MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session May 10, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, May 10, 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 Ms. Patricia A. Tripple, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mrs. Deanna Braunlin Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mr. Mark Manendo Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mrs. Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Renee Ball, Clark County School Nurses Association Diana Taylor, Clark County School Nurses Association Dana Balchunas Karen Sanguinetti, Washoe County School District Shirley M. Perkins, Washoe County School District Linda Metzdorf, parent, Washoe County Gretchen Johnson, Washoe County School District Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada State Department of Education Douglas Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators Charlotte Brothwell, Nevada Classified School Employees Greg Betts, Nevada Rural School Districts Patricia Hawkins, Carson City School District and Nevada Personnel Directors Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Nurses Association Sherry Loncar, Nevada Parent Teacher's Association Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby Juanita Cox, People to Protect America Bill Miller, Nevada Classified School Employees Association Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 482. ASSEMBLY BILL 482 - Makes appropriation to department of education to increase number of school nurses in county school districts. Chairman Williams informed the committee A.B. 482 was concurrently referred to the Education Committee and Ways and Means Committee. He reminded those present that the Education Committee had no dealing with the financial aspects of the bill. Mrs. Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, opened the discussion on A.B. 482 as the bill sponsor. She stated she introduced the bill at the request of the School Nurses Association. She discussed the need for nurses in schools and noted there are many children in public schools today who did not attend public schools in the past. Many children are not in acute care facilities due to high-tech medical care and are main streamed into the schools. Teachers are finding students in their classroom with unusual medical problems requiring professional medical assistance and supervision. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated her organization assisted getting the nurses and Mrs. Freeman together to bring A.B. 482 forward. She stated the issue of establishing a 1000:1 ratio had been in the works since 1991 when Senate Bill 558 was introduced. Unfortunately, the problem is funding. Extensive preparation has been done and NSEA feels it is a matter of critical urgency. Ms. Cahill informed the committee a speaking order of witnesses had been arranged. Ms. Renee Ball, R.N., Clark County School Nurses Association, testified in support of A.B. 482. She noted a packet had been distributed to the committee containing two letters of support (Exhibit C and Exhibit D), Senate Bill 558 from the 1991 session (Exhibit E), and Executive Summary relating to S.B. 558 (Exhibit F). Ms. Ball stated school districts were asked to develop a plan to reduce the ratio of nurses to pupils to 1:1000 and were to report the plan to the Nevada State Department of Education by January 1, 1993 and January 1, 1995. Due to a lack of funding minimal progress within the Clark County School District has been made toward achieving the ratio. The district has developed a plan for implementation of First Aid Safety Assistants, non licensed personnel, on all school sites. The Clark County School Nurses Association feels this is a prudent effort on behalf of the school district, but it does not meet the intent of S.B. 558 nor the districts obligation to employ school nurses. Presently Clark County School District has 75 full time school nurse equivalencies, based on an obsolete formula of 1:4000, that is, one nurse to 4,000 students. Despite local, administrative support and the sincere efforts of the Clark County School District administration, the nurse's association has been unable to revise the current formula to reflect the current needs in the school district for both student and family needs. Meeting the challenges of the state and federal mandates and local district policies is very difficult. Although some positions have been added via the current formula, not enough have been added to meet the needs. Complex medical needs of students and a variety of interventions are the responsibility of the nurses. Ms. Ball discussed how the rising awareness of parent's rights and the school district's movement toward least restrictive environment coupled with the broadening mandates have increased the role of the school nurses. It is increasingly difficult to fulfill the necessary requirements. Nurses are concerned there is a confusion as to what school nurses do and what unlicensed personnel do, due to the hiring of First Aide Safety Assistants over the past two years, the commitment on behalf of the school district to place aides in all schools, and the lack of progress in ratio reduction. It has been said the nurse:student ratio has been reduced when termed students:health care staff. Additional health care aides are an asset, but they are not school nurses. The issue is the ratio for school nursing. Nurses are responding to student and family issues, students requiring specialized procedures such as suctioning, gastrostomy tube feedings, nebulizer treatments, and blood glucose monitoring. Ms. Ball referred to these as the "simple, complex