MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-Second Session

May 14, 2003

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:02 p.m., on Wednesday, May 14, 2003.  Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 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. Joe Hardy

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Garn Mabey

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mr. Bob McCleary

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr. Jason Geddes (excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Barbara Cegavske, Senatorial District No. 8

Senator Dean Rhoades, Senate District Northern Nevada

Senator Valerie Wiener, Senatorial District No. 3

Mr. John Carpenter, Assemblyman, District No. 33

Mr. Pete Goicoechea, Assemblyman, District No. 35

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Don Williams, LCB Policy Analyst

Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

James W. “Jim” Penrose, Attorney, representing the Nevada State Education Association

Dr. GeorgeAnn Rice, Associate Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District

Stephen Augspurger, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators (CCASA)

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability & Assessment, Washoe County School District

Stacy Heiser, Crisis Lines Coordinator, Crisis Call Center, Reno

Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Women’s Lobby (NWL) and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Nevada Chapter

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)

Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators

Robert C. Smith, Superintendent of Lander County School District

Bob Shaw, Teacher at Battle Mountain Junior High School and President of Lander County Teachers’ Association

Amy Kester, Principal, Battle Mountain Junior High School

Nadine M. Smith, Eighth grade student, Battle Mountain Junior High School

Russell Olsen, Third grade teacher, Battle Mountain Elementary School

Joshua Olsen, Eighth grade honor student, Battle Mountain Junior High School

Randy Robison, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy, Nevada Secretary of State

Charles Moore, Administrator, Securities Division, Secretary of State

Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN)

Steven Dickerson, representing himself

Chelsea Bibb, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) student and representing Service for Sight, Reno

Marta J. Hall, Academic and Vocational Programs, Nevada Department of Corrections

Carl Shaff, representing the Nevada Department of Education

Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Mark Fiorentino, representing the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN)

 

Chairman Williams:

Madam Secretary, call the roll.  [Roll was called.]  Please mark members present as they arrive, and mark Mr. Geddes excused from this meeting.  For members who may want to know how he feels about the bills on the agenda, he did place his views on the Internet.  We have quite an extensive agenda.  We have members who will be going from one committee to the other, and we have members who have other commitments as well.  It has always been the policy of this Committee to allow the public to express themselves freely as much as possible.  However, we would like to, at this particular meeting, be considerate of the time factors, of other folks who wish to testify, and of people who have to be other places.  We would like to have as little repetition as possible.

 

If there’s a group who would like to testify in opposition or in favor of an issue, maybe you could select the best spokesperson to do so.  However, this does not mean that if individuals want to express themselves on one of these issues, that you can’t do so.  We may have to call a point of order if you tend to direct your conversations away from the legislation or away from what the bill says.  This is in no way intended to be disrespectful or to disallow people from expressing themselves on these issues.  With that, we’ll open the hearing on Senate Bill 460.  We’re going to Las Vegas.  Mr. Penrose is welcome to come up but know that the witness in Las Vegas has time constraints. 

 

Senate Bill 460 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions governing licensed employees of school districts. (BDR 34-450)

 

James W. “Jim” Penrose, Attorney, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA):

[Introduced himself.]  This is the Clark County School District’s bill, although NSEA has been involved in drafting.  I’d be happy to defer to those in Las Vegas to give you the background.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll start in Las Vegas with the testimony on Senate Bill 460.

 

GeorgeAnn Rice, Associate Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District:

[Introduced herself.]  Thank you for your consideration.  I speak in favor of Senate Bill 460.  NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 391.312 lists the grounds for which a teacher may be suspended, demoted, or dismissed.  This bill is intended to increase the number of grounds within the coverage of the definition of immorality.  The proposed amendment to Section 1, paragraph 4, would expand that definition to include acts concerning illegal drugs and sexual misconduct with minors and students.  A school district should be able to suspend and begin termination process without prior admonitions for offenses that are this serious.

 

NRS 391.170 indicates—and this is the second part of the bill—that a teacher is not entitled to receive any public monies as compensation unless he holds a license authorizing him to teach.  In other words, without a license, a teacher cannot work and cannot be paid.  NRS 391.120, paragraph 3, makes it unlawful for the Board of School Trustees of any school district to employ a teacher who is not legally qualified.  The proposed amendment would allow the school districts to terminate a teacher who fails to renew their license, without going through all of the due process procedures we now have, which last for months and even years, when, by our own NRS statutes, we are not allowed to continue to have that person under contract.

 

At last count, the District had almost 20 references as to the teacher’s responsibility to keep the license in force.  These included reminders in paychecks; individual letters; when they actually failed to keep their license in effect, a letter to the principal; a memo to the teacher; an admonition; a letter from the superintendent regarding disciplinary action and immediate suspension; a hearing; and a right to arbitration.  This bill by law would allow us to remove many of those due process requirements, and it would allow us, within a certain number of days, to actually terminate teachers when they do not have their license in place.  We’ve worked many hours with NSEA (Nevada State Education Association) to put in the protections that they were interested in, and I think Mr. Penrose is going to suggest one more today that we have agreed to.  Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you, Dr. Rice.  I want to say, too, that I think we have Mr. Penrose and Dr. Merrill who signed up in favor of this bill.  I don’t have anyone who signed in opposition, so the next few speakers could keep that in mind; nobody signed up in opposition.  You may not need as much passion, impact, and length in your speeches.

