MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 26, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:58 p.m., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003.  Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

Mr. William Horne, Vice Chairman

Mr. Walter Andonov

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. Jason Geddes

Mr. Joe Hardy

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Garn Mabey

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mr. Bob McCleary

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dr. Theo Ann Byrns, Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Extended Programs, Community College of Southern Nevada

Marilyn Haley, Manager of Continuing Education and Registration Information, Community College of Southern Nevada

Tom McCray, Program Developer, Professional Truck Driving Program, Community College of Southern Nevada

Ralph Goudy, Community College of Southern Nevada

Sharon Lindberg, Training Manager, Sierra Health Network

Debra Salt, Program Manager/Site Manager, Community College of Southern Nevada

Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada

John Cummings, Community College of Southern Nevada

Chuck Alvey, President and CEO of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada

Ron Weisinger, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Development Authority

Jacques Pelham, Student, University of Nevada, Reno

Bonnie Parnell, Citizen

Douglas R. Seastrand, Regent and Board Chair, University and Community College System of Nevada

Dr. Jill T. Derby, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada

Bret Whipple, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada

Alicia Lerud, President of the Associated Students at the University of Nevada, Reno

Brooke Buchanan, Student Affairs Director, CSUN, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Fred C. Albrecht, Vice President, University and Community Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

John F. Gallagher, Ph.D., Vice President for Development and Executive Director, UNLV Foundation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance Chapters

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll call the meeting to order.  Madam Secretary, please call the roll.  [Roll was called.]  Please mark members present when they arrive.  For those members who are not here yet, we’ll inform them that we have an abundance of bills left in the Committee, so I would suggest to members to bring a late dinner with you.  Our committees will probably run into the evening, or as late as it takes to get all of these bills heard.  We have a deadline that is rapidly approaching, and we will be having some very late meetings, unless you want to work on the weekend.  It’s not an item of debate, voting, or discussion; this is just a “heads up” for anyone who may get a little hungry in the evening.  With that, we’ll start with Assembly Bill 391 for the meeting today.

 

Assembly Bill 391:  Makes appropriation to Continuing Education Division of Community College of Southern Nevada for expenses relating to relocation of Professional Driving Center and operation of Continuing Education Division.  (BDR S-1298)

 

Chairman Williams:

A.B. 391 is a bill that was brought to the Committee for Committee introduction.  The Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) has the fastest-growing student population enrollment in the nation.  In the last ten years, the enrollment at CCSN in Las Vegas has grown by 85 percent.  It was surprising to me to find out that the Division of Continuing Education is mostly self-supporting.  Most of their funding comes through the programs and the tuitions that they charge.  Also, we are finding that there’s a huge demand for the type of programs that the Division offers.  With that much need for participation, we wanted to see how the Legislature could become involved in not only providing assistance to the Division, but also looking at ways of partnering with the community to ensure that students take advantage of the opportunities that the Division offers without losing any resources or opportunities for the college.  With that, we’ll open the hearing on Assembly Bill 391.  We’ll start the testimony today in Las Vegas.  We have the Associate Vice President for Extended Programs, Dr. Byrns.  Do you want to come up please?

 

Theo Ann Byrns, Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Extended Programs, Community College of Southern Nevada:

[Introduced herself]  Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today.  People are wondering what continuing education is, and how it is involved with the overall workforce development plans of the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN), as well as the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).  Continuing education is that part of the college that goes beyond the traditional credit courses.  It offers life-long training and professional learning.  It provides training to the community, it prepares individuals for jobs, it offers corporate training for business and industry, and it collaborates with state and federal agencies to increase employment.  Continuing education is very much involved in the economic diversification of the state of Nevada.  It is a college’s center for workforce effectiveness and is staffed by qualified and dedicated individuals.

 

[Dr. Byrns continues.]  As Chairman Williams said, it is self-supporting.  That means we must generate enough revenue to pay for managers, instructors, support staff, materials, and advertisements.  Any monies not used for direct costs are reinvested in program development or are given to the institution.  Revenue is generated by the following: cash-paying customers, WIA (Workforce Investment Act) funds, private nonprofit customers, such as Catholic Charities, and private for-profit customers such as casino properties, businesses, and industries.  We are very much involved with workforce development in the state of Nevada.  There are certain things that we know about the emergent workforce.  First of all, Nevada is transient; members of the workforce don’t seem to put down roots.  There are high expectations such as those on the part of the workforce and on the part of the employers.  There is a mix of high and low technological knowledge.  There are some members of the workforce who are very knowledgeable; there are others who are not.  We know that technological knowledge today is an extraordinarily important skill to have in order to find gainful employment.

 

We have also found that many in the workforce have poor work ethics and limited life skills.  It might seem to you and to me that behaviors such as arriving on time, using proper language, and wearing proper attire are obvious in the workplace.  However, there are many people who have not had the opportunity to learn that these things are important for a successful career and long-term employment.

 

We also know that today, the workforce is very much influenced by the events of September 11, 2001, and by the current war in Iraq.  As technology impacts society, there are skills and skill gaps.  We have found that companies are interested in hiring individuals with the highest potential to master technical and team skills.  That is not to say that those individuals will have those skills upon hiring, but that they have the potential to gain those skills.  We also know that companies provide a variety of skill development programs to give employees the tools they need.  We have seen that companies today provide a friendly environment where employees are encouraged to be part of the company.  We also see ongoing learning and self-improvement classes in companies, and we see that companies and industry expect employees to take responsibility and be accountable for quality, safety, appropriate behavior, and actions.

 

[Dr. Byrns continues.]  The Workforce Development Centers for Effectiveness at various colleges are flexible.  We can do training when and where you want it, and it is very convenient.  The college is accredited, and reporting and documentation issues are eliminated when the college system becomes responsible.  The centers have known costs, and the community college is able, through its knowledge, its accreditation, and its flexibility, to provide for the future needs of the employers in workforce development.

 

The following are some of the training courses that we have provided: truck driving; medical courses for credit; language for the workplace; English as a Second Language; current technologies; soft skills; basic skills; sales; call center skills; critical thinking; customer service; quality control; management development; professional certifications; career preparations; and HazMat (Hazardous Materials) training.  At the Green Valley Tech Center and also up north, we have the ACT center, which provides a myriad of training opportunities.  Debra Salt is here to address that if you want her to.

 

What is Nevada’s payback if they use continuing education and the Centers for Workforce Effectiveness in the community colleges?  First, it is a trained workforce, and, second, it is a trained, employed workforce.  How about a trained, employed, and tax-paying workforce with the basis to build higher skills?  The children of the workers in that workforce will also have the basis to build higher skills and, in general, be better citizens in a more prosperous state.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

Could you elaborate on what the professional driving center is?

 

Dr. Theo Ann Byrns:

Certainly.  That is our truck driving school, and it trains individuals to be truck drivers.  We have a range at the Community College of Southern Nevada, Cheyenne campus.  The truck drivers go through a course; they are tested by DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles); they get their CDL (Commercial Drivers License); and they are ready to be truck drivers.  They spend the first six weeks driving with an experienced truck driver, and, after that, they are ready to be hired.  By the way, most of our students are hired before they even start the class, because there is such a desperate need.  They make a very good salary, starting off at about $30,000 and going up to $50,000 or $60,000 per year.  We also are providing bus driver training for the Clark County School District.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

If A.B. 391 were passed, what changes would we see in the program?

 

Dr. Theo Ann Byrns:

At this time, we need to move the range.  All truck-driving schools have range requirements, and that is one of our biggest concerns; to move the range means new heavy asphalt.  If we don’t move, it is going to be difficult to continue.

 

Chairman Williams:

Other questions?  Thank you very much.  We’ll go now to Carson City.  We have Tom McCray, Ralph Goudy, and Marilyn Haley signed in.  Do you want to come up together?  You can utilize all three chairs.

 

Marilyn Haley, Manager of Continuing Education and Registration Information, Community College of Southern Nevada:

[Introduced herself]  I was given the task of presenting information on Student Outreach.  If we comply with the mission of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), then we’re fulfilling the requirements of Student Outreach by providing educational and student support services.  We meet community needs by providing student-centered services.  We utilize up-to-date facilities and up-to-date technology; this means buildings, equipment, staff, and training equipment.  If we work together with the community, the students, and the overall general public, we will pull this together.  I need to remind you that the best things in life are not free, and I think we know that right now, as Americans.  We have companies, agencies such as Catholic Services, and programs such as the VA (Veterans Administration), and, if we pull together to train and equip Nevadans, they will be responsible, contributing citizens in our community. 

 

Tom McCray, Program Developer for the Professional Truck Driving Program, Community College of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas:

[Introduced himself]  The Professional Truck Driving Program at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) is an asset, both to the college and to the state.  The truck driving program provides a 200-hour course, which is available days, nights, and weekends.  Additionally, the program offers a commercial driver’s license class, taught exclusively in Spanish, and a passenger bus class in which the student obtains his commercial driver’s license with a passenger endorsement.  The bus program was established to train students for employment with the Clark County School District as well as to train commercial coach carriers.  The Professional Truck Driving Center is located on the Cheyenne campus in North Las Vegas.  The Center is a member of the National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools, whose 107 members graduated over 18,000 students in 2002.  It is also a member of the Nevada Motor Transport Association in Carson City.

 

[Mr. McCray continues.]  In fiscal year 2002, the school produced 168 students with a graduation rate of 87 percent; 38 percent found employment with local companies, and 31 percent gained employment with national companies.  Fifty‑three percent of our students were Caucasian, and 43 percent were African-American and Hispanic and included a number of women.  You may or may not be aware that there are 458,000 trucking companies in the United States.  There are more than 9.6 million people driving and supporting the transportation industry.  A serious driver shortage has plagued the industry for years; to solve this problem, trucking companies are offering improved salaries, enhanced equipment, increased benefits, and bonus programs.  Initiatives such as these retain drivers and attract new employees with a starting salary of $35,000 to $40,000 per year. 

 

In 2003, we project there will be 400 students in the class.  The program currently has 70 enrolled students and has graduated 24 students since January 2003.  Forty-two are currently attending school, and four have dropped out.  Opportunities to move from driver into management positions are abundant.  One could choose to become a dispatcher, fleet manager, safety officer, recruiter, and/or a trainer.  There is more to the trucking industry than driving a truck for these individuals.  The Community College of Southern Nevada offers placement and pre-hiring, so that upon enrollment of a student, we can actually assure them of a job upon graduation, locally as well as nationally.

 

The school employs 8 full-time staff and 12 part-time instructors.  In summation, relinquishing people from the unemployment status facilitates our goal of continuous growth.  The goal will be accomplished by expansion of our classroom capacity, training equipment, and areas in the range.  The school offers an opportunity for individuals to increase the standard of living for both themselves and their families.  The industry has no gender or ethnic barriers.  As a community college, we truly have a chance to help the community in the state of Nevada by passing A.B. 391.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I’m just curious about this bill; it sounds like it’s all going for infrastructure, for moving, and/or expanding the Professional Driving Center.

 

Tom McCray:

The funds are also for the increasing the number of classroom instructors, but we definitely need some space.  A technology center and a communications center are going to be built on our range.  We have no home when that happens, and that’s our primary concern.

Assemblyman Geddes:

This is a one-time allocation, so it would only pay for teachers for the first part of the program.

 

Tom McCray:

The range is our primary concern in that funding issue.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

Is this on the UCCSN priority list anywhere?

 

Tom McCray:

Yes, it is.  We’re on the back of the Cheyenne campus and the parking lot is at the rear of the campus.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I mean was this on the UCCSN Regent-approved budget request turned in to the Governor and in to this body?

