MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session June 12, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, June 12, 1995, Chairman William Z. Harrington, M.D. presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington, Chairman Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom, Vice Chairman Ms. 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 Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21 Assemblyman Richard Perkins, Assembly District 23 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District Judy Witt, Clark County School District Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association Eric Cooper, Las Vegas, Chamber of Commerce Marcia Garcia, Henderson Ronda Nassersharif, Henderson Leanora Hedrick, Las Vegas Chairman Harrington opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 664. ASSEMBLY BILL 664 - Provides for division of large school districts. Chairman Harrington turned the gavel over to Vice-Chairman Tripple so he could discuss A.B. 664, as he was the prime sponsor. Assemblyman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21, spoke in support of the concept of deconsolidation. During the last interim a group of active, involved and concerned citizens who had come together to form a committee on deconsolidation contacted Ms. Tiffany and others. The committee was made up of a broad spectrum of interested parties. The concept of deconsolidation has been studied. Areas being considered for deconsolidation were Laughlin, Boulder City, Henderson, Searchlight and Mesquite. Concerns include political boundaries, demographics, and bonding issues. No conclusion was reached. Ms. Tiffany supported the idea of deconsolidation but felt there were many unanswered questions. The bottom line involves having the responsibility as close to parents, children and the school itself as possible. Ms. Tiffany suggested an interim study as a minimum on deconsolidation and as a maximum would like to see one of the current bills chosen as a program. Assemblyman Gene Segerblom, Assembly District 22, stated her worry regarding deconsolidation was the benefit to the Boulder City area. Her area and the schools therein are not growing. The area needs to know financially what deconsolidation would do to Boulder City. She encouraged an interim study of the issue by an outside group. A reminder was offered that the various areas are responsible for bonds already passed. Assemblyman Richard Perkins, Assembly District 23, stated he participated in many of the talks regarding deconsolidation. He was unsure how it would occur but supported further study of the issue. Many parents are interested in having more say and local control in school districts. Mr. Perkins expressed concerns about fairness of deconsolidation to all parties involved. He noted concerns have been expressed about creating elitist districts. Assemblyman Batten asked if the bill should be done away with and a study conducted. Ms. Tiffany stated she supported the bill. Also the same questions need to be asked of the bill as have been asked in the committee which has been studying the issue. She enumerated many possible questions. At minimum she hoped to see an interim study as opposed to nothing. Mr. Batten asked if the bill would be processed or if an interim study would be conducted and a bill brought back in the next legislative session. Ms. Tiffany stated she would like to see the bill processed if the questions could be answered to the committee's satisfaction. If the questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, Ms. Tiffany recommended one of the three proposed bills between the Assembly and Senate be passed. Vice Chairman Tripple explained there are two Senate bills on the same topic. Assemblyman Segerblom noted the two Senate bills include one by Senator Rawson, which calls for breaking the school district (Clark County) up. The other by Senator Porter asks for a study. The two are being combined with a study being requested. She felt a study would be appropriate to conform with what is being done in the Senate. Mr. Perkins, responding to Mr. Batten's question, said he supported the intent of A.B. 664, which is to bring communities closer to the schools. However, too many unanswered questions exist. Mr. Perkins would prefer a study to have the bill, as written, sent forward. Mr. Batten noted the bill did not need to be processed. Ms. Tiffany explained when Senator Rawson's bill was examined, several points of the bill will be incorporated into the interim study. She recommended the committee go through the process of investigating A.B. 664. If it is felt the bill cannot be processed, Ms. Tiffany suggested taking concepts from this bill and the Senate bill for the interim study. Assemblyman Manendo commented he felt the concept of bringing schools closer to the community is always something to be examined. When the legislature participated in government reorganization during the 67th session, the process was an extended one. Much study, thought and planning were involved. He recommended the same process be given to deconsolidation. He expressed concern with deconsolidation creating more little governments when the wishes of the electorate indicate the desire for less government. Deconsolidation would create more "chiefs" and be a financial burden on the taxpayers. He felt deconsolidation was expanding