 

Stephen Augspurger, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators (CCASA):

[Introduced himself.]  The Clark County Association of School Administrators supports the intent of S.B. 460.  There are, however, two provisions which CCASA has concerns with.  Let me preface my remarks by saying that CCASA does not in any way support unlawful behavior and believes that in this area, particularly, violations should result in severe consequences.  The CCASA attorney, Mr. Tom Beatty, reviewed Senate Bill 460 at our request.  His legal opinion is that the inclusion of NRS 207.260 and NRS 453.336 in S.B. 460 takes behaviors that are currently punishable under Nevada law as misdemeanors, and elevates their status to carry the same consequence as do behaviors which are classified as felonies. 

 

Under Nevada law, if an individual is convicted of a felony that person’s license is revoked.  Ultimately, there is loss of employment.  Should behavior that’s punishable as a misdemeanor also cause the loss of license? 

 

Dr. GeorgeAnn Rice:

Chairman Williams, may I comment?  We have taken the concerns of the administrator’s group to our legal authorities, and we agree with the removal of those two NRS sections.  We agree with the removal of NRS 453.336 and NRS 207.260, the ones that CCASA just discussed.

 

Chairman Williams:

Mr. Penrose and Dr. Merrill, would you both like to come up?

 

Jim Penrose:

The bill before you basically does two things.  It deals with the immorality issue that you’ve heard discussed, and it deals with an issue that has been festering in Clark County between the Clark County School District and NSEA for some years.  Basically, a teacher whose license lapses for any reason in Clark County was simply deemed to have resigned without any process at all.  As you may know, Chapter 391 is a fairly involved due process procedure that’s set forth and involves arbitration whenever a teacher is dismissed.

 

For many years, the practice in Clark County was not to afford that due process to a teacher; in fact, a teacher got no process at all in that situation.  In December 2000, the Nevada Supreme Court, in a case that we were involved in, held that a teacher whose license lapsed was entitled to all procedural protections that are set forth in NRS 391.  Although we were involved in the case and were gratified by the results in that case, it actually created a problem for us.  In fact, there are teachers who are not going to be able to reinstate their license if they have two months, three months, six months, or a year; it is just not going to happen.  If the teacher, for example, has not taken certain continuing education classes that they need to maintain their license in force, there’s no way they’re going to be able to do that before an arbitration hearing.  From our perspective, there’s no point going forward with arbitration with that kind of a case.

 

[Jim Penrose continued.]  The compromise that was ultimately reached with the district is to provide the process that’s set forth in the bill.  Basically, it provides the teacher with a period of time to reinstate their license.  If they’re able to do that, they’re reinstated to their position with the district.  There is a provision for a hearing before an employee of the district to explain any extenuating circumstances that may exist. 

 

The one amendment I proposed (Exhibit C), and the district has agreed to, is to extend the 60-day period that’s provided in the bill to 90 days.  The bill as before you gives the teacher 60 days to reinstate their license; after discussions with the district, the district has agreed to extend that period to 90 days, and that would be the amendment that we would propose.  That language appears in two places in the bill.  In Section 3, page 2, line 15, we would propose that period be extended to 90 days.  Likewise, on the same page, line 44, that should be extended to 90 days.  I don’t know if Dr. Rice received my draft of the amendment, but that’s the only change we would propose.  [Dr. Rice provided an affirmative answer.]  Thank you.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability & Assessment, Washoe County School District:

[Introduced herself.]  In the interest of time, we gave extensive testimony in support of this proposal on the Senate side.  This is important legislation that we believe addresses critical issues of student safety and teacher quality.  We encourage the Committee to pass this bill with its various amendments.

 

Chairman Williams:

Those are the individuals that we have signed up, both for the north and the south, on the bill.  With that, we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 460.  We need to let Senator Cegavske know that she can come back.  

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 460.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Andonov, and Mr. Mabey were not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll go to Senator Cegavske’s bill when she gets here.  In the meantime, we’ll go to Senate Bill 36.  Ms. Stonefield will do the opening remarks.

 

Senate Bill 36:  Authorizes regional training programs for the professional development of teachers and administrators to facilitate access to information concerning issues related to suicide among pupils. (BDR 34-644)

 

Carol Stonefield, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Research Division, Committee Policy Analyst:

[Introduced herself.]  This bill originated with the Legislative Committee on Education, and I was one of the policy analysts assigned to it.  I will present this bill and, in that capacity, I will neither advocate nor oppose any provision in it.

 

Senate Bill 36 authorizes a regional training program for the professional development of teachers and administrators to offer information concerning issues related to suicide among pupils.  The bill further provides that any teacher or administrator receiving such information does not have any additional duty otherwise required in their course of employment.  As I said, the bill originated as a BDR from the Legislative Committee on Education, which received a request from the Legislative Committee’s Subcommittee to Study Suicide Prevention to consider requesting legislation to require all public school teachers to complete certain courses in suicide prevention prior to license renewal.