 

Tom McCray:

Ralph Goudy will address that.

 

Ralph Goudy, Community College of Southern Nevada:

I think I’m going to have to defer on that one.

 

Chairman Williams:

On A.B. 391, as you can see under the fiscal note, the appropriation is not included in The Executive Budget.  Regarding a bill like this one that is concurrently referred to this Committee and to Ways and Means, it is difficult, in many cases, not to talk about the appropriation.  We make it a standard in this Committee to not talk about the appropriation; we will allow Ways and Means to do that.  We try to suggest to Ways and Means not to talk about policy in their committee.  We talk policy, what the particulars are, and what the programs are; when the bill goes to Ways and Means, they’ll debate the finances.  What we try to do with hearings in this particular Committee is to allow the public to be involved, to discuss the policy issues, and decide what to do with the policy.

 

I know it is hard to decide policy without referring to the budgetary questions, but I would like to remind the Committee that this is a policy committee.  We like to get as much of information as possible on what the division has in areas of opportunity for students in this Committee.  When we get down to dollars and cents, we’ll do that in Ways and Means.  This does not mean that you can’t ask those questions, but we do not want to debate on dollars and cents.  We want to find out what the policy is and if it is a good policy, so that when the Ways and Means Committee gets this bill, if they get it, they will know that we’ve gone through the policy aspects.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I respect that greatly.  The way A.B. 391 is written, it says “appropriate the sum of $500,000.”  I was trying to get to the policy behind how that number was derived.  I realize it’s not in the Executive Budget; I was trying to figure out if the UCCSN Regents budget had the $500,000 in it, and they had recommended it forward because they had taken a position on the policy side of it.

 

Ralph Goudy:

I’ll speak to that with what limited knowledge I have.  I do not believe that it would be on the Regents’ priority list in a formal fashion.  This has happened fairly quickly, that we found out that we needed to move the truck school.  It would not have gone through the process because it’s become a situation where the truck school needed to find a new home quickly.  In fact, we have until the end of August to relocate it, because of the expected need of the land for students.  We certainly have to take a “back seat” to the students who are already at CCSN.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

Are there any other professional driving schools in Las Vegas?

 

Ralph Goudy:

Yes, sir, there are.  To my knowledge, there are three reputable driving schools in Las Vegas, “reputable” being the key word.

 

Chairman Williams:

I have a follow-up to Mr. Mabey’s question.  Are those private driving schools?  [Mr. Goudy indicated yes.]  You’re the only publicly funded driving school in Las Vegas?

 

Ralph Goudy:

Yes, that’s true.

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

What are the approximate rates?  How would you compare the cost?  If I am a prospective professional driver, and I want to learn how to drive a truck, how much does it cost to go to CCSN and get trained, and how much does it cost to go to these private schools?

 

Ralph Goudy:

The high end in Las Vegas is $7200 for a private preparatory school, which happens to be domiciled in Arizona and has a branch in Las Vegas.  We are the lowest at $3198 for a five-week course.

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

This has to do with the Continuing Education Division.  With the appropriation of $500,000, what kind of, or how many, new students can you reach out to?  I see it’s listed as addressing the increased operating costs, but I was wondering, with $500,000, how many students can you reach out to, veterans or otherwise?

 

Ralph Goudy:

Right now, $500,000 is approximately 25 percent of our annual budget.  The demand for classes and services that we entertain far exceeds our capacity to deliver in the matter of space and resources.  If we can offset some of those additional costs to expand—we currently serve in the neighborhood of 22,000 students per year—we could probably at least double that, if resources were not an issue.  The $500,000 would not go far, but it would certainly put us on track to start developing resources so that we could expand our current offerings and significantly raise that number.  Incidentally, the Continuing Education Program has, like the college itself, shown a steady increase every year in participation.  As we have formalized efforts to make ourselves and the services of the whole college system public, we have been getting more calls.  There is why we’re here; the demand far exceeds what we have the ability to meet.  That is why we request passage of A.B. 391.

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

Hopefully, this is not a Ways and Means question, although I do sit on Ways and Means.  This is a one-time appropriation, so in the next biennium, you’ll probably be asking for something similar, if not more, given the demand.  It is considerably higher than we are able to meet right now.

 

Ralph Goudy:

Yes, sir, I believe that would be correct.  However, I would want to defer that decision to the priorities of the Regents, so I cannot speak on their behalf.  I will share with you that currently there are 17 other states that fund continuing education programs.  With funding, they have stood behind those programs because of the workforce development efforts and economic diversification.  I do see, on a national level, that the trend is to recognize and support the functions that we’re doing, and, currently, we are self-supporting.  That means that our focus has to be on paying our bills and not necessarily focusing on the programs.  We’d like to change that formula so that we’re focused on programs and services for the community, rather than having to find the funding to meet the demand. 

 

Chairman Williams:

If you have information on the other 17 states, and you could find out which states they are, get that information to the Committee so members could have the information for reference.

 

Ralph Goudy:

Yes, sir, I sure do, and I can.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

I do know of the good that you do, and all of the programs for the students, and the great good that it does for the community.  What private partners do you have?  Do companies which benefit from the service help with some of the funds that are needed, such as UPS, FedEx, and others?

 

Dr. Theo Ann Byrns:

We happen to have representatives from private companies here to testify on behalf of A.B. 391.  With the permission of Chairman Williams, I would like to introduce some of those people. 

 

Sharon Lindberg, Manager, Corporate Training and Development, Sierra Health Services:

I’m the Training Manager for Sierra Health Services.  [She spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit C).]  Sierra Health Services, with 2300 plus employees in southern Nevada, has utilized Community College of Southern Nevada as a very valuable resource for the past 12 years.  The relationship between Sierra Health Services and CCSN started with computer skills training and some professional development programs.  Now, we make available in excess of 30 programs that are supported and facilitated by CCSN.

 

As we grew and the training and education needs of our employees were identified, we worked very closely with CCSN to help us customize programs to meet the specific needs for our training and education.  CCSN provides a staff of educational and real-life business experienced facilitators for us to work with.  Working with CCSN has been, and we hope it will continue to be, a very cost-effective way of meeting the training and educational needs of our employees.  Sierra employees also receive Continuing Education units, which they can apply to an associate degree at CCSN.

 

In 2002, as an example, 60 percent of the programs that we offered to our employees were facilitated by CCSN facilitators.  We wholly support this legislation that has been introduced to the Committee on Education.  Thank you for your time and attention.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

To all of these companies that receive the benefit because of the teaching and training of future employees, there’s a missing piece here.  If the companies are paying for the training of these students, whether it’s health-related, computer-related, or truck or bus driver training, then why is this appropriation necessary to fund $1 million?  There is a missing piece, and I, for one, do not understand.  I want that link connected.

 

Sharon Lindberg:

While we do pay for the programs, to continue these programs as the costs rise, it’s going to mean that we pay additional funds.  We pride ourselves on being able to provide these educational programs at a very reasonable cost to the employees and to the departments that pay for them.

 

Debra Salt, Program Developer, Site Manager, and ACT Center Director, Community College of Southern Nevada:

I’d like to address that issue.  Workforce development is really an unfunded mandate when it comes to the Continuing Education Division of the college.  One of the things that we have done over the years is an excellent job of outreach and planning, but we don’t get paid for the planning side.  There’s a community expectation that working with our economic development partners is unfunded, and, if we’re not selling services to our businesses, we’re actually looking at a way to support more outreach to our community and our economic development partners in order to provide those services that will enrich Nevada.

 

Ralph Goudy:

I’d also like to address that, and bring an example that we recently had at the college.  I brought up before that space was an issue for us, because the colleges are doing so well.  We have full classrooms and full campuses, and continuing education is a typically noncredit program, so we have to take second priority to CCSN students who are registered for academic programs.

 

In one week, in our continuing education program, we had over 55 classroom changes that were necessary because we were bumped from classrooms that we had scheduled.  Not only does this do a great disservice to our students who have signed up for classes and are notified that they have to move, it doesn’t bode well for us as a college to treat our students in that manner.  It’s because we’re always shuffling space.  This money that we’re asking for, on behalf of ourselves and all colleges, is to fund things like space that we need in order to expand those programs to take care of the students and the demand that we spoke of.

 

[Mr. Goudy Continues.] Although we may, at the present time, be able to barely break even and cover existing costs, we are unable to cope with extraordinary costs, such as the relocation of the truck school.  It was such a large amount of money to relocate that we were unable to deal with expanding costs.  Most of you who know about the space issues know it is expensive to rent space; all community colleges are facing similar situations.  We need help in order to expand our capacity to meet the demand.

 

The other thing that was brought up with Sierra Health was that we don’t charge enough for our products in that sense.  We’re like the college that has one rate for the students but gets funded by the state for the difference.  We price our products and services according to what is reasonable to market to the students.  Unfortunately, with rising costs, typically it’s not enough.  Our choice is to not ask for funding and go back to the students to double and triple their prices.  That starts cutting out people from the opportunity to take those courses, and we need to go the other way.  We need to make higher education more accessible, not less accessible. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

In Section 1, subparagraph 1, there is a request for $500,000 for relocation.  Does that include land acquisition and the paving of the place we drive, as well as restroom facilities?  What does that include?  In Section 2, subparagraph 2, the operating costs for the continuing education division is in the sum of $500,000 also.  Is that $250,000 per year an ongoing expense?  If it is, we’re going to be seeing that in the next biennium as well; it is not the one-shot appropriation as I look at it.  Am I misunderstanding this?

 

Ralph Goudy:

I’ll answer the second question first.  As it is submitted, it is a one-shot appropriation.  It would be left to Regent policy to decide whether it will be continued.  Our hope is that since we have a great program, it would be funded in the future.  I can’t speak for the Regents.

 

As far as the first question, that is the estimate given to us by our person at CCSN who estimates the Buildings and Grounds projects.  That would be the cost to relocate the truck school to another piece of property that is undeveloped at CCSN.  It’s not for acquisition of a new piece of property; it’s for reworking that existing piece of owned property for the truck school.

 

[Mr. Goudy continues.]  To give a broader perspective on where this issue is going, the National Alliance of Business President E. L. Robert Jones said, “The world of work is changing at a resounding rate.  Modern telecommunications and transportation systems are creating a truly global community.  The workforce skills required in today’s economic environment are vastly different than those from 15 years ago.”  This is a very cutting-edge division and the community colleges are adapting and changing to meet the strong needs of the workforce.  If the trends continue, personal and economic security is, and will continue to be, directly linked to education and skills.  Further, The Kiplinger Letter reports that a whopping 75 percent of today’s workforce needs retraining just to keep pace.

 

The Twenty-first Century Workforce Commission found that access to life-long learning is the single biggest worry about higher education.  When workers and employees assess the need for more education and training, one of the first questions to surface is whether education is affordable.  Many witnesses expressed concern that existing funding sources are still geared to a traditional post-secondary experience, and are not particularly relevant to short-term skills training which is required for continuous learning.

 

The community colleges are adapting all over the state to meet the strong need.  I think it is a lot stronger need than a lot of people realize.  It is even more critical to our workforce in the state to provide young people and people that we need to train again for new careers, or for whatever reason, with continuous learning.  The massive layoffs we went through because of September 11, 2001, were a great example; a lot of people needed to be retrained quickly.  I think the community colleges are simply asking for some assistance to help us take that further along. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you very much.  How many more people in Las Vegas would like to testify on this bill?  Let’s see a show of hands.  We’ll move to Carson City.  Carol Lucey?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada:

[Introduced herself]  Since President Lucey is following my testimony, I wonder if I might go ahead.  Both she and the other speakers are subsequent to my remarks, if I may be allowed to clarify some of the issues that have been raised and to speak in support of this need that you have been talking about today.

