MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session February 1, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 1, 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 Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary Teri Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Richard S. Jarvis, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Sherri Lakin, Parent and Taxpayer Debbie Cahill, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association Penny Brock, Taxpayer Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education Robin Hollingshead, Parent Harold Ridgeway, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District Jeanne Simons, Concerned Parent Maxine Neitz, Engineer and Independent Businesswoman Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens Ricci Elkins, Parent Sherry Loncar, Legislative Representative, Nevada Parent Teachers Association Janine Hanson, President, Nevada Eagle Forum Juanita Cox, Taxpayer John W. Riggs, Senior, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association (NSRPA) Keith Reauhlt, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education Stella Helvie, Ph.D., Director Second Language Department, Clark County School District Gloria Mason, Bilingual Special Education Teacher, Hispanic Educators Association of Nevada Keith N. MacDonald, Executive Secretary, Nevada State Board of Pharmacy Michael Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Pharmacy Chairman Rawson called the meeting to order. He explained this would be the last meeting of the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities before the 2- week recess, at which time the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities would be in Las Vegas and that there was a very heavy agenda that day. He further stated there would be a work session at the end of the meeting. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, was first to testify. Speaking from written text (Exhibit C) he described the background and origin of Senate Bill (S.B.) 27 and 31. He also referred to a fax sheet from Far West Labs on Charter Schools (Exhibit D). SENATE BILL 27: Requires school districts to report certain additional information to residents of district and to state board of education. SENATE BILL 31: Authorizes formation and operation of charter schools in Nevada. Chairman Rawson asked if the committee had any questions for Mr. Sturm. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if, in the Interim Study Committee, there were any specific examples of schools that were being considered. She said she thought she heard him mention five schools in his presentation. Mr. Sturm responded by saying the Interim Study Committee did not receive any testimony from people wanting to create charter schools. He said this was an attempt to provide flexibility based on what other states were doing. He said the Interim Study Committee, in its work session, received a summary of the Minnesota law. He said he believed Minnesota initially restricted the number of charter schools to eight statewide and is now up to 35. He said the bill drafters, in the interest of making it applicable to Nevada law, restricted it to five schools per district. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Chairman Rawson if that was and arbitrary number. Chairman Rawson answered in the affirmative. Senator Washington asked whether it was Minnesota or Michigan where the courts found the charter schools were not public schools. Mr. Sturm responded by stating that Michigan had a recent court case. Senator Washington asked if they found that the charter schools were not public schools. Mr. Sturm said that based on Michigan's constitution, that was correct. Senator Augustine asked whether the state of Michigan has school choice now. She stated that Governor Engler was trying to enact that. She said she knew that Wisconsin just passed it, and wondered if it was declared unconstitutional based on school choice. Mr. Sturm said he did not know. He reiterated he believed it was based on their constitution. Chairman Rawson stated that Las Vegas High School is a specialized school in the performing arts. He asked if anyone knew if it was a charter school, or whether the state allows those. Senator Neal said it is not a charter school. Mr. Sturm stated he believed under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), Las Vegas High School has to follow all the rules and regulations set by the Nevada State Board of Education. Senator Washington asked if charter schools are defined as private schools or public schools under the state's constitution. Mr. Sturm said he did not know how they would be defined in Nevada. He stated in Minnesota they are quasi-public. Chairman Rawson stated it will be up to the committee to define them in Nevada. Senator Neal asked if the phrase "charter school" was another euphemism for the privatization of the schools. Mr. Sturm said he thought it was one of the options the state has for school choice and privatization is a possibility. He further stated he thought some schools have entertained hiring a private management firm to run their operations under their states' charters. He said he was not sure if this statute would allow that. Senator Neal referring to S.B. 31, section 4 quoted, "If the board of trustees of a school district authorizes the formation of a charter school, the board shall enter into a proposed written agreement with the board of directors of the charter school." He then asked, "that's a private concern, is it not?" Mr. Sturm replied it could be, depending on who is elected to the board of directors. He said S. B. 31 specifies that they must be elected from among the teachers and parents of pupils. Senator Neal asked if Mr. Sturm had noticed whether the schools in other states require the mandatory proposals to enter into contracts with those schools. Mr. Sturm replied that most of the charter school statutes do have very similar language concerning the agreements. He said in Minnesota they are called letters of intent where our bill drafters call them agreements. He stated they create a quasi-public body to administer the school. Senator Neal (referring to S.B. 31, page 3, section 8, number 3, line 12) stated that under the admission criteria for the schools "if the number of applications exceeds such capacity, pupils must be accepted on the basis of random selection." He emphasized it is a right for every student to receive an education. He further stated this seems to be in conflict with the constitutional mandate of this state to accomplish that under a charter school concept. He asked Mr. Sturm if he understood that to be correct. Mr. Sturm replied that it was a legal matter, and he could not comment on it. Chairman Rawson said he saw this as an extension of site-based decision making. He explained they insure there is essentially a school board, although they call it a board of directors, that deals with the individual schools. He said he thinks the reason they included the random selection criteria was so the charge would not be raised that this is an expensive private school, that will only accept certain people. Chairman Rawson introduced the next speaker, Richard S. Jarvis, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada. Chancellor Jarvis said he was presenting his report on the status of planning to the committee pursuant to their requirement. He presented the committee with a copy of the University and Community College System of Nevada Planning Report 1995- 1999 (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library). He stated he would not read it, but rather point out the highlights. He said he would like to make some larger contextual issues related to planning in the University and Community College System. He said he would be referring to two documents during his presentation. The first was a series of bullet points (Exhibit F) that he would be speaking to as he went through the presentation. The second was a handout on statistics (Exhibit G) he said he would like to comment on about two-thirds of the way through his presentation. Chancellor Jarvis congratulated the committee and their forebears on the creation of a comprehensive public, higher education system for the State of Nevada. He said the state has within this system all the elements to address the needs of public higher education within this state. He noted the state has four community colleges, two universities and a world renowned research institute, the Desert Research Institute. He declared there is no need in public higher education that is beyond our power. He explained it may not be within our means, but is not beyond our power to address. He said the next time he makes a presentation to the committee he will be talking more specifically about graduation rates and time it takes to get a degree. In addressing section 2c (Exhibit F) under Management Actions, regarding the Good Neighbor Tuition Policy, Chancellor Jarvis said that it had reached a degree of inequity where it was cheaper for a student to come to Nevada in a baccalaureate institution than it was to stay in California and pay in-state tuition in the university system there. He asserted it should not be cheaper to come to Nevada and take a bachelors degree at the University of Nevada Reno or University of Nevada Las Vegas than it is to go to the Universities of California at Davis, Berkeley or Los Angeles. Senator Augustine pointed out he was referring to the University of California system which has traditionally had a higher tuition rate than the California State University system. She asked how those rates compared. Chancellor Jarvis explained they have used the University of California at Davis system because it is the peer institution for the University of Nevada, Reno. He further explained it was the land grant institution with a medical school, an agricultural school, and an engineering school. He said it was true that their