tasks" nurses are doing. Professional personnel to deal with such issues are extremely limited. Average caseload ratios for school nurses are: elementary assignment 1:1,800, middle school 1:2,400, and high school 1:4,000. In Ms. Ball's opinion this does not reflect the complexities of the schools, considering main streaming of disabled students into neighborhood schools. The numbers are deceiving due to increased needs with higher or lower ratios, while nursing services remain the same. A nurse may be in a school one day a week. The concern is student health and well being. This is another unfunded mandate. Lack of access in the medical community, increasing numbers of uninsured students and families have contributed to the need for school nursing services. In spite of the increased student population, increased numbers of medically fragile students, students on medication, students requiring nebulizer treatments, and the expanding laws, there has been no support for the hiring of additional nurses. In 1993 Ms. Ball reported to Clark County School District on behalf of the school nurse's organization, a proposed phased hiring if the bill were implemented. In 1993 there would have been 112 school nurses. At that time the district was 40 nurses behind. Seventy-five full time equivalencies exist to cover 184 schools, including those in Laughlin, Moapa Valley and other outlying areas. At the same time the district hired approximately 40 first aide assistants. Ms. Ball found this to be very coincidental. The generic term "health care staff" is often used in Clark County in the context that it meets the letter of the law. Ms. Ball finds it to be misleading because the law in the bill was not that ambiguous. Local funding for school nurses has not kept pace with other related services personnel. With increased enrollment projections, Clark County School District would have to hire 160 school nurses to maintain a ratio of 1:1000. With its present staffing, 85 more nurses would be needed if the potential was realized. Clark County School Nurses support A.B. 482 and encouraged the committee to vote yes on the bill. Ms. Diana Taylor, R. N., Clark County School Nurse's Association, spoke in support of A.B. 482. Ms. Taylor discussed medically fragile students. In the Clark County School District procedures performed on a daily basis include gastrostomy tube feedings, central IV lines which may need to receive medications, students with tracheostomies, students on ventilators who require one on one care, including on the bus, students receiving bladder catheterizations, students with colostomies whose bags must be emptied, students with oxygen requiring monitorization throughout the day, students receiving nebulizer treatments and, in some cases, chest percussion, students with cerebral palsy in wheelchairs requiring one on one assistance, students with degenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, a high number of students requiring epinephrine injections at school due to life threatening allergies, and students with diabetes requiring blood glucose testing. Approximately 30,000 health procedures are done per year. The procedures require a great deal of time whether it is writing a health care plan delineating "what to do if", writing out procedures or actually dealing with the student. If the student is in special education, nurses are required to meet with the team working with the student, write an Individual Education Plan (IEP), and with the federal mandates for least restrictive environment, disabled students are no longer placed in special schools. More often they are placed in regular schools. The site school nurse deals with these students. In many cases the nurse is the primary person responsible for the procedure or the procedures are delegated. She emphasized the need for separation between nurses and health care staff because there are many procedures which can only be done by a licensed nurse, not an aide. Nurses often travel between schools to perform required procedures. Noting Ms. Ball's ratio figures were 1:4,000, Ms. Taylor explained one nurse in Clark County has the responsibility for over 5,000 students. Services are provided for special education and the general education population as well. The general education population requires mandated screenings, follow up on medical problems and other care. She encouraged the committee to vote yes on A.B. 482. Ms. Dana Balchunas, R.N., Washoe County School District, testified in favor of A.B. 482. Ms. Balchunas explained she goes to work daily knowing as many as 3,293 things could go wrong. This is the number of students attending the four schools to which she is assigned. Her mandated mission by the school district is to remove health barriers to learning. At times the mission seems to be "Mission Impossible" due to the time and follow up requirements. She personally screens more than 1,000 students with the help of her co-workers for vision, hearing, dental and growth problems. She is mandated to look at every student individually for health problems. This becomes a paperwork issue rather than an actual "eyes on" issue. There is no way to screen 4,000 students individually. She looks for health problems indicated by parents in the child's health record. Various levels of cooperation with parents exist. Ms. Balchunas discussed the growing role of societal problems in relation to her job. These problems were not the case ten or twenty years ago. Child abuse, transiency problems, hunger, homelessness and a myriad of other problems effect the learning capabilities of students. The bill would have a positive and significant impact on the