Chairman Williams:

All the people who signed up and are in the audience today on A.B. 391 are looking to speak after the Chancellor’s remarks?  Okay.

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

This bill that has been brought to you is a very important bill for the University and Community College System of Nevada, and it identifies a need that the Board of Regents has been looking at for some time.  In fact, this is the second biennium that we have brought forward, as part of our list of enhancements, a request for money for what we call “workforce development.”  It does, in many cases, if not most, reside within the continuing education department.  Our colleges and universities, when working with businesses for noncredit courses, have to make themselves self-supporting.  Across the country, this is an issue that has been raised.  You’ve heard of 17 states, but I think it is being discussed in every state, because workforce development is critical to the economic future of the states.

 

The plan and policy that our four community colleges put together, working together on the best possible use of dollars to support this workforce development, is represented in our budget by a $3 million request in the enhancement item.  That is for our funds to match money from businesses, and it does address the responsibility of businesses to share in the expenses related to workforce development.  This request would give to the Community College of Southern Nevada $1.5 million; to Great Basin College, $400,000; to Truckee Meadows Community College, $600,000; and to Western Nevada Community College, $500,000.  It is a one-time request, because it is grant-based, but if it is successful, we would like to be able to bring to you the results of that grant program and hope that the Legislature would see the economic benefit of funding it in the future.  There are key things that we think are essential:  the partnership with business, the program side on this that will help us build businesses and workforce in Nevada, and a policy in place that supports, for the first time on the state side, that part of workforce development that is noncredit.  That is a new policy direction for the system, one that the Board of Regents does support. 

 

You have in front of you a yellow sheet (Exhibit D), which would be the proposed amendment to A.B. 391 that is backed up; I did not bring it today and I should have, but I will provide to all the Committee members the language that describes the details of how this money would be used.  You will see that it does support the needs that have been talked about here today of the Community College of Southern Nevada, and I would ask for that potential amendment.  There are others from Western Nevada Community College and from Truckee Meadows Community College who would like to speak also, when Mr. Cummings has finished.

 

Chairman Williams:

So the request for the $3 million would be appropriated to the list that you’ve laid out here?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

That is correct.

 

Chairman Williams:

Where is that list as we speak?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

That request, and the backup material, has gone to the finance committees.  I will provide that to all members of this Committee.

 

Chairman Williams:

Does that request list the $1.5 million that will go to CCSN and the $400,000; does it list out in those particular ways?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

It does.  It specifies the amount per campus, per year, over the biennium.

 

Chairman Williams:

What would those schools have to do to get that money if the appropriation is approved?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

I would like for Dr. Ringle, President of Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC), who worked with all four presidents to develop this, to address that.  It is a grant program that would be used to encourage businesses to work with colleges in a shared partnership that would provide money to support and expand those programs. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Would these schools have to apply for that money?  You’ve already decided that those are the amounts that are going to go.  Would you have any problem listing those out in this amendment to A.B. 391?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

Absolutely not.

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you.  Mr. Cummings?

 

John Cummings, Community College of Southern Nevada:

I don’t have a lot to add to what Chancellor Nichols had to say, except that I support her remarks without hesitation.

 

Chairman Williams:

Professor Cummings, let me ask you, if we list in this amendment the community colleges with the amounts that they would receive, would the Regents consider going back and changing that information?  What assurance would we have that what Chancellor Nichols laid out to us would be the actuality?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

In the state of Nevada, the Legislature has the authority and uses that authority to make allocations to the individual institutions.  The allocation for higher education does not go to the Board of Regents or to the System; it goes to each individual institution.  If you pass this with the listed amounts in the language or in the budget, it cannot be spent other than going directly to those institutions.

 

Chairman Williams:

Chancellor Nichols, regarding your budget request that specifies this particular discussion, would A.B. 391 assist that request?  How do you see this bill if passed from this Committee to the budget committees?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

I think the support of the Education Committee, which looks seriously at educational issues across the state, would be extremely helpful and supportive of the crying need that we and our colleges have identified.  I would encourage this Committee to support this bill.  We know that there is not enough money, but we are not worried today about whether there is sufficient money; we are simply worried that this is something we need to be doing in Nevada.  The support of this Committee would be extremely helpful.

 

Chairman Williams:

Could we make the changes in this amendment today?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

Yes, you could.  If I provide to Mr. Cummings the list, I think he can write that language and give it to the secretary or the Committee manager.

Chairman Williams:

In the meantime, Chancellor, if the other individuals would like to comment on this, we could move forward and save time.  If you still want them to testify, we want to hear their testimony.

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

In particular, we have one community leader who has come, if Chuck Alvey could come forward.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Chancellor Nichols, for those of us who are a little slow on your Section 1, you say to delete Section 1 and insert a new Section 1, so that new Section 1 does not have subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

That is correct.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

We’re deleting both subparagraphs; we are no longer talking about truck driving schools, and we are no longer talking about operating costs.  We are talking about giving freedom to the institution to allocate those resources where they will be best used.

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

That is correct.

 

Chairman Williams:

On a follow-up, Chancellor, you may have said this, but when the institutions receive this money, will the institutions change their plans and spend this money somewhere else?  Will the Community College of Southern Nevada’s request, in reference to their needs, still be honored with dignity?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

Chairman Williams, it will be honored.

 

Chuck Alvey, President and CEO of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada [EDAWN]:

For the record, I spent 31 years in broadcasting [Mr. Alvey introduced himself and spoke from written testimony (Exhibit E)].  EDAWN is a private, not-for-profit corporation founded by community leaders 20 years ago.  Over the years, the EDAWN professional team and our member volunteers have worked with primary industry entities to help them relocate, expand, retain, or start and grow their companies.  In the last fiscal year alone, we assisted 24 companies to locate in Nevada or expand in Nevada, creating over 900 jobs and $123 million in economic impact to the northern region.  We represent over 650 members in northern Nevada, and I’m here, on their behalf, to testify in support of funding this Workforce Development Challenge Grant by passing A.B. 391.

 

[Mr. Alvey continues.]  We felt that there would be significant impact if we provided Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC), and other community colleges, with the ability to increase their efforts in workforce development and training.  Frankly, as we’ve talked to companies in our area with our interest in both keeping them here and getting them here, there are two issues that come up above all others.  There are always a variety of issues, but the two most consistent are real estate and workforce training and skills.  The economic future of our state depends, in large measure, on the strength of our workforce.  The future labor market projections emphasize the need for significant changes, agility, and responsiveness in our new economy.

 

Our workforce investment system and the creation of viable partnerships among education, government, and, in this case, the private sector, recognize the symbiotic relationship between economic development and workforce development systems.  Historically, economic development has relied largely on infrastructure issues, from the cement highways to the Internet highways.  Today, the provision of a quality system to produce an adequate supply of skilled workers is a necessary component for economic development and diversification.  Companies making site location or expansion decisions want to know about the existing pool of potential workers and the responsiveness of higher education training providers.  The workforce development system needs to provide assistance to the unemployed and underemployed, but also to connect the world of education, training, and work for all workers and employers.

 

In 2002, the National Governor’s Association said we must build a workforce enterprise for the following reasons:

 

• To improve the productivity and competitiveness of all workers and employers.
• To build the skills needed for quality jobs
• Provide lifelong learning opportunities.
• To support workers in managing their careers.
• To be supported by public and private investment.

 

A.B. 391 would do it all.  In December 2001, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, David Sampson, clearly and concisely articulated what is at stake, and it applies very much to Nevada. 

 

Unless the skills gap within the United States is closed and employers can find the workers they need, and job seekers have the skills to pursue the opportunities that will exist, then America’s economy will remain extremely vulnerable.  The stakes are high: freedom of trade and commerce, personal and political liberty, and national and individual security.

 

[Mr. Alvey continues.]  To stay competitive, Nevada must continually upgrade its education and training infrastructure to meet the changing needs of employers and workers, and they change almost daily.  The Workforce Development Challenge Grant proposes a statewide pilot program that takes an important step in the development of a workforce enterprise through the community college system.  Nationwide, community colleges have emerged as the primary state resources delivering workforce training and assistance.  Locally, in northern Nevada, we have worked very closely and have developed a wonderful relationship with Truckee Meadows Community College.  We have many company testimonials that state that the reason they came to Nevada, and the reason they stayed in Nevada, was the support they receive from TMCC.

 

The proposed grant program would enable us to work together on the training needs of companies considering relocation, and on upgrading the skills required for incumbent workers, if companies are to remain competitive.  EDAWN has launched the Business Builders’ program, a retention/expansion program.  We are attempting to connect with 1000 companies in the area, in addition to the “hunting and gathering” we do to bring companies in.  We are “gardening” the ones that we have.  It is important to know what workforce skill gaps those companies have and to report that to the community college system.

 

We see, as advantages of the proposed program, the fact that the program will first engage business and industry as full partners in the system design.  As the employer is the system’s primary customer, educational and training programs must be customized.  That’s important in order to meet the diverse and changing needs of employers and students focusing on accessibility, responsiveness, modular curriculum, contextual learning, expanded e-learning, and opportunities.

 

TMCC has a very good track record in this area.  They increase assistance to small and medium-sized businesses to focus on streamlining workforce development, program delivery, and providing human resources services.  It’s those small companies in industry that create most of the new jobs in our economy.  Through A.B. 391, the proposed grant program provides flexible funding to enable education and workforce development efforts to be agile and responsive to market demands.  Our goal at EDAWN is to recruit for and improve jobs to raise wages, increase benefits programs, and raise the standard of living.  This provides the “stair steps” we need to have to raise that standard of living and per capita income.

 

[Mr. Alvey continues.]  In a recent article, community colleges were referred to as the workforce development engines of communities, and the statement was made that “to not fund this capacity was tantamount to eating your seed corn.”  With the challenges that we face with Indian gaming, with the fact that our employment has shifted, from 1992 to 2002, gaming employment shifted from 21 percent in northern Nevada to 16½ percent, this is very important.  We believe that the Workforce Development Challenge Grant Program pilots the ability of Nevada’s community colleges to be an even more integral part of the workforce development system that will assist in advancing economic development and diversification, which is critically important, as well as increasing the productivity and competitiveness of our businesses. 

 

Ron Weisinger, Executive Director of the Northern Nevada Development Authority (NNDA):

[Introduced himself]  My cohort in economic development, Chuck Alvey, said it well.  We’re pleased to not only endorse an amended A.B. 391, but to give testimony that the university and community colleges provide the workforce stimulus education to young students and adult students in the job skills necessary to grow to meet the challenges in the ever-changing workforce of Nevada.

 

The Northern Nevada Development Authority, directly or indirectly, works with Western Nevada Community College (WNCC) almost daily to discuss, formulate, review, enhance, or develop programs to meet employers’ needs and the growing needs of the students.  The educational courses can only, and I repeat, can only be found through the University and Community College System.  Employers, whether they are potential companies being recruited to Nevada or existing longtime employers in Nevada, have the responsibility to keep their employees technologically current and proficient in order to be competitive in the ever-changing workplace.  Therefore, on behalf of NNDA, I request that you accept Chancellor Nichols’ amended A.B. 391 in order for Nevada to stay competitive in recruiting and retaining quality prime employers that pay the quality wage and provide the quality of life we hold dear.

