MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session June 14, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 4:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 14, 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 Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Marcia de Braga GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Assembly District 29 Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association Susan Rose, Child Assault Prevention, M/Cap Elizabeth Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayer's Association Nancy Saitta Michelle Gamble Lisa Gianoli, Washoe County Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities The hearing was opened on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 42. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 42 - Urges school districts and Board of Regents of University of Nevada to develop and provide training regarding child abuse. Assemblyman Joan Lambert, Assembly District 29, opened the discussion on A.C.R. 42. She testified there are licensed personnel in school districts required by law to report child abuse. Knowledge and training in recognizing signs of child abuse is necessary to protect themselves and the students. Ms. Lambert commended the committee for putting the resolution forward. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified in support of A.C.R. 42. NSEA felt a resolution was one way to address the issue. It does not have the full force of a mandate, which was being sought. Ms. Cahill noted NSEA appreciated the support of the proponents for agreeing to a resolution. Ms. Susan Rose, Assistant Director, Child Assault Prevention, thanked various interested parties for their interest and assistance regarding A.C.R. 42. Ms. Rose submitted a packet of information for the committee's consideration (Exhibit C). Ms. Rose discussed the M/CAP team which is sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. OJJDP supports the resolution. Ms. Rose noted reports of child abuse increase yearly, and provided statistics in this regard. Law enforcement and school personnel make the majority of the reports. In 1994 2,500 child abuse reports were made by school personnel. Only 30% of these reports were substantiated. It is felt not enough information is being gathered at the time of the report to aid in report substantiation. This is due to a lack of education on reporting procedures and the information needed by Child Protective Services. National statistics show 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys are sexually victimized before the age of 18. This accounts for 25% of all the female population and 20% of the male population. Statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation show 84% of the children are victimized before the age of 12. Only 1% to 10% of all sexual abuse is disclosed or reported. In Nevada in 1994 only 3.3% of the reported sexual abuse cases were substantiated. There are many long term effects of sexual abuse, including effects on learning. Child maltreatment often effects a child's mental development, including a drop in I.Q. and increased learning disabilities. Although almost all survivors of abuse do not have criminal records, a long term study of substantiated cases of childhood maltreatment revealed those who were abused or neglected as children were 53% more likely to be arrested as juveniles, 38% more likely to be arrested as adults and 38% more likely to be arrested for a violent crime. This has a profound financial impact on society. In a 1991 U.S. Department of Justice study the annual to taxpayers for a child in foster care was $15,000 per year, a juvenile delinquent in a boy's home cost $25,000 per year, and an adult in maximum security prison cost $19,000 per year. It was felt early identification of abused and neglected children was crucial to the child's life and will aid in cost reduction to society. Ms. Rose reiterated the need for school personnel to know how to handle a disclosure of child abuse. She encouraged support of A.C.R. 42. Assemblyman Bennett thanked Ms. Rose for bringing the issue forward in the form of a resolution. He felt it to be a responsible and logical first step to solve the problem. Ms. Elizabeth Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby, testified in support of A.C.R. 42. It sends a strong message as to how the committee feels about the issue of violence and neglect against children. Ms. Nancy Saitta, Children's Advocate for the State of Nevada, Attorney General's office, testified in support of A.C.R. 42. Ms. Saitta stated she felt A.C.R. 42 was the first step in resolving the issue of child abuse in the state. The office of the Attorney General will assist in any manner to facilitate the proper training of teachers and school personnel. The hearing was closed on A.C.R. 42. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 683. ASSEMBLY BILL 683 - Authorizes certain school districts to levy special tax for capital projects. Assemblyman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21, discussed the inception of A.B. 683. She noted Clark County has an extreme growth situation with the inability to build enough schools to keep pace with the growth. A.B. 683 offers the opportunity to build schools in a growth situation. The bill allows school districts, when their bond debt retires, the opportunity to be able to spend up to the taxpayer's approved rate for capital improvements, which means building schools. Safety measures have been built into the bill. Ms. Tiffany explained the program was called "pay as you go". The bill was derived through the National Council of State Legislators (NCSL) and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Ms. Tiffany discussed the need for schools in Clark County. Mr. Mike Alastuey, Clark County School District, stated A.B. 683 represented a reasonable and well policed opportunity for large school districts to allow growth to pay for growth. Discussing the major sections, Mr. Alastuey noted the bill is targeted for the largest school districts with populations of 100,000 or more. At this time Clark and Washoe Counties are eligible under the bill. A specific finding from the Board of Trustees must indicate the needs for capital improvements are growth driven. A substantial safeguard is contained in the bill because a super majority of the Board of Trustees is required to invoke the special tax. The special tax is not a new tax, but a tax equal to the amount that the rate might otherwise have declined by virtue of retirement of old debt or by virtue in growth in assessed valuation. Thus, growth pays for growth. Other provisions are made for safeguards. In Section 4, reference is made to no personnel costs. This means the payroll base or obligations of the school district could be expanded by invoking the levy. Coordination with other governments including city and county planners, to make sure placement of new facilities complies with new growth requirements is included in the bill. Two tiers of reporting exist, including annual reporting to the Department of Taxation, the County Clerk and the General Obligation Bond Commission. This is discussed in Section 6. Section 7 requires an expert oversight committee representing expertise in construction, architecture, engineering, finance accounting and government. Currently Clark County has a citizens bond oversight committee with the listed experts as members. The expert oversight committee would be subject to the open meeting law providing for ample public input as noted in Section 7, Subsection 3. Section 8 requires a report each legislative session to the standing money committees regarding a variety of features regarding the capital plan adopted in conjunction with the special tax. Enough flexibility exists in the bill to allow school districts the opportunity to proceed with capital improvements. Enough oversight and policing exist to allow citizens high assurance the proceeds of the special levy would be well applied and open to public scrutiny. Mr. Alastuey summarized his remarks as noted on (Exhibit D). Mr. Bennett asked if any testimony would be received from Washoe County on the bill. Mr. Alastuey stated Washoe County was aware of the bill. He did not know if they would be testifying. Ms. Tiffany stated she would be sure Washoe County submitted testimony if it was a concern of the committee. Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 683. She described A.B. 683 as a "pure, unmitigated tax bill" sitting in an education statute. It is not located in anything which has to do with financing for local governments. Local government financing is located in N.R.S. 354. She noted there is nothing contained in the bill to indicate it is "pay as you go". It was described as leverage money. Also the tax rate, once approved by the voters, would never go away. Voters agree to the tax levy for a certain period of time. Current ballot questions identify the anticipated cost of projects, a rate, usually a maximum, is set to reduce the debt and as the assessed value grows, not as much of the rate is necessary to reduce the debt. The entire debt rate as currently exists in Clark County, could be maintained forever, according to Ms. Vilardo. She described the idea as "back door", and recommended putting the idea to the voters. Discussing Page 2, Section 4, Subsection 3, Lines 16-18, Ms. Vilardo noted current law, N.R.S. 354, provides short term financing to be for a period of ten years. Short term financing is generally used for fiscal emergencies or health or safety of the public issue. It is possible the need for new schools might fall under this definition. Ms. Vilardo declared there was no way twenty year financing could be considered short term financing. She reminded the committee other options to building new capital facilities exist such as year round schooling, which increases facility capacity by 25%. Ms. Vilardo described A.B. 683 as an attempt to get financing for schools without going to the voters. She urged the committee to reject A.B. 683. Ms. Michelle Gamble, Nevada Association of Counties, testified in opposition to A.B. 683, agreeing with the testimony of Ms. Vilardo. The bill was described as a way for the debt rate to never decrease. Ms. Lisa Gianoli, Washoe County, testified in opposition to A.B. 683 for the reasons discussed by Ms. Vilardo. Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, concurred with previous statements in opposition to A.B. 683. Mr. Alastuey proposed reconsidering Page 2, Lines 16-18, inserting wording to reconcile terminology between short and medium term financing. On Line 18 language could be inserted, "or until the bonds which are outstanding at the time of passage of the resolution for special tax are scheduled to be paid, whichever is later". This would put a time certain on the expiration of a special levy. He expressed willingness to discuss other alternatives. Mr. Alastuey stated there were latitudes in the bill for cities and counties to declare a small capital tax levy which is theirs and theirs alone. No such latitude exists in statute for school districts. Ms. Vilardo, discussing Mr. Alastuey's comments, stated there is no way 20 years can be considered medium term financing. Statute is being adjusted in another bill to reflect ten years as medium term financing. Previously ten years was called short term financing. Ms. Vilardo appreciated the issue and suggested the bill be processed with a drop off point at the end point of issuance of the bonds. Also it should be prospective and should occur with future bond issues passed and not with what has already happened. That way the voters would be aware of how long the levy would last. She urged the committee, if they chose to send the bill forward, to do so with future bond issues and the voters will be told there will be no drop off in the rate. Short term financing should not be considered under any circumstances. Ms. Vilardo discussed the debt management bill discussed in Government Affairs. Much competition exists for money under the 364 tax rate. Chairman Harrington said the vote of the people voting on a bond is the only direct voice they have to express pleasure or displeasure with the educational system. A.B. 683 would remove the option. The hearing was closed on A.B. 683. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 196. ASSEMBLY BILL 196 - Transfers certain duties of deputy superintendent for administrative and fiscal services to superintendent of public instruction. Assemblyman Joan Lambert, Assembly District 29, explained A.B. 196 was amended in entirety to clarify something in the law. When trying to find out how White Pine County School District got to be the problem it became, a reporting mechanism was determined to be needed to catch problems early. The State Department of Education has not had funding for the fiscal deputy for some time. In the statute defining the duties of the fiscal deputy, are three important items for control of school district finances. These are contained on Page 1, Section 1, Lines 12-21. A.B. 196 would move those responsibilities from the deputy superintendent's portion of the statute and put it under the superintendent who may inspect or designate another to inspect the finances. It is assumed the superintendent would have a fiscal deputy to delegate it to, but the responsibility would remain with the superintendent of public instruction. In Section 3 the same language is removed from the fiscal deputy's statutes. Ms. Lambert stated the superintendent of public instruction had expressed concern over this. Ms. Lambert stated she was amenable to having the language inserted as needed. It was felt by the bill's proponents that someone ought to be able to have the ability and authority to inspect the records of the school districts. Chairman Harrington described A.B. 196 as a "buck stops here" bill. Mr. Bennett referred to Section 3, Subsections 2, 3 and 4, and asked why Subsection 2 was eliminated. The subsection required the inspection of record books and accounts of Boards of Trustees and forced a uniform method of finance. Mrs. Lambert stated the language should be in Page 1 Subsection 6. She explained Pages 2 and 3, Subsection 2, 3 and 4, should be restated as Subsections 5, 6 and 7 on Page 1. The only change was "inspect or designate another person". This moved the duties from the fiscal deputy portion of the statute to the superintendent of public instruction's duties. Mrs. Chowning, referring to Page 2, stated the process was already available where it states the deputy superintendent shall inspect the school fund accounts. She asked if moving the duties to the superintendent of public instruction made it more likely to occur. Mrs. Lambert explained the inspection did not occur in White Pine County even though it was known problems existed. The reason given was because the duties fell under the fiscal deputy's portion of the statute and no fiscal deputy existed. Mrs. Lambert stated she was upset when she heard this reasoning, although she noted a change in superintendent of public instruction had occurred during the time this issue evolved. Mrs. Chowning asked if Mrs. Lambert was told there was no deputy superintendent for administrative and fiscal services and that was the reason the inspection of White Pine County finances did not occur. Mrs. Lambert noted this was the case, even when the Department of Education was made aware a problem existed in White Pine County. The department did not go to White Pine County until February, 1995. Mrs. Chowning asked if moving the responsibility to the highest authority in the Department of Education created a greater chance a situation similar to White Pine County would not occur again. Mrs. Lambert felt having the duties of the superintendent of public instruction spelled out in statute, including this responsibility, would be advantageous. Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada State Department of Education, commented on A.B. 196. He explained funding for a fiscal deputy would be available in the budget for the next fiscal year. The department felt the bill would do no harm, however, they believed the job to be one for a fiscal deputy. The responsibility would probably be delegated to a fiscal deputy by the superintendent. The advantage is if there is no one in the fiscal deputy position. Dr. Rheault noted he did not think the Department of Education could take total blame for White Pine County because the fiscal deputy position was vacant. Mr. Doug Thunder, Director of Fiscal Services, Nevada State Department of Education, stated the department is not opposed to the bill but is not convinced it would have prevented the episode in White Pine County School District. In the language of the statute, the only discussion of compliance is the word "enforce". No power is established for the deputy or the superintendent for enforcement. The only power for either is the power of persuasion and recommendation. No penalties are built in if a school district chooses not to follow the advice of the superintendent or deputy. He suspected the language was drafted in advance of the Single Audit Act. A lot of compliance issues overseen have to do with the annual single audit conducted in each school district and filed with the Department of Education and the Department of Taxation by November 30 annually. In the White Pine County case the report was not filed until late February, 1995. Mr. Thunder discussed another similar case in which the superintendent of public instruction went to a district to help straighten things out. He said the difference between the two cases was in the older case the superintendent was invited to come out for assistance. In White Pine County overtures for assistance had been made, and were not accepted. Mr. Thunder discussed the relationships between the superintendent of public instruction and the seventeen independent school boards. Assemblyman Tripple described placing the responsibility with the superintendent of public instruction who can then delegate as a "safety valve". Ms. Tripple recommended county commissioners knowing what is going on in their school district. She believed in the state Education Department coming in but also believed there ought to be someone a lot closer to the situation who does not regulate but is informed. Mr. Thunder explained bank accounts and accounting were originally done by the county treasurer and county auditor. A provision was made into the statutes to allow school districts to have their own accounting and bank accounts. A provision exists in the statute, however, for county commissioners to take back the accounting and bank accounts of school districts if problems become apparent. This would offer the option for oversight at a more local level. Ms. Tripple asked if it would be after a problem has become known. Mr. Thunder stated if a problem is sensed, the commissioners could go in and investigate. Ms. Tripple stated she understood that legally the school board and the county commissioners were two separate entities. With everyone living in the same town and being concerned about the same students Ms. Tripple was puzzled why the county commissioners did not become involved. Mr. Thunder could not address Ms. Tripple's concerns. Ms. Tripple stated she would like to get the county commissioners back into the picture. Mrs. Chowning asked if the Department of Education was in agreement with the bill as written. Mr. Thunder stated the department had no strong objections to the bill. They do not feel it adds much to statute. The language states the superintendent "may" appoint a deputy. He noted it could be changed to "shall" to ensure funding existed for the position. Mrs. Chowning asked if Mr. Thunder felt there was enough latitude with the language as written. Mr. Thunder stated he believed so. He reemphasized that even though the superintendent or deputy was given the power or direction to inspect, very little authority to enforce exists. He did not believe any substantive change would be made with the bill. Mr. Thunder also noted the current statute language said "the deputy superintendent for administrative and fiscal services under the direction of the superintendent". The superintendent is not excluded as currently written. The hearing was closed on A.B. 196. A work session was opened. Mr. H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, distributed a work session document to the committee (Exhibit E). ASSEMBLY BILL 610 - Requires department of education to conduct study for need for certain required courses of study. Mrs. Chowning shared a concern of a constituent, noting if a study occurs, it should include Occupational/Vocational Education Association. She recommended adding the Occupational/Vocational Education Association as Section 2, Subsection 2 (f) of A.B. 610. Chairman Harrington agreed and stated the more inclusive the study is, the better. Mrs. Segerblom agreed. Assemblyman Batten asked about action on A.B. 610. Chairman Harrington explained the initial A.B. 610 had been gutted, amended, and rereferred to the Education Committee. The bill is now a study of curriculum mandates to be done by the state Department of Education with all others listed adding input. Mr. Batten stated he did not believe the legislature needed to send Department of Education any resolution requiring them to conduct a study of which courses needed to be kept or eliminated. He felt asking Education Department personnel to conduct such a study was sufficient. He felt the resolution would have no more impact than talking to the department in person. Dr. Rheault said if the bill says the department "shall" conduct a survey, they will. Otherwise, if input is received indicating school district dissatisfaction with curriculum mandates from the legislature or state board, a study would be initiated. Dr. Rheault stated he felt it would not hurt to reexamine the mandates