 

The Legislative Committee on Education received testimony, discussed the issue at length, and voted to request the legislation that is before this Committee as Senate Bill 36.  Don Williams is a policy analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and he was the policy analyst assigned to the Subcommittee to Study Suicide Prevention.  He will have further comments, findings, and recommendations of the subcommittee. 

 

Chairman Williams:

We have two people signed up to testify in favor of this bill.  We do not have anybody signed up in opposition.  Keep that in mind.  Mr. Williams?

Don Williams, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Policy Analyst:

[Introduced himself.]  I’m appearing on behalf of Senator O’Connell, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Suicide Prevention, and the various members of the Subcommittee, which on this side included Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Assemblyman David Parks, and former Assemblymen David Humke and Debbie Smith.  [He spoke from prepared text (Exhibit D).] 

 

Senate Bill 36 authorizes regional training programs for the professional development of teachers and administrators, to provide teachers and administrators with access to information concerning issues related to suicide among pupils. 

 

As part of its study during the 2001-2002 interim, the Legislative Committee’s Subcommittee reviewed the U.S. Surgeon General’s 2000 report on suicide, National Strategy for Suicide Prevention:  Goals and Objectives for Action.  In that report, the Surgeon General has identified the key gatekeepers in suicide prevention as those people who regularly come into contact with individuals or families in distress.  Some of the key gatekeepers include clergy, police officers, emergency medical personnel, primary health care providers, mental health professionals, and school personnel.

 

Goal number 6 in the Surgeon General’s National Strategy is to implement training for recognition of at-risk behavior and delivery of effective treatment.  Although the Surgeon General has identified teachers and other educational staff as key gatekeepers in suicide prevention, the Suicide Prevention Subcommittee learned that teachers and other school personnel in Nevada currently are not receiving training relating to suicide issues among our pupils.  For that reason, the Subcommittee recommended that the Legislative Committee on Education request the legislation that is before you this afternoon. 

 

Mr. Chairman, there are other people here to testify who are more knowledgeable on suicide prevention than I am.  However, I will be glad to answer any questions.  [Mr. Williams also brought the Study of Suicide Prevention, Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 03-11, January 2003 (Exhibit E).]

 

Chairman Williams:

Are those individuals from the Crisis Call Center in Las Vegas?  Stacy Heiser, welcome.

Stacy Heiser, Crisis Lines Coordinator, Crisis Call Center, Reno:

[Introduced herself.]  Erin Schweber was kind enough to be my moral support today.  Seeing that there is no opposition to S.B. 36, I will be very brief.  I am more in support of this than I can tell you.  Part of my job is to go into the schools and provide outreach education to the students and also to the faculty under certain circumstances.  There are a lot of pervasive misunderstandings about suicide.  In the case of suicide, it’s deadly to make a mistake.  Suicide is something I knew nothing about until I started at the Crisis Call Center.  The things that I hear when I go into the schools—this kid’s not at risk, he’s really artistic, or he’s really smart, or she’s got a really great group of friends, and she’s going to be just fine, the parents are really wonderful, no problem there—those are deadly assumptions to be making.

 

We know that people with mental illness, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia are very intelligent, very artistic, and have wonderful families.  That doesn’t save them.  It is really important to give the teachers the opportunity to learn more about suicide, so that they can recognize a child who might be truly at risk, and do what they can to intervene, if at all possible.  It’s something that requires a community-wide approach if we’re going to be able to prevent suicide.  Getting the teachers involved is very important.  I don’t know how well you remember your teen years; mine are painfully present with me.  I didn’t always go to my parents when I needed to.  It’s important to have other people involved and as many people as possible.  Teachers are a part of that team.  I would urge you to pass this, and I am available to answer any questions.  Thank you.  [Ms. Heiser also brought written testimony (Exhibit F).]

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you for being here.  You’re here for moral support?  [This was said to Erin Schweber, who indicated that was correct.]  Fortunately for this committee, several years ago, one of the members on the Committee brought legislation to us surrounding suicide prevention that enlightened, maybe not all of us, but surely myself.  They brought legislation that was very successful, and it created a whole new awareness on the issue in Nevada, and in the nation.  Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning has been a longtime, long-standing advocate for suicide prevention, and we’re lucky to have her on this Committee.  More importantly, we’re lucky to have her representing the people of Nevada.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.  Those words mean the world to me.  When I was a schoolteacher of junior high students, one of my students committed suicide.  It was exactly the same as you said; nobody every dreamed that this young man would do such a thing because he was artistic, very outgoing, and the class clown.  Unfortunately, he did, and that had a great effect on me.  Through the years, I’ve studied the issue, and I realized that young people just don’t have the maturity.  They go from A to Z, just like that.  Something that would, to the rest of us, seem that it isn’t so bad, that we can get over it, they don’t have those life experiences to help carry them through.

