MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session June 23, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 4:00 p.m., on Friday, June 23, 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 Bernice Mathews Senator Bob Coffin COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Pete Ernaut, Assembly District No. 37 Assemblywoman Jan Monaghan, Assembly District No. 1 Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Deanne Blazzard, Vice President, Foster Parents of Southern Nevada Thom Reilly, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources Christina Chandler, Assistant Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District Donald W. Winne, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Human Resources William H. Cavagnaro, Lobbyist, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Michael R. Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County School District Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 721. ASSEMBLY BILL 721: Permits election of directors of fire protection districts without precincts. Assemblyman Pete Ernaut, Assembly District No. 37, testified for the record in support of A.B. 721, saying: This is a very simple bill. It corrects an inequity. There are three fire protection districts at Lake Tahoe that are elected boards. The problem is the fire protection district is not contiguous with the actually established voter precincts, so we have a problem that somebody outside the fire protection district actually has the ability to vote for the commissioners of the fire protection district. This is enabling legislation that allows the county commission to establish the boundaries of the fire protection district, and those people be elected at large. It just corrects the inequity, that is all. It affects three fire protection districts in the whole state, and they are all at Lake Tahoe. Mr. Ernaut urged the committee to support this measure. There being no testimony in opposition, the hearing was closed on A.B. 721. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 721. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL AND SENATOR COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 524. ASSEMBLY BILL 524: Makes various changes to provisions governing family foster care for children. Assemblywoman Jan Monaghan, Assembly District No. 1, said Assemblyman Carpenter brought this bill to her committee, and she ended up chairing the subcommittee on this bill. The genesis came from a problem in Elko and also from the Family Foster Care Bill of Rights they had developed. Mrs. Monaghan said in the Assembly, they sat down with the proponents, representatives from the Division of Child and Family Services and everybody involved in the issue, and a discussion was held on this subject until they arrived at an agreement and a settlement. She said at that time, the only thing that could not be agreed upon was the fiscal note, so the bill was sent to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. That committee deleted the fiscal note. Mrs. Monaghan said that with the fiscal note deleted, everyone involved is in agreement on the bill. The hearing on A.B. 524 was temporarily suspended, and the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 634 was opened. ASSEMBLY BILL 634: Revises provisions governing procedure for involuntary court-ordered admission of persons into mental health facilities. Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9, testified on this bill, as follows: The first reprint of A.B. 634 is the result of a compromise. The original bill requested that a hearing be held within 3 days for any individual involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. After hearing from the courts, as well as concerns from the Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (MH- MR), they advised a hearing could be held within 7 days, so we went with 5 judicial days. That was the compromise that was reached. That way, the judge would still be able to travel to the facility to hold the hearing there to preserve some of the dignity of those who were involuntarily held. There was testimony from Las Vegas from individuals who had been involuntarily committed who had not had hearings within the...had been strung out. Some of the testimony had been in regard to criticisms of the private hospitals, that they were keeping those involuntarily committed to collect the insurance. There was some testimony to that fact. We tried to focus more on how to make sure that the procedure can work. We did have an amendment that the committee had done an amend and do pass, moved it to a 3-day period in January of 1997, with a sunset so that the next session could revisit the bill. However, the judges felt they still could not accommodate the 3-day schedule, so at least to get some movement on this, we moved it to 5 days on judicial. The vote was unanimous out of the committee, and it was passed unanimously on the floor. I do think that there will be a constitutional challenge, perhaps even on the 5 days, but at least this is a move in the right direction. Chairman Rawson questioned the policy change, and asked Ms. Giunchigliani if this involves a person who has been involuntarily admitted and asked what happens to that person today. Ms. Giunchigliani said her understanding is it is a required policy that two assessments must be done on the individual, and the results presented to the