MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session January 30, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, January 30, 1995, Chairman William Z. Harrington presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington, Chairman Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom, Vice Chairman Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Deanna Braunlin Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mrs. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Rheault, Nevada State Department of Education Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Kimberly A. Bethel, Nevada Concerned Citizens Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County Schools Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Nat Lommori, Superintendent, Lyon County School District Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association Dr. Patricia Hawkins, Carson City, Elko, Churchill County School Districts Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association Dennis DeBacco, Nevada Highway Patrol Chairman Harrington announced the dates the Education Committee will meet in Las Vegas. The dates are February 7 and February 8, 1995, at 3:30 p.m. in the New Legislative Building in Room 4412. ASSEMBLY BILL 65 - Requires investigation and reporting of criminal history of certain applicants for licensure or employment in positions related to education. The hearing on Assembly Bill 65 was opened. Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District spoke on the bill. She indicated the bill generated out of Clark County. Dr. Rice explained the purpose of the bill is as follows: if a school district submits fingerprints of employees or prospective employees through the State of Nevada Criminal History Repository in Carson City, and there is a subsequent arrest for a felony or for a crime of moral turpitude, the school district making the request for the original fingerprint check would be notified of such an arrest. In Clark County fingerprints of prospective employees are submitted through SCOPE, a program with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police for a Clark County check, to the State of Nevada Criminal History Repository in Carson City for a check of sixteen western states, and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Currently, if that person is subsequently arrested, they do not miss work or the school district is unaware of why they are really missing work, or notice of their arrest is not published in the newspaper, it is possible the school district will be ignorant of the subsequent arrest. The arrest may have something to do with the situation of employment of the arrestee, such as moral turpitude, child abuse, or a sex offense. The bill asks that school districts be notified through the State Department of Education of any subsequent arrests. Mr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for the Nevada State Department of Education, read from prepared remarks concerning A.B. 65, (Exhibit C). Confidentiality of application requirements identified in N.R.S. 39l.035 was a concern of the Department of Education in the first reading of the bill. The statute specifies that it is unlawful to disclose or release the information in an application or any related document except pursuant to the applicants written authorization. Currently, the Department of Education cannot notify the districts. However, they believe the problem could be resolved by the signing of a fingerprint consent form by all applicants, authorizing the Department to share information between the state superintendent and the local superintendent of the applicable school district. Mr. Rheault confirmed that the State Department of Education supports the bill. Ms. Lindsey Jydstrup, of the Nevada State Education Association, spoke in support of A.B. 65. The N.S.E.A. has concerns about some of the specific language, specifically in the area where an arrest for a crime of moral turpitude is treated exactly the same as a conviction. The intent of the bill was questioned as to whether an arrest would preclude an applicant being hired and/or granted a license, or if the intent of the bill was that notification of arrest would require a district or the Superintendent of Public Instruction to make a thorough investigation of the circumstances and determine if a lack of conviction was the result of a false accusation or not enough solid evidence being obtained to convict. Ms. Jydstrup noted that the policy of Clark County Schools is to investigate such accusations thoroughly and the statute needs to be clarified as to intent. Mr. Neighbors referred to Lines 14-15 of the bill, and questioned if applicants come in with fingerprints or if they are fingerprinted at the school district offices. Ms. Jydstrup stated she believed the applicants go get the fingerprints. Dr. Rice explained fingerprints must be obtained at an authorized police agency and proof of identification (a picture ID), must be provided to that agency before fingerprinting occurs. Mr. Bennett inquired what the current policy is in regard to arrest of employees or convictions. Dr. Rice stated it depends on the nature of the offense. Sometimes the employee is put on immediate suspension with pay until an investigation is completed. For applicants, information is required on the application regarding arrest or conviction for a felony, a sex related offense, or a drug related offense. It is also noted on the application that revelation of this information does not automatically bar them from employment. A statement, court records, and disposition information