MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session June 21, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:50 p.m., on Wednesday, June 21, 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 Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Joan Lambert, Assembly District No. 29 Senator Jon Porter, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, State Department of Education Carri Benson, President, Southern Home School Advisory Council Mark D. Thuet, Concerned Parent Julianne Spendlove, Board Member, Home Schools United Jane‚ England, Executive Board Member, Northern Nevada Home Schools Carolyne Edwards, Lobbyist, Legislative Liaison, Clark County School District Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Eagle Forum Yvonne Nickels, Home Schooling Parent Melodi Hamilton, Parent Coordinator, Zion Institute for Children Sherri Lakin, Director, Taxpayer's Education Alliance Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People Organized for the Next Generation, People to Protect America The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 196. ASSEMBLY BILL 196: Transfers certain duties of deputy superintendent for administrative and fiscal services to superintendent of public instruction. Assemblywoman Joan Lambert testified as follows: A.B. 196 in the first reprint was amended by the Assembly education committee. It came out of our investigations as to why White Pine County School District got into problems and how this could be prevented in the future. One of the things we discovered is that in the statutes dealing with the superintendent of public instruction, the part of the department's responsibility dealing with overseeing budgets and making sure that the fiscal affairs of school districts are in proper order are under the fiscal deputy's portion of the statute. We did not fund the school deputy for a while, and so there was a loophole there, and the Assembly thought it was important to ensure that these inspections occur and thought it would be appropriate to put it directly under the duties of the superintendent of public instruction and allow that person to designate someone to inspect the records. The responsibility would be there, and it would be clear that the responsibility was there. The chairman asked Mrs. Lambert, "Now that the bill has been drafted and there have been hearings, is the message clear? Do we still need the bill? What is your sense of it?" Mrs. Lambert replied: I am sure that people in the department now realize the current superintendent was not superintendent when White Pine County started and people became aware that something should be done. Memories are fresh now. All the players now know and would be careful, but we don't know 10 years from now. Chairman Rawson said: Committee, we have had a group approach that would like to place an amendment on this bill. We are just getting the copies right now. I prepared this as a human resources and facilities' amendment, but unless the committee is in agreement on it and the sponsor is agreeable, I will not present it. It was prepared this way simply in the interest of time. This was a bill draft request, and it was simply not going to come out this session as a draft request, so I honored the request that it be considered as an amendment to speed up the process for our evaluation. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, State Department of Education, testified that the department feels the duties that are being transferred from the deputy fiscal superintendent to the superintendent would be cleaner by just remaining with the deputy superintendent for fiscal services. Mr. Rheault said Mrs. Lambert mentioned that the deputy superintendent position has been funded this time in the department's budget, so that will be in place. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Rheault if he is advocating modifying the language or just leaving it as it is. Mr. Rheault said the bill probably will not affect the department too much. He felt the superintendent would designate the fiscal deputy superintendent to do these duties, if the position is filled. It really does not change authority the department has now. It still reads, "...inspect and report..." It does not give the department authority to do anything other than to inspect and report. The amendment will not change anything except designate the superintendent to make that appointment. Mrs. Lambert said there is another mechanism that was passed out of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs this morning, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 728, which is the mechanism that would prevent a local government, hopefully, from getting into financial difficulty and if it does, it would allow the tax department to take over management of that entity. Mrs. Lambert pointed out that if the department finds problems, there will be an avenue that has teeth; that is, the ability to withhold taxes and all sorts of things. ASSEMBLY BILL 728: Revises provisions governing local financial administration. Chairman Rawson asked Mrs. Lambert if she feels both are necessary. Mrs. Lambert replied that A.B. 728 is definitely the more important of the two. The chairman asked for someone to speak on the amendment to dual enrollment (Exhibit C) under A.B. 196. Carri Benson, President, Southern Home School Advisory Council, testified as follows: The council is a committee under the Clark County School District. Dual enrollment is simply the participation of home school kids on a limited basis at school. There was a survey done across the county, and only about 10 percent participate in dual enrollment. You would not be having a herd of kids showing up on one day. It is a very small number. The school district was for it as long as they could get the funding. They didn't have any problems with it, so that is basically where we are coming from. Chairman Rawson asked if the reason for dual enrollment is that parents of home schoolers would like their children to be able to take certain classes. Ms. Benson replied in the affirmative, saying she pays taxes and wants only the best for her children. She said she is not knowledgeable in all subjects, and would like her children to be