court. She advised that in the past, the individual had to be transferred by someone from MH-MR or the private sector to the court for the hearing. The district court judges now come once a week to the sites, and they are willing to continue to do so. The judges can accommodate the change from 7 days to the 5 judicial days, but they cannot deal with the 3-day change. Ms. Giunchigliani said hearings for probable cause are held for criminals in 3 days, and felt only right to do so for those involuntarily committed. She said she did not want to deal with an unfunded mandate. The committee did balk on even the phasing in of that issue. She thinks it should be revisited next year, or if there is a court challenge, then it would have to be dealt with at that time. Chairman Rawson asked what communities it will affect, and Ms. Giunchigliani replied, "All communities." Chairman Rawson asked if there is really a place to commit people in all communities. Ms. Giunchigliani said that was a good point; it is primarily in the larger districts. She said there was no testimony from anyone one way or the other regarding any impact in the rural sectors. Chairman Rawson asked if family, next of kin or someone will be noticed if there is going to be a hearing. Ms. Giunchigliani replied affirmatively, saying that is current practice and will not be changed. Ms. Giunchigliani submitted the following exhibits for the committee's review: Exhibit C, a summary from the Legislative Counsel Bureau of the number of days a person may be kept involuntarily in a mental hospital in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington. Exhibit D, case law on the unconstitutionality of Nevada's 14- day prehearing civil confinement period. Exhibit E, constitutional law on cases involving involuntary commitment to state mental hospitals. The hearing on A.B. 634 was temporarily suspended, and the hearing was reopened on A.B. 524. Deanne Blazzard, Vice President, Foster Parents of Southern Nevada (FPSN), testified in favor of A.B. 524, saying there are some things missing in the bill that FPSN was hoping for, but FPSN does support the bill and urges the committee to pass it. Senator Augustine asked if one of the things removed was the $2 million fiscal note on the original bill. Ms. Blazzard said, "Yes. The bill went to ways and means in the Assembly, and the fiscal note was taken out." Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Blazzard, "Does this bill do what you want?" Ms. Blazzard said, "Yes." Chairman Rawson said, "Is it a foot in the door?" Ms. Blazzard replied, "Yes. What is in the bill is in policy, but it is not in statute. Policy and practice do not always mesh, and we felt like we needed to have a little bit more meat to the policy." Thom Reilly, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources, said the department wholeheartedly supports this bill and urges the committee to pass it. The chairman asked Mr. Reilly if he agrees now that there is no fiscal note, and he answered affirmatively. Senator Washington commented about section 6, subsection 1, stating he is a foster parent, and it never occurred to him the previous medical and behavioral records were not given to the foster parents. He asked if these records are requested now, will they be given to the foster parents. Mr. Reilly said good practice is that the worker should provide this information to foster parents because that information is crucial to them. This bill just ensures that these records are given to the foster parents. Senator Augustine commented on section 3, item 1, which allows licensed foster parents to refuse placement or request removal of a foster child from their home, and asked Mr. Reilly if that will put an undue burden on the department. Mr. Reilly said sometimes the foster parents and the foster child are not good matches. Other times, the child is so out of control and causes so much difficulty that it is not doing the child any good to leave him there, and it causes hardship for foster parents. He said, "Yes, it will be somewhat difficult for the department, but it is good practice and the department should be doing it." Senator Augustine asked if John Sarb, the administrator of the Division of Child and Family Services, had testified on this bill. Mr. Reilly said yes, he has worked on this bill from the beginning and definitely supports it. Christina Chandler, Assistant Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District Court, testified that during the past year, she has been on a committee chaired by Judge Hardcastle. She said many of the issues addressed in this statute were endorsed or came out of that committee. Ms. Chandler said it is important that the efforts of foster care parents are recognized. She advised that the committee endorses the adoption of this bill. The hearing was closed on A.B. 524. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 524. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN AND SENATOR NEAL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 534. ASSEMBLY BILL 534: Increases criminal penalty for abduction of child by parent with joint legal custody. Donald W. Winne, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Human Resources, said he is representing Nancy Saitta, sponsor of this bill, who represents the Missing Children's Clearing House, and testified for the record: The bill is offered as a technical amendment where under subsection 2, we basically tie in under the elements listed under 2, the fact that it would be a felony under subsection 1. The reason why that is needed is because of the fact that if nothing is stated, statutory construction requires that if no penalty is stated, it is a misdemeanor only. The problem with that is that you cannot extradite a person for a misdemeanor offense. It has to be a felony, at the very least, before you can extradite. Approximately 40 percent of all Missing Children's Clearing House cases are, or do involve, married parents that run off with the child to other parts of, not just this country, but other countries. This is kind of a little loophole that we are tying up and making sure that we have the ability to extradite if they commit this crime in Nevada. Chairman Rawson asked if this would be used in a mistaken situation where a child was gone for a weekend or something. He said what we are really talking about is an abduction and if the child is not returned, this bill essentially covers that situation. Mr. Winne said the definitions are in the bill, and it is going to be up to the district attorney to evaluate each case, as well as for the police to determine if it was an abduction. He said his sense of it is that it will be used in a true abduction case, as opposed to just a child being taken away, for instance, on a backpacking holiday and for some reason the other parent was not notified about it. According to Ms. Saitta, the law will be used in abduction cases and not where a parent simply did not get the information that the child was going away for the weekend or a short day trip, say to Disneyland. It is only meant to be applied in those cases where there is a positive attempt to take a child for an indefinite period of time. Senator Augustine questioned the phrase, "an indefinite period of time," saying the judge could interpret that in different ways. For instance, if the parent who does take the child for the weekend and the child is supposed to be returned by 4:00 o'clock on Friday and does not arrive until Sunday at 10:00 o'clock, this may be considered an abduction. Senator Augustine sees the bill as leaving this wide open and thinks there should be a definite time, say three days, or a missing child report. Mr. Winne stated for the record: As a practical matter, what has been required to happen is that when a married parent takes off with a child, the police generally will not take a missing child report until the other parent somehow gets a legal right to the child's physical custody, rather than the parent that took off with the child. So, in essence, even if the parent takes off with the child, it is not going to be automatic because the police will not step in until the parent still in Nevada goes into court and either files for divorce or gets a custody order from the court before the police will even act upon this. In the first place, we are talking about time before anything happens in regard to a criminal investigation because that is what the police want. Senator Augustine said, "I can understand that in the case of a married couple that is just separated, but with a divorced couple with joint custody, there is usually some animosity. In that case, after a certain period of time, the parent should be able to file a complaint." Mr. Winne answered: In regard to the divorced couple situation, you are right; there is always animosity. I shouldn't say always, but most of the time there is animosity. I would think that, I would hope that the discretion of the police officers investigating the case, as well as the district attorney, evaluating what is in the police investigation would determine whether this was just an abusive process, if you will, as opposed to an actual attempt by a parent to run with the child. I guess you have all these layers of discretion built in, plus again, it is one thing for the investigation to take place and another thing for the district attorney to act upon that investigation. The final step is if the jury is willing to view this as an attempt by a parent to really take the child or was it just an attempt to take the child somewhere for a couple of days to Disneyland, and the parent forgot to tell the other parent what was going on. I think with all those layers of judgment and discretion built in, I think it is designed, hopefully, to use the best common sense of all those individuals to prevent an abusive process. Senator Augustine said wilful intent is a test, but considering the penalty of 1 to 6 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $1,000 to $5,000, this seems too open and perhaps the resident attorney, Mark James, should be asked for an interpretation. Mr. Winne said, "Perhaps it would alleviate your concerns to see how many cases have actually been brought under this statute to date, and let you know some factual circumstances surrounding those cases to give you an idea of what has gone on in the past." Chairman Rawson commented there has been a lot of abuse in the past, but not a lot of prosecution. Mr. Winne agreed. Senator Washington said there may be a conflict with Senate Bill (S.B.) 416 in which child abduction was categorized as a "D" felony and reduced the sentence from 1 to 4 years. If it is changed from a misdemeanor to a felony, there may be a conflict. SENATE BILL 416: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. Chairman Rawson asked