MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 14, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, March 14, 1995, Chairman Douglas A. Bache 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. 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. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association; Mr. Harold Ridgeway, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District; Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards; Mr. Gregory Betts, Rural Alliance/College of Education; Dr. Patricia Hawkins, Associate Superintendent, Carson City School District; Ms. Carolyn Edwards, Clark County School District; Mr. Roger Eggenburg, Directory of Utilities, Incline Village General Improvement District; Mr. Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association; Mr. Doug Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators; Ms. Lucille Lusk, 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. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, testified. She indicated testimony, on behalf of the Nevada State Education Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association), was given at the committee's previous hearing on A.B. 55, held in Las Vegas. She advised, when A.B. 55 was drafted, its scope was broader than the Association intended. She explained the Association only intended that the language of A.B. 55 which pertained to transfers be extended to other school employees (in addition to teachers) and not that it be extended to all local government employees affected by NRS 288. She presented a proposed amendment to A.B. 55 (Exhibit C). She said school administrators would be affected by A.B. 55 and they supported A.B. 55. Chairman Bache asked whether the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) "...limits it just to that one line, line 8 on page 2, letter (u)." Ms. Cahill replied affirmatively. Assemblyman Lambert asked whether any school districts bargained for materials and supplies for classrooms. Ms. Cahill replied she did not know but could find out. Mr. Douglas Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators, testified. He advised the Nevada Association of School Administrators supported the proposed amendment to A.B. 55 (Exhibit C). He said school administrators were requesting equity. He explained other bargaining units had the right and the ability to negotiate transfer policy and school administrators were asking to be able to do so as well. He stated, at present, school administrators could negotiate nearly all negotiable matters except transfer. Mr. Harold Ridgway, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District (hereinafter referred to as the District), testified. He advised the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) addressed one of the District's concerns about A.B. 55. He submitted two one-page documents containing written testimony (Exhibits D and E) but advised, if the committee approved the proposed amendment (Exhibit C), the written testimony would not be appropriate. Mr. Ridgway said he would like to make a general statement with regard to both bills before the committee (Assembly Bill 55 and Assembly Bill 111). He said there appeared to be an ongoing attempt to change or expand those laws which pertained to negotiating with schools' staff. He contended such changes hampered a school district's ability to manage its schools. He declared the District opposed both A.B. 55 and A.B. 111 because some of the changes proposed by those bills eroded school districts' ability to manage. He stated the District encouraged the legislature not to deprive a district of its ability to manage, either through legislation or by forcing school districts to negotiate away such ability. Mr. Ridgway again directed his testimony specifically to A.B. 55. He said the District opposed the bill, in its entirety, but was strongly opposed to that portion of A.B. 55 which would be eliminated by the proposed amendment (Exhibit C). He explained current law stated school districts could hire, direct, assign or transfer (employees) and said, "What that amendment does is putting that language back in." He advised, without the proposed amendment (Exhibit C), "...it says all we have the right to do is hire or direct." He asked the committee, if it passed A.B. 55, to amend A.B. 55 in accordance with the proposed amendment (Exhibit C). Chairman Bache asked whether Elko County School District negotiated with a bargaining unit. Mr. Ridgway replied the District was in the process of doing so. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified. He said the Nevada Association of School Boards represented each of 17 school districts in Nevada. He said, for many years, the Nevada Association of School Boards' position had been that the list of items subject to negotiation was long enough. He indicated, each time another item was added to the list, more problems were created. He contended A.B. 55 would remove one more of management's prerogatives. He suggested school boards served no purpose if they could not hire, direct, assign or transfer employees without having to negotiate policies established for those purposes. He declared A.B. 55 was unnecessary, was an erosion of management's rights and should not be considered. Mrs. Lambert asked if Mr. Etchemendy knew whether any school districts negotiated for materials and supplies for classrooms. Mr. Etchemendy indicated he did not know but would ascertain the answer. Mr. Gregory Betts, Rural Alliance/College of Education, testified. He said he spoke on behalf of the 15 rural school districts of Nevada. He said, when lists of those items subject to negotiation were extended, two things occurred in school districts. He advised one thing which occurred was an increase in the percentage of money, available for public education, which was spent for personnel and benefits. He declared, at present, in excess of 87 percent of the money available for education in Nevada was spent on personnel and benefits and said the percentage had increased significantly over the last decade. He stated the second thing which occurred was management's rights diminished. He said individuals involved in education often heard it said school districts should be managed in the same manner as private industry was managed. He stated, "These mandatory lists for bargaining are two of the reasons why we don't and why we cannot." He asked the committee to add nothing to the lists of items subject to mandatory bargaining. He suggested, perhaps, there should be legislation to reduce those lists. Assemblyman Bennett asked if Mr. Etchemendy could describe what the typical duties of a school administrator would be if A.B. 55 was passed by the legislature. Mr. Etchemendy replied he did not believe the duties of a school administrator would change but believed the board of trustees' management right to make lateral transfers would be taken away. Dr. Patricia Hawkins, Associate Superintendent, Carson City School District, testified. She said she had been in administration for 15 years and never had thought she would testify against administrators. She advised, of Carson City School District's approximately 1100 school staff members, only she, the superintendent, and the other associate superintendent