able to participate in such subjects. The chairman pointed out that the concerns on dual enrollment are going to be whether this is a move to be able to get public money into home schooling. He wondered if there is any future goal by home school teachers of wanting to take some of the unused portion of a child's allotment. Ms. Benson said, "No." . Senator Augustine asked if home schoolers were looking at per pupil expenditure money. Ms. Benson replied affirmatively, saying the children would be counted on count day. Home schoolers would be under the same rules and requirements as the other children in the class in the public school. She said Clark County has talked about having a preregistration for dual enrollment so they can project teacher requirements and so forth. Senator Coffin asked Ms. Benson if she felt she was not competent to teach her child in a certain subject. She replied affirmatively. Senator Coffin said there is no way to ascertain if home schoolers are receiving a good education. Ms. Benson said there is a way; Nevada home schoolers are tested by the public school system. Ms. Benson said home schoolers test very high, but would do better if they had all the equipment and supplies available to regular public school students. Senator Coffin asked what is it about the public schools that Ms. Benson does not like. Ms. Benson said most home schoolers are not against schools. She said she took her children out of public school because she wanted them to look up to her, rather than their teachers. Senator Neal said he was troubled by her answer because children grow up and become adults. As adults, they must participate in society. He feels that unless a child is given a broad perspective, a child grows up lacking what is necessary to function in today's society. He thinks the public school system offers the broad perspective out in the real world where the child will be dealing with other than his parents. Ms. Benson said she was not living in a cave. Her children interact at church and with friends and neighbors, and they are well aware of the world around them. She said she just wants the best possible education for her children. Ms. Benson pointed out that the State of Nevada is the only state that does not have some form of dual enrollment. Senator Neal remarked on the amendment and wondered if by adopting it, there may be a violation of constitutional authority. He questioned who is going to grade the children. Chairman Rawson said by way of clarification: The home schooling really isn't the question here. It is just whether or not home schoolers can take advantage of some classes in the school districts. As I understand this, the grades would be handled as they would be with any other student. The school would give an assessment of the student. Now, in the subjects you are home schooling on, the school districts would test to give an assessment? Ms. Benson agreed, saying all the children in the state are tested once a year every year by the public school district. She said again that most home schoolers score very, very high. Senator Augustine pointed out that the parents of home schoolers are also paying property taxes and also into the school fund, just like everybody else, so they are entitled to public education. She said if at some point in time Ms. Benson decides not to home school, the children can be enrolled full time in the public school district. Senator Coffin said, "This is the first time I have seen this amendment, and it is not as simple as it appears, especially as far as cost is concerned. Senator Coffin then gave some specific examples in this regard. He said although there are many advantages to home schooling, the lack of socialization is a major one. Ms. Benson said she thought that was covered in the proportionment. Senator Coffin replied: The way I read it, it is based on programs, not on the amount of expense incurred in maintaining the records of a student. So we might have to work on that part of it. I think the socialization issue the senator brought up is important, and there are real benefits to home schooling, but there are definitely some disadvantages, and the lack of socialization is a major one. Chairman Rawson pointed out again that home schooling is not the issue here. It is whether or not home schoolers can take advantage of some classes in the school districts. Ms. Benson said home schoolers should be able to have dual enrollment. All the other states have it. Goals 2000 wants to make Nevada an "education friendly" state, and Ms. Benson said she thinks dual enrollment would be a step in that direction. Senator Jon Porter, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, testified that he has been approached by constituents and Nevada citizens in Clark County in favor of home schooling. He was asked for his opinion of home schooling and its impact on the school district and families and their abilities to teach their children properly. He said what specifically was addressed is a way to integrate home schoolers into the school system, and he sought information from Utah and other states on how they are handling this situation. After assessing all that information, a bill draft was prepared. Senator Porter explained his intent was to have a bill presented, but bill drafting said it could not be completed in time. He said he assured the home schoolers that some sort of hearing could be held this session, and that is the reason for this amendment presently before the committee. Senator Porter said: For the record, the intent was to bring this before you in a full bill, but there was not time. That is why it has come to you in this particular form. Chairman Rawson advised Senator Porter that before he came into the hearing, he had given an introduction to the committee, explaining why the amendment bears the designation of the human resources and facilities committee. He had also advised the committee that no action would be taken unless they approve of the amendment. Senator Porter said that subsection (b) on page 4 of the amendment, which has to do with credits, will be deleted. He said that parents of home schoolers are not thinking about the financial aspects involved, but merely looking for a way to expose