The Senate voted along party lines on March 19 to pass legislation intended to delay the deadline until June 15 for school boards to offer contracts or the pink slip to teachers, but the bill failed to generate the supermajority vote needed for it to take effect immediately.
For all intents and purposes, therefore, the bill, even if passed, is ineffective.
All 18 Republicans supported the legislation, but they were two votes shy of what’s needed to enact the emergency clause.
Seven Democrats balked at S1186.
Five other Democrats were absent from the floor, but a minority leader said their votes would not have changed the outcome. That way, the bill would still have sailed through but also without the emergency language.
On a purely political sense, the partisan vote was a demonstration of the power that the minority, which lost a seat last November, still holds. The 12 Senate Democrats might lack the votes to advance their agenda, but they can certainly stop any emergency legislation from moving forward. The partisan split also means the Republicans cannot override a veto without the cooperation of the minority.
“Really, without an emergency clause, it doesn’t work because it won’t be in effect in time,” Senate President Bob Burns said, summing up the situation.
The House also passed its version of the legislation on March 19. And like in the Senate, its version lost its emergency component.
Regardless of the outcome of the vote in the House, the Senate already decided the issue. The legislation needs to pass by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, which the Senate already failed to do.
With the emergency language, the bill would have been effective upon the signature of the governor. Otherwise, it becomes effective 90 days after the session ended.
Under existing state law, a school board must offer contracts to teachers for the next school year by May 15, unless the teacher is given notice of the administration’s intent not to offer the contract. For teachers employed by the district for less than three consecutive years, the board must provide notice by April 15 that a new contract will not be offered.
In addition to teachers, the bill also would extend the deadline until June 15 to offer contracts to school psychologists and administrators who are in the last year of their contract.
Also, the legislation would allow school boards until June 15 to notify teachers about a general salary reduction in the next year. Under existing state law, notice must be given no later than May 15.
S1186, as it now stands, will not affect the existing timeframes in statute.
“It’s pretty much a moot point unless the minority party changes their mind about the issue,” Burns said. “If they do, I supposed we might be able to bring it back up.”
But the minority appears to be pretty set on its position.
“Any suggestion that any of those missing members might have changed the outcome is absolutely false,” Senate Assistant Minority Leader Rebecca Rios told the Arizona Capitol Times after the vote.
“The Democrats were very cohesive on this issue with teachers. And those five people who are absent would have been five additional no votes.”
During the debate, the Republicans argued that the bill would give school boards the flexibility to deal with the teacher contract issue. It wouldn’t take away school board’s ability to offer contracts or pink slips earlier than June 15, they pointed out.
The bill was necessary, Republicans said, to avoid undue grief among teachers who would get the pink slips, even though they might actually be rehired for the next school year.
The Republicans pointed out that there is money coming from the federal stimulus package for education; hence, there is no need to send the notices of non-renewal of contract within the existing timeframes. They pleaded with the Democrats to change their votes.
But Democrats argued that what’s needed is to pass a budget soon so the districts would know their budgets and can adjust accordingly — or to inform the education community right away what degree of budget cuts the Republicans are considering. They also argued that the existing law is needed now more than ever. It was designed to give teachers ample time to look for another job if their contracts were not renewed. Extending the deadline to mid-June does not solve the problem, they argued.
“It (law) was put into effect to protect the teachers, to assure them they will either have a job or if they weren’t going to have a job, to give them adequate notice so they can find another one,” Rios said.
Sen. John Huppenthal, a Republican from Chandler, argued that the bill doesn’t take away school boards’ ability to act sooner.
“They can make a decision earlier if they so desire,” he said. “We are not saying that they can’t make the decision by April 15.”
Sen. Jack Harper, a Republican from Surprise, called the April 15 deadline arbitrary. He said it serves no purpose other than to “cause premature hard feelings in the education community,” demoralize the workforce and impact children in the classroom.
Sen. Ron Gould, a Republican from Lake Havasu City, made an emphatic appeal for the bill’s passage.
“If this bill does not pass with the emergency clause, we are going to cause undue grief on people,” he said.
But citing her experience as a former school board member, Sen. Linda Lopez, the minority whip, said it was standard practice for schools to send out those notices of non-renewal. Teachers know what’s coming, she said.
“Why suddenly (are) the Senate and the House deciding that they have to make this motion≠” she said, referring to S1186. “Teachers across the state of Arizona have said they don’t want this change in date,” she added, echoing the argument that teachers prefer an earlier notification so they would have more time to look for another job.
The majority leader, Sen. Chuck Gray, expressed concern at the potential effect on classrooms of sending out the non-renewal notices.
“I think it reprehensible to send out notices knowing that we are probably going to backfill those positions with stimulus dollars and save those jobs,” he also said.
Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman said times are difficult — and that is what is different from previous years. Teachers are keenly aware of the economic situation, she said. “They know that these pink slips are unlike the others they have received in the past,” she said.
In these times, they might have spouses who are out of work; they may be on the edge as far as keeping up with their mortgage, Gorman said.
“Any suggestions that this is somehow to give us cover — listen, if we do cuts, we don’t have cover,” she said.
Sen. Jonathan Paton, a Republican from Tucson, said his brother, a teacher, told him that his school principal had told the faculty that the school might experience a 20-percent cut in the workforce.
“Just that very fact created a morale problem at the school,” he said. Sending out those pink slips to teachers when they actually may not have to go is only going to exacerbate the situation.