government. Ms. Tiffany explained this had been investigated. She felt deconsolidation did not have to mean government growth or a huge fiscal note depending on how it is structured. Chairman Harrington explained A.B. 664 and supported the concept of studying the issue. Three bills are before the legislature dealing with deconsolidation. Two parts of the bill are significant, the first two and last two pages. Everything in between is language change to accommodate the change from county school district to school district. The bill states a school district cannot be any larger than 50,000 students and no smaller than 20,000. Currently Clark County is the only county in the state with a student population over 50,000. Current student population in Clark County is approximately 168,000. This would force Clark County to split into four districts and possibly eight, depending on how the districts are split. In addition splitting of district financing is addressed. All decisions regarding boundaries and demographics are left to local school boards. The last two pages of the bill, described as a "key component" by Dr. Harrington, deal with the time line. Deconsolidation does not occur until July, 1997. This allows a two year time frame for the process to ensue. If problems occur, the legislature will be in session in 1997, and adjustments can be made. Dr. Harrington felt the issue could be studied as the process itself moves forward. He described the bill as a "study bill". It was noted Senator Porter's bill provides for an interim study. Initially Senator Rawson's bill picked the boundaries for new districts by coinciding with cities. Cities could have a referendum to decide if they wished to participate. City boundaries would serve as school district boundaries. Subsequently the bill has been amended into a professional study from a major accounting firm to examine the issue from a non biased accounting perspective. Dr. Harrington expressed his support for both Senate bills as well as his own. A handout was distributed to the committee with reasons to vote for A.B. 664 as well as other backup material (Exhibit C). In addition to getting more control to parents in local neighborhoods, one key benefit to deconsolidation is when school bond elections are held voters are assured the money and construction will be in their area. Assemblyman Bennett asked how the time line would effect the Distributive School Fund and the whole budget process for budgeting the schools for fiscal year 1998. If implemented, Mr. Bennett felt two separate budgets would have to be prepared for the school system. Chairman Harrington agreed it was a concern. The bill was concurrently referred to Ways and Means. Assemblyman Batten asked if each school district would have its own school board. Chairman Harrington answered affirmatively. Mr. Batten asked what the difference was between having one school board, which is centralized, where the parents now have input, and having many different school boards. He pondered how it made the parents any more in control. Chairman Harrington stated school boards are elected geographically. Each member represents a certain area of town. Dividing into four smaller districts would mean each school board member would represent one-fourth as many people. Mr. Batten felt the representatives had as much access to people living in the districts no matter how large the districts. He reiterated his confusion on how parents would have more control. Chairman Harrington explained it would be easier for a lesser number of constituents to be in touch with their representative. Mr. Batten asked if Chairman Harrington felt it made "better" representatives to represent a smaller number of people. Chairman Harrington said he thought people felt closer to the representative who is closer to them representing a smaller number of people. Assemblyman Chowning asked how the original districts would be formed. She was concerned with the tax valuation. Chairman Harrington stated it would be up to the school board which would have the power and authority to make the division of the number of pupils, boundaries, and district finances. Mrs. Chowning asked if he meant the present school district would make the decisions. Chairman Harrington replied affirmatively. In this case the Clark County School District Board of Trustees would make those decisions. Mrs. Chowning reminded the committee some districts do not have the highest tax value on their property and felt those districts would be shortchanged. She noted in New Hampshire tax dollars go directly to fund the schools. Total local control exists. No state sales tax exists. Property taxes are quite high. Mrs. Chowning was concerned about the initial division being equal so the less advantaged areas would have as much a chance of having their voice heard as the districts where the tax valuation is higher. Now this does not occur. Voices are heard but the dollars filtered back are not equal in schools in poorer areas. This is due, in part, to partnerships and other reasons. Chairman Harrington felt this was an excellent argument, stating A.B. 664 had advantages over others. He had concerns about districts based on city boundaries for that reason. It was preferred to have the districts based on population base where student numbers could be equalized as well as financing. Placing large property tax properties