MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session January 23, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, January 23, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst Judi Bishop, Primary Secretary Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens Roger Means, Director, Government Relations, Washoe County School District Greg Betts, Lobbyist, Rural School Districts Lindsey Jydstrup, Assistant Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association Douglas Byington, Legislative Specialist, Nevada Association of School Administrators Stephen Satchell, Citizen Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education Don Dallas, Retired Public School Administrator Debbie Cahill, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association * * * * * Chairman Rawson asked members of the committee to introduce themselves. All members present introduced themselves. Chairman Rawson introduced the staff members present. He then briefly described the types of issues dealt with in this committee. Chairman Rawson presented the committee with a copy of standing rules (Exhibit C). SENATOR COFFIN MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RULES. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rawson presented BILL DRAFT REQUESTS (BDR) BDR R-273, BDR R- 275, BDR R-278, BDR R-279, BDR R-282, BDR R-283, BDR R-289, BDR R-288, and BDR R-287. BDR R-273: Directs Department of Education and Division of Child and Family Services of Department of Human Resources to conduct joint study of educational services available to pupils with violent and disruptive behavior. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-273. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BDR R-275: Urges Budget Division of Department of Administration not to consider ending fund balances of school districts as sources of revenue in preparation of budgets. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-275. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BDR R-278: Urges Congress not to require states to provide educational programs unless it provides necessary funding. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-278. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BDR R-279: Directs Department of Education to study desirability and feasibility of lengthening school day and school year, increases availability of school facilities and provides financial assistance to teachers. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-279. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BDR R-282: Urges board of trustees of each county school district to develop policies and strategies to increase parental involvement in educational process. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-282. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BDR R-283: Urges colleges of education of University and Community College System of Nevada to provide students with training in communication skills. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-283. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BDR R-289: Urges school districts in Nevada to improve nutritional value of foods served in school lunch and breakfast programs. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-289. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BDR R-288: Urges all employers in Nevada to encourage employees to earn high school diplomas or high school equivalency certificates. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-288. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BDR R-287: Urges Department of Education and Department of Human Resources to participate fully in "Kids Count" survey. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-287. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rawson called on Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, to highlight the Issue Brief on Health and Human Services (Exhibit D), and the Issue Brief on Education (Exhibit E). Ms. Davis explained the briefs were prepared to assist committee members during the session, and briefly enumerated the highlights of the briefs. Chairman Rawson called on Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst to explain the history of Senate Bills (S.B.) 25, 26 & 29. Mr. Sturm stated that as legislative staff, he could not testify in opposition to or in favor of any particular legislation, and that he was present only to tell the committee of the origin of the bills, and let them know about the background and actions of the interim study committee. Mr. Sturm, speaking from prepared text (Exhibit F) stated that S.B. 25, 26 & 29 all originated from the legislative interim study committee to study public, elementary and secondary education. He said a copy of the committee's final report is available, and will be distributed to the members of the committee. He continued reading from the text of Exhibit F. He concluded by saying the members of the subcommittee endorsed this concept of the professional development school, and expressed its desire that the model be encouraged wherever possible throughout the state. Chairman Rawson asked if the committee members had any questions. Vice Chairman Lowden said she was curious as to whether there was a fiscal note attached to S.B. 29, and who would develop and pay for those programs. Mr. Sturm replied the fiscal impact was not discussed. He said he believed S.B. 29 provides that the state board establish a program, without specifying a particular level of detail. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Sturm to direct finance staff to look into whether there is any identified money that goes into teacher development or training at the current time. Mr. Sturm agreed to do so. Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on S.B. 25. SENATE BILL 25: Repeals provision governing conferences of teachers and school administrators. Chairman Rawson asked if there was anyone present in support of S.B. 25. The first to testify was Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education/Department of Education. She stated she was "kind of" in support of S.B.25. Ms. Peterson, reading from prepared text (Exhibit G), said the repeal of Nevada Revised Statutes 385.190 was intended to be a housekeeping measure, and went on to make further recommendations delineated in the text. Chairman Rawson asked if that was not providing the same authority that exists in Nevada Revised Statutes 385.190. He asked what the difference was. Ms. Peterson stated she sought to clarify the difference between "institutes" and "conferences." Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on Senate Bill 25 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 26. SENATE BILL 26: Establishes uniform grounds for suspension and expulsion of pupils. Chairman Rawson explained to new members of the committee his method for tracking the dates when bills were heard and any action taken on them. He said he noted the dates, and actions taken on the bills in the bill books. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified that S.B. 26 came out of the interim study committee on education and he assumed the bill was drafted and introduced so it could have public exposure prior to legislative action. He said at about the same time the Nevada Association of School Boards and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents came up with a bill on the same two sections. He said the bill they introduced is simpler and does not contain as many mandated provisions, but cleans up one of the provisions of the statute that gives them problems, and provides an additional definition for dangerous weapon. He said Senate Bill (S.B.) 85 is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, February 1, 1995, and requested that the committee combine the hearings for S.B. 26 and S.B. 85. SENATE BILL 85: Revises provisions governing suspension or expulsion of pupil who possesses dangerous weapon or firearm. Chairman Rawson agreed to his request, and asked if Mr. Etchemendy had any concerns about the way S.B. 26 was written. Mr. Etchemendy stated he had many concerns and he felt S.B. 85 was a more appropriate approach to the issue. He pointed out that S.B. 85 does not place requirements on districts to place certain penalties for certain behaviors. He said certain school boards may want local control of those penalties. Chairman Rawson explained one of his concerns is that parents may express that there is unfair, unequal treatment of students depending on whom they know or what political influence they may have. He stressed there should be some specific penalties defined to insure uniform application thereof. He reiterated that they want equality. He asked Mr. Etchemendy if he felt there was any need to have a state overriding statute to guarantee those kind of equalities. Mr. Etchemendy replied that those kinds of equalities could be better addressed at the local level, because citizens have better access to local school boards than to state authorities. Vice Chairman Lowden expressed her concern for a statewide code governing all counties, and asked if other states have adopted this type of bill. Vice Chairman Lowden drew attention to her concern for the rural counties, citing as an example the effect this bill may have on students who may carry guns in their vehicles for duck hunting before or after school. Mr. Etchemendy said he had not done any research regarding other states or statistics thereon, but said there was a federal law concerning weapons on school grounds that would have to be addressed as well. Senator Augustine pointed out several items listed as discretionary penalties in the Akron, Ohio, form have now become proposed mandatory suspensions in S.B. 26. She asked Mr. Etchemendy if he knew why those changes were made. He said he had no idea. Kerry Carroll-Davis interjected, it could be bill drafting procedure. She said she would check on it for Senator Augustine. Next to testify was Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC). She said NCC was very concerned about S.B. 26. She stated their main concern was whether this degree of specificity should be state law or should reside with the local school board. She said NCC speaks for ordinary citizens, parents, who elect school boards for the purpose of being able to view the community standards in their own communities and make individual decisions based on the circumstances that appear before them. She said they feel the hierarchy is "screwed up," stating one example where committing a battery which results in bodily injury to a school employee is the most serious offense. She said NCC thinks it is equally severe to commit battery, rape or molestation on another student. She noted that in the second level of severity, items such as forgery, which is most often a student signing his own absent note is placed above malicious vandalism or obscene language or possession of drug paraphernalia. She said placing of gambling in the second level of severity is, perhaps, an anomaly in this state. Referring to page 2, line 33, she said the statement "a pupil may be suspended for not more than 10 days" for certain of those offenses. She questioned whether 10 days was always enough for every incident of extortion. She further stated it may be a limiting factor for an offense which could be quite serious. Finally, she pointed out that NCC is very concerned about federal mandates and does not want further state mandates, but would rather have these types of matters handled at the local level. Roger Means, Director, Government Relations, Washoe County School District, was next to testify. He began by introducing his co-board members present: Dede Goodnight, President, Nevada State School Board Association; Margie Brodbrick; and Dr. Mary Nebgren. He stated Washoe County School District is in support of S.B. 26 because they want schools to be safe. He said they concur with Mr. Etchemendy's recommendation regarding S.B. 85. He further stated they concur with Mrs. Lusk's remarks concerning the 10 day suspension limit. He said they may have cases in their district involving extortion, forgery or assault where they want to suspend a student for a period longer than 10 days. He drew attention to the fact that Washoe County has approximately 45,000 students in their district and they have approximately 30 incidents per year that fall into the 1 year expulsion or long term suspension. He questioned whether