 

[Assemblywoman Chowning continued.]  In 1995, I had an intern here at the Legislature who had three friends, at different times, who committed suicide.  I went into the Chairman of the Education Committee and said, “What can we do?  We must do something.”  Fortunately, at that time we didn’t have the deadlines, and we were able to, with the permission of the Chairman of the Education Committee, get a bill draft introduced.  We were very fortunate to adopt, at no cost to our state, an entire course of study from the state of California.  The former Superintendent of Education of our state, Dr. Eugene Paslov, helped immensely.

 

Since then that training has been in our schools.  It has been proven that if students, or people in general, say that they are thinking about suicide, you have to take it seriously.  It gives training to students, in this case, to be able to be aware, and to direct people to help.  I’m very much in support of this, because that’s what was lacking.  We had the course of study for students, but we didn’t have any follow-up training for teachers.  The training is in our school districts, and, hopefully, it’s proving to help some students.  If we save one person’s life, our efforts are worth it, and, of course, we want to save many more.  I applaud you for bringing this forward.  I’m very appreciative of the interim study as well. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you, Mrs. Chowning.  Not only should we have Mrs. Chowning’s portrait up at the Crisis Call Center, but Mr. Manendo also introduced legislation from this Committee that dealt with the Suicide Prevention Hotline some time ago.  We’re fortunate, on this Committee, to have people who have a passion for this issue.  Are there any remarks from Assemblyman Manendo?  [Mr. Manendo indicated that he had no comments at this time.]  Is there anyone else to testify on this bill?  Ms. Gang and Dr. Merrill, thank you both for being here.

 

Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Women’s Lobby (NWL) and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Nevada Chapter:

[Introduced herself.]  Both organizations support this bill.  I would like to mention that, for the record, NASW represents clinical social workers as well as other social workers.  This is an area in which clinical social workers do counsel, and we think that it is very important to have this information accessible to those teachers and other personnel in the schools.  I thank you for considering it.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

We testified in support of this bill on the Senate side, and our position is unchanged.  We strongly encourage your support.  As Assemblywoman Chowning described her first experience with a student who committed suicide, I can definitely remember that experience in my own career.  It is very difficult, not only for students who are friends of students who commit suicide; it is extremely difficult for the teachers of those students.  Sometimes, looking back, had they had appropriate training, they could have made decisions that could have resulted in a different end.  The processing of that is very difficult for teachers and for administrators.  We believe that the efforts in this state, as others have remarked, have been limited and fragmented.  We strongly encourage your support of this bill, and we look forward to implementing the programs and the Regional Professional Development Center.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions?  That’s the last person signed in on this bill.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 36.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE BOTH SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Andonov and Mr. Geddes were absent for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

We now have another former member of this Committee, Senator Cegavske, to introduced S.B. 390.

 

Senate Bill 390 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions governing membership of Commission on Professional Standards in Education. (BDR 34-892)

 

Senator Barbara Cegavske, Senatorial District No. 8:

[Introduced herself.]  I am excited to bring you Senate Bill 390.  This closes the policy circle the Nevada Legislature began in 1999, when this body first chose to recognize the value and benefit of developing a highly qualified teaching force.  Beginning in 1999, we adopted legislation that provided stipends for teachers to offset application costs and other fees associated with obtaining national certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).  We have continued providing those funds for the last two sessions. 

 

[Senator Cegavske continued.]  The 1999 Legislature further recognized the value of these highly qualified professionals by providing in statute that they receive a 5 percent salary increase, over and above what they would typically receive.  For those of you who are not familiar with the national board certification, the process requires that teachers with at least three years of experience undergo a rigorous one-year program, with intensive classroom work based on NBPTS standards, which detail what constituents accomplished teaching in every subject and for students at all stages of their development.  The national board certification process measures a teacher’s practice against those high and rigorous standards.

 

The process is an extensive series of performance-based assessments that include teaching portfolios, student work samples, videotapes through analyses of candidates’ classroom teaching, and student learning.  Teachers also complete a series of written exercises that probe the depth of their subject matter knowledge, as well as their understanding of how to teach those subjects to their students.  Those who successfully complete the program, and only about half do, receive this national certification as proof of their high level of professionalism.

 

The original bill required certification for all members of the teacher licensing commission.  In response to two separate requests by the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), I asked that the bill be significantly amended prior to the Floor action.  The bill before you reflects the changes we agreed upon, namely that the four teacher members of the Commission on Professional Standards and Education be nationally board-certified; that’s lines 1 through 3 on page 2.  Also, this requirement will take effect after all four current teacher members have exhausted their appointments, and even reappointments.  That is the effective date, on lines 8 and 9, page 3.

 

In order to further access the availability of board-certified teachers for future policy decisions, Section 2 of the bill, beginning on page 2, line 27, requires the Nevada Department of Education to report to the 2005 and 2007 sessions of the Legislature concerning the total numbers of licensed Nevada teachers who are certified by the NBPTS.  Further, the report must include the number, in each of the categories, of teachers eligible to be commission members, as well as the percentage of teacher members of the commission who are so certified.