in poorer districts, such as Strip hotels, could equalize the spending. It could alleviate inequities currently seen. Ms. Chowning noted Dr. Harrington mentioned population but did not mention property value. Chairman Harrington agreed property value was critical and needed to be examined. Mrs. Segerblom expressed worries about previously passed bond issues. Her area, Boulder City, would be responsible for those bonds. Boulder City would not need schools for some time and would be bonding for other districts. She noted a suggestion for each community to vote on whether to join in or not. If no schools were needed, and the community voted against it, they would not be responsible to retire the bonds. She encouraged a study. Chairman Harrington agreed a study was worthwhile. Current obligations would have to be examined and responsibility divided equitably. Mr. Batten said he felt all of Dr. Harrington's bills led the committee to the "haves" and the "have nots". He could not imagine an area having money would allow an at risk or problematic school in their school district. He felt there was no way to solve this conflict. Mr. Batten stated he felt attempting to process the bill was a mistake. He suggested the study be undertaken and then the bill be considered during the next legislative session. More people would then have input into the bill. Chairman Harrington stated he had no problem with having a study first. He also stated he trusted the school board to be able to make appropriate determinations regarding equal division of schools in districts. Mr. Manendo agreed with Mr. Batten. He noted his district has six elementary schools and a large senior population which is not in favor of more school construction. His district is not a wealthy one. He inquired who would be included in the study, how the study would be developed, if legislators would be able to participate, if parents, administrators and school boards would be included. Chairman Harrington said he thought two studies evolve, an interim study including legislators from both parties and houses with open meetings and a professional accounting study to take an objective look at the financing aspects. He noted an appropriation had been included in Senator Rawson's bill for the study. The hearing was closed on A.B. 664. A work session was opened. Mr. H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, distributed a work session document (Exhibit D). Mr. Sturm discussed Assembly Bill 663. ASSEMBLY BILL 663 - Provides school district may authorize use of property of district for commercial advertising. Mr. Sturm also distributed a document listing proposed restrictions and contractual obligations advertisers would be required to meet. This is to insure the advertising is proper. Also included are restrictions. Assemblyman Tripple asked if the information in (Exhibit E) would be attached to the bill like a letter of intent. Mr. Manendo stated he hoped for the bill to go forward to offer school districts the option of using advertising. He also hoped for input from the committee to aid in direction of the bill. The arguments of needed funds for books and other items calls for the possibility of using A.B. 663 as a vehicle for additional revenue. He recognized the committee's concerns regarding advertising. He reminded the committee A.B. 663 would not be a mandate. Chairman Harrington felt the bill had potential. He preferred to have some of the items contained in (Exhibit E) written into the bill. He suggested writing in political advertising and entertainment as items restricted. Mr. Manendo had no problem with either suggestion. Chairman Williams, referring to the items allowed, expressed concern about not allowing entertainment. He suggested leaving entertainment in but none allowed which the Board of Trustees felt was inappropriate. Mr. Williams noted baseball, athletics, and school dances could all be considered entertainment. He felt the school trustees should be allowed to decide what was appropriate. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 663 INCLUDING THE RESTRICTED ITEMS LISTED AT THE TOP OF (EXHIBIT E), PLUS POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND ENTERTAINMENT THAT IS DEEMED PROPER BY THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman Harrington asked if zoning regulations were included in the bill. Chairman Williams noted local governments were concerned about their ordinances regarding signs. He suggested including no posting of signs by school districts which violates any local sign regulations in the bill. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO RESCIND THE AMEND AND DO PASS MOTION ON A.B. 663. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ********** CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 663 AS THE FIRST MOTION INDICATED AND INCLUDE NO POSTING OF SIGNS BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHICH VIOLATE ANY LOCAL SIGN ORDINANCES. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Sturm explained the next item on the work session document was Assembly Bill 609. ASSEMBLY BILL 609 - Exempts private schools from providing instruction in certain subjects. Chairman Harrington said since A.B. 610 had been changed to a study to examine the issues, he wished to indefinitely postpone A.B. 609. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 609. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL 494 - Revises provisions governing maximum allowable pupil- teacher ratio in kindergarten through grade 6. Mr. Sturm discussed Assembly Bill 494, brought to the committee by Assemblyman Carpenter. He noted the committee had rescinded its previous action and heard Mr. Carpenter's proposed amendments which are included as Attachment A, Page 3, of (Exhibit D). A proposal to amend A.B. 494 was distributed (Exhibit F). Chairman Harrington reminded the committee the previous motion to indefinitely postpone was rescinded because Mr. Carpenter had amendments he wished to be considered. Dr. Harrington suggested passing the bill, eliminating the Kindergarten components and leaving in the upper grade limitations and sending the bill on to Ways and Means. It would send a policy message that the Education Committee believes in limiting the class sizes in upper grades. Mr. Batten said he felt the point was moot. Money has been provided for class size reduction. He reiterated points made at a previous hearing emphasizing permissive changes school districts could make in class sizes. Mr. Batten discussed Senator Raggio's bill. Ms. Tripple stated she did not wish to rehash class size reduction up to the third grade. She felt a message could be sent regarding fourth, fifth and sixth grades. There was no need to alter what has already passed in this legislative session. Assemblyman de Braga said she had no problem with the concept of caps, seeing the need to keep class sizes as low as possible. She agreed with Assemblyman Batten that the bill was in conflict with what has already been done. Mr. Bennett suggested withholding any action until Ways and Means action is observed. If predicted action there is taken, the Education Committee can indefinitely postpone the bill at a later time. Assemblyman Neighbors agreed with Mr. Batten. Mrs. Chowning felt it would be taking a giant step backwards to the detriment of students, especially in the at risk schools. She noted Ways and Means and Senate Finance have already closed these budgets. The decision has been made with flexibility. If the door was opened to not exceed 24 students in a classroom, Mrs. Chowning felt it would be impossible to return to current levels. She stated she would oppose the bill in its original form and in its amended form. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 494. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT WITH CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON VOTING NO. Mr. Sturm next discussed Assembly Bill 67. He explained the committee processed Assembly Bill 368 instead of this bill. Assembly Bill 368 has been heard in the Senate, received do pass and was reported to the floor of the Senate. ASSEMBLY BILL 67 - Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school districts. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 67. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Sturm discussed Assembly Bill 124, noting most of the bill had been moved into Assembly Bill 197, most of which was subsequently moved into the Senate bill processed by the Education Committee previously. ASSEMBLY BILL 124 - Revises provisions governing program for accountability of school districts. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 124. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Sturm discussed Assembly Bill 265. The bill has not been heard. ASSEMBLY BILL 265 - 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. Chairman Harrington noted Assemblyman Price had introduced the bill by request of an organization. The organization decided not to have the bill heard this session. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 265. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Sturm discussed Assembly Bill 493. The committee voted on May 3, 1995, to use the provisions of this bill to amend and do pass Assembly Bill 411. Assembly Bill 411 passed the Senate on June 9, 1995 and is on its way to the Governor. ASSEMBLY BILL 493 - Establishes account to indemnify students enrolled in licensed private postsecondary education institutions that discontinue service or violate certain laws. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 493. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Sturm discussed Assembly Bill 508. ASSEMBLY BILL 508 - Revises provisions governing hiring, directing, assigning and transferring of unlicensed employees of school districts. Mr. Sturm indicated the Nevada Classified School Employees Association said if the committee chooses to process the bill, it wished to add the following sentence to the end of Line 12, Page 1: "it be done by a neutral officer as provided according to N.R.S. 391.3161". ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 508. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTING NO. Mr. Batten wished to direct the committee's attention to Assembly Bill 290 and Assembly Bill 291. ASSEMBLY BILL 290 - Requires adoption of regulations specifying course work required for renewal by teacher of endorsement in field of specialization. ASSEMBLY BILL 291 - Authorizes issuance of conditional license to teach to person with college degree. Chairman Williams objected to consideration of the question of voting on A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 at this time. Chairman Harrington asked on what grounds. Chairman Williams explained a subcommittee meeting was held on Wednesday, June 7, 1995. The subcommittee voted to move the bills out of the subcommittee to the full committee without recommendation. The issue of waivers was discussed. Mr. Williams asked Assemblyman Tiffany if she could submit an amendment concerning waivers. Mr. Sturm was asked to prepare a work session document for another date. On record, Mr. Williams announced the work session on A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 would take place at a certain time (June 19, 1995). According to the rules of the Assembly Education Committee, Mr. Williams stated it would be improper to hear the bills at this time because they have been posted. He distributed a copy of the posted agenda initialed by interested parties (Exhibit G). He noted as of 3:30 p.m. on this date over 55 people have indicated they would like to be present at the work session. This means the public and media have been informed of the work session scheduled on these bills. He discussed the merits of legal posting of open meetings, including the process used by the Education Committee in agenda posting. The standing rules of the Education Committee indicate no final action will be taken on a bill until the chairman has indicated such. As chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Williams indicated a specific date when the bills would be heard. The chairs of the entire Education Committee (in this case Mr. Williams and Ms. Tripple), indicated a particular work session date at which the bills would be entertained. Mr. Williams discussed the number of votes needed to suspend committee rules. He reiterated earlier comments regarding the initialized agenda. Chairman Harrington thanked Chairman Williams for his concerns. He noted the agenda for today's meeting contains the wording "Work session on measures previously considered". Many people initialed this agenda. From the standpoint of committee rules, the chairman can determine when a final action can be taken. Dr. Harrington declared he was Chairman on this date as Mr. Williams was Chairman when action was taken on A.B. 340 over Dr. Harrington's objections to indefinitely postpone. This set a precedent in the committee. Referring to the committee rules, Dr. Harrington noted the rules do not forbid consideration of a bill. In anticipation of the problem an official ruling was received from the bill draft advisor and legal advisor who agreed a motion could be accepted on A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 on this date. He stated he was willing to accept a motion. Mr. Batten noted he needed to examine the committee rules. Mr. Bennett disagreed that there were approximately 55 people who had indicated interest in the work session. He explained the lobbyists initial agendas when posted so they do not go back and read the agenda again. The bills the lobbyists are interested in hearing are noted in the lobbyist's personal calendars. He described the process as the way lobbyists remind themselves not to look at agendas another time. He felt it was a "dead misconception Mr. Williams was leading to". He felt the committee was being "hoodwinked". Mr. Manendo noted there were people in the audience in Las Vegas and locally watching these proceedings. The bills were posted for June 19, 1995. He stated he sat through the subcommittee meeting for two and one half to three hours for the work done on the bills. He felt everyone, including himself, left the subcommittee meeting thinking the bills would be discussed on June 19. He stated he understood, via the statement contained on the agenda of the current date, that the committee could talk about other items previously mentioned, but a certain respect exists toward the public and other elected officials who may not be prepared to discuss two bills before the date set. He felt a poor message was being sent to constituents because of the infighting being displayed by committee members. He felt it was irresponsible for the committee to move forward on the issues. Mr. Williams responded to Chairman Harrington's remarks regarding hearing items previously posted. He said when a bill is assigned to a subcommittee and the subcommittee votes to bring the bill back to the committee, regardless of the subcommittee vote, the subcommittee reports back to the committee. A vote is taken at that time. It would be senseless to put bills in subcommittee if the chairman brings the bill up for a vote while the subcommittee is out working. The subcommittee's work would be in vain. Mr. Williams stated it was understood by most that anytime the word "Chairman" is seen it means "Co-Chairmen". He described the procedures taken during the session by he and Dr. Harrington in the selection of bills to be heard by the committee, noting agenda postings have to be approved and signed by both chairmen. Mr. Williams discussed the lobbyist's procedure regarding agendas described by Mr. Bennett. He stated he had spoken to lobbyists who say they initial agendas because they intend to attend the meeting. Mr. Williams did not think there was any policy manual for lobbyists on how posting sheets are signed. He felt the reality could not be avoided that a large number of people initialed the sheet to indicate they would be there on the posted date. Mr. Williams declared the committee would be "hoodwinking" interested parties if the bills were heard