rates of tuition were indeed higher than the California State University system, but explained one could not go to a California State campus and get the range of programs offered at Nevada's universities. Chancellor Jarvis concluded his presentation by saying he looked forward to exploring the challenges and possible solutions the state faces in the planning context of the l990s. Senator Rawson said the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities is a good committee to hear his report because they deal with many of those issues. He asked if Chancellor Jarvis was also going to make his presentation to the money committees. Chancellor Jarvis replied in the affirmative. Chairman Rawson stated that when Chancellor Jarvis was looking at performance indicators, there were some factors the chairman would like to see developed. He said the Legislature should know how many students are turned away, and whether that was because classes were closed. The chairman said he wants to know what percentage of the population is served by the University and Community College System, and how that compares with the national average. Chairman Rawson said, although it seems like an unusual performance indicator, the committee ought to know what the cost per credit is, and he thinks that information would be helpful to the money committees as well. Senator Mathews said she was wondering, if when Chancellor Jarvis was looking at the number of students who were turned away, if he could factor in those students who just did not come back or went on to something else. She said she noticed he mentioned (under New Challenges and Solutions (Exhibit F) "contract services," and asked Chancellor Jarvis to expound on that just a bit. Chancellor Jarvis replied with regard to those being turned away, there were two problem populations, those who cannot get in and those who cannot get out. He said access to courses needed for entry and completion both present a problem. He explained, in terms of contract education, what he had in mind was that the system will not be able to generate enough revenue from the state and student contributions to meet the kind of needs it has. He said the system is going to have to look directly for contract development from businesses and industries which need training programs that the University and Community College System can provide. He said he thinks the system is going to have to proceed much more aggressively and creatively in locating funding sources for the training they provide. Senator Augustine expressed her concern about our state valedictorians leaving the state to attend college elsewhere. Senator Augustine asked if our acceptance standards have been adjusted downward to keep more of our local students in school. Chancellor Jarvis commented he thought there was a series of layers in answering Senator Augustine's question. He said he thought they have been much more successful in retaining our valedictorians in state because they have done a good job of generating scholarships to help recruit those students, but that those students are very heavily recruited. He said he believed that they could show some growth in retention of that subpopulation. He stressed they are still, however, losing far too many of the better graduates of our high schools to other states. He said he thought that should be a concern when the system is not serving a large enough portion of our population. He pointed out there has been some direction in changing admission standards, but he believed the movement has been upward rather than downward. He said since Nevada has a system which provides both 2- and 4-year programs, with transfer between the 2- and 4-year programs, our community colleges must remain the open gateway to high school graduates who can benefit from higher education. He said that is the group of colleges which are nowhere near the magnitude necessary to serve the population of this state. Senator Augustine asked if our university system's standards of admission are also comparable to the University of California system. She stated she knows that their standards for admission have gone up, while the California State system has remained lower. Chancellor Jarvis said he did not have an exact answer, but would research it and get back to her with the answer. Senator Augustine expressed her interest in his chart (Exhibit G), referring specifically to Mississippi, citing they were fourth from the bottom on public high school graduation rate, but were fourth from the top on college continuation rates. She said she would be interested to know why. Chancellor Jarvis said it tells him that Mississippi is successfully serving a low proportion of their real population, because not many of their population graduate high school, while Nevada has the opposite problem. He stated Nevada is graduating about 70 percent of our high school population which is about the national average, but only about a third of those continue on to college and the system is currently at capacity. He said the fact that the system is at full capacity, while serving only one-third of the population, is the fundamental challenge to be faced. He elucidated getting that one-third up to the national average is a 20 percent jump. He asserted Nevada cannot accomplish that with enrollment increasing at 2.8 percent a year or even five or six percent a year, for that matter. Senator Neal said Chancellor Jarvis made a few points that escape many of them who serve in the Legislature, one being there is a constitutional requirement to provide education to the children of this state. He said he questioned one other item Chancellor Jarvis mentioned concerning research grants in the amount of $103 million that comes into the state. He insisted one of the problems that he has heard of is some of the professors who get those grants treat them as their own little private domain. He remarked he noticed Chancellor Jarvis spoke of it as money coming into the university, but the reality of the situation, he is told, is that it is the professor's money. He asked how Chancellor Jarvis reacts to that. Chancellor Jarvis said he would challenge that it is, indeed, the professor's money. He said the grant money would bring in direct expenditures that are spent for purposes laid out in the grant. He explained that includes equipment, salaries and wages for hiring graduate students and graduate assistants. He pointed out so many of the University and Community College System's graduate programs end up being funded by those direct dollars that come in as grants. He stressed the grants also bring in overhead dollars, and those dollars are used by the university to help grow its research potential. He maintained the university cannot generate $100 million with no outlay of investment and preparation. He said while some of the resources may go back to the principle investigator, the majority go back to the deans and vice presidents who are charged with keeping that research enterprise alive and thriving. Senator Neal asked if the professors have their "own little checkbook." Chancellor Jarvis replied in the negative. Vice Chairman Lowden, referring to Exhibit G, page 2, asked Chancellor Jarvis if he was indicating that these were the number of students attending a Nevada college after graduating from a Nevada high school or does it include all those who are going to college. Chancellor Jarvis said he believed it includes out-of-state as well. He further stated there was some loss in that data because the ability to track out-of-state students does decrease. He said the report that produced the data had claimed to deal with the interstate transfers. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if he was attributing this, in part, to the fact that the growth is so rampant in Nevada, and the fact that the state does not have enough facilities for the purpose of schooling these young people. Chancellor Jarvis answered in affirmative. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if he had any figures on older students going back to college. Chancellor Jarvis said not in any comparable way. Senator Washington said the one item he noticed was missing in Chancellor Jarvis's presentation was a marketing campaign. He asked why that was left out. He said he noticed that a lot of other universities have aggressive marketing campaigns that go after high school students to attend their facilities. Chancellor Jarvis responded saying he believed they have been aggressively pursuing the valedictorian and the academic super-achievers. He said the reality of the last 3 or 4 years has been that as their budgets have been constrained, they have basically capped out the system. He stated when their sessions are filled and their classes are full, they basically just shut off the enrollment there. He said there has been no incentive to go out and develop major marketing campaigns to generate yet more unfulfilled demand. The good side of that is, the system did not open the doors wide and just cram students into classes from which they simply wash out and have a bad experience. The down side of that is, there is now a segment of the population, 3 or 4 years of students, for whom the expectation of college is not there. He said they have stopped thinking of the Nevada College System as their normal path to success and career advancement. He expressed what he hopes will be seen in the next few years is a revitalization in those recruitment and marketing areas. He said that will also have a lot to do with our out-of-state populations and so on. Chairman Rawson thanked Chancellor Jarvis for his presentation. He then opened the hearing on Senate BIll (S.B.) 27. SENATE BILL 27: Requires school districts to report certain additional information to residents of district and to state board of education. Chairman Rawson stated this was an accountability bill and there will be a finance committee interest in this bill because there will be a money requirement following the reports this year. He asked if there was anyone in support of S.B. 27. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), was first to testify. He highlighted the changes proposed by NASB as outlined in Exhibit H. He said NASB proposed another bill draft request (BDR) which deals with the same subject matter. He stated it was BDR-697, and was introduced in the Assembly on January 31, 1995, as Assembly Bill (A.B.) 124. He said the changes proposed by NASB for S.B. 27 would conform these two bills. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 697: Makes changes concerning program of accountability of school districts. ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 124: Revises provisions governing program for accountability of school districts. (BDR 34- 697) Senator Neal said he finds himself looking at a proposal and from reading it he cannot discern where it came from. He said he understands what it is saying, but wondered what the residents of the district would do with the reported information. He asked if the proposal would be used as a means to raise taxes to get new computers. Mr. Etchemendy said he thought the proposal was an offshoot of the last session. Chairman Rawson asked if there was a report now produced that is distributed to all parents. Mr. Etchemendy said every district is doing that reporting according to statute, and the accountability reports are filed with the Department of Education, which compiles a report which indicates what has occurred statewide as to the compliance with that accountability law. Chairman Rawson said he thought the intention was for parents to be able to decide if their schools were adequate, and, if not, to allow them to put pressure on the school boards to make changes or possibly select other schools, but there was not enough of the other pieces of the law included. Senator Neal asked how many schools there were in Clark County. He said with the information required, there would be a pretty long report that would be going to the parents. He said he did not think the report made a distinction between elementary or high school. Mr. Etchemendy said it applied to every school. Senator Neal said the report would be looking at about 84 elementary schools, and 15 high schools. Chairman Rawson said he thought the number of elementary schools was over 100. Senator Neal said he thought that would cost a few dollars to put together. Senator Washington said he has three children in school in Washoe County, and he has never seen any report. Chairman Rawson said they had a nice public relations effort in southern Nevada. He explained it was a pamphlet sent out to parents. He further commented, whether it was useful to people, he did not know. Chairman Rawson directed staff to obtain copies of those reports for review by the committee. Mr. Etchemendy said each and every district complied in full with the law and the reports were prepared, published and distributed to the residents and the public. He said they were also published in the local paper in Reno. Senator Washington asked if the reports were made available for each student in each school. He asked if he had three children in three different schools if he would get three separate reports. Mr. Etchemendy said the reports compile the information for the entire district with a breakdown on a school-by-school basis. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone was opposed to the bill. Sherri Lakin, Parent and Taxpayer, came forth to testify. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit I) she voiced her concerns, which were mainly regarding the lack of security concerning student records. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone was in favor of S.B. 27. Debbie Cahill, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), was next to testify. She said 2 years ago NSEA was very active in the discussion which resulted in the requirement for school by school reporting. She said NSEA believes the reporting has been a good measure of accountability for the schools who have provided important information for teachers as well as parents. She said, after hearing Mr. Etchemendy's amendments that will appear in A.B. 124 that NSEA would not have any problems with them. Senator Neal asked Ms. Cahill to tell him what the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges is, that NSEA wants to pattern this program after. Ms. Cahill asked Senator Neal to recall that the discussion they had about S.B. 33, the accreditation bill, that it would be one of the accrediting agents that could set standards of accreditation. She said a lot of those standards for accreditation would be many of the things that are already in this report. SENATE BILL 33: Requires public schools to be accredited. (BDR 34-292) Senator Neal said, "So, you want the school districts to use that program?" Ms. Cahill said it would be patterned after the same standards as for accreditation. She explained that was the basis for the itemized information in the school-by- school report card. Senator Washington asked Ms. Cahill if this report is sent out to the residents based on the standards of accountability to each school district, can the residents be a part of setting those standards for the report. Ms. Cahill said she believed the reports are based strictly on what is itemized in statute, as referenced in S.B. 27. She added parents can request other information. Senator Washington asked Ms. Cahill if, after reviewing the report, he could go to the school board and request other standards than those included in the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. Ms. Cahill answered "absolutely." Senator Lowden asked how this would be accomplished. Ms. Cahill said the reports had been generated when S.B. 511 of the Sixty-seventh Session was put in place during the 1993 session. She said it was a concern that was raised and there was much discussion about whether it could be done. She said the districts have proven that it can be done. She said it may present some initial difficulties, but once they get it on-line, and get it into a format, it is a fairly simple process. SENATE BILL 511 of the Sixty-Seventh Session: Revises provision concerning program of accountability for public schools. Senator Augustine asked Ms. Cahill why in the world would anyone be interested in a student's daily attendance record. She said she thought Ms. Lakin brought up some legitimate concerns regarding what kinds of records would be leaving the school. She said she could understand why a parent would want to know if their child was in attendance, but questioned why somebody down the street, who has no children, would need that information. Ms. Cahill explained from an historical perspective, there was first a discussion that was raised with regard to district-wide and then school-by-school reports. She pointed out when looking at the overall profile of the district, the attendance pattern seemed to be important to some people as an indication of a very large transient problem in the district. She further stated attendance, although not always a national indicator of performance in schools, may impact other items that are being measured. Senator Augustine said there was nothing Ms. Cahill would be able to do to determine whether or not the child goes to school and explained that is why she was asking "what is the need for that?" Ms. Cahill stated that was one of the indicators that NSEA was not in favor of having in the original report. She said they would not have any objection to the removal of that particular item, but there were others who definitely supported it, and felt that information was necessary. Senator Washington referring to S.B. 27, page 1, subsection 1, lines 24 and 25, asked if it would be possible to change it from "their daily attendance" to "achievement" only. Ms. Cahill said it was certainly possible for the Legislature to do whatever they chose to do. Senator Washington then asked if she would be in agreement with that. Ms. Cahill said she did not think that NSEA would have a problem with that. She said with regard to Senator Augustine's concern about the pupil records, there are safety measures in place so there is not tracking of individual students by name or social security number. Senator Washington, referring to S.B. 27, page 2, line 5, commented it says "all violence" here, and he wondered what NSEA classifies as violence within the school. Ms. Cahill said she did not have a definition of violence, and his question should be referred to the legal division. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone was in opposition. Penny Brock, Taxpayer, was next to testify. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit J) she asked several questions regarding tax dollars spent on education, and the allocation thereof. She cited several studies and stressed a need for a higher literacy rate. She said if this bill promotes a higher literacy rate she would be in favor of it. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone else was in favor or opposition. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education, was next to testify. She stated the State Board of Education has been in support of the accountability bill since its inception. She presented her written testimony (Exhibit K) and in referring to S.B. 27, section 2(I), she pointed out to Senator Washington that the definition of violence he asked about earlier in the meeting was defined consistent with Nevada Revised Statutes 392.466. She asked that, in the interest of time, all of the accountability bills be reviewed together. Chairman Rawson said they would try to arrange that. Senator Mathews asked if the incidents of violence were counted if they occurred off school grounds. Ms. Peterson said she believed it was only those on school property. Senator Washington, referring to S.B. 27, page 2, line 15(n), quoted, "the number of pupils who have dropped out of school for each school in the district and the district as a whole," asked if he could get a definition as to what accounts for the dropout student. Ms. Peterson said she did have that definition in regulation, and she would be happy to provide it for him. Robin Hollingshead, Parent, was next to testify. She read from prepared text (Exhibit L). She pointed out her main concern with the bill focused on the protection of student privacy, and feels this bill does not adequately address that issue. Harold Ridgeway, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District, was the last to testify on S.B. 27, and read from prepared text (Exhibit M) explaining his concerns and proposed changes. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 27 and open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 31. SENATE BILL 31: Authorizes formation and operation of charter schools in Nevada. Chairman Rawson asked if there was anyone in support of S.B. 31. Jeanne Simons, Concerned Parent, stepped forward to testify. She said she thinks she is a mom who has caught a clue. She stated she has three boys currently in the Carson City School District. She explained she came from the trenches, was a high school dropout and former welfare mom. She said feels that our system is failing some of our children, especially the at-risk children. She said although the charter school concept is new and innovative, she believes the system needs more flexibility. She went through the bill point by point, highlighting some of the sections of particular concern to her, describing their origins. She concluded by asking for committee support on the bill. Chairman Rawson asked if there was any particular reason she wanted no state control. Mrs Simons replied it was in the interest of expediency. Maxine Neitz, Engineer, and Independent Businesswoman, was next to testify. She said she supports this bill but wants to provide teachers more flexibility. Referring to S.B. 31, page 1, line 6, she said she was concerned with the wording "improving the measurement of educational achievement." She stated she is more interested in improving the educational achievement of pupils. Referring to S.B. 31, page 3, lines 12 and 13, she said she really likes the idea of using a random drawing if they have more applications than they have seats for students because that provides an element of fairness in terms of admission policy. Senator Neal, referring to S.B. 31, page 4, section 14, said Nevada Revised Statutes 385.110 exempts charter schools from a course of study for public schools which says that one can set up its own curriculum. He said he wondered what Ms. Neitz had in mind, by being exempt from that particular statute. Ms. Neitz replied what she was talking about was an element of flexibility, an ability to produce areas of emphasis for special needs or special desires such as math and science or the arts, etcetera. She explained she thought that is what section 14 provided. Senator Neal said they could teach just about anything they wanted to, such as a policy on Naziism if they wanted to. Mrs. Simons interjected she would like to answer Senator Neal's first question. She stated, "We trust these people that are called teachers so much that we leave our children in their classrooms. Why can we not trust them enough to believe that they are going to come up with good guidelines to give our children the education that they need, and deserve?" She said she guessed someone could start a program on Naziism, but if he looked at the board of directors which is comprised of five members, three of them educators, two of them should be parents or staff members, she did not think that would be their goal She stated Naziism was not her goal. Senator Neal said what we have here is an exemption from a course of study and also exemption from any control of the state board in that regard, and also a local board of trustees. Referring to Nevada Revised Statutes 389.010, he said that is what it means. He said that concerns him. He stated he wants to find out exactly what it is they want to teach. Ms. Neitz said she understood his concern, but said she was talking about a process that goes on after agreements have been reached, and negotiations with the local school board. She said she thinks it also provides a method of withdrawing from the charter school process if it finds that student achievement is not living up to initial claims. Senator Neal stated the school board could not negotiate with them once the Legislature exempts them. He said that is "off the table." Mrs. Simons asked Senator Neal to bring his attention back to S.B. 31, section 4, item 1, where it states "If the board of trustees of a school district authorizes formation of a charter school, the board shall enter into a proposed written agreement with the board of directors of the charter school..." Senator Neal asked her to clarify the section she was quoting. Mrs. Simons answered section 4. Senator Neal emphasized section 14 exempts section 2 through 15, in terms of dealing with the course of study. He stated that was "off the table." Mrs. Simons asked Senator Neal if he had ever looked at the course of study and how thick it is, and how many courses of study are mandated, and how many classes that our children are expected to take. She asked, when he looks at that, how can the teachers possibly teach all of those things. She stated charter schools would give them that flexibility. Chairman Rawson stated he thought the committee understood her concern. He clarified that Senator Neal was bringing up that this a blanket "no control" and he said she might want to sort out whether or not if they had an all arts community, there might be no math or English. He explained if all the guidelines are removed, there may be no control. He said the committee may want to look at that as far as enumerating some simple types of controls. He asked what it was that the people of the state, who are going to pay for this, would likely expect of the students who come out. He inquired if she thought they should be required to take a U.S. constitution class and American and Nevada history classes. He pointed that is the current requirement. He emphasized there should be some careful thought when it comes to dispensing with those requirements. Mrs. Simons said she understood that, but she is concerned that S.B. 31 would be killed today. Chairman Rawson stated that it would not be killed. He asked her to give some thought to what the basic, minimum standards the state should guarantee. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone was in opposition. Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), was next to testify. He presented his written testimony (Exhibit N) to the committee. He said the NSEA supports efforts to improve learning opportunities for pupils, but feels the bill ignores the fact that everything it purports to achieve has already been enabled through a program of site-based decision making established in the Legislature 2 years ago (Nevada Revised Statutes 386.4154.) He said the NSEA has many other concerns regarding this bill and went on to enumerate them. He concluded with urging a "no" vote on this bill. Senator Augustine, referring to Exhibit G, asked Mr. Millsap if he saw the graduation rate represented there. She pointed out that Minnesota has the highest graduation rate in the nation, 89.2 percent. She further stated that Minnesota is the state where charter schools originated, so she feels like the concept of charter schools is something the committee will have to look at in the future. Mr. Millsap replied by saying charter schools are only in eight of their schools statewide, and have just recently been enacted. He explained the graduation rate is not based on the actual charter schools, but based on a different state. He said they do not have the economy or the lifestyle or the... Senator Augustine interrupted by saying, "Granted, there are a lot of other variables, but I'm saying that part of what had been copied in this bill came from the Minnesota charter." Mr. Millsap said he did not think that the two were related. Senator Augustine emphasized Minnesota was number one, and said he could not dispute that. Senator Washington asked if the diversion of funds from the current site-based decision making programs to the charter schools was his main concern. Mr. Millsap replied "sort of." He said when California did charter schools, one of the mistakes that they learned from was that there are incredible start-up costs to do this, both publicizing the charter school and providing information to the public. He stressed this body, just 2 years ago, enacted site-based decision making, where parents and teachers can vote (not just the teachers as the charter schools would do), to create a site-based decision making school. He explained they form councils which must elect parents, teachers and other staff who then become the policy making body of that school. He emphasized it still remains a public school. He said the difference is charter schools literally become private enterprises. He noted it is different in every state, some can be for profit, some are nonprofit, some work as cooperatives. He concluded by saying the NSEA contends there is already legislation which gives the control, input and innovation that this bill claims to accomplish, and they would like to give it a chance to work. Senator Washington said he would like to go back to his original question. He asked if charter schools are private or public. He asked Mr. Millsap where the dividing line was. Mr. Millsap replied the dividing line is extremely gray. He stated there were some that he would describe as purely private schools, and there are some in California which are hybrids as a result of their seeking outside funding. He maintained this bill leaves so many questions unanswered, he did not know how to answer Senator Washington's question. He said the specific source of funding often determines whether it is public or private. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Millsap to answer a few questions regarding Las Vegas High School (LVHS). She asked if it was considered a charter school with the drama and the arts. Mr. Millsap replied LVHS is a magnet school, where the parents, students and teachers in the community can focus on specific talents or interests of the students. He explained it was Las Vegas' answer to desegregation. He said it had an open enrollment policy where students from across the country can apply. He said the difference is that it is still run as a public school. He reiterated these are the types of schools available currently in our public schools without chartering. Senator Augustine asked if there was a provision at LVHS if a student leaves the school or the program, that they would not be readmitted to that program at a later time. Mr. Millsap said he was not familiar with that particular provision. He said he knew the provisions of enrollment were very carefully worked out in Clark County, specifically because it is their implementation of a magnet concept and also their answer to court ordered desegregation. Chairman Rawson stated LVHS does not currently have a charter. He asked if anyone else would like to testify in favor of the bill. Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), testified next. She said she is in favor of the concept, but not of every detail. She declared she would be requesting an amendment. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit O) she stated the NCC had investigated the genesis of charter schools. She went on to express their findings and concerns, and made recommendations for the amendment of the bill. She said she would like to add to her written testimony regarding previous comments concerning charter schools being completely cut loose from any kind of oversight. Referring to section 10, she said it appears to her that there is an attempt to address the issue of control where it says "when the board of trustees of a school district may unilaterally terminate an agreement with a charter school upon any of the following grounds: (a) failure of the charter school to meet the requirements for pupil performance contained in the agreement." She stated it appeared to her that the intention, if not the specific wording, was that there would, in fact, be some oversight that is agreed to in the initial written agreement. She said it was her personal opinion that there should be some specific requirements made of all students in Nevada. She explained for a charter school to be useful at all it must be relieved of many of the detailed and burdensome regulations that cut into the school day and allow the focus to remain on academics. Vice Chairman Lowden, referring to section 8, number 4, read, "the board of directors of charter school shall not base admission on intellectual ability, measures of achievement or aptitude, or athletic ability." She asked if that did not cut off a lot of areas. Vice Chairman Lowden said she was surprised Ms. Lusk did not pick that one out. Ms. Lusk said she actually favored that provision. She said she thinks a charter school should serve students that cross the spectrum. Vice Chairman Lowden interjected "its says `shall not', not `may', in other words, you cannot." Ms. Lusk concurred, and further stated she thought the attempt here was to assure a charter school was not formed which then serves only the brightest students and then claims their progress or achievement is based on the program foundation while not servings students with a district equivalent. Senator Washington asked if it was her desire to increase the number of academic hours per student, or to insure a certain number of hours. She replied she desired to focus student time on academic core subjects rather than having it diluted with a great number of other psycho-social demands. She explained she feels there are too many nonacademic subjects forced on the schools. Referring to NCC's recommended amendments (Exhibit O), Senator Washington asked how charter schools would address the issue of technical or vocational education. Ms. Lusk replied that a charter school could be formed that focuses on a particular type of education if the founders of the charter school so desired, and the board of trustees approved it. She said her experience has been that a great amount of applied academics is taught through vocational education. Senator Washington asked if, since charter schools are competing for public funds, Ms. Lusk favored academic charter schools versus site-based decision making. Ms. Lusk said she didn't see it as a competition. She explained she sees Nevada as a state providing an education for all children. She stated if one of the schools that education is provided in is a charter school, the funds that go there go with the student population. She said she disagrees with the necessity for massive start-up costs. She said she thinks a charter school should operate within the same budget constraints as a similarly situated public school so that there is not a taking of funds from other students. She stated NCC are proponents of true choice. She said they see great diversity in our society, and part of the problems is our school system is a "one-size-fits-all" system. Senator Washington asked, if charter schools are private organizations, how economically depressed students would be able to access them, and how desegregation would work. Ms. Lusk elucidated that what they are writing here would be free schools, just as public schools are presently. She said although charter schools could be written differently, how they will be in Nevada depends on the Legislature. Senator Washington asked her to clarify what she believed was currently written. Ms. Lusk said it was her interpretation that, as it stands, charter schools in Nevada would be fully public schools with fully public funding, fully free enrollment and fully open enrollment to any student who wishes to come. Ricci Elkins, Parent, stepped forth to testify. She stated she was there to testify on behalf of several parents in the Northern Nevada area, mainly Reno and Sparks. She said they had concerns over the quality of education their children are currently receiving in a traditional format. She referred to the folders before the committee members (Exhibit P. On file in the Research Library.) which she prepared. She outlined the contents: her written testimony, information on success stories regarding charter schools, and a copy of the Charter Schools Act that was brought forth by the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC). She went on to describe her efforts in the quest for information. Chairman Rawson asked if, in the interest of time, she would try to summarize her statement, explaining the written text would become a part of the minutes. Ms. Elkins asked permission to play an audio tape she brought with her to make her point. Chairman Rawson agreed and she went on to play it. (It clearly demonstrated her child's inability to read a simple story.) Ms. Elkins stated her child was 8 years old, and in the third grade. She went on to highlight her testimony. Senator Augustine commended Ms. Elkins on her presentation. She commented there are several members on the committee who are members of ALEC. She referred to page 3 of Ms. Elkin's testimony regarding benefits of charter schools. She said she wanted to point out that lack of personal finances does not always preclude those students from attending because often scholarships are available. Senator Washington asked if Ms. Elkins agreed with Ms. Lusk's amendments to the bill. Ms. Elkins replied she agreed with some, but not all of Ms. Lusk's proposed amendments. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone was in opposition to the bill. Harold Ridgeway, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District, stepped forth to testify again. He stated that his comments address S.B. 31, and not any proposed amendments thereto. He went on to present his written testimony (Exhibit Q). Chairman Rawson thanked Mr. Ridgeway for his testimony. Sherry Loncar, Legislative Representative, Nevada Parent Teachers Association, was next to testify. She highlighted her written testimony (Exhibit R). Chairman Rawson asked if anyone else wished to testify in support of the bill. Janine Hanson, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, was next to testify. She said they support the concept of charter schools. She stated they are always looking for ways to improve opportunities for their children in education. She further stated they support the amendments proposed by Lucille Lusk. She said she had information published by the American Legislative Exchange Council, in their report card on American education. She said it specifically focuses on the issues which Lucille Lusk brought up on academic charter schools. She explained the report identifies the top ten states in academic success. She said they reported no correlation between academic achievement and amount of money spent on education. She quoted the report saying, "If money isn't the key to success in education, what is?" She pointed out the report noted students in the high achievement states are taking more core academic courses, and a large number of the students attended small schools, with less than 300 students. She stressed charter schools could meet this criteria. She added scores for ethnic and minority students were also higher across the board in those high achievement states. She called attention to a Gallop poll conducted on education issues in which 71 percent of respondents supported giving parents the right to choose which local schools their children attend. She said she thought charter schools could meet some of the special requirements and desires of parents not currently provided in the public school system. She emphasized parental involvement is an important key to success. Penny Brock, Taxpayer, was next to testify. She said she was concerned about this bill, and had several questions. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit S) she enumerated her questions and stated her concerns. She asked the committee to figure out a way to fund charter schools without raising taxes, or not implement this bill. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone in favor would like to testify. Jaunita Cox, Taxpayer, was next to testify. She said she supports Lucille Lusk's amendment to clarify the wording in the bill. She emphasized she supports the teaching of core academic subjects. She pointed out people of the state need to be given the opportunity to take responsibility for their children. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 31 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 85, and Senate Bill (S.B.) 26, which deal with the same issue. SENATE BILL 85: Revises provisions governing suspension or expulsion of pupil who possesses dangerous weapon or firearm. SENATE BILL 26: Establishes uniform grounds for suspension and expulsion of pupils. John W. Riggs, Senior, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association (NSRPA), was next to testify. He stated NSRPA believes S.B. 85 is a good bill, in concept. He said he feels guns are blamed when the real problem is a lack of parental control. He concluded saying NSRPA is in favor of the bill. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified next. He explained NASB asked that the bill be drafted for two reasons. He said the first reason was that in the current law if a pupil commits a battery on the school property which results in bodily injury to an employee or another person, then the pupil may be suspended or expelled and for the second occurrence he must be permanently expelled from the school, but he may be required to attend another school. He stated this is for a period of at least 1 year. Chairman Rawson clarified that it would be an alternative school, not just another school within the district. Mr. Etchemendy went on to say the current Nevada Revised Statutes 392.466 subsection 2, which applies to being found in possession of a dangerous weapon while on the premises of a school, the same punishments occur, except that the pupil may be placed in an alternative school for a period not to exceed 1 semester. He said NASB feels school boards should have discretion as to what action to take in that case, and feel the penalty for possession of a weapon on school property should be the same as it is for an assault which results in bodily injury. He explained that was the entire purpose of the amendments which NASB has proposed. He continued, saying the second amendment NASB requested was on page 2, lines 28 through 30. He said their proposed amendment would add to the definition of a dangerous weapon. He stated NASB would like to add: "and any other object which is used or threatened to be used in such a manner, and under such circumstances as to pose a threat of, or cause bodily injury to, a person." He explained the NASB feels many things could be considered dangerous weapons besides those listed. He commented at the time when NASB requested a bill draft request, the bill drafters' office contacted NASB saying they wanted to use this bill as the vehicle to include the language from the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act, followed by the amendment in the reenactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Association (ESEA) legislation at the federal level. He explained they had amended at page 1, line 16, the requirement that the federal government now has that for a firearms violation on school grounds a pupil must be expelled for a period not less than 1 year. He said the reason that is included there is because it is a federal law. Chairman Rawson asked if Nevada could still allow an alternative school. Mr. Etchemendy replied, "no." He explained that the federal law does not allow that. He said federal law mandates it, and the penalty for noncompliance is a loss of federal funds. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Etchemendy if the federal law meant they could not be in school anywhere. Mr. Etchemendy answered, "right." Chairman Rawson asked if that included reform schools. Mr. Etchemendy said he could not answer that question. Chairman Rawson said he feels the state has an obligation to try to provide schooling, but it does not need to be in a normal classroom. Mr. Etchemendy said there was a further amendment to that on lines 20 and 23... Senator Augustine interrupted, saying she had a call from a constituent regarding the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act. She said, regarding ROTC students, the Department of the Navy has just sent out an edict saying live ammunition cannot be used. She asked if that was a result of the act. Mr. Etchemendy said he could not answer her question. He referred back to lines 20 and 23, saying there is a provision in the federal statute that was enacted which allows the chief administrative officer of the local education agency, which in Nevada is interpreted to mean the school superintendent of that district, to on a case-by-case basis, waive or allow an exception to the 1-year mandatory expulsion. He said the superintendent is able to modify that requirement if the conditions warrant. He reiterated that came from the federal law. Senator Mathews asked Mr. Etchemendy if he could provide the information Senator Augustine requested to the rest of the committee. Mr. Etchemendy answered in the affirmative. Harold W. Ridgeway, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District, was next to testify. He said he would like to propose another possible amendment to this bill. He read from prepared text (Exhibit T), and described the proposed amendment. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone was in opposition. No one came forth. He then asked if anyone was in support. Keith Reauhlt, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education, was next to testify. He read from prepared text (Exhibit U) saying the amendments to S.B. 85 accomplish compliance with the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, and they support the passage of the bill. He further stated he had a copy of guidance provided by the United States Department of Education (Exhibit V) that answers the 25 most commonly asked questions regarding the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. He said Senator Augustine's previous question concerning ROTC was addressed as question number 17 therein. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone wished to testify in favor of the bill. Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens, came forth to testify. She said she wished only to convey NCC's preference for S.B. 85 over S.B. 26. She stated she gave testimony on S.B. 26 the other day, and she thinks S.B. 85 solves the problems that S.B. 26 is meant to solve in a more straightforward way. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 85 and S.B. 26 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 88. SENATE BILL 88: Requires school districts to establish programs providing bilingual education. Chairman Rawson asked if anybody wished to testify in favor of the bill. Stella Helvie, Ph.D., Director, Second Language Department, Clark County School District, came forward to testify. She explained she directs the second language program for 14,513 limited English speaking students. She stated Clark County has experienced a dramatic increase in its limited English speaking student population over the last 6 years. She said from May of 1990 to May of 1994, Clark County experienced a 19 percent average annual increase in its limited English speaking student population. She said she is committed to insuring that Nevada students receive the best education possible. She stated Nevada Revised Statutes 388 neither recognizes the existence of, nor addresses the needs of, limited English proficient students. She said the proposed legislation will correct that omission. She said although there are federal mandates requiring programs for students of limited English proficiency, without the establishment of such programs at the state level, issues such as curriculum, methods of instruction, and achievement standards are left exclusively to the discretion of the local districts, the local schools, or the individual teacher. Ms. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education, was next to testify. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit W), she said they support the bill and enumerated their proposed revisions. Vice Chairman Lowden noted there was no fiscal note attached, and asked for confirmation of that. Chairman Rawson replied in the affirmative. He stated if there were 20,000 students, the state pays for the education of those 20,000 students. He said if they do not all fit into classrooms which are neat little units, there would be some cost, and it must be decided. He said if the committee adds a fiscal note to the bill, they can deal with it in this committee and send it on to finance, or the committee can pass the bill as a concept and let the appropriation bills go to finance. Senator Lowden asked if bilingual teachers were paid more than other teachers. Dr. Helvie replied in the State of Nevada there is no stipend for the use of a second language when working in bilingual programs. She said there is, a hiring incentive in Clark County, at the present time, which allows bilingual teachers to hire in at a higher step than teachers who are hired with the same number of years of experience who are not bilingual. She pointed out there is not an incentive for teaching in a bilingual program. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if the bilingual books were more expensive. She explained she was trying to determine where the $2 million would be spent. Dr. Helvie said bilingual books are not more expensive, but there is a need for supplemental and specialized materials that would not be in use in every classroom. She said they would be used in specialized classrooms. Ms. Peterson stated her concern was the population is growing very quickly. She said she knows those students can get into the mainstream of a regular education program as soon as they learn English. She explained the $2 million would be used to provide for additional teachers and materials so those students could be mainstreamed as soon as possible. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if the $2 million was already in the school budget. Ms. Peterson said it was not included in the budget that came to the committee from the Governor's Office. Vice Chairman Lowden asked again if the sum was $2 million. Mary Peterson answered in the affirmative, but reiterated it was not in the Governor's recommended budget. Senator Augustine asked if Dr. Helvie had heard of a movement out of Washington, D.C., called "English First." Dr. Helvie said she had vague knowledge of it. Senator Augustine said one of their arguments is, perhaps, the schools have given too much emphasis to Spanish speaking individuals coming into the schools because of the large wave of immigrants. She asked Dr. Helvie at what point the state could stop requiring school districts to implement these programs. She further asked if the state was not already complying with federal mandates on this. Dr. Helvie said Nevada is, in fact, providing programs that are governed by the federal mandates. She said what they are asking for in this bill is a recognition of students and their needs in our state so that the state can better provide coordination of services, curriculum, and appropriate materials. She stated she thought the program would be improved and be more accountable if it were coordinated at the state level. She said, in response to Senator Augustine's first question, she did not think this bill was requesting a specific model of instruction, but rather, concurred with Ms. Peterson that bilingual instruction would not be appropriate for every school in every school district for every group of students. She stressed she would not want to recommend a specific model of instruction because she thought that should be left up to the individual school districts based on their student population needs. Senator Augustine asked if Dr. Helvie was aware that Dr. Bauer from the Lyon County School District opposes this bill. Dr. Helvie said she was not aware of that. Chairman Rawson interjected that the way the bill is written, Dr. Bauer would have to be opposed to it because it might drive his program crazy. He said with the amendments he may or may not still be opposed. Ms. Peterson said she had not seen his letter. Senator Augustine, quoting Dr. Bauer's letter, said, "recent studies in New York show that parents of non-English speaking students prefer their children to learn English. The studies also show that students who are taught in English tend to learn English quicker and thus begin to learn all other subjects, too." Ms. Peterson added, "which this bill would allow." Chairman Rawson thanked them for their testimony, and asked if anyone was in opposition. Penny Brock, Taxpayer, testified next. She stated she was concerned about the funding of this bill. She asked where the money would come from to support this bill. She wanted to know the expenditure per student, per school. She asked if this program would be implemented for each different language speaking student. She asked how students who do not learn English would be prepared to enter the American job market which requires English. She said she was concerned that we so often set up a program within our schools and the students are never released from those programs. She said she wondered if bilingual education communicates to students that society thinks they are not intelligent enough to learn English. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone wished to testify in favor of the bill. Gloria Mason, Bilingual Special Education Teacher, Hispanic Educators Association of Nevada, was next to testify. She asked for committee support of S.B. 88, as amended. She emphasized they need to address the needs of all children. She said they lack the materials necessary accomplish that. She said it is their goal to have the children out of the program by fourth grade. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone else wished to testify in opposition. Sherri Lakin, Parent and Taxpayer, said her concern with this bill has to do with separation of students and making them seem different from the others. She said she does not believe segregation is the answer. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone else wished to testify on the bill. There being no response, he closed the hearing on S.B. 88, and opened the Work Session. The first item to be considered was Senate Bill (S.B.) 25. * * * * * SENATE BILL 25: Repeals provision governing conferences of teachers and school administrators. Chairman Rawson asked Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Associate, to give the committee an overview of the bill with amendments. Ms. Davis speaking from prepared text (Exhibit X) outlined the measures which may be considered for committee action. Ms. Davis directed committee attention to the proposed amendment, identified as "Attachment A" (Exhibit Y). She stated it was proposed by the Department of Education to statutorily insure that the department could still conduct teacher and administrator conferences. She said she highlighted the new language and the new section to be amended. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 25. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) Chairman Rawson asked Senator Mathews if she would handle the amendment on the floor. Senator Mathews answered in the affirmative. * * * * * SENATE BILL 36: Requires development of program to track prescriptions for controlled substances filled by pharmacies. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Davis if there were any proposed amendments. Ms. Davis responded, saying S.B. 36 had two amendments provided in "Attachment B," (Exhibit Z). She said she did not know if the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy had any more. She said the state board had proposed an amendment to insure the multi-disciplinary coordination of the investigation of suspected abusers. She said that was reflected in their amendment in section 1 of the attachment. She said it essentially sets up a task force of various professionals and state agencies, licensing boards, etcetera, to be involved in the collection and dissemination of information. She said there were also other language changes found in section 1, subsections 3 and 4, also noted in the attachment. She said another amendment which was suggested by a committee member proposed the removal of new bill language which related to the board being allowed to charge an additional fee to cover the cost of developing the program. Referring to the last hearing on S.B. 36, she said Keith MacDonald, Executive Secretary, Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, had agreed that would be fine with him. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. MacDonald if that was still acceptable. Mr. MacDonald replied in the affirmative. Chairman Rawson said he thought it was pretty straight forward and he would accept a motion. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 36. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Chairman Rawson who would pay for this if that part was taken out of the bill. Mr. MacDonald answered Vice Chairman Lowden's question, stating the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy would pay for the majority of it. He stated there was also the possibility of some grants through the Division of Investigations. He further stated the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy has set aside a reserve with the ability to pay for the hardware and software programs. He continued, stating the ongoing costs of staff, which they estimated to be two people, would be in the future and they may approach someone at that time, but stated it is their belief that other boards who have interests in the approval of this process, as well as the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy will fund it. Vice Chairman Lowden asked specifically if those funds would not come from the consumer. Mr. MacDonald stated those funds already come from consumers to the extent that the professional persons who are licensed by the boards of pharmacy, medicine, and others pay fees for their licenses to practice. He said those fees are derived from that basis. Chairman Rawson asked if the reserve came from that source. Mr. MacDonald answered in the affirmative. Vice Chairman Lowden stated she had a problem with the bill inasmuch as she felt it was "big brother watching over us." She said she has a problem with any more government in our lives. Chairman Rawson commented that there is presently a record kept on all of these prescriptions to date. He explained individuals manually go through those prescriptions to seek that information. He stated there is already authority to do that. He said there is currently a fairly real lack of privacy since people are able to look at every prescription that is being written. He said this computer program will streamline that process, and only kick out those prescriptions which fit a certain criteria such as too many narcotics in a short period of time. He pointed out when it kicks those items out, they will be the only records which are seen by the computer controller. He said he thought it would establish a system with less invasion of privacy, and would be more efficient than the current process. He disclosed that he is a dentist practicing in the State of Nevada, and that this bill, if