MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session February 27, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, February 27, 1995, Chairman Wendell P. Williams 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: Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association Kenna Boyer, State of Nevada Employees Association Denny Brock Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum Sheila Ward, Carson/Douglas Christian Coalition Gary Grant Doreen Martinez, University of Nevada - Las Vegas Elaine B. Steiner, University of Nevada - Reno, State of Nevada Employees Association Kay M. Stone, University of Nevada - Reno Pat Fladager, University of Nevada - Reno, retiree Terry Garcia-Cahlan, Nevada State Board of Education Janice Brooks, Las Vegas Junior League Gail Parsons, Nevada Parent Teacher's Association Linda M. Church, State of Nevada Employees Association Shirley J. Velez, State of Nevada Employees Association, University of Nevada - Reno Clement Velez, University of Nevada - Reno David Fields, State of Nevada Employees Association Don Clapham, University of Nevada - Reno Sherry Loncar, Nevada Parent Teacher's Association Ellen Steiner, University of Nevada Reno Employee John H. DeTar, M.D. Lori Petterson Susan Balkenbush Brent Guddat Janet Anderson, Nevada Christian Coalition Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Dave Cook, Nevada State Parent Teacher's Association Kris Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens Milton Carr, Faith Baptist Church Ronald G. Bowers, Sr. Miki Yochum Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association Nannette Moffett Morris Kanowitz Greg Betts, Rural School Districts Dianne Tobey, Kindergarten Teacher, Carson City School District Donna Archambault, Kindergarten Teacher, Carson City School District Tom Anderes, University and Community College System of Nevada Joe Crowley, President, University of Nevada - Reno Carol Andrews Gail Sceely Tim Allinnairo Bob Wolf George Anastassatos Robin Hollingshead Linda Sitze Lynette Langguth Robin Schnorbus Helen Laughbon Delana Earl George McNeil The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 168. ASSEMBLY BILL 168 - Requires board of regents of University of Nevada to exempt all employees of University and Community System of Nevada from payment of parking fees. Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, explained she requested A.B. 168 on behalf of the university employees. Employees are required to pay for parking at the university. The university is the only state agency requiring its employees to pay for parking. The employees consider the fee payment to be unfair. Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association spoke in favor of A.B. 168. He reiterated few, if any, other state employees are required to pay for parking. Classified employees of the university are those affected by the bill. Salaries of these employees range in the $8.00 to $9.00 an hour category and many are single heads of households. University officials have cited California universities with higher parking rates and Mr. Gagnier noted Nevada employees would be happy to pay similar rates if they received California salaries. He noted Nevada has, historically been a place of "wide open spaces". The University of Nevada - Reno has publicly stated their fee is for more than parking. Shuttle service, car starting service, and protective services are provided. State employees in the capitol complex in Carson City have excellent protective services provided by the state at no charge to employees. Mr. Gagnier explained universities have expressed a desire to build parking garages with a bill being heard recently to allow the universities to sell revenue bonds to do so. Security issues are involved in parking garages, especially in darker winter months. These security issues will be added onto parking fees. Mr. Gagnier noted the comments of Mr. Kenny Guinn, interim President of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, at the Senate hearing on revenue bonds explained classified employees of University of Nevada - Las Vegas were opposed to parking fees and a committee had been developed to create a free parking lot west of the Thomas and Mac Center. University of Nevada - Reno employees have paid parking fees for years. The estimate for a parking garage at University of Nevada - Reno is eight and a half million dollars. To pay off the bonds with parking revenue only, parking rates would have to be raised approximately 300%. University of Nevada - Reno officials asked the Senate Finance Committee to consider a direct appropriation to help finance the garage, which the State of Nevada Employee's Association (SNEA) feels is appropriate. Arguments against employee protest of parking fees include the idea that not much money is involved. Classified employees have not received a cost of living raise since October, 1991. They have had to pay considerable increases in their insurance costs. In July, 1995, employees will be required to take a pay cut to offset poor investment returns by the retirement system. The cuts will be from one-half to one percent, depending on which retirement system the employee is involved in. Mr. Gagnier reminded the committee any parking fees paid by employees could be increased drastically to pay for parking garages. Mr. Gagnier explained the bill prohibits the Board of Regents from adopting regulations to fix or impose fees for parking for the employees. He explained students were not included in the bill because SNEA does not represent them. SNEA would have no problem with students being included in the bill. Students pay one-half the rate employees pay. Student rates at University of Nevada - Reno (UNR) are $25 and are $30 at the University of Nevada - Las Vegas. Chairman Harrington asked how much the fiscal note was on A.B. 168. Mr. Gagnier answered he did not know. Chairman Harrington questioned the parking amounts at UNR. Mr. Gagnier explained the fees were $25 for students and $50 for classified employees at UNR. At UNLV the cost will be $30 for students and $60 for classified employees. Chairman Harrington asked if university regents had been approached and what their response was. Mr. Gagnier replied UNR has maintained they must charge parking, and up until now, is the only campus which does so. In September, 1995, UNLV will begin to charge for parking as well. It has not been a regent issue until this year. Chairman Williams noted the fiscal note has not been prepared yet. Assemblywoman Freeman declared she had been advised by Kim Morgan in Legal that a constitutional question may exist with A.B. 168 because it addresses the separation of powers. She noted Ms. Morgan had research available. Assemblyman Batten requested clarification on amounts paid by students at UNR. Mr. Gagnier explained currently students at UNR pay $25. When fee payment begins at UNLV in September, 1995, students will pay $30. Assemblyman Batten requested clarification on amounts paid by UNR employees. Mr. Gagnier explained UNR employees pay $50. Assemblyman Batten asked if an increase at both places was anticipated. Mr. Gagnier explained the fees at UNLV are new. There has not been a charge for parking at UNLV before. UNR has not indicated a rate increase. In testimony before Senate Finance last week, UNR officials disclosed parking fees at current rates would not pay for revenue bonds to build a parking garage. Assemblyman Batten inquired if UNLV was the biggest concern of SNEA at this time. Mr. Gagnier stated SNEA wants parking fees repealed at UNR. Assemblyman Batten asked if state workers and students share the same lots. Mr. Gagnier replied affirmatively, to his knowledge. He stated there were UNR representatives available who could answer more knowledgeably. Mr. Gagnier brought to the committee's attention that a parking fee does not guarantee a parking spot. SNEA calls it a "hunting license". The paid fee allows the holder to look for a parking space. