MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session June 5, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:40 p.m., on Monday, June 5, 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Assembly District No. 30 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ken Gager, Injured Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Susan Tower Hollis, Dean, Sierra Nevada College Keith Rheault, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent, State Department of Education Sherri Lakin, Education Chairman, Nevada Eagle Forum Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce David Howard, Lobbyist, Sparks Chamber of Commerce Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum Robin Hollingshead, Concerned Parent Barbara Clark, Nevada Parent Teacher Association Elizabeth A. Livingston, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby Elaine Lancaster, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association Janet E. Hay, Representative, Nevada Vocational Association, Washoe County School District Fred Turnier, Assistant Director, Clark County Sanitation District Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company Jack Peterson, Sierra Pacific Power Company Greg Lightenburger, Senior Engineer, Sprint Central Telephone- Nevada Galen Denio, Commissioner, Public Service Commission Barbara Cegavske, Parent John Richardson, Vice Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 303. Due to Chairman Rawson's need to testify at another hearing, he turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Lowden. ASSEMBLY BILL 303: Requires state board of education to adopt program to provide pupils with skills to make transition from school to work. (BDR 34-28) Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Assembly District No. 30, told the committee A.B. 303 has been around in some form for the last three sessions of the Legislature. She said it represents a continued effort on behalf of career and occupational education. She stated this bill conjoins with federal legislation on the School-to-Work Act. She said the school board undertook the task to outline a plan on how occupational education would be extended in the State of Nevada. She stated in 1991 the first funding for occupational education was accomplished, but in 1993 the program stalled due to budget restraints. Ms. Evans explained the appropriation is part of the Executive Budget this session. She referred the committee to section 4, page 4, and pointed out the $2 million per year is not an additional sum, but a part of this year's budget. She maintained Nevada is fortunate to have support from the private sector in terms of support for the bills and in working with students. She insisted if this program is to succeed, it will require a cooperative effort between schools and the private sector. Ms. Evans referred the committee to a newspaper article (Exhibit C) which she said outlines some grim statistics. Vice Chairman Lowden postponed the hearing on A.B. 303 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 515. SENATE BILL 515: Requires board of regents of University of Nevada to create program to encourage and assist state and local law enforcement officers in earning college degrees. (BDR 34-1550) Ken Gager, Injured Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper, told the committee he arrested a career criminal who subsequently stalked him and his family for 2 1/2 years, and sent him a package bomb which inflicted numerous wounds including the partial loss of his arm and blinded him. He said when the injuries he sustained rendered him unable to return to his job he realized further education would be required to elevate his position. Mr. Gager expressed his frustration in dealing with the University and Community College System because of his special needs. He said there is very little assistance for those individuals who are visually impaired or require transportation. He said he believes there should be more widespread availability of classes on videotape via telecommunication to accommodate those with disabilities, and asserted the necessary changes will not be made without specific mandates. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Mr. Gager if his injury was considered to be job- related, and if he was compensated under workman's compensation by the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS). Mr. Gager replied his injury did come under SIIS. Vice Chairman Lowden said she is curious why vocational rehabilitation under SIIS did not just take care of it for him. Mr. Gager replied the vocational rehabilitation is only responsible to assist people to attain employment at 80 percent of their previous base salary. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Mr. Gager if he has an attorney. Mr. Gager answered in the negative, saying he hopes that is not necessary. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Mr. Gager if an attorney represented him with regard to his vocational rehabilitation rights. Mr. Gager replied he hired an attorney on an hourly basis for advice on chapter 616 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Vice Chairman Lowden further asked Mr. Gager if he received a buy out on vocational rehabilitation rights. Mr. Gager answered in the negative. Vice Chairman Lowden encouraged Mr. Gager, regardless of what the committee does with S.B. 515, to contact Nancy Ann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, to work for his rights. Mr. Gager said he has spoken with Ms. Leeder who represents his wife who was also injured in the bombing. Vice Chairman Lowden opined that Mr. Gager has rights, and the state would be willing to help him in his quest for rehabilitation. Senator Neal told Vice Chairman Lowden he would like to bring to her attention the fact the Legislature did away with vocational rehabilitation. Vice Chairman Lowden disagreed with Senator Neal saying vocational rehabilitation is still in place. Senator Neal asked Vice Chairman Lowden, "In what form?" Vice Chairman Lowden replied, "The bill has not been signed yet." Mr. Gager stated his preference to take on a man with a gun rather than taking on SIIS. He said it is an incredible nightmare, and said he has never seen such a "wall of worms" in his life. Senator Washington told Mr. Gager he is familiar with his story since he sits on the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and hopes that this bill will assist not only Mr. Gager, but any officer who desires to further his education, by receiving a waiver of fees and hopes that is Mr. Gager's intent with this bill. Mr. Gager replied his intent is threefold: financial assistance; methodology, the means of getting the material; and, transportation. Senator Washington asked Chairman Rawson if there is a bill pending to accommodate this type of need. Chairman Rawson replied that bill has not been funded, but thinks the state is well on the way to being able to do what Mr. Gager is asking. He said there are already regulations imposed on the universities by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which should provide, within reasonable limits, what Mr. Gager needs to get through, including a tutor, someone to read text and exams to him, etc. Chairman Rawson told Mr. Gager Vice Chairman Lowden is one of the architects of SIIS reform, and advised him to take advantage of her expertise in that area. Vice Chairman Lowden told Mr. Gager she applauds his courage and determination in the face of his injuries and vowed to help him in any way possible. Vice Chairman Lowden closed the hearing on S.B. 515, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 431. SENATE BILL 431: Makes various changes concerning education. (BDR 34-2021) Susan Tower Hollis, Dean, Sierra Nevada College, told the committee testimony on S.B. 431 was previously given by Dr. Frank Meyers, Dean, School of Education, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), Myrna Matranga, School of Education, UNR, and others on the merits of this bill, and encouraged the passage of the bill. Vice Chairman Lowden closed the hearing on S.B. 431 and reopened the hearing on A.B. 303. Keith Rheault, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent, State Department of Education, read his prepared written testimony (Exhibit D) to the committee expressing the State Department of Education's support for the bill. He also provided the committee with a draft of the Executive Summary for framework for the State of Nevada School-to-Work Transition System (Exhibit E) and a spreadsheet printout of Projected Funds Available for School-to- Work Activities by Agency for fiscal year 1996 (Exhibit F) which he referred to in his presentation. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dr. Rheault if the system would provide tuition for those fortunate enough to go on to community college. Dr. Rheault replied it would not provide tuition services, but would provide for the development of internships at the high school or community college level, better placement services, and better articulation of academic courses with technical courses so a student does not waste time making career decisions due to a lack of information or exposure. He told the committee he used to teach vocational agriculture, and all the freshmen wanted to be veterinarians, but had no idea it took 4 years of science, and 6 years after college. He said only one of his students in 5 years of teaching actually went on to become a veterinarian. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dr. Rheault if the students who participate in the program receive a regular diploma from high school. Dr. Rheault replied they will receive a regular diploma accompanied by a competency skills certificate validated by business and industry, where the necessary skills are outlined and instructors assign a competency rating. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dr. Rheault at which types of programs they are looking. Dr. Rheault replied the program is initialized at the middle school level with introductions to different career areas, proceeds to the high school level at grades nine and ten with further career information background, and job site inspections. He stated, by the last 2 years of high school, students narrow their choice down to a certain area where they can serve as interns or apprentices or get short-term work experience. He said he hopes the career opportunities will include technical and professional areas as well, which will depend on the cooperation of business and industry in each area. Senator Mathews asked Dr. Rheault how this program interfaces with the current cooperative education program. Dr. Rheault replied, in the current cooperative education program students are supervised in the workplace by a cooperative teacher, but only 8 percent of students have access to work experience. He said they hope to increase that number in all areas. Senator Mathews asked Dr. Rheault why they cannot take the current cooperative program and use that as a model, rather than implementing a brand new model. Dr. Rheault replied they can use the cooperative education program, but explained within the 10 objectives of the School- to-Work Program, that is just one piece, and further explained the benefits of the School-to-Work Program. Senator Augustine asked Dr. Rheault what the current role of the school counselor is now. She said she thought career path training was one of their functions. Dr. Rheault replied there is a comprehensive statewide career counseling course of study in grades seven through twelve, implemented in 1993, where the counselor is the facilitator for career training, but said there are not enough counselors within the system to accomplish the task. Senator Augustine asked Dr. Rheault if the $4 million appropriation included in the bill would provide additional counselors in secondary schools. Dr. Rheault explained the request for funding will require an application from the local partnerships (including local school districts, businesses and parents) to apply for funding. Senator Augustine referred Dr. Rheault to page 1, lines 16 through 19, and 29, 30 and 33. She said it sounds like they just need to provide pupils with equal opportunity, or provide counseling, and encourage statewide participation in the program. She pointed out, on one hand, it states it must include all pupils, and on the other hand, it will just encourage statewide participation, which indicates all pupils are not necessarily going to be included. Dr. Rheault stated the preamble was an amendment made to the bill. He said they fully intend for any student within a school to have access to the School-to-Work System. He said that is their intent with the language must include all pupils. Senator Augustine stated, "Then it is just access? You are not mandating that every pupil in twelfth grade, as it states on lines 29 and 30, 'to provide all pupils with programs of job training and placement or programs for preparation for postsecondary education during the twelfth grade?'" Dr. Rheault replied they have that as an essential function, but know that currently only 8 percent of the 25,000 students who take occupational courses have access to school-to-work programs. He said their plan is to allow access to all pupils interested in the program. He said they anticipate a problem, in the first few years, of lining up enough businesses to participate in the program. Senator Neal asked Senator Augustine what the import of her question was. Senator Augustine explained that she just wanted to clarify the issue of access as opposed to mandate for the school-to-work program. Senator Washington asked Dr. Rheault how this legislation would augment federal legislation. Dr. Rheault explained the federal School-to-Work Act was passed about a year and a half ago. He said Nevada received a $200,000 development grant to plan a School-to-Work System and will also seek a federal implementation grant. He said one round of implementation grants have been awarded to eight states. He insisted the funding is very competitive, and said there will be another round of funding awarded in July 1995. He said Nevada has submitted an application, but has been advised the federal government will only fund another 14-16 states, and the remaining 42 states will also be competing for those funds. Senator Washington asked if those additional monies are for implementation or planning. Dr. Rheault replied the funding will be for implementation. He said the original grants were in the range of $1.5 million to $2 million per year, and they are hoping that the grant they applied for will be comparable. He opined Nevada can compete very well with their plan, and added if they are not successful this year, they will apply again next year. Senator Washington asked Dr. Rheault if the $4 million provided in section 3 is in case they are not successful in acquiring the federal grant. Dr. Rheault replied the $4 million in section 3, is not sufficient to fully fund the School-to-Work System within the state, but if they can add another $4 million over the next 2 years to the federal money, he thinks they can begin attacking the problem. He advised the first 8 states to receive federal grants had significant financial support from within before receiving "matching funds" from the federal government. Senator Washington asked Dr. Rheault if Nevada will have to provide additional money to support the program if it does not receive the federal grant money. Dr. Rheault replied they will do the best they can with the $4 million, and told the committee there are various other sources of federal funding for various aspects of the school-to-work programs. Senator Washington asked if the passage of the federal School- to-Work Act was spawned to further the Goals 2000 program of the current administration. Dr. Rheault replied this was developed before the Goals 2000 plan came into being. He said it was developed because