MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 17, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:00 a.m., on Friday, February 17, 1995, Chairman Bache presiding in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Pete Ernaut, Excused Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Excused Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association; Mr. Allin Chandler, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators; Ms. Anita Laruy, City of North Las Vegas; Mr. Tom Stephens, Director of Human Resources, City of North Las Vegas; Mr. Eric S. Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association; Chief Mike Murphy, Chief of Police, Mesquite Police Department; Ms. Barbara L. Aupperle, President, Local 1107, Service Employees International Union; Chief David Mullin, Chief of Police, Boulder City; Mr. Bill Cavagnaro, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Deputy Chief Paul Connor, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Ms. Carolyne Edwards, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District; Dr. Ed Goldman, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Operations and Staff Relations, Clark County School District; Ms. Lois Tarkanian, Trustee, Clark County School District; Mr. Thomas Beatty, Executive Director, Nevada Service Employees Union; Ms. Barbara Cegavske; Mr. Doug Dickinson, City of Las Vegas; Mr. Roger Means, Washoe County School District; Mr. Bob Broniecki, President, Clark County Classroom Teachers Association; Mr. Jerry Connor, Nevada School Administrators Association; Mr. Scott Dickinson, Nevada Concerned Citizens. (see also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 55 - Expands scope of mandatory bargaining applicable to local government employer to include transfer and reassignment of employees. Chairman Bache disclosed the fact both he and Assemblyman Williams, who was not present, were teachers in the Clark County School District. He stated, as he interpreted A.B. 55, it would have no effect on him as a school teacher. He advised A.B. 111 would have an effect on him but that effect was the same effect A.B. 111 would have on any individual who was a school teacher and he would participate in the discussions about A.B. 111. Mr. Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association), testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). Mr. Bellister provided the committee with copies of a proposed amendment to A.B. 55 (Exhibit D). Mr. Bellister further testified A.B. 55 did not attempt to expand the scope of subjects covered by NRS 288.150 but, rather, attempted to open the subject of transfer and reassignment to collective bargaining by support personnel. Chairman Bache referred to Section 3, subsection (a) of A.B. 55 and asked, "Was it your intent to return that to the original language or leave it as it was amended by the bill?" Mr. Bellister advised the Association's intent was to leave the current language intact. He said the Association's sole intent was to have the language of subsection 2(u) of A.B. 55 reflect not all public employees, rather, only employees of a school district would have the ability to bargain regarding transfer and reassignment. Mr. Gerald L. Connor, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Administrators, testified. He advised the Nevada Association of School Administrators supported A.B. 55 as it would be if amended by the amendment proposed by Mr. Bellister (Exhibit D). He indicated the Nevada Association of School Administrators considered the provisions of A.B. 55 to be a matter of equity, in that certain employee groups should not be singled out and treated differently than other employee groups were treated. Mr. Allin Chandler, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators, testified. He urged support of A.B. 55 as it was proposed to be amended. He contended "...those changes..." would provide equity in the manner in which employees of the Clark County School District were treated and would allow "...more humane treatment...for our administrators." He advised, presently, Clark County School District's support staff and teachers had provisions in their employment contracts dealing with transfer but its administrators did not have such provisions in their employment contracts. He indicated having involvement in the transfer process would be good for the moral of employees of Clark County School District. Assemblyman Harrington asked what kind of language would be negotiated for if A.B. 55 was passed. Mr. Chandler responded the Clark County Association of School Administrators wanted language which would indicate an individual transferred to a new location, as a principal or assistant principal, would have reason to expect he could remain at the new location for four or five years before the school district would consider transferring him again. He indicated the Clark County Association of School Administrators would also like language which would allow a principal or assistant principal to initiate a request for transfer. He suggested, when the school district transferred an individual, there should be some explanation of the reason for the transfer. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if a teacher could be transferred from an assignment to teach one grade to an assignment to teach a different grade, within the same school, without a hearing regarding the transfer. Mr. Chandler replied he believed that possibility existed. He said he believed a school's principal had responsibility for determining which grade a teacher would teach in that school. Ms. Anita Laruy, City of North Las Vegas, testified. She advised the City of North Las Vegas opposed A.B. 55, including the proposed amendment thereto (Exhibit D). Mr. Tom Stephens, Director of Human Resources, City of North Las Vegas, testified. He advised NRS 288 had been in existence for quite a period of time and was the basis for contract negotiations. He stated, "Anything can be negotiated above 288 by both the school district and the teachers union and the administrators." He contended A.B. 55 could cause a dangerous erosion of management rights. Assemblyman Krenzer asked what effect Mr. Stephens foresaw A.B. 55 would have on the City of North Las Vegas. Mr. Stephens suggested, although the provisions of A.B. 55 pertained only to members of the teaching profession, those provisions might, in the future, be expanded to include other individuals. Mrs. Krenzer asked if she was correct that, although Mr. Stephens perceived A.B. 55 as eroding management rights, A.B. 55 did not in any way affect the city of North Las Vegas. Mr. Stephens answered affirmatively. Mr. Eric S. Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified. He stated he concurred with "...North Las Vegas Personnel Director's assessment..." (of A.B. 55). He said, however, he could not object too greatly to A.B. 55 because the Nevada State Education Association wished the provisions of A.B. 55 to apply only to school district employees. He declared, for the record, "The Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association would like to be sure that Section 3, subsection (a), will remain intact when the bill goes back in for redrafting and that the exclusionary marks in that section are removed during the amendment process, because we feel that for that to remain as it is in the proposed bill, would then make it apply to state...or to government employees anyway." Chief Mike Murphy, Chief of Police, Mesquite Police Department, testified. He stated, "...all I can do is echo what's been said already and state that we think it is important that we reserves those rights." Mrs. Krenzer asked Mr. Cooper if he would specify the change in Section 3 to which he referred. Mr. Cooper replied he would specifically like to see the language of NRS which was discussed in Section 3, subsection (a) remain as it now was. He said, in other words, the brackets set forth in Section 3, subsection (a) of A.B. 55 would be removed. Mrs. Segerblom asked Chief Murphy if, previously, he had been with the Boulder City Police Department for a number of years. Chief Murphy replied he had. Ms. Barbara L. Aupperle, President, Local 1107, Service Employees International Union (hereinafter referred to as SEIU), testified. She said, "We would like to also go on the record echoing what Eric Cooper said not to change the language in Section 3, subsection (a), to leave it the way it currently is." Assemblyman Nolan asked Ms. Aupperle to clarify what organization she represented. She answered she represented SEIU, Local 1107, Nevada Service Employees. Mr. Harrington asked why SEIU opposed A.B. 55 when the teacher's union wanted A.B. 55. Ms. Aupperle suggested, if NRS was changed as proposed by Section 3, subsection (a) of A.B. 55, the change would affect all government employees. Mr. Harrington asked if SEIU would not want all government employees to be so affected. Ms. Aupperle replied SEIU would not. Chairman Bache asked how SEIU felt about the amendment Mr. Bellister proposed be made to A.B. 55 (Exhibit D). Ms. Aupperle replied the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) would be acceptable. Chief David Mullin, Chief of Police, Boulder City, testified. He stated Mr. Cooper had covered the concerns of the Boulder City Police Department in his testimony. Mr. Bill Cavagnaro, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, introduced Deputy Chief Paul Connor, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, who then testified. Deputy Chief Connor stated the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was opposed to A.B. 55, which the department perceived as eroding management's rights under NRS 288. He said the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was particularly concerned about Section 3, subsection (a) of A.B. 55 and wished the current language (of NRS) to remain as it was. He suggested, if A.B. 55 was passed, in its original form, it would cripple the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's management ability. Assemblyman de Braga asked if the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department would object to A.B. 55 if it changed NRS only as proposed in Section 2, subsection (u). Deputy Chief Connor said the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department would still object to A.B. 55 because the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department perceived the provisions of A.B. 55 would erode management rights. He contended, in order for government's management to run government efficiently and effectively, that management must have the ability to assign and transfer employees. Assemblyman de Braga said A.B. 55, as worded, gave management in the education profession authority to assign and transfer. Deputy Chief Connor stated Ms. de Braga was correct. Assemblyman Bennett referred to lines 21 and 22, on page 2, of A.B. 55. He said it appeared management had a right to maintain appropriate staffing levels and work performance standards. Mr. Bennett asked how, with regard to transferring its employees, maintaining appropriate staffing levels affected the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Deputy Chief Connor suggested "staffing levels" could refer to how many individuals were assigned to a particular area and not necessarily refer to how many individuals were assigned to a particular shift. He said as long as the wording referred to in Section 3, subsection (a), was allowed to remain as it was presently set forth in NRS, management's rights would be protected. He advised the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's objection to subsection (u) of Section 2 was the fact it limited management's right to manage. Mrs. de Braga pointed out, under A.B. 55, as presently worded, those matters not within the scope of mandatory bargaining were: the right to hire, direct, assign, and transfer (employees), excluding the right to assign or transfer an employee as a form of discipline. Deputy Chief Connor indicated Mrs. de Braga was correct in what she pointed out and said he thought that provision of the law, as presently written, was fair. Ms. Carolyne Edwards, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, testified. She indicated she and two other representatives of the school district were present. She stated other witnesses had testified they opposed A.B. 55 because it would cause further erosion of management. She indicated the representatives of the school district wished to provide the committee with specific examples of how A.B. 55, if amended as proposed, would affect the Clark County School District. She introduced Dr. Ed Goldman. Dr. Ed Goldman, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Operations and Staff Relations, Clark County School District, testified. He advised he was chief negotiator and contract enforcer for the Clark County School District. He said A.B. 55 talked of deleting "the right to assign" as opposed to "the right to transfer." He suggested this would result in, as an example, bargaining being required to determine if a school principal would have the right to assign a teacher from one classroom to another or if a school district would have the right to assign a teacher "...when first hired, or when a vacancy occurs or, if appropriate, to another location for various reasons." He contended it was obvious, in a bargaining process, one side had to give up something in order to get something and this would place limitations on the school district's ability to assign its employees. He indicated if the limiting of a school district's ability to assign employees to various locations also applied to that school district's support staff (as well as its teachers), which support staff consisted of 20 or 30 different groups