MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session May 24, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:45 p.m., on Wednesday, May 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 Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Crews, Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators Mary Givens, Director of Employment Services, United Cerebral Palsy Association of Nevada Gloria Dopf, Director, Special Education Branch, State Department of Education John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 431. SENATE BILL 431: Revises provisions governing estates of persons for whom Nevada commission for veteran affairs acts as guardian. Gary Crews, Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified from prepared text (Exhibit C), and explained the audit completed of the accounts of the Commissioner for Veteran Affairs. He noted there is $1.8 million held on behalf of wards in 49 separate bank accounts. He suggested greater interest could be realized by investing that money with the state treasurer. He stated $145,000 interest was earned for 1991 and 1992, and the accounts could have earned $277,000. Mr. Crews suggested legislation to bring the $1.8 million into the state system. This would eliminate the cumbersome accounting costs for the 49 separate bank accounts. It would also provide additional safeguards for the money and earn additional interest for the wards. Mr. Crews advised the committee the audit department of the Legislative Counsel Bureau had worked with Mr. Day, Commissioner for Veteran Affairs, to come up with some language to address these concerns. Mr. Crews referred to section 2 of A.B. 431 which creates a trust fund within the state treasury to account for all the money held on behalf of wards. Also, it provides that as money is received by the Commissioner for Veteran Affairs, it be deposited to this trust fund. Section 2 also provides that the commissioner keep a separate accounting on each ward's account and of the interest earned on each ward's account, so the integrity of their money will be maintained. Mr. Crews went on to say section 3 of the bill allows the commissioner to maintain an outside checking account to pay expenses requiring immediate payment. He noted the 49 existing accounts would be closed and moved to the state treasurer. Section 4 of the bill provides for the orderly transfer of the $1.8 million to the state treasurer. Senator Lowden asked Mr. Crews if he had discussed this move with the state treasurer, and he replied in the affirmative. Chairman Rawson said he served on the audit committee on this issue last session and is happy to see that it has been worked out. Randy Day, Commissioner, Office of Commissioner for Veteran Affairs, testified for A.B. 431, saying he feels this system will work, and he has no problem with the bill. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 431. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * The hearing was then opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 461. ASSEMBLY BILL 461: Creates interagency panel to make recommendations concerning placement of certain persons with disabilities into foster homes or residential facilities. Mary Givens, Director of Employment Services, United Cerebral Palsy Association of Nevada, testified by teleconference hookup from Las Vegas, saying she is a rehabilitation professional and is working on her master's degree in rehabilitation administration, and for that reason she is particularly interested in S.B. 461. Gloria P. Dopf, Director, Special Education Branch, State Department of Education, testified from prepared text (Exhibit D), giving the background and history of this bill. Chairman Rawson asked about the individual education plan, known as the IEP, and if parents always do this plan with due process. Ms. Dopf explained the IEP is the routine annual planning process to determine what educational and special education needs are for a youngster. Due process comes in when there is disagreement between what the district feels is appropriate for the youngster versus what the parents or guardian feel is appropriate. If this occurs, there is recourse through due process. Ms. Dopf said every youngster in the state with special education needs has an IEP, and very few result in an actual due process hearing. The chairman asked if when they do have a due process hearing, in an attempt for the parents or guardian to be able to challenge the IEP, does the department simply acquiesce? Ms. Dopf said once a due process hearing is requested, there is a hearing conducted by a hearing officer who has been trained by the Department of Education and who has been appointed to resolve the matter. The officer renders a decision, and that decision may or may not be in favor of the parents or guardian. Chairman Rawson asked what happens if the parents do not agree with the decision. Ms. Dopf explained there is a two-tier system. First, there is a review level and a hearing would be held by a review officer who is also trained and appointed by the state. After that, if the situation is not resolved, there is a court process. Chairman Rawson questioned the cost of special education funding that goes into this process of being able to challenge and review and go to whatever extent is necessary. Ms. Dopf said a formal analysis of the costs attached to due process has never been done. She said there have been some projections by some of the school districts regarding the costs. Ms. Dopf confirmed it can be a costly process. In the districts where there have been actual hearings, costs have been incurred of several hundreds of thousands of dollars, and although that is not a large percentage of the total special education budget, it is still a significant amount. Ms. Dopf said although the department receives a fairly large number of requests for hearings before a hearing officer, the department actually has only three to five cases that go to hearing in a year. The chairman addressed the committee, saying this bill is a recommendation of the money committees that have closed budgets and have gone back to the old way of doing things. In that process, it was determined an interagency panel should be created to oversee the proper needs of those with special needs. Senator Neal asked Ms. Dopf who pays the placement costs for these youngsters. Ms. Dopf replied the 395 program is funded through a state appropriation, and federal funds are received under the Individuals