 

As a state, we have appropriated $170,000 over the past two sessions to assist teachers with certification, and we have succeeded in creating this very talented pool of individuals.  By 2002, we had 109 board-certified teachers, and it is my understanding that we now have around 200 teachers who are board-certified.  As I mentioned earlier, Senate Bill 390 completes the policy circle.  We have made a substantial investment in these highly qualified teachers, and this measure seeks to make use of their talents and skills to improve their profession.

 

[Senator Cegavske continued.]  Our state is now faced with the challenges of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act.  We need these individuals more than ever as we move Nevada into compliance with the requirements of that Act, especially with regard to requirements concerning highly qualified teachers.  To conclude, the state needs these individuals; the profession needs them.  Nevada has made this investment with the exception that we would make use of their talents in just this fashion.  We need their help and expertise, and we need it now.  I urge you to pass this measure.

 

Mr. Chairman, Debbie Cahill, from NSEA, presented me with three options.  I had staff look at them, and there were serious concerns about each option.  I have an alternative proposal that I have not presented to Ms. Cahill, but I know she’s here, and she can advise us on whether or not she would be agreeable to this.  It would amend the measure to specify that, until 2007, the appointment noted in subsection 2 of Section 1 be made by the appointing authority to the extent qualified persons are available who are eligible and willing to serve.  Delete Section 3 altogether, and Section 1, as written, would then be effective January 1, 2007.  That concludes my comments for today.  I thank you very much for letting me present this to you.

 

Chairman Williams:

Ms. Cahill, is that enough information that she just gave you to know how you feel about this?

 

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA):

[Introduced herself.]  I believe that we are finally on the same page.  I would like to see it.  Do you have a written copy of the amendment?  I had prepared an amendment that I think speaks to this same issue, and this language could address that.

 

Chairman Williams:

We could give you some more time to look at it, and we will bring it back to the Committee today.  Senator, is that okay with you?  [Senator Cegavske indicated that this would be fine.]  With that, we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 390, at least temporarily, and we’ll open the hearing on Senate Bill 59.  Senator Rhoads is here.  I’ll tell you, Senator, we’ve had calls from everyone in the county in support of this.  This is another bill which has no opposition signed in.  Welcome, Senator.

 

Senate Bill 59 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions governing alternative schedules of school districts. (BDR 34-736)

 

Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District:

[Introduced himself.]  I’m going to be very brief.  Dr. Robert Smith, the Lander County Superintendent, contacted me last fall.  He came up with a unique idea that would allow certain rural schools to go to a four-day schedule.  This would increase the time each day.  The four days would be the same amount of time that students normally would be taught in five days, but those days would have longer hours.  Friday would be an activity day for travel.

 

The problem in our rural districts is, when students go to sports or other activities, sometimes it takes half of a day or more just for travel time to get back and forth.  If they schedule all their activity days on Friday, and they lengthen their hours Monday through Thursday, it would not only save dollars, but it would provide for better education for the students.  Dr. Smith is here, I see Assemblyman Carpenter and Assemblyman Goicoechea are here, and I’m sure there are students here also.

 

Chairman Williams:

Senator, would you have a problem if there was a population clause in this bill?

 

Senator Dean Rhoads:

No, I would not.

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33:

[Introduced himself.]  Dr. Smith talked to me last fall about it, and I thought it would be a good idea to let small rural districts try this situation.  As Senator Rhoads said, sometimes most of the kids will be out on Friday, so I think it would not only help the budget situation, but it would help the learning process of those children.  I just want to lend my support to this measure.  I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea, Assembly District No. 35:

[Introduced himself.]  There’s not a whole lot I can add to the testimony, other than you have to understand that, in the rural communities, when the ball teams travel, sometimes there are only eight or ten kids left in the school.  It doesn’t make much sense to maintain the staff in the school for a handful of kids.  I think it requires that the schedule must be approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  They have to be petitioned, and I think it will work in rural Nevada.  I think it is very worthwhile, and I appreciate your support.

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I would like to say that a population cap would fit the bill in this situation.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I see that it’s concurrently referred to Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, and yet I don’t see a fiscal note.

 

Chairman Williams:

I don’t know why the referral was made.  We could probably check into that and correct it.

 

Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators:

[Introduced himself.]  We testified in the Senate in support of S.B. 59, and we will do the same here, Mr. Chairman.  We would like to stress that there are rural schools also in Washoe County and Clark County that could be impacted by this legislation as well.  They travel north, they’re on the road on Friday, and they miss school on Friday as well.  If some type of alternative schedule could be developed for the rural schools in those two counties, it would also be beneficial.  We do support this legislation.  We had a lot of e-mails from rural superintendents and principals.  The Nevada Association of School Administrators is in support of this legislation.

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you very much.  Mr. Carpenter, do you have other people to testify?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I don’t know if there’s anyone here or not.  The situation that the last speaker brought up is germane to the subject.  Assemblyman Hardy is the representative of rural Clark County, and they may have schools there, too, that could benefit from the provisions in the bill.  I don’t know how to do that, but I’m sure the Legal Division of LCB, bill drafting, could come up with some terminology that would fit the situation.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ve already started to work on that.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

You know, Mr. Chair, that this is a “cowboy” bill.