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if a faculty member pays for parking if he or she is guaranteed a parking site. Mr. Gagnier replied no. Assemblyman Segerblom stated she believed there were lots at UNLV for faculty. She hoped if faculty were required to pay, the faculty lots would stay as they are. Mr. Gagnier said he did not know. He submitted petitions from UNR and UNLV employees to the committee secretary for the record regarding the parking fees (Exhibit C). He noted in Senate Finance Committee testimony last week Dr. Guinn explained employees' opposition to parking fee payment. Chairman Harrington stated he is an assistant clinical professor at UNR but does not park or work there. He works at University Medical Center in Las Vegas. As part of the university system, this issue needed to be clarified for the record. Assemblyman Chowning asked how long the university system had been charging employees for parking at UNR. Mr. Gagnier answered it was, to his understanding, about twenty years. Assemblyman Chowning commented."we're just talking about this now, are we?" Mr. Gagnier noted a bill had been introduced in a past session of broader scope applying to all employees, not just university employees. Difficulty was encountered because of the nature of small offices in some privately owned buildings in downtown Reno or Las Vegas. He explained the issue had been brought up previously. Assemblyman Chowning asked how much income parking fees represented as part of the university budget. Mr. Gagnier answered UNLV has indicated their fees will generate between $600,000 and $700,000. He had no information on UNR. Assemblyman Neighbors asked if any UNR employees got free parking. Mr. Gagnier did not know the answer. Chairman Harrington asked how many UNR and UNLV employees were involved. Mr. Gagnier stated he could not answer because he did not know how many faculty were involved. About 1200 classified employees work at UNLV, which may include part time employees, and perhaps a few more at UNR. Assemblyman Tripple stated she was a UNR faculty member for 39 « years. Parking has been an issue for most of the time. Employees, faculty, and visitors who come for a variety of reasons need to park. She felt availability of parking is another issue beyond the cost of parking regardless if it is free or costs money. In the past the university has been able to erect buildings which did not bring parking spaces with them; in fact, took away such spaces. Solving the problem involves more than just paying for the parking. Mr. Gagnier commented the first parking garage, to his knowledge, was the one constructed behind the State Assembly Building, followed by the one in the basement of the Supreme Court Building. He stated when SNEA built a new office building in Carson City, the city required a certain number of parking spaces be provided based on the type of business involved and number of employees. The state does not follow this policy. SNEA feels if the university needs parking structures they should be built through capital construction projects. UNR sought to put the proposed parking structure in the capital improvement projects and it did not make the cut. The message being sent is it is all right to add buildings to the campus but not to provide parking for those using the buildings. Ms. Doreen Martinez, Management Assistant II, Engineering College, University of Nevada - Las Vegas testified classified employees at UNLV are very much opposed to paying parking fees. Much discussion has been held on campus and Ms. Martinez conveyed the feelings of the employees to the committee speaking from prepared remarks regarding parking fee objections (Exhibit D). She asked the committee to vote favorably on the bill to exempt employees from paying parking fees. Chairman Harrington noted it is obvious a parking shortage exists. By reducing parking costs, demand for parking will increase and make the shortage worse. He asked if a greater problem for students and employees would be created. Ms. Martinez explained no fee was paid at present at UNLV. It will be instituted in the fall, 1995. She felt the parking problems would remain constant as Las Vegas does not have a very good transit system. Noting many students work to support themselves and reach their educational goals, Ms. Martinez reported a continual coming and going of students as their class and work schedules require. Mr. Gagnier introduced Gary Grant, from UNR to testify. Mr. Gary Grant, employee of UNR, testified he did not like paying for parking. He felt it was discriminatory to UNR employees to pay for parking since other state employees are not required to do so. He offered to donate the money he pays yearly for parking to the university. Assemblyman Batten asked if Mr. Grant was from UNR or UNLV. Mr. Grant stated he was from UNR. Assemblyman Batten asked Mr. Grant if he would support the fees if there were adequate space for faculty and employees. Mr. Grant replied he felt parking should be part of the "perks" received when someone works at a job. He would support the fee if all employees of all state agencies were required to pay. Assemblyman Manendo wondered why one university has been charging its employees to park and the other has not. He requested information on the justifications for this policy. Mr. Grant commented Mr. Manendo's observation was a good one. Assemblyman Manendo noted, as a manager, telling the employees they would be required to pay for parking, and no raises would be forthcoming for three years, the employees would be unhappy. Ms. Pat Fladager, University of Nevada - Reno, retiree, and member of SNEA spoke in favor of A.B. 168. She stated she was aware of existing salary differentials. Ms. Fladager was concerned with continued fee increases and felt it unfair to build structures on the back of classified employees. She asked for the committee's approval of A.B. 168 and noted other university retirees present in support of the bill. Ms. Ellen Steiner, UNR employee, spoke in favor of A.B. 168. She saw the parking fee as an employment tax and not as a fee paid by those employed at the university. Voicing opposition to the fee or tax for a number of years, she compared the fee to practices adhered to earlier this century by companies who provided housing and stores for their employees, yet charged for their use. Ms. Steiner stated she understands the university's parking problems. Initial reasons given for fee establishment were insufficient funding for parking and paving, installation of meters, meter monitoring, lot striping and maintenance. A shuttle service has been established at UNR, with expenses relating thereto. It is Ms. Steiner's understanding parking fees at UNR are scheduled to increase July 1, 1995. The faculty/staff will bear most of the increase to pay for an extension of the shuttle service to evening hours, when most faculty and staff are not on campus. Tuition increases are possible for students and it was felt an increase in parking fees would be a hardship. She asked the committee to look at the issue of parking systems on campus. Chairman Williams asked for others to testify in favor of A.B. 168. Chairman Williams asked for testimony opposed to A.B. 168. Mr. Tom Anderes, Vice-Chancellor for Finance of the University and Community College System of Nevada spoke in opposition to A.B. 168. He noted support for the idea of general obligation bonds to support construction of parking facilities. As a priority this is difficult and other options need to be considered. As the institutions seek to provide the necessary services to faculty, staff, students and others, it is essential to identify the resources to support such services. Charging a users fee for campus services is typical. The practice connects cost to those who benefit from the support services. The state provides no funding for campus parking program. Exemption of employees is not in the best interest of maintaining campus parking programs. Mr. Anderes noted growth is occurring at both UNR and UNLV and maximization