on this date. The purpose of posting agendas is for the public, lobbyists and the press to know when items will be considered. Mr. Williams discussed the work session document for today's meeting, noting he and Dr. Harrington had not discussed it. Dr. Harrington selected the bills for the document because he is presiding on this date. He reiterated he requested a work session document for the June 19 meeting to discuss A.B. 290 and A.B. 291. Mr. Williams felt it would be unfair to the prime sponsor of the bills to consider hearing them without the promised amendments. He reminded the committee they would each have to deal with the public, lobbyists and press over the issue. Chairman Harrington reminded the committee of the politics of the issue. The bills were heard in March, put in a subcommittee of one and, only under pressure, were other members added to the subcommittee. The subcommittee meetings were delayed and delayed. In a democracy, and according to the rules, it is made so no one person can either pass or kill a bill. The committee vote has sway and no one person can determine the end result of any bill through any mechanism. Referring to Assemblyman Tiffany, Dr. Harrington announced the amendments she wished to present to the committee were available and had been distributed. He stated Assemblyman Tiffany wished the committee to take action on the bills. Assemblyman Neighbors stated if just one name on the initialized agenda meant someone thought they would attend the agendized meeting, the open meeting law would be violated. He did not want to be a party to the situation. He "had a problem" with acting on the bills on this date. Mrs. Chowning stated she highly objected to taking action on either bill on this date. The subcommittee met twice for extended periods of time. During the last meeting several amendments were supposed to come forward, not just two. Several committee members asked for a waiver procedure. It was agreed this would come forward. Ms. Tiffany offered proposed language from Mr. Hanlon to Ms. Chowning two or three days ago. Mrs. Chowning noted Mr. Hanlon requested A.B. 290. She stated she did not have the proposed language in front of her for consideration. Stating it was unfair to Mr. Hanlon, Ms. Tiffany, subcommittee members and to the general public, Mrs. Chowning recalled the language was as follows: "if a teacher has at least a minor in the field of licensure or endorsement, then they would be exempted from the provisions of the bill." She stated this was a major departure from the original intent of the bill and came forward in the spirit of compromise. No language has been seen regarding deletion of the principal from the line of authority. Mrs. Chowning declared she went to the subcommittee meetings in the spirit of professionalism, trying to understand and get the job done in the fairest manner possible. She stated what was happening now was not being done in the fairest manner possible. Reminding the committee this is the first time in history there has been a 21-21 split in the Assembly, Mrs. Chowning stated the public has come to expect decisions to be made in a spirit of unison. She discussed the committee rules of the Transportation Committee. Mrs. Chowning and Mr. Batten are co-chairmen of the Transportation Committee. She objected to any vote, whether in work session or other, taken without agreement of both co- chairmen. Mr. Williams stated decisions may not be done in the same manner in the Education Committee as in the Transportation Committee. Before the committee's meetings can be posted two signatures are required. This has been done each time. If Dr. Harrington wished to post a piece of legislation Mr. Williams objects to, the two of them discuss it. He also noted action was taken on this date on a bill heard in February. The principles and ethics of the committee were discussed. Chairman Harrington stated he would accept a motion on the bills. No motion was made. No action was taken on A.B. 290 or A.B. 291. Assemblyman Braunlin asked Mr. Batten about amendments on A.B. 290 and A.B. 291. Mr. Batten said the only amendments were ones already distributed on A.B. 290 and A.B. 291. Ms. Tiffany told Mr. Batten other than what has been presented on A.B. 291 no other amendments are acceptable. The waiver information received by Mrs. Chowning has been pulled by Ms. Tiffany. Chairman Williams said he received an amendment submitted today and indicated they wished to have it considered next week. He also has an amendment for a waiver to be presented. There are approximately five amendments which will be presented on the bill. The hearing was reopened on A.B. 664. Ms. Marcia Garcia, Las Vegas, testified on A.B. 664. She discussed the size of the Clark County School District and questioned how large the district had to get before it becomes unmanageable. Growth will continue and the situation will only get worse, according to Ms. Garcia. She discussed the pockets of excellence which exist in the school district. The size of the district impedes the district's ability to provide the great programs and great teachers everywhere. Because of this there is an education institution which is unresponsive to the needs of the children, a district preoccupied with employment instead of learning and a bureaucracy so large and stifling that creativity, flexibility and accountability are lost. The district's