children in Nevada attending public school. In Washoe County there are clinical aides assigned to each school, but they are not nurses. Other problems of students include students with cardiac pacemakers, students who have undergone cardiac surgery who need to be transitioned back into school, students with serious illnesses or who have had surgery at home and in the hospital who require visits from school nurses or will require accommodations coming back into the classroom. Students referred for special education services must be seen by school nurses "visually and hands on". This means a head to toe health assessment, parental contact, follow up and possibly a care plan. As part of the educational team, nurses attend meetings with other staff. Nurses are Nevada Board of Education certified as well as having a minimum of a Bachelor of Arts or Science degree as well as having a registered nursing license. Nurses must respond to serious injuries and illnesses occurring during the course of the school day, along with regular screenings. Ms. Balchunas noted when nurses deal with a student, they are not dealing with just one person. They are also dealing with the parents, the teacher, and the administrators. Children do not leave their problems at home when they come to school. Societal problems impose on a child's education. Frequently students and their families have no medical insurance. When problems arise or are discovered, there are no medical resources. It takes many hours of paperwork, phone calls and follow up to be sure a child gets the assistance needed. Ms. Balchunas shared several cases she has recently dealt with in her job. She stated she often felt all she did was run back and forth putting out fires and how she would like to have the opportunity to plant a few trees. Nurses are trained, ready and willing to provide the best possible care, health wise, to the children in Nevada's public schools. She asked the committee to vote yes on A.B. 482. Ms. Karen Sanguinetti, parent, teacher and school administrator in the Washoe County School District, spoke in favor of A.B. 482. Ms. Sanguinetti described her experiences with the school nurses as a parent with a child who has cystic fibrosis. The child required physical therapy and daily medication which could only be administered by a nurse. As a teacher, Ms. Sanguinetti told the committee how the presence of a nurse in a school setting offers comfort and security. Most teachers do not have the knowledge or expertise to deal with medical problems. She discussed safety issues. Ms. Sanguinetti encouraged the committee to vote yes on A.B. 482. Ms. Linda Metzdorf, parent of a Down's Syndrome child, testified in favor of A.B. 482. She stated her son, Glen, began school thirteen years ago. He has had many special needs over time and recently was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. A special health care plan is required with anyone involved with the child. The school nurse monitors Glen frequently, notifies the mother when insulin is given, works directly with the doctor and parents. Ms. Metzdorf emphasized how overworked the nurse is at her son's school. She encouraged passage of the bill. Ms. Shirley Perkins, elementary counselor, Washoe County School District, testified regarding the necessity of nurses in schools. She stated counselors, nurses, staff and teachers are a team. Counselors and nurses are part of the Student Assistance Program (SAP) team. Ms. Perkins described scheduling problems involved in getting team members together for meetings. She also discussed how nursing referrals sometimes uncover serious medical problems which have gone unnoticed. She emphasized how many needs there are for nurses to meet, and how thin their time is stretched. Ms. Perkins discussed child abuse cases as well as the nurses' participation in preparation of Individual Education Plans (IEP) for special education students. She encouraged the committee to pass A.B. 482. Ms. Gretchen Johnson, R.N., Washoe County School District, spoke for the record for Mr. Roger Means in support of the bill. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), spoke in support of A.B. 482. He stated passage of the bill would be of great assistance to all school districts. A provision exists in another law which allows a district to provide nursing services through contract with the county public health nurse. A.B. 482 does nothing to harm that provision of the law. NASB is in full support of the bill. Ms. Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Nurse's Association, encouraged the support of the committee in passage of A.B. 482. Ms. Sherry Loncar, Nevada Parent Teacher's Association (PTA), testified in favor of A.B. 482. She stated this issue to be one of PTA's legislative concerns and they have been working for several sessions to decrease the nurse-student ratio. PTA recommends a 1:750 ratio. She encouraged passage of the bill. Ms. Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby, testified in support of the bill. In Incline Village, the Women's Club raised money to be held in a fund so some medical expenses incurred by students at local schools would be covered. This was done after it was discovered the school nurse was paying for these items out of her own pocket. Local doctors donated time as well. Ms. Gang encouraged passage of the bill. Chairman Harrington asked Ms. Ball what increased services the nurses anticipated delivering with the additional $10,000,000. Ms. Ball stated if the N.R.S. statutes describing the role of school nurses were examined closely, she felt the mandates for regular education screenings could be met, follow-ups more easily and frequently done, community networking, home visits, psycho social and emotional issues effecting adolescents could be dealt with in a faster, more appropriate manner. Other items include general observation of students, referral and follow up on identification of health problems. She stated what the committee had heard was the frustration from the heart of all nurses. Ms. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada State Department of Education, testified in support of A.B. 482 from prepared remarks (Exhibit G). She also distributed the 1995 Legislative Report on S.B. 558 - An Act Relating to School Nurses (Exhibit H). Ms. Peterson stated the State Department of Education supports A.B. 482 because it provides the funding needed to meet the implied mandate passed in 1991 with S.B. 558. Dr. Harrington asked why this issue was not included in the Governor's proposed budget. Ms. Peterson stated she believed the request would have had to come through the Distributive School Account (DSA) and this may be considered at another time. Ms. Juanita Cox, People to Protect America, testified in opposition to A.B. 482. She stated she was concerned with nurses doing counselors' work. She asked how much tax money the public could stand to be spent. A clear message has been sent to limit government. She asked if schools were for education or if schools were for welfare. Ms. Cox was also concerned about the issue of home visits and felt it may involve the rights guaranteed under the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution. The hearing was closed on A.B. 482. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 508. ASSEMBLY BILL 508 - Revises provisions governing hiring, directing, assigning and transferring of unlicensed employees of school districts. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, began the testimony on A.B. 508. He discussed the handout distributed to the committee which contained his testimony (Exhibit I), a sheet entitled "Relations with Employees" (Exhibit J) and a facsimile copy of a letter from Mindi Ratzlaff, Personnel Director, Douglas County School District (Exhibit K). He noted A.B. 508 was drafted at the request of NASB in the joint program between the school boards association and the school superintendents. Mr. Etchemendy discussed various sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes in relation to A.B. 508. He specifically referred to N.R.S. 391.205 which deals with involuntary transfer or reassignment of unlicensed employees. Until 1987 these matters were administered under the provisions contained in the employer-employee relations act, N.R.S. Chapter 288. (Exhibit J) outlines N.R.S 288.150, subsection 3, which contains the right to assign or transfer an employee, but excluding the right to do so as a form of discipline. N.R.S. 391.205 provides an involuntary transfer or reassignment must be made on the basis of assignment and seniority. Mr. Etchemendy stated he felt the state should not be dictating to the school districts and their employees the terms contained in their employment contracts. A.B. 508 amends N.R.S. 391.205 by substituting the provisions from Chapter 288 for the seniority clause contained in this section of Chapter 391. Chapter 391 would still retain the current language on Lines 10-12 relative to the possibility that an employee who feels their transfer was made for disciplinary reasons is provided the opportunity for a hearing. This provision does not appear in Chapter 288. There is no objection to this remaining in Chapter 391.205 if it is amended as requested. He recommended the committee vote "do pass" on A.B. 508. Dr. Harrington stated similar bills were heard in Government Affairs. He asked if Mr. Etchemendy knew which bills those were. Mr. Etchemendy stated he did not know. One involved a list of things which must be negotiated. Mr. Greg Betts, representing fifteen rural school districts of Nevada, testified in favor of A.B. 508. Many people believe the private sector operates more effectively and efficiently than the public sector. An opportunity exists to allow the public sector to operate more like the private sector. Private sector businesses are not required to adhere to inappropriate and unduly restrictive regulations dealing with personnel. A.B. 508 is not asking for a management right to transfer as a way to discipline or demote. It asks for the right to make lateral transfers in the best interest of the enterprise. In rapidly growing school districts it is often desirable to transfer experienced and proven staff members to newly opened facilities. When it is desirable and considered necessary by management, the person to be transferred is not the newest, least experienced employee, but the one who has proven themselves. Passage of A.B. 508 will give management back a very reasonable and business like tool to utilize as necessary for the good of the overall operation of the school district. He encouraged the committee's passage of A.B. 508. Mrs. Segerblom stated the bill says "may" and not "shall" in the new language. She asked if those in the rural areas would transfer employees over long distances. Mr. Betts responded he could not imagine management recommending a transfer which would be an undue hardship on the employee. If management did attempt such a transfer, the employee would have the right to a hearing of the Board of Trustees as recourse. Dr. Patricia Hawkins, Associate Superintendent, Carson City School District, testified in support of A.B. 508 on behalf of all Nevada school administrators in charge of personnel. She stated there is hardship on personnel directors