passed, would affect him and/or his profession. He said he did not think it would affect him uniquely or differently than anyone else in that class. He explained there was a serious problem when people come in who have serious narcotic addictions and are seeking prescriptions. He stressed the practitioner has nowhere to check to see if he should be writing a prescription for them. He explained this bill would make it easy for the practitioner to check if there was any concern about the patient for whom he would be writing a prescription. Senator Augustine stated she thought it was way out of the committee's jurisdiction. She voiced her opposition to the bill. She suggested it allows more government into our lives and feels any computer information, once on-line, can be downloaded and anyone can have access to the records. She said she feels there is more control if someone has to check the records one by one. She pointed out that Senator Neal is also opposed to S.B. 36, since he was not present during the discussion. Mike Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, testified he talked with Senator Augustine on January 31, 1995, and answered Vice Chairman Lowden's questions. He said this is a program that is already in existence. He stressed they will continue to utilize it. He said this was an attempt to come up with a system that was more efficient, and afforded the citizens of this state more privacy. He said he spent some time with Senator Neal on January 31, 1995, answering his questions. He stated when this task force is established and guidelines were defined, for example if one patient went to 10 doctors and 10 pharmacies in a 1- month period, the patient would meet the pre-defined criteria and the computer would ascertain that person's records need to be scrutinized. He further explained the providers who had been treating that person would be informed of the existence of a potential problem. He explained a provider can then call back and say, "I'm an oncologist and a pain management specialist, this is okay." In that case, he said, they would say "thank you" and that would be the end of it. He clarified they would not have people going into each individual pharmacy pulling out every record and examining it. Once a person is identified as meeting that criteria, the provider can then meet with that patient and say "you did not make me aware of the other medicine being prescribed for you," and then discuss what the course of treatment should be. He maintained the program is currently in existence and is not "big brother." He said it would afford the public more privacy than at present. He summarized they are trying to find a more efficient, less expensive way to accomplish it. He said it would detect possible abusers earlier in the system before they become serious drug users, kill themselves or someone else... Senator Augustine said she had to stop him there. She stated "that is not our function as legislators." She said he was trying to make them protect people from themselves. Mr. Hillerby said "that is what this body has chosen to do since day one." Senator Coffin stated he had missed most of the hearing on this bill and asked if perhaps he had missed a fine point the other committee members caught. He stated there are doctors he would consider "`doctor feel goods', and, of course, we know who they are, some of them." He said they prescribe, and overprescribe, and perhaps there is some fear that those doctors may be exposed. He asked Mr. Hillerby if there was a possibility that this bill might help slow down some of those "doctor feel goods." Mr. Hillerby said that was a probability with this system. He said Marsha Berkbigler, Lobbyist, Nevada State Medical Association, expressed her regret about not being able to attend the hearing today. He further stated the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy has the support of the Nevada Medical Association and the Board of Medical Examiners for S.B. 36. He stated a Las Vegas paper reported erroneously, after the last hearing, that this bill would require doctors and pharmacists to check on prescriptions through a computer system. He explained that is not what this system does at all. He said the doctor or pharmacist is not required to do anything additional. Senator Coffin said he would be inclined to support the bill. He stated it was nice to know the Nevada State Medical Association supports it. He said, however, if it does not come out of the committee with a decent amount of support, there was a good chance they were wasting their time. Mr. MacDonald said he did not anticipate such strong opposition to the bill. He said he would be happy to bring the Drug Enforcement Administration, educators, pain management doctors, oncologists, members of the aforementioned boards and commissions, as well as the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA), the division investigators and others who would like to express their views on the importance of the bill. Chairman Rawson said he would like to sense where the committee stood. He reminded the committee there was a motion on the floor. He called for a voice vote, asking who was in favor. Some of the members said "aye". He asked who was opposed. Vice Chairman Lowden stated she was not sure. Senator Washington said he was not sure either. Vice Chairman Lowden said she would like to hear more testimony. Chairman Rawson said he was unable to determine where the committee stands on the bill since several were not sure. He said he would have to go to a roll call vote unless someone wanted to lay it on the table for a few days. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THE DISCUSSION FOR HEARING ON ANOTHER DAY. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 58: Requires adoption of regulations for reciprocal licensure of educational personnel from other states. Ms. Davis stated there were no proposed amendments for the bill, but said she would like to note at the last hearing there was concern that the language in line 8 might require the Commission on Professional Standards to grant reciprocity instead of allowing the commission to develop the conditions under which the reciprocal licenses are granted. She explained, after checking with the senate bill drafting advisor, she was advised that the current language would not be interpreted to require the commission to grant the reciprocity. She said, therefore, no amendatory language was suggested. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Chairman Rawson if he asked for a fiscal note on this bill, based on the testimony. Senator Augustine said they did not get it, but they asked for $2,500 the first year and $3,500 each year after. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if it would eventually go to finance. Chairman Rawson said, "not at that level." He asked for clarification from Senator Augustine on what her understanding was. Senator Augustine stated she believed it was $2,500 for 1995, and then $3,500 each year thereafter. She said there was also a proposed amendment on line 8, "adopt regulations which may provide..." Chairman Rawson stated Ms. Davis addressed that issue. He reiterated they checked with bill drafting and they said it allows permission now. Senator Mathews said she had a notation in her records that she asked a question regarding the fiscal note. She said she recollected they were guessing at the amount. She asked if the committee received a definitive amount. Chairman Rawson stated that in asking for the fiscal note, they have there, it has no effect on local government and less than $2,000, so that satisfies that requirement. He said he did not see where there was any cost to this. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 58. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 59: Revises provisions governing disclosure of questions and answers contained in achievement and proficiency examinations. Ms. Davis stated this bill has no proposed amendments. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 59. VICE CHAIRMAN LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATE BILL 87: Revises provisions governing minimum number of days of school per year. Ms. Davis, referring to "Attachment C" (Exhibit AA), stated there was one proposed amendment which was suggested to clarify the level of flexibility allowed to schools in meeting the minimum minutes required. She said it was proposed by Chairman Rawson and asked if he would like to explain it. Chairman Rawson said there was a fair amount of discussion and said no one was clear on the final wording. He stated he put the amendment together to allow maximum flexibility. He explained it is for providing flexibility in scheduling the school year, and providing release time for extra-curricular or supplemental activities. He said the Board of Education desires to go to minutes so that it will allow for alternative programming and scheduling. He said it could apply to sports during the day, music and other types of programs. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 87. VICE CHAIRMAN LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Regarding S.B. 31, the committee received written testimony (Exhibit BB) from Deborah Neddenriep, Northern Nevada Home Schoolers (NNHS), and letters in support of the bill from Wanda Rosenbaum, Nevada Parent Coalition (Exhibit CC), and Barbara Youngblood (Exhibit DD). Regarding S.B. 85, the committee received a letter (Exhibit EE) from Karen C. Winckler, Esq., Wright, Judd & Winckler. The committee received letters in support of S.B. 87 from Blake W and Deborah L. Jones (Exhibit FF), J. Scott and Nalia J. De Hart (Exhibit GG), Edward R. And Mariann Byrge (Exhibit HH), and B. Kent and Terri M. Vollmer (Exhibit II). The committee also received a letter from Thomas and Dorothy Jefferson regarding S.B.s 31, 35 and 88 (Exhibit JJ). There being no further business, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities February 1, 1995 Page