their children to some of the programs in the schools which are not covered by their home schooling. Senator Washington thinks it is a very simple request. The home school teachers just want the children to have access to certain classes not taught in the home, including sports, if they meet the requirements. Senator Washington said he believes that is fair, and it is a reasonable request. Senator Porter said the true direction of the families involved is under section 5 of the amendment so that a program can be adopted by the school districts to allow for dual enrollment. Senator Neal asked if the home schoolers were trying to "tribalize" their children. Senator Porter said no. The intention of these families is to obtain the best possible education for their children, and to his knowledge there is no movement across the country to try to "tribalize" the children. He said at this particular time, the home schoolers feel they can train their children better than the public school system. They also feel there are some programs in the public schools that are better, and they just want an avenue to access them for their children. Mark D. Thuet, Concerned Parent, explained that immune system deficiencies required him to take his son out of school. After the home-bound program ran out, the doctor recommended that he not be sent back to public school because of his immune system being so low and because of that, they had no option but to home school. Mr. Thuet said they found it to be a delightful and positive experience over the last five years. The boy is now approaching ninth grade, and he said it has been an adventure teaching their child at home. Mr. Thuet said over the last year, he was dealing with some 20 families with mainly attention deficit disorder (ADD). Their children did not quite fit into the system and had difficulties and for that reason, the parents were home schooling. Mr. Thuet said his son now wants to attend public school, and he would love to be able to have dual enrollment for him so as to take advantage of the special courses offered where the parents felt they had shortcomings. Mr. Thuet said right now there are 1400 home schoolers in the school district. Out of that number, he feels probably 20 percent will want dual enrollment, which will amount to three children per high school. All that is involved is a funding problem. He would like dual enrollment so he could provide the best opportunity for his child, and dual enrollment will help provide this. Julianne Spendlove, Board Member, Home Schools United, testified that as such, part of her duties is to answer questions from people who are interested in home schooling. She said many are reluctant to undertake the home schooling of their children because of one reason, their lack of knowledge in, say, algebra or biology or whatever subject in which they feel they lack the necessary skills. Ms. Spendlove said in February of 1994, her daughter was allowed to participate in dual enrollment in Clark County to take orchestra. Ms. Spendlove said she had made this request of the principal, who said she would allow it if the school board approved, which they did, and it was a very positive and enjoyable experience for her daughter. She said she home schools her children, and they are tested and receive very detailed results on this testing. Chairman Rawson commented that a by-product of home schooling is that parents end up better educated than they would otherwise. Ms. Spendlove agreed. Jane‚ England, Executive Board Member, Northern Nevada Home Schools, testified in favor of dual enrollment, saying it will create a friendly atmosphere between public educators and home educators and will provide a joint effort in providing the best possible education for the children. She said in all fairness, it would be right for home schoolers to be able to take advantage of the courses in public schools which cannot, for the most part, be offered at home, such as drama, band or courses using microscopes. Home schoolers receive no tax credits or funding. Ms. England referred to section 5, paragraph 2 (c) of the amendment. She feels it should be clarified so that home schoolers will not suddenly become subject to additional testing, such as the child enrolled in band having to take the English proficiency test. She said that should be specified. Chairman Rawson said he thought the testing should be limited to the class in which the home schooler is enrolled, and Ms. Spendlove agreed. Senator Neal asked the purpose of the executive board. Mrs. Spendlove said it is a support group for Nevada home schooling, and her role is answering questions for people interested in home schooling. The board is not an elected body and does not make an rules or regulations regarding home schooling, but they work with legislators in making some of the Nevada statutes in regard to home schooling. Senator Coffin said he was having trouble understanding why this amendment came along so late in the session because it is not germane to the bill. He feels that it cannot be given the attention it deserves because the rules have been suspended on giving notice, and there are many interested parties who have no idea this matter is before the committee today. Chairman Rawson said Senator Coffin's point is well taken, and it is directed at the committee, not the supporting group and so noted. Ms. Benson said she misspoke previously and would like to correct the record. She said: I was at the school board meeting, and I understood that it was approved upon going to the Legislature or upon legislative action, something like this. That was my mistake. I did not understand how that works, so I am told that because the board has changed and there are new members, it no longer has full support. I am sure it will have to come up again before the school board. Chairman Rawson asked if there has been a school board action at some point that approved this bill. Ms. Benson said it was her mistake. She thought they had the majority if it was funded, but that was her mistake. The school board may have no position at this time. Carolyne Edwards, Lobbyist, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, said she would like to give a very brief history, as