the United States of America is the only industrialized nation that does not have a structured work force development program. He said they have been requested to link it to the Goals 2000 program as an "umbrella piece." He said the State Department of Education worked on this program long before Goals 2000 came into being. Senator Neal referred Dr. Rheault to page 3, subsection b, line 5. He said it states, "the members of the partnership who perform periodic review must include employers who are likely to hire pupils who complete the program." He said it seems to him, because the language is mandatory, it gives the employer the authority to determine the effectiveness of the program. He said he wonders how the State Department of Education will handle a situation where an employer states in its review that they need something that is not provided. He asked Dr. Rheault if the state will be required to provide that. Dr. Rheault explained they wanted a built-in evaluation component for the usage of state funds so they could generate indicators of their effectiveness. He said part of the partnership includes employers and businesses who work with the School-to-Work System. He said the language Senator Neal quoted was added into the bill since its original conception. Senator Neal said it disturbs him for the reason that during the 1970s when the colleges were training engineers and people in the sciences to go into those industries that complemented their education, many companies like General Dynamics and other space industry companies hired a lot of those scientists, and when they had a cutback, those people with masters and doctorate degrees had to go out and get janitorial jobs because the industry did not accommodate them. They trained for that particular industry, but found out that it was not a lifetime thing for them, and left those skilled people unemployed. Dr. Rheault opined, too often, business and industry is asked for recommendations, but those recommendations are not put to use in the educational system. He said this was an attempt to make sure that business and industry's input was not ignored in the evaluation of the program. Senator Neal referred Dr. Rheault to page 4, regarding the formula for distribution of the remaining money, and asked Dr. Rheault if the formula is going to be developed by the State Department of Education. Dr. Rheault explained the formula was set up so that any school district which forms a partnership with a university or business would be entitled to the $25,000 base, and the remainder of the funds will be proportionately divided, based on the enrollment of all students grades seven through twelve. He said if 17 school districts receive the base of $25,000, that leaves about $1,525,000 to be distributed according to the enrollment formula. Dr. Rheault referred to Exhibit F which shows the current year's enrollment and the distribution per school district on an annual basis. Senator Mathews expressed her support for the concept, and voiced her concern that some employers exploit the system and only employ the students while they are only obligated to pay half their salary, and subsequently let them go rather than hire them at full pay. She said she thinks this bill may lack the "teeth" to accomplish long-term success. Senator Washington asked Dr. Rheault who sets up the system between business and industry and the school system. Dr. Rheault explained the partnerships being structured in Washoe County are a cooperative effort between the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, and businesses who are willing to provide training for skilled jobs. He explained that the students will not be going to work sweeping floors, etc., and not all businesses who want to participate will be selected for the program. Senator Washington asked if a business has only entry level jobs, but opportunity for advancement within the company, and wants to start the student out just to do an attitude check to see if they are cooperative, prompt and have a desire to learn, who makes the determination on who may and may not participate in the program. He opined it should be a two-way street, whereby both will participate and evaluate. Dr. Rheault replied it would be decided at the local level, depending on how the governing structure is set up. He said the problem is finding enough businesses to participate in the program rather than the other way around. He opined the scenario described by Senator Washington is precisely the type of business experience the students need to learn. He clarified the intent of the program is to allow the students to obtain work experience, but it is not incumbent on the businesses to hire them full time on completion of the program. Senator Washington said he noticed there are 12 state agencies listed in Exhibit D which comprise the Nevada Workforce, but sees no business listed there, and feels this is cause for concern. Dr. Rheault explained the Nevada Workforce structure was developed before the School-to-Work System existed. He said all of the agencies listed have some type of education, training or employment function. He said a recap of the study is not included which describes the input from business and industry in formulating the School-to-Work System, although they were involved throughout the process. Senator Washington asked Dr. Rheault if business had input in structuring the bill. Dr. Rheault answered in the affirmative. Senator Washington said his concern is the high dropout rate among high school students. He said he observes students walking out of school without the ability to read, write, or fill out an application, and wonders if this bill passes, if it will help to address the dropout problem. He asked Dr. Rheault what the overall goal of the State Department of Education is. Dr. Rheault replied available data shows students who take one or more occupational classes drop out at a lower rate than the statewide average. He cited Douglas County as an example, saying their overall dropout rate is approximately 5.6 percent, but for those students who took at least one occupational course, the rate fell to less than 1 percent. He added those who take occupational courses, and have related work experience, find their math, English and science courses relevant to some future need, and therefore apply themselves accordingly. Dr. Rheault told the committee the overall goal of the State Department of Education is to address the needs of all students. He stated 68% of students in Nevada do not go on to postsecondary education, and asserted if the School-to-Work Program can begin to expose them to the possibilities in the workplace in the seventh grade, they may not waste time after high school trying to determine what they want to do. Senator Neal stated, in Clark County, many of the building trades have their own apprenticeship programs. He asked Dr. Rheault if it is the intent of this bill to engage in those type of programs. Dr. Rheault replied the State Department of Education hopes that they can work with the apprenticeship programs after the students leave high school for further training. He asked Senator Neal if he is aware of the new car dealers automotive apprenticeship program developed in Clark County for high school juniors and seniors. Senator Neal replied he is talking specifically about the building trade, where they have in place apprenticeship training programs, like electricians, plumbers, and those type of crafts. Dr. Rheault said they hope that the apprenticeship programs will be a part of the partnerships in the School-to-Work System in Clark County. Senator Neal asked Dr. Rheault, "Are we are trying to create the German model of education here?" Dr. Rheault replied in the negative. He said there are vast differences between Germany and the United States. Senator Neal interrupted saying Germany has a highly evolved apprenticeship program which is part of their educational system. Dr. Rheault said the State Department of Education would like to use part of what Germany does, but, because of the differences between the countries, cannot do all of the things they do. Senator Neal asked Dr. Rheault, assuming that a person wanted to study labor organization, would he be able to get that type of training? Dr. Rheault replied, "In high school, probably not." Sherri Lakin, Education Chairman, Nevada Eagle Forum, told the committee she has long been a proponent for education that leads to a real job, and believes in vocational training and higher education. She said she is, however, very opposed to this bill because of the study she has done on the federal legislation passed last year. She said A.B. 303 is based on the Schools-to- Work Opportunity Act of 1994, and much of the wording is the same, and sets forth mandates, if federal money is taken by the states, to implement the program. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Ms. Lakin if she would provide a list of those federal mandates to the committee. Ms. Lakin answered in the affirmative. She added the testimony regarding state programs which indicates they have nothing to do with Goals 2000 or other federal legislation is incorrect. She asserted most of those programs have been implemented through pilot programs since 1989 under other names, but still have been accomplished with federal money, rules and experimentation. She said her objection to many of the education bills is that they are too vague and subjective, and she believes the language "all students will" presents a mandate. She insisted this bill is being proposed to attract federal money which requires the states to make a Goals 2000 plan. She suggested the passage of this bill will make Nevada eligible for federal money under 12 other bills. She insisted when the state accepts federal money they are also compelled to comply with federal rules, regulations and mandates, and move Nevada further away from local control. Ms. Lakin urged the committee to vote no on A.B. 303. Ms. Lakin maintained Goals 2000 and other federal legislation established three panels in Washington, D.C., which are part of the executive branch of government. She said one of those panels is the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, which sets guidelines for the knowledge and skills that prospective employees need prior to entering the workforce. She said they will identify clusters of occupations, and the skill standards students need to master before receiving government certification to work in one of those clusters. She asserted schools and businesses will be expected to adopt those standards in order to be consistent with government guidelines, and students will be expected to achieve those standard in order to be certified by the government for many jobs. She maintained the federal legislation allows states to expend funds for providing labor market information to local partnerships (schools and businesses) that is useful in determining which high-skill, high-wage occupations are in demand. She suggested government bureaucrats will say how many welders or brain surgeons will be needed and students will be counseled to that end. She stated Douglas County has a program called Pathways where middle school students are asked to choose whether they would like to go to college, technical school, or into the job market from high school. She insisted seventh graders should not be making such decisions, but once they do, they are counseled and put into courses which lead to that end. Senator Washington asked Ms. Lakin, if the students make a choice in seventh grade if they are locked into that decision throughout their high school career. Ms. Lakin replied, according to administrators she has spoken with in Nevada, they are not, but according to the federal legislation she has read, she believes that it could lead to that. Ms. Lakin further testified the federal legislation states, "Systems are to be set up in every state. The activities of the program shall be included, matching students with the work-based learning opportunities of employers." She said the programs include workplace monitoring, and collection and analysis of information regarding post-program outcomes of participants. She opined the legislation links youth development activities with employers and industry strategies for upgrading the skills of their workers through computer tracking. Ms. Lakin cited section 102 of the federal legislation: While it entices businesses to form a partnership with education by accepting assistance to employers including small- and medium-sized businesses to provide the work-based learning components described. Mandatory activities are listed such as developing positive attitudes. The employer becomes a part of the performance outcomes [outcome- based education] and evaluation. He will be a partner in assessing the progress and meeting the goals of the state and the outcomes for the students in the program. Senator Augustine asked Ms. Lakin if the federal legislation mandates the states to set up this type of program, or if it merely encourages them to do so. Ms. Lakin replied it is mandated. She added the panel she referred to that sets up the job clusters and certification does that through assessment. She said the goals panel worksheet includes: employment status, type of employment, name of employer, postsecondary institution attended, area of specialization, and voter registration information. She reiterated that would be part of the assessment that would be used by the federal certification panel. She opined by defining and setting up job clusters, the educational bureaucracy will tell students what they can study, schools what they can teach, and employers who they can hire. She asserted the job clusters will be the method by which the new socialist bureaucracy will certify individuals, schools and businesses so that they fit the molds set for them. Ms. Lakin concluded the passage of this bill would not only give up local control of education, but also legislative control in Nevada. Senator Washington asked Ms. Lakin if she sees this bill as a threat to local control. Ms. Lakin replied, "Absolutely!" Senator Neal referred Ms. Lakin to line 20, page 2 of the bill. He said she seems to have an objection to providing all students with an equal opportunity to achieve a higher academic standard. He asked her why she would object to that. Ms. Lakin responded she does not object to providing all students with equal opportunity but she has a problem with how they plan to accomplish it. She stated she believes education belongs in the hands of local, elected school boards. Senator Neal asked Ms. Lakin if she knows that the local school districts get the initial $25,000, and the rest of the money is divided according to the number of students in each district. Ms. Lakin advised the committee Elko County has chosen to refuse funds through Nevada 2000, and hopefully, through Schools-to- Work, and she encourages other local school boards to do the same. Senator Neal stated he hopes they do not have the same kind of problem White Pine County had, because the Legislature had to bail them out. He asked Ms. Lakin if she is aware that partnership programs have been run in Clark County for about the last 10 years. Ms. Lakin replied she is aware there are partnership programs, but asserted this legislation opens the door for federal mandates, and that is her main concern. Senator Neal said he sees this bill as a matching funds type of thing. Ms. Lakin asserted the wording of A.B. 303 is very similar to the federal legislation which includes mandates, and added, historically, where federal money goes, federal controls follow. Senator Neal asked Ms. Lakin if she is aware that if there was such a mandate from the federal government, Nevada would not have to pass A.B. 303. Ms. Lakin answered in the affirmative. Senator Coffin told Ms. Lakin the largest federal mandate is special education, which costs the State of Nevada $35 to $45 million