of employees, it would create great difficulty in managing the school district. Mrs. Segerblom asked if a teacher who did not belong to the teacher's union had a right to bargain. Dr. Goldman replied such a teacher was covered under the union's contract whether or not the teacher belonged to the union. Mr. Harrington asked if Dr. Goldman could give an example of a specific complaint he had received from an individual who was transferred or reassigned or of a specific problem which arose from such transfer or reassignment. Dr. Goldman responded nearly every time an employee was reassigned against his will that employee complained about his reassignment. Mr. Harrington asked how many times such a situation arose in a given month. Dr. Goldman replied such a situation arose three or four times in a month. Mr. Bennett asked if Dr. Goldman had encountered any instance in which a school district employee vehemently opposed being assigned to a school which had "...a higher risk factor involved." Dr. Goldman replied affirmatively. He said, however, he believed the distance of the location to which an employee was assigned from the employee's home was a greater issue with employees (than the risk factor to which Mr. Bennett referred). Mr. Bennet asked if finding qualified people to staff those schools which had a higher concentration of "at-risk students" was not necessarily the problem involved in reassigning employees. Dr. Goldman replied he did not think it was. Ms. Lois Tarkanian, Trustee, Clark County School District, testified. She indicated she concurred with Dr. Goldman's testimony regarding the complications which A.B. 55 might cause within the Clark County School District. She said her voting record as a trustee would reflect her strong support for the rights of workers, especially their right to be treated fairly. She contended, however, as management's rights were eroded, more and more often requests made of management were unreasonable requests. Ms. Tarkanian described an incident in which, at a meeting of the Clark County School District's Board of Trustees, a kindergarten student's distraught parent appeared before the board and advised the board that, between September, 1994, and the present date, 17 different bus drivers had driven the school bus his child rode. She said the board, when it investigated the situation, found school bus drivers were exercising their right to choose bus routes based upon seniority. She indicated, under present circumstances, management could "...change that situation and make it appropriate, so we do not have so many changes." She indicated she was concerned A.B. 55 would inhibit management from being able to remedy situations such as the one she had described. Mr. Bennett indicated he understood there was a request to amend Section 2, subsection (u), of A.B. 55 to include all school district employees and asked if school bus drivers presently had "...the right to assignment." Ms. Tarkanian responded the action the bus drivers took, in the situation she described, was an action they did not have the right to take and said, at present, management had the ability to correct such a situation. She indicated, if the bus drivers had the right to act as they had acted, she did not know if management would have been able to correct the situation. Mr. Thomas Beatty, Executive Director, Nevada Service Employees Union, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit E). Ms. Barbara Cegavske testified. She questioned the changes proposed by A.B. 55. She declared teachers presently possessed the power to call for help and assistance from their association at any time they were concerned about something which was done to them. She questioned the necessity for change. Ms. Cegavske referred to Mr. Bennett's earlier question of whether there was difficulty in placing school district employees in high risk schools. She contended it was difficult to place teachers in schools in which it was difficult to teach or in schools which were considered undesirable. Ms. Cegavske said she was surprised the Clark County Association of School Administrators was in favor of A.B. 55. She indicated school principals had always complained about how their hands were tied with respect to administering discipline or taking action in certain situations. Mr. Harrington asked if Ms. Cegavske was aware of any employee problems which resulted from shift assignments which were necessitated by split school sessions and whether A.B. 55 would have any impact on such problems. Ms. Cegavske replied problems did arise when negotiations were held with the teachers' association concerning shift assignments. Ms. Tripple asked Ms. Ceguaske what her relationship was to teachers and whether she herself was a teacher. Ms. Ceguaske replied she was not a teacher but rather a parent. Ms. Tripple asked if Ms. Ceguaske was employed by the school district. Ms. Ceguaske answered she was not employed by the school district. She indicated, however, she had worked with teachers and principals of various schools and had worked on school committees throughout her school district. Chairman Bache commented NSEA had proposed A.B. 55 in order to provide both administrators and classified employees the right to negotiate transfers. He advised teachers presently had the right to negotiate transfers and A.B. 55 would not affect them. He referred to Mr. Harrington's question concerning whether problems were created by shift assignments being made which were necessitated by split sessions. He advised, because he had taught at a school which had double sessions, he could respond to Mr. Harrington's question. Mr. Bache stated teachers who taught at a school which went to double sessions and who did not wish to work under that circumstance or did not wish to change their schedules had the opportunity to be placed in an "involuntary transfer pool" for transfer to another school. Mr. Doug Dickinson, City of Las Vegas, testified. He advised the City of Las Vegas opposed A.B. 55, both as it was currently written and as it was proposed to be amended. He said A.B. 55 would not apply to employees of the City of Las Vegas. Mr. Dickinson related some of his background in administration and his involvement in contract negotiations. He contended, once an issue became subject to mandatory bargaining by one group of employees, other groups of employees would ask for the same right to bargain regarding that issue. He indicated there might be merit in teachers having the right to bargain regarding their assignments but contended, when it was necessary to make many assignments of classified employees, on a daily basis, such employees having the right to bargain regarding their assignments would greatly hamper management's right to make necessary assignments and transfers. Mr. Dickinson said he, too, would wish the language in Section 3 of A.B. 55 to be amended if A.B. 55 was to be passed by the legislature. Undersheriff Bill Weldon, Nye County Sheriff's Office, testified. He indicated the witnesses who previously testified in opposition to A.B. 55 had voiced his opposition. He said, for the record, "I really, honestly believe that the erosion of management's rights is about as far as it can get and to go forward with this, as is, even with the amended verbiage, is another slam on the wedge that's already in the door of the erosion of management rights." Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 55. Chairman Bache turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Neighbors. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 111 - Expands scope of mandatory bargaining for teachers and certain persons employed by school districts. Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, District 11, testified. Mr. Bache advised, when not acting in his capacity as a legislator, he was a teacher in the Clark County School District. He pointed out A.B. 111 contained two changes to the collective bargaining statute. He said the first change had been debated in testimony on A.B. 55. He indicated Section 1, subsection (u) of A.B. 111 would cause the language (of NRS) regarding policies for transfer and reassignment to apply to "persons employed by a school district pursuant to NRS 391.00" rather than to "teachers" and said it addressed, essentially, the same issue as A.B. 55 addressed. He referred to page 2, lines 11 through 16, of A.B. 111 and advised "security on the school grounds" and "disciplinary procedures for pupils" were additions to the subject matter covered by the provisions of NRS to which that portion of A.B. 111 pertained. Mr. Bache indicated he had brought the matters covered by A.B. 111 before the legislature during previous legislative sessions. He contended, other than salary, the issue of greatest concern to teachers in Nevada was safety and discipline in the classroom. He advised he had experience with three different schools and three different sets of rules, at the school level, during the preceding three years.. He indicated the faculty of the school at which he taught during the past year was fairly consistent in the manner in which it applied the discipline policies provided by the school district but suggested disciplinary procedures were not enforced uniformly and consistently throughout the school district or even within a particular school. Mr. Bache advised a bill was introduced in the Senate, Senate Bill 26, which dealt with the issue of safety and discipline in a somewhat more prescriptive manner than did A.B. 111. He advised S.B. 26 attempted to amend NRS 392 and dealt with many of the concerns he and other teachers in the Clark County School District had concerning the fact students were not expelled, suspended or disciplined for offenses such as extortion, forgery, theft, gambling, threats to cause physical or emotional harm to another person, possessing alcoholic beverages, or possession or use of explosive fireworks. Mr. Bache declared he had the same concern as the authors of S.B. 26, but said he felt it would be easier to deal with discipline for offenses such as those he had enumerated if such discipline was made a subject for negotiation rather than governed by statute. He said, at present, if teachers were dissatisfied with the manner in which a student was disciplined, they had no recourse. Mr. Bennett asked why Mr. Bache felt teachers were better able to handle security on school grounds and disciplinary procedures than were administrators. Mr. Bache replied he was not suggesting teachers handle those matters, but he contended, if those matters were made the subject of bargaining, teachers could negotiate the procedures to be utilized. He explained (under A.B. 111) a school district would still establish the disciplinary policy for that school district but the manner in which the procedures contained in that disciplinary policy were implemented would be subject to bargaining. Mr. Harrington referred to Mr. Bache's testimony regarding the variance among schools (with respect to the manner in which discipline was applied) and commented there was a recent drive for school-based decision making. He asked if Mr. Bache was seeking (through A.B. 111) a more uniform policy which would eliminate school-based decisions regarding school safety and discipline and what precisely Mr. Bache sought to be made the subject of bargaining. Mr. Bache replied he was seeking neither more stringent nor more lenient disciplinary procedures but, rather, was seeking to have the manner in which disciplinary procedures established by a school district were implemented made the subject of bargaining. Mr. Nolan asked Mr. Bache to give an example of how a teacher might intercede (if dissatisfied with the manner in which a student was disciplined) if the application of disciplinary procedures was made a subject of bargaining. Mr. Bache posed the following hypothetical situation: a student continually disrupted class; the student was assigned detention on several occasions and his parents were contacted regarding his behavior, however, the student continued to disrupt class; the student's teacher referred the student to the school's office for disciplinary action and provided the office with documentation of detentions given the student and contacts made with the student's parents; the student was told by the school office not to disrupt the class and was returned to the classroom. Mr. Bache indicated the teacher, in his hypothetical example, if dissatisfied with the discipline given the student, could address his dissatisfaction through the grievance procedure (provided by collective bargaining). Mrs. Krenzer asked if a teacher who felt unsafe in a school did not have recourse to address the issue of safety at the present time. Mr. Bache replied he could not "...remember the exact contract..." but indicated it was possible such a teacher could address the issue of safety. Mrs. Krenzer asked if there was, currently, no recourse for a teacher who disciplined a student on a number of occasions and who was "...getting nowhere with administration..." Mr. Bache responded such a teacher could continue to refer the student to the school office, the administration could take such actions as it chose with regard to the student, and the teacher had no recourse if dissatisfied with those actions. Mrs. Krenzer asked if there were no standard policies concerning discipline for the kinds of offenses which Mr. Bache had previously enumerated in his testimony. Mr. Bache responded school districts had such policies but procedures for implementing those policies varied from school to school and sometimes varied within the same school. Mr. Bennett said, "In regards to the structure of this bill, you've taken four items, two items out of subsection a through b...a, b, c, d, etcetera. You've put them under a