as some of them date back to 1971. The study probably would not be conducted, however, if it was not mandated. Mr. Bennett stated he felt the study needed to be done even if only one duplication of effort was found. He agreed adding occupational/vocational education was appropriate. Mr. Batten asked Dr. Rheault if he was asked to go to Ms. Peterson to assess the required courses of study it would not be done unless mandated. Dr. Rheault said if the bill were killed and the education department was asked to look into it, they would do so. The intent of his testimony was not to indicate the only way it would be done would be to mandate it. Input is received often from legislators and state boards on issues to be investigated. Mrs. Chowning asked about a fiscal note attached to A.B. 610 to pay for the study. Dr. Rheault said fiscal notes have been built in ranging from $2,000 to $4,000. This would pay for conducting meetings, public hearings, paper processing and required reports. Mrs. Chowning asked if it would have to got to Ways and Means. Dr. Rheault said fiscal notes are used primarily to pay for travel of participants. Mr. Manendo noted this was a study and does not say the committee would be bound by the outcome. The study will result in recommendations to be considered in the next legislative session. Mr. Manendo wanted to verify necessary appropriations would be for the study. Chairman Williams reminded the committee when the bill was on second reading and the amendment was adopted to create the new language the subsequent motion was to rerefer to Education and Ways and Means. Chairman Harrington asked if Nevada State Education Association wanted to participate in A.B. 610. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said she felt it would be a good study and suggested including a statement of intent instead of another amendment to include the occupational/vocational education group. Also it might state the people in the bill would not have to be the only people consulted for the study. NSEA is concerned about the growing mandate list and is moving to take a position opposing any new mandates. Assemblyman Braunlin reminded the committee of the number of people who have come before the committee requesting no more curriculum mandates be issued. The study would offer an opportunity for groups to come together and discuss the mandates. She agreed the occupational/vocational education segment should be included and the list should not be limited in case another group wishes to participate. Mrs. Chowning stated she felt an amendment would not take very long and would feel more comfortable in light of the school to work legislation to have the occupational/vocational education segment included. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 610 BY ADDING (F) TO SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 2 TO INCLUDE OCCUPATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Sturm discussed A.C.R. 42. He noted the committee had heard the bill on this date and explained it was a replacement bill for another, earlier heard measure which had been indefinitely postponed. Mrs. Lambert testified in support and no opposition testimony was received. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE MOVED FOR ADOPTION OF A.C.R. 42. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The committee discussed A.B. 196 in work session. Mr. Sturm explained the bill. Chairman Harrington reminded the committee the bill evolved out of the White Pine County situation. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS A.B. 196. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. A work session opened on A.B. 683. Mr. Sturm explained the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 683. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Chowning reminded the committee a representative of the Clark County School District, Mike Alastuey, wished to propose an amendment to the bill. Mrs. Braunlin reminded the committee Ms. Vilardo was against the amendment. Mr. Bennett reminded the committee representatives of Washoe County testified in opposition to the bill. THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING VOTED NO. The committee discussed action on Assembly Bill 197. ASSEMBLY BILL 197 - Makes various changes to provisions governing program for accountability of school districts. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO RESCIND THE AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 197. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******* ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 197. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman Williams discussed Senate Bill 85, passed by the committee, dealing with the expulsion of children for the use of firearms. The Department of Education had indicated to the committee the bill was needed to continue receiving federal funding. The bill was on the chief clerk's desk because school districts and others expressed concern regarding the continuity of suspension procedures. Policies are being compiled to ensure all districts treat students by similar standards. Mr. Williams explained letters of intent and of policy will be submitted so no amendment will be necessary. Mrs. Chowning clarified the future hearing of A.B. 290 and A.B. 291, noting they would be heard on Monday, June 19, 1995, for final action. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:33 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 14, 1995 Page