if this should be referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Washington asked if it is possible to bring the guilty parent back into the state and go for a stronger sentence, possibly for kidnapping. Mr. Winne said for the record: This particular section was designed to catch those parents who technically had some sort of right to have custody of the child, but did not have the right to take the child to another state without some sort of permission or some sort of understanding that they would return with that child. Kidnapping is when you are unlawfully taking somebody against their will. Well, you know, whether a child wants to go or not with a parent, there is not much say there, but they also have a legal right to take the child with them. They have some sort of right there, and the point is, where do you want to draw the line? This statute was designed to address this specific instance of taking a child out of the state with the purposes of abduction and not allowing the other parent continued physical contact or legal custody. William H. Cavagnaro, Lobbyist, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said he may be able to answer some of the questions about this bill because he is somewhat familiar with how the original bill started out. For the record, he said: What this has to do with more than anything else is a case where a divorced parent comes back into town, or comes and actually takes the child without the other parent's knowledge. That is what kind of triggers the whole thing, or even when the parent doesn't return the child after taking him on a legally sanctioned custody to another state. Right now it happens because it is a misdemeanor. The police really can't get involved when it is across the state line, so this would allow us to put the car identification in the national computer where we can actually find the people and extradite the person back to the state to face charges. Right now, we can't. So what has happened in the past, the law has been good as far as it went for in-state, but it is kind of "King's X" as soon as the person gets across the state line. Here and in Las Vegas, both, we are so close to the state lines that it really becomes a factor. I think this would clean up a lot of the problems we have now with the case where the child is taken from the legal parent and taken across the state line. When you talked about kidnapping and that type of thing, the difference is the parent who has taken the child already has some legal custody of the child, so it is not like a stranger abduction-type kidnapping. It doesn't really fall under that classification. It is a separate type of crime. Ms. Chandler said her division is in support of this bill, primarily because it gives some teeth to custody orders and divorce decrees. She advised there are parents who are sophisticated who have ill will in their hearts and intend to abduct their children after courts award custody. They know they will only be found guilty of a misdemeanor. She said this will protect both the interest of the children, as well as, hopefully, prevent parents from crossing state lines with children because it then becomes much more involved from a legal standpoint. The chairman asked if this bill would affect more men than women, and Ms. Chandler said the division does not collect that data. Senator Lowden said her experience indicates it is pretty equally divided between men and women. Chairman Rawson said he does not want the bill to be used for the parent to strike back. Senator Washington again addressed the current sentencing of 1 to 6 years, saying it might not be even a 1-year sentence, according to the discretion of the judge. However, under S.B. 416, currently it is 1 to 4 years, with a definite 1-year imprisonment. Senator Washington again expressed his feeling there will be a conflict, and he suggested the bill be referred to the judiciary committee. Senator Lowden commented that it may seem open-ended to Senator Augustine, but sometimes that kind of language is needed. It is not the intent of the police to lock people up without trying to resolve these very difficult and emotional situations. Senator Coffin interjected the thought that the felony, rather than the length of time served, is the important part because having it classified as a felony gives the court abilities that are not present under a misdemeanor-type offense. Senator Washington suggested an amendment to the bill which would make it a felony if the child is taken out of state and not returned during a certain time period. Chairman Rawson said he was not sure the bill really needs the amendment; the language seems plain enough. Senator Washington responded that the meaning is fine, but he is concerned about having this action classified as a felony because on a misdemeanor, the errant parent cannot be brought back to the state, and he again expressed his concern about the conflict with S.B. 416. Chairman Rawson said in the interest of time, we can have a do pass on the bill, and if the chairman of the judiciary committee feels an amendment is needed, the committee will work with him. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 534, WITH A PROVISION FOR AN AMEND AND DO PASS, IF NECESSARY. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Rawson appointed Senator Washington to contact the chairman of the judiciary committee and advised him the bill should get to the floor for the session on June 24. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL AND SENATOR COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rawson asked the committee to look at suggested language in Amendment No. 1141 (Exhibit F) to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 196, which is an effort to make this bill acceptable. ASSEMBLY BILL 196: Transfers certain duties of deputy superintendent for administrative and fiscal services to superintendent of public instruction. By way of clarification and for the record, the chairman advised: The amendment would strike the mandate in the bill, and a statement of fact would be made that the Legislature finds the public school system does offer excellent courses of instruction, and students who receive instruction under the statutes that govern home schooling may benefit from some of those excellent courses and the state may permit and be financially responsible for an option of dual enrollment. We want to recognize that it is okay. We want to say the state recognizes it has a financial responsibility. We want to give the local districts the authority to be able to draft regulations to implement that, if they so choose. There is no mandate to do so. It lists that the state board would adopt regulations. Michael R. Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, said discussion was held on amendments to A.B. 196, and he said Chairman Rawson correctly summarized the outcome of those discussions. He said the involvement of the state board is only to configure the circumstances under which the students would be counted. The state board does promulgate regulations with respect to student counts for state apportionment purposes. The remaining authority would rest with the local board of trustees. Mr. Alastuey said he was not speaking from an official position on anybody's part, but just to share some observations, as follows: The issues of dual enrollment, or shared enrollment, have included in very good faith, not in an obstructionist sense or in a sense of proprietary interest on student times or whatever, the concerns as to responsibility for students during certain hours of the day. What about those hours in the interim between one selected class and another selected class? Would that be the responsibility of the parent, as opposed to the responsibility of the school? There are a number of other areas that have come up which have been discussed in good faith. Chairman Rawson said the committee will express a legislative intent that we are not intending the school districts become babysitters in between classes. If a student is able to fit into the schedule, then it is reasonable to offer them enrollment. If there are too many difficulties presented with that, then it seems reasonable to deny enrollment. He said the districts need to work out the regulations to accomplish that. He does not think it appropriate for a student to have an 8:00 o'clock class and then be on campus for two or three unstructured hours as they wait for another class. The chairman pointed out that if a student has more than 50 percent of his schedule in dual enrollment, then it is probably appropriate for him to be a full-time student. He explained that those are the kinds of things the Legislature would expect the local districts to work out and write into regulation. Mr. Alastuey remarked: With the understanding, and perhaps the creation of the record even beyond these discussions that that is the intent, I would say we are perhaps progressing toward something workable. But in the absence of such a record, then, of course, you have those many unresolved questions at the district level. Chairman Rawson said the Legislature would expect these students to go to the schools in their own districts which they would normally attend if they were full-time students. He advised if a district wants to have a waiver policy on that, it is up to them. The Legislature does not want to dictate that. He said further, it is not a school responsibility to bus students for a single class, and that type of thing. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, said he thinks he understands the concept, although he has not yet seen the language. He said it does seem permissive that a school board may want to do this and if they do, they will adopt their own regulations. Mr. Etchemendy asked if he had heard correctly that the state board must or shall do something? Chairman Rawson said, "...shall establish uniform regulations for counting enrollment...and calculating the average daily attendance of pupils." He said he believes that is existing law. Mr. Alastuey said it is existing law, and the only thing would be the attendance of "B" students who would be included in those regulations, as well, for purposes of state funding. Chairman Rawson said it would be his intent, with the small number of students involved, any student that is there on count day would be counted as a student, without making the distinction that they are part-time or full time. They would be assumed to be full-time students. He said if the numbers become a big issue, then the Legislature will address that more directly. The chairman advised he does not see that this would have a fiscal impact, but if it does, that would be addressed in the normal mechanisms in place for dealing with the attendance. Mr. Alastuey said if it is the intent for