 

Chairman Williams:

Questions, please?  Is there anyone else who would like to testify, either in favor of or in opposition to, this particular bill?  For the time being, we’ll close the hearing on this bill, and when we get the amendment back, we’ll bring the bill back to Committee.  We’ll take a five-minute recess to get Assemblywoman Giunchigliani here for the next bill. 

 

[The Committee recessed until the call of the Chair returned them to order.]

 

Chairman Williams:

I’d just like to revisit one thing about the last bill.  We’d like to quickly open the hearing on Assembly Bill 391 just for a minute.  We have the amendment back that was proposed by Chancellor Nichols.  Chancellor, if you could come back up?  As I mentioned, Chancellor, there are some members who have concerns about the items, issues, and programs that were discussed today.  We would still like to know, if this $1.5 million is approved, and if this amended bill assists you in your other budgetary requests, will the issues that were discussed today still be addressed with this amendment?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

The issues that have been brought to your attention today will be addressed, if this bill is funded by the Legislature.  I think the needs of the truck driving school, the needs of the community in relation to support for students involved in the companies, the type of programs, and the direct workforce programs will be addressed if this is funded.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Dr. Nichols, I see what your amendment is trying to do; you’re trying not to make it so narrow, and you’re trying to fund all these programs.  My concern is that those who have come here today asking for assistance could be coming back in the short term saying it wasn’t enough, because this money went throughout the entire system.  Now we’re short, and we did not get the jobs completed.  Can you assure us that this is not going to happen?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

Assemblyman Horne, the request coming to you today, from people who care very deeply, came as a request for $1 million for the Community College of Southern Nevada.  This request gives $1.5 million for Southern Nevada.  The President, Ron Remington, will ensure that these needs are addressed.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

That $1 million that was initially requested was basically for two programs.  Now we’re talking about $1.5 million for multiple programs.

Dr. Jane Nichols:

It is not.  The request that came to you was divided into two parts.  It was $500,000 for a physical plant issue of preparing a new site in the way it needs to be prepared.  The second part was general language that said it went to continuing education.  Continuing education, in fact, does a lot more than workforce.  It does a lot of community programs for people from a variety of perspectives, not just meeting workforce needs.  I think A.B. 391 is much more targeted.  The amendment is much more targeted to what you have heard today, to make sure this $1.5 million goes into the workforce area and takes care of those needs at CCSN.  The president will make sure that the needs of the truck driving program are addressed, and certainly all of these dollars will go to address the workforce issues that you have heard today.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

You keep using the term “address those needs.”  I’d like us to meet those needs.

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

We will meet those needs.

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you, Chancellor.  Any questions?  With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 391, and open the hearing on Assembly Bill 353.  The honorable Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani.

 

Assembly Bill 353:  Makes various changes to provisions regarding University and Community College System of Nevada and Board of Regents of University of Nevada. (BDR 34-76)

 

Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, Assembly District No. 9:

[Introduced herself]  Assembly Bill 353 actually was a piece of legislation that Ms. Parnell had requested; I picked it up for her at the request of some constituents and a professor friend of mine.  A.B. 353 does two things, and I might suggest to the Committee, if you would wish to entertain either of them, I would suggest making them into two pieces of legislation.  I picked up Ms. Parnell’s bill, and later, as I was drafting the appointment bill for consideration of the Legislature, the Legal Division of the LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau) did find that I could reduce the size of the Regents at this time.  So I added that to this bill, because the concept was the same and germane. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Can we deal with the Regent aspect of it first?  Is there any reason that you want to go to the other part?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

If you wouldn’t mind going to the other part first, because I have my intern, who actually helped write this part, and Ms. Parnell, who briefly was the original sponsor.  Then we can take it however you wish.

 

Jacques Pelham, Student, University of Nevada, Reno:

[Introduced himself]  I am supporting A.B. 353.  Basically, I want to say that as a student, I feel that, in all fairness and justice, having a check-off system which ensures that students know what’s going to happen with their personal information is fair, more open, and just.  From a student’s perspective, I respect the sanctity and purity of the University and feel that receiving money for student records somewhat diminishes that.  It leaves some room, sort of a “slippery slope,” for the standards and curriculum to be compromised with the University. 

 

Bonnie Parnell, Former Assemblywoman, representing herself:

[Introduced herself]  I would imagine this hit the papers in the southern part of the state as it did in the northern part.  The Reno Gazette-Journal covered quite a few articles about the selling of credit cards and the fact that the University was counting that in their income.  A lot of people were alarmed by that, and I did receive phone calls from parents who did not think it was an appropriate practice.  I would have to say that as a mother, I raised two sons on my own.  They both went off to college on student loans, and they had enough concern at the time to know they were going to have a student loan to pay off upon their graduation date.  They’re still paying those off, and they did graduate.

 

I thought immediately about what the situation would have been like if they had started getting notices in the mail every couple of days, saying this is a great promotional rate, 0 percent interest, all you have to do is sign your name and you will have instant credit.  Three months later, after not reading the fine print, the bill comes.  That interest rate has gone from 0 percent to 22 percent, and before they know it, they find themselves in some financial difficulty and do not know how to get out of it.  I think college students today have enough stress.  Many of them have to work to get through college, or they are trying to live up to the Millennium Scholarship contract that they have made, or perhaps they are on student loans.  I think it’s unnecessary, especially when we have, as directed in Section 2 of A.B. 353, the opt-in.  I know it’s a lot of paperwork, and businesses and the University System would rather have a simpler way to get around it.  But, to me, in going along with Jacques, I think we need to let students make that decision, let them see what’s going to happen with that personal information, and to let them decide whether or not they want their names used in that sense.

 

[Ms. Parnell continues.]  I also heard from, during this conversation period with constituents, a number of people who were a little concerned about the commercial endorsement aspect.  I think that gets a little bit unclear as to the appropriateness.  For all those reasons, I did submit a bill draft request, and I would like to thank Ms. Giunchigliani for taking that over when I decided not to run again. 

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

How does this bill impact alumni fund-raising?  It seems like there’s that opt-in; I was just wondering, regarding the solicitation of money, does that mean the alumni fund-raising?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

It’s not intended to, and I don’t believe the language was intended to affect that alumni fund-raising.  It does affect students and faculty who choose whether or not to have their names or information disclosed.  It was not intended to affect alumni fund-raising; if it did, I would be happy to take a look at that part.

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

I would imagine that is a huge revenue generator for Nevada’s Universities, so we don’t want to impact that.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Just to summarize, in Sections 1 and 2, the students and faculty that approached us did not want their information disclosed, and they should have a right to keep that information confidential.  Nearly 80 percent of the nation’s undergraduates had credit cards in the year of 2000, up 67 percent since 1999, according to a U.S. General Accounting Office report.  The average debt in 2000 was $2,748, up from $1,879, almost a $1,000 increase in debt that students engaged for credit card use.

 

In March, the Regents adopted a new policy, which did allow individuals to opt out of the system; however, there is still concern about how that information is actually published.  A.B. 353 took an opt-in, rather than an opt-out approach.  I believe that, on the Web site, there is a statement that stated the following:

 

Directory information about current and former students may be provided to individuals or mailing services outside the institution for a variety of purposes.  When requested by outside companies, this information is provided solely at the discretion of the institution.  Directory information may also be provided for commercial solicitation, honorary societies, and other purposes at the discretion of the institution.  If one does not wish UNLV, [or any other educational institution,] to release the information, a form can be completed and sent to the office of Registrar by the deadline stated in the academic calendar.

 

[Ms. Giunchigliani continues.]  That’s why I believe I was requested to pick up the bill, because there was still some concern about how that policy was enacted, and most people would not even know that they had the opportunity to opt out.  In addition, UNLV’s Alumni Relations Office had received about $100,000 annually by providing the names and addresses of students and alumni; the UNR Foundation received approximately $58,000, and the community college received approximately $16,000 each year, based on the numbers I was able to put together. 

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

In those dollar amounts, is that the money from what’s on the list, or does that also include the money that they get back as a percentage of the credit card sales?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I think is solely from the list.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Is there a provision, or do we need one, where you later can opt out?  Can I, in my sophomore or junior year, come in and say, “I want to fill one of those opt out cards again.” 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Good point.  I don’t think we dealt with that when we were drafting it.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

So that door may already have been opened, and you are getting solicitations; you could take steps in order to stop those solicitations and discontinue any future ones.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

That might be an excellent idea.  I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, if the Committee moves anything on A.B. 353, that we should include on line 4, page 2, on line 4, page 1, and line 9, page 2, the word “state” before college.  In drafting, they did not use the terminology of the “state” college.

Chairman Williams:

With Mr. Horne’s point, that actually could be in the reverse as well, if they start off not wanting it, and they want to opt in during their senior year.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

We were trying not to make something too cumbersome, but something that would at least allow the people to have that objection.  We thought it could be on the admissions form and on the Web site, so there could be some crafting of allowing people to participate when more mature or financially ready.  That’s an excellent point.

 

Bonnie Parnell:

I agree completely that you might want to take out “alumni,” because I don’t see why alumni and students need to be treated in the same manner.  I think it would address a couple of concerns if we just used the term “students” and took out any references to any former students or alumni.  I think we would all be comfortable with that.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Do you wish me to now address the issue of the Regents, or wait to see if there’s another section of A.B. 353?  How do you want me to proceed?

 

Chairman Williams:

Let’s go on with the issue of the Regents, and that will allow the Regents who are here to come up and respond.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 basically do what I think might be a good thing for the Regents.  The whole intent is not to be punitive.  I’ve long said that I believe that the size of the board has been too large.  I originally requested the bill that will be heard later regarding the appointment issues almost two years ago, so it’s not anything that is directed at any individuals.  However, I think that for a board to function, it needs to be a relative size.  I landed on 7 members, and I had phone calls and e-mails from individuals who said 1, 3, 5, or 7, so I chose 7.  I felt I could balance the needs of how the state would be organized for the purposes of seats with the representation for geographics, as well as the male/female and minority bases. 

 

The intent of these sections allows us, at the next election, to have everybody stand aside that’s elected currently.  Anyone who wishes may run again, but it makes the number of seats less.  It also changes the term to four years, and I was heavily recommended to do that from the six-year term.  Some of you will notice that I voted against a six-year term for judges today for a similar reason.  I think that people get out of touch after a period of time, and that needs to be discussed issue-wise.  What this would do is allow for a smaller board to be active and in effect.

 

[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continues.]  If the size of the board helps to coalesce, move an agenda, focus on policy, and end a lot of the bickering and territorial fighting that has been occurring off and on, then that may actually be an argument to not move forward on an appointment issue.  This could be a benefit by saying, “Let’s empower you to be more proactive, more policy-based, and more focused on what your role is.”  That’s why there’s language in there regarding trainings.  If that works, then, maybe, there’s no reason to move forward on the constitutional amendment.  We have the ability to move A.B. 353 forward this session, which would be sooner than a constitutional amendment five years down the road. 

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I’m still a little confused on how we would do that.  If we were to scale it down, are the existing Regents that we have now all elected at the same time, or is it staggered?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Currently it is staggered.  This bill also calls for staggering, so that you would have a staggered term.  If you go back to Sections 7 and 8, they set up the staggering portion.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

The new system is set up as staggered.  They are staggered currently?  [Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated this is correct.]  So those who are coming up for the next election…?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Everyone would have their term end, based on A.B. 353.  Everyone would have to seek election if they chose, but a smaller number of people would be elected.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

So we would be changing the terms for some of them.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I understand and agree with the privacy part of this bill.  The question I have is about changing the size of the board; presently, they represent over 100,000 people.  When you did this, did you anticipate a lack of representation by reducing the size of the board?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Actually, I did not draw the lines yet, because I didn’t want staff to do a new seven seats if this Committee chose not to move forward.  However, it would have to be geographically based; it would have to be minority-sensitive as well, just like any of our seats.  You currently have a State Board of Education that has nine members, and they represent exactly the same size.  Size is not the issue; it’s the content, so we can comply with federal redistricting laws that are there for representation purposes.