were not involved with an organized bargaining unit. She explained Carson City School District's nurses were members of the Teamsters Union and said, although there were only nine nurses, many hours were spent bargaining with them. She said Carson City School District's administrators, classified employees and teachers were all "organized." Dr. Hawkins said she did not think the average member of the public had any idea how much money was spent in Nevada, particularly in the Carson City School District, on negotiation. She advised Carson City School District spent nearly $30,000 for outside negotiators to represent the school district, which sum did not include monies the school district paid its legal counsel or paid for the salaries of Dr. Hawkins and the school superintendent for the many hours they spent at the negotiating table. Dr. Hawkins said she agreed with Mr. Betts "...it hampers management's rights to manage a district and to run a school district, and I guess it comes down to where are the dollars for the children as opposed to labor organizations and the amount of time that we set at the table negotiating such things as materials and supplies." She referred to Mrs. Lambert's earlier question and advised materials and supplies for schools were negotiated. Dr. Hawkins said she was aware of four school districts which bargained with their administrators. She contended management needed to retain its right to transfer personnel and said she hoped the committee would vote against A.B. 55. Assemblyman Ernaut asked Dr. Hawkins, in comparing the provisions of A.B. 55, commencing with line 8 on page 2, with the provisions of A.B. 111, on lines 8 and 9 of page 2, what differences she saw; Mr. Ernaut said those provisions appeared to be the same. Dr. Hawkins indicated she agreed with Mr. Ernaut that those provisions were the same. Mr. Ernaut indicated it appeared to him, with respect to transfer of school districts' employees, the provisions of A.B. 55 were covered in A.B. 111. Dr. Hawkins responded, "Right now, the administrators are not covered in that..." She contended the language of the proposed amendment to A.B. 55 (Exhibit C) was confusing and conflicting because "... it does say, at the very top of the bill...there is the right to transfer and then...they're taking that language out." Ms. Carolyn Edwards, Clark County School District, testified. She indicated extensive testimony was given on behalf of the Clark County School District at the hearing held by the committee on A.B. 55 in Las Vegas. She indicated the committee heard compelling testimony about time and money spent on negotiations and heard testimony that administrators were not involved in negotiating. She advised she was a school principal and was in the same situation as Dr. Hawkins in that she was testifying against her own bargaining unit. Ms. Edwards said, during the 15 years she had been in school administration, she had never had the right to transfer. She declared management had an important need to retain its rights. She advised, at school board meetings, parents expressed increasing dissatisfaction with school management. She suggested the issue committee members should consider was whether or not their constituents wanted the teachers' union, the administrators' union and all school employees to spend more money and more time on bargaining. Ms. Edwards said she represented the largest number of education employees in the state of Nevada, a total of 17,000. She reminded the committee, in Las Vegas, Dr. Goldman testified about the tremendous difficulties Clark County School District would face if its transfer policy was subject to negotiation by its support staff. She suggested, if administrators and support staff, as well as teachers, had the right to negotiate transfers, the time and money spent on negotiations would be tripled and quadrupled. Mrs. Lambert asked, if A.B. 55 passed, would the school board's flexibility to respond to needs, concerns and desires of parents be taken away. Ms. Edwards replied she believed it would. She said, whenever the scope of bargaining was expanded, management's rights to make decisions were taken away and, therefore, the rights of the school board, which oversaw management, to make decisions were taken away. She advised personnel issues could not be raised at school board meetings but parents could discuss personnel issues with school board members in closed sessions. She contended parents wanted rights with respect to decisions regarding who staffed their children's schools. She suggested the more school board members' hands were tied by the necessity for negotiated agreements the less they could respond to parents' needs and desires. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if Ms. Edwards was suggesting A.B. 55 should remain as written and should apply only to teachers. Ms. Edwards replied she was asking the committee not to expand or extend the scope of bargaining under NRS 288. Assemblyman de Braga asked, if A.B. 55 was amended as proposed and was passed by the legislature, what would happen, with regard to the union, when a school administrator wished to transfer an employee who objected to the transfer. Ms. Edwards posed some hypothetical situations and explained how requests by school employees to be transferred and decisions by administrators to transfer school employees were presently handled. She indicated, presently, such situations were handled in the same manner whether there was a negotiated contract or not. Mrs. de Braga asked what would happen, with regard to an employee's transfer, if no one objected to the transfer. Ms. Edwards replied the transfer would take place. Mrs. de Braga asked whether the only time a union became involved in a transfer was when someone objected to the transfer. Ms. Edwards replied affirmatively. Ms. Edwards advised tremendous movement of personnel was expected if the scope of bargaining was expanded to include transfers. She said Dr. Goldman had testified there were between eight and fourteen "cases" per week at the present time. Mrs. de Braga asked if Ms. Edwards believed she should have the right to negotiate if the school board decided she should be transferred. Ms. Edwards responded she did not. She said she presently had rights. She indicated she could discuss such a situation with those who oversaw her activities and could have a representative of her bargaining unit present during such discussions to ensure she was fairly treated. Mr. Ernaut referred to NRS 391.205 and asked whether he was correct that an employee who believed he was being transferred or reassigned for punitive reasons was entitled to a hearing. Ms. Edwards responded affirmatively. Mr. Roger Eggenburg, Director of Utilities, Incline Village General Improvement District, testified. He said he opposed A.B. 55. He advised Incline Village General Improvement District was a very small utility and recreation district at Lake Tahoe which had approximately 20 organized employees working in its utilities department. He stated, because the number of employees who worked in the utilities department was small, the department needed a lot of flexibility as to how it assigned its work force. He explained the utilities department was involved in many diverse