Posted by In a largely partisan vote, democrat legislators in the Senate and then in the House quickly proved their loyalty to AEA (and to their large PAC) by nullifying the State Board of Education’s (SBOE) attempt to pass a “teacher Code of Ethics”. The SBOE this summer asked the Legislative Council to approve a rule change that would add the “Code of Ethics”. AEA objected to that move and “pursuaded” the democrat majority on the Legislative Council to deny this request. I, along with 2 other Republican members of the Legislative Council, disagreed with the democrats’ action. This week’s action by the entire Legislature was necessary to “validate” the actions of the Legislative Council.
During the Legislative Council phase of this saga, State Superintendent Joe Morton testified on behalf of the change. Dr. Morton, as I recall, testified that the requested language in the proposed Code of Ethics was the exact same language that is a part of every teacher employment contract today. Additionally, the Council was informed that AEA not only bragged about helping to author the “Ethics Code” contract language but also that AEA published new teacher orientation information to educate new teachers about the Ethics Code part of their contract. I couldn’t understand (and don’t understand) how language in a contract that isn’t objectionable suddenly becomes so when it is proposed to be part of an administrative rule.
The Governor has promised to veto the Legislative action that kills a “Teacher Code of Ethics”. Unless the legislature upholds the Governor’s veto of this wrong-headed Legislative action, the SBOE’s proposed “teacher Code of Ethics” is now dead. AEA and the democrats killed it. Twice, I have heard the democrats’ explanation as to why they were killing the “Teacher Ethics Code” and I still don’t understand it. I sense a majority of voters will have a hard time understanding it too. I know I wouldn’t want to have to explain why I thought it best to kill the “Teacher Code of Ethics” proposal. As Rickey would have said, “Lucy, you got some ’splaining to do!“
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Senator French pretty much nails it here. This is a bad move by Democrats and makes no sense. Good job Senator French, and thanks for taking the time to offer your insight.
What is so pitiful was Senator HarriAnne Smith’s vote along with the Democrats and opposing a Teacher’s Code of Ethics. Someone should write a column about that sell out to Paul Hubbert.
Regrets if another comment pops up along this same theme as a prior one has not yet posted. The Alabama Educator Code of Ethics draft may be viewed at http://bit.ly/72DlX3
Here’s coverage of the matter from back in August of 2009 http://bit.ly/5Gmnyq which clearly indicated a divided SBOE plus that Governor Riley was more than prepared to push forward. Arguably, he and the state GOP may have preferred the politics to the product as everyone knows on the 2010 strategies is to demonize AEA and other opposition. They apparently don’t care if they trash teachers in the trenches in gaining political ground.
The only thing certain about the vague “ethics” code language is that it will keep lawyers employed and the state writing checks to hammer things out in court. Again, why not get the thing right by simply working on the legitimate areas of concern.
I am not tracking a state wide contract but perhaps it is so. A link would be appreciated should the same be available. Likewise, the source behind the “the Council was informed that AEA not only …” quote seems reasonable to request.
I also would invite citizens, and ideally journalists, to examine the “ethics” standards and procedures for states surrounding Alabama. The differences are undeniable. The most similar is Florida’s at http://bit.ly/6RA3aT but please note the changes to benefit the bosses and make them more punitive, potentially arbitrarily so. GA’s are at http://bit.ly/5X4jv1 and TN’s are at http://bit.ly/4WsITD with finally our Thank God for neighbor’s at http://bit.ly/4Lqcal
I do hope the Guv and his team will make readily available the members of the Guv’s Congress on School Leadership (the group that created these “ethics” standards) and the method by which they were selected. Presently the link to the same at http://bit.ly/8ENpyI is dead.
Rep. French http://bit.ly/4t47bE and his ilk are the ones who need to be doing the explaining. His movement conservatism roots are undeniable and yet this particular stunt is certainly as bold and well coordinated in faux outrage as any I’ve seen in some time.
If the “ethics code” is already incorporated within current teacher employment contracts, why add another layer of government bureaucracy to the mix? More “big government” and additional layers of bureaucracy are not needed.
Clearly, an “ethics code” can have no stronger force of law than within a mutually agreed upon contract, so it is clear that the proposed “ethics code” proposed by the good senator is not sought for any reason other than an effort to help grow the bureaucracy and government jobs within our current Alabama Department of Education.
No doubt French and the other proponents of bigger is better government already have envisioned a new “ethics” section within the existing staffed with fresh-faced government employees toiling the day away “planning lunch.”I say it is time for all good conservatives to fight back against the “Big Government” types like Senator French and vote these tax raising, bueaucracy loving, redtape producing, career politicians out of office.
If Plaidman and the other Dems are truly opposed to this because it is “vague” then how the hell do they explain their support for the teacher tenure law. Under that law, teachers can be fired for “immoral conduct” and “incompetence.” Neither of these is defined in the tenure law.
The word the Democrats find so vague is “ethics.” They don’t know what that means.
In the first place, if AEA and Paul Hubbert were absolutely against it, that gives me cause to think it is worthwhile. I would like to hear their explanation of why they were against it.
Second, if the Code of Ethics is a good thing, which presumably it is if it is in the contracts, then it should be made law. Being written in a contract only makes it policy that is enforced while the contract is valid. If it is only in the contract, then it can be done away with when the next contract is drawn. The argument that it should be sufficient just being in the contract absolutely makes no sense and does not hold water.
I have skimmed through the proposed law and cannot understand why it was opposed. I am going to have to dig deeper and see what the hidden issues are. However, just thinking off the top of my head in considering the grip the AEA and Paul Hubbert have on our legislature, I would guess that somewhere in the proposal it limits the AEA’s power.
I would also like to hear from teachers. What do they think about the proposal? Many teachers are beginning to wise up to the fact that the AEA really does not look out for their best interest…they look out for the AEA’s best interest first and foremost.
Anonymous,
Under “Section 16-24-8 Cancellation of contracts : Grounds” we find, “Cancellation of an employment contract with a teacher on continuing service status may be made for incompetency, insubordination, neglect of duty, immorality, failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner, justifiable decrease in the number of teaching positions or other good and just cause, but cancellation may not be made for political or personal reasons.” More importantly, however, you’ll also find a process for hearings, appeals, etc. We don’t have any such clear and adequate process under the “ethics” standards.
Again, why not negotiate the few sticking points rather than push forward in what appears to be a political move?
One could just as easily ask why is there such an immediate need for “ethics” standards to be added to the administrative code given the above tenure language.
As for supporting the tenure law, I generally do yet can agree it could be tightened up some to prevent abuses (like the gal in the clink and still collecting certain benefits) that have become poster children for some politicians to use to bludgeon the profession and AEA. The whole purpose behind tenure is to avoid the spoils system plus having to worry about arbitrary dismissals or even those motivated by the personal rather than the professional. Surely there’s nothing wrong with that is there?
Finally, am I mistaken on what the surrounding states have in place plus my questions on the composition of the Guv’s Congress?