 

Chairman Williams:

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, didn’t we reduce the size of the State Board of Education last session?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

We went to nine.  We did reduce it by one; the board was at ten. 

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Six years versus four years, with the complexity of the University System, it seems like four years is a short time for the tasks that we give them.  I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it seems like, when you start getting good policy rolling, or like the changes a Regent had a hand in, they may be gone.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

That’s a good discussion to have.  We have a system that has a Chancellor, you have Presidents of each of the jurisdictions, and then you have your policy makers.  I believe it’s no different than serving the Assembly or Senate; our learning curve is actually harder and more difficult than theirs would be.  I felt that four years allows people, if things aren’t working out, to have another option in a shorter time period, rather than waiting six years.  A lot of states that I looked at provided more training on what policy is.  How do you differentiate between micromanaging and policy?  That’s been part of the problem we’ve witnessed over the last several years.  Maybe the term of six years versus four years lends itself to more micromanaging than policy making. 

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

What is the constitutional minimum for the number of members?  I’m sorry if I missed that.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

There is no minimum.  On A.B. 353, what I put into the constitutional amendment is seven members, but I made a blend, because I personally believe that people should be elected.  I took three members from the congressional seats, who would still run for office, and four members who would be appointed by the Governor. 

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

Currently, there’s no minimum.  Of the 50 states, how many have members who are appointed and how many elected?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

It depends on how you ask that question.  When I had LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau) look at it, we were the only state that didn’t have the Board of Regents appointed.  However, they have governing boards that are set up differently.  Each institution has a council; some are elected and some are appointed.  I personally don’t think that’s an accurate statement that we are the only state who doesn’t appoint the Board of Regents, even though I had used it, based on what I’ve been given.  The overwhelming majority of Boards of Regents are appointed, but there doesn’t seem to be one single consistent structure that I could find to model it after. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there anyone else here to testify in favor of this bill?  We’ll go to the opposition.  Chancellor, are you speaking on A.B. 353?  [Dr. Nichols indicated she wanted the Regents to speak first.]

 

Douglas R. Seastrand, Regent and Board Chair, University and Community College System of Nevada:

[Introduced himself]  It is a pleasure to be here with you.  We do want to visit with you for a moment about A.B. 353.  We had a chance to talk about this as a Board, and I’m here to represent the consensus of the Board.  I also have with me two other Regents on the Board, who will give you more of a personal feel.

 

The first point I wanted to make is that you would expect that we have an opinion about this, since it does affect us.  It is the Legislature’s job to set the size of our Board, but we felt that it was important for us to tell you what works for us, and what doesn’t work for us, having had some experience with that Board.  We feel that the bill is well-intended, but that this part of A.B. 353 is unnecessary; reducing the size of the Board of Regents from 13 to 7 is not necessary.  That is the message I want to bring from the Board as a whole; the consensus was that it should be left at 13.  It was at 11, then, two years ago the Legislature met, and it was expanded to 13.  My colleagues will probably address the reasons why it was expanded, but, as we debated and discussed it at length, it was felt that 13 was the number we should stay at. 

 

[Mr. Seastrand continues.]  I want to make a comment about the perceptions about the Board.  We have not had the best public perception; I will be frank and open about that.  Many of you probably don’t know the Regents who are up here.  You have never met us, and the reason is that we don’t have a public relations firm, and we don’t go out, so most people don’t know what happens with the Board.  All they do know about is the “bad stuff,” or what would be perceived as inappropriate.  That is an unfortunate thing for us, and we don’t have a budget to do public relations.

 

However, I’m here to tell you today that we, as a Board, have done some incredibly wonderful things.  I would point to a couple of things.  We recently had an evaluation of our Chancellor, Jane Nichols.  She testified before this Committee earlier.  I will hold her up as one example of doing good things for the system.  She’s a wonderful Chancellor; we do hire our Chancellors and Presidents.  I wanted to make a point.  We just did an evaluation of our Chancellor, and we brought in an outside consultant to do this evaluation.  Frankly, we felt that she was so good, we needed some outside assistance to help her advance to the next level, and we didn’t feel we were going to be able to do that.  This was a nationally known consultant, and, because the report that they gave to us is a personal document, I can’t read or quote from it.  I can tell you the summation of it, and that is that we are extremely fortunate to have a Chancellor with such skills.  The consultant firm was surprised, even after having heard the perceptions as they interviewed people, at how much we have accomplished as a Board, and all the good things that have taken place.  I would point to that and say that this is actually a good Board, and sometimes all we hear are the perceptions, and they are not always the realities. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Chairman Seastrand, this Committee is relatively new in its membership as well, and I can tell you, too, that every single one of them cares about education.  We understand that the Nevada Constitution sets in place the Regents separately from everything else; you have obligations and duties that the Nevada Constitution gives you that are separate from the Legislature.  Last week I came out and spoke to your Board, and I wanted to reiterate the fact that the Legislature understands that, and we feel that, collectively, we could do things to enhance education in Nevada.  Many times there’s legislation that comes before us which deals with the Regents, and we, at no time, look at those as a way to reduce or to neglect the Regents’ duties.  We have full confidence in the Regents.  We think that the separation is good, but there are times that we come together to make things happen in a very good way.  We wanted to be very clear that none of the things in here, regarding A.B. 353, in any way should be viewed as an attack or anything that’s punitive.

 

Douglas R. Seastrand:

We wouldn’t take them as punitive in any way.  We felt the need to express what we feel works and what does not work.  Again, thank you for this Education Committee and the good work you’ve done for higher education, because it is a partnership, and we appreciate what this Committee has done for us.  We have full confidence in this Committee as well.

 

I think the consensus on the Board is that six years is necessary, because this is a very complex system.  We do not have the benefit of other states where we have multiple boards over each institution.  We are a unique state; we have one board that governs all the institutions of the state.  There’s a lot to “come up to speed” on, and the learning curve is steep; you become productive around the third or fourth year.  To understand the system, it takes some time to really get to know it.  I do understand the argument that, if there is a problem, you can change it within four years; that’s a good debatable point.

 

With that, I will introduce my two colleagues.  I have with me Regent Bret Whipple, who is currently working in Clark County at the Public Defender’s Office.  He is a CPA and is well-qualified, and is one of our newest Regents; he was elected this January.  With me, also, is Regent Jill Derby.  She’s been on the Board for 14 years.  We thought this would be a good mix to come and answer your questions and express our opinions about A.B. 353.

 

Dr. Jill Derby, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada:

[Introduced herself]  I want to speak to you today, not only as a 14-year veteran of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) Board of Regents, but also as somebody who has national experience working with other boards of various compositions in various states.  Four or five years ago, I was recruited by the Association of Governing Boards, which is the national association for boards of trustees and regents around the country.  I sat for some years on the national advisory committee; they recruited me and trained me to be a board mentor who works with other boards to look at enhancing their performance.  In doing that, I’ve had the opportunity to visit many college and university boards of trustees around the country, and I speak both as a veteran of this Board, and as somebody who had a chance to work with boards around the country.  I wanted to make three points to you in supporting the position of the Board that we need our current number to continue to serve the state of Nevada’s higher education system effectively.

 

[Dr. Jill Derby, Regent, continues.]  The first point I want to make is that seven members would represent a national extreme in terms of board size.  It is one of the considered requirements of effective boards to have a good committee structure.  Boards have to have committees in order to work effectively, because of the breadth of issues they have to deal with.  I once spent time with a board that had only seven members, but in New Mexico, the boards are mandated to be seven.  It was a board that was entirely frustrated by its limited number, continually requesting legislative change so that they could have a larger number, because they were completely unable to work with the committee structure.  If you can’t work in a committee structure, then everything needs to come to the full board, and it demands the kind of time that most people on boards can’t commit.

 

In higher education, being a single board for a state with eight institutions, we deal with a level of complexity and a range of issues that is very large.  It would be impossible for the Nevada Board of Regents to have a committee structure that could function with a board of seven members as proposed in A.B. 353.  I would envision, if, in fact, this bill were to pass, and there were to be only seven members on our board, that new structures would have to be developed.  I think that the structure North Carolina has, where each university within the system has its own Board of Trustees, is one model we would look to.  I think our Board, if it were a board of seven, would then have to develop subunits to deal with the range and complexity of issues, because they couldn’t possibly manage a system of eight institutions.  I would say that there would be greater cost in what would have to be developed to deal with a small board without a committee structure, and with subunits.

 

I want to say that it is not an uncommon structure around the country.  In North Carolina, I’ve dealt with three of their universities.  They have a structure where every university and every college has its own board, and then there’s a state board called the Board of Governors.  I suggest that, having worked there, it’s a fine, complex system, but the complexity that comes with having multiple boards introduces problems of its own.  I want to make, strongly, the point that maintaining our current number of 13 members allows us to deal with a complex system and have an effective committee structure that works.

 

It also enables us to continue one of the strongest features of our system, that we are one system of higher education for the entire state of Nevada.  When I visit other states and attend national meetings, we end up being the envy of other trustees from around the country, who have to deal in states where there are multiple boards, all competing for resources from the state in a way that introduces political tensions, rivalries, competition, and difficulties in looking at the whole state perspective.  What our unique structure allows is that we can look at our whole state, and coordinate and integrate our thinking and our policies of higher education with our eight institutions, in a way that very few states are able to do. 

 

[Dr. Jill Derby, Regent, continues.]  The second point I wanted to make about the advantage of maintaining the current larger number of Regents is that I believe the larger number contributes a certain ballast of centrist thinking that keeps a ship steady, if you’ll allow me a nautical analogy.  I think that a board of seven, as proposed in A.B. 353, would allow four members to carry the terms of the future direction of higher education.

 

In our past few years, we have had some turbulence, and I assure you that the larger number has allowed us to steer a prudent course through choppy waters.  Our current structure requires that seven members must be on board for a policy direction for the agenda item, which allows for more people contributing to that direction rather than four.  The reason you can’t have a committee structure with a board of seven is that you could only have committees consisting of three, and it would allow two people to decide the direction of the committee, which the board mostly accepts, because not everybody can do all the business.  You trust your other committees to deliberate carefully. 

 

The final point I want to make is that interest in changing the number of Regents has come partially from the actions and public statements of a few Regents, which had a negative impact on the public perception of the Board of Regents.  I understand that there has been some frustration with the contentiousness that has emerged.  I would underscore the point that Chairman Seastrand made, that in the midst of what the media has taken and publicized, the Board has gone forward and advanced Nevada’s system of higher education in major and significant ways.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t make such a good story in the newspaper.  We spent three years working out a master plan that we are very proud of.  It looks 10 and 15 years into the future at how we can serve the growing population of Nevada with a higher education system that is vital and healthy, that makes access available, and that serves the citizenry well.

 

We have made wonderful hires in terms of our Presidents and our Chancellor.  We have initiated fine new programs and gained significantly in our goal of having more Nevadans go on to college.  We were one of the states that had the lowest college-going rate; it impacted our opportunities, economically, to attract major companies, as well as business and industry, when they looked at Nevada as having a low college-going rate.  With the help of the Millennium Scholarship and the focus the Board has placed on that, we really have significantly increased the college-going rate.  I want to conclude by saying that I would caution the Committee with the idea of changing the structure around particular actions, behavior, or statements that have come from a few members of the Board.  I think it would be shortsighted to change a structure as proposed in A.B. 353 that, over the long history of the Board of Regents and higher education in Nevada, has worked for us very well.  I close with a quote from Shakespeare that addresses the uncertainty that you face, that change will bring improvement, with the words “looking at that makes us rather bear those ills we have, than flee to others that we know not of.” 