follows: At this point, we really have to back everything that Senator Coffin has said. We did find out about this 10 or 15 minutes prior to the meeting. I was able to speak to the superintendent of schools, Dr. Brian Cram and to one board member. They did the research for me as quickly as they could. Yes, this has come up before our school board. It was brought to our legislative subcommittee of the board. We have a board member who is very interested in this. However, we have had a divided board. What happened was the subcommittee looked into this issue, brought it before the full board, and the full board did not feel they could take a position. We have some major problems with this piece of legislation. The reason the board is still investigating this issue, there are liability issues involved, there are safety and space available issues involved, and while we have worked on a case- by-case basis and as indeed you have heard testimony, we have been open in the Clark County School District to allowing this on a case-by-case basis. We have to come before you today and ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, to please delay any decision on this bill to give the school districts time to deal with their own issues at home. We are dealing with this issue now, and our board has not taken a position because we do not have the adequate information necessary from legal counsel on the liability and safety issues, and currently we are dealing with a terrific "space available" issue. There are also fiscal impacts that would have to be noticed to us so that we could understand what impacts fiscally the districts would have. We are very sorry, but at this point we cannot support this issue, as our school board has real reservations on this so late in the session. This is a great shock to our system this afternoon. Senator Neal asked if there is a probability that this whole concept would be declared unconstitutional because of the fact that if you allow one course or two courses to be taken in a private school, you are in essence saying that children can go to a private school and the public will have to pay. He said there was a case back East where they dealt with this very same issue that public funds could not be utilized to pay for children who went to private schools. Senator Neal recalled that in this session, there was a private school in White Pine County and the Legislature wanted the students to be able to use the public school bus, since that bus traveled right by the private school each morning. He said there were problems, even with that. He said he was wondering if the school districts would be entangled in lawsuits if we travel this path. Ms. Edwards said: Normally I do not give testimony unless I have had time to think things through, and because of this I can only give history from the Clark County School District. The district's position is one of extreme caution. The case mentioned by Senator Neal involved a liability issue, which is the one of concern right now. I want to assure the committee that the Clark County School District is looking into this issue, but the legal issues have not been resolved at this point. This would be the Legislature mandating to a local elected board something that they, themselves, at this point have not been able to work out with their own legal counsel. Senator Neal has brought up the current issues with which the board is struggling. The district is happy to try this on a per case basis, but the board must have time to deal with very complicated legal issues. This is not something we can just suddenly do in the last week of the session and feel comfortable about. All of the issues brought up this afternoon is the reason I am sitting here very unprepared and apologetic that we have not had time to work with these issues. Senator Augustine said the committee did not seem to have this problem in wanting to mandate all school boards on bilingual education at a time when the federal government is getting ready to relieve states of that obligation. Ms. Edwards said Senator Augustine has simply made the point for the district's case. A bill was submitted in February on which the district had worked for six months with the entire education coalition, with both sides, and presented it fairly in front of the committee. It has taken six months, and that is exactly the point. She said the district has not even seen this amendment for five minutes and has not had any time to discuss it. Senator Washington mentioned the liabilities and other problems associated with dual enrollment and asked, since the district has already accepted some home schoolers, what type of liabilities the district would be facing. Ms. Edwards again apologized for her lack of preparedness, saying she does not have the details about the liability issue because the district is still waiting for details. She said yes, the board has taken 3 or 4 home schoolers on a case-by-case basis. Senator Washington mentioned space, and wondered how many home school students are really out there; is the number massive in Clark County? Ms. Edwards responded that Senator Washington's questions are exactly the ones with which the board is grappling. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, testified as follows: I, too, have just had a brief glance at this. Home schoolers make a conscious decision to educate their children at home, and we in the department of education and the state board have worked with home schoolers and local school districts to come up with guidelines and regulations that I believe are working well now, and we can all live with. We have no quarrel with parents' rights to educate their children at home. We have one point to make about this amendment we have just seen briefly, and that is the impact it would have on the Distributive School Account (DSA). Currently, there is not a mechanism in the DSA in the formula for funding our public schools to accommodate the provisions in this amendment. There is no provision in the DSA to reimburse schools for partial enrollment, which would be allowed by this amendment. We believe that if this were to proceed, it would definitely have an impact on the DSA, and would require reopening of the DSA. Senator Washington asked if it is possible to actually come up with a formula; is it a difficult task? Ms. Peterson said it would just require time, which is the point that has been made several times. She said something like this would require about two years. At this point in time in the session, Ms. Peterson said it would be very difficult to come up with a reasonable formula. Mr. Rheault pointed out that the department has worked for alternative education in adult students, trying to come up with a formula for part-time students, and that has been in this session and nothing has happened with that this whole session, either. He said that unless the adult students attend 220 minutes a day of classes, the department is not authorized currently to pay for them. It is complicated and will have to be worked into the DSA, which will take some time. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), testified he would not get into the detail about this being late in the session, but as minor as this may seem, it would be a dramatic change in the form of public education in Nevada. He said it is not something that can be done over-night because of the impact on the fiscal problems on the DSA, even though there are only a small number of home schoolers wanting to attend public schools. Mr. Etchemendy said the comments today have been directed to the Clark County School District, but there are 16 other school districts in Nevada, and none of these school districts knew about this amendment; they have not seen it and have had no opportunity to gauge what impact it may have on their own local operations. He said all the districts should have that opportunity and the opportunity to respond. Mr. Etchemendy pointed out that many of them may like it, but they will have concerns and should have the opportunity for input, and there is not time for that. He said this is so late in the session, he urges the committee to postpone processing the amendment during this session. Senator Augustine asked what the impact would be if all of a sudden the 1,400 home schoolers enrolled in the school district this fall, saying it would not be any different than if they decided to take a few classes. They all have that option of registering in August. Mr. Etchemendy said, "That is true, and they will have to have the space for them because they are required to have the space to fit them. Somewhere along the line, they will get an apportionment for that, if they are regularly enrolled in school." Senator Augustine asked about amending the bill to read just Clark County. Mr. Etchemendy said that would solve the problem for 16 other school districts. Senator Augustine said she sees this as involving a very small number of children, but the impact would be much greater if all, or even half of them totaling 750, decided to enroll in the school. Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), advised she cannot give any substantive information about the association's position on this amendment because they have not had time to study it. She said she has not had time to pick up the phone to call other states where this program is in place to find out what the impact is. The association believes it will have more of an impact than was portrayed by the proponents of the bill, but the association does not know and would like the time to research. Ms. Cahill asked the committee not to process this amendment at this time, and give the association an opportunity to look at this issue properly, give it a full public hearing and bring it back in the next session of the legislature. She asked that NSEA's objection to this amendment be entered in the record being presented as an amendment to a bill which is totally unrelated. The chairman advised that the Legislative Counsel Bureau recommended this amendment as being related. Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, said she is a home schooler. Her son, who is now 16, now attends Truckee Meadows Community College and has the advantages that school has to offer. Referring to Senator Neal's comments, Ms. Hansen stated that most home schoolers are involved with the Home School Association and have support groups that are involved in many outside activities, including field trips, church activities, Boy Scouts of America and the like, and have many opportunities to be involved with their peers. Ms. Hansen said dual enrollment seems like the perfect opportunity to have home schoolers involved with children in the public schools. Ms. Hansen continued, saying she found that one of the disadvantages of being a home schooler is that there are some classes in public schools where it would have been nice if her children had been able to participate, such as band or chorus, those kinds of things, that it is impossible to do in home schooling just one child. Ms. Hansen said in Utah they have a law that allows home schoolers to participate in classes in the public schools. She sat in on some of the Utah public school classes which included home schoolers, and they were excellent. Ms. Hansen said it is only fair that parents who pay taxes have access to the facilities and opportunities for which they pay taxes. Ms. Hansen said there are about 500 home school students in Washoe County, and only a handful, possibly 10 percent, would even want to avail themselves of this opportunity of dual enrollment. She feels dual enrollment is particularly important for children of middle school and high school age. Ms. Hansen feels it is an issue of fundamental fairness. She said those concerned about home schoolers being socialized by the school system should be happy to have them participate in public school classes and activities. Ms. Hansen advised there seems to be a basic antagonism between those who essentially control the education of our children and those who want options. The antagonism is against any option that provides an alternative for parents. She feels the home schoolers have a fundamental right to school their children, but they should also have the right to access those facilities that are provided for by their tax money. Senator Neal mentioned that he was present when Ms. Hansen testified for taking children out of school for home schooling and