of space on both campus' is a concern. Seeking funding sources other than the state is encouraged by the Governor and the Legislature. A user's fee addresses this. Joe Crowley, President of the University of Nevada - Reno spoke in opposition to A.B. 168. He noted there is a history of parking concerns at UNR. There is not enough parking, the parking is inappropriately located, and no one wants to pay for it. Everyone who comes to the university expects a place to park and the university is compelled to provide these services. He noted parking fees are not unusual in American colleges and universities and UNR's parking fees are reasonable. The revenue anticipated for 1995 at UNR is $325,000. Faculty and staff will produce $135,000 and the students will produce the rest. Adding together total fees from UNR and UNLV approximately $2 million for the biennium would be required from the general fund to cover. Nevada is projected by demographers as the fastest growing state in higher education in the nation for the next ten to fifteen years. Bus usage is encouraged but people like to drive to campus. Dr. Crowley noted when a new building is constructed on campus, existing parking is eliminated. UNR is compelled, at a minimum, to replace those spaces lost. He noted parking has been added yearly at UNR, with approximately 5,200 spaces currently available. The revenue received from parking is used to build new parking and maintain existing parking. Dr. Crowley noted when UNR was laid out, the automobile age had not arrived. The campus developed from "a horse and buggy concept of what a campus and campus parking should look like". Where the most space exists is where the least number of people are. Most people prefer to park as close to offices and classrooms as possible. Unfortunately much of UNR's parking is in distant locations. Dr. Crowley noted the shuttle service has made a big difference at UNR because it works fairly expeditiously. He thought usage was predominately by students. A proposed fee increase is to fund longer shuttle hours. The increase would be eight percent, with the faculty fee going from $50 to $54 and the student fee going from $25 to $27. Assistance is also offered to students and faculty with dead batteries, flat tires, or who are out of gas. Dr. Crowley addressed the parking facility issue. Several years ago UNR went to the City Council to secure the council's blessing on a residence hall. The city expressed a desire for the university to develop a parking facility to aid in lessening the parking congestion in nearby neighborhoods. UNR agreed to move ahead with such a facility to the point of designing the facility. It is the second campus new construction priority, with the first being the new Education building. UNR would prefer to see the parking facility built with general obligation fund money or surplus money. What has held the university up for years in the construction of a parking facility is the inordinate increase necessary to faculty, staff and students to build the building on a revenue bond basis and to sustain and secure it. It is not contemplated by UNR that the parking structure will be built with a tripling of parking fees. Assemblyman Neighbors asked if the user fees were in an account within the general operating fund or in a separate fund in which the balance rolls over at the end of the year. Dr. Crowley explained the money goes into the parking services department which administers the budget. Assemblyman Neighbors asked if it was a fund by itself or an account within the general operating fund. If it is a fund a year end balance would roll over. Dr. Crowley explained the monies do carry forward from year to year. Assemblyman Neighbors questioned why the policy difference for so many years between UNR and UNLV. Dr. Crowley believed the reason was because of the way the campuses developed. UNLV has one and one-half times the space for parking as UNR and a lot of the space is flat. UNLV has experienced great growth in the last decade and the parking crunch has arrived. When it arrived at UNR long ago, a user fee was assessed. Assemblyman Batten noted to Mr. Anderes that user fees always increase and not decrease. He asked if students would be assessed for an increase in a year or so. Mr. Anderes said the University System tries to work closely with the campuses to determine long term needs. He noted increases would be doubtful in the near future. Dr. Crowley explained to Assemblyman Batten that the proposed fee increase at UNR is under discussion and is the first increase in three years. It is recommended by the Parking and Traffic Board, which is a faculty, student and staff board, which is in charge of parking at UNR. Assemblyman Batten asked why, since a fee is in place now, a benefit cannot be had for the fee, like separate faculty parking or separate student parking. Dr. Crowley explained parking is color coded for different permits, including faculty and staff. Student parking is less favorable. Some lots have dedicated, guaranteed parking with rates escalating as accessibility increases. Assemblyman Tripple asked Dr. Crowley how much funding is generated by parking meters and what the monies are used for. Dr. Crowley answered the monies were used for the same purpose. He did not know how much was generated by the meters but offered to obtain the information as well as how the funds are used. Assemblyman Chowning asked if anyone was exempt from parking fees, specifically regents who serve at no salary. Dr. Crowley confirmed regents pay no fees as well as others in the community who serve on advisory boards, on the alumni council, or on the Board of Trustees of the University Foundation. He noted often these people have difficulty in finding parking spaces. Assemblyman Bennett asked Dr. Crowley if the Parking Board was voluntary or if full time employees were involved. Dr. Crowley stated the Parking Services director was the head of the board. The people serving on the board are volunteers. Assemblyman Bennett asked if the director used his board situation as full time employment. Dr. Crowley explained it is the director's sole function at the university. Her salary is paid out of parking fees as well as income from parking meters. Assemblyman Bennett asked what the salary was for this employee. Dr. Crowley offered to check on the information requested. Assemblyman Manendo asked how many students are at UNR. Dr. Crowley stated there are 12,500. Assemblyman Manendo asked what the current parking charge was. Dr. Crowley stated the charge is $25. Assemblyman Manendo inquired if the increase would be to $27. Dr. Crowley replied affirmatively. Assemblyman Manendo asked about faculty charges. Dr. Crowley reiterated faculty pays $50. Assemblyman Manendo asked what the increase would be for faculty. Dr. Crowley stated the increase is to $54. Assemblyman Manendo asked if the state provides funding for parking. He noted the state may need to look at funding parking. Mr. Manendo gave Dr. Crowley credit for the idea of growth paying its own way. Suggested was the possibility of assessing a tuition increase to out of state students. Dr. Crowley commented he would not favor that approach. He believes the bulk of the parking problem is from students who live in the community and not nonresident students. Nonresident students are more likely to live in campus residence halls or facilities near campus than local students. Students living in such facilities are less likely to use parking. He noted 58% of UNR's student population is from Washoe County and are the largest users of parking. Chairman Harrington noted this would be a mandate from the Legislature to the Executive branch. He asked Dr. Crowley if many mandates were received from the Legislature. Dr. Crowley said the question had been frequently discussed over the years with legislators. The Board of Regents and the University and Community College System is called a constitutional system. This means it enjoys separation of powers. It is an executive agency but also enjoys a measure of independence from the Governor's office and the legislature. The question is often ducked because no one wants a contest of wills with either the Governor or legislature. He noted the university system tries very hard to cooperate with both the Governor and the Legislature. Assemblyman Segerblom noted no parking fees existed at UNR fifty years ago. Dr. Crowley replied, saying, "those were the days Mrs. Segerblom...would that they were still with us." The hearing was closed on A.B. 168. Chairman Williams inquired how many people were present to testify either for or against Assembly Bill 216. Chairman Williams decided to proceed with A.B. 216 next. The hearing was opened on A.B. 216. ASSEMBLY BILL 216 - Increases salary of members of boards of trustees in certain school districts. Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom representing Assembly District 22 explained A.B. 216 is her idea. She explained school board members in Clark County do a lot of work besides attending four meetings. Any extra meetings attended by members outside of regular school board meetings are not reimbursed. She felt the compensation received by school board members in Clark County should be increased to $500 per month. Assemblyman Tripple asked if Clark County as its own entity could increase the compensation of school board members. Assemblyman Segerblom replied negatively and noted the bill says "may". She remarked she felt the Clark County School Board would not do it for themselves. Also she felt a higher compensation might draw better people into running for office. Clark County needs to have the right to increase compensation if they choose to do so. Chairman Williams noted language in the current law states the compensation cannot exceed $320. Assemblyman Tripple asked if Assemblyman Segerblom thought increased compensation would increase the quality of board members. Assemblyman Segerblom replied she hoped it would and it would be more fair to the amount of time school board members put in. Assemblyman Tripple asked if Assemblyman Segerblom had talked to any smaller districts regarding this issue. Assemblyman Segerblom stated she had and had encountered opposition. Chairman Harrington noted on Page 1, lines 24 and 25 indicated board members will get the $500 regardless of the number of meetings attended. He asked if board members are getting paid for every month of the year. Assemblyman Segerblom explained board members are currently paid $80 per meeting for a maximum of four meetings. Chairman Harrington asked if any of the board members had not done their job. Assemblyman Segerblom replied negatively. Assemblyman Chowning asked how many meetings board members attend in one month. Assemblyman Segerblom replied negatively, but explained she knows several board members and has come to realize how involved they are. Assemblyman Chowning asked for a ballpark figure. Assemblyman Segerblom replied she imagined members attend the four regular meetings plus about four other meetings. Assemblyman Chowning asked if this was apart from any meetings with constituents or with schools. Assemblyman Segerblom replied affirmatively. Assemblyman Tripple asked who would pay and if it would be a mandate. Assemblyman Segerblom replied it was, in a way, because state money was not used. She noted it is not a mandate since it says "may". Assemblyman Tripple asked if Clark County would think the state government sent down an unfunded mandate. Assemblyman Segerblom replied she did not care. Assemblyman Chowning suggested at Line 25, to be consistent with other parts of the bill, to say "not to exceed". Assemblyman Segerblom asked what difference that would make since members would not be getting paid by the meeting. Assemblyman Chowning explained the rest of the bill includes the language "not to exceed" and perhaps it would be good if this portion included the same language. The hearing was closed on A.B. 216. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 175. ASSEMBLY BILL 175 - Requires attendance in kindergarten for children of a certain age. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani representing Assembly District 9 read a statement from the writings of Robert Fulghum and a prepared statement (Exhibit E). A packet of information was distributed to legislators of research pertinent to the issue (Exhibit F). Chairman Harrington noted he was opposed to much of the bill. He was shocked by Page 3, Section 4, Line 23, regarding the removal of children between the ages of 5 and 17 not in attendance at school. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani reminded Assemblyman Harrington that is current language in the law. Chairman Harrington replied, "not for five year olds, it's not." Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted again it is current language. Also when an age change is done in a bill, the Legislative Counsel Bureau legal staff will change wording throughout a bill wherever age requirement changes. It is up to committees hearing the bill to determine what is proper for the area of the bill in question. Chairman Harrington asked if Assemblywoman Giunchigliani intended for the truancy issue to include five year olds. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she was only looking at the entrance age. She noted other language added not at her request was the variance language for class size. She thought LCB found other forthcoming legislation with variance and A.B. 175 was the first bill having anything to do with it and it was tacked on. The State Department of Education has been asked to present fiscal notes to explore the idea of fully funding Kindergarten even if attendance is not mandatory. Currently Kindergarten is funded at two-thirds. This is an issue with districts as they wish to offer fully funded programs. In 1991 thirteen school sites did not have Kindergarten. Rurals were allowed to combine them so a site was not required on every campus if not enough children were available. The School Boards Association joined in support at that time. Chairman Harrington referred to Lines 39 and 40 which deals with post custody counseling of the child and parents. He inquired who does the counseling. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the section in question is current language. When a statute is pulled to add, the current language remains. She encouraged debate on the questions but asked the committee not to kill the bill because the issue is mandatory kindergarten attendance so proper and more developmental programs can be offered to children as the beginning of their formal education. Research shows appropriate developmental curriculum is beneficial to young children. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the bill allows for home schooling. She encouraged the committee to not pick bits and pieces and use the fear factors of possible arrest or child removal from the home. A reminder was given the existing language has been in the law for an unknown period of time. Assemblyman Bennett referred to Section 2, Page 2, Lines 19 and 20 regarding variances on the limitation on the number of pupils for classes in grade 3. He expressed confusion over the pertinence of that section to mandatory kindergarten. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the bill drafters inserted the language in question as well as the information on the variance. Assemblyman Bennett questioned how it got past the editor. It appears to be funding class size reduction on grade 3. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated when the fiscal note comes up it has nothing to do with the class size reduction act. Assemblyman Bennett and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani held an exchange regarding the language in question. Ms. Terry Garcia-Cahlan, Vice President of the State Board of Nevada, representing Las Vegas and the Parumph area, spoke in favor of A.B. 175. She reported in 1994 the State Board of Education revised the board's strategic plan. One significant issue was to insure all students are ready to learn. Annually 3,000 students statewide do not attend kindergarten. Thirty-nine percent of Nevada Kindergarten teachers surveyed feel children are unprepared to begin school. Nationally 35% of Kindergarten teachers surveyed agreed. Nevada is ranked lowest by the Children's Defense Fund in the nation in adequate investment in Early Childhood Education. The lack of a Kindergarten mandate has resulted in an unequal education opportunity for Nevada's children. Ms. Janice Brooks, representing the Las Vegas Junior League spoke in favor of A.B. 175. She explained Junior League is an organization of trained volunteers committed to improving the community through effective action and leadership. In 1994 a process was begun to determine the community's number one need. Public forums were held, a needs assessment program through other organizations was inaugurated, as well as in the internal membership of Junior League. The result was the focus statement "Building a Better Future for our Children". Many studies have been done regarding the need for a quality preschool or prekindergarten program and the long term benefits of such programs. Ms. Brooks shared the findings of the High Scope Perry Preschool project in Michigan twenty- five years ago. The project took one hundred twenty three African American children were chosen at random to participate in the study. At the ages of three and four, the children were randomly divided into two groups, one receiving a high quality, active learning preschool program and a "no program" preschool group. The longitudinal study of approximately 25 years showed 7% of program participants had extensive arrest records compared with 35% of the "no program" or nonparticipatory side of the program. Fifty-nine percent of the participants were on social services at some point in their lives compared to 80% of nonparticipants. Seventy-one percent of participants were high school graduates compared to 54% of nonparticipants. Thirty percent of the participants were homeowners compared to 13% of the nonparticipants. A cost benefit analysis was conducted concluding that $7.16 was returned to the public for every dollar invested in the High Scope Perry Program. The lasting benefits far exceeding the monetary factor was the empowerment of the children which continued into their adult lives. Junior League believes it is essential to invest in children to build a better future. Junior League believes A.B. 175 meets the needs of the majority of the children in the Las Vegas community. She reminded the committee the bill no way impedes those families who have chosen home schooling. Chairman Harrington asked if the participants in the study were voluntary. Ms. Brooks replied affirmatively. Chairman Harrington noted A.B. 175 is not an appropriations bill but a bill which mandates parents to do certain things involuntarily. Referring to Ms. Brooks' comments regarding the bill having no effect on home schoolers, Chairman Harrington inquired if home school families had to submit paper work to school districts stating why the students were not in public schools and what programs are received at home. Now this will be started at age five. Ms. Brooks replied the families will file paperwork if home schooling is their choice. Assemblyman Batten asked Ms. Brooks to expand on the functions of the Las Vegas Junior League. Ms. Brooks replied Junior League is an organization of trained volunteers. Sixty projects were begun by the organization in Las Vegas to benefit the community. Programs listed include the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, KNPR radio and the League Discovery Museum. Chairman Harrington referred to Page 1, Lines 9-11 of A.B. 175. In rural districts not having enough children to warrant a Kindergarten, the districts are required to provide transportation for the children. He asked if any payment would be made to the rural districts for additional transportation costs. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained a fiscal note from the State Board of Education will address the issue. Written testimony by Louise Helton was submitted to the record (Exhibit G). Ms. Sherry Loncar, representing the Nevada Parent Teacher's Association (PTA), spoke in favor of A.B. 175. Ms. Loncar stated the membership of PTA is 30,000. Mandatory Kindergarten and class size reduction are PTA's top priorities. PTA's Legislative Priority No. 2 was distributed to committee members and submitted for the record (Exhibit H). She indicated a past Legislative Priority is mandatory Kindergarten. Ms. Lori Petterson, parent, spoke in favor of A.B. 175. She explained her participation weekly in her children's classes. Working in the schools has changed her opinion as to whether Kindergarten is just fun or has a purpose. She noted how important it is for children, as they progress through school, to have the necessary skills to learn appropriately, and how the foundation for these skills comes from the Kindergarten program. Personal experience with developmental differences in her own children were shared. She stated she would like to see the bill say Kindergarten is available to a child at age five and not mandatory until the child turns age six. This gives the parents a choice when to send the child to school and to address developmental readiness issues. Ms. Petterson encouraged those present to attend a Kindergarten classroom to see how much is taught to the children in such a short school day, including reading, writing, and math readiness skills, as well as social skills and self esteem enhancement. She noted the Kindergarten year is important because it sets the child's attitude toward school and creates excitement for learning in the years to come. The transition from home or care giver to school was discussed. Early identification of learning, speech, or health problems was addressed. Mr. George McNeil, parent, spoke in favor of A.B. 175. He believes Kindergarten teaches important social skills to children. Long term educational goals were discussed as well as the necessity of students to have skills necessary to be successful. Positive first impressions of school are important. Ms. Dianne Tobey, Kindergarten teacher, Carson City School District, explained a new, pilot program for preKindergartners. These children are old enough to start school legally. The children were given a Gesell screening, which is a developmental placement test, last summer. Children with a developmental lag were placed in the preKindergarten program. Often the children are August and September babies and will be enrolled in the program for two years; one year of preKindergarten and one year of regular Kindergarten. She encouraged the placement of a developmental program in all schools because the curriculum is appropriate. Ms. Tobey explained the preKindergarten class is limited to fifteen students. Funding wise, Ms. Tobey felt Kindergarten is ignored because it is not mandatory. Young children need Nevada to validate them and to provide a service for them. Research shows the younger the children are dealt with, the better the results. Ms. Tobey recommended the use of the High Scope program discussed by Ms. Brooks. She reiterated her apprehension for the children of less concerned parents and how important school is for them. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of School Boards spoke regarding A.B. 175. He reminded the committee of the rural areas of Nevada and how passage of A.B. 175 would affect citizens in those areas. Provided in the current law is the option for children to be transported to school or payments in lieu of transportation will be made. He expressed concern about Page 2, Lines 18-22, which is current law with respect to the ability of school districts to request variances on the class size reduction program, when they cannot meet the mandated fifteen to one ratio. Mr. Etchemendy felt it was necessary for districts to have the ability to seek variances because the funding level is at sixteen to one. Lines 19 and 20 indicate variances can be sought if the bill is passed and if third grade class size reduction is funded, on which no assumption is made. Variances could only be sought for third grade. If the bill is processed, Mr. Etchemendy recommended the new language at Lines 19 and 20 be deleted. Assemblyman Bennett agreed with the concerns of Mr. Etchemendy regarding Lines 19 and 20. He asked if Mr. Etchemendy was aware that Nevada had single piece legislation, in which not more than one issue in one piece of legislation can be addressed. Mr. Etchemendy replied he was. Assemblyman Bennett asked if Mr. Etchemendy thought the bill addressed more than one subject. Mr. Etchemendy stated he was not qualified to comment and he was unaware of why the language being referred to was in the bill. Chairman Williams noted the committee would pose the question to the bill drafters. Chairman Williams announced from this point in the meeting on he would alternate between parties for and against A.B. 175 due to the lateness of the hour. Ms. Kris Jensen, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke against A.B. 175. She reminded the committee that attendance is already compulsory and urged such attendance not be mandated at age 5. Decisions regarding developmental maturity and readiness needs to remain with parents. Those parents who opt not to send their children to Kindergarten do so because they believe it to be in the best interests of their children. Ms. Sheila Ward, Chairman of the Carson/Douglas Chapter of Christian Coalition, spoke in opposition to A.B. 175 from prepared remarks (Exhibit I). Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in opposition of A.B. 175. Ms. Hansen referred to the testimony given by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. Ms. Hansen stated she agreed with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani regarding no hidden agenda in the bill. The agenda is in the 1994-95 National Education Association Handbook (Exhibit J). Ms. Hansen outlined the agenda in (Exhibit J). She suggested the bill was an effort to increase and expand the control and members of the teacher's union. Four years ago mandatory Kindergarten was defeated in the Nevada Legislature. She noted it was not promoted by the public but by the teacher's union. Ms. Hansen referred to School Can Wait by Dr. Raymond Moore which reviewed 6000 studies on why it is better academically, socially, developmentally and behaviorally for children to begin school later. Ms. Hansen referred to a study from the Cato Institute which indicates Head Start programs do not provide any long term benefits to children (Exhibit K). Ms. Hansen referred to a statement by Dr. Moore as he testified in Alabama which defeated mandatory Kindergarten: "America's educators in general demonstrate an indifference to sound research when it is uncomfortable or inconvenient or confronts their vested interest. A lower compulsory attendance law particularly puts little boys at risk by failing to take into account their slower maturation rate. They are usually about a year behind little girls in maturity, yet our own educational bureaucracy insists on setting a normative age when all children are ready for school. It is no wonder that little boys form the bulk of learning disabled classes." Ms. Hansen then referred to a study in The Moore Report (Exhibit L). The committee was encouraged to examine research which indicates a later school entrance age would developmentally help the children. She reiterated the bill is counterproductive and is part of the teacher's union agenda for more complete employment of teachers. Ms. Hansen indicated her group wants the schools to focus on teaching children when they are ready how to be academically successful. Also, families were encouraged to take care of their own children and be responsible as they can best understand the children's needs. She stated programs like Head Start which institutionalize children do not result in far reaching effects. She asked the committee to not only consider the cost of the bill but the cost in terms of what it will do to children in their developmental progress. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, spoke to put her objection to the comments from the representative of the Nevada Eagle Forum. She stated she represents 16,000 members of the Nevada State Education Association, who are affiliated with the National Education Association. The membership is capable of reading the resolutions. She noted for the record the only time the resolutions of the NEA are seen by the committee are when they have been brought by the representative of the Nevada Eagle Forum with her own "peculiar" interpretation of what the resolutions mean. She maintained the agenda of NSEA was not as stated by Ms. Hansen. The committee was encouraged to accept the recommendation of Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to put the bill into a subcommittee. NSEA is concerned about full funding for Kindergarten whether attendance is mandated or not. Ms. Cahill noted if research for and against the issue were acquired, an equal stack of information would be obtained. Assemblyman Batten asked Ms. Cahill if (Exhibit J) was a resolution or not. He offered her a copy for her perusal. Ms. Cahill explained it appeared to be a copy from the NEA handbook and it appeared to be a resolution. Any interpretation Nevada Eagle Forum has put on the resolution is their interpretation and Ms. Cahill believed it was a misinterpretation and does not represent the opinions of the thousands of dedicated professionals who teach in the public schools. She felt it was insulting and demeaning to the teachers to have the misrepresentation brought to the committee time after time. Assemblyman Batten asked Ms. Cahill what the resolution was saying. Ms. Cahill explained when resolutions are presented through the representative assembly of the NEA the body is the largest functioning democratic body in the world. Representatives go from every affiliate to the NEA representative assembly. Resolutions can be brought to the floor through new business items where they are debated, they can be amended, they are discussed, and, if a majority vote is received, they can be incorporated into the set of resolutions. From her own past, personal experience, Ms. Cahill stated when issues are brought to the floor of the NEA representative assembly, she has never heard anything other than the genuine caring and concern the professionals have for the public school students. She noted A.B. 175 does not take away the parents right to opt out and home school or send their child to private school if they so desire. Assemblyman Batten reiterated he did not get his question answered. He asked Ms. Cahill again what the resolution said to her. Ms. Cahill replied some programs are federally mandated and a concern exists that a level of services can be provided for early childhood education. This is not done with any hidden agenda or attempt to institutionalize people inappropriately. It is an attempt to reach the children who need the services so school success can be achieved. That is the intent and purpose of the resolution and not the intent represented to the committee by others in attendance at this meeting. Chairman Harrington asked what NSEA wanted added or deleted to the bill in subcommittee. Ms. Cahill responded the committee had not heard all the testimony and explained NSEA had funding concerns and rural concerns. Chairman Harrington asked what NSEA liked in the bill. Ms. Cahill stated NSEA would like to see the full debate on the issue in subcommittee. If mandatory attendance is not acceptable to the committee, the issue of non fully funded Kindergarten needs to be addressed. Chairman Harrington asked if full funding for Kindergarten was the main issue. Ms. Cahill agreed and noted 3,000 students who are not currently attending Kindergarten deserve some consideration. Mr. Greg