MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session February 24, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Friday, February 24, 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 Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary Judi Bishop, Primary Secretary to Senator Rawson OTHERS PRESENT: Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens Debbie Cahill, Assistant Executive Director, Legislative & Legal Affairs, Nevada State Education Association Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 4. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 4: Urges Congress not to require states to provide educational programs unless it provides necessary funding. Senator Augustine commented that the unfunded mandate bill had just passed in Congress, and there will be no further unfunded mandates. In view of that, the senator asked if this bill is necessary. The chairman suggested it would not hurt anything to go on record and process the bill. Senator Coffin advised Congress worked on a statutory basis instead of a constitutional-amendment basis and for that reason, it would be a good idea to process the bill, if the committee finds it acceptable. The chairman reiterated that processing S.J.R. 4 may not be necessary, but it is a good statement for Nevada to reinforce; that is, unless federal funding is provided, the state will not be required to provide educational programs. Senator Lowden suggested if work has not been finalized on the unfunded mandate bill, perhaps Nevada should urge not only the Congress, but also the President, to process this bill. Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), spoke in support of the resolution as written, but asked the committee to focus on the real issue, which is mandates. Mandates are outside the scope of federal responsibility. NCC does not care who pays for educational programs, the state or the federal government, and would recommend amendment to this bill (Exhibit C) to call for the federal government not to impose educational mandates at all, as educational mandates are outside the power of the United States Congress. The chairman said the amendment, as proposed by NCC, sounded reasonable. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 4. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) The hearing on S.J.R. 4 was then closed, and the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 26 was opened. SENATE BILL 26: Establishes uniform grounds for suspension and expulsion of pupils. The chairman reminded the committee S.B. 26 is also covered by S.B. 85, and it was determined earlier by the committee to indefinitely postpone S.B. 26 and work with S.B. 85. (See minutes of January 23, 1995.) SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED THAT S.B. 26 BE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The hearing on S.B. 26 was closed, and the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 27 was then opened. SENATE BILL 27: Requires school districts to report certain additional information to residents of district and to state board of education. The chairman advised this bill has any number of amendments with it, and they are fairly lengthy. All of the accountability bills will have to find their way through the finance committee because there will be costs, and the chairman suggested the bill be reported out without recommendation and rereferred to the Senate Finance Committee. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO REPORT S.B. 27 WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION AND REREFER TO SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The hearing on S.B. 27 was then closed, and the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 31 was opened. SENATE BILL 31: Authorizes formation and operation of charter schools in Nevada. The chairman indicated some of the committee members would like to see this bill progress; some of them would like to see it killed, and the chairman would like to put this bill into a subcommittee with some direction, if the committee approves, and suggested the state should not dismantle our whole system of education. If there is an inclination by the committee to work with this bill, the chairman suggested it be done on a pilot scale or limited scale until the bill can really be evaluated. The chairman then asked if there was any objection by any member of the committee to putting this bill into subcommittee with that type of direction. Since no objection was received, the chairman asked Senator Lowden if she would chair the subcommittee and advised any meeting held by the subcommittee should be public and should be noticed so people have a chance to respond. Senator Lowden accepted the chairmanship of the subcommittee. The chairman asked that three other members of the committee serve on the subcommittee, and he left their appointment up to Senator Lowden. The hearing was then closed on S.B. 31 and opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 32. SENATE BILL 32: Creates council for collaborative preparation of teachers. The chairman stated the general testimony on this bill is that it is all right, but he feels the bill is not needed and should not be processed. Debbie Cahill, Assistant Executive Director, Legislative & Legal Affairs, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) advised the association had some concerns about the makeup of the council and initially felt there is not a lot of support for it. NSEA had suggested amendments to this bill in case there is some momentum to get this bill moving forward. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 32. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The hearing S.B. 32 was then closed, and the hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 85: SENATE BILL 85: Revises provisions governing suspension or expulsion of pupil who possesses dangerous weapon or firearm. The chairman advised an amendment (Exhibit D) was requested by Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice. That group has suggested "dangerous" is too broad a term, and the bill be amended to use the term "deadly" instead. The chairman commented the term "deadly" is more universally used in the courtroom, and it is well understood. The committee agreed. Further, the chairman advised the second amendment (Exhibit E) was proposed by the Elko County School District and would eliminate the phrase "upon a showing of extraordinary and exceptional factors" because these terms are not clearly defined. The chairman advised taking out this phrase would then leave the bill stating ..."that the superintendent of schools of a school district ... may, in a particular case in that school district, allow an exception to the expulsion requirement of this subsection." Chairman Rawson pointed out the bill, as written, mandates the school district to expel for l year a student who violates this statute. The school district is allowed limited discretion "upon a showing of extraordinary and exceptional factors in a particular case in the school district." Taking away discretion from the school district is not in the best interest of the students. He felt by adopting this amendment, flexibility would be eliminated. Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC) stated insofar as the bill is concerned, NCC is in favor of eliminating "suspended or expelled," so if "suspended" is left in the bill, it would give the school districts the needed flexibility. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, pointed out page 1, lines 15 through 23, and advised this portion of the bill was inserted by the bill drafters to conform to the Gun-Free School Act and that requirement of "for a period of not less than 1 year" comes from the federal law which, if not followed, can result in certain penalties against the federal funding that comes to the district. Federal law lets the local superintendent of schools allow exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The Elko County School District has some concerns about what might be interpreted to be "extraordinary and exceptional" factors, and questioned why that needed to be in the bill. Mr. Etchemendy felt the law would be all right without those three words, "extraordinary and exceptional." Chairman Rawson concurred that the phrase is difficult to define, and expressed concern that the district is trying to lessen the standard by saying it may not be that extraordinary a circumstance, but still explainable or understandable. Chairman Rawson asked whether, if the language suggested by Elko County is adopted, Nevada will meet the federal requirement? Mr. Etchemendy replied if the wording is exactly as Elko County suggested, Nevada will meet the federal requirement and have the necessary flexibility. Ms. Lusk asked if the chairman is also discussing a change to "deadly weapon" at this time. If so, on page 1, line 5, the term "dangerous weapon" is used, which is referred to again on page 2, lines 24 through 30, with a definition of "dangerous weapon" that is being expanded to include any 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." Ms. Lusk suggested if the term is changed to "deadly weapon," there would be a new definition of deadly weapon, which is perhaps not appropriate. If it is left at "dangerous weapon," then the term would not refer back to the earlier reference of "dangerous weapon." The two words need to be brought into conformity somehow. Senator Lowden stated that "dangerous" is too broad a term, and suggested the bill be amended to use the term "deadly" in place of "dangerous. As defined in section 6(b), a dangerous weapon could be a book, a chair, or snow boots. Certainly, the committee does not intend such a definition. Ms. Lusk pointed out NCC believes it is the intent of the proposers of this bill to include those very things; they wanted to be able to take action when an object is used as a weapon, even if it is not meant to be a weapon. For instance, if a book were used to inflict serious bodily harm, they want to be able to take action. The chairman pointed out the existing language has been pretty broad in the past. Ms. Lusk said the intention is to add other items, and the chairman agreed. Senator Augustine commented on line 28 it says, "...or any other object which is used or threatened to be used...." This is where the language gets too broad. The chairman pointed out that it is a very strict standard; it is like some of the truth- in-sentencing and other bills before the committee, and it establishes a narrow line within which students must act while they are in school, and that does not seem to be a bad policy, Mr. Etchemendy explained that when the Nevada Association of School Boards testified on this bill, they specifically wanted broad language included because there are certain things not defined in the bill that are very dangerous, such as heavy books, screwdrivers, pipe wrenches, carpet knives. None of those things are defined, yet they are very accessible to students, and if they are used to assault a person, then the association wants that defined in the law. The chairman asked if by taking out the phrase "extraordinary and exceptional," the association feels it softens the intent of the bill and leaves it to the decision of an administrator whether or not the student should be expelled? Mr. Etchemendy advised the wording allows a case-by-case review by the local superintendent who will review every case, not just extraordinary cases. The chairman agreed there should be a review of every case for consistency. The chairman asked Ms. Lusk if she agreed, and she inquired as to what exactly was being proposed in the wording. Chairman Rawson directed attention to line 21, saying after the word "may," strike the rest of that line. On line 22, strike "school district." It would then read: "The superintendent of schools of a school district may allow an exception to the expulsion requirement of this subsection." Ms. Lusk said NCC prefers keeping it as is. The chairman asked Mr. Etchemendy if the association is advocating one way or the other. Mr. Etchemendy said either way is acceptable to the association, but they definitely want to support Elko's recommendation because "extraordinary and exceptional" is too hard to define. Senator Coffin interjected by saying there is a definition of "dangerous" in the statutes. Senator Augustine asked if the committee could get an opinion from our legal staff. The chairman did not think that necessary. Senator Augustine said the only problem she sees is the wording "...or is found in possession of a dangerous weapon while on the premises of any public school." She questioned if the bill is going to say a book is a dangerous weapon. The chairman said only if it is used in that fashion. Ms. Lusk added "or threatened to be used," because there is a distinct difference between that and the expanded definition. Ms. Cahill stated Assembly Bill (A.B.) 123 has the language "extraordinary and exceptional," and this bill is now supposed to go to the judiciary committee, and maybe they can change that wording there. ASSEMBLY BILL 123: Requires expulsion of pupil for possession of firearm. The chairman advised if "extraordinary and exceptional" is removed from the bill, it gives the committee a chance in conference to address it again. If it is left in and the judiciary committee changes it, it allows the committee to go to conference again. The chairman stated he did not mind if the phrase were left in, but it just sets a little softer standard when you take it out. This may not be a time to be setting a "softer and kinder" standard. Senator Coffin suggested the committee did not seem to be in agreement on this bill. It seems some of the members have different viewpoints as to what the bill means. Senator Coffin said he did not know if he could support the committee on the floor. The chairman said since there was such indecision on the wording and since this is not an emergency bill, the discussion would be postponed until the next work session. Senator Augustine asked if this bill was required because of a federal mandate. Chairman Rawson advised the bill was recommended because of the requirements of the Gun-Free School Act, a congressional approach. This bill puts Nevada into compliance with the federal law, which is done to protect the federal funding Nevada is receiving. Chairman Rawson asked Senior Research Analyst, Kerry Carroll Davis, to have the legal division address the issue of "deadly" versus "dangerous," and whether or not that is an issue with which the committee needs to be concerned, or does the committee need to be concerned with the effect of the proposed change. That way, the committee will have everything necessary before them when this bill is again addressed in a work session. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ***** RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________ ______ Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: _____________________________________ Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities February 24, 1995 Page