with Disabilities Act of Public Law 101476. The federal funds are in budget account 2715 within the department of education which is the special education account. The state appropriation is then provided by the Legislature. The costs of placement are matched on a 50-50 basis between the federal funds and general appropriation. Senator Neal asked what is contributing to the cost. Ms. Dopf said the 395 program has a long history attached to it of costs that have been increasing over the years, even though the number of youngsters going through the program have not increased significantly. Chairman Rawson intervened by saying if there are facilities in- state, then it is probably an unnecessary expense when youth are sent out-of-state to be housed and trained. John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, testified in support of the intent of S.B. 461. He said the department has had 4 years of experience in this field and is looking forward to the prospect of this program once again being administered by one agency. Mr. Sarb said he feels that is the most efficient way to do it and because the Department of Human Resources has some expertise, it should be an asset and a resource to the State Department of Education as they try to manage the placements of these children. Mr. Sarb continued by saying it is hard to imagine a process more cumbersome and inefficient than the one this bill prescribes when talking about perhaps five children a year. Mr. Sarb suggested that the results could be accomplished at a much lesser cost and bureaucratic structure than is provided for in this bill. This outline is what used to be called the Youth Resource Panel, which effectively collapsed of its own weight some years ago because it was too inefficient to manage these kinds of placements. He stated he feels there is a better way to accomplish their goals. If, however, the committee elects to go with this panel, Mr. Sarb said the department would participate and give it their very best efforts in that regard. Mr. Sarb pointed out a very specific problem with section 3, which will force the State Department of Human Resources to give priority to these children over any other persons whom the department has responsibility for placing in foster homes or other residential facilities. He wonders what makes those children more deserving of those placements than children for whom the department has legal responsibility. He stated it is manifestly unfair and opens the division up to liability, and hopes reconsideration will be given to that particular section. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Sarb if the committee simply did not process this bill, is there the ability within the division to accomplish the same end. Mr. Sarb replied affirmatively, and suggested if there is some legislative concern that would not happen, either a resolution or legislative letter of intent might be a better vehicle. Mr. Sarb gave an example to the committee of a child who comes through a 395 process and who needs placement because the child is deaf. That is one reason children require placement. At that point, according to this legislation, the director of the Department of Human Resources, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, administrator of Child and Family Services and the administrator of Mental Health and Mental Retardation must be convened. Three out of the four of those convened have absolutely nothing to bring to that discussion because in the course of their work, they normally do not deal with deaf children and have no expertise in that area. Senator Lowden questioned the cost of this panel, because the bill does not indicate any cost to assemble the panel. If the directors of the departments are on the panel, maybe that cost is included in their salaries, so there would be no cost. The senator referred to section 3, line 13, which says, "A member of the panel may designate a person to represent him at any of the meetings of the panel." She asked Mr. Sarb if there would be a cost for the person so designated and, as he indicated, many of the people on the panel do not have expertise, but the panel member could appoint someone who does. Mr. Sarb replied the panel member, if not an expert, can and often does appoint someone who is, and that often involves travel costs. Senator Washington said he found section 6, subparagraph 2.(b) with the new language very confusing; also section 2 regarding setting up the panel. He asked if the superintendent has final authority, is it necessary to convene the panel? Mr. Sarb said the panel is going to do what the Superintendent of Public Instruction says is necessary anyway. These children need this placement because the local school district cannot provide the education services necessary. A child needing special education who lives in Nye County, may have to be moved to Clark County for that education, and that would keep the child from going out-of-state. Mr. Sarb said his concern is particularly with section 3 which means some Clark County child is going to have to go out-of-state because he just bumped that child to provide preference to another child. He does not think legislating that is a good idea at all. Ms. Givens remarked that her interest in this bill is finding out what generated it and why there is any need to change the existing law. She said whenever another level of bureaucracy is added, she gets concerned, and she is really trying to understand the source and need for the new bill. The chairman explained the need developed out of a remembrance of how things used to be. At one time, this program was the responsibility of the State Department of Education, then it went to a joint management of each of these cases by the State Department of Human Resources and the State Department of Education. This joint management did not seem to work too well, so now the responsibility has gone back to the State Department of Education. The chairman said the decision was made in part for financial reasons. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Dopf if she felt the department would have access to individuals with different areas of expertise, if that is needed. Ms. Dopf said yes, and thanked Mr. Sarb for his assurances to make the services of the State Department of Human Resources available to the State Department of Education. Ms. Dopf said there was a perception that placement for these youngsters would be funded under 395, so this was not considered a priority for in-state placement, and the youngsters could go anywhere the funds would take them. Historically, the Department of Education was considered last for getting in-state placements. Ms. Dopf advised that one intent of the interim finance committee was, whenever possible, these youngsters would be placed in in-state facilities. In addition, it was to ensure that individuals in the decision-making process will look at the needs and make determinations based on whether in-state options are available for the youngsters and not bump these youngsters out of their programs. If in-state openings are available, these youngsters will be considered priority, rather than being put at the end of the list. If there is nothing available in- state, then making an out-of-state placement would be made as a last resort. Chairman Rawson said this bill would be considered in a future work session, but he wanted to say that he feels there is an appreciation of the two agencies now that may not have been there before and should affect the way things are done in regard to these youngsters. If the committee chooses not to process the bill further, they will proceed with a letter of intent to the agency so, in practice, the help and support will be available. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 461 and opened for discussion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 362. SENATE BILL 362: Expands circumstances under which practitioner may refer patient to health care facility in which he has financial interest. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 362. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Rawson commented that the parties previously concerned about this bill have agreed to the amendments. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * The discussion was then opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 429. SENATE BILL 429: Requires certain educators to be instructed in identification and instruction of and laws relating to persons with disabilities. Chairman Rawson asked the committee to look at the proposed amendments to S.B. 429. Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, passed out a new amendment to S.B. 429 (Exhibit E), saying the one on the desk in front of the committee members was an older version of proposed amendments to S.B. 429. Chairman Rawson asked if this is the new amendment on which all committee members have agreed. Ms. Davis said yes, this is the amendment on which everyone agreed. agreed on. Chairman Rawson said this is the bill sponsored by Barbara Cegvaske, and there are a number of people who have supported this bill, and there are some who still have concerns with it. The chairman said he did not want to represent to the committee that this bill has unanimous support. However, the latest iteration probably has the most support. Ms. Davis said she would like to explain the amendments, as follows: (1) Starting in section 1, the bolded brackets have been added to narrow the types of persons that must comply with this law, as discussed at the last hearing. (2) The addition of the bolded text in section 1, subsection 1.(c) "...or in service or continuing education courses approved by the State Department of Education..." allows more options for persons to receive their instruction. There was some concern university-level courses would not be as available, and this allows teachers to get in-service training or continuing education courses to fulfill these requirements. (3) This change is the deletion of the original section 2 of the bill as the result of information received by the supporters of this bill that the conditional licensure process would add more complexity than is needed and it might become burdensome. Replacing this conditional licensure is a 10-year window of time allowing people to get this instruction under the three options mentioned above. Ms. Davis advised that in the statement, "The State Department of Education has the authority to evaluate and certify past course work for in-service training that would satisfy the requirements established for section 1 of this act," is essentially more of a statement of fact that there are some people who could qualify with their current training or course work, and the State Department of Education could certify that was the case. Senator Coffin asked if the only amendments to S.B. 429 are "continuing education" as opposed to "other courses of study," and instead of the designation "State Board," the designation of "State Department of Education" is used. The chairman replied affirmatively. Senator Coffin pointed out that subsection 2 of section 1 still contains an equivalent minimum of 45 hours of study with no basis for the committee to assume who is going to pay for that study other than the licensed person. He said further he had asked at the last meeting for information on who is going to pay the cost other than the licensed person. He said the department might require an instructor to take the courses if they would pay for it. Clark County said it would cost "a lot of money," but they could not put a dollar amount on it. Senator Coffin emphasized that since the completion of study is a condition of licensure and no dollar amount has been established, and the requester of the bill has not furnished additional cost information, he could not support this bill. The chairman said at the present time at the community college, a credit hour costs $44 or $68. New teachers are not required to take the continuing education courses, since they are taught these courses before graduating, so the bill applies to the current reservoir of teachers who have been licensed for more than 2 or 3 years. He advised that if 1,000 teachers need the education, it would be $68,000 in costs and this figure would rise or fall, depending on the actual number. Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA), said one of the problems NASA has is identifying those people who have taken this course. The amendment says under section 1, subsection 1.