activities, such as pipeline maintenance, sewer line cleaning, plant operations, and vehicle maintenance. He contended limiting the utilities department's management right to assign or transfer employees in order to meet its specific needs at a given time would create a hardship on the department and would limit its ability to serve its customers cost effectively. Mr. Eggenburg declared the utilities department had a positive relationship with its employees' bargaining unit and had not had a grievance filed against it in more than five years. He stated the department had a very flexible management style and its employees had frequent opportunities to change assignments and learn new skills. He advised cross-training was important to the department and contended A.B. 55 would limit the opportunity to cross train employees and thereby limit the department's ability to serve its customers. He stated Incline Village General Improvement District opposed restriction of management's rights to assign and transfer employees. Chairman Bache asked if Mr. Eggenburg's testimony pertained to A.B. 55 as it was originally drafted or as it would be if amended as proposed. Mr. Eggenburg replied, "The language change that takes out the language `to direct, assign, transfer', that's the concern." He reiterated his testimony about the utilities department's need for flexibility with respect to assigning and transferring its employees. Chairman Bache explained to Mr. Eggenburg the effect of the proposed amendment to A.B. 55 (Exhibit C). Mr. Eggenburg asked whether, if amended as proposed, A.B. 55 would apply to local government employees other than those involved in education. Chairman Bache replied it would not. Mr. Eggenburg said, "Thank you, that's what we would prefer then." Mr. Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association (hereinafter referred to as NSEA), testified. He indicated he wished to clarify some testimony given by earlier witnesses. He suggested there had been some misrepresentation about what occurred with respect to employee-management bargaining about the issue of transfer. He stated A.B. 55 merely allowed employees to bargain about the manner in which a transfer would occur and did not take away any management rights. He contended transfer was a critical issue to school districts' employees and indicated the issue concerned voluntary transfer as well as involuntary transfer of employees. Mr. Bellister referred to NRS 391 and advised it dealt with involuntary transfer as a form of discipline. He stated school districts might wish to transfer employees for reasons other than discipline and suggested the geography of the school districts in Nevada was of critical concern to school employees with respect to how such transfers occurred. He advised A.B. 55 merely provided employees the right to bargain about the factors which would be considered with respect to transfers, such as qualifications, experience and training. Mr. Bellister said it was suggested, if A.B. 55 was passed by the legislature, "...the flood gates are going to be opened to transfer in the school districts." He indicated he doubted that would occur. He pointed out school teachers had possessed the ability to bargain about transfers for several years and said he had not heard complaints from any school district about substantial numbers of teachers requesting transfers. Mr. Bellister referred to concerns about the cost of bargaining, particularly in Carson City. He contended Carson City chose to spend thousands of dollars to bargain with its employee groups by retaining professional negotiators. He suggested A.B. 55 and NRS 288 did not require school districts to spend thousands of dollars to bargain with their employee groups. He advised such bargaining could be conducted by a superintendent of schools or an assistant superintendent of schools. Mr. Bellister stated NSEA was in favor of A.B. 55. Mr. Ernaut said he was confused as to why there would be any problem which would necessitate bargaining about a voluntary transfer. He asked how an employee's request to be transferred was processed and what concerns could arise with respect to such a request. Mr. Bellister replied concerns could arise as to whether or not an employee was qualified for the assignment to which he wished to be transferred and as to what should happen if more than one employee applied for the same position. He indicated many concerns could arise. He advised one reason for an employee to request a transfer was the employee's desire for promotion and suggested, when such requests were made, questions arose about how such transfers should take place and what factors should be considered. Mr. Ernaut asked if it was not one of NSEA's functions to provide school employees with information regarding the procedure for promotion. Mr. Bellister replied, "That's what we want to bargain over." He explained NSEA had the ability to bargain about transfers of teachers but not transfers of support personnel. Mr. Ernaut again referred to NRS 391.205 and asked Mr. Bellister if, in his experience, the hearing process provided by NRS 391.205 did not work. Mr. Bellister replied he had not had experience with the hearing process and did not know if it worked or not. Mr. Ernaut suggested NSEA would surely hear from its members if the process did not work. Mr. Bellister responded affirmatively. Discussions were held between Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Bellister regarding involuntary transfers. Mrs. Segerblom asked, with respect to transfers, who protected teachers who did not belong to NSEA. Mr. Bellister replied, under Nevada's law, if an employee group had a bargaining agent, that agent was recognized as the exclusive agent for that employee group and provided protection and representation for all individuals who were members of that group, whether or not those individuals were dues paying members of the bargaining agent. Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Bellister for examples of criteria which would be used (if such were bargained for) to determine which teacher would be selected for transfer or assignment to a teaching position if more than one teacher applied for the position. Mr. Bellister cited the Carson City School District as an example and said it used three or four criteria to determine who received a transfer. He said he believed those criteria were qualifications, experience and training. He advised some contracts required compatibility of staff members be considered and some required seniority be considered. Mrs. Lambert observed a principal must follow policy (as established by negotiated contract) in selecting a teacher for the position rather than making such selection independently. Mr. Bellister pointed out management, as well as teachers, was involved in bargaining to arrive at contracts and, contended if those contracts contained criteria for determining transfers, those criteria were established by agreements entered into by the school board and its administrators. Mr. Bennett said Mr. Bellister referred to Dr. Hawkins' testimony that she did not need to hire a bargaining agent to represent her and asked if that meant, when teachers engaged in bargaining, they allowed one of their number to bargain for them. Mr. Bellister