Betts, representing Nevada Rural School Districts, spoke in favor of the concept of the bill. He mentioned two conditions which the committee needs to consider which have fiscal and flexibility implications. Mr. Betts explained only Clark County transports Kindergartners both ways. All others offer one way transportation only. The reason for this has always been because Kindergarten is not mandatory. Mr. Betts reminded the committee of the fiscal implications this brings to the sixteen school districts who only transport one way. In Elko, because so many Kindergarten students live so far away from school, the school district has developed a program in which learning packets have been developed and a teacher travels to the homes of the students and works with the parents to enable the children to be involved. The program has been reasonably successful. Mr. Betts encouraged the committee to put some language in the bill to allow for this type of flexibility under appropriate conditions. He noted as the children in the far flung areas grow older, they are often moved into town and boarded so they can attend school. Mr. Betts stated he would not be opposed to a flexible entrance. A structure could be built in on developmental readiness, giving the parents the choice to keep the children out for a year if they feel their child is not ready to attend. Assemblyman Stroth asked how many of the 3000 children not attending Kindergarten were purposely kept home by their parents. Mr. Betts guessed there were probably many reasons, including transportation. Assemblyman Stroth asked what the mechanism was for letting parents know their child can attend Kindergarten. Mr. Betts stated people are notified by newspaper, word of mouth, information from the school itself. Chairman Harrington referred to Mr. Betts' opinion that school should start at the Kindergarten level so the training received there is not missed out on. The current mandatory age to begin school is seven. He asked if Mr. Betts would be happy with leaving seven as the mandatory age and having the students begin Kindergarten at seven. Mr. Betts replied negatively. He felt there are many children who are ready to attend school before age seven. Being able to delay school entrance for the child for a year by the parents' choice would be a proper option. He noted a full day Kindergarten program exists in Douglas County for disadvantaged children and is very successful. Ms. Penny Brock expressed concern about the fiscal manifestations of A.B. 175. She felt before policy is passed the fiscal considerations need to be examined. Ms. Brock also expressed concern regarding the mandating of third grade in A.B. 175. Also she inquired what the definition of developmental is as opposed to academics. In certain educational circles, develop means attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the child. A distinct definition of developmental was requested. Concern was also expressed on the continued lowering of mandatory school age. She pointed out the election of 1994 showed the voters wanted smaller government, less regulation. A.B. 175 would put more regulation on Nevada families. The age to begin formal education should be left to the family without government intrusion. Ms. Linda Seitz, representing the Silver State Education Association, testified against A.B. 175. She stated A.B. 175 effects home schoolers more than just filling out paperwork. The philosophy of home school families believe it is better to start formal education later. A prescribed curriculum will be required two years earlier for the students in line with what the public schools are teaching. It has been a freedom to not have to do this. She believes this is a family, not a school issue. Rights of hundreds of Nevada parents would be effected. Concern for the cost of the program was also expressed. Ms. DeLana Earl, age 12, spoke from prepared remarks against A.B. 175 (Exhibit M). Mr. Ron Bower, Sr., formerly with the Stanislaus Board of Education, School Attendance Review Board spoke against A.B. 175. He referred to himself as "the hooky cop". He expressed the opinion when children are mandated to go to school at five, it is getting into socialism. He himself began school at five and was retained. He spoke of developmental appropriateness in beginning school. Concern was expressed about the fiscal considerations. Ms. Carol Andrews spoke in opposition to A.B. 175 from prepared testimony (Exhibit N). John H. DeTar, M.D. spoke in opposition to A.B. 175. He stated he has five daughters and seven sons who have had 132 years of private education saving the taxpayers $900,000. He has forty-seven grandchildren, forty-three of whom are in private or parochial education. By the time their education is finished they will have saved the taxpayers $3,900,000. If the two amounts are combined the new parking garage at the university can be constructed. Dr. DeTar gave the following testimony: "If you will recall at the time of the Crusades the Janissaries were Christian children who had been kidnaped by the Moslems. They were Kindergartners. They went through compulsory education and they became the most devoted, vial, malignant, sadistic soldiers for the Mohammed enforcers at the time of the Crusades. That was full fledged compulsory education for Kindergartners. If we move on a little bit more in history to 1960, you, who are old enough will recall that Castro took about 20,000 to 25,000 Kindergartners, little children, sent them to Russia for their education and rearing and indoctrinarial training in Marxism. That's compulsory education at its ultimate. We are now faced with the circumstance here where there is an aspect of compulsory education for the Kindergartner being proposed and I would just like to remind you, if you will recall, in the not too recent past, within the year, I think, that one of the county commissioners from Tonopah had an armed forces confrontation with the soldiers from the Forest Service and it was not he alone, it was the community vs. the troops of the Forest Service and they backed down and it was over property rights. I fear, and mark this carefully, I fear we are very close to the stage where if truant officers start coming to pick up kindergartners to compel them to go to school that we are going to have a circumstance where a truant officer is blown away, a father is in jail for life or executed and a family is destroyed, all over the issue of, and I just list the five things and parents are learning about these and becoming increasingly disturbed. They are increasingly disturbed about values clarification being used on their children, Goals 2000, outcome based education, Kindergarten to twelfth grade sex education, and the advocacy by the NEA of every imaginable sexual perversion there is in their own official statements. I encourage you to remember and mark this in your head very carefully, if you please. It's not original with me. This statement is from Flannery O'Connor and she observed that, I'll preface this by saying you will recall that most of the advocates of this bill have presented to you the compassionate argument. Mark Flannery O'Connor's statement. She said, "If we are not ruled by faith, we are ruled by compassion, and compassion leads to the gas chamber." Mr. Brent Guddat, Douglas County resident, spoke in opposition to A.B. 175. He felt in the November 8, 1994, election Americans were saying they wanted less government, and less interference' in peoples lives. Mr. Guddat expressed fear some children would be put in harm's way with A.B. 175. Many children will be subjected to being unescorted in awaiting transportation to school. Tax roll backs so one parent can stay home was suggested so children can obtain necessary nurturing. Mr. Guddat felt regulations need to cease or parents need choice. He stated he was pro choice on education. Mr. Guddat expressed the belief it is time for American people to take back their schools. Discussion of the Douglas County Strategic Plan was offered. Mr. Guddat