students, regardless of the period of the day they attend, if they are enrolled on count day to receive full apportionment, then there would have to be some reworking of the earlier amendment. The earlier amendment definitely specifies a prorata share based on the portion of the day they attend. Chairman Rawson advised he was talking about substituting this amendment, if the committee agrees. Mr. Alastuey advised this would not be a substitution. These are simply changes to the amendment, as opposed to withdrawing the entire amendment. Chairman Rawson said: This is my reasoning. We would like to see some reasonable progress in developing this, enough to leave the financial advantage to the districts to be able to work that out. I would like to start it by not having a distinction, but, committee, I can listen to the rest of you on this. Senator Augustine said she has only one concern, and that is on the second page, section 5, it is permissive giving the school board of trustees the authorization to create the program of dual enrollment. By making everything in subsection 2 permissive, in essence, the people who want dual enrollment are shut out. The school district will be able to decide whether or not they are going to have a program of dual enrollment, and that is not the intent of this committee. The committee wants them to have dual enrollment. The way the words are written, once the school board decides they do not want to create dual enrollment, that is one thing, but if they have created their program, the way the words are, they can pick and choose who they are going to allow to dually enroll. Mr. Alastuey advised with the establishment of the program being permissive and with the chairman's indication that the parameters of the program be worked out locally within the time allotted, he felt each of the areas, with the exception of reporting to the state, would in some sense be permissive. It would be up to the committee as to how to do that. It was his understanding it was to be permissive in all respects. Senator Augustine commented that any of the prospective dual enrollers can be shut out. The school board can say no, we do not want this person or that person. The chairman remarked that the intent is not to create an unequal situation. He asked if it is not reasonable, if a school board decides to adopt this policy, then that policy ought to be uniform? Senator Augustine said, "Yes, it has to be mandatory on (a), (b) and (c), page 2." Mr. Alastuey said if it is clear enough that the establishment is optional, then if that option is elected, there would be certain parameters that would be specified by the state. Senator Augustine said the way it reads, if the school board makes a decision to establish the program, then they must contain the criteria in (a), (b) and (c), and now we are using shall instead of must. Chairman Rawson advised what is being said essentially is that the Legislature is not going to establish the criteria, and it is not going to make the decision of whether or not a district pursues this. But if a district pursues it, then they should do certain things; is that not reasonable? Mr. Alastuey said whatever is reasonable to the committee. He said he understands the committee's discussion and their train of thought. Senator Lowden said this language reminds her of the bill on bilingual language which gave the local school districts some leeway in establishing their programs. She has no problem with the proposed language. Chairman Rawson advised the committee does not expect to have unqualified support on this bill, but they are trying to make something that is workable and is not a mandate on the local districts. Senator Mathews remarked that she was not against dual enrollment, but did have some concerns which she expressed at the last hearing. She said the amendment does not allay her concerns, and for that reason she will be voting against it. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Mathews if they could discuss her concerns to see if there is a way they can be addressed. Senator Mathews advised that she has been unable to grasp the essence of this bill. Chairman Rawson said he has tried to slow this down so the districts can spend the necessary time on it. Senator Washington wondered if this amendment answers the concerns of Senator Porter and those parents who requested this amendment. Chairman Rawson advised he had a meeting with Senator Porter where the concept of this amendment was discussed. Senator Porter indicated he has talked with the supporters of the bill and thinks it appropriate to make it permissive, and he is pleased with the concept of the amendment. The chairman said this is probably one of those cases where the committee can make everyone happy. Senator Washington asked if Senator Porter had a chance to read the amendment, and the chairman answered that he had not. Senator Washington said he would like to hold off on the motion until Senator Porter has had an opportunity to read the amendment. Senator Augustine indicated since it is so close to the end of the session, she would like to move this bill and get the amendment drafted, and Senator Porter can make the changes during that time. Senator Washington agreed, and the chairman said he would hold the bill if Senator Porter does not agree with the amendment. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 196 WITH THE PROVISION THAT IT IS PERMISSIVE FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO AUTHORIZE AND CREATE THE PROGRAM, BUT ONCE THEY HAVE DONE SO, THE PROGRAM MUST BE UNIFORM. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Alastuey if he has concerns about Senator Augustine's motion. Mr. Alastuey said as long as it is clear that the deletion of the word may and insertion of the word must does not require a local school district to establish such a program. Senator Augustine said no, because subsection 1 takes care of that by just saying "...authorized to create." Mr. Alastuey asked if he might suggest as well that rather than saying "the program," the amendment could say "...if the program is created, it must...." Chairman Rawson said, "That is fine. Do we have committee agreement on the start-up phases that if the dually-enrolled students are present for any part of a day, they are counted as students in the district?" The committee members indicated agreement. The chairman asked, "If we have a thousand students, that becomes a significant issue, and we will address that again through the finance committee. I don't expect hundreds of students to do this." Mr. Alastuey asked, "Mr. Chairman, Amendment No. 1141, Exhibit F, page 2, in the new language in subsection 2 for the prorata apportionment would be deleted?" The chairman concurred. Chairman Rawson indicated the motion on A.B. 196 would be held while waiting for a response. The hearing was reopened on A.B. 634. The chairman said in the discussion held previously in this meeting, it seems like a positive step and asked if any of the committee was concerned about this bill. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 634. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Washington pointed out there is no fiscal note on the 5 judicial days. It seems there is a conflict there. Chairman Rawson agreed. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL, SENATOR COFFIN AND SENATOR LOWDEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 283. ASSEMBLY BILL 283: Requires school districts to submit annual report to superintendent of public instruction concerning recruitment of new teachers. Senator Washington requested this bill be held. The committee agreed. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 491. ASSEMBLY BILL 491: Revises provisions governing imposition of administrative sanctions against child care facilities. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 491. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL AND SENATOR COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 584 was opened. ASSEMBLY BILL 584: Creates advisory subcommittee on health care planning to provide advice to legislative committee on health care. Chairman Rawson advised this bill will be held because the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations is working with the same issue and may amend this bill into one of the study bills. The hearing was opened on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R) 14. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14: Encourages employers to allow leave without pay for employees to participate in school-related activities and provide procedure for school to contact parent at work in case of emergency involving child. Senator Lowden advised there is an amendment, No. 1211, to this bill (Exhibit G). She said both she and Senator Mathews were concerned when they saw the original resolution that put in a definite number of hours and to tell businesses what they should do. The bill was sending the wrong message to employers, especially small businesses which might have to close down if their employees leave to participate in school activities. Senator Lowden said they felt it was important for parents to participate in their children's lives, and particularly in their school activities, so the amendments were prepared to accomplish this goal. Senator Mathews advised that although parents have days off from their work, they may have to take additional time off to participate in school activities with their children. She said if small businesses have to give additional hours off work, it will create a real hardship for them and may force them to close their businesses. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.C.R. 14. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN AND SENATOR NEAL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator Augustine pointed out the pending motion on A.B. 196. Chairman Rawson said Senator Porter is comfortable on the amendment, but wants to talk with the parents first, so the committee will allow him that time. Senator Augustine withdrew her motion to amend and do pass A.B. 196, and Senator Mathews withdrew her second thereto. The hearing was opened on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R) 42. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 42: Urges school districts and Board of Regents of University of Nevada to develop and provide training regarding child abuse. Senator Washington said there is just a very simple amendment to this resolution, No. 1212, (Exhibit H), which is before the committee. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.C.R. 42. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL AND SENATOR COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE:_______________________________ Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities June 23, 1995 Page