that was put into law. Now, he said, he hears her testifying that something is lacking in home schooling. Ms. Hansen said she did not understand why the committee would object to the home schoolers taking advantage of something for which their tax dollars pay. Senator Neal said the educators object because they have a problem with DSA and other things. Senator Coffin said he wondered about the age and location of the 1,400 home schoolers in Clark County. He mentioned that if there are clusters of home schoolers in the same school jurisdiction, dual enrollment would create an impact on that school. There is nothing in the bill that exempts certain grades or courses. He said he feels there are so many things to be considered and this being the last full week in the session, it will not give the committee time to give due consideration to all the points. Senator Mathews said her concern is that the committee does not have enough information or time to gather pertinent information. Many questions have not been answered. She said she does not feel comfortable voting on something on which so many people have concern, and the committee really needs time to gather more information. Ms. Hansen pointed out that she does agree that the amendment came late to the committee, but if the committee waits until next session, it will be another two years. Two years is a long time in the life of a child, and they will have many missed opportunities as a result of waiting until the next session. Melodi Hamilton, Parent Coordinator, Zion Institute for Children, said she began home schooling her six children in Idaho where they allowed dual enrollment, and it works in Idaho and there is no reason why it cannot work in Nevada. Senator Neal says Nevada is not Idaho, and Nevada is a state where people work 24 hours a day. Yvonne Nickels, Home Schooling Parent, testified that if the 1,400 home schooling students in Clark County were divided into all the schools, it would result in a maximum of eight students per school, if it averaged out evenly. She feels eight students maximum per school is a comfortable average and that undue stress placed on the impact on the school district is unwarranted. Ms. Nickels said the home schooling department in Clark County is a low priority, and it is understaffed. She said the concerns expressed in this hearing were not about children, but about finances. Sherri Lakin, Director, Taxpayer's Education Alliance, testified briefly for dual enrollment, reiterating what other proponents had said. She said she does not understand why it is so complicated. Home schoolers pay full taxes, and she asked why those home-schooled children attending certain classes in public schools fall under any other circumstances as far as insurance, liability, security and space are concerned. Senator Neal asked Ms. Lakin if this amendment is passed, how is the school selected? Ms. Lakin said it would be the school in the district which they would be assigned to attend if they were a regular student. Senator Neal asked if Ms. Lakin felt a regular school student should be bumped out of a class for a home schooler who wants to attend that class. Ms. Lakin said she cannot envision that happening. Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People Organized for the Next Generation, People to Protect America, testified from prepared text (Exhibit D) in support of A.B. 196 with amendments. The hearing was closed on A.B. 196. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 1141 AND DO PASS A.B. 196. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Rawson asked if in the amendment on page 3, the language dealing with private schools would be deleted and on page 4, it would be subsection (b). Senator Lowden said, "That is correct, Mr. Chairman." SENATOR NEAL MOVED THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO REREFER THIS BILL AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Rawson called for a vote on the amendment which would add to the main motion a rereferral to the Senate Committee on Finance, and on which he registered his vote as no. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATOR LOWDEN, SENATOR AUGUSTINE, SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO.) * * * * * Chairman Rawson said a vote would now be taken on the main motion to amend and do pass A.B. 196. Senator Coffin said: It is a financial issue, it is an allocation issue, it is a study issue. I don't think anybody here has expressed any anti-home-schooling issues or opinions. I think procedurally, it is wrong to have done this because some members of the committee apparently were aware of this. Not all members of the committee were. Some witnesses apparently had sufficient notice to buy tickets and come up, and members of the committee were not aware. I don't think suspension of the rules ever suspended the reasonable requirement for alerting the public. I don't believe we have ever suspended the reasonableness of notification. I don't want to be portrayed in some fashion as being anti-home schooling when I cast a vote on this. You have structured this in such a fashion that it would look that way. I have had too many years of experience here to see how these things work. I have been a chairman before, and I don't recall ever having done this to my committee, and for you to do it to us, I think is unfair, Ray. Chairman Rawson said: Senator Coffin, you are characterizing this as a conspiracy... Senator Coffin interrupted to say: Not a conspiracy; it is just that we know where we are in session, and you know the bill is closed. You know that these people have wasted their time coming up here because the bill isn't going to pass both houses... Chairman Rawson continued: I tried to indicate to the committee that there was one aspect of this that needed your attention, and that was that this was proposed by the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities. This was an amendment that was prepared by Senator Porter and in that process of coming forward to the committee, it ended up with the committee name on it. I did not know at that point where it came from to go back and correct it, but did allow it to be presented. It is not inappropriate for people to bring in an