MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session February 1, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 1, 1995, Chairman William Z. Harrington, M.D. 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: David Perlman, Commission on Postsecondary Education Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Daniel W. Fox, Superintendent, Pershing County School District Mary Peterson, Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada ASSEMBLY BILL 66 - Revises provisions governing number of members on board of trustees of certain county school districts. The hearing was opened on A.B. 66. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards explained that the number of members on a school board are mandated by law. If a school district is contained in a county where district enrollment is less than 1000, five school board members are required. If enrollment is more than 1000, seven school board members are required. Concern has been expressed in rural counties where the 1000 enrollment figure is being approached by school districts because the number of school board members will, by present law, need to be increased. The rural counties would like flexibility in the law so they would not be mandated to increase the members on local school boards when the 1000 student enrollment level is reached. The communities may want to remain at a five member board because it would serve their needs adequately. Adoption of A.B. 66 would offer the districts this flexibility. The bill does not mandate districts remain at five board members, nor does it require them to have a seven member board. Flexibility for the needs of each given community is allowed. If districts choose to continue to maintain a five member school board, action must be taken at a public hearing and a resolution must be adopted to do so, with public notice being given. Mr. Etchemendy noted that public interest is represented well in A.B. 66. Some rural school districts, such as Pershing County, have only one main population center, and a five member board could continue to serve the needs of the district well. Others have more than one population center, and even though their enrollment numbers are similar, may need a seven member board to adequately represent the needs and ideas of all population centers. Mrs. de Braga asked why the figures of 1000 and 1500 were chosen as a cap for enrollment as applied to school board member participation. Mr. Etchemendy replied those numbers were chosen because it was felt they offered flexibility and would provide "breathing room" for the districts for several years. Mrs. de Braga inquired if there was more than one school district that could operate well with a five member board if so chosen. Mr. Etchemendy answered there are about three other school districts in that category. All are over 1000 in enrollment population, with one being slightly over 1500. Mrs. de Braga questioned if those districts had switched to a seven member board. Mr. Etchemendy answered affirmatively. Mr. Batten asked for a clarification of the reason for the requested change. Mr. Etchemendy explained it is to offer discretion to the local people as to whether they want to remain at five for various reasons, including fiscal reasons. Depending on the geographics of an area, the flexibility of a smaller school board offers more practical options to the districts politically and economically. Conversely, the school districts may decide more people are necessary to aid in the decision making process. Mr. Batten asked if the number remaining as is stated in current law would effect the function of the school board or school district. Mr. Etchemendy replied that the change is requested due to geographical makeup of the counties. Mr. Daniel W. Fox, Superintendent of the Pershing County School District, explained his community would like the option of remaining at a five member board. Research has shown that a five member board can be as efficient as a seven member board, sometimes being even more effective. Currently in Pershing County there are three county commissioners and three city commissioners and the feeling exists that a seven member school board would be "oversell" to the community. Incorporating a seven member board would cost the school district an additional $2000 out of the general fund budget to pay for additional board member expenses. Mr. Fox noted that the proponents of A.B. 66 did not want it to be a mandatory statewide, with the choice being left to local districts. Nationwide school boards have between five and thirteen members. Five is a common number. Turnover of five member boards is 52.4%, breaking down with members serving 3.1 to 6 years. Mrs. de Braga asked what the feeling of this issue is in the Pershing County community. Mr. Fox stated that the community would prefer the school board remain at five members to keep the size of the board comparable to others in the county. Mr. Batten questioned the fiscal expenditures currently for a five member board. Mr. Fox said that the current cost for a five member board is approximately $7000. To increase the board to seven members would increase the cost to the district to approximately $9000. These expenditures are stipends for meeting attendance, $80-$85 per member, per meeting, per month. Mrs. Chowning commended Mr. Fox and the proponents of A.B. 66 for wanting to decrease the amount of bureaucracy. Mr. Bennett inquired about the cost of a school board election, adding two more positions to the school board. Mr. Etchemendy noted school board elections are an expense incurred by the counties. Information was unavailable as to the added cost. Chairman Harrington noted the intent of A.B. 66 seemed to be to make government smaller, more local, and less expensive. There was no testimony against A.B. 66. The hearing was closed on A.B. 66. ASSEMBLY BILL 7 - Transfers commission on postsecondary education from department of business and industry to department of education. The hearing on A.B. 7 was opened. Ms. Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada testified in support of A.B. 7. Ms. McKinney-James explained that A.B. 7 is a request to transfer the Commission on Postsecondary Education from the Department of Business and Industry to the Department of Education. Twenty- nine agencies currently exist in the Department of Business and Industry, with primary responsibilities being in the areas of regulatory oversight, industrial relations, and consumer protection. During the reorganization in the 1993 session, Postsecondary Education became a part of the Department of Business and Industry. It has become clear some of the fundamental aspects of Postsecondary Education are better suited to the Department of Education. Ms. McKinney-James noted she and her department are supportive of this transfer. Mr. David Perlman, Administrator, Commission on Postsecondary Education, spoke in support of A.B. 7. It was explained that the agency consists of four individuals supporting a seven member governor appointed commission that deals with the regulation and oversight of private postsecondary schools, making sure the education they provide is valid and certain remedies exist to the consumers. Mr. Perlman spoke from prepared remarks concerning A.B. 7, (Exhibit C), noting the reasons why the transfer would be practical on the part of all parties. The bill does not incur any general fund costs, is non-controversial, is non-political and is offered to make government work more efficiently. Chairman Harrington asked if the funding for the Commission on Postsecondary Education would follow the commission to the Department of Education. Ms. McKinney-James replied that the cost allocation for her department was restructured in anticipation of this bill and no fiscal impact should be incurred. The funding will follow the commission. Mrs. Chowning inquired when the Postsecondary Commission was taken away from the Department of Education and why. Mr. Perlman answered the change occurred in 1975. The Commission became independent at that time and was associated with the Department of Education. In 1993, the commission was placed under the Department of Business and Industry during reorganization. Ms. McKinney-James explained that one of the things the reorganization effort was trying to accomplish was to identify a series of independent boards and provide some connection and accountability. Part of Ms. McKinney-James' decision to support this transfer was because she was assured the Department of Education would assume the necessary responsibilities. The transfer would make the administration of the commission more efficient. Ms. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education, State of Nevada, spoke in support of A.B. 7 from prepared remarks, (Exhibit D). Mr. Bennett inquired what the Commission does that is regulatory. Ms. Peterson replied that the Commission licenses postsecondary institutions. There was no testimony against A.B. 7. The hearing was closed on A.B. 7. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-868 - Requires free appropriate public education in compliance with federal law for pupils with disabilities who are excused from compulsory attendance. B.D.R. 34-868 was brought before the committee for approval for committee introduction on the Assembly floor. MR. WILLIAMS MOVED B.D.R. 34-868 BE INTRODUCED. MR. BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The committee began a work session. Chairman Harrington noted three bills listed on the work session list passed out to committee members, (Exhibit E), A.B. 5, A. B. 6, and A. B. 65. A.B. 6 has been postponed until the Senate version is completed so the two can be considered together. No action will be taken on A.B. 65 until new language from administrators and union representatives is presented to the committee. H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, stated the work session document reflects the bills that have been previously heard. A.B. 5, which revises provisions governing the term of employment of the superintendent of schools of a school district was discussed first. He noted there was no testimony presented in opposition to this measure. A technical amendment was proposed to delete the word "a" in Section 1, line 12 and replace it with "an initial". The proposed amendment was supported by those testifying. A.B. 5 - Revises provisions governing term of employment of superintendent of schools of school district. MR. BENNETT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 5. MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Sturm reported he had spoken with the parties interested in A.B. 65 and they are in the process of setting up a meeting time. They will bring the new language back to the committee at a later time. Mr. Bennett announced he had ten copies of S.B. 87 which parallels A.B. 6. A.B. 7 - Transfers commission on postsecondary education from department of business and industry to department of education. MR. WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 7. MR. BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. A.B. 66 - Revises provisions governing number of members on board of trustees of certain county school districts. MRS. CHOWNING MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 66. MRS. TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Segerblom noted her brother was on the school board in her county thirty years ago and lived in Gabbs. The five school board members had to travel 500 miles to Parumph. There being only five members, things worked out fine, but Mrs. Segerblom noted if there had been seven members, the mileage and expenses would have been greater. She noted concern needs to be expressed for the counties with small populations and tight budgets. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman Harrington announced two meetings are scheduled in Las Vegas on February 7 and February 8. Two bills are scheduled and committee members were asked to let Chairman Harrington or Mr. Sturm know immediately if any other bills need to be discussed. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 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 February 1, 1995 Page