(c) the person "must possess special knowledge" concerning the identification and instruction of people with disabilities. Not just knowledge, but "special knowledge," and he asked how the department can evaluate people with "special knowledge." Mr. Byington continued by saying one of the problems is that none of the courses offered in the current University of Nevada catalog being required by special education really specifically say "special knowledge" as identification. When it comes to the State Department of Education's responsibility of certifying whether a person meets those special knowledge requirements, it is going to be extremely difficult. Anyone graduating several years ago would be at risk in trying to recertify and meet these requirements because that person cannot go back several years and prove the catalog description of the course taken. The bill says "must possess" those skills. Mr. Byington said it would be a tremendous burden upon the State Department of Education to review all transcripts to see if thousands would certify, and their burdens are heavy enough in the licensure office. Mr. Byington said last August, a person he knows applied and paid for a teaching license in the State of Nevada and had not received the license by February, although the check had been cashed. Senator Lowden said she sees this bill as a mandate to teachers, and it would be inconsistent with her voting record on unfunded mandates, which she feels characterizes S.B. 429, and, under those circumstances, she will not be able to vote for the bill. Senator Mathews said the only reason she will not support S.B. 429 is because the teacher is underestimated. She does not think they need 45 hours of training. Some teachers have those skills without any training. Senator Mathews said she would not support the bill because unnecessary requirements of the teacher are constantly being added. SENATOR NEAL MOVED THAT NO FURTHER ACTION BE TAKEN ON S.B. 429. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator Washington asked to comment on S.B. 429 for the record, saying the Legislature is asking for involvement from the parents, teachers, county and state, and he does not feel this issue should just be brushed aside. Further, the senator said, in the future someone is going to have to deal with student disabilities, and he hopes everyone will work together in the best interest of the student with the disability. He said he also hopes in the future, such issues can be settled at the local level, rather than coming to the Legislature with them. Chairman Rawson said the committee would like to ask both the teachers' representatives and organized education to try to continue to move forward in seeing that the special needs of disabled students are met, and that teachers are trained in this area without mandates. The discussion was then closed on S.B. 429. * * * * * Chairman Rawson announced he had a request for a bill draft from Senator John Porter which would essentially allow dual enrollment of students in home and private schools. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR THE BILL DRAFT, AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * The chairman announced a request for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 34-1293, which authorizes certain cities to form independent school districts. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-1293: Authorizes certain cities to form independent school districts. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 34-1293. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS VOTED NO.) * * * * * The chairman advised a request had been received for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 32-1549. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 32-1549: Provides separate method of assessment for Unit in common-interest community. Chairman Rawson said this issue will be referred to the taxation committee. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 32-1549. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Chairman Rawson announced that the fiscal note to Senate Bill (S.B.) 408, the parental notification bill, has been received, and he thought the committee should look at it to see if there are any questions before reporting it to the floor. Further, the chairman said, the action of the committee was to report this bill out without recommendation as soon as the fiscal note information was available. SENATE BILL 408: Revises provisions relating to abortions for minors. Senator Washington explained there were two notes; the first from Clark County saying there would not be any fiscal impact due to the fact that if the judge is not available, the pro tempore judge would hear the case. Basically, Clark County stated costs would be $250 to $500. The second note is from Washoe County saying the bill would have no fiscal impact. Senator Coffin stated the first paragraph indicates problems in that it would disrupt the court calendaring, reduce time lines, create a fiscal impact, and then in the bottom paragraph it states the bill will have no fiscal impact, in spite of the fact it says it will in the first two paragraphs. We can ask them to be more specific, but it will cost plenty for the judge, the secretary, the bailiff, the security and opening the courthouse on weekends. Chairman Rawson said he understands a hearing master can deal with this situation. Senator Mathews said this is based on just one case a year. Senator Washington said the vital statistics for 1994 indicate a total of 55 abortions in the age group from zero to 14 years, and a total of 1,068 for those between 15 and 19 years of age, for a total of 1,123. Senator Washington continued by saying based on research by Kerry Carroll Davis (Exhibit F) Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Kansas is the only state that has a comparable single-parent notification statute in effect, so parents in Kansas are aware of these abortions. Further, Senator Washington said, according to information provided by Janet Crepps, Director of the State Legislative Program, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, which is included with Exhibit E, only 5.1 percent of minors utilize the judicial bypass statute. Chairman Rawson explained in the zero to 14 age group, Exhibit E indicates in 1994, there were 55 abortions and 1,068 in the 15-19 age group, for a total of 1123 abortions. Exhibit E also indicates 5.1 percent of minors use the judicial bypass and this equates to 58 abortions for the zero to 14 age group. This is the group of most concern. The figures for the age group of 15 to 19 years, which is 2 years over what the bill requires, go toward confirmation of the number of those who received abortions who were under 14 years of age. Senator Washington agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: _______________________________ Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities May 24, 1995 Page