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

Regent Derby, I was thinking back when I was a student at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and coming before you.  At that time, the Board was only 9, and then it moved up to 11, and then to 13.  I’m not sure of the number seven yet, but I’m not sure of what has been gained going from 9 to 13.  In comparison with a committee structure, if you’re talking about a group of 13, and you break up into committees, you don’t gain much going from 3, when you need 2 votes, than going to 5 and having 3 votes.  I don’t think you gain much in that argument that you presented.  Can you explain why you think the nine-member board that you were on wasn’t working, and you needed to expand it?

 

Dr. Jill Derby, Regent:

Our committees now have six people on them, so it requires four votes for certain actions to be passed out of committee with the recommendation of the committee.  I would say that as we’ve gone from 9 to 13, we have also gained a considerable amount of complexity in our system.  I imagine that we have more than doubled in size.  If you look back to when we were a board of 9, that was 13 years ago, I wouldn’t be surprised if we more than tripled our enrollment in the growth of different campuses, in terms of our whole administrative structure, and in terms of new programs that we have taken on.  We were stretched at 9 and were glad to go to 11; that was a structure that worked well.  Since we have chosen to go to 13, at the same time we’ve expanded and grown, it’s a structure that’s working well for us today. 

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by the complexity.  I understand growth, and if you have a system with more students, more faculty and such, that’s a little more difficult to manage.  But what exactly do you mean by complexity, besides growth?

 

Dr. Jill Derby, Regent:

Besides growth, complexity is adding programs and adding campuses.  With programs, there is a whole new area to be familiar with that reports to us through the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).  The institutions have not only grown, but they’ve grown in complexity and have more programs to become familiar with.  Now we do more, due to the difference that technology has made, which has supported our growth with both distance learning and our continuing education programs.  I’ve sat for many years as the Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, for example, and our committee has had to expand the amount of time we take because of the amount that comes before it. 

 

Bret Whipple, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada:

[Introduced himself]  Chairman Williams, I want to thank you for the comments that you made.  Approximately 60 days ago, Dr. Stavros Anthony, Dr. Jack Schofield, and I were sworn in as the newest regents on the Board of Regents.  We took positions that were created by the Legislature 2 years earlier, when they increased the board from 11 to 13.  On behalf of Regents Anthony, Schofield, and me, I think it’s fair to say that we’re all excited and proud to be members on the Board of Regents.  One of the first things that we noticed is how the public perception of the Board is not necessarily consistent with the actual day-to-day workings of the Board of Regents.

 

Last fall, while campaigning for the position on the Board of Regents, I spoke with constituents who cast doubt on the Board’s performance.  In contrast to that perception, I have found that the Board is extremely diversified, and their primary concern is to improve the quality of education here in the state of Nevada.  At the same time, Regents Anthony, Schofield, and I felt that, as newcomers, we may have a unique opportunity to strengthen some different issues facing the Board of Regents.  Last January, on the same day we were installed as the newest Board of Regents members, we brought a three-stage action plan forth, which we believe would assist the Board of Regents in focusing on teamwork.  Ironically, one of the steps we had asked for in our action plan was to put forth a workshop that has been held in the past, and I’m happy to say the workshop has been tentatively approved for this coming June.  It will be an opportunity for us to work together to address some of the issues that have been brought forth in recent days.

 

The message I want to bring to you today is the same message that I gave my constituents about five or six months ago, and it is that we all want to be involved with making Nevada better.  Our constituents gave us that opportunity.  Our individual strengths are in education, and, speaking on behalf of Regents Anthony and Schofield, we want to be involved with higher education in the state of Nevada, and we’re asking for that opportunity from yourselves by opposing that portion of A.B. 353 concerning reduction of Regents.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions from the Committee?  Do either of you want to respond to the other portion of the bill that Ms. Giunchigliani addressed, regarding the credit cards?  Chancellor Nichols wants to respond. 

 

Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada:

[Introduced herself]  I know it is late, and everyone is anxious to leave, but I am anxious to set the record straight on that portion of the bill that has to do with student information.  This has been in the press for some time.  This has been an ongoing issue for the Board of Regents for almost 2 years, and I can tell you that the Board of Regents has had 1½ years to study these issues and to take testimony from the public, from students, and from those people who work on our campuses. 

 

I do oppose A.B. 353.  I want to tell you why I think this is an unnecessary bill, because I think it will be clear to you that, after careful study, the Board has taken control of this issue and has a good policy in place.  For the Legislature to precipitously pass a policy without the opportunity to study this within the context of FERPA (Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act) would be, we believe, a mistake.  I have a handout that is coming around called the UCCSN Privacy Policies for Students and Employees (Exhibit F).  I would like to walk you through what the issues are and what our current policy is.  These policies were added by the Board of Regents within the last year in response to the very issues that you heard here today from the students who said they did not want their information sold to a credit card company.  We also operate within the context of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, called FERPA.  It supersedes state law in this regard, and we have to follow it.

 

If you look at the first page of the handout, you will see a definition of that federal law, and in that federal law, the act makes a distinction between a student’s educational record, and information classified as directory information.  The student’s educational record cannot be disclosed under any circumstances to anyone, unless the student asks that it be disclosed.  That would include grades, classes they took, and anything that you would see in an educational record.

 

We are not talking about that today; what we are talking about is called “directory information.”  This is defined for students under FERPA; it is not defined for employees.  The institutions may disclose, without consent, directory information to individuals upon request, and each institution is asked to set a definition for “directory information.”  It may be more or less restrictive than that provided in FERPA.  The following things that can be included and disclosed under FERPA include:  name, address, phone number, and date and place of birth.

 

[Dr. Nichols continues.]  The FERPA requirements indicate that students should have the right to opt out and not have their names included in directory information.  When the Board looked at this, it was very clear that our institutions were not doing an adequate job of informing students about what was in directory information and how they could opt out.  The information was in the catalog, but it was in some obscure place.  The Board set a very strong policy that said students have the right to be informed, they have the right to understand their choices, and there has to be a clear pathway.

 

The Board did this by putting in place a requirement for a statement, in a box in bold-faced type, on a form used by students.  This statement has to be, each semester, within the first five pages of the catalog and the class schedule in a very prominent place.  We did not think that was going far enough after we had a chance to think about this.  We’re approaching 90 percent of our students who register each semester on-line, so if you turn to page 5 of the handout, you will see what we are putting in place for the fall of 2003.  Under that policy, for every institution on-line, there will be a statement in great detail about what this institution considers to be part of directory information and about the opportunity to opt out.  The form will be on-line, and all the student has to do is sign it and fax or mail it in.  Every semester, they have the opportunity to do this.

 

However, you need to understand that once students opt out under federal law, they opt out for the rest of their lives.  They can opt back in, but, if they don’t take a proactive position, it is as though they never attended the institution.  Their names will not be on graduation lists, they will not be available to instructors to confirm that they attended there, and their names cannot be made available to the Alumni Association.  Students have the right to do that.  There are many reasons why people want to opt out and want their attendance at the University not to be provided.  Yet I think it is very important that you think about how that directory information is used.

 

Some of you might have been members of honor societies when you were at a university.  Assemblyman Geddes was, and we would not have been able to nominate him and send his name to a national honor society if he had opted out.  That’s fine, that’s a good choice that he could make, if he chose to do so, but informing students, most of whom are adults, is equally important on both sides of the consequences of opting in and opting out. 

 

The concern that A.B. 353 demonstrates and that the Board of Regents has had is the concern about credit cards.  What is the issue with credit cards?  If you look on page 4 of the handout, you’ll see that the Board of Regents put in place a policy that says, “Student directory information for current and former students cannot be sold or rented for a fee by a UCCSN institution.”  Were there instances in the past?  Yes, there were.  Can that be done now?  No, it cannot.  Can students get a credit card solicitation?  Yes, they can, but only under very strict circumstances in which the list is not sold, nor given directly to the credit card company, but rather the credit card company can enter into a contract with the universities, who can then have an arrangement with the credit card company for solicitations.

 

[Dr. Nichols continues.]  I have, sitting on each side of me today, students, and I want to tell you what I heard.  We’re not talking about 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds, or 17-year-olds; we’re talking about adults.  We asked the students to count how many credit card solicitations they get, and they came back between board meetings with numbers like 45, 50, 55, and 60, and those did not come through us.  What the students said was, we want to carry a credit card that has UNR and UNLV on it, and it has a much better interest rate due to being a part of that group.  Do they get a credit card, because the University participates in this program, and it establishes it?  If they want to get a credit card, they have more opportunities than anyone in the world can ever imagine.  From the students’ side of this, this is a very good, very responsible policy that goes much further than any other system I’ve been able to find in making it readily available on-line, all the time, to students.  I’m rushing here, so I apologize, but I have to say a few words about the employees’ side of this. 

 

Regarding employee privacy, the privacy rights of our professional employees are fully protected in the code.  In fact, A.B. 353 raises more questions about the lack of privacy than our current policy.  The policy on employee personnel files specifies that only the name, title, job description, compensation, and “perks,” business address, business telephone, and dates of employment are public information.  We have never released the home phone number and home address of our employees, nor could we ever do so.  Their business address, business phone numbers, and business-related status information are required to be public; that is all that can be released on our employees.  A.B. 353 would also apply to state classified employees who work for us.  The Nevada Administrative Code presently defines roster information for classified employees as public information, and that roster information is only name, job title, job address, job phone number, and salary.  Nothing else can be released, but we could not, even if they decided to opt out, avoid the release of that information.  That is not something within our control, nor is it something I think that you want to get into, in terms of your policies relating to what the public has a right to know.

 

[Dr. Nichols continues.]  We’ve had a lot of conversation today about the relative roles of the Board and the Legislature, so I’m not going to make my comments on the role of the Board regarding A.B. 353.  I do think this is a perfect example of having a Board that has attended many meetings and many public hearings and has had many conversations with students, who then arrived at a good policy that is one that informs students and treats students with respect.  We have the right to release directory information, but if you want to find out how it gets used, talk to the registrar at UNR, and the registrar at UNLV.  They get lots of requests, yet they do not give out even the directory information if they don’t think it is for the students’ benefit.

 

For example, when our students graduate, many of them have been taking out health insurance.  For some of them, it takes a while to get a job.  We have insurance companies that offer very good prices, because it is a low-risk group, for recent high school graduates to bridge between their getting a job and health insurance.  With this policy, I do not believe most of our students would opt in, and I do not believe most freshman students would get that information.  I ask you to let this Board and our institutions of higher education assume the responsibilities.  We care deeply about these students, and we are not going to do something to hurt them.  If I may, Chairman Williams, ask the students to speak, I would like to do so.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I see this bill accomplishing everything you say you already have in place.  I’m wrong there, you’re telling me?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

If I could point out the difference in A.B. 353, we looked at this and considered it carefully.  This bill basically puts before the students a policy of opting in, not opting out.  A lot of this has to do with the students telling us how they would interpret the language.  If you look at the language of the bill, and you look at the language of our form, in our form we ask them if they would like not to have their directory information disclosed.  In your form, you force them to say that they want their information to be used.  That’s a very different psychological thing.