subsection u and then further brought them down as a subsection, teacher preparation time and materials and supplies for classroom, and added two new items to this subsection." He asked, "Can you explain why the priorities and why the diminished status of these items." Mr. Bache answered the status of those items was not diminished. He indicated, at the time he caused A.B. 111 to be drafted, he discussed A.B. 111 with LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau). He indicated LCB thought it structurally preferable, with respect to the statute (affected by A.B. 111), for A.B. 111 to contain a section which pertained to teachers and to list in that section those items to which Mr. Bennett referred. Mr. Bache referred to the language in A.B. 111 "materials and supplies for the classroom" and said, theoretically, classified employees of a school district could attempt to engage in bargaining with respect to that item. He contended if "materials and supplies for the classroom" was placed under "...those items for teacher..." it would be subject to bargaining only by the teachers' association. Mr. Roger Means, Washoe County School District, testified. He advised he represented the Board of Trustees of the Washoe County School District. Mr. Means made one comment regarding A.B. 55, saying he echoed the sentiments expressed on behalf of the Clark County School District and the other witnesses who had testified in opposition to A.B. 55. Mr. Means addressed his further testimony to A.B. 111. He referred to page 2, lines 15 and 16, of A.B. 111 and pointed out existing statutory language, as set forth on line 5 of page 2, provided for negotiations regarding the safety of employees while on school grounds. He suggested the provision contained on line 15 of page 2 was unnecessary. He stated the Board of Trustees of Washoe County School District had been contending with the issue of whether or not school security personnel or school police should carry guns on school grounds. He advised the Board of Trustees was opposed to school police having the ability to carry guns on school grounds. He declared the issue was not without controversy and said he understood the school police of the Washoe County School District might file a grievance regarding it. He contended the Board of Trustees of Washoe County School District believed the issue of whether school police should carry guns on school grounds was one which should be determined by the Board of Trustees and not by means of teachers' negotiations. Mr. Means said he appreciated Mr. Bache's comments with respect to disciplinary procedures. He declared the school district established broad policies regarding discipline, which policies stipulated sanctions to be imposed against students for more serious offenses. He said he also appreciated Mr. Harrington's comments about site-based management. Mr. Means advised he was formerly a teacher and understood the effect disruptive students could have on a teacher's ability to teach his class. He contended discipline should be swift, firm and fair but cautioned against forgetting about the rights of students and parents with regard to disciplinary procedures, indicating both students and parents should be involved in disciplinary procedures. He stated Washoe County School District requested the legislature leave NRS 288 as it presently was. Mrs. Lambert asked if a parent could appeal to the Washoe County School District's Board of Trustees regarding discipline and, if so, would including disciplinary procedures under the provisions of a contract limit the board's ability to respond to such a parent. Mr. Means answered, in response to the first part of Mrs. Lambert's question, the Washoe County School District had a progressive disciplinary procedure. He advised if a parent was dissatisfied with the outcome of a disciplinary procedure on the school level, the parent could appeal to the Associate Superintendent of Schools. He indicated if the parent was dissatisfied with the decision of the Associate Superintendent of Schools, he could then appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. He said, at the discretion of the Superintendent of Schools, a parent could further appeal to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Means said, with regard to the second part of Mrs. Lambert's question, he believed some sort of appeal process would have to be included in negotiated disciplinary procedures. Mr. Nolan posed a scenario in which a student had been disciplined by a school's administration and the student's "...separation is going to be negotiated by his teacher." He asked what would happen to the student while such negotiations were being conducted, whether the student would be "in limbo" or whether the initial discipline would be upheld pending the negotiations. He asked, also, if Mr. Means believed an adversarial situation would be created if that student remained in the teacher's class when the teacher felt the student should no longer be in his class. Mr. Means replied he believed specific sanctions, against students, would be provided for particular behaviors and said he assumed the intent of A.B. 111 was to involve teachers in determining those sanctions. He suggested if the sanction for a particular offense was to remove a student from class, the question then raised was what to do with the student. He indicated, in the Washoe County School District, a small percentage of students were handicapped to the extent the students were placed in a conduct disorder setting. He stated, whether discipline was negotiated with teachers or remained as a management prerogative, when the point was reached where a teacher and a child were no longer communicating, somehow the relationship between the teacher and the child must be terminated. Mr. Nolan stated he had previously taught in the community college system and understood there were some students who were inherently disruptive and others who were marginally so. He suggested some teachers could manage children with marginal behavioral problems better than could other teachers. Mr. Nolan asked if A.B. 111 might not allow teachers who liked clean, quiet classrooms to "...negotiate out the students that they might have a conflict with." Mr. Means replied he supposed what Mr. Nolan suggested could happen but hoped it would not. Mr. Means spoke of his teaching experiences with students who were disruptive in other teachers' classes but were some of his most successful students. He declared he believed Washoe County School District's teachers' association would not attempt to negotiate a disciplinary procedure which would allow teachers to teach only "...the cream of the crop..." and to eliminate from their classrooms those students who required more assistance. Mr. Means received permission from Chairman Bache to make a further reply to a question previously posed by Mrs. Lambert. He