when trying to staff new schools. A much different, highly specialized school population with specialized needs exists now. There are times when it becomes necessary to transfer a staff member involuntarily because a student has transferred to a different school. As an example, Dr. Hawkins used a hearing impaired student who needs a special interpreter or an English as a Second Language (ESL) student who speaks Korean and there is only one person in the district's employ who speaks Korean. Language in current statute makes it difficult for districts to assign based on skill level. Assemblyman Batten asked if Dr. Hawkins would be amenable to an amendment to ensure employees would be transferred only within their school district. Dr. Hawkins said she would not. Mr. Nat Lommori, Superintendent, Lyon County School District, addressed Mr. Batten's question. He stated unless someone were hired by a district it was extremely unlikely there would be transfers between districts. It is a concern for rural districts because of the widespread localities involved. In Lyon County there are five major attendance areas. In working with the first negotiated agreement with the classified employees, the subject of how to deal with the transfer of classified employees within the district became a problem. It is not the intention of the district to transfer employees out of one attendance area to another. At times, if it is reasonable to do so, transfers can be beneficial. With the transient populations and with the number of special needs students in the schools, districts are obligated to hire a special education aide for a particular child due to their handicapping condition. That person is there primarily for that child. Should the child leave and move to another district or state, the district needs the opportunity and is obligated to the taxpayers not to continue that employee's employment in that particular school, but to utilize the person's skills at another, more appropriate school site. Lyon County has gone to a staffing formula for custodial help based on the number of students and classroom teachers, floor types, and other considerations. The number of custodial hours per school allocated changes from year to year due to growth. As school populations grow and change, with the addition of a new school, for example, less custodial staff will be needed at certain schools. Lyon County feels it prudent to be able to shift staff so one school is not overstaffed and another understaffed. Mr. Lommori stated he felt this flexibility is what A.B. 508 allows. He encouraged the committee's support and approval of A.B. 508. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the bill pertained to unlicensed employees only. Mr. Lommori replied affirmatively. Mr. Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), spoke in opposition of A.B. 508. The original intent of the law was to insure an objective and fair procedure for unlicensed employee involuntary transfer and assignment. Initial concerns in 1987 were to simply guarantee an employee would not be involuntarily transferred as a form of discipline was not enforceable. Employees were involuntarily transferred without the districts actually admitting to the reason for the transfer. Concerns included employees being transferred because they were participating in union activities. The 1987 Legislature agreed with NSEA's concerns and passed a bill which became N.R.S. 391.205. The current law ensures not only the protection from disciplinary transfers but also creates an objective process for involuntary transfers. This process is seniority. School districts already have the right to assign and transfer employees. Under 391.205 districts can involuntarily transfer and assign unlicensed employees. They must do so on the basis of seniority, so long as the employee meets the requirements of the job. The current law also allows flexibility to address emergency situations and temporary assignments of less than thirty days. Without the ability of Chapter 288 to bargain the issue for unlicensed employees, the unlicensed employees would lose the vital protection and procedure they have under N.R.S. 391.205. The law has been in place since 1987 and does not appear to have been a problem since 1987. Mr. Bellister urged the committee's opposition to A.B. 508. Mr. Bill Miller, Nevada Classified School Employees, spoke in opposition to A.B. 508. He called the bill an attack on the classified employees of Nevada. He reminded the committee classified school employees are real people with real families. People should be able to expect to work in jobs where they have some protection and guarantee. A.B. 508 would put classified employees at the mercy of school administrators who may not always use their authority in a reasonable manner. The hearing mentioned on Line 12 of A.B. 508 could be held by anyone the school district chooses. This is not in the best interest of classified school employees. Mr. Miller clarified he did not believe all school administrators are bad. There are a lot of good administrators. While language may sound good in some cases, if all school administrators played fair, there would be no need for mediation. Unfortunately a few administrators do not "play fair" and involuntary transfer is used as a hammer against some employees. Mr. Miller urged a no vote on A.B. 508. Ms. Charlotte Brothwell, Executive Director, Nevada Classified School Employees Association (NCSEA), spoke in opposition to A.B. 508. She discussed the stated purpose of the bill which was to prohibit transfer of nonlicensed educational personnel as a form of discipline. Ms. Brothwell explained