer teachers, who may be less experienced, who may not have performed as well on those appraisals; that those ones get ripped and you have to then go figure out where to replace them from, if your more experienced teachers -- or your better -- better appraised teachers won't move to that district --
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: This amendment says primarily, and primarily means that they -- first consideration, but it is not an exclusive consideration that would tie the hands of the school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, if it doesn't tie the hands of the school districts in some way, what does it do?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: It makes sure that when teachers -- reductions are necessary on their teachers on continuing contracts, that -- that there is there an appraisal system in place which will be considered when those reductions are made.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Primarily considered? Primarily considered. (Inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: If I have the -- If I have a new hearing examiner that the board has just assigned to determine whether a teacher was ripped, whether that teacher was selected primarily because of the appraisal process, how in the world do I, as a school board, prove that up?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, you'd have to look at the appraisal system and other needs, and say that there are other needs at school districts. The first order would be that they have a good appraisal.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Does that mean that they have the best appraisals? Does that mean that their appraisals are better than anybody
(inaudible) -- are (drop) appraisals are worse than anybody's that wasn't ripped?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: That would be up to the school board.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Dr. Shelton, I think -- I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate where you're coming from; but I think you're creating a situation that's pretty unworkable for school boards to deal with. And you know that doesn't always bother me, but in this case it does. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Representative Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield, please?
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield? Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Representati ve Shelton, can you help me understand a little bit about continuing contracts and how -- what the percentage of the contracts in the state are continuing contracts?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, as you know, Representative, actually a minority of the contracts are continuing contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And what really is a continuing contract? What's the purpose of it, of the continuing contract?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, a continuing contract can be for several purposes, but in Austin they're given to teachers that are very good teachers, who the school board wants to encourage them to be around (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And so what do they have to incentivize the teachers who -- that these very good teachers that we want -- they want to encourage to stay, or to attract to their district; what do they use to do that?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, as you pointed out, they can use continuing contracts
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: They can use continuing contracts as one criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And the purpose of using it, why is that a good thing, to have a continuing contract to a teacher? Why is that a
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, it gives them some security on a year to year basis.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: So, the school districts has made a decision in these cases to offer a continuing contract, because they have a desire to attract or retain a particular teacher whose skill or expertise they require, and in order to do so they've actually had a contract that has this incentive in it that says they had some security here; is that correct? Is that what you are saying?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And so what we're talking about now, changing that after -- after the contract has been established with the teacher for the very purpose that we just described. We would remove that incentive.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: We remove the seniority --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Is that what we were just saying was one of the purposes of the continuing contract?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, it can be.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And so we have a incentive in place to get the teachers that we want, which is actually -- I agree with what you were saying earlier about the purpose, the goal of the school board and the school district is to bring in the best qualified teachers that we can to educate our students, and so this is a tool that school districts have chosen to use in order to attract the best and the brightest and to offer some kind of job security to incentivize them to come, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, that's one of the reasons they use that.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And yet this is proposing that we remove that?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: No, what this is proposing in SB 8 is to take out the provisions
(inaudible) necessary for seniority and replace it with -- primarily based on appraisals.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Representative Shelton sends up an amendment. Representative Hochberg moves to table. The vote is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no members. The clerk will ring the bell. Show representative Shelton voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 52 ayes 84 nays, 2 present not voting; the motion to table fails. We're now on the Shelton amendment. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Shelton amendment? The question is on the adoption of the Shelton amendment. Vote aye, vote no members. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? There being 85 ayes, 52 nays, 2 present not voting; the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I think we have, thanks to Chairman Eissler, we have at least come up with some language that I believe will help guide school districts in making the determination as to whether or not a financial exigency actually exists within that district, and so if you'll read the amendment, what it simply does is help by giving the commissioner -- the commissioner of education, the ability to adopt minimum standards concerning the financial conditions of school districts. And I'll be happy to answer Mr. Aycock's question, if he has one.
THE CHAIR: Representative Aycock, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'll be more than happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Now okay, Representative Dutton, I believe you've gone since that last discussion we've had and actually done an amendment that would define or at least set up rules by which define financial exigency; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yeah. It essentially gives the commissioner the authority to develop minimum standards so that you have everybody playing by the same rules.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. Thank you very much for doing that. I appreciate it. While I was not particularly fond of your prior attempt, I am fond of this one, so thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I'll reserve it to next session. I'll reserve it to next session when you've caught up. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Representative Dutton sends up an amount. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Huberty.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Huberty to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Mr. Speaker, members, this -- this amendment is related to how a determination is made relative to good cause for a determination. And what we're trying to clarify is that when a school district goes through a hearing, if you have a as an example a teacher that isn't showing up for work, and the school district moves to make a determination of termination for that particular issue, or for whatever reason; there is an independent hearing examiner that's involved in that process. The independent hearing examiner will make a finding. And so what the issue is that -- when we talk about good cause a determination of finding of fact comes into play, instead of the conclusion of law. So what we're trying to do is, when that happen, a school district then does not have the ability. It basically creates a final stopping point so that a school board does not have any ability to overrule the independent hearing examiner. So all we're trying to do is add language in here that allows a school district to be able to one, the conclusion of law is adopted, that they're able to either adopt or reject that particular language; the school districts. So it still provides the same rights that a teacher will have to then appeal beyond that appeal, the board appeal then to the Commissioner of Education. So that doesn't change any of those things, but it does allow for those things and I move adoption. It's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I was hoping to ask a question.
THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Of course.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Your amendment, as I understand it, says that once the hearing examiner gets their conclusion, you're defining that as a conclusion of law?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: It says the determination by the hearing examiner regarding good cause for the suspension of the teacher without pay, or the termination of a probationary, continuing or term contract is a conclusion of law and may be adopted, rejected or changed by the board of trustees, the board of subcommittee (inaudible) bill section 11.25, and conclusions of law, including determination, regarding good cause for suspension without pay or termination.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: What's the effect of that? I'm trying to figure out whether that's, since you're making it a conclusion of law, but you provide an opportunity for the board to overturn that somehow?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Well, what's happening is that it allows school boards the ability to determine good cause in determining contract termination hearings, is one of the things that this allows it to do. And it makes it clear that the ultimate decision of good cause is the conclusion of law, and not a finding of fact.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But if a school board can overturn it, it seems to me that it's more a fact issue than a law issue.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Well, it says the amendment -- No. It makes it clear that the ultimate decision of good cause is a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact so --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But the school board as I understand in your amendment overturn that (drop).
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: It does allow them -- It says the determination by the hearing examiner regarding good cause of the suspension of a teacher without pay, or the termination of a probationary or continuing (inaudible) term contract is a conclusion of law and may be adopted, rejected or changed by the board of trustees to board of the subcommittee. But it still provides the additional steps above and beyond that if they don't agree. What we're talking about here but --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But let me say something to you, though, once you establish as a conclusion of law, then I don't -- I'm not quite sure that it follows that it can be overturned subsequent to that determination having been made.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: So as an example, if a -- if any individual shows up late for work on multiple occasions, and finally the school district says, you know, what we need to -- we need to be able for just cause we need to be able to mad a determination and termination, and so then they go ahead and terminate. And then the independent hearing examiner comes back and says no, we don't find that to be the case, that would then allow for that particular issue to stand as what they said was the finding of fact versus a determination. And so school districts wouldn't have the ability to deal with that.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: What raises my concern is that if the hearing examiner makes a finding as a conclusion of law, making the determination of good cause a conclusion of law, but the school board actually overturns that; are they not violating the law? I mean would they be -- Okay. I'm --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: It says right now under the statutes that the current background is under the statute of the school board is extremely limited in the ability to change a finding of fact. Only very limited evidence (inaudible) verifying a fact change. So, the problem is that certain TA examiners, in their recommendations, have made the good cause determination as a finding of fact instead of a conclusion of law. In essence, the that's contrary to the original tenet of the statute making the hearing examiner the final decision maker instead of the duly elected board of trustees.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I appreciate --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Mr. Dutton, do you believe -- I appreciate your experience in being an attorney, and while I am not an attorney I can tell you that the issue comes before us today that we had -- we have to get school districts and school boards the ability to be the final decision maker whether they're going to end up terminating this (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And I agree with you (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Hold on. Let me finish. They are still provided an opportunity to have an independent hearing examiner.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I agree -- I agree with that. No, but I agree with everything you said. I think my problem is, as I read this with the current law because it seems to me that what you would really want to do to accomplish your purpose is you would make the hearing examiner conclusion -- a conclusion of fact. And then have the board adopted as a conclusion of law, because that's the permanency of it. That establishes the right then that says okay
(inaudible) may have made a factual determination that good cause exists, but by virtue of the school board's adoption of that --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- it becomes a conclusion of law at that point. So, I understand what you're trying to do, I'm not trying to change that, I'm just saying that there seems to be -- it seems to be reversed, because conclusions of law generally are available for challenge only on an appeal.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And that's not what this would be. This would be part of the process of making the determination. And somebody seems to have gotten it backwards. That's the only point I was making.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Okay. Okay?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir. Move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Representative Huberty sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Huberty.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes representative Huberty to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment removes another mandate from our local school districts. Currently all school districts with a population of five thousand or more are required to hold two public hearings (inaudible) need for school if those districts do not already provide or contract for such error. The amendment removes the requirement for hearing and in no way removes the ability to them hold hearings that they deemed unnecessary, I believe that this is acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Representative Huberty sends up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Please excuse Representative Solomons for important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Geren. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I was trying to get Mr. Eissler to agree to it. Basically, if you remember, let me tell what this does. In the school districts, if you know, they have set a set of policies and in order to run the school district. What this -- this amendment says that those policies that they use have the force of law. One of the things that we're doing in this legislation is give the school boards, the superintendents, the -- to have flexibility in -- in interpretating the laws. This says in the rules that they passed, that they have the force of law. Mr. Eissler was asking well, doesn't that happen now? Well, what happens is they have these rules, and what I'm saying is they have the rules they have the impact of law. I think it's kind of similar to what Mr. Huberty was saying earlier, that -- that if there's a decision made that the school board had the ability, instead of the finding the fact to be a conclusion of law. This says that the impact of their policies have the same impact of law, so policies equal law.
THE CHAIR: Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is -- A record vote's been requested. A record vote is granted. All those in favor vote aye, those opposed nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being a 108 ayes, 22 nays, 2 present not voting; the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker and members, this is an amendment that is acceptable to the author. It is a bill that was passed out of public ed. It was stuck in calendars. The one opponent of this measure and I negotiated improved language. And this is the negotiated and improved language. Let me explain exactly what this does. Before a school district may employ as a classroom teacher a person who is certified, under our alternative certification system, they must currently, current law says 15 hours are required to be in the field. So that is current law. Fifteen hours field experience. What I am doing is simply defining what field experience means. To mean actively engage in instructional or educational activities in the classroom. This is language that was negotiated with the one organization that came to committee with concerns, and it is acceptable to the author. Move passage.
THE CHAIR: Representative Villarreal sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none, so ordered. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This is the flexible school-day