responded affirmatively. Mr. Bennett stated he disagreed. He asked if NSEA did not, in fact, have staff paid to negotiate on its behalf. Mr. Bellister replied it did. Mr. Bennett contended it was necessary for Carson City School District to hire negotiators in order to be on a par with NSEA and with the Nevada Education Association when bargaining for negotiated contracts. Mr. Bellister responded many school districts employed professional negotiators while their teachers bargained on their own behalf. He indicated, in those instances, teachers often called upon NSEA for support during negotiations and NSEA provided such support. He said, however, with respect to school districts in counties other than Clark County and Washoe County, NSEA had only been called upon to provide bargaining support for teachers in fewer than six counties. Mr. Bennett pointed out Clark County and Washoe County comprised "...the major portion of the state..." and contended excluding those counties undermined Mr. Bellister's argument. Mrs. de Braga asked how many, if any, situations involving involuntary transfers resulted in court action and whether A.B. 55 would affect that number. Mr. Bellister replied he, personally, was not aware of any involuntary transfer of a public school employee which resulted in a court action. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 55. Chairman Bache said, before he opened the hearing on Assembly Bill No. 111, he wished to disclose both he and Assemblyman Williams were teachers in the Clark County School District. He advised, however, A.B. 111 would not affect him or Mr. Williams any differently than it would affect any other teacher in the Clark County School District and said both he and Mr. Williams would participate in the hearing on A.B. 111. 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. He submitted a page of proposed amendments to A.B. 111 (Exhibit F). He advised, with the exception of the amendment pertaining to disciplinary procedures for pupils, the proposed amendments would delete changes to the language of NRS 288. He explained, when the hearing on A.B. 111 was held in Las Vegas, concern was expressed about policies related to student discipline being made subject to negotiation. He said the proposed amendment to replace "disciplinary procedures for pupils" with "procedures but not policies for discipline of pupils" was intended to address that concern. Mr. Bache referred to Mr. Byington's testimony on A.B. 55, regarding the list of items which were subject to negotiation, and suggested the list could be eliminated by making "wages, hours and working conditions" a subject of bargaining. He suggested, however, the legislature was not ready to do so. Mr. Bache stated the testimony he gave in Las Vegas, with regard to procedures for disciplining students, indicated he looked to collective bargaining as a means of addressing Clark County's increasing problem with student discipline. He said concerns were expressed that A.B. 111 would allow individual teachers to negotiate procedures for student discipline. He contended it would not. He advised a negotiated contract would establish consistent disciplinary procedures and consistent enforcement of those procedures throughout a school district. Mr. Ernaut asked Mr. Bache to give an example of the scope he, as a teacher, had to discipline a student and at what point the school's principal would become involved. Mr. Bache replied the disciplinary tools available to teachers in Clark County School District were: discussing the discipline problem with the student involved, assigning the student a detention and contacting the student's parents by telephone. He advised, after he had used all the tools available to him, the next steps were to refer the student first to the school's counselor and then to the dean of students. Mr. Ernaut asked which disciplinary procedures, over which they presently had no control, teachers sought to gain control of through bargaining. Mr. Bache replied it was not disciplinary policies but, rather, the consistency with which those policies were implemented over which teachers sought to gain control through bargaining. He explained procedures for implementing disciplinary policies were inconsistent and there might be different responses to the same offense when committed by different students. Discussions were held between Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Bache regarding teachers' ability to enforce discipline. Mr. Bache advised, currently, a teacher had no recourse if he was dissatisfied with the manner in which a student was disciplined, when referred to the school's office; he contended making application of disciplinary procedures subject to collective bargaining would provide teachers with a means to address such disatisfaction. Assemblyman Harrington said he was in favor of uniform justice but was also in favor of site-based decisions to accommodate the varying needs of different schools. He asked if there were specific disciplinary problems which A.B. 111 would address but about which site-based decisions could still be made. Mr. Bache indicated most schools had variations on their policies for dealing with less serious student offenses. He suggested such policies should be standardized, within a school district, so a student who transferred from one school to another, within the same school district, would know his behavior was governed by the same rules in the school to which he transferred as it was in the school from which he came. Mr. Harrington asked whether A.B. 111 would affect a decision as to whether or not to use corporal punishment as a means of discipline. Mr. Bache replied it would not because corporal punishment was stricken from the statute as a means of discipline during the last legislative session. Assemblyman Nolan asked if a teacher had control over disciplining a student until such time as that teacher referred the student to the school's office. Mr. Bache advised teachers had the ability to call a student's parents, to discuss the discipline problem with the student and to assign the student detentions. He said those procedures were generally used for minor discipline problems. He indicated a teacher would refer a student to the school's counselor or to the dean if such problems became continuous. Mr. Nolan expressed concern that making disciplinary procedures or policies subject to negotiation would deprive parents of their ability to provide input into policy making processes with regard to discipline. Mr. Bache said he was unaware of any instance in which parents wrote disciplinary policy. He advised school administrators wrote disciplinary policy and probably considered parental input in doing so. He said, however, with respect to the parent-teacher organizations in Clark County, he was unaware of those organizations having negotiated with school administrators concerning discipline policies in their schools. Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, District 8, testified from his chair in the committee. He contended the issue of student discipline affected not only teachers but also affected students' educations. He described the successive steps taken by a teacher to resolve a discipline problem. He pointed out each successive step took place later in a nine-week grading period and absorbed time which a teacher should devote to his class. He suggested, by the time a teacher had exhausted his tools for dealing with an ongoing discipline problem and had referred a student to the school's counselor, the nine-week grading period was nearly at an end. Mr. Williams advised, after a student was sent to the school's counselor, if his discipline problem was still not resolved, the student was sent to the dean. He described the steps the dean took to resolve the discipline problem and advised if, after various steps, the problem remained unresolved, the dean would require a parent conference be held and the student would not be permitted to attend school until such conference was held. He said often parents were unable to appear for such a conference until several days had passed and stated some parents never appeared for such a conference. Mr. Williams cited examples of situations in which students who committed the same offense were treated differently. He suggested it would benefit both students and teachers to have consistent application of disciplinary procedures. He contended it reduced teachers' morale to feel no result would be achieved by referring a student to the school's office. Mr. Ernaut asked, if A.B. 111 was passed by the legislature and disciplinary procedures were made a subject of collective bargaining, what changes in those procedures Mr. Williams would make if he was chairman of the bargaining group. Mr. Williams explained, in some instances, either because of the seriousness of a student's offense or because of a student's individual needs, teachers needed to be able to accelerate the discipline process by eliminating some of the earlier steps in the process. He said he also believed a student's parents should have input in all stages of student discipline but indicated some parents provided support to the disciplinary process and some did not. He suggested when it was determined a required parent conference should be held, without exception, the parent should be required to attend the conference. Mrs. Lambert declared she was astonished at the time required by the disciplinary process and asked if Mr. Williams believed action should be taken, at the state level, with respect to the time frames involved in disciplinary procedures. Mr. Williams responded he did not know. Mrs. Lambert asked how teachers could have flexibility in applying disciplinary procedures if those procedures were established by collective bargaining and were contained in a contract. Mr. Williams replied, if disciplinary procedures subject to collective bargaining, teachers could provide input into those procedures based upon their day-to-day experiences. He suggested teachers had no input into existing disciplinary procedures and those procedures resulted in frustration and low morale for teachers. He reiterated previous testimony regarding lack of consistency in applying disciplinary procedures. Mrs. Lambert pointed out collective bargaining sessions were closed to the public and asked Mr. Williams and Mr. Bache how parents could have input in establishing disciplinary procedures. Mr. Williams stated, "If you put a student on required parent conference, which means that the student is out of school `til the parent shows up, what happens if the parent doesn't show up...the parent doesn't call or doesn't respond to the required parent conference. What happens?" Mr. Bache responded collective bargaining would deal with procedures rather than policies and school districts would still establish the policies for student discipline. He indicated parents would be able to have input in setting school districts' disciplinary policies. Mrs. Lambert said it appeared, from Mr. Bache's and Mr. Williams' testimony, that the entire disciplinary process, including both procedures and policies, was not working. Mr. Bache responded Clark County School District's disciplinary policies were good but were not consistently and fairly enforced. He said, over the years, as Clark County School District established its disciplinary policies, the school district received input from parents, teachers and administrators through meetings of the school board. He stated he had no problem with those policies but rather with the manner in which they were implemented. Mrs. Freeman commented regarding a parent's need to know about his child's disciplinary problems at the time those problems occurred rather than long after the fact, when it was too late to do anything about the problems. She said she was puzzled as to why parents were not involved at an earlier stage of the disciplinary process than they were and asked if Mr. Bache could explain. Mr. Bache reiterated previous testimony regarding the steps involved in student discipline. He indicated sometimes parents did not respond to a teacher's attempts to involve them in the disciplinary process. Mr. Harrington asked if Mr. Bache would consider establishing a time frame in which parents must be brought into the disciplinary process. Mr. Bache replied, if Mr. Harrington was suggesting such a time frame be established as part of the disciplinary procedures, teachers would like to see that included as a subject of negotiation regarding such procedures. Mr. Harrington asked if Mr. Bache knew whether disciplinary procedures had been made a subject of collective bargaining by teachers anywhere in the United States and, if so, "...how has that worked out..." Mr. Bache replied, to his knowledge, it had not been done. Mr. Bennett commented on his experiences of not being timely notified of his daughter's absences from school. Mr. Bache responded such notification was not the responsibility of individual teachers. Mr. Doug Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators, testified. He advised the Nevada Association of School Administrators opposed expansion of NRS 288.150. He said currently there were 22 items which were subject to negotiation. Mr. Byington contended the subject of discipline would be difficult to negotiate. He said there were two bills before the legislature which dealt with federally mandated legislation (regarding school discipline). He advised, during the last legislative session, corporal punishment was eliminated as a means of discipline in schools and suggested few disciplinary tools remained available. Mr. Byington explained courts had established parameters for discipline in schools. Mr. Byington referred to Mr. Bennett's question (asked during the hearing on A.B. 55) about what the typical duties of a school administrator would be if A.B. 55 was passed by the legislature. He declared having to negotiate regarding student discipline would have a serious impact on school administrators because not only would they have to contend with federal laws governing discipline but would also have to contend with negotiated agreements concerning discipline. Mr. Byington advised there was a statutory requirement that all students receive a copy of their school district's disciplinary code and any additions which were made to that code. He suggested there should be flexibility in applying disciplinary procedures and said, "I don't think we can tie administrators, teachers and districts down to negotiated agreement." Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified. He indicated, based on testimony of previous witnesses and questions asked by committee members, it appeared to him the major concern regarding school discipline was about the inconsistency with which it was applied. He contended making discipline subject to collective bargaining would not affect such inconsistency but would cause disciplinary procedure, as part of a negotiated contract, to become a grievable issue. He suggested, if a grievance was filed each time someone disagreed with the manner in which a disciplinary policy was administered, it would greatly impede a school district's operations. He advised decisions regarding such grievances would be made by "...an outside hearing officer..." rather than by a teacher, administrative staff or school board. Mrs. Lambert asked if Mr. Etchemendy knew what it cost to have a hearing officer determine a grievance. Mr. Etchemendy replied he thought A.B. 111 would have a fiscal impact but did not know how that impact could be determined. He suggested employees of some school districts might not wish to include disciplinary procedures among those items they bargained for in a given year while employees of other school districts might wish to do so. Mr. Bennett asked if either Mr. Byington or Mr. Etchemendy believed to include discipline as a subject of collective bargaining was a workable concept. Mr. Etchemendy replied he did not. Mr. Byington explained some schools employed a program of assertive discipline, in which rules were established and posted in classrooms so that students in those classrooms were aware of both the rules and the consequences for breaking the rules. He indicated some teachers never experienced discipline problems while others did and said teachers sometimes disagreed about the action which should be taken with regard to such problems. Mr. Bennett asked whether the rules to which Mr. Byington referred were standard from school to school or varied from classroom to classroom. Mr. Byington replied, in a program of assertive discipline, an attempt was made to have a standard policy (with respect to rules and discipline) but, he indicated, teachers wanted to be allowed flexibility in applying the policy. Mr. Ernaut asked what input teachers currently had into the process of establishing disciplinary policies and procedures. Mr. Byington indicated his experience was with Washoe County School District. He advised Washoe County School District's disciplinary procedures had been in effect for several years and said he did not know whether or not the Washoe County Teachers' Association had been included in developing those procedures. Mr. Ernaut asked whether it would suffice to say teachers input, at best, was limited. Mr. Byington responded affirmatively. Mr. Ernaut asked what grievance procedure was available to a teacher who was unhappy with the manner in which disciplinary procedures or policies were implemented. Mr. Byington replied he did not believe there was such a procedure. He said if someone was unhappy with the manner in which he dealt with a situation, that individual could discuss the matter with him. He said a teacher who was unhappy with the manner in which a disciplinary situation was handled could discuss his dissatisfaction with the school board or his teachers' association. Mr. Ernaut again asked what grievance procedure was available to a teacher who was unhappy with the manner in which the individual responsible for disciplining a student administered such discipline. Mr. Byington posed a hypothetical example of a principal who failed to suspend a student from school for possessing a knife or other weapon. He indicated such a principal would have violated state law by not suspending the student and would be guilty of malfeasance. He said he believed, in such a case, the teachers' association would have the right to approach the school board regarding the principal's failure to enforce the law. Mr. Ernaut suggested teachers knew best what should be done about discipline problems in their classrooms and asked, "If they have no ability to have any input, they have no structure of grievance, how do we fix this?" Mr. Etchemendy responded to Mr. Ernaut's question and said, from discussions he had with various administrators and school superintendents throughout Nevada, he found the relationship between teachers, principals and superintendents was not entirely adversarial. He suggested teachers, principals and superintendents talked with one another (about problems) and indicated he believed there must be some provision, for a teacher, who was unable to arrive at an agreement with the principal of his school regarding disciplinary procedures, to approach the next administrative level regarding the problem. He indicated, based upon a report he had seen regarding the various activities which occurred in school districts and in which "staff" was involved, he believed teachers had some input into all phases of school operations, including discipline. Mr. Harrington said he believed teachers were asking that, after they had used the tools available to them for classroom discipline, they be backed up by having solid and consistent disciplinary procedures imposed and indicated he thought A.B. 111 would accomplish that. He suggested having disciplinary procedures included in a negotiated contract would aid administrators in dealing with parents who were unhappy with procedures the administrators implemented. Mr. Etchemendy said, "...I don't believe that you need this law to do that." He advised those disciplinary policies implemented by administrators were policies of their school districts and suggested the administrators had those policies to back up their actions. He suggested lack of disciplinary policies was not the problem about which teachers complained but, rather, the problem was the inconsistency with which those policies were applied. Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Etchemendy what mechanism, other than A.B. 111, he would recommend to enforce more uniform application of discipline. Mr. Etchemendy reiterated he did not believe A.B. 111 would provide more uniform application of discipline. He said he believed employees of a school district had the present ability to obtain an adequate response to their questions and concerns. Mr. Byington said an amazing number of limitations were placed on schools which were beyond the control of the administrators of those schools. He cited, as an example, a school to which most of its students were transported by bus. He advised a student attending such a school could not be kept after school unless arrangements could be made for the student's transportation to his home. He advised students could not be kept from having their lunches. Mr. Bache asked Mr. Byington if he specifically represented the Clark County Association of School Administrators with respect to A.B. 111. Mr. Byington advised 99 percent of Clark County's school administrators were members of Nevada Association of School Administrators and stated Nevada Association of School Administrators had opposed collective bargaining during the 1969 legislative session and each legislative session since. Mr. Bache said he recalled, at the