asked the committee to ask themselves "where is the research?" He felt children were being submitted to further experiments. A letter was submitted to the Education Committee by Mr. Guddat (Exhibit O). Ms. Robin Hollingshead, Douglas County resident, testified against A.B. 175, from prepared testimony (Exhibit P). Ms. Janet Anderson, Executive Director, Nevada Christian Coalition, reminded the committee there are many parents and taxpayers nationwide who are up in arms over what is happening to public schools today. She stated the schools are unsuccessful with no one in high school being able to read or write. Yet pressure is being exerted to begin the unsuccessful curriculum in the fifth grade. During the last election the people said they wanted the power to be with the people. We do not want it to be with the federal or state government. She noted the committee had heard much testimony regarding how the development of the children needs to be in the hands of the parents. She stated what had been heard in testimony was a controversy between the Department of Education and the NEA and taxpayers and parents. She stated there are many facets in what the Department of Education is trying to do. It is called incrementalization which means breaking up the total program of what the NEA wants to do with the children for the federal government against the parents into bits and pieces. One of those is early childhood education, which is the Kindergarten program. Chairman Williams interjected at this point he felt none of the organizations testifying on A.B. 175 should be speaking on what their objectives and concepts are. Everyone should be dealing with the merits of the language of the bill because everyone from all the organizations do not need to be attacking each other and each others' objectives and concepts. If this continues to be done, no work can be accomplished by the committee. Ms. Anderson stated she was not going into the objectives of her organization. She said she was speaking regarding the bill. Her organization feels early childhood education is a part of a general plan proposed by the federal government and they oppose it. She asked the committee to consider all facets before making a determination. Mr. Milton Carr, Faith Baptist Church, Yerington, testified in opposition to A.B. 175. He explained how the words "mandatory" and "compulsory" are offensive to him. He asked the committee to consider that most of the state's population is in four or five large cities. Busing of five year olds was a concern. Professing no knowledge of the background of A.B. 175's sponsor, Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, he stated he felt anyone who did not have children was not qualified to tell people who do how to raise their children. He stated many of the things schools are trying to do are things which should be home responsibility. Assemblyman Manendo stated he was insulted and did not appreciate witnesses attacking his colleagues. He asked Mr. Carr if he should abstain from voting on A.B. 175 because he did not have children. Mr. Carr replied he felt Mr. Manendo and the committee should listen to parents. Assemblyman Manendo reminded Mr. Carr this statement was not listening to parents. It was Assemblywoman Giunchigliani does not have the qualifications. Grouping the issue into himself, not having children, but being a PTA member, he wondered if Mr. Carr thought, in his opinion, Assemblyman Manendo should abstain from voting on this issue, even though he was elected by the people of Assembly District 18. Mr. Carr asserted Assemblyman Manendo misquoted him. Assemblyman Manendo said he did not think so. Mr. Carr said anyone who did not have children was not qualified to write a bill. He did not say they were not qualified to vote on it. Assemblyman Manendo said if you do not have the qualifications to write a bill, you might not have the qualifications to vote on it. He asked where the lines on qualifications were to be drawn being a legislator on these particular issues. Chairman Williams interjected the statement was if you do not have children you should not be telling people how to raise theirs. This involves a lot of teachers in the state who come to teach in the classroom. Assemblyman Manendo understood this. He wondered if he was not qualified to vote in Judiciary Committee because he is not an attorney. Not being a teacher or parent, does he have qualifications to sit on the Education Committee to vote. He reiterated his confusion as to where the line is to be drawn. Mr. Carr indicated he felt pushed. As a preacher, Mr. Carr does not preach on something he has not studied or experienced. He stated he would not feel qualified to tell someone how to raise their children if he were a legislator. He felt legislators and others send down mandates to people and do not know what they are talking about. Chairman Williams declared these items to be a matter of opinion. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani reported she had spoken with the Legislative Counsel Bureau about the question Assemblyman Bennett asked on the language regarding third grade in A.B. 175. Because she asked class size reduction be included in the bill as the issue of Kindergarten was examined, LCB made sure the variance would continue to be allowed in the third grade. It has nothing to do with the third grade class size reduction, which is a separate piece of legislation. Regarding the fiscal note, several have been asked for. The bill was concurrently referred to Ways and Means for that reason. She confirmed the bill was not originated by the NEA, NSEA or anyone else. It was requested by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani in 1991 and this session at the request of concerned parents in her district. She indicated her membership in the PTA and NSEA. She noted her appreciation for the willingness of the committee to put the bill in subcommittee so the issue of policy can be debated. She also cautioned the committee not to buy into a conspiracy theory. Chairman Williams noted it is the policy of the committee to be diplomatic and allow people to have their say. In the future, Chairman Williams warned anytime people are not testifying to the merits of the legislation, they will be stopped in their testimony. A.B. 175 was put into a subcommittee chaired by Assemblywoman Segerblom with Assemblyman Manendo and Assemblyman Batten as other members. He encouraged the subcommittee members to bring back what is in the best interests of the children of Nevada. Written testimony was submitted to the committee by Ms. Lezlie Porter (Exhibit Q) and Ms. Pam Silvas (Exhibit R). Chairman Williams noted three accountability bills were scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, 1995. Several other accountability bills will be coming before the committee. He asked to have all the accountability bills put into a subcommittee and coming back to the committee with a proposal on some of them. None of the accountability bills were requested by legislators. They were requested by groups or school boards. All those requesting the bills feel comfortable in holding the bills and trying to bring one bill back to the committee. Chairman Williams stated a short work session would be held on Wednesday after the agendized items are dealt with. Amendments for A.B. 5, which had been amended and passed were distributed to the committee. CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON MOVED THE AMENDMENT ON A.B. 5 BE ADOPTED. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. A request for committee introduction for Bill Draft Request 34-105 was heard. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-105- Requires state board of education to establish standards of instruction for pupils in public schools concerning abuse of children, human sexuality and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MOVED B.D.R. 34-105 BE SUBMITTED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education February 27, 1995 Page