 

Chairman Williams:

Absolutely.  Mrs. Angle.

 

Assemblywoman Angle, District No. 26:

In Section 2, it says that you may, upon application, authorize this.  So this is permissive, and that would allow Clark County and Washoe County to take advantage of this.  I don’t see any need to put a population cap on this.  I think this is good policy, and we already have block scheduling in many of our high schools that accommodates us in Washoe County, so I’m wondering if it isn’t already accommodated in this bill, and we don’t need to do an amendment.  Maybe you see it differently than I do.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

We agree with the interpretation that she has provided.  Section 2, subsection 2, page 3, of the bill, starting at line 13, is an important provision of this bill.  Any school district that wishes to propose an alternative schedule that may not have 180 days but does have the required number of minutes in that schedule may submit that request to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  He, in turn, may authorize the school district to propose that alternative program of instruction.

 

I want to stress, on behalf of the Washoe County School District, that we are not looking at this necessarily in the same way that Lander County or smaller districts might be looking at it.  We are looking at this as a way, in some of our schools, particularly our Title I schools or schools in need of improvement, to allow them to propose, as a result of agreements that are reached among parents, teachers, administrators, and others in the school community, a kind of schedule that would periodically allow for the early release of school for those children for purposes of staff development.  The students would be in attendance five days a week, but on one day, perhaps every third or fourth week, there would be an early release and an opportunity for those teachers to work together on improving student achievement.

 

Our goal in support of this bill is to support the alternative schedule concept as it appears here.  We think that is a very important piece.  Again, I want to stress that the number of minutes of instruction to be provided must be equal to or greater than the number of minutes of instruction that would be provided in a 180-day school year. 

 

We strongly encourage your support of the alternative schedule concept as it has been presented, with the qualifications built into the bill that the proposal can’t be implemented until the district applies to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and he or she, in turn, would authorize the district if the plan were accepted.

Robert Smith, Superintendent of Lander County School District:

[Introduced himself.]  Thank you for hearing this bill.  We’re grateful for the opportunity to be here before you today.  We were not sure if we would have that opportunity and thanks again for providing that.  Also thanks to the legislators, including Senator Rhoads who sponsored it, and to Assemblyman Carpenter and Assemblyman Goicoechea, and the others who have contacted you in support of this bill being heard.

 

The intent of this legislation and its associated plans are subject to collective bargaining negotiations.  The intended purpose of this bill is to increase instructional time, very similar to some of the larger school districts in the state of Nevada’s intended purpose, ours as well.  Currently, up to 40 percent of instruction may be lost due to scheduling conflicts with school activities.  That potential figure is absolutely unacceptable for large and small school districts in this state.  Given the flexibility of this bill, the solution is to redeem instructional time, and that’s found in restructuring the mandated 180-school days in equivalent instructional hours.

 

There can be many models as to how to disaggregate instructional time versus activity time.  Current losses of such time are reflected in the number of high school graduates attending colleges, community colleges, and universities in our higher educational Nevada University System who are enrolled in remedial course work.  In fact, in our district we are at over 70 percent.  We need to do something about it.  This is one way to attack such high statistics, and our district is not alone in representation by those high statistics.

 

Further, this bill does not require fiscal support, nor does it oblige any district’s participation.  It is purely optional, and if selected, requires not only local school board approval, but also approval from the Nevada Superintendent of Public Instruction.  We also do not see a fiscal note, and we are wondering why it has been referred to Ways and Means.  We would appreciate the revocation of that.  We have other witnesses to briefly testify before you now.

 

Bob Shaw, Teacher, Battle Mountain Junior High School and President of Lander County Teachers’ Association:

[Introduced himself.]  Mr. Chairman, presently state law requires a minimum 180-day teaching year.  While our teaching year in Lander County exceeds this minimum, the present 180-day requirement effectively defines our teaching calendar and allows no flexibility.  Our local association regards S.B. 59 as benign legislation allowing school districts flexibility in terms of crafting their instructional time.  S.B. 59 is enabling legislation that places no new requirements upon school districts.  It simply allows instructional time to be measured, not only in instructional days, but, equally, in terms of equivalent instructional hours.

 

[Bob Shaw continued.]  For the record, I wish to emphasize that this legislation and any subsequent local plans that derive from it, prior to implementation, are subject to negotiation and are subject to each school district’s collective bargaining agreement.  While we generally favor S.B. 59, in our view, all effects of Senate Bill 59 are fully negotiable and must be bargained within each local school district.  That said, we urge your support and passage.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Williams:

That was one of the questions we had from several of the Committee members.  Even though it is the same amount of minutes, people will be working in hourly situations.  You’ve indicated you’re the president of the local union, so that’s already been considered.  Would any proposed plan to alter the school schedule be a negotiable situation, prior to being presented to the Superintendent?

 

Bob Shaw:

Yes, sir.  We would have to work it out, as all the other local unions would have to as well.