 

I think that there are parts of this bill we could not live with that don’t have to do with the form, that are simply not in keeping with the rest of state and federal statutes.  Could we live with this form?  Sure, we could.  We could see the percentage of students who suffer unintended consequences.  We did look at various kinds of forms, we did talk to students about which one would convey to them the information that they needed, and we think that the Legislature should not get in the business of specifying a form.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Chancellor, regarding opt in and opt out, I think, with this form, the students are going to make a decision.  They’re going to fill this out and turn it in with the admissions paperwork.  With your opt-out idea of simply doing nothing, you’re not providing anything.  If you register or are admitted to school, and you don’t make an affirmative motion to opt out, you’re in.

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

That is right.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

This provides both, and up front, from the beginning, and I think it’s a very important thing.  I was thinking during your presentation, if we pass A.B. 353, how does this hurt the University System?  For you to oppose it, because we were trying to do something good, I’m thinking, “How does it hurt?”  I didn’t hear anything in your presentation, except for an arrangement the school has with the credit card company.

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

There are a number of ways this bill would hurt.  For example, it does impact alumni associations.  The way this bill is written, the vast majority of students are going to say, “no,” and they will not have a clear sense of what they are saying “no” to.  We think it is critical that they be informed.  As they are with us every single semester, we are going to hit them with that form and that information and give them the ability to think about this.  We think, to start out with having to opt in, that, if you want your information used for any purpose, you have to tell us otherwise, or we cannot in any way give any information.  For example, student I.D. cards at athletic events disappear for you.  It’s the consequences, and I think that the students can address that better than I can.  We can’t control the consequences, because they’re controlled under federal law.

 

Chairman Williams:

In reference to the alumni groups, I know there is an amendment being proposed to exclude them, and the sponsor of A.B. 353 has agreed to that amendment.

Dr. Jane Nichols:

We cannot, and that’s what I’m trying to say to you; federal law rules here.  We cannot say, in Nevada, this is what FERPA says but here in Nevada, we can’t say this. 

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I thought FERPA said we could restrict.  Where is that language?  It was at the beginning of your presentation when you first passed this out.  You were saying how FERPA allowed that the state “May be more restrictive than provided for in FERPA.”

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

The “restrictive” refers to the list of information in the directory information.  What FERPA is very clear about is, if you opt out, it’s for life.  That we cannot change.  That’s the issue about the Alumni Association.  What you have under FERPA, in terms of flexibility, is that you can list only names and addresses under directory information.  To participate in national college athletic events, we have to be able to disclose weight and height of members of athletic teams, for example.  I don’t know how to tell you how complex this is.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

You’re saying that if we pass A.B. 353, and a student decides to opt out but wants to play basketball, they won’t be able to? [Dr. Nichols indicated that he was correct.]  I find that very hard to believe, Chancellor.  I’m not trying to be combative, but the picture that you paint I don’t read in the bill. 

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

I have others who can perhaps answer some of those questions who would like to speak today.  I know it’s getting late, but if we could start with our students, I have those who are here from the groups that work with this.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Chancellor, I’m confused about one thing on page 4 of your policy guide.  It says, “Sale of Directory Information.  Student directory information for current and former students cannot be sold or rented for a fee by a UCCSN institution.”  Yet, you said, and here’s where I’m confused, that you entered into an agreement with a credit card company.  Can you make a contract with a credit card company without consideration?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

You cannot do it; you cannot sell the list for a fee.  I will defer to Fred Albrecht, who will answer that question about how it can be done without endangering the privacy of students and selling it for a fee.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I’ll wait for Fred to get up here after your students testify.

 

Alicia Lerud, President of the Associated Students at the University of Nevada, Reno:

I, first of all, want to thank the drafters of this bill for taking student voices and student concerns into consideration by providing A.B. 353.  Last year, it was in the media that students were not happy; it was mostly centered around three main issues.  First, we were told that our names were being sold for a profit.  Then we were told that our names were being sold for a profit to credit card companies, which worsened the situation.  When students started asking how they could make sure that their names would not be sold any more, we were told that you could opt out, but, if you opted out, then your name would not be listed in the graduation program.  It was an all-or-nothing deal.

 

The Board of Regents also heard student concerns, and they did act upon those.  The new policy that has been enacted satisfies all student needs.  Students now have the opportunity to opt out, and it is a much more user-friendly policy than it was before.  We can actually find the policy and the forms, which were not in place before.  The other issue, which was a major issue no matter how minor it might seem, was that students were told that our names wouldn’t be listed in the graduation program if we didn’t opt in.  That has been solved by a little box to check on our graduation applications.  You opt in or you opt out; that is completely separate from everything else.

 

We’re adults when we enter this University System.  If we choose that we don’t want information to be released, then we are responsible adults, and we can go through the policy and make sure that it is not released.  Turning to a more personal note, I will be graduating in May, and by all accounts, I am a successful product of your institution.  I will be walking out of there, barring any unforeseen catastrophes, with a degree.  I have established a great network of contacts; I’ve been accepted to several graduate schools; I’m a success story.  On the other hand, the one and only experience I’ve had with health insurance has been my father handing me my updated card every year to replace the expired one.  If I were not going to graduate school and staying underneath my parents’ insurance, I would not have a clue as to what to do.

 

That is the situation that will hurt students if A.B. 353 is passed.  If I was handed a form my freshman year and asked whether I wanted more junk mail, I would say “no,” because commercial purposes are not defined as helpful things like health insurance information.  As an incoming student, we all like to think that we know everything, and there is no way I ever would have checked a box that said “yes.”  If I got enough junk mail, I probably would have gone and opted out.  At this point, students aren’t, because we’re not getting junk mail, we’re getting helpful mail.  With this form, there’s no way I would have checked the opt-in box, and that’s where you’re going to hurt students and, therefore, hurt the system.

 

Brooke Buchanan, Student Affairs Director for CSUN, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:

[Introduced herself] I also agree with my fellow student that we are adults when we enter into the higher education realm.  We have the decision to choose whom our elected officials are, to go to war, or to be in the military.  I think we should have the choice to sign up for a credit card or not.  When we are freshman, checking that box, you’re thinking it’s junk mail, and they’re selling our information.  Rather, they’re giving you benefits.  For instance, I am part of some honorary fraternities, and, without my information being able to be accessed, I would not be part of those, which will help me in the future.  I really do not agree with A.B. 353; all it does is cause confusion for young freshmen and even those who are nontraditional students coming back into higher education. 

 

Fred C. Albrecht, Vice President, University and Community Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:

[Introduced himself]  I’ve been at the university for 33 years.  I was hired to be the first alumni director, and I take a lot of pride in our Alumni Association.  I take a lot of pride in the years that I have been with the Alumni Association, and I will tell you that it’s very factual that the Alumni Association protects the lists.  They take a lot of pride protecting the lists of the Alumni Association, as well as any student lists that it has access to.  The Association has never sold a list or rented a list in the time that I’ve ever been there in the history of the University.  If you sell a list, you completely lose control of that list.  If I were to sell it to somebody, they in turn could sell it to somebody else.

 

We have a legal form that our attorneys have provided to us.  When we enter an agreement with some corporation or something that we are endorsing, they cannot reproduce, sell, or use that for any other purpose except the exact purpose that we are requiring it to be used for.  We’re talking about credit cards, but it is much broader than that.  There are many programs that the Alumni Association sponsors to help provide and enhance the student experience.  I’ll give you an example of just a few of the programs beside the credit card program.  For example, we sponsor the Graduation Fair.  We would need that list to send out to all the students that are graduating to come to the Alumni Association as that is where you will get your cap and gown, and all the information you need for graduation.  We provide them with lunch, and we talk to them about the Alumni Association.

 

[Mr. Albrecht continues.]  We also used that list when we talked about insurance.  When you graduate, you do not continue on your parents’ insurance; you need your own insurance.  We entered an agreement with a corporation that provides insurance throughout 70 percent of the colleges in the country.  We offer students “gap” insurance to allow them to have health insurance until they get their first job, or until they are able to acquire insurance on their own.  We also started the first Career Day; we sent letters out to all the seniors, inviting them to campus.  This past year, we had 162 corporations come to the Thomas and Mack Center, and we invited those students to come.  The majority of those corporations sent their alumni back to help recruit other students.  This is a program that would not be able to exist if a law such as passage of A.B. 353 existed that required the students to opt in.  When they opt in, saying they don’t want this junk mail, they don’t realize what effect it has on all the other programs that helps enhance the student experience.

 

In regards to the credit cards, the credit card is something that we look very seriously at.  Yes, it is an opportunity for the Alumni Association to generate money.   We generate one half of 1 percent of every gross charge on that credit card.  We have approximately 12,000 credit cards out there.  We generate about $100,000 per year, and we use that money to support the type of programs that we do with the University.  Last year, we gave over $120,000 back in student scholarships.  These types of programs, such as the credit card program, help support that.  In the last few years, we’ve built an amphitheatre for about $200,000 that’s used by faculty, student oratory groups, and various entities on campus.  This is money we have generated from such a program.  There are many things we do that we feel offset any of the negatives.

 

We know that when students come to the universities, they already have one credit card, and by the time they graduate, they have two or three.  They’re going to receive solicitations.  If you control this one list, do you think you’re going to control the other 50 that they get?   What I’m trying to do is develop programs that they can also develop pride in.  I develop a lot of pride in things I do at the University.  For example, here’s a program; I have a UNLV phone; it’s the pride of having a phone.  I have a UNLV credit card, and I use it for everything I do, because I know it generates back money for scholarships.  I think this is important for us as an Alumni Association.

 

When you talk about opting out, people don’t realize, when they’re opting out or opting in, what happens.  We have alumni that call me, five and six years out, and say, “Fred, I haven’t received the UNLV magazine.  I haven’t received anything.  How come?”  We go back to the records and discover that it’s because we don’t have them, as the records were not passed over to us.  These are the things that would happen, and you’re going to hinder a lot of the things that the Alumni Associations are doing to help not only the University, but to enhance the student experience.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Fred, it sounds like very honorable things that you’re spending the money on, but I have to go back to the Privacy Policy manual that I have in front of me, that the Chancellor gave us, and it says on page 4 that you can’t sell or rent.

 

Fred Albrecht:

We don’t sell or rent; that’s the difference.  I have corporations that ask me all the time to buy our lists.  I’m sure any marketing company in Nevada would like to buy our lists.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I just don’t understand.  You’re getting compensation for this, but you’re not selling it.

 

Fred Albrecht:

In regards to the credit cards, they do solicitations.  The money we receive is based on one half of 1 percent of the credit card charges that are done.  So we receive money on the usage of the credit cards, not selling the list to somebody.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

You don’t feel that that’s in violation of the privacy policy?

 

Fred Albrecht:

If the person opts out and they don’t want it, then we don’t send them anything.  The way it is right now, if they want to opt out and not receive any of this type of information, they don’t receive it from us.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I’m sorry, Fred, but from what I see here, it’s a contradiction, in my opinion.  Maybe the rest of the Committee feels differently, but it contradicts itself.

 

Chairman Williams:

Assemblyman Andonov?  You want to address the question for Mr. McCleary?  [Dr. Nichols indicated that she wished to answer the question.]

Dr. Jane Nichols:

It is my understanding, and I hope Fred agrees with me on this because it’s what we think he’s doing, that under this policy, the list does not go to the credit card company.  The solicitation is enveloped and the addresses are put on.

 

Fred Albrecht:

It goes to a mail house.

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

They only get the names and addresses.  If the student elects to take out the credit card, that’s the difference.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

It’s still using the list.  Whether you’re sending it to them or doing it on their behalf, it’s the same thing.  You’re still marketing to the students, and I don’t know how my Committee feels about this, but it is a contradiction in what you’re telling us.  That’s the only point I want to make, and we can stop arguing about it.  Sorry, I disagree. 

