General Update
by Dr. Gaylord Tryon, SAI Executive Director
New Office Project
I am pleased to report that SAI is now the proud owner of 1.08 acres of land in the city of Clive (an easily accessible site located on University Avenue about one-half mile west of I-80/35). This transaction, which was completed on September 1, 1999, has now set in motion the process to build a new state office for the School Administrators of Iowa.
As we reported to you last spring, our current lease expires on June 30, 2001. While we are very pleased with our present location and office facilities, it was the feeling of the Representative Council that, financially, it makes more sense to own rather than pay rent. I heartily concur with that conclusion and look forward to working with this project in the weeks and months ahead.
An architect has drawn up a basic design of the 6000 square foot building. The facility will be slightly larger than the space we now rent, but the configuration will be different to provide a larger conference room and a couple of more office spaces (space that could be rented out for some additional income). We will have parking for approximately 45 vehicles so we will be pretty much self-sufficient.
We have not set a date to actually begin construction. Depending on what interest rates might do between now and 2001, we will probably break ground next fall sometime.
Needless to say, we are very excited about this new venture and look forward to bringing it to fruition.
IPERS
In our last newsletter, I discussed several options that were being considered by the IPERS Constituency Group (a group made up of representatives of the IPERS management staff and organizations interested in the improvement of IPERS benefits). What started with a list of about 15 items that pertain to K-12 educators has now been pared down to 7. As it stands now, these seven issues will be included in the recommendations that will be submitted to the legislative interim committee in November of this year. They are as follows (not in any particular order):
A. Increasing the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for members who retired prior to July 1, 1990 from 80 % of the Consumer Price Index to 100 %but retaining a maximum increase of 3 % above the preceding year. (No additional cost to the IPERS fund since the actuary already projects payouts to retirees at the maximum rate of 3 % per year.)
B. Capping the Favorable Experience Dividend (FED) at 10 years. (No additional cost to the system.)
C. Moving to the Rule of 85. (Considered as a "significant" cost to the system.)
D. Increasing the death benefit for the beneficiaries of those active members who die before retirement. (Considered as a "significant" cost to the system.) (Note: Typically, there are about 250 active members [out of an estimated 150,000 active members] who die prior to retirement each year.)
E. Eliminating the "computed year" for school employees. (No cost to the IPERS fund.)
F. Effective January 1, 2000, increasing the "default factor" for higher paid employees by $10,000 each year (e.g., going from $55,000 to $65,000) until the restoration of the three-year final average salary; capping the number of years used in the multi-year average to six (i.e., never going to a seven-year final average salary); restoring the three-year final average salary on January 1, 2002 instead of January 1, 2003. ("Insignificant" cost to the system since so few people are affected.)
G. Creating a "pop-up" option for retirement Option 4 (i.e., restoring the benefits of Option 2 level should the member's designated beneficiary predecease the retired member. ("Insignificant" cost to the system.)
H. Raising the ceiling on re-employment wages from $12,000 to $20,000. ("Insignificant" cost to the system.)
In addition to the above recommendations that will be submitted to the legislative interim committee, the Constituency Group will also be recommending some issues for "future study." These issues include:
- Reducing the number of years to attain a payout
of 60 % for regular membership from 30 to 25-which will change the value
of each year of service from 2 % at 30 years to 2.4 % at 25 years.
- Creating an incentive for vested, terminating members to keep their money
in IPERS until retirement.
As you can see, the IPERS Constituency Group has been very busy and has
put a lot of thought, research, and debate into these recommendations. As
a member of the Constituency Group, we support all of the above recommendations.
However, this does not mean that individual groups cannot advance their
own issues. For example, the SAI Representative Council has established
four IPERS priorities for the upcoming session:
1. Revising the formula for death benefits for active members;
2. Eliminating the seven-year final average salary and reverting immediately back to a three-year final average salary;
3. Redefining normal retirement to the Rule of 85;
4. Eliminating the early retirement penalty altogether.
Unless the Council changes this list between now and January, this will be the list from which the SAI staff will work during the upcoming legislative session.
