Date: 03/07/2006

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB06-1284

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Moved amendment L.008
Moved to postpone indefinitely HB06-1284. The mot
Moved to refer HB06-1284, as amended, to the Commi		PASS
PASS
FAIL



11:14 AM -- House Bill 06-1284

Representative King, prime sponsor, discussed House Bill 06-1284, concerning the tenure process for faculty members at state institutions of higher education. He acknowledged that the bill had been heard by the committee on February 23rd and was rereferred to the committee. He noted that a potential amendment has been discussed since the committee's prior hearing on the bill. There was discussion of the way to proceed on the bill in regard to a strike-below amendment. Representative King explained his reasons for bringing the bill and the goals of the legislation. He indicated that he had proposed a floor amendment and had continued to work on an amendment. Representative King further reviewed discussion of post-tenure review legislation in 1997 and the issues in 1997 that arose in conjunction with a gubernatorial veto. The governor subsequently issued an executive order on post-tenure review. Following the 1997 executive order, institutions implemented post-tenure policies; however, Representative King said that it is time to take a look at the issue of post-tenure policies.


11:20 AM

Representative King discussed recent discussions with the University of Colorado Board of Regents and stressed the importance of the issue to the taxpayers of the state.

11:22 AM

The following persons testified on the bill:

11:22 AM -- Cindy Carlisle, representing herself as a University of Colorado Regent representing the Second Congressional District, testified in opposition to the bill. She testified that the University of Colorado is involved in a tenure review process and that the process is comprehensive and includes post-tenure review. She indicated that the institutional review will be available for public comment in April, and testified that, in light of this process, the bill is premature. She requested that the University of Colorado process be allowed to go forward without legislative action.


11:25 AM

Representative Penry requested comment on current policies. Representative King asked whether the executive order of 1997 has resulted in a "chilling effect" at institutions in attracting quality faculty. In response, Regent Carlisle distinguished between an executive order and a state law. She testified that a professor had gone through the post-tenure process last year and that the professor had not been retained. Representative Paccione testified to the rigors of the current tenure track and post-tenure review processes.


11:30 AM

There was committee discussion of the 1997 executive order and the proposed legislation. Representative Pommer asked Representative King to comment on the legislation, and asked Regent Carlisle to comment on her concerns about having the provisions of the executive order in statute. Representative Pommer asked for further clarification of the University of Colorado's current policies. Representative Penry asked for further comment on whether current post-tenure processes are working. Regent Carlisle discussed the current work being done on post-tenure review policies. Representative Paccione commented further on the importance of due process for tenured professors.


11:39 AM -- Patricia Hayes, representing herself as a University of Colorado Regent, testified in opposition to the bill. She asked the legislature to wait to see how the University of Colorado proceeds with its current review of tenure policies. She responded to questions about the expectations for a process. Representative King responded to the testimony and committee discussion. Regent Hayes was asked to comment on the process involving University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Representative King testified that the bill creates a framework for institutions. In response to further questions, Regent Hayes expressed the importance of institutions retaining authority over its tenure and post-tenure review policies. Representative King responded to questions from Representative Pommer about the time frame for a post-tenure review and suggested the importance of having a framework.

11:49 AM

Regent Hayes responded to questions regarding concerns about legislating the provisions of the executive order. She noted that the first concern was the ongoing current review process at the university, and testified that a second concern centered on the potential role of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Representative King commented that the bill did not establish new rule-making authority for the Colorado Commission on Higher Education.

11:56 AM -- Mark Heckler, Provost for the University of Colorado, provided background on the University of Colorado's Advisory Committee on Tenure-Related Processes and distributed a hand-out (Attachment C). He walked the committee through the document and the institution's current policies. He expressed concern about the potential legislation mandating processes for cases that could be resolved in an alternative manner. He testified, that to the best of the institution's knowledge, its current review of its tenure processes is the most comprehensive review ever undertaken by an institution. He said that the investigation portion of the review is being conducted outside of the university. He requested that any legislative action be delayed until the University of Colorado's review is concluded.

12:03 PM

Provost Heckler responded to questions about the procedures outlined in the University of Colorado document. Representative King raised concerns about time lines for performance improvement agreements at the institutions and whether the institution is in compliance with time frames in the 1997 executive order. Provost Heckler described the current provisions for an annual review of tenured professors, as well as for two-step process at the institution for review of substandard work, which may include a performance improvement agreement.