 

Amy Kester, Principal, Battle Mountain Junior High School:

[Introduced herself.]  We have 210 kids, currently.  I’m supportive of this bill for a variety of reasons, primarily as a principal.  I see some flexibility that this bill offers to our rural district, because we are currently faced with all the HR 1 requirements, as you hear day in and day out, in professional development.  According to some of the HR 1 requirements, my staff at the junior high will have to be deemed “highly qualified” by the year 2006.  I’m not sure if you’re aware of the junior high parameters with that, but it presents a daunting challenge.

 

A significant number of hours are going to have to be obtained by all my teaching staff, whom I already consider highly qualified.  I’m not against professional development, but at this point in time, in order to get them either credentialed as secondary, or get the number of credit hours, they’re either going to have to take sabbatical leave, travel long distances, or take online courses.  We’re in a remote area and it presents a challenge.  By flexible scheduling, it allows us, as I believe Dr. Merrill has stated, to offer professional development within the school year.  I think that is critical due to our remote location.  I think it’s imperative that we provide training opportunities to our teachers so they receive the necessary training.  This bill allows for that flexibility.

 

[Amy Kester continued.]  Interestingly, I just attended an Effective Schools Conference.  Effective Schools’ research shows that collaboration is the number one way to improve learning.  This bill offers that opportunity for my staff to collaborate, because it gives us some flexibility in how we schedule our day, how we provide instruction, and how we improve instruction.

 

Nadine M. Smith, Eighth grade student, Battle Mountain Junior High School:

[Introduced herself.]  I rise in support of Senate Bill 59.  I strongly urge you to approve this bill, as it gives school districts scheduling alternatives to the current 180-days of instruction.  Its versatility may further facilitate a separation of instruction from cocurricular activities, which could preclude unnecessary conflicts.  My own participation in these activities includes band, student council, readers club, teacher’s aid, PTA Reflections, as well as vocal and instrumental music solo performance.  I am an honor roll student and an Excellence Award and National Merit Award recipient in written literature from the Nevada State and National PTA Reflections competition.

 

Without increased scheduling options, I will lose critical instructional time during my next four years of schooling.  Participating in cocurricular activities that have to be scheduled on top of instructional time, and traveling long distances between activity performances at home would oblige this loss.  Considering my future aspirations for a career in education, I do not relish having to settle for a substandard high school education because of a lack of scheduling flexibility.  Please approve Senate Bill 59 to give students like myself, across Nevada, the flexibility to make the most of their education.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions?  Thank you very much.  Is there anyone else here to testify?

 

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association:

While NSEA is in support of this bill, we do believe it is subject to negotiations.  While there is no specific reference to that in the actual bill, I did want to draw people’s attention to NRS 288.150, which governs collective bargaining for public employees in this state.  The specific reference is at 288.150, subsection 2, and this is the laundry list of items of mandatory bargaining.  “G” is total hours of work required of an employee on each workday or workweek, and “H” is total number of days of work required of an employee in a work year.

 

We testified in support of this bill on the Senate side, because we already had it demonstrated to us, through our local association, that the district fully intended to work collaboratively with the employees’ association to make this happen.  We think that’s how it should happen in all districts if they pursue this.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Williams:

I think it has been clearly documented through testimony today by all parties who have testified that it is the intent, and the understanding, that these items are negotiable.  That’s a part of the record, as well.  Welcome, sir.

 

Russell Olsen, Third Grade Teacher, Battle Mountain Elementary School:

[Introduced himself.]  I rise in support of Senate Bill 59.  I’m a 20-year teaching veteran, and I serve as the Vice President of the Lander County School District Association.  Currently, the majority of my students are Title I eligible, not unlike many classrooms throughout northern Nevada.  This poses challenges to bring students up to speed in order to meet mandated annual yearly progress.  In fact, the demands of S.B. 191, and HR 1, are not only rigorous but are impractical unless flexible scheduling is provided.  It is through S.B. 59 and its flexibility that it will enable me to meet the needs of these children.  It is my professional belief that this legislation is vital for the reasons that I have stated, and I strongly urge you to expedite the passage of Senate Bill 59.

 

Joshua Olsen, Eighth grade honor student, Battle Mountain Junior High School:

[Introduced himself.]  I rise in support of Senate Bill 59.  I am very involved in athletics and art.  I placed second in my weight class in this year’s Nevada State Junior High School Wrestling Championships, and I was awarded the Best Visual Arts Interpretation in Excellence Award throughout Nevada in the PTA Reflections competition.  I favor this bill since it would help to reduce conflicts between athletic activities and classes that I need to take, like physics, trigonometry, and even art.  As I begin my high school career, I do not want to be in a position of having to choose between boarding a bus that is headed to an athletic competition or receiving important instruction in my classes.  In fact, I do not want to miss either of these.  Athletics take a lot of time.  Scheduling flexibility is just what Senate Bill 59 offers to the Lander School District.  I respectfully ask you to take this advice into consideration.  Thank you for your time.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions?  Is there anyone else to testify?  With that, we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 59.

 

Randy Robison, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards:

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman; it was my intent to add a couple of remarks before the hearing was closed on S.B. 59.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll reopen the hearing on Senate Bill 59.