amendment to any bill at any point in this process, and I recognize that you may feel that there hasn't been time to adequately notice people. However, that process can take place any day at any point in the session, that an amendment can come forward. And the fact is that we have had a very thorough dialogue on this today. Now, we have had good representation from the school district, the school boards, the teachers' union. I am not saying they have had all the information they wanted or that they may have presented all the information they could, but they have been represented here and they have cautioned... I mean that side of it has been very well represented to take caution on this... Senator Coffin said, "The fairest thing to do would be to give them a bill draft right now for the next session." Senator Augustine said: The DSA impact is not any different than if these people decided to put their kids in school full time. It is the same difference. They are not required to keep their kids at home once they start home schooling. They can home school them for a year, then put them into the district for a year, then take them back out. They can do whatever they want now. Senator Neal spoke about procedure, saying that reasonable time should be allowed to discuss issues and to get information that is needed. He said it has been mentioned here today many times that all of the districts did not have information they needed; that they had problems with liability and legal issues that they needed to look at before they moved forward. He said it seems to him that we are not giving them time to get the information needed. Senator Neal said this does not mean he is against home schooling; he supported home schooling, but he feels the individuals who will administer this program should be accommodated by giving them time to get the necessary information. He said if the bill goes forward, it will go without the necessary information for those individuals who are going to have to administer this program. Senator Neal said he thinks that is wrong. Senator Coffin said, "I will abstain on the vote because I feel it is a violation of the rules to conduct this hearing and to have a vote because we have not suspended notice of meetings to the extent that we have reasonable notice of hearings." Chairman Rawson said the bill has been noticed. Senator Coffin said, "I also request a tape of this hearing and a verbatim transcript of my comments." Chairman Rawson said, "So noted." Senator Washington commented: I am appalled with what is going on here. Whether or not I am for home schooling or against home schooling is not the point. There is an issue here that deals with the fundamental right of taxpayers to be able to make a decision and a choice concerning the education of their children. The issue here is if home schoolers have the option for dual enrollment to take advantage of the courses for which they pay taxes, and I say they should have the right to do so Senator Mathews says she does not see this as obstructing anyone's right. This was not her reason for voting as she did. She said the committee has always given both sides of a bill sufficient time to get all the information needed, but today it has become a one-sided issue. She pointed out that some of those who testified said they had only seen the amendment 5 minutes before it was brought up in committee. She had never seen it before, and she does not think it is fair. Senator Mathews said she still does not have enough information to vote on this amendment, and she will vote no for that reason. She said the people who are going to be administering this program have said they have not had time for review, and they do not have enough information Senator Augustine said that is, unfortunately, what happens at the end of the session when the rules are suspended. She said there was an inference made that members of the committee had seen the amendment prior to the meeting, but she had not seen it. She said it would be a good idea to have more information for the committee before it goes to a vote on the floor. Background information would be very beneficial and helpful. Senator Lowden said she did not see the amendment before coming to the meeting, and she appreciates Senator Porter bringing it to committee so that a dialogue can be had before taking it to the floor. She said she feels there has been a very adequate dialogue today. If there is more information to be brought forward, she said she would appreciate hearing it. Chairman Rawson called for a vote on the main motion. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS AND SENATOR COFFIN ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The chairman said for clarification that was a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 196 with Amendment No. 1141 and, as discussed, that amendment is changed on pages 3 and 4. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 56. ASSEMBLY BILL 56: Requires training of operators of large boilers in schools. Debbie Cahill testified in favor of the bill and gave a brief rundown of its history: NSEA introduced this bill, which in its first version would have required the State of Nevada to license boiler operators in schools. This was a safety issue for NSEA. Testimony was presented to the committee on labor and management on the Assembly side. There have been near critical situations in boiler operations. NSEA realizes there are some school districts which did not conduct training of boiler operators, and felt the best way to deal with this situation was to ask the state to license boiler operators in the schools. Assembly labor and management felt otherwise, however, that in this area of less government interference and less bureaucracy, it might not be a good idea to require a license to be issued. As a result, a subcommittee was formed of the two chairmen of the committee and the interested parties, which included members of the Division of Industrial Relations. School district representatives and NSEA participated in this subcommittee. A.B. 56 was the result of the subcommittee's work. The bill requires that each school district provide training for the boiler operators. It specifies the content of the training. The