is requested. The situation is then examined. If it is determined that any danger exists in hiring the applicant, they are not hired. If any danger exists in leaving a current employee where they are, the employee would be suspended with pay while the investigation ensues. Mr. Bennett asked what happens if an employee is found to have lied on the application. Dr. Rice reported in Clark County, the application states that the applicant must certify the information to be correct and if it is not, the school district has reason to dismiss or reason to not consider the applicant further for employment. Dismissal or not hiring the prospective employee is for lying on the application and not for arrest or commitment of a crime. Mr. Williams referred to line 6 of the bill in reference to the arrest. He noted it is clear what sexual offenses are. He noted that offenses vary from state to state in their severity. What is a felony in Nevada may only be a misdemeanor in another state. Mr. Williams wondered if we hinder the chances of an applicant of getting a job when they have a history of an arrest. He stated he would like to have a better description of moral turpitude included in the bill. Ms. Jydstrup indicated there may be some constitutional questions involved, and reiterated how important it is to have the language of the bill be as clear and precise as possible. Mr. Williams inquired if Ms. Jydstrup had suggested language or the intent to work on language for the bill. Ms. Jydstrup stated she did not bring any suggested language, but would be willing to work with others on language for the bill. Mr. Williams agreed with the concerns of the speakers. However, he recounted his concern that there is a big difference between a conviction and an arrest. If two applicants are being considered for the same job, one with an arrest, with no conviction, and one without, chances are that the applicant without the arrest will be employed, even though the other applicant may be the better teacher and turn out to be the better employee. Mr. Williams stated he would hate to see that situation occur because of the statutes. He is in favor of examining additional language. Dr. Rice stated having additional language added to provide for investigation if subsequent information on an employee is obtained. Chairman Harrington inquired if Dr. Rice and Ms. Jydstrup would like a subcommittee to meet with them to work on additional language. Dr. Rice noted she would like to work with the teacher's association and through the Legislative Counsel Bureau to bring additional language back to the committee. Ms. Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in favor of the bill, but expressed concerns regarding language and what the bill would actually do. She agreed how important it is for school districts to know about subsequent arrests and convictions, but is unsure that the language in the bill will provide the information being discussed. Every reference in the bill is to those who have applied, with the implication being this is part of the hiring process, not with the implication a check would be made periodically. Ms. Lusk also noted there is no direction given for what the district should do if information is received of an arrest or conviction. In regard to licensed employees, it is stated that the Superintendent of Public Instruction, if the reports do not indicate a person has been convicted of these crimes will issue a license, if the person is otherwise qualified. The same language is not there to apply to unlicensed personnel. It does not say what they would do if a crime is discovered. Dealing with subsequent crimes after the application process, needs to be addressed. What happens if the Central Repository report comes back and says a nonlicensed employee has been arrested or convicted for a felony or crime of moral turpitude? Can the school district automatically dismiss that person or do other justifications have to be found? Is the school district required to dismiss the person? An implication exists as to required dismissal. Is the superintendent required to refuse a license if a person has been convicted of one of these crimes or do they have the option to refuse the license? Currently it seems the superintendent has the option to refuse but is not required to do so. No direction exists for the nonlicensed employee. Mr. Dennis DeBacco, manager of the Nevada State Criminal History Records Repository within the Nevada Highway Patrol spoke concerning A.B. 65. He delineated between arrest information and conviction information. Currently N.R.S. 179A.100 without restriction allows the Criminal History Records Repository to disseminate to anyone in Nevada records of conviction. Records of arrest require that the information be for a law enforcement or criminal justice agency for criminal justice purposes, or without restriction, an applicant, as a licensing matter or an employment type relationship, sign a release authorizing the repository to release that type of information to whomever. Mr. DeBacco noted that this is a state and possibly national precedent setting situation as it relates to arrest information. In licensing and employment issues, generally, conviction data only can be examined in making licensing and employment decisions. This is the common practice nationally. Currently the State Department of Education receives criminal history record information from three sources, local law enforcement agencies statewide, the state's Criminal History Records Repository, and the FBI in Washington, D.C. The FBI records clearly indicate if arrest information