stated, if a student's offense was a major offense and one which would require an expulsion or a long term suspension of the student, the offense was submitted for consideration by the Board of Trustees prior to an expulsion or long term suspension being imposed. Mr. Harrington suggested schools needed to impose stronger discipline on students and asked if Mr. Means foresaw any student offenses being eliminated, as reasons for disciplinary action, through bargaining negotiations. Mr. Means indicated he was hesitant to reply because of Mr. Harrington's use of the word "offense." He said he did not believe disciplinary procedures would be weakened by negotiating them. He indicated the function of discipline was not to punish but, rather, to return a student to the classroom on a positive footing and to cause the student to learn. Mrs. Krenzer asked, "If, as you've said, you want to see district wide sanctions, per se, and disciplinary procedures and keep kids in the classroom safely, you want parents and students and the Board of Trustees involved, why wouldn't you, in adopting those, also want teachers involved in that policy making of those disciplinary policies." Mr. Means replied he never intended to say teachers should not be involved in determining sanctions and he believed teachers should be involved but they should not be the only ones involved. Mrs. Krenzer contended the provisions of A.B. 111 did not mean teachers were to be the only ones involved in determining sanctions. Mr. Means responded, as he understood A.B. 111, it did mean teachers would be the only ones involved in establishing disciplinary procedures. Mrs. Krenzer asked if the provisions of A.B. 111 excluded teachers, parents or anyone from being involved in establishing disciplinary procedures. Mr. Means replied it did not. Mr. Bennett asked if, currently, teachers were consulted regarding disciplinary procedures. Mr. Means responded, in the Washoe County School District, teachers were consulted. Mr. Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified. He stated NSEA supported A.B. 111. He explained NSEA had introduced A.B. 55 and believed A.B. 111 attempted to accomplish the same goal as A.B. 55 attempted to accomplish. He said NSEA believed the same clarifying reference to NRS 391.205 (as contained in the proposed amendment to A.B. 55, Exhibit D) should be included in A.B. 111. He declared NSEA supported clarifying the statute and contended A.B. 111 was designed to achieve such clarification. Mr. Bellister advised NSEA supported adding the subjects of "security on school grounds" and "disciplinary procedures for pupils" to the scope of mandatory bargaining. He suggested the key purpose of including those subjects in the scope of mandatory bargaining was to change from a situation in which teachers were consulted about those subjects to one in which teachers had meaningful input into the decision making process regarding security, safety and student discipline. Mr. Bellister urged the committee to support A.B. 111. Mr. Bob Broniecki, President, Clark County Classroom Teachers Association, testified. He referred to those provisions of A.B. 111 concerning teachers being allowed to negotiate with regard to disciplinary procedures and suggested those provisions were intended to provide the teachers' association with the ability to negotiate with the school board and arrive at a consistent policy of discipline. He indicated, during his six year tenure as President of the Clark County Classroom Teachers Association, the most well attended in-service programs he conducted were those which pertained to school discipline. He advised, at a recent in-service program pertaining to ",,,the new skinhead problem in Clark County...", every teacher who attended complained about inconsistencies in discipline "...from one end of the valley to the other." Mr. Broniecki insisted there must be consistency in the application of disciplinary procedures. He contended the teachers' association did not wish to negotiate the right of each individual teacher to discipline students but, rather, wished to have consistency in disciplinary procedures. He suggested parents and students also wished to have such consistency. Mr. Bennett asked, rhetorically, if Mr. Broniecki was saying no individual teachers would attempt to take advantage of the right to negotiate disciplinary procedures in order to accomplish their own disciplinary goals and also asked, rhetorically, how courts would interpret the provisions for collective bargaining with regard to disciplinary procedures. Mr. Bennett contended the committee had to look upon A.B. 111 as "...a form of policy..." Mr. Nolan indicated he, also, would like to see the application of disciplinary procedures standardized but suggested the provisions of A.B. 111, as written, would allow each and every teacher an opportunity to manage disciplinary procedures as those procedures pertained to individual students. Mr. Bellister asked to be allowed to respond to Mr. Nolan's comment. He said NRS 288 enabled teachers to participate in the decision making process by means of collective bargaining. He suggested A.B. 111 was designed to allow the bargaining agent for teachers of a particular school district to bargain on behalf of all the teachers in that district and to allow local decisions to be made regarding how discipline could best be handled in that district. He indicated A.B. 111 was designed to allow a collective decision making process and not to allow an individual decision making process. Mr. Nolan asked the difference between the language "security in schools" and the language "safety of the employee." Mr. Bellister replied "safety" was currently a negotiable item and negotiations could be used to deal with such matters as the introduction of chemicals into the workplace, lighting standards and work station standards, all of which matters pertained to the health and safety of employees. He suggested "security" pertained to such matters as control of violent and disruptive behavior and control of vandalism on school campuses. Mr. Broniecki interjected, with respect to the issue of safety, the law provided that a student who attacked a school district employee, who brought a weapon onto a school campus or who sold drugs must be either suspended or expelled. Mr. Bache clarified A.B. 111 addressed only procedures for implementing disciplinary policies and not the policies themselves. Mr. Allin Chandler, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators (hereinafter referred to as the Association), testified. He stated the Association supported A.B. 111. He said, with respect to those provisions of A.B. 111 dealing with transfers, and for the same reasons he had stated when testifying on A.B. 55, he would support that change (proposed by A.B. 111 to be made to NRS). Mr. Chandler referred to Mr. Harrington's earlier question, asked of Mr. Chandler