MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session March 1, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 1, 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. Vonne Chowning Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mrs. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Deanna Braunlin (excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Sherry Loncar, Nevada Parent Teacher's Association Gloria Dopf, Director, Special Education, Nevada Department of Education Chairman Williams announced the committee would hear only Assembly Bill 158. The other two bills on the agenda, Assembly Bill 196 and Assembly Bill 197, dealing with accountability, will be held to be heard at a later time with other accountability bills. The various groups requesting A.B. 196 and A.B. 197 are in agreement with this idea. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 158. ASSEMBLY BILL 158 - Requires free appropriate public education in compliance with federal law for pupils with disabilities who are excused from compulsory attendance. Ms. Gloria Dopf, Director, Special Education, Nevada Department of Education, spoke in favor of A.B. 158 from prepared remarks (Exhibit C). Chairman Harrington, referring to Lines 12 through 16, noted the bill required local school districts to pay for the education if the federal government removes their funding. Currently the federal government provides funding. He asked if his interpretation was correct. Ms. Dopf answered the requirement existed within state statutory authority under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 380A. This would not create a supplemental obligation only existing whether federal is in place or not. Under the state statute the requirement exists to provide an appropriate education to all youngsters with disabilities. The only caveat under this section is to clarify even if a youngster is excused from actually physically attending by virtue of a physical or mental impairment, they would still have an entitlement to the education and the education exists in the current statutory state law as well. Chairman Harrington expressed concern on the issue of possible abuse of the policy. Any parent who wishes their child to have special home tutoring could say their child was learning disabled, find a physician to agree, and the school district would be obligated to provide home schooling to the child. Ms. Dopf responded saying the intention is not for the school to have any more obligation to serve the student than currently. If the parent comes forth with a student excused from attendance, the student would have been initially termed eligible for special education to be covered under this jurisdiction and then if the parent tries to put forth a medical statement the student is too involved physically or emotionally to physically participate in a regular school program, they can request the school district to provide some sort of service. The only difference required to put forth is a reiteration the federal law states the youngsters would not be able to be rejected from all educational services and excluded from any educational services by virtue of the documentation of physical or mental handicap. A small number of youngsters are involved. Assemblyman Tripple asked what type of education is provided. Ms. Dopf explained the education for student's with disabilities is driven by an individualized plan. The district and the parents develop a plan to fulfill the students educational needs dependent upon the student's level of functioning and capabilities. Assemblyman Tripple asked if this included sending a child to another state for educational purposes. Ms. Dopf stated there is a statute in Nevada which provides for that process, NRS 395. The statute involved here has no relationship with NRS 395. Assemblyman Bennett asked if Ms. Dopf was comfortable with the federal funds being sent to Nevada at this time. Ms. Dopf noted she would be uncomfortable losing the funds, but in terms of the adequacy of the funds, the federal law has not been funded to the level anticipated in 1977 when Public Law 94-142, The Education for the Handicapped Act, was passed. A projection at the time was the law would be funded at a forty percent level. The Congress has not appropriated funds commensurate with that level. Currently approximately an eight percent level of federal funding is received. Chairman Harrington referred to Line 5 of A.B. 158, in which the conditions are established under which a student can receive home teaching. These include physical and mental disabilities, but also includes attitude. He stated he has not seen attitude included previously. Ms. Dopf noted this is current language and not a contemplated change. Chairman Harrington noted a lot of parents may think their child has a bad attitude and would like home tutoring. Ms. Dopf stated she felt a modification of the bill would be acceptable to take that phrase out without jeopardizing the intent of the bill. There was no testimony in opposition to A.B. 158. The hearing was closed on A.B. 158. A request to draft legislation concerning school police jurisdiction on school grounds was presented to the committee. The request came from the Clark County School District. CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON MOVED TO DRAFT LEGISLATION CONCERNING SCHOOL POLICE JURISDICTION ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The committee began a work session. H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, referred to the green work session document (Exhibit D). The first bill in work session to be considered was Assembly Bill 216. ASSEMBLY BILL 216 - Increases salary that may be paid to the members of the board of trustees in certain school districts. Mr. Sturm explained no fiscal note has been forthcoming from the school district. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 216. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblyman Tripple expressed concern about mandating the Clark County School District to increase the monies paid to their Board of Trustees. She wanted to be sure A.B. 216 would not be interpreted as a mandate. Assemblyman Segerblom explained she had discussed A.B. 216 with one school board member of the Clark County School Board who indicated the compensation increase may be considered for the next school board but probably not for the current one. Assemblyman Bennett said he felt A.B. 216 is enabling and not a mandate. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT. The committee began a work session on Assembly Bill 65, which was heard by the committee in January. The parties concerned with the bill were directed by the Chair to work together on language agreeable to all. The proposed amendment agreed upon by the parties is Attachment A of (Exhibit D). Mr. Sturm stated the bill has a fiscal note which totals $245,164.00 mostly from the criminal records repository. ASSEMBLY BILL 65 - Requires investigation and reporting of criminal history of certain applicants for licensure or employment in positions relating to education. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS ON A.B. 65. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Harrington asked if the motion was to do pass with the amendment and then rerefer. Chairman Williams indicated he has no problem with making the motion to include amend, do pass and rerefer. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS CHANGED THE MOTION TO AMEND, DO PASS AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS ON A.B. 65. THE ALTERED MOTION WAS AGAIN SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS. Assemblyman Chowning asked if the various people concerned with the bill were in agreement with the language in the amendment. She noted she felt the bill was very important because there are many school employees who have had criminal history that is unknown. Chairman Harrington commended the groups involved in the amendment drafting for good work. Chairman Williams reminded the committee the motion is to amend, do pass and rerefer. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Assemblyman Chowning wished to have her remarks regarding A.B. 65 put into the record as supporting the bill. Mr. Sturm noted Assembly Bill 168 was next on the work session list. The fiscal note is Attachment B of (Exhibit D). The biennial total is approximately $659,000. ASSEMBLY BILL 168 - Requires the Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada to exempt all employees of the system from the payment of parking fees. Chairman Williams remarked there was also some question of constitutionality. Mr. Sturm said he provided copies of the memo to Assemblywoman Freeman from the Legal Division to the two committee chairmen. In brief, the letter stated the way the bill was drafted, on its face, it is constitutional. However, it could possibly be challenged. Other provisions are currently in statute that are similar and have not been challenged. It was the opinion of the Legal Division the bill could go forward on its face. Chairman Williams explained there was an indication in the letter another option could be to urge through resolution to the Board of Regents to exempt employees from parking fees. Mr. Sturm agreed it was one option raised by the Legal Division. He also stated a number of questions were raised by the committee as to how long the policy of charging employees and faculty had been occurring and a question regarding parking meter money. Page 5 of (Exhibit D) contains Dr. Crowley's response to those questions. CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON MOVED A.B. 168 BE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Harrington noted he is an associate clinical professor at the University of Nevada Reno (UNR) but has never been there or parked there. He expressed concern about the cost and also about the Legislature mandating to the Executive Branch what to do. Assemblyman Neighbors asked if the $659,000 would have to be the money collected for parking by UNR. Mr. Sturm said it appears to be the UNR total of what employees and faculty are charged. University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) was not included because they are not charging now. Assemblyman Chowning said she had toured the UNR campus as part of another subcommittee. They saw the site of the proposed parking garage as well as the site of the new education building. The estimated cost of the four story, 1100 car capacity garage is $8.5 million. It is a large cost compared to the yearly $329,000 now received at UNR. She noted parking is expensive. The money received has been used to help with the popular shuttle service. Parking fees have been collected since 1965 and Assemblyman Chowning expressed reluctance to get into the university's business. She noted the university seems to be putting the money they receive for parking to good use. She supports the motion. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if the fees charged were by the month or annually. Mr. Sturm replied the fees were annual. Mr. Sturm explained he had reexamined the fiscal note and it combines faculty and staff permits and student permits. The bill, as written, only effects faculty and staff and the total loss of revenue to the system would be approximately $348,000. Assemblyman Manendo said his notes indicated UNR collected approximately $125,000 from the faculty and $325,000 from the students. He is concerned with making employees pay for parking. Assemblyman de Braga noted it was brought out in testimony a large part of the problem was not so much the fee as not being guaranteed a parking space for the fee. She felt the university should be forced to deal with it in some way and a fee should not be charged for something that cannot be delivered. Assemblyman Tripple said when she taught at UNR she parked on the street until she taught at night at which time she bought a night permit for $15 for the year. She questions the Legislature telling the university how to collect and spend their money. The procedure is common on many university and college campuses. Assemblyman Neighbors expressed concern with employees paying to park to go to work. He stated the staff at the university has marked parking spaces. An interchange ensued between Chairman Williams, Assemblyman Neighbors and Assemblyman Tripple concerning staff parking at UNR. Assemblyman Bennett stated he felt the cost of a service should be borne by the user. Assemblyman Chowning said the designated marked spaces were the ones identified in testimony as the premium priced spaces. Those do not fall under the $50 fee. Assemblyman Stroth noted on television news the previous evening the parking issue was discussed. A woman interviewed stated she was not too disturbed about paying the fee because the fee was worth the convenience. Assemblyman Segerblom said she felt anyone would be happy to pay $50 annually if guaranteed a place to park. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA, ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO, ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS, AND ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT DISSENTING. Mr. Sturm discussed A.B. 158. Chairman Williams asked Ms. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Nevada Department of Education, if she could offer any additional, clarifying information on A. B. 158. Ms. Peterson stated if the committee wished to delete the word "attitude" from the bill, the department would find it acceptable. She stated the department felt the bill was necessary to demonstrate compliance to the federal office of special education. Assemblyman Bennett asked if the federal government could live with the deletion of the word "attitude". Ms. Peterson stated she thought the federal government would find the deletion acceptable. Assemblyman Segerblom asked what was meant by attitude. Ms. Peterson stated because it was a pretty loosely defined term it would probably be best to delete it. Assemblyman Tripple asked if Ms. Peterson felt anyone had abused the privilege of having a child removed from school and instructed at home. Ms. Peterson stated she did not know how often second opinions were asked for and received. It has been a common practice for districts to do what is in the bill. She understands there have been no abuses. Chairman Williams noted since Ms. Peterson has indicated acceptance of "attitude" being deleted, perhaps some time should be allotted to make the change and bring different language before the committee before a vote is taken. Chairman Harrington asked if it was the intent of the State Department of Education to force school districts to use any of their own funds for the programs. For clarification he asked if the intent was to be in compliance with federal law. Ms. Peterson stated it would not force school districts to use funds over and above what they are currently using. Chairman Harrington asked if it would be acceptable to include a clause indicating this bill would not cause any increased expenditures on school districts over and above what is currently being spent. Ms. Peterson stated she would like to see how it would be worked in, but the department would be willing to take a look at it. Chairman Williams announced no action would be taken on A.B. 158 at this time. Mr. Sturm reported the subcommittee on A.B. 175 was scheduled to meet on Monday, March 6, 1995, at adjournment of the regular Education Committee meeting. There being no other business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ___________________________ Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: ____________________________________________ Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman ___________________________________________ Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education March 1, 1995 Page