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

My question is actually very similar to Mr. McCleary’s.  I agree with the testimony that an 18-year-old or any college student would want to receive information about health insurance and would want to be on graduation lists.  They probably don’t realize, when they’re a freshman, that they’re opting out, and that’s a permanent decision.  But how do they receive information from health care companies if you’re not able to sell the lists to these companies?  I don’t see how that would work.  Why would they be sending that to students?

 

Fred Albrecht:

We send it to graduating seniors, because we know those are the people who are going to need the insurance.  If we don’t send it, they have to go out and get it on their own.  The insurance companies are providing information to allow students the opportunity to obtain health insurance as “gap” insurance until they get a job.

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

So there’s no compensation; nobody gets paid for that?

 

Fred Albrecht:

That’s correct.

Chairman Williams:

Are there any additional questions?  Mr. Gallagher?

 

John F. Gallagher, Ph.D., Vice President for Development and Executive Director, UNLV Foundation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:

[Introduced himself]  I’d like to comment briefly on a couple of things I’ve heard today.  We have discussed this issue at some length with the members of the Board of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Foundation.  We’ve also discussed this particular piece of legislation with them.  I will tell you there is some concern for the issues that I will explain in just a minute.  It would not surprise me at all to understand, from the members of the Board and the volunteers at other institutional foundations around the state, that there is a similar level of interest in this.

 

Mr. Horne asked a few minutes ago what the consequences were to the Universities in A.B. 353. I want to comment on how this bill is drafted and the scope of the applicable groups in this particular bill.  As this is written, the University cannot run the United Way Campaign, and UNLV cannot run what we call our “Holiday Tree Program,” which is a 46-year tradition founded by the faculty to generate funds that are distributed to community groups during the holidays.  There would be some question about whether we could run our catastrophic leave program.  Leave is a resource, it is an asset, and private individuals benefit from solicitation on campus requesting them to give up this asset to another private individual.  Again, the list of unintended consequences here is quite long.

 

There are certainly important areas that have to do with our fund-raising activities.  As this is written right now, alumni are included.  Right now, UNLV generates, with a fairly small and young alumni body, over $2 million per year.  That program would be at risk, and we know, from the experiences of other campuses around the country, that the productivity of alumni fund-raising grows and grows as an institution matures.  All of that would be at risk, under the terms of this current draft of A.B. 353.  I simply want to suggest that the scope of this is troublesome from the point of view of the University’s community relations program.  We believe strongly that the general policy developed by the Regents during this past year addresses the issues that you’ve been discussing.  Certainly it does in the community relations areas. 

 

Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance Chapters:

I will be very brief.  This bill is two bills in one, and we keep jumping back and forth.  I will make a brief comment on the first part of the bill and simply say that I support the testimony that has been given by the Chancellor about the problems that would be raised here if you do decide, in the face of those problems, to process the bill.  On behalf of those I represent, I would like to request that you take the employees out of it, as well as the former employees.  I think that, given what’s happened to the State Health Plan, we’re going to be very appreciative of mailings that will tell us about supplemental health insurance programs.  I’m not making a joke here, folks.  I would sincerely like to ask that you take employees out, and, meanwhile, I would certainly support the comments that have been made about the other portions of the first section of the bill.

 

I, also, with greater trepidation, would say a word or two about the latter part of the bill.  I think there is something about the complexity of our system, and the way it has grown, that’s been compounded by geography.  I really do think seven is too few Regents.  I’ve been here even longer than Mr. Albrecht, and I’ve watched the board grow over the years.  I’ve occasionally lamented that, but it is a very complicated job, and seven is too few to get that done.  I would also want to offer a word of testimony that I think the Board is doing some terrific things.  They end up voting the right way.  Sometimes it is not unanimous, but they’re voting in a way that is building higher education in this state.  I wish reporters in this state would stop writing about the fights and start writing about the good things, because they’re doing many good things.

 

The other thing I would say is that they’ve only been at size 13 for two years, less actually, just a few months.  I would hate to see you pass this bill, and then down the road you say, “They kind of shaped up in the past couple of years, maybe we shouldn’t have done that.”  I think you ought to give them four years.  You can do this change of their terms every two years, if you wanted to, but you changed it two years ago, so I think you ought to give them some time. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Mr. Richardson, by your theory, we could change it to 7; then 2 years down the road we could change it back to 13.

 

Jim Richardson:

The map-drawers would probably go crazy, but, yes, you have the authority to do that. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Questions?  Anyone else who would like to testify on this bill, either in support or in opposition?  We’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 353; I’m going to assign this bill to a subcommittee with Mr. McCleary as Chairman, Mr. Geddes, and Mr. Horne as members.  Do we have the work session documents?  We’ll try to get through those.  While we’re passing those documents out, we’ll bring A.B. 391 back to the Committee at this time.  Mrs. Chowning?

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 391 WITH THE AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams:

There’s a motion to amend and do pass Assembly Bill 391, with the amendment that was presented by the Chancellor, and the words that were expressed by the Chancellor as the intent.  It was seconded by Mrs. Koivisto.  Is there any discussion?  Mr. Manendo?

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

I just wanted to disclose that I work at the Community College of Southern Nevada, but this won’t have me vote any differently than anyone else.  I’ll be voting. 

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I wasn’t sold on this.  I just want the Committee to know I’m going to vote “no” on this.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Could we get a copy, Mr. Chair, of the new amendment—not the yellow one, but the white sheet (Exhibit G)?

 

Chairman Williams:

That’s the amendment the motion addresses [on the white sheet, (Exhibit G)].  Are there any other comments on the motion? 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. McCLEARY AND MR. MABEY VOTING NO.

 

Chairman Williams:

Let’s go to Tab I (Exhibit H), Assembly Bill 268.

 

Assembly Bill 268:  Requires increased salaries for certain speech pathologists employed by school districts. (BDR 34-660)

Chairman Williams:

There were no opponents to the bill. The proponents’ argument is on the first page.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 268.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams:

There’s a motion by Mr. McCleary to do pass, seconded by Mr. Horne.  Is there any discussion?

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

My only concern is that this is an unfunded mandate for local governments, specifically school boards, and when things start to affect the balance of the money that we give to each local board to run their business, I get concerned that this might take money away from projects like books and programming.  I’d like to note my concern that this is unfunded, and, if it is going to the Ways and Means Committee, they need to consider that.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

I requested and got some information from the proponents of A.B. 268.  My concern, and maybe this would be more for Ways and Means, if you count the salaries plus their benefits, I’m not so sure they deserve a raise, compared to those in the private sector. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

My notes say that the Clark County School District said this would cost approximately $500,000, and yet, in the work document, it said there is no opposition.  Did they just make that as a statement for clarification, or did they truly speak in opposition of the bill?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I remember them bringing up the dollar figure.  It was Karyn Wright.  I remember her saying they were not opposed to A.B. 268.  She did throw in the fiscal part, but I don’t think they were directly opposing it.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I think it was in regard to being more competitive when it comes to speech pathologists, recruiting and keeping the ones we have.  We have vacancies we are having trouble filling now.

Chairman Williams:

We received information from that meeting.

 

Carol Stonefield, LCB Senior Research Analyst:

[Introduced self]  According to my notes, Rose McKinney-James from the Clark County School District said the district neither supports nor opposes A.B. 268, but recognizes the merits of the bill, and that it would cost the district some money.  She did refer to iNVest, the proposal from the superintendents, and they would focus on high impact and special needs; there’s a strong need to attract and retain speech pathologists.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I would like to remind the Committee that, when we gave the 5 percent increase to teachers, we wanted to recruit, but we also wanted to encourage them to get national certification.  I’m not sure those two criteria apply here.  A speech pathologist isn’t going to get more education; they’re not going to better themselves through this national certification process.  It’s just going to help with recruitment.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any other comments? 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. MABEY AND MRS. ANGLE VOTING NO.

 

Chairman Williams:

Let’s move over to A.B. 52, which is Tab D (Exhibit I).

 

Assembly Bill 52:  Provides for issuance of standard high school diplomas to certain veterans. (BDR 34-269)

 

Chairman Williams:

This bill proposes to authorize school districts to issue a standard high school diploma to veterans of World War II who served any time between September 16, 1940, and December 31, 1946.  There were several amendments that were proposed; you can see the proposed amendments at the bottom.  There was also a technical amendment proposed by the Research Division of the LCB, which is on the following page.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 52 WITH AMENDMENTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams:

The motion is to amend and do pass, with the four proposed amendments.  Discussion?  No. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Williams:

Let’s go to Tab F (Exhibit J), Assembly Bill 175.

 

Assembly Bill 175:  Provides for appointment of temporary replacement to board of trustees of school district for member who enters active military service. (BDR 34-426)

 

Chairman Williams:

This is on behalf of the Pershing County School District.  It proposes to provide for the appointment of a temporary replacement to a board of trustees of a school district for a member who enters active military service.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 175.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams:

The motion was to do pass by Mrs. Chowning, seconded by Mr. Geddes.  Discussion?  Mr. Horne.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I recall asking about the possibility of providing for absentee board members who may be absent for other reasons outside of the military service, like catastrophic reasons, car accident, or something.

 

Chairman Williams:

I think there is a motion already on the floor.  Maybe we can amend it on the Floor of the Assembly.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I’m fine, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there any discussion on the motion?

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll go with one more, Tab G (Exhibit K), Assembly Bill 227. 

 

Assembly Bill 227:  Requires increased salaries for certain school psychologists. (BDR 34-719)

 

Chairman Williams:

This is similar to the speech pathologists’ bill; it provides for school psychologists who hold national certification to receive an additional 5 percent of their salary.  Among other conditions included in the bill, school psychologists would be paid on the salary schedule for teachers and not on the schedule for administrators.  This increase is in addition to any other increase that the psychologists would have been entitled to.  Are we set for a motion?  Mrs. Chowning?

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

I’d like to make a motion to do pass, and I’d like to state that Clark County School District supported this bill, and that the overall cost throughout the state would be $150,000. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 227.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. MABEY VOTING NO.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll do one more.  Tab E (Exhibit L).  That’s the cell phone bill.

 

Assembly Bill 138:  Repeals prohibition against pupils carrying or possessing any electronic device used for paging or communication while on school grounds. (BDR 34-385)

 

Assembly Bill 138 proposed to repeal NRS 392.90, which makes it illegal to have a cell phone.  It’s a bill proposed by Assemblyman David Goldwater.  There was a subcommittee on this.  Do you have a subcommittee report?

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

I was the Chairman on that Subcommittee.  Basically, the Subcommittee recommendations are listed at the bottom of the page (Exhibit M).  The Subcommittee unanimously recommended that the full Assembly Committee on Education consider and approve a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 138, and that the amendment be drafted that reflects the intent and body in the Kentucky Revised Statute, which is on the next page.  Also, each board of trustees shall develop a policy governing the possession and use of personal electronic communication devices while on school property, or while attending school-sponsored or school-related activities.  The policy shall be included in the district’s public standard or code of student conduct, and the policy shall include disciplinary actions for student violations of the policy.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 138 WITH THE AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Williams:

I appreciate the Committee’s indulgence, but it’s just a preparation for nights to come.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say thank you to the Subcommittee for the work that they did on Assembly Bill 138.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll look forward to the next subcommittee’s work being equally good or better.  You have a fine chairman.  If there’s no more business to come before the Committee, the meeting is adjourned [at 7:03 p.m.].

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Victoria Thompson

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: