House Takes Preliminary Vote on Due Process and It Passes!
When Rep. Clay Aurand (R-Belleville) cancelled the education committee meeting yesterday, it was done with the intent of ending the possibility that due process rights for Kansas teachers would be restored. Instead, he got the supporters for HB 2179 looking for another way forward. They found that other path this morning.
With the full House on general orders, a bill dealing with dispute arbitration came up for debate, HB 2186. Rep. Jerry Stogsdill (R-Prairie Village) offered an amendment that would restore due process rights for Kansas teachers exactly as it was to be done in HB 2179.
Aurand tried to block the amendment by challenging whether the amendment was germane or related to the underlying bill. The rules committee considered the challenge and ruled that the amendment was indeed germane and that debate could continue.
Much of the debate focused on “local control,” the idea of letting every local school board decide whether or not they would choose to grant due process protections to their teachers. While some school districts have done this, a large majority of school boards simply refuse to even bargain the issue. Teachers in districts that have not bargained due process rights, those teachers may be terminated for any reason or no reason at all, typically aren’t told the reason for the termination, and have no recourse to a hearing to determine if they were treated justly or capriciously.
One freshman legislator, Trevor Jacobs (R-Fort Scott), called upon Stogsdill to give him proof that any teachers have been fired for having a bad day since 2014. Of course, no one can be certain of the answer since school districts don’t give reasons for termination unless that has been bargained into the contract.
After a long floor debate, the amendment was adopted on a vote of 66 to 59 as moderate Republicans joined Democrats in voting AYE.
Voting AYE were Representatives Alcala, Baker, Ballard, Becker, Bishop, Brim, Burroughs, Carlin, Carmichael, Clayton, Concannon, Cox, Crum, Curtis, Deere, Dierks, Dietrich, Elliott, Ellis, Finney, Frownfelter, Gallagher, Gartner, Good, Helgerson, Henderson, Highberger, Hodge, Holscher, Judd-Jenkins, Kessinger, Koesten, Kuether, Lewis, Lusk, Lusker, Markley, Mastroni, Miller, Murnan, Neighbor, Ohaebosim, Orr, Ousley, Parker, Phelps, Pittman, Proehl, Rooker, Ruiz, Sawyer, Schreiber, Sloan, Stogsdill, Swanson, Tarwater, Terrell, Trimmer, Victors, Ward, Weigel, Wheeler, Whipple, Wilson, Winn, and Wolfe Moore. (Republicans are in bold ilatics.)
All other Representatives voted NO. There were no absences.
Following that vote, Rep. Blake Carpenter (R-Derby), decided to get one dig in at teachers and offered an amendment he called “merit pay.” The amendment was not a merit pay amendment but called for the creation of a mandatory state-wide evaluation system for teachers and school administrators. Additionally, it would direct the State Board of Education to set compensation for teachers and administrators.
Rep. Ed Trimmer (D-Winfield) challenged the germaneness of this amendment. The rules committee determined that the amendment was not germane and so it was not debated or voted upon.
The bill was then advanced to final action with 68 votes. That final action vote will likely come tomorrow.
Your call to action tonight!
If your Representative voted AYE on the Stogsdill amendment, take the time to let him/her know that you appreciate the support for Kansas teachers. If your Representative voted NO on the amendment, ask him/her to reconsider and vote AYE on final action on HB 2186.
Changes to Working After Retirement (WAR) Get Preliminary OK
HB 2268 passed a preliminary vote in the House today by voice vote. If the bill passes on Final Action in the House it will then proceed to the Senate.
The bill, as amended makes numerous changes to KPERS in relationship to Working After Retirement.
The current rules for Working After Retirement, as applied to newly retired individuals, caps an individual’s annual earnings at $25,000. Once the cap is reached an individual must either quit working or stop receiving KPERS benefits for the rest of the year.
Also, the current rules for certain groups in KPERS exempt them from the $25,000 cap. This includes nurses at certain state institutions, those in KP&F, those in the Judges Retirement System, local government officials and those employed with a participating KPERS employer prior to May 1, 2015.
Additionally the current rules make an exemption for certain types of licensed school district employees from the $25,000 cap. Importantly participating employers who hire retired licenses school employees are required to contribute to KPERS at rates varying up to 30% of the employee’s salary.
The current exemptions for licensed school district employees include those hired for emergency vacancies, special education teachers, and those who are hired under the hard-to-fill provisions of the current law.
HB 2268 combines all the current special exemptions into a single special working after retirement exemption. The bill also continues the existing provisions of the WAR rules regarding a bona fide separation period, employer assurance protocols, maximum period of employment-three years plus a one year extension-and the current contribution to KPERS rates. Retirees working under the current law would continue to be exempt, subject to the time limits in HB 2268.
Additionally starting on July 1, 2017, those who retire at age 62 or older and who are re-employed by a school district would also be exempt from the earnings cap. The district would be required to contribute to KPERS equal to 30% of the retiree’s compensation.
The bill also exempts those who are re-employed by the Board of Regents and covered by the Regents Retirement Plan from the earnings cap. The Regents Retirement Plan is not administered by KPERS.