the bill is more threatening to employees, upon further reading and consideration. These types of transfer are already prohibited in state statute. NCSEA is more concerned by the fact that A.B. 508 as presented would eliminate any consideration of seniority when dealing with such transfers. School boards already have the right to hire, direct, assign or transfer an unlicensed employee as provided in N.R.S. 288.150, Subsection 3A. A.B. 508 also seeks to eliminate the current Section 1, Subsection 2 dealing with temporary work assignments. As currently written there is a thirty day definition of temporary. NCSEA fears if this provision is removed temporary could last indefinitely and could lend itself to abuse. NCSEA requested consideration of the amendment contained in Paragraph 6 of (Exhibit L) to the end of the sentence on Line 12 of A.B. 508. She discussed an additional suggested section also contained in (Exhibit L). Mr. Batten asked Mr. Etchemendy what the purpose of the bill was if districts are currently able to do all things listed in N.R.S. 391. Mr. Etchemendy explained in 1969 the state enacted the Employee and Management Relations Act under which local governments bargain. Bargaining happens by each side bringing their respective topics to the table. During the process items are negotiated with give and take on both sides. What has happened under N.R.S. 391.205 the state has enacted a law stating these types of transfers cannot be bargained. Transfers must be done by seniority. NASB feels this is something to be decided between employer and employees. Mr. Batten asked if it was a big enough problem to require legislation to remedy it. Mr. Etchemendy stated in 1987 NSEA and others felt legislation was needed to make the law. NASB felt it was a mistake at the time. He stated he did not know of any widespread problem regarding the issue. Mr. Etchemendy felt it was unfair to take something away from local government they have a right to. Mr. Batten asked "if it isn't broken, why fix it?" Mr. Etchemendy explained the state does not have to bargain with its employees. The state establishes the rules for bargaining but chose not to bargain themselves. He explained involuntary transfers could happen if the needs of the employer require an employee's capabilities are needed at another school site in the district. Mr. Batten asked if the current definition of temporary assignments could be changed if A.B. 508 was enacted. Mr. Etchemendy explained in 1987 when the bill was enacted, the thirty day provision was not in the original bill. Clark County School District, which has a large maintenance division within their structure, has times when employees need to be assigned to various areas to complete large projects. They felt the thirty day leeway was needed. Mr. Batten asked if Mr. Etchemendy had any concerns regarding the amendments proposed by Ms. Brothwell. Mr. Etchemendy stated he did not. Assemblyman Chowning stated she did not understand the problem with the original language. It seems to be very fair. Currently an employee's transfer must be based on the assignment. She asked what was wrong with transfers must be based on the assignment. The new language seems to be a one sided deal. She agreed both sides need to be allowed to have their issues heard. Ms. Chowning discussed expenses and familial problems which may be incurred by transfers across long distances. Mr. Etchemendy agreed it was one sided. He referred to Chapter 288, N.R.S., where all local government negotiating processes are outlined. The provision requiring any local government, a city, county, or local district, to only transfer their employees based on seniority is not found anywhere in Chapter 288. This only happens to school districts. This was added to Chapter 391 in 1987. School districts are the only ones told by the state that when an unlicensed employee is transferred, it must be done by seniority. In all other local governments, this is decided between the government and its employees. He felt this should be between the employees and the school districts as well. This makes it equitable for all local governments, including school districts. Mrs. Chowning stated she felt the new language was even worse. Mr. Etchemendy stated the new language was intended to bring the procedures back into what is currently enacted for all local government in Chapter 288. Dr. Harrington stated eliminating the thirty day temporary assignment period troubled him. He asked if the desire was to have no limits on temporary assignments. Mr. Etchemendy stated he believed some confidence had to exist in school boards and administrators handling their personnel matters in a reasonable and rational manner. He did not consider taking the thirty day clause out to be a problem. Mr. Batten stated he felt seniority must play a role. Mr. Etchemendy stated whether seniority got into the contract was between the employer and employee group when the contract is negotiated. Contract negotiations is where this issue belongs. He referred to (Exhibit K) where required skills and abilities may be in a person with less seniority. The person with appropriate skills and abilities should be the one to make the transfer without having to depend strictly on seniority. This applies particularly to special education aides. Mr. Batten stated the bill has problems. Mrs. Segerblom noted if an employee had specialized skills and refused to transfer, they might lose their job. She felt employees would be happy to transfer. Mr. Etchemendy had no comment. The hearing was closed on A. B. 508. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education May 10, 1995 Page