12:11 PM

Provost Heckler responded to further questions about the University of Colorado's processes. Representative Pommer asked Representative King about the process for developing the bill. Representative King said he had received input from the University of Colorado in the development of the bill. Provost Heckler responded to questions about the case of Ward Churchill currently being reviewed. Representative Paccione commented on the language in the original bill and the proposed amendment to the bill. Representative King discussed the manner in which he had approached and researched the bill.

12:19 PM

Representative Penry discussed the potential role of the General Assembly. He asked Provost Heckler to explain the relationship between an investigation of academic misconduct and annual reviews of tenured professors. Provost Heckler explained that a charge of academic misconduct would not necessarily be established through a post-tenure review process.

12:23 PM

Ron Muth, representing the University of Colorado Faculty Council, testified in opposition to the bill. He raised questions as to the necessity of the bill. He acknowledged the concern of some around the length of time required for a post-tenure review. Dr. Muth expressed concern that the bill would intrude on the authority of the governing boards of institutions in Colorado and could impact the ability of institutions to attract and retain quality faculty.

12:28 PM -- Jeremy Jimenez, representing the University of Colorado system of student government, testified in opposition to the bill.

12:30 PM -- David Sanger, representing the American Federation of Teachers, testified to the importance of tenure and described the organization's opposition to the bill. He said that rigorous standards for tenure guarantee that institutions have a permanent staff of quality faculty and that post-tenure review policies rightfully exist within the purview of an institution.

12:34 PM -- Tom Lucero, representing himself as a University of Colorado Regent, testified on the bill. He said that the institution takes accountability very seriously and that post-tenure processes should reflect best practices.

12:37 PM -- Laura Connolly, representing the American Association of University of Professors - University of Northern Colorado chapter, testified in opposition to the bill. She said that the bill is a sweeping proposal to address problems that are not widespread. She discussed the impact of such a bill on hiring at institutions in the state. She described the specific aspects comprising review of tenured professors, including service, published work, and examples of classroom work. She testified that putting tenure provisions into statute changes the nature of contracts for faculty.

12:45 PM -- Steve Mumme, representing the American Association of University Professors - Colorado State University chapter, testified in opposition to the bill. He described his experiences on recent search committees and discussions with faculty candidates. He distributed a position paper of the Colorado State Conference of the American Association of University Professors (Attachment D).


 12:54 PM -- Myron Hulen, representing the American Association of University Professors, testified in opposition to the bill. He distributed a copy of his testimony (Attachment E).

12:58 PM -- John Straayer, representing himself as a Colorado State University professor, testified in opposition to the bill. He distributed a hand-out of his testimony (Attachment F).

01:02 PM

Dr. Straayer responded to question about the standards contemplated in the bill. He discussed the concerns expressed by faculty candidates concerning the climate for higher education institutions and faculty in the state.

01:07 PM

Representative King made final comments on the bill and the proposed strike-below amendment, L.008 (Attachment G).

01:09 PM

Prior to voting, committee members made closing comments on the testimony heard, on the bill, and on the proposed amendment.
BILL:HB06-1284
TIME: 01:16:00 PM
MOVED:King
MOTION:Moved amendment L.008 (Attachment G). The motion passed on a 9-4 roll call vote.
SECONDED:White
VOTE
Benefield
No
King
Yes
Larson
Yes
Massey
Yes
McKinley
Yes
Penry
Yes
Pommer
Yes
Rose
Yes
Solano
No
Todd
Yes
White
Yes
Paccione
No
Merrifield
No
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:HB06-1284
TIME: 01:21:52 PM
MOVED:King
MOTION:Moved to refer HB06-1284, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion failed on a 6-7 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Rose
VOTE
Benefield
No
King
Yes
Larson
Yes
Massey
Yes
McKinley
No
Penry
Yes
Pommer
No
Rose
Yes
Solano
No
Todd
No
White
Yes
Paccione
No
Merrifield
No
Not Final YES: 6 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:HB06-1284
TIME: 01:22:30 PM
MOVED:Paccione
MOTION:Moved to postpone indefinitely HB06-1284. The motion passed on a 9-4 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Merrifield
VOTE
Benefield
Yes
King
No
Larson
Yes
Massey
No
McKinley
Yes
Penry
No
Pommer
Yes
Rose
No
Solano
Yes
Todd
Yes
White
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Merrifield
Yes
Final YES: 9 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS




01:23 PM

The committee adjourned.