per year, and asked if she objects to that expenditure. Ms. Lakin replied, "No, not as long as it really is special education, and not 'at risk' programs that are sometimes widely defined in such a way that maybe special ed[ucation] is losing out for other things because of subjective definitions." Senator Coffin asked Ms. Lakin if "at risk" is subjective. Ms. Lakin responded, "Often. I'm not saying it always is, it just often is." Senator Coffin asked Ms. Lakin what kind of people qualify for that. Ms. Lakin replied: The reason I say I have a problem with 'at risk' getting special ed[ucation] money is that under the Goals 2000 Parents as Partners Program, which now has a new name...there are 12 codes for 'at risk'. There is not one code for normal...in areas of those 12 codes there are things like if either parent in the home has ever had treatment for mental or emotional problems, then that child might be considered 'at risk'. It is a very broad term according to who is making that judgment. Ms. Lakin added it considers all children living at poverty level "at risk". She said she knows that when children are hungry or cold or other things that come with poverty are at risk, but some are not. She said she feels parents should be a part of the process in determining who is at risk. Senator Coffin stated nevertheless, it is mandated. Senator Washington asked Ms. Lakin what role she sees parents playing in the School-to-Work Program. Ms. Lakin replied she does not believe this legislation, or the federal legislation provides a place for parents. She said that is one of her objections, because she believes it is a parent's place to help children make those decisions, and they should be involved in the process. Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, told the committee he has been involved in the School-to-Work effort for 2 years, and opined the focus is: to allow local employers to have oversight, to ensure local control, to meet the needs of local employers, and to provide relevant education. He stated the manufacturing sector is the fastest growing sector of the Nevada economy, and a vast majority (40 percent) of them are recruiting out of state, while only 8 percent are looking to the local high schools for employees. He suggested that can be improved, but said the current product of local high schools is lacking in fundamentals. He concluded the Nevada Manufacturers Association believes this program will connect relevant school education to classroom education and improve the quality of education in Nevada high schools. Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, provided the committee with a newspaper article (Exhibit G) which adds emphasis to their support of A.B. 303. He stated there is no doubt Nevada high schools have a serious dropout rate, and the schools need the tools to correct that situation. He asserted Clark County has a long history of partnerships between schools and businesses, and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce supports this program, and is willing to participate in it. David Howard, Lobbyist, Sparks Chamber of Commerce, testified the Sparks Chamber of Commerce has been involved with the School-to-Work initiative since 1989. He said they intend to be a part of the process, and feel strongly that they need better employees in the small business community, and will work with the school districts. He asked for committee support of the bill. Senator Washington asked Mr. Cooper and Mr. Howard, if they will stop working with the school districts if A.B. 303 does not pass. Mr. Cooper replied the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce will continue their relationship and efforts, but asserted this bill provides the structure that allows them to work more closely with the school districts. He explained this bill will allow them greater access to pupils to enhance their employment skills. He insisted they will not abandon their efforts if the bill does not pass. Mr. Howard added the Sparks Chamber of Commerce has no choice but to continue with the program, and asserted they need the money that the passage of this bill will generate. Senator Neal asked if this bill will affect the high school student's future employment if a negative evaluation results. Mr. Cooper said he does not see an evaluation provision in the bill, and does not think that is the intent of the bill. He said as a member of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, his job would be to try to make students as employable as possible in addition to exposing them to the nature of his industry. He said he does not see his job as one of evaluation of the student who participates in the program. Senator Neal insisted a youngster would not be going to work for any business associated with the chamber of commerce without filling out an application, and in so doing creating a job history. Mr. Cooper reiterated he does not think the program contemplates that kind of activity. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, cited the federal School-to-Work Opportunities Act: The purposes and congressional intent of this legislation are to establish a national framework within which all states can create statewide school- to-work opportunity systems that are: a) a part of the comprehensive educational reform, and b) are integrated with the systems developed under Goals 2000, Educate America, and the National Skills Standard Act of 1994, and offer opportunities for all students to participate in a performance [outcome] based education and training program. Ms. Hansen explained the plans for federal funds under the act are to be used for venture capital to underwrite the initial cost of planning and establishing statewide school-to-work opportunity systems that will be maintained with other federal, state and local resources. She opined it is just like other federal programs: they give you some money to start, then continue a little dribble of money, and thereafter the state has to continue to finance the program, while the federal government maintains control and imposes mandates. She recalled the Deputy Superintendent of Schools said Nevada will not have separate state and federal programs, and asserted that means they will have a joint federal and state program on school-to-work. She said Dr. Rheault stated the only reason we need this bill is to successfully obtain federal grants, because other states who have been successful in obtaining grants had substantial investments within their states. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 4: Urges Congress to require states to provide educational programs in violation of its enumerated constitutional powers. (BDR R- 278) Ms. Hansen cited Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 4, passed by this Legislature, and signed by the Governor: Educational programs mandated by the Federal Government seriously impair the ability of a state to establish the academic, social and nutritional programs that it determines are best suited to the particular educational situation in the state...Requiring the states to carry out certain educational programs enables Congress to expand its federal power and encroach upon the states' power...Resolved, That the Nevada Legislature hereby urges Congress not to enact any mandate requiring the state to provide educational programs in violation of the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States. Ms. Hansen opined it is very easy to pass a piece of legislation of that nature, but it is very difficult to say no to federal dollars. She insisted we have to start saying no to federal dollars and federal mandates, or nothing will ever change. She pointed out the reason Nevada has to have this program is to obtain federal funding. She said in 1991 President George Bush addressed this issue, in America 2000, where on page 60 it addresses job skill standards and job certificates that will be jointly established by labor and management. She insisted this legislation