A Bill I Think We All Should Support

Editorial Note: When I'm writing posts I typically put them into a word document first, so that I can use the spell check more effectively, and then I move them here to the blog. The downside of that is that I don't always get posts to the blog in a timely manner, and that's what happened with this one. The bill is a dead issue for this session, but it could be worth keeping an eye on for next year.

HB3037, sponsored by John Ahern, Joel Kretz, Larry Haler, Mary Skinner, Glenn Anderson, Joyce McDonald, and Judy Warnick. Yes, they’re all Republicans, but look beyond that, because I think this is legislation that’s long past due. It would amend the current RCWs on discharge with the following paragraph:

Upon service of a notification of probably cause or causes for discharge, and until and unless the hearing officer’s final decision is in favor of the employee, the employee shall not continue to be paid or compensated. If the employee requests a hearing to determine whether or not there is sufficient cause or causes for the employee’s discharge, the district shall, pending a final decision of the hearing officer, deposit into an escrow account money sufficient to compensate the employee for back pay if the final decision is in favor of the employee.

I’ve blogged before about the Peter Perkins situation here in Spokane, where he was relieved of his duties nearly 18 months ago yet is still drawing a salary because of what's involved with due process. I think that situations like that make us as a union look foolish, cost us an incredible amount of good will with the public, and degrade the profession as a whole.

“But Ryan,” I can hear you objecting, “what about the innocents, who are accused of serious violations that could lead to discharge, but they didn’t do it? You wrote about Linda Cawley—how could you do this to someone like her, who was cleared?”

I accept that point, but to my mind that’s what the union is here for—to help teachers in their time of need. If we believe in someone’s innocence, then we can put the full financial resources of the association behind them until they are cleared. If they slept with a kid, and the evidence proves it, we owe them nothing.

I’ll be curious to see how this evolves.