appears on any of their "rap sheets", they may not, under federal provisions and federal code, utilize just arrest information for employment purpose. Caution was expressed as to the framing of the language of the bill for these reasons, and Mr. DeBacco offered the services of his agency to assist in this matter. Concern was expressed by Mr. DeBacco in regard to the fiscal implications of this bill for his department. The technology exists in the Criminal History Repository to accomplish what is being asked by A.B. 65. However, numbers indicate that in calendar year 1994 the Repository processed approximately 7,000 school district, licensure related inquiries. The idea of a subsequent background investigation, that is, information learned after the initial background request is completed, is a good one. The mushrooming effect to other clients, such as the gaming industry or day care facilities statewide, would be devastating to the existing program in the Repository. Significant fiscal concerns exist that need to be addressed. Dr. Harrington asked the amount of the fiscal note. Mr. Debacco stated for the first fiscal year, just for the Department of Education, and not allowing for mushrooming into other areas, the fiscal note is approximately $127,000, with about $118,000 continuing thereafter. Two new positions would be created, but the bulk of the cost is accepting the fingerprint card, which is currently done for teachers or classified employees. What is not currently done, is the registration of the fingerprint images contained on the card to the automatic fingerprint identification system. In order for subsequent criminal activity information to be provided, the card must be registered to the data base. The information becomes part of the nine western state's system that is utilized by the Repository. That expenditure is approximately $50,000 per year by the technologies used to store the fingerprint images to get the subsequent matches. He reiterated the job can be done technically, but it is not without its fiscal impact. Mr. Neighbors related a story of a school district employee who had assumed the total identity of someone else, and was employed for a seven month period before being caught. He stated that it seems as if it would be much more difficult to accomplish a similar situation now. Mr. DeBacco stated he felt the mechanisms in place at this time work, with fingerprinting agencies requiring photo identification. The Repository resolves identity questions weekly, such as brothers whose identification and criminal history records are confused, due to mistaken identification processes. In summary, Mr. DeBacco stated his agency was concerned about the release of arrest information and the fiscal impact on the Repository. Chairman Harrington noted that two social "goods" exist, those being the presumed innocence of a person until convicted, and the protection of children in our school situations. Mr. Nat Lommori, Superintendent, Lyon County School District, explained there is a two month lag between the interview process and the receipt of the fingerprinting report. The committee was asked to address what to do with the employees who have been hired during that lag time and then found to have a negative fingerprint report. Mr. Bennett asked if the two month lag exceeded any probationary period and if the problem could be solved "in-house" in probationary requirements for employment. Mr. Lommori replied affirmatively. In Lyon County the classified and licensed staff are on a one year probation. Chairman Harrington noted that it was the consensus of the committee that further evaluation of the bill is necessary. Mr. Williams suggested that the concerned professionals in attendance could gather and discuss amenable language for the committee. The parties involved agreed to this suggestion. ASSEMBLY BILL 67 - Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school districts. Chairman Harrington noted the parties involved in A.B. 67 have indicated that a Senate bill is expected containing similar language. The parties have requested that A.B. 67 be postponed so the two bills can be heard together. Parties who traveled a long distance were invited to make comments, pro or con, on the bill due to distances traveled. Dr. George Ann Rice, Clark County School District, explained her people were the ones bringing the other bill, which is now in bill drafting. The other parties involved have agreed to the postponement. Chairman Harrington pronounced the hearing on A.B. 67 postponed until the Senate bill catches up and both will be heard at a later time. Chairman Harrington announced that on Wednesday, February 1, 1995, A.B. 5 and A.B. 6 will be discussed in a work session following the regular meeting. Mr. Bennett expressed his opinion that A.B. 6 is an empowerment bill and leaves the final decision with the local school board. He feels there is no need for a subcommittee. Mr. Batten agreed with Mr. Bennett. Two Bill Draft Requests were presented to the committee for committee introduction. B.D.R. 34-1273 - Requires expulsion of a pupil for the possession of a firearm. MR. BENNETT MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 34-1273. MRS. TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. B.D.R. 34-697 was presented for committee introduction. This B.D.R. revises provisions governing program for accountability of school districts. MR. BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 34-697. MR. BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, M.D., Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education January 30, 1995 Page