size has created an atmosphere of unhealthy competition pitting parents, schools and students against each other. Ms. Garcia stated all children have the right to a quality education and all children in Las Vegas are at risk. She told the committee they have the opportunity to create dynamic, immediate, systemic change. She suggested a blend of Senate Bill 511 and A. B. 664. One item discussed by the committee talking about deconsolidation was creating a special assessment district, such as the Strip in the downtown area. This would help equalize the dollars being spent in the different areas. The percentage of student population would pull a percentage of the dollars, hopefully equalizing dollars going to different communities. The problem with a study, according to Ms. Garcia, is the time frame. If it takes five years to implement deconsolidation a generation of elementary school children has been lost. She thanked Assemblymen Harrington and Tiffany for bringing the bill forth. Ms. Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District, introduced Ms. Edwards to a member of the Board of Trustees, Clark County, Ms. Judy Witt. Ms. Judy Witt, member, Clark County School District Board of School Trustees, testified on A.B. 664 from prepared testimony (Exhibit H). Ms. Witt left an article from the Las Vegas Sun which quotes five Clark County School District Board members and indicates minimal support from the board on this issue (Exhibit I). Chairman Harrington asked if Ms. Witt was speaking for the board or as an individual on the board. Ms. Witt stated she was speaking as an individual on the board. Chairman Harrington asked if the Clark County School Board had voted on deconsolidation. Ms. Witt stated a vote would be taken on the issue on Tuesday, June 13, 1995. Ms. Ronda Nassersharif, Las Vegas, discussed some of the topics discussed earlier in the hearing by Assemblyman Batten. She discussed problems at her child's school in Clark County noting they were minor in comparison to problems and larger issues faced at other schools. Ms. Nassersharif felt if the district was split into smaller districts, the trustees of those districts could deal better with the issues at schools in their districts. Ms. Nassersharif discussed the issue of having students' needs met and explained the information shared indicating needs were being met was wrong. She discussed the issue of "haves" and "have nots" and stated it was inappropriate to say the "haves" would not want any at risk students in their district. She believed parents care about all children. Regarding testimony given by Ms. Witt, Ms. Nassersharif stated she felt the parent's advisory committees in Clark County were a joke. The form for parental concern described in testimony does not solve problems. Many parents do not file the forms because they feel their concerns will not be addressed and do not wish to be troublemakers and cause problems for their children. She insisted there are serious problems in the school district. If trustees could be held accountable to a smaller number of people, changes could occur. She encouraged a study on deconsolidation but felt the issue could be studied while A.B. 664 is being implemented. She felt the bill would "start a fire", noting people work better under pressure. Mr. Manendo discussed textbook needs and encouraged support of A.B. 617 and A.B. 663. Mr. Ken Lange, Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated concerns had been heard in testimony about the ability of parents to become involved and to have impact on school districts. He asked if parents were really disenfranchised. Many opportunities exist for parental involvement and sometimes parents have to risk becoming "troublemakers" to get what they want done. This would be as true in a small district as it is in a large district. Mr. Lange discussed opportunities for parental involvement. He also discussed continued lack of parental involvement. The proponents of an action such as A.B. 664 fall into three camps. Some parents want changes or particular actions like book censorship, curriculum changes or employee dismissal who have not gotten their way and are frustrated. Some people, in some communities, fall into the "have" versus the "have not" argument. They clearly want to create an enclave where their children associate with the same kinds of kids and do not have to experience the diversity which is in society. There are parents who are legitimately frustrated and have not had their needs met. These people need help getting their needs met. A possibility exists for a number of issues to be working together. It could be fundamentally a service issue. Is the school district as responsive as it could be to the members of the community and especially to parents? NSEA considers parents clients and feels them to be an important part of the process. This may be a funding issue, according to Mr. Lange, noting lack of textbooks, crowded classrooms and staffing shortages. It could also be a governance issue. Mr. Lange was unsure if creating five boards would establish better governing. NSEA supports the study without any form of implementation at this time so the relative merits of deconsolidation can be weighed. He discussed the issue of what would be done with the collective bargaining agreement if deconsolidation occurred. Other mechanisms such as site based decision