MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session April 24, 1995 The Subcommittee on Education was called to order at 5:25 p.m., on Monday, April 24, 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 Mrs. Vonne Chowning Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Assembly District 27 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Gil Montoya, Police Officers Association, Clark County School District Pat BeDunnah, Education Support Employees Association The subcommittee hearing on Assembly Bill 492 was opened. ASSEMBLY BILL 492 - Requires school districts to contract with privately owned businesses for provision of certain services. Chairman Harrington explained much of the information received by constituents indicated they were told the bill proposed eliminating all support staff positions, clerical, custodial, food service, nurses, aides, etc., and replacing them with temporaries at six dollars an hour. Dr. Harrington stated the bill had never contained those provisions nor was it the intent of the bill. A proposed group of amendments was distributed to the committee (Exhibit C), submitted by Mr. Henry Etchemendy and Ms. Carole Vilardo at a previous hearing. The mandate portion of the bill has been removed, and bid acceptance would be solely at the discretion of districts. If bids were accepted, they would have to meet all safeguards currently in the bill as written. Additional amendments require bids to be of lower costs with same or better services provided, current employees are to be allowed the opportunity to counterbid, and privatization be implemented as natural district growth and employee attrition occurs so as to avoid employee displacement. Hiring of current employees by incoming contractors is to be encouraged. Proposed safeguards will protect current employees. Liability issues were discussed and the inclusion of school districts in liability policies was explained. Fingerprinting and background check costs will be borne by the contractors. Bids could be obtained for services in a limited number of schools, leaving districts free to implement pilot programs. Dr. Harrington stated he felt the bill was a pro-employee bill with the proposed amendments. He discussed Section 17. Dr. Harrington recommended to the subcommittee the amendments be taken to the full committee with an amend and do pass recommendation. Assemblyman Williams, discussing the employee counterproposal portion of the bill, stated his concerns about it being a directive to privatize. Either a private bid is accepted or current employees are forced to bid. Job loss and benefit loss concerns were expressed. Mr. Williams pointed out the mandate stated in Section 5 with the language "shall". Dr. Harrington reiterated the language will be changed to "may". Mr. Williams stated his main concern not addressed in the amendments involved lack of administrative and district supervisory authority over privately contracted employees. If a student and employee conflict in any way, parents only option in pursuing a complaint against the employee is to hire legal assistance. Concerns over security were also expressed. Mr. Williams suggested some sort of assurance be offered concerning the same people being assigned to schools and positions consistently. Consistency is vital when children are involved. Dr. Harrington and Mr. Williams discussed Mr. Williams' concerns and the various pros and cons of the proposed amendments. Assemblyman Chowning discussed how many school district employees choose their professions, certified or classified, because they care about kids. She felt changing "shall" to "may" allowed a major policy change in which independent contractors are allowed to take the place of regular, consistent people in the children's lives. Mrs. Chowning felt the issued involved money and nothing else. Dr. Harrington and Mrs. Chowning discussed Mrs. Chowning's comments. Dr. Harrington reiterated districts can currently privatize if they so desire, but the bill as amended offers safeguards for employees. Mr. Williams discussed how cutbacks have to occur for private companies to be cost effective. Private contractors will bring in their own people with at least some current employees losing their jobs. The savings will shortchange employees and services in some way. He reiterated his concern regarding no supervision by school administration or the school district except as to the results of the work and not as to the means by which the work is accomplished. Ms. Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Nurse's Association, expressed her concerns with the inclusion of health care services within the bill. She stated she is not an attorney. Creating a partial list of safeguards creates an implied legal precedence set that a set list is a complete list. Ms. Tyler's concern is it is not a complete list. She discussed requirements of school nurses in Clark County including training, special education students, and the process of health education. Another concern regarding the inclusion of health care services in A.B. 492, is the increased role of nurses in health care management. A shortage of advanced practitioner nurses, who become school nurses already exists. Job security issues related to working for private contractors were expressed. Educators, counselors and nurses work as a team in support, education and protection of the psychological and physical health of students. She felt putting nurses into the same categories as some of the ancillary staff was in error. Even with additional insurance requirements, with the multiple defendants usually named in suits, school districts could be named as defendants. A proposed bill in the 1995 Legislature exists which will increase the tort liability cap for local and state government from $50,000 to $250,000. Ms. Tyler reiterated how nurses are part of the team involved in being there for student's physical and emotional needs. The message of privatization is the wrong message at this time, in Ms. Tyler's opinion. Referring to Page 3, Line 27, Ms. Tyler suggested the removal of "(f) health care services". Also starting on Page 5, Line 38, she recommended the removal of all further references to nurses. Mr. Williams reported bills were received every session to increase the number of nurses in schools. Testimony received always reports a shortage of nurses in