most important part of the bill and the reason NSEA wants the bill to go forward is that subsection 3 provides that the board of trustees of each school district must submit the program of training for review, not for approval, but for review, to the Division of Industrial Relations so that they know there is some consistent level of training that is taking place. I realize that this is a mandate on the school district. There was some discussion about whether or not this would be an unfunded mandate. The Clark County School District (CCSD) and the Washoe County School District (WCSD) are cooperating on a training program that is in place in Washoe County. Testimony was that the impact would be minimal. It is a very simple little bill, and I do urge you to support it. Carolyne Edwards testified on A.B. 56 for the record, as follows: This has been an ongoing struggle for us over several sessions, and we feel that this session we have been able to work successfully to come to a compromise. We realize that it is our responsibility, and we are working, using WCSD model for safety. We are currently beginning this safety program and are endorsing A.B. 56 and the work that was done at this session. Senator Augustine asked how many operators are involved, and Ms. Edwards replied there is only a handful of actual licensed boiler operators. However, in the 168 schools, there are several hundred operators who will eventually get this training. Senator Augustine noted the fiscal note on the bill, and wanted to know if the money comes out of the school district's funds which have already been allocated. Ms. Edwards said during the last session, there was a notice of legislative intent to the school district at that time. The Assembly expected CCSD to begin safety training, so they put us on fair warning last session that we would have to begin this training and absorb the cost. This bill is actually fine tuning it and putting it into statute. Senator Augustine asked if this bill went to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, and Ms. Cahill said she did not think so. When it came back from the subcommittee to the full committee, it was felt that the fiscal impact to CCSD was minimal. They had agreed this was an impact to local government, and they would absorb the cost. There is no state impact. Ms. Cahill advised that the rural counties send their boiler operators to WCSD to be trained. Chairman Rawson asked how many boiler operators have to be trained. Ms. Edwards said CCSD will train all employees who have access to boilers, probably 200-plus. She said CCSD is a large district with many schools, and over time you can be talking 200-plus, but on a prorated bases. The safety programs are CCSD's responsibility and should be built into the budget for ongoing safety training. Henry Etchemendy said the association participated in the discussions on the Assembly side and in the subcommittee that worked and came up with this bill. He said this training is for operators of very large boilers, 2.5 million BTU or greater, and the association has no problems whatsoever with the training programs that would be in place. In fact, Mr. Etchemendy said, it is a good program. When operators are hired to run these large boilers, they must have certain qualifications and must have a good understanding of the boilers before they are hired. On page 2 of the bill, this gives almost a 1-year lead time to get that training program into operation, so it is not something that has to happen right away. Mr. Etchemendy said the association supports A.B. 56, as is. Senator Washington asked if there was an apprenticeship program for boiler operators, and Mr. Etchemendy said he did not know. The hearing was closed on A.B. 56. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 56. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL AND SENATOR LOWDEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 31. SENATE BILL 31: Authorizes formation and operation of charter schools in Nevada. Chairman Rawson referred to the amendment he had shown the committee on the floor today, (Exhibit E), saying it is all right. On the front page, item 6, it indicates that no more than one charter school may exist in a county. Page 3, top line, it further clarifies that and says the provisions of section 1 to 19 inclusive of this act apply only to counties whose population is 35,000 or more. The chairman asked if this is all right. Senator Mathews said she understood that this was to be a pilot program. In the beginning it was two schools involved, and someone convinced the committee to go to three. Chairman Rawson said Jan Needham of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, has been consulted on this language, and she sent back the following message: This language on page 3 clarifies the three pilot projects. The amendment is okay if the committee wants to go ahead and call a meeting on the floor. Chairman Rawson asked the committee to look at the amendment to ascertain if it is all right. He then referred to section 19, noting that a population of 35,000 or more includes Carson City; it includes Washoe County and maybe Elko. Henry Etchemendy said not Elko because when you have a population classified, it goes back to the most recent census figure, and that census figure for Elko County was just approaching 35,000; it had not reached it. The chairman advised that the counsel bureau is telling us the amendment is correct, and Mr. Etchemendy is telling us that it is correct. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 921 AND DO PASS S.B. 31. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN AND SENATOR MATHEWS VOTED NO.) The chairman advised that the sponsor of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 721 has requested that it be held over until the next meeting, but advised if anyone has traveled to be here for the hearing on this matter, he said he would take their testimony now. ASSEMBLY BILL 721: Permits election of directors of fire protection districts without precincts. No one came forth to testify on A.B. 721. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ____________________________ ___ Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities June 21, 1995 Page