was not dreamed up locally, but is a national program mandated by the federal government. Ms. Hansen further insisted the School-to-Work System is a part of the Goals 2000 program. Ms. Hansen surmised if we really want to create more jobs for students, the business tax on students should be repealed so businesses would want to hire them instead of being penalized for doing so. She stressed tax incentives could be provided for businesses who hire students, and insisted Nevada does not need another layer of bureaucracy, but rather needs to remove the burdens from the schools which are not academic so kids can learn the basic skills necessary to all jobs. Ms. Hansen declared the students are not prepared to go into the workplace because they lack the basic skills. She declared that is the legacy of the federal government involvement in education, and maintained Nevada needs to reject the scenario proposed by the federal government. Senator Coffin opined all federal mandates cannot be bad. Ms. Hansen replied, "Mostly." Senator Coffin asked Ms. Hansen if she believes the states could provide special education without the $10 million provided by the federal government. Ms. Hansen insisted they could if the federal government had not stolen the money from the states in the form of taxation. She suggested Nevada could have a much better program because current funds are filtered down through so many layers of bureaucracy that the program actually gets very little of the money. She concluded the Constitution of the United States does not authorize the federal government to be involved in education. Senator Coffin stated he does not see an insidious federal plot which must make him some naive tool. Ms. Hansen asserted she is not saying it is an insidious federal plot. She is just saying that every federal program where the states are given initial money to get a program started continues with federal control and the states cannot meet the needs of its own people because they are tied into federal mandates. She insisted state legislators' hands are tied when they opt to accept federal money. Senator Coffin asked Ms. Hansen to provide him with a list of the mandates she would like to keep and those she would like to reject. Ms. Hansen replied Senator Coffin can assume that she would like to reject all federal mandates related to education. She suggested Senator Coffin look back to the 1940s and 1950s before the federal government got involved in education. She insisted since then test scores have gone down, and costs have gone up. Robin Hollingshead, Concerned Parent, presented her prepared written testimony (Exhibit H) to the committee, expressing her opposition to A.B. 303. Barbara Clark, Nevada Parent Teacher Association, told the committee she represents 30,000 individuals, and favors A.B. 303. She said she does not believe that Goals 2000 is mandatory; every state has the option to participate. She suggested the local school districts are autonomous, and have the right to either accept or reject the $25,000 grant. She maintained parents are involved at all levels of education planning and do have a voice. She surmised the career counseling proposed by the bill will help those students whose parents are not involved to that extent, and encouraged the committee to support the bill. Elizabeth A. Livingston, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby, voiced their support for A.B. 303. Elaine Lancaster, Nevada State Education Association, declared they, too, support A.B. 303, and urged the committee to pass the bill. Janet E. Hay, Representative, Nevada Vocational Association, Washoe County School District, urged the committee to support A.B. 303. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Ms. Hay if the School-to-Work Program could be accomplished without this bill. Ms. Hay opined not very well. She asserted, when schools receive funding, very little is put into program development or improvement. She said Washoe County has no funding at the high school level, but said certain schools have had funding in the past and are ahead of others, and this money would help fill the gap. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Ms. Hay if she is aware of any mandates which are imposed by the federal government in association with grant money, that are hard to live with. Ms. Hay said she has had experience with funding from the Carl Perkins Grant, which helps initiate programs in schools, but once the funding runs out it is the school's option whether they maintain the program or not. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 303, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 510. SENATE BILL 510: Exempts certain sanitation districts from provisions governing excavations or demolitions near subsurface installations. (BDR 40-1912) Fred Turnier, Assistant Director, Clark County Sanitation District, told the committee they are asking for an amendment to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 455.120 and 455.130, which basically state that a sanitation district in a county whose population is 400,000 or more is exempt from compliance with provisions of those sections. He explained that those particular sections are relative to the "call before you dig" program. Mr. Turnier pointed out when the legislation was first passed in 1991 it required all utilities, including sanitation, to join the Association of Utility Owners in order to receive notification of excavation or demolition being conducted in an area containing underground utilities. It also required that the utilities locate sewer lines and physically mark proposed areas of excavation or demolition. He said prior to the passage of the law, they never had a problem with anyone hitting their lines because their lines average 7 feet to 8 feet in depth, and many are 20 feet deep. He said since they have joined the association, they get 60 to 80 calls per day to which they must respond, at a cost of about $100,000 per year. He said they feel it is unnecessary, because most of their lines are in the center of the street and are not subject to being hit. He said many of the calls they get are from people who want to plant a tree in their yard. He explained the Clark County Sanitation District is not responsible for lateral lines from the street to property owners' homes, so they cannot give them that information anyway. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Turnier if the Clark County Sanitation District will self-insure if this bill passes. Mr. Turnier answered in the affirmative. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Turnier if an individual is responsible if they hit the line. Mr. Turnier replied those likely to hit the main line are generally contractors who have a permit and they do pay for repairs. Chairman Rawson stated the committee needs assurance from the Clark County Sanitation District that they will not limit accessibility to information needed by contractors or developers. Mr. Turnier replied they will not limit access to that information. Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC), voiced their opposition to S.B. 510. He said it has taken them 10 years to get where they are, and they finally have a very workable plan relative to "call before you dig." Jack Peterson, Director, Field Services, Sierra Pacific Power Company, read from prepared text (Exhibit I) expressing their opposition to S.B. 510. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Peterson if the Clark County Sanitation Department's withdrawal from their program would impact them significantly financially. Mr. Peterson answered in the negative. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Peterson, if funding is not the objection, what objections they have to the bill. Mr. Peterson replied their concern is it destroys the perception for other utilities, excavators, and the public that when they call and ask for locations, they will be able to get that information. He added SPPC realizes sewer lines are deep, but said he was surprised to hear that they do not own the lines from the curb line to the main. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Peterson if there is a charge to an individual who calls for information on the location of lines. Mr. Peterson answered in the negative. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Peterson if the information is readily available, or if an individual must file a plot plan. Mr. Peterson replied the individual must mark the spot where they intend to dig, and SPPC sends someone out to determine whether the power company's facilities are close to the site. Chairman Rawson asked what method they use to locate the lines. Mr. Peterson replied they often use maps, but also use electronic devices to locate the lines. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Peterson if the sewer districts joined into the arrangement voluntarily or if they were legislated into it. Mr. Peterson said they were legislated into it. Greg Lightenburger, Senior Engineer, Sprint Central Telephone- Nevada, told the committee he came to testify with the impression that this was a money issue, but was subsequently told that it was because the sewer lines are so deep they never get hit. He said he knows of numerous occasions in his 22 years of experience where sewer lines have been hit. He added, as a result of the gases which develop in those lines, a breakage can cause severe damage, including the possibility of explosions. Galen Denio, Commissioner, Public Service Commission, told the committee he opposes S.B. 510. He asserted it is very important to public safety that one call reaches all of the utilities that may be affected. Mr. Warren told the committee there are representatives from many other companies present to oppose S.B. 510. Chairman Rawson asked those in the audience to identify who they represent for the record. They included: Underground Service Alert, Nevada Telephone Association, Nevada Cable TV Association, MCI Telecommunications, Continental Telephone Company, Nevada Bell, Sprint, and Sierra Pacific Power Company. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 510. Senator Augustine stated, if she knows what is going on in the sanitation district, the rate increase that they are looking at is more of an equity increase. Those who live in the City of Las Vegas are paying a higher rate than those in the county, so the Clark County Sanitation District is looking at bringing those in the county up to what those in the city already pay. She said, therefore, it is not a rate increase across the board. Mr. Turnier corrected Senator Augustine, saying the rate increase they are looking at is to generate the funds to do a $100 million central plan expansion project. He said the equity issue concerns condominiums in the county versus the city, and whether they should pay at the same rate. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Turnier if it did not also concern private residences as well. Mr. Turnier explained condominium owners pay less than private residence owners, and they sought to raise them to an equal level. Senator Augustine reiterated a private residence in the county is paying less than a private residence in the city. Mr. Turnier corrected Senator Augustine again, saying it is the opposite: those in the county pay more. Senator Augustine stated she had spoken to someone who told her it was the other way around. Mr. Turnier pointed out those in the city currently pay $147 per year, and the county residents pay $150 per year. He said the rate increase the Clark County Sanitation District is seeking would bring both of them up to $185 per year. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 510 and opened the hearing on S.B. 530. SENATE BILL 530: Authorizes drug testing of employees of school districts and applicants for employment under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-1671) Chairman Rawson said Senator Neal asked for no further discussion of this bill, and a legal opinion relative to S.B. 530 was requested. He said the committee needs a two-thirds majority to reconsider the bill, which they currently lack. He said if the other members arrive at a later time they may take action on it. Barbara Cegavske, Parent, told the committee they are currently working on some amendments to the bill, and would like to see it in a work session before presenting testimony on it. Chairman Rawson stated if amendments are forthcoming another hearing will be properly noticed, and the committee will hear testimony from both sides. Senator Augustine asked Ms. Cegavske if the language in the bill was adapted from the transportation mandated drug testing at the federal level. Ms. Cegavske replied, unfortunately, what happened was when recommended language was given, they just copied the federal mandate. Chairman Rawson reopened the hearing on S.B. 515. SENATE BILL 515: Requires board of regents of the University of Nevada to create program to encourage and assist state and local law enforcement officers in earning college degrees. (BDR 34-1550) John Richardson, Vice Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada, told the committee the University and Community College System of Nevada opposes the bill. Chairman Rawson told Vice Chancellor Richardson this is not the first time handicap issues have come up. He asked Mr. Richardson if there is some way they can work with it. He said the way it is written, it deals with all law enforcement officers, and the fiscal note must be huge. He suggested if they amended it to include only those officers injured in the line of duty it will cut it down significantly, and asked Mr. Richardson if there is a way to develop a program of that nature. Mr. Richardson said one of their problems with the bill is the definition of a program. He is not sure what Chairman Rawson is suggesting. Chairman Rawson stressed the committee does not want to "slam the door" on this bill, and wants to know if there is something they can do to meet the needs of an individual who was hurt in the line of duty. Mr. Richardson advised the committee he met with Mr. Gager several months ago, and is not without sympathy for him and his situation. Chairman Rawson asked if Mr. Richardson feels Mr. Gager's requests are unreasonable. Mr. Richardson replied the University and Community College System is not equipped to do what Mr. Gager requests of them. He said they lack the telecommunication equipment to provide the services Mr. Gager has requested in his home. He remarked the University and Community College System has great difficulty providing the resources for physically challenged persons who attend their institutions. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Richardson, if the Legislature was looking at this from the standpoint of solving Mr. Gager's problem, what it would require. Mr. Richardson replied, with all due respect, he does not feel it is the responsibility of higher education to solve Mr. Gager's problem. He said the waiver of fees would take care of his tuition, health services fees and laboratory fees, etc. He said he thinks it is a travesty that an officer injured in the line of duty is not provided for by the State of Nevada. He opined the entity for whom the individual works should be responsible for his rehabilitation. Chairman Rawson asserted he is not trying to saddle the University and Community College System with all of the problems, but in the Legislature's efforts to solve Mr. Gager's problems, one of the issues will be higher education. He said it does not necessarily have to be accomplished in the way Mr. Gager proposes, but it needs to be done in some reasonable fashion. He asked Mr. Richardson if the University and Community College System currently has the capability to accept Mr. Gager into the university. Mr. Richardson explained he has to guard his answer because the conversations he had with Mr. Gager fall under the Federal Student Right to Privacy Act. He said, as he understands it, one of Mr. Gager's principal problems is transportation to the campus. He explained the University and Community College System does not provide transportation for any physically challenged student to the campus; they cannot afford to do that. He suggested some communities provide that service through other agencies, but said that is not available in Mr. Gager's community. Mr. Richardson said if transportation to Western Nevada Community College could be provided for Mr. Gager while taking the lower division classes, it would help his situation. Chairman Rawson asked if someone at the college could assist Mr. Gager in reading materials, and taking tests. Mr. Richardson told the committee the University and Community College System is required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide services such as tutors, reading assistants, etc. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Richardson if a program can be developed through the Regent's Office to assist Mr. Gager. Mr. Richardson maintained they have already tried to do that. He said he has personally involved himself in the process. Chairman Rawson asked if the other problems can be worked out, if Mr. Richardson and the University and Community College System are still in a cooperative working mode with Mr. Gager. Mr. Richardson answered in the affirmative. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Richardson if there is any federal money which covers some of those expenses. Mr. Richardson replied the ADA is a federal mandate without funding. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Richardson if the bill was amended to provide for fee waivers for officers injured in the line of duty, if that is an issue he can speak to. Mr. Richardson asserted the University and Community College Systems does not generally favor fee waivers because that puts the cost burden on higher education. Vice Chairman Lowden reiterated an officer injured in the line of duty has certain rights under SIIS and the existing law is clear that vocational rehabilitation should take care of the needs of Mr. Gager. She added, if by chance the new law is passed which eliminates vocational rehabilitation, the PPD awards are even larger than they are now. She said the officer can then take that money and use it however he sees fit. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 515, and opened the work session. SENATE BILL 142: Specifies proof required before child placed in protective custody may be released to person responsible for his welfare. (BDR 38-1068) SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVE TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 142. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATE BILL 255: Repeals prospective expiration of authority of school districts to establish rules concerning school-based decision making. (BDR S-1678) VICE CHAIRMAN LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 255 WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 1999. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Augustine mentioned a point of clarification that the brackets would be removed also. Chairman Rawson replied, "Absolutely." THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * SENATE BILL 431: Makes various changes concerning education. (BDR 34-2021) Senator Augustine told Chairman Rawson she does not have a problem with the bill, but she is not in favor of anything that will set new fees because once fees are in place, all they do is go up. She said she will not vote for it because of the new fees. VICE CHAIRMAN LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 431. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AUGUSTINE VOTED NO.) * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 4: Allows pupils to earn credits toward graduation from high school by completing community service projects. (BDR 34-140) Chairman Rawson told the committee there are some suggested amendments from Assemblywoman Chris Guinchigliani. She added the provisos are: no more than one credit may be earned, and it must apply only to an elective course and the experience must not duplicate course work already taken by the student. He said she also asked to delete section 1, page 1, lines 1 through 25. He explained the new section would be to amend chapter 389 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. The committee took no action on A.B. 4. ASSEMBLY BILL 367: Requires boards of health to avoid conflicts with statutory provisions governing general improvement districts when adopting regulations concerning disposal of sewage. (BDR 40-955) Senator Augustine advised there is a conflict between statute and regulations, and said she believes they are recommending an interim study committee. Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, told the committee her notes indicate the Health Division would prefer the original amendment. She said their rationale was that it was much easier to determine the distance to the sewer from the property line as opposed to the dwelling which is taken out of statute in the first reprint. Chairman Rawson stated this has applicability to some problems specifically in Washoe County where there are larger than average property boundaries. Senator Augustine corrected her previous statement, saying it came out of an interim study committee. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Davis who testified on the bill originally. Ms. Davis stated Jeff Fontaine, of the Health Division recommended the first amendment. She added Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District, stated he wants to see consistency between the law and the regulations. No action was taken on A.B. 367 by the committee. ASSEMBLY BILL 411: Establishes account to indemnify students enrolled in licensed private postsecondary educational institutions that discontinue service or violate certain laws. (BDR 34- 1621) Senator Augustine stated the bill increases the bond from $5,000 to $10,000 on the institutions, and adds a $5 fee to be paid into a fund until the fund reaches a maximum of $250,000. VICE CHAIRMAN LOWDEN MOVED DO PASS A.B. 411. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 21: Directs development of proposal to amend state plan for assistance to medically indigent to include coverage for treatment of substance abuse provided to recipient of Medicaid in nonhospital setting. (BDR R-1269) Ms. Davis advised the committee that April Townley, Director, Nevada Medicaid, Welfare Division, testified the agency would support the resolution if the proposal is cost neutral, but the amendment that the Assembly put on brought the issue of cost neutrality into question, and Ms. Townley proposed the amendment be removed. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO REMOVE THE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT AND DO PASS A.C.R. 21. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 22: Encourages Department of Human Resources to require person who contracts with Medicaid to provide coordinated care to use national data base to obtain certain information. (BDR R-1253) Chairman Rawson told the committee he believes they heard testimony to the effect that this is already being done. Ms. Davis confirmed Chairman Rawson's statement. VICE CHAIRMAN LOWDEN MOVED DO PASS A.C.R. 22. Senator Augustine commented, if this is already going to be in place, the resolution is unnecessary. Chairman Rawson said he does not believe everybody is doing it, but there were some Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) who were doing it. He said the resolution states we should be checking the physicians who work in those organizations. The motion died for the lack of a second. Chairman Rawson submitted written testimony in opposition to A.B. 303 from the Nevada Christian Coalition, Carson/Douglas Chapter (Exhibit J) for inclusion in the minutes. There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities June 5, 1995 Page