schools. He wondered where nurses would be found to fill the positions if the bill passed. Ms. Tyler stated the ratio of nurses to the general public in Nevada is around the mean average. With the expanded role of advanced practice nurses, which districts often ask for, these nurses often have other opportunities outside the school district. She was unsure of what would happen if A.B. 492 passes. She felt the health care needs of the state's pupils were being thrown into the wind by passing the bill and including nurses. Ms. Pat BeDunnah, Education Support Employees Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 492. She stated she felt the bill was not necessary. Subcontracting is and can be addressed at the local level. Ms. BeDunnah suggested an amendment similar to the one proposed by Ms. Tyler including clerical, transportation, and security training to be provided by private contractors before workers would be allowed to begin work in public schools. Mr. Gil Montoya, President, Police Officers Association, Clark County School District, testified in opposition to A.B. 492. He requested security services be removed from the bill. The public would be better served if districts were compelled to use full fledged peace officers rather than minimum wage security guards. The security guards are undertrained. Mr. Montoya discussed the training incurred by police officers and how up dated in-service training is required. He felt this type of training and preparation would not be required by private contracted security services. Mr. Williams asked how many vehicles were used for security purposes in the Clark County School system. Mr. Montoya did not have a total. He stated two police officers are stationed at every high school in the district, a single officer is stationed at middle schools, and a twenty-four hour patrol unit exists. He estimated there were approximately 40 squad cars in use. Mr. Williams asked what the budget was for police services in the Clark County Schools. Mr. Montoya stated school police services were budgeted at six million dollars. This is for full fledged police services and is much lower than traditional police agencies. Mr. Andy Anderson, President, Nevada Conference on Police, testified in opposition to A.B. 492, particularly to privatizing school police services. Over the last ten to fifteen years the need for community police services within the school districts have increased rapidly. This has made the school district aware of the necessity of better trained and qualified employees. Extended training for school police has occurred in the last five years. He felt privatization would be a disservice to the school district and was on the border of infringing on fair labor practice due to employee-employer contracts and intimidation factors. Mrs. Chowning asked what the difference is between a school police officer and a person who would perform private security service. Mr. Anderson stated security guards are more in line with night watchmen, not taking any pro-active action when problems arise. School police officers are trained to know state law, make arrests, have the training and physical qualifications to get involved in potentially volatile situations. Mr. Anderson discussed the increase in gang problems and how waiting for a patrol unit to respond is a luxury. Current problems in schools require more police specialization. Mr. Montoya discussed recent problems which occurred with the use of private security firms in the Clark County Schools. He also discussed how useful and helpful it is for in-house police forces to have daily interaction and knowledge of students. Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Assembly District 27, referring to Mrs. Chowning's questions about the difference between security guards and school police services, disclosed security guards are not obligated to follow actual constitutional law. A peace officer must. Peace officers are required by statute to have in service training. Private security firms are unable to access the same types of information as peace officers. He cautioned it is possible for a felon to be hired by a security firm if it is an "unarmed" firm. Security firms suffer from much turnover due to low salaries. Mr. Batten discussed dealing with juvenile law and the juvenile themselves. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, reiterated his feeling the bill is not needed because school districts currently have the authority to privatize. Referring to Page 5, Line 16, the amended language indicates the bill is not permissive stating "if the board cannot contract with a privately owned business" the inference is the board must seek the contract. He recommended removal of the word "cannot" and replacing it with "does not". On Page 7, Lines 23 and 24, the same situation occurs. The new language states "the services only if it cannot obtain a contract". The word "cannot" should be substituted with the words "does not". The removal of "only" was recommended. On Page 8, Lines 17-22, Mr. Etchemendy expressed his view the language was limiting and an attempt at micro management. The lines should be deleted. Mr. Bill Miller, labor representative, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, recommended amending Section 5.1, Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g). He stated he did not know how the services school employees perform could be equated with a dollar amount. The bottom line in contracts is money. Support service employees do not have rigid jobs. A basic outline exists of duties but employees do much more on a daily basis. These same services could not be obtained from a private contractor. Assemblyman Stroth proposed the amendments contained in (Exhibit D). Chairman Harrington announced all suggested amendments would be taken to the full Education Committee. CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON MOVED RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 492 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS DELINEATED IN (EXHIBIT D) BY MRS. STROTH. ASSEMBLYMAN STROTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE RESULTED IN A TIE. The amendments to A.B. 492 will be returned to the full committee without recommendation on Monday, May 1, 1995. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assembly Subcommittee on Education April 24, 1995 Page