Since we are on the subject of IPERS, I found the June 30, 1999 financial report to be very interesting. As of June 30 (the end of the last fiscal year), the actuary reported an IPERS fund balance of approximately $15.2 billion dollars. This figure includes a 12.44 % return on investments (22.87 % return on stocks; 3.45 % return on bonds--both domestic and foreign).
SAI staff spends a lot of time working with IPERS.
While I certainly do not want to mislead anyone, my optimism continues to
grow for some significant improvements in benefits being adopted during
the 2000 legislative session. Because the need is there, and because the
fund can certainly afford the costs, I will be disappointed if the legislature
does not accept most (or all) of the recommendations being submitted by
the IPERS Constituency Group. Let's certainly hope so!!
Top
Background checks:
Who? When? How? and Why?
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
Last winter I wrote a column entitled "There's a Fungus Amongus"
about the new sex offender registry and notification system. I expressed
regret that we have come to such a point in our society where we need to
warn kindergartners and their parents about creeps who may be lurking around
our schoolyards. Well, here we go again. This time, we're delving into the
wisdom (or is it now "necessity"?) of doing criminal background
checks of our employees and candidates for employment.
In January the Iowa Supreme Court decided Godar v. Edwards, a case where
the Marion school district was also a defendant as the former employer of
Edwards, a curriculum director who allegedly molested or otherwise sexually
abused one or more male students on several occasions, including on school
grounds back in 1968. The district court dismissed the school district from
the suit and (thank goodness) the Iowa Supreme Court approved of the dismissal.
But in rendering its decision, our high court announced its opinion on issues
of negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision. The
Court's opinion includes the following statement: "We now join those
jurisdictions that have recognized a claim by an injured third party for
negligent hiring and conclude that an employer has a duty to exercise reasonable
care in hiring individuals who, because of their employment, may pose a
threat of injury to members of the public. We believe that such a claim
likewise includes an action for negligent retention and negligent supervision."
I don't think there's any question that most, if not all school employees
would fall into the category of "individuals who, because of their
employment, may pose a threat of injury to members of the public."
So what does this decision mean for your hiring practices?
I suggest it means that we have to, at a minimum, contact previous employers. I realize I've never been in your shoes, that is, overwhelmed and needing to hire someone pronto, but I am shocked whenever I hear about a district or private school hiring someone without a single phone call to that person's prior employer(s). Where it used to be just a good idea, now I think it's imperative that you check them out. If time is of the essence, then write into their contract or letter of appointment that they have the job "pending satisfactory reports from prior employers" or "pending passing background check."
Should you have a policy requiring background checks (defined as either contacting references and prior employers or doing the criminal background check through the Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Investigation [DCI] or both)? The answer is, "It depends." If you tend to shortcut in emergencies and this is the kind of thing you wouldn't get around to, you would have violated your own board policy if you failed to make the calls. On the other hand, if you failed to make the calls and hired someone with a suspicious past, the least of your problems would be a violated board policy.
I'm not surprised at the "negligent supervision" piece of the Godar court's decision. The newly announced grounds for suit for "negligent retention" means that if and when we are put on notice that we have one or more "creeps among our peeps" (not to be confused with "fungus amongus"), we'd better get them out of there PRONTO!
Just a reminder: if the person is a volunteer at our school, we owe them no "due process" unless we intend to trash their reputation by telling everyone that this person has problems. In legal lingo, we are negatively affecting the person's "liberty interest" in his/her good name/employability /professional reputation, so we are depriving them of a "liberty interest" and thus, they are entitled to due process: a hearing either immediately after or preferably before we deprive them of this interest. On the other hand, if we just quietly call the person in, confront him/her with our concern or evidence, extend an opportunity to explain and (assuming the explanation doesn't raise a question about the accuracy of our information) request a resignation or suspend him or her with pay and the promise to take them to the board for discharge, that should be sufficient.