hearing on A.B. 111 held in Las Vegas, the Clark County Association of School Administrators expressed support for A.B. 111. Mr. Nolan commented student discipline problems were most often addressed promptly and efficiently and asked "...are we really dealing with a few specific cases and legislating for a percentage or a fraction point of the population of students and not really addressing the entire student population." Mr. Byington replied, "...I think we are dealing with a small segment of the population. He advised, however, 10 percent of the students took up 90 percent of "our" time. He said it was that small group of students which created frustration and about which school administrators did not know what to do. He suggested suspending students from school created a revolving door situation. Mrs. de Braga said the intent of A.B. 111 was neither to establish nor to negotiate disciplinary policy but rather was to negotiate disciplinary procedures and to ensure disciplinary policies, whatever those policies might be, were carried out consistently, without regard to students' sex, race, economic situation or any other distinguishing factor, in order that students be treated fairly and consistently. Mr. Byington responded A.B. 111 would, in fact, establish policy. He contended establishing the manner in which a student must be dealt with established policy. Mr. Etchemendy interjected he agreed with Mr. Byington. He suggested the terms "policy" and "procedure" were interchangeable and there was no difference between those terms in the context of the discussion. Mrs. de Braga said, as she read A.B. 111, its purpose was to deal with the manner in which disciplinary policies were applied to students rather than with the policies themselves. Assemblyman Tripple commented, whether referred to as procedures or policies, such matters should be determined at the level of a county or an individual school district. She said it was inappropriate to deal with those matters at the state level. Mr. Bache referred to the discussion concerning the terms "procedure" and "policy" and indicated if it was necessary to define those terms in A.B. 111 he had no problem with that being done. Mr. Bennett commented, "I would hate to even try to envision the procedure on discipline that can cover every conceivable situation." He suggested there were too many possible variables with respect to individual students. Mr. Harold Ridgway, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District, testified. He advised he believed discipline in Nevada's schools was critically important. He suggested Mr. Williams' testimony had shown hard and fast disciplinary procedures were unworkable. He advised he was present to testify against A.B. 111. He contended there was a continuing attempt to expand the list of items which were negotiable through collective bargaining and said, if A.B. 111 was passed, it would add an item to that list which could seriously impede school districts' abilities to deal with their students. Mr. Ridgway gave further testimony by reading from prepared text (Exhibit G). He suggested there were many factors which contributed to a student's behavior and said to reduce the procedures for disciplining students to a negotiated agreement would completely eliminate the ability to consider a specific student's offense, the cause for the offense, the frequency of the offense or any of the circumstances which surrounded the offense. He said Elko County School District recommended the legislature not pass A.B. 111. He stated negotiating disciplinary procedures would not work, either for teachers or for school administrators. He suggested a human element was involved in determining how a student should be disciplined and pointed out, if a teacher or an administrator chose to deal with a student in a manner other than that set forth in negotiated procedures, he would be in violation of the negotiated contract and a grievable situation would be created. He contended schools needed latitude in dealing with student discipline. Mr. Harrington said A.B. 111, as worded, would allow classroom teachers flexibility in dealing with students. He suggested, if a teacher and school administrator agreed an alternate disciplinary procedure should be utilized, based upon special circumstances, no grievable situation would be created, however, if a teacher disagreed with an administrator on the disciplinary procedure to be employed, the administrator would have to follow the procedures established through negotiations or face the possibility of a grievance. Mr. Ridgway reiterated he believed discipline in schools was of critical importance. He said, if problems existed with regard to discipline in schools, those problems needed to be addressed but stated he strongly disagreed the way to address those problems was through negotiated agreements. He stated it was necessary to retain the humanistic element in dealing with students and their behaviors. Mr. Nolan asked Mr. Ridgway if, in his experience with the bargaining process, a party making a request usually asked for more than it expected to get. Mr. Ridgway replied he was unable to answer Mr. Nolan's question. He advised, until the current year, Elko County School District's teachers had chosen to do all of their negotiating through an informal "meet and confer" process. Mr. Gregory Betts, Rural Alliance/College of Education, testified. He said, "My comments, earlier, on the other bill, I would like, for the record, they are equally, I think, applicable to this bill, even more so." He contended A.B. 111 was a very inappropriate bill. He said one of the greatest areas of concern to parents was how schools dealt with students' disciplinary problems. He stated, if the legislature passed A.B. 111, it would lock parents out of the disciplinary process. He advised school boards, by law, developed disciplinary policies, which were approved in public meetings, after which those school boards directed school administrators to develop regulations to determine how those policies were to be implemented to ensure consistency within a school district. He suggested each school then had to deal with those regulations but had flexibility in doing so. Mr. Betts referred to Mr. Williams' testimony regarding inconsistency in enforcement of disciplinary procedures, and suggested a teacher faced with such inconsistency should approach the administrator in charge of discipline at his school and, if unable to gain satisfaction from the administrator, should then approach the principal and, if still unable to gain satisfaction, should take the matter before a meeting of the school's faculty. He suggested, if the faculty agreed with the teacher's position, the school's principal would make changes in the enforcement of disciplinary procedures. He contended a mechanism to solve the problem of inconsistent application of disciplinary procedures existed "...at the local level..." and suggested it was extremely inappropriate to attempt to solve the problem through legislation. Dr. Patricia Hawkins, Associate Superintendent, Carson City School District, testified. She stated she agreed with Mr. Betts' testimony. She contended avenues were available through which to deal with disciplinary procedures other than that