My Take on the First Performance Standard: Judge Fails

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=””]You have an opportunity to weigh in regarding the retention of Judge Zeman who made the recent Alaska Superior Court decision impacting public correspondence homeschooling. He struck down the statutes that are core to the program in 30 of our 54 school districts, impacting nearly 20% of Alaska’s K-12 students. Whether you like or dislike the court ruling, agree with it or don’t, the question is whether the judge met the required performance standards as a judge.

The first of the five performance standards to be considered by the Alaska Judicial Council to evaluate Judge Zeman and determine whether he meets it is the following:[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”2/3″]

“Legal Ability. The judge demonstrates knowledge of substantive law, evidence, and procedure, and clarity and precision in their work.”

[/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space height=”1px”][vc_column_text css=””]I propose to you that this judge does not meet this first performance standard.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”20px”][vc_text_separator title=”” i_icon_fontawesome=”fas fa-gavel” i_color=”sandy_brown” i_background_style=”rounded-outline” i_background_color=”pink” color=”pink” style=”shadow” border_width=”3″ el_width=”70″ css=”” add_icon=”true”][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1714370644360{margin-bottom: 35px !important;}”]I propose to you that Judge Zeman has failed in two areas in the recent Alexander v. Acting Commissioner Heid Teshner case.[/vc_column_text][vc_cta h2=”” shape=”round” style=”outline” color=”chino” add_icon=”left” i_icon_fontawesome=”fas fa-arrow-alt-circle-right” i_color=”chino” i_background_style=”rounded” i_background_color=”white” i_size=”xl” css=”” i_on_border=”true”]

1. Based on either his lack of knowledge of, or lack of acknowledgment and consideration of, other laws and evidence:
   1. He failed to consider the existence of and impacts of his ruling on various other educational programs established by law in addition to public correspondence homeschooling.
   2. He failed to acknowledge the legislative appropriations of public funds in Alaska that are routed annually and routinely to private and religious educational institutions including to or by way of the following:
      1. Preschool programs (private, nonprofit Headstart educational institutions statewide)
      2. Private vocational educational training institutions
      3. School district non-homeschool programs
         1. Example 1: school district contracts with private educational institutions for tutoring services (such as Sylvan Learning)
         2. Example 2: school district purchase of courses for brick-and-mortar public high school students from private and religious educational institutions (such as BYU) to supplement a school’s course offerings
      4. Postsecondary Alaska Performance Scholarships, Alaska Student Loans, and needs-based grants through the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
   3. He failed to address recent US Supreme Court rulings related to public funds at private and religious educational institutions in his decision.

[/vc_cta][vc_cta h2=”” shape=”round” style=”outline” color=”chino” add_icon=”right” i_icon_fontawesome=”fas fa-arrow-circle-left” i_color=”chino” i_background_style=”rounded” i_background_color=”white” i_size=”xl” css=”” i_on_border=”true”]

2. Based on his lack of clarity and precision of his work:
   1. By taking a blanket approach, an axe rather than a scalpel, to the statutes that pertain to public correspondence study programs in our school districts, the judge, if his ruling were to stand, would essentially shut down schooling for almost 20% of Alaska students. This lack of clarity and precision puts a substantial portion of Alaskan students in jeopardy.
   2. By taking a blanket approach, an axe rather than a scalpel, the judge has failed to recognize that the number of homeschool students impacted by his ruling could not realistically be absorbed into our public neighborhood schools based on space and available certified teachers (note: this reasoning used in a Wisconsin court to maintain their homeschool program).
   3. By taking a blanket approach, an axe rather than a scalpel, the judge failed to acknowledge that by essentially nullifying public correspondence homeschooling, the impact and increase to the state budget would be substantial. Moving public correspondence students to public neighborhood schools would cost the state an estimated additional $200 million based on the current funding formula for school district operations plus an unknown additional amount for capital funding for the needed extra physical building space.
   4. By taking a blanket approach, an axe rather than a scalpel, by intertwining the term “organization” with “institution” in his ruling, the judge has put into jeopardy – but failed to address – a myriad of other educational programs in Alaska in which public funds are directed to private and religious educational institutions: Headstart, Alaska Performance Scholarships, Alaska Student Loan Program, Alaska Education Grant (Needs-Based) Program, Vocational Education Training, and a variety of supplemental resources for public neighborhood schools purchased by school districts (Sylvan Learning, BYU courses for high schools, etc.).

[/vc_cta][vc_separator color=”juicy_pink” style=”shadow” border_width=”3″ css=””][vc_empty_space height=”20px”][vc_column_text css=””]Based on his failure to meet this very important performance standard as outlined above, this judge should not be recommended for retention.

You can weigh in on whether you think this judge or other judges should be retained or not. The Alaska Judicial Council will be reviewing the performance of all judges up for retention on our November ballot and then make recommendations on whether each judge should be retained.

Next week on Wednesday, May 8 at 4:30pm, you can provide testimony to the Alaska Judicial Council before they make their recommendations. You have three options if you’d like to weigh in:

1. Via Zoom link. Meeting ID: 863 2522 6382 Passcode: 072643.
2. If you prefer, you can call in to the meeting at 833-928-4610 to provide testimony.
3. You can also send in written comments to DiPietro@ajc.state.ak.us.

You can view all the judges up for review and retention here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]