the portions of the bill dealing with gambling and sexual activity were defined clearly enough. Senator Neal asked Mr. Means if the schools in his district had progressed to the point where they had to be treated as reformatory schools. He said he felt that the provisions of S.B. 26 are the provisions one would find in a reformatory school. Mr. Means explained the Washoe County School District has incidences of all of those defined offenses listed in the bill draft. He further explained the frequency of those incidences would be a judgment call on how severe it is, but he would not describe any of their schools as reform schools. He told Senator Neal that Washoe County feels the situation is serious enough that it is looking into alternative schools such as they have in Las Vegas to handle those students. Senator Neal asked why the legislature would have to have this put into statute. Mr. Means replied that S.B. 85, which is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, February 1, 1995, is not nearly as prescriptive as S.B. 26, and the Washoe County School District would rather not have it in statute, but would rather have the flexibility to handle it on a case-by-case basis within the district. He emphasized the Washoe County School District wanted to speak in support of the concept of safe, gun free schools. Senator Neal stated S.B. 85 does deal with weapons, and asked if Mr. Means sought to apply the Akron Public School conduct of student behavior. He said he did not know what kind of problems they have back in Akron, but that it seemed to him that school teachers and principals should have some type of flexibility rather than putting something in statute. Mr. Means stated he concurred with that. Senator Neal stated he would then look at it from that standpoint. Greg Betts, Lobbyist, Rural School Districts, was the next to testify. He said he was speaking in opposition of S.B. 26. He said he supports the language in S.B. 85 which would be heard next week, because it deals with that which must be dealt with at the state level, being the federal gun free schools act. He stressed the language in the federal gun free schools act is better than the language in S.B. 26. He stated the people he represents do not think these matters need to be dealt with at the state level. Lindsey Jydstrup, Assistant Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated the NSEA concurred with prior testimony in that S.B. 26 is too ambiguous, and said she has a problem with the specificity of the hierarchy laid forth. Douglas Byington, Legislative Specialist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, said "ditto" to the previous remarks made in opposition to this bill. He concluded by saying his association would throw their support toward S.B. 85. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of S.B. 26. Stephen Satchell, Citizen, representing only himself stated he was in support of the basic concept of S.B. 26. He said he had not seen S.B. 85. He read from prepared text (Exhibit H). Don Dallas, Retired Public School Administrator, stated he was not in total opposition to the bill, but said he felt weapons in the schools in Yerington is as serious a problem as it is in Las Vegas, yet thinks the issues need to be dealt with by the school boards of the 17 counties rather than at the state level. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 26 and opened the hearing on S.B. 29. SENATE BILL 29: Requires State Board of Education to establish program to promote professional development of teachers. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education, reciting from prepared testimony (Exhibit I) testified the State Board of Education currently places a high priority on programs which promote professional development of teachers and will continue to do so. He drew attention to the fact that about 90 to 95 percent of the workshops they present are federally funded. Vice Chairman Lowden asked for clarification regarding the funding he referred to in his testimony. Mr. Rheault replied the funding he referred to was primarily federal funding. He said each of the main branches within the department, i.e. special education, occupational education, the federal programs branch (which is chapter 1 and chapter 2 English as a Second Language) and the elementary and secondary education branches have within their budgets training funds, but all are from the federal grants that each branch receives. Vice Chairman Lowden inquired if anyone was asking for more funds, or whether it was built into the budget already. She asked if Mr. Rheault was suggesting not passing this bill without funding. Mr. Rheault responded by saying they had asked for some professional development funds within their budget, not many of which have been recommended for funding within the Executive Budget. He said if the additional funding is not attached to this bill, there will not be any advantage because they will continue to use federal funds for teacher training, but they will not go beyond that without additional funding. Senator Mathews inquired whether the state board of education charged teachers a fee for those conferences. Mr. Rheault responded by saying it varied by workshop or conference given. He said it could vary at the request of the school district. He explained on larger conferences a registration fee may be charged to cover meals or other things included with the conference. He said the registration fees charged are not raked back into the General Fund. Senator Neal asked Mr. Rheault why they needed this bill. Mr. Rheault reiterated the board feels they are already accomplishing this. Chairman Rawson asked if there was any opposition to this bill. Debby Cahill, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said the NSEA opposes this bill on principle and they do not think it is needed. She further stated if there was an appropriation attached to it they would be supporting it all the way. She said they are in favor of professional development, but that local districts are accomplishing the intent of this bill. There being no further business before the committee, Senator Rawson adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities January 23, 1995 Page