during the course of his testimony on A.B. 55, regarding the kind of language which would be negotiated for if A.B. 55 was passed. He indicated he wished to respond further to that question. He advised the Association would like to see language included in negotiated contracts which would accomplish the following purposes: distinguish between the terms "voluntary transfer" and "involuntary transfer" and provide for such transfers to be accomplished; provide an employee with a reasonable expectancy as to the length of time the employee would remain in a given assignment before he might be transferred to a different assignment; allow an employee who was only a year or two away from retirement and whose performance was satisfactory to remain in the school to which he was currently assigned and not be considered for transfer; provide for notice to employees of available jobs so those employees might have an opportunity to request and to be considered for transfer into such jobs; provide that the current supervisor, as well as the prospective supervisor, of an employee who had requested and was being considered for transfer, be made aware of the possible transfer; provide all transfers of employees be approved by the Board of Trustees; and exempt "at will employees," who were employees appointed by the Superintendent of Schools, from transfer procedures. Mr. Chandler again addressed A.B. 111. He suggested, with respect to disciplinary procedures, those procedures were something which would be negotiated between the teachers' association and the school district. He reiterated prior testimony with regard to the need for consistency in the application of disciplinary procedures. Mr. Harrington suggested the Association's desire to have all transfers of unclassified personnel approved by the Board of Trustees would create a heavy workload for the Board of Trustees. Mr. Chandler responded, in the Clark County School District, all transfers, except those of elementary principals, were presently required to be approved by the Board of Trustees. He said, for internal reasons, the Association wished approval of transfers by the Board of Trustees to become standard in the Clark County School District. Mr. Harrington expressed his agreement with the proposition there was a need for consistency in the application of disciplinary procedures but suggested there was also a need for "...some site based individuality." He observed some schools might need to impose stricter discipline than others. Mr. Chandler said he did not disagree with Mr. Harrington's observation of the need to address individual needs of schools, with respect to standards of discipline, and he supported doing so. He clarified, at present, within the Clark County School District, some schools did not have the same help available to them, such as in-school counselors, in-house suspension programs and access to behavioral disorder programs, with which to address the problems students had in school as other schools had available to them. He suggested some of those helps might be made available to those schools which did not have them if application of disciplinary procedures was negotiated. Mr. Harrington asked if additional funds would not be required to provide schools with those additional helps. Mr. Chandler replied it was possible additional funds would be required. Mr. Nolan asked how many employees would be affected by the inclusion of employees other than teachers, as well as teachers, under the provisions (of NRS) for the purpose of mandatory bargaining regarding employee transfers. Mr. Chandler answered, "Currently, in the negotiated agreement with the support staff, although it's not as extensive as the current agreement with teachers, there is a section called `transfer' in their agreement and the teachers have a section called `transfer'. The administrators do not." Mr. Nolan asked what the administrative costs and personnel requirements would be to accommodate negotiation of transfers and reassignments of employees other than teachers. Mr. Chandler indicated he was uncertain he could adequately answer Mr. Nolan's question. He advised a transfer procedure currently existed, with respect to support staff, and he did not know what the cost would be to modify that procedure. He contended nothing he had suggested, with regard to transfer procedures, should impose an additional cost on the school district. Mr. Jerry Connor, Nevada School Administrators Association, testified. He stated the Nevada School Administrators Association supported those provisions of both A.B. 55 and A.B. 111 which pertained to including classified employees and school administrators under the provisions for transfer procedures. He declared the Nevada School Administrators Association was a professional association and was not involved in negotiation processes and, therefore, he would not discuss the merits of or problems with A.B. 111 other than to advise the committee a recent survey of school administrators showed discipline to be their greatest concern. Ms. Barbara Cegavske testified. She referred to those provisions of A.B. 111 which pertained to security on school grounds and asked, rhetorically, whether the intent of that provision was to protect teachers from students or to protect students from teachers. She said when a teacher assaulted a student, the situation was addressed by negotiations or by arbitration but when a student assaulted a teacher, the student was expelled. She said there was no need to negotiate enforcement of discipline in schools and contended such enforcement was within the purview of the Board of Trustees. She asked the committee to be certain it understood the intent of those provisions of A.B. 111 which pertained to security on school grounds before it considered passing A.B. 111. She declared both teachers and parents had input, through the Board of Trustees, into policies and procedures established regarding discipline. Ms. Cegavske said, as a parent, she was very concerned about violence in schools. She said in-house suspension had been eliminated as a means of discipline because of the cost involved and contended that form of discipline had been effective. She suggested if the school employees' unions, administrators' association and parents in Clark County worked together, they could arrive at a means to help with the problem of discipline in schools, without the need to make discipline a subject for negotiation. Ms. Carolyn Edwards, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District (hereinafter referred to as the District), testified. She indicated she was testifying both as the Clark County School District's Legislative Representative and as an elementary school principal. She referred to A.B. 55 and said it extended the scope of bargaining with respect to the kinds of employees who could engage in such bargaining. She stated A.B. 111 both expanded