making, parent community councils or school district reorganization were discussed as ways of meeting the needs instead of creating four or five more bureaucracies. NSEA favors efficient service to the public and a bureaucracy which does not move and is not responsive has no place in that. Assemblyman Tripple stated she was not convinced dividing the pot was going to solve the problems. She felt there was no excuse today for students to not have textbooks and basic equipment. Ms. Tripple asked if these lacks were only a Clark County problem. Questioning if the study needed to be statewide, Ms. Tripple expressed concern it might lose meaning on a wide scale basis when the true problem of deconsolidation exists only in Clark County. She asked if Clark County could address the problem and generate recommendations rather than having a whole state study. Mr. Lange discussed the Seattle, Washington, school district which has done an internal reorganization which has brought about a different focus on what is happening in the schools and community, business and parent involvement. This may be of assistance in the Nevada study. He said there are many good, strong, positive things coming out of Seattle for students as well as the community. Mr. Lange, referring to Clark County, said the question is how big is too big and how small is responsive? A tendency exists to go to the highest possible level of government for solutions. This eliminates the possibility of examining creative solutions within the existing framework. The essence is to identify what the real problems are. Mr. Bennett stated he asked research to provide him information on what percentage of school budgets ended up in the classroom. The information received indicated no definitive answer. He asserted the accounting system was "so fouled up" Clark County could not say what percentage of the budget ended up in the classroom. In his own examination of the materials and figures, Mr. Bennett came up with 3.9% of funds going into the classroom. He emphasized the most important thing in the classroom is the students. Chairman Harrington, responding to Mr. Lange's comments on parental involvement, stated when parents want to make decisions, they are not as welcome in the schools. If parents are allowed to become involved in the decision making process, more will become involved. Parents are accountable for their children. Mr. Lange, responding to Mr. Bennett's comments, agreed the students are the focus in the classroom. In terms of larger decision making, Mr. Lange pointed out the same arguments will exist despite the size of the school district. Ms. Leonora Hedrick, Las Vegas, thanked Mr. Bennett for his comments. She noted children are being lost in middle school. Ms. Hedrick discussed the changing world and needs of students. She expressed her concerns regarding lack of parental involvement as well as lack of support by administration and faculty to those parents who are involved. In working on the Clark County bond issue, Ms. Hedrick said she heard over and over that the district is too large and no one cares. Ms. Hedrick commended Ms. Witt for her availability and responsiveness as a school board trustee. She expressed the view that less people can be served better. Encouragement was given to study, vote and "go out on a limb" for the children. Mr. Manendo gave credit to the witness for her work on the bond issue in Clark County. He agreed with Ms. Hedrick's comments regarding Ms. Witt. Mr. Eric Cooper, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, stated the chamber has a close relationship with the Clark County School District and a strong interest in education in the community. Acknowledging the magnitude of deconsolidation, he disclosed the chamber had discussed the issue at great length in task force meetings. The consensus of the task force was an effort of this magnitude cannot be hastily entered into. Evaluation of the issue in an interim study was encouraged. Mrs. Segerblom discussed the financial difficulties encountered by small school districts. Chairman Harrington noted in A.B. 664, the lowest number of students allowable in a district was 20,000. Ms. Tripple stated she believed in quality schools. She expressed the belief that those trained to run schools ought to be able to do so well, with a parent component. She does not want the principal and teachers to have to spend their time trying to appease all people. Parents need to feel right about their schools. However, Ms. Tripple is not convinced this is because they are all involved helping to execute the plan. This is what administrators and teachers are hired for. She cautioned not getting caught up in having parents involved and the idea that having less numbers means less problems. Ms. Tripple stated we have to be willing to spend a lot more money on school operations. The solutions being discussed do not bring needed items into the classroom. She felt the concerns expressed were very real, but is not convinced the easy solutions of just devising the pot or having more trustees is going to solve the problems. Ms. Tripple encouraged examining other ways of addressing identity and success in schools. The hearing was closed on A.B. 664. No action was taken on A.B. 664. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:51 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education June 12, 1995 Page