of expanding the scope of mandatory bargaining. She said, as both a vice principal and as a principal, she had to deal with a lot of discipline problems and collaborated with her staff on how discipline should be implemented. She advised, if her staff members were unhappy with the manner in which she dealt with student discipline, they could take their complaints as far as the school board. She stated administrative regulations and procedures for dealing with discipline already were in effect in school districts and suggested, if those regulations and procedures were not working effectively, teachers' bargaining units needed to advise their school boards of that fact. Dr. Hawkins advised Carson City School District had adopted school board policies and administrative regulations for site-based management, which, she said, "...definitely takes parents out of the loop." She explained, when she addressed Carson City School District's "...site based committee..", which had helped to develop the administrative policies and regulations, she had to advise the committee's members they could have input with respect to how schools were run but could not have input with respect to any items covered by the district's collective bargaining agreement. She indicated the parents were very frustrated when they determined how many items were negotiable in Carson City School District. She contended discipline was an emotional issue and one about which parents wished to have input. She suggested having to bargain over disciplinary procedures would create a sad state of affairs for education. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified. She said parents, their children and the taxpayers should be the first to be considered when discussing A.B. 111. She contended A.B. 111 raised major public policy issues which were of concern to parents and their children. She contended only semantics was involved in discussing "procedures" versus "policies." She said parents were concerned with what happened to their children, with respect to discipline, not with the terms employed in discussing discipline. She stated disciplinary procedures which affected Nevada's children should be fully disclosed to the public. She declared making those procedures the subject of negotiation removed them from the reach of parents, parent-teacher advisory committees and school boards. She advised, if school boards, on behalf of the citizens whom they were elected to represent, disagreed with "...union demands..." (concerning application of disciplinary procedures), the final decision would rest with an unelected arbitrator, not only as the decision pertained to policies and procedures, collectively, but as it pertained to individual cases. Ms. Lusk said, on behalf of parents and taxpayers, she asked the legislature to defeat A.B. 111. Ms. Lusk referred to Mr. Williams' testimony. She said Mr. Williams made an eloquent argument for the need for consistency in the application of disciplinary procedures. She stated he made an equally eloquent argument for inconsistency because to allow teachers to decide how disciplinary procedures would be applied would create tremendous inconsistency in the application of those procedures "...from student to student, from classroom to classroom..." She suggested a decision had to be made as to where the authority lay to determine how disciplinary procedures were to be applied and where "...you're willing to place flexibility and trust." She contended there could not be both consistency and flexibility at the lowest level at which discipline was imposed. Ms. Carolyn Edwards, Clark County School District, testified. She suggested the members of the committee advise the parents of school children in their districts of the fact the legislature was considering a bill which would turn over the issue of student discipline to the teachers' union and ask those parents if they believed the teachers' union, through bargaining, could do a better job of enforcing disciplinary procedures than was presently being done. Ms. Edwards contended the issue with which A.B. 111 was concerned was a local issue and should be handled by local school boards, principals, teachers and parents. She pointed out, since the legislature passed legislation establishing site- based management of schools and parent participation, it was mandated, in every elementary school in Clark County, that parents be part of any committee created to establish discipline. Mrs. Segerblom suggested teachers could not rely on parents to assist them in disciplining students but must rely on themselves. Ms. Edwards advised her school, with the support of its students' parents, had established an internal disciplinary system. She explained students who had disciplinary problems were not sent to the principal but, rather, were sent to a "court," in which the lawyers defending or prosecuting them and the judges who judged them were their peers, and where they were issued tickets for bad behavior. She advised there was also a "supreme court," comprised of parents. She said, since this system was implemented, there had been fewer discipline problems in her school than there had ever been before. She suggested her school was an example of children taking responsibility for themselves and indicated responsibility for her school's disciplinary system was shared equally by children, teachers, administrators and parents. Mr. Williams asked Ms. Edwards what the most important item in a classroom was. Ms. Edwards replied, next to the student, the most important item in the classroom was the teacher. Mrs. Lambert asked, if A.B. 111 was passed by the legislature, would Ms. Edwards be able to have the disciplinary system she now had in her elementary school. Ms. Edwards responded she would probably not be able to have that system. She stated A.B. 111 would remove flexibility in disciplinary procedures. Mr. Bache commented not only he and Mr. Williams were concerned about discipline. He advised he could have filled the committee's hearing room with teachers who were frustrated with school discipline but did not feel it would be beneficial to do so. Mr. Harrington asked what Ms. Edwards would do to correct the problem of school discipline which had not been done in the past. Ms. Edwards responded Mr. Harrington's question was difficult for her to answer. She suggested discipline begins in the classroom, with the teacher, and asked, "... if teachers are telling you that they're powerless now, why are you going to turn over the entire project of letting them run it, through mandatory bargaining units." She referred to Mr. Bennett's comment that his daughter was absent from school 24 days before he was notified by the school of her absence. She suggested Mr. Bennett's daughter's teacher should have notified him. She asked, rhetorically, why teachers were unable to handle discipline in their classrooms yet believed they could handle discipline through negotiations. Vice Chairman Neighbors closed the hearing on A.B. 111 and turned the meeting back over to Chairman Bache. Chairman Bache advised the hearing on Assembly Bill No. 142 would be rescheduled. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 11:00 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 March 14, 1995 Page