and extended the scope of bargaining. Ms. Edwards contended the issue before the committee was local control. She declared the problem with issues such as security and discipline was those topics created anxiety in every member of the public. She said, as an elementary school principal, she worked with her staff to establish disciplinary procedures in her school, which was what she was directed to do both by her superiors, including the Board of Trustees, and by legislation passed during the last legislative session. She advised the District would like to discuss individuality and the right of each school board, each principal and each teacher to deal with "...their client..." on an individual basis. She contended making that right subject to a negotiated agreement would eliminate local control, site-based management and flexibility, at every level. She declared, "...most of the time, what we have put in place is working." She contended the committee had heard no testimony which suggested teachers and principals were not working together (with regard to disciplinary procedures) and indicated the question before the committee was "...why, at this point, need we consider putting our feet in the stone of the negotiated agreement." Dr. Ed Goldman, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Operations and Staff Relations, Clark County School District, testified. He indicated he wished to respond to a prior question asked by Mr. Nolan. He advised the Clark County School District had nearly 7,000 support staff employees and suggested to allow those employees to bargain for transfer rights would create a nightmare situation. He said those 7,000 employees comprised 20 or 30 separate employee groups. He contended, if those employees were allowed to negotiate transfer rights, it would necessitate bargaining with (among others) bus drivers to determine whether or not they would have a right to choose their bus routes, health care workers to determine where they would be assigned and food service workers to determine to which schools and locations they would be assigned. Dr. Goldman said he supported consistency (with respect to disciplinary procedures) but contended flexibility was also needed in order to deal with extraordinary situations. He stated contract bargaining resulted in concrete provisions which did not allow for much flexibility. He advised individuals who were involved in the field of education distinguished among the terms "procedures", "regulations" and "policies" whereas individuals outside the field of education, including courts and arbitrators, rarely made such distinctions but, rather, encompassed all those terms in the term "procedures." Dr. Goldman stated, presently, the Clark County School District had to deal with its police union, its administrators' union and its administrators, themselves, regarding the issue of security on school grounds. He indicated he did not know what would be the outcome of making the issue subject to bargaining by teachers as well. He suggested the provisions of A.B. 111 extended the subject of safety beyond that of merely the safety and welfare of teachers, which was the subject about which the teachers' union should bargain, to encompass all security on school grounds. Mr. Nolan asked Ms. Edwards how parents were currently involved in establishing policies and procedures for either safety or discipline. She answered the Board of Trustees had committees which, under the board's supervision, worked with parents (to establish policies and procedures for safety and discipline). She said, at the level of individual schools, all principals were required to have security committees which included parents among their members. She advised school principals were required to have published lists of their schools' committees and to make those lists available to the public. She indicated members of the public could ascertain from those lists not only the names of the committees' members but also when those committees met and they could attend those meetings if they desired. Mr. Nolan asked if there had been testimony that A.B. 111 would "...take that out of the parents' hands by putting it into contract negotiation." Dr. Goldman responded to Mr. Nolan's question. He said, "It would to the extent that, if it's mandated by contract, whatever you bargain away then parents don't have rights." Ms. Lois Tarkanian, Board of Trustees, Clark County School District, testified. She indicated she concurred with Dr. Goldman's testimony. She suggested the issue which should be considered was not whether or not schools' problems should be the subject of negotiation but, rather, was how schools could get funding to deal with their problems. Mr. Allin Chandler, Clark County Association of School Administrators, testified. He corrected his prior testimony, in which he said transfer of elementary school principals was not subject to approval by the Board of Trustees, and said it was not the transfer of elementary school principals which was not subject to approval by the Board of Trustees but, rather, was the transfer of elementary school assistant principals. Mr. Scott Dickinson, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified. He referred to Mr. Bache's testimony "...on behalf of the teachers' union...", in which Mr. Bache indicated security and disciplinary policies would continue to be set by the school board, and suggested such policies would have to be based on the implementation procedures negotiated by the teachers' union. He suggested if the statute affected by A.B. 111 was changed with regard to security and disciplinary policies, decisions regarding those policies would no longer be made by the school board but would be made based upon policy implementation procedures bargained for by the union. He declared while Nevada Concerned Citizens believed teachers should be involved in the issues of security and discipline, authority over those issues should belong to local boards of trustees, who were elected by and accountable to citizens, and should not belong to a statewide union's bargaining unit. Mr. Harrington asked what Mr. Dickinson feared would happen if the teachers' union bargained about the issues of security and discipline. Mr. Dickinson replied he feared individual teachers, principals, parents and students would be "...locked into bargained procedures which will in fact turn into de facto policy..." Mr. Bache advised the committee he did not request A.B. 111 on behalf of the teachers' association but, rather, requested it personally. He indicated the teachers' association supported him in his request but he did not represent the association. Vice Chairman Neighbors closed the hearing on A.B. 111 and turned the chair back over to Chairman Bache. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 11:05 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs February 17, 1995 Page