School attorneys with whom I frequently consult recommend giving every non-licensed employee at least the chance to talk to the board, whether we legally or constitutionally owe them a due process hearing or not. (And an article I read recently about the surge in lawsuits by "at-will" employees fired and not given any reason for it explained that most of the employees were suing not because they thought they could get their jobs back, but because human nature being what it is they wanted to know what they had done wrong, and nobody would tell them. Can't say as I blame them there.)
But I digress. Back to the background/reference checks.
In case you are not aware of it, you can obtain a criminal history (Iowa only) from the DCI on any individual employee or applicant for employment for a small fee ($13.00, or $5.00 for non-paid volunteers). If you ask the person to sign a release you will be entitled to more information from the DCI than if there is no release. Specifically, with the signed release the report will include arrests older than 18 months where there has been no determination of guilt or innocence as well as notifications that a person has taken a "deferred judgment." (Each Iowan is entitled to three of these in his/her lifetime. It is based on a guilty plea and completion of a probationary period usually a year without doing the same thing again.) If you don't have the release you will get only recent arrest data, no deferred judgment data, and convictions only. (Therefore, I recommend seeking the release. Duh.) Remember, this is still only Iowa info. If you have a candidate from out of state and want to do a criminal background search, you will have to check out the laws of the state s/he was most recently in. Or pick up the phone and call the police or sheriff in that county and ask them if they know this person. (If they don't, that's a good sign!)
Iowa City has recently instituted a mandatory criminal background check for all of its volunteers. They also have an extensive monitoring system that is probably wise in a district its size. For smaller schools, I think what we need to do is let our staff know that they are to report the use of volunteers that are not arranged through the district or building administration. This could be accomplished on a very simple form asking them to let you know whenever they have (for example) a guest speaker as well as whenever they invite in "homeroom parents." Teachers should not be totally free, in my opinion, to have volunteers in their classrooms without prior approval, but I'm always amazed at the number of teachers who act like they're self-employed and don't have to inform let alone answer to their principals. Putting this requirement in the employee handbook is one thing; I suggest that in addition, you create the form and make it available, also reminding the staff at faculty meetings or in-services that they have an obligation to let the office know prior to bringing in a volunteer, and that they are responsible to provide adequate and proper supervision over the volunteer. Check with Ann Feldmann, HR Director in Iowa City if you want samples of their policies and practices. I am told that IASB plans to issue a Special Report on the subject of background checks in general, so watch for that and consider what practices or policies you and your board want to adopt. Be realistic, but be vigilant.
Bottom line? This isn't your father's school district. Use your heads. Take 30 minutes for phone calls that could mean the difference between a successful lawsuit against you and a successful defense against it. And don't forget honesty when you get those phone calls from colleagues. Especially if the person left under "unusual" circumstances. If you answer honestly, you cannot be successfully sued for slander or blacklisting, or any other creative cause of action. We have statutory protection in addition to the common law privilege to tell the truth to a person who asks and is privileged to know. No excuses. Do the right thing. Amen.
Capitol Commentary
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
The Word from Washington. . .
Several education bills are working their way through Congress this fall. While it's tempting to limit our focus on what happens in the Iowa legislature, there's a need to monitor the events in Washington as well. Here's an update on the most important bills currently being considered by the U.S. Congress.
The House Education/Workforce Committee has indicated it will include the Rural Education Initiative (H.R. 2725) in the Title I bill now moving through Congress. This initiative would allow school districts with fewer than 600 students to combine federal funds received through Eisenhower Math and Science, Class Size Reduction, Title VI and the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. This pool of money could be used at the district's discretion to meet its most pressing needs. In exchange districts receiving funds under the Rural Education Initiative would be required to show increased achievement in math and reading.
A Senate version of the bill would provide additional funds to schools receiving money from the Initiative provided they agree not to apply for certain other federal grants.
The Juvenile Justice Bill (H.R 1501 and S. 254) is being reworked in conference committee. The original version of the bill allows for "dual discipline" when it comes to violence, drug possession or sale, and possession of a dangerous weapon. Disabled students could be suspended for up to 45 days during which time a school must provide alternate services. Under the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, students carrying a firearm to school must be expelled for a full year. The national associations have taken the position that schools should be allowed to discipline a disabled student in the same way they would discipline a non-disabled student for violence, drug and weapons violations.
The Republican majority in Congress is working to eliminate the poverty focus of Title I, unless a school has a 75% poverty level. Under this proposal state departments of education would have full authority to determine how Title I funds would be distributed to schools. Such an action would end the 30-year effort by the U.S. government to target funds to disadvantaged students under Title I legislation.
If you wish to contact members of Iowa's congressional delegation about these bills or any other issue, they can be reached at the following e-mail addresses or by phone:
The State Scene. . .
Work is continuing on the preparation of SAI's 2000 legislative platform. The major focus will include changes in IPERS (improving the death benefit, eliminating the seven-year average, Rule of 85) and school funding issues (full funding of the instructional support levy, supplementary weighting/alternative school funding, transportation funding, early childhood funding, etc.)
The official SAI legislative platform for the 2000 session will be finalized by the Representative Council at its meeting on October 21.
SAI Listserve. . .
For timely, up-to-the minute news about legislative activity at the state
and federal levels, be sure you sign up for the SAI
listserve. Once registered you will receive e-mail messages about legislative
activity of interest to members.
It's the quickest, most reliable way to receive your legislative information.
Top
Sarah E. Redfield, Professor of Law and Director of the Education Law Institute at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., wrote in the March 1998 edition of School Administrator: "For better or worse, knowledge of the law has become crucial and central to the ability to administer our schools. One need only think of the $1 million damage settlement in the Nabonzy case about gay harassment last year. The court was very clear that liability flowed from what the administrator should have known the law to be. If principals and superintendents are to be successful, they must understand legal precedent."
In brainstorming topics for our first year of expanded leadership development opportunities, the need for administrators to stay abreast of the constantly shifting stream of school legal requirements surfaced as a recurring theme. To be responsive to that need, we are taking our resident attorney, Kathy Collins, on the road. Plus, she is inviting many of the local attorneys in each area to share their time and expertise.
Four regional Legal Leadership Labs are planned: three will deal with Key Employment Issues such as evaluations, terminations, and investigations. Those will take place in DUBUQUE, OTTUMWA, and CRESTON. One will deal with the Legal and Educational Aspects of School Violence. It is scheduled for SIOUX CITY. You should have already received a flyer and registration form, but if for any reason you have not, please feel free to contact the SAI office. We sincerely hope these leadership labs will be informative, helpful, and keep the legal system from knocking on your door.
On an individual note, SAI continues to lobby on its members' behalf for IPERS improvements and to assist members in securing a viable personal financial future. Thus the impetus for the content of the four additional regional leadership development opportunities entitled Career Financial Planning. The four leadership labs will be presented in OTTUMWA, CRESTON, CHEROKEE, and CEDAR FALLS. An informational pamphlet and registration information was recently mailed to all members.
As an administrator you give hours and hours of your personal time and energy for the betterment of public education because it's something you strongly believe in, and it can be extremely rewarding. However, take this gentle reminder to not be so extremely busy looking out for the public good, that you forget to be well informed on the financial options that will govern your years after you leave or retire from administration. You owe it to yourself and your family.
If either of these regional offerings that have been highlighted meet a need you've found we are pleased and look forward to seeing you in your part of the state.
Capitalize on an opportunity to increase public understanding in your school district, encourage the public to visit schools and build support for education. Celebrate American Education Week, Nov. 14-20, 1999.
Don't forget to involve everyone in your community business leaders, senior citizens, elected officials and parents in your event.
Some ideas for American Education Week activities:
Come up with your own variations to these ideas and involve all staff in your planning efforts. Have a great week!