 

Randy Robison:

[Introduced himself.]  I just want to go on record in support of this bill.  We, too, are of the understanding that everything in the bill is subject to negotiation with the collective bargaining units.  In terms of the population cap, when this bill was heard in the Senate, that amendment was considered, and some of the language they used was “rural and remote areas,” to take care of the rural areas within the larger school districts, although Mrs. Angle raises a good point.  Since it’s permissive and has to be approved locally, as well as approved by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, those issues could be addressed.  There are some natural limitations that occur; obviously just one district could not do it alone.  They would have to do this in cooperation with two or three other districts.  We are in support of this bill, and we encourage its passage.

 

Chairman Williams:

The only difference is that the Superintendent of the Lander County School District called every member of the Committee and informed them of what the problems were in this particular county.  Assemblyman Goicoechea and Assemblyman Carpenter have spent a lot of time explaining to us the concerns, the trials and tribulations that many students in this particular county face.  We understand that.  Other districts will have other problems that exist and they may need this, and we’d like to hear those as well.  I would feel comfortable if other districts that may have similar scheduling problems came back to the Legislature, just as they did with this particular bill.  That’s my feeling on it.  But I appreciate knowing the coalition supports this.  With that, we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 59 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 456.

 

Senate Bill 456:  Revises various provisions of Uniform Athletes’ Agents Act. (BDR 34-153)

 

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State:

[Introduced herself.]  With me is Charles Moore, the administrator of our Securities Division.  We’re here in support of Senate Bill 456.  It’s our bill to make changes to the Uniform Athletes’ Agents Act, essentially housekeeping changes.  The Act was adopted by the 2001 Legislature, which put the duties of licensing athletes’ agents in our office.  We subsequently delegated those duties to Mr. Moore, since he’s familiar with licensing securities.

 

Essentially, it required that we make certain findings.  We had the authority to revoke or refuse to renew a license, but we didn’t have procedures in the Act for how we go about doing that.  We’re trying to add some of the due process procedures into the act and provide for some of the enforcement procedures for carrying that out.  Mr. Moore is here; he can walk you through, section by section, and explain to you how we’ve gone about doing that, if you’d prefer.  We took the provisions out of the Nevada Securities Act and tried to put those types of due process provisions into this section.

 

Chairman Williams:

This is another bill that has, at least on the sign-in sheet, no opposition.  I know the Chancellor is here to speak in favor of the bill.  We would rather see if there are any members who have questions after the presentation, rather than having to go through every bit of it.  He can highlight things that he feels are important, or he can wait to see if there are questions. 

 

Charles Moore, Administrator, Securities Division, Secretary of State:

Chairman Williams, I’ll briefly highlight my comments.  As the administrator of the Securities Division, I was delegated the responsibility for administering the Uniform Athletes’ Agents Act, which was passed in 2001.  Most of the proposals in this bill are very similar to provisions contained in the Nevada Uniform Securities Act that is administered by my office.  I have been involved in the regulation of the securities industry for over 22 years.  I would also point out that currently we only have 12 registered athletes’ agents in the state of Nevada.  I will take specific questions regarding this bill.

 

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

I am here to support this bill.  We have supported this Uniform Athletes’ Agents Act from the very beginning, and we support these changes to make it work better.  We just want to be on the record, on behalf of the Board of Regents, in supporting this bill. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this bill?  The Chair will accept a motion.  There’s a question from Mrs. Koivisto.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

It looks like there’s an effect on both local and state government.  Does this need to go to Ways and Means, or does it have a fiscal note?

 

Charles Moore:

I do not know why there would be a fiscal note attached to S.B. 456.  The Act is administered by the Securities Division of the Secretary of State’s office, and we did not hire any additional staff when we were assigned to administer this.  I do not anticipate that we would have to in the future.  My only guess as to why there might be a possible fiscal note is that the Attorney General’s Office indicated to me that, if we were referring a number of these cases to them for criminal prosecution, it could have an impact on their office.  Basically, I’ve assured them that in the 1½ years that we’ve been administering the Act, we have only registered 12 athletes’ agents in that time period.  We have never brought, as of this date, any type of enforcement action for violations of this act.  However, as the Securities Administrator and the person in charge of overseeing the Athletes’ Agents Act, I felt that these housekeeping changes were necessary in the event that we ran into a problem with unregistered agents in the future. 

 

Chairman Williams:

When things come up this way, whether warranted or not, the Ways and Means Committee catches it.  They’ll investigate it.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there a motion?  Yes, the representative from Boulder City.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 456.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Geddes was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

We will now move to Senate Bill 62.  Chancellor Nichols or Mr. Dickerson?

 

Senate Bill 62 (1st Reprint):  Provides students with print access disabilities in University and Community College System of Nevada with access to electronic versions of instructional materials under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-114)

 

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

[Introduced herself.]  I’m here to testify on behalf of S.B. 62, as revised.  This is a bill that provides for students with print access disabilities in the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) to receive electronic versions of the instructional materials.  We are in support of this.  This was a bill on which Mr. Dickerson, who is going to speak to you in a moment, has been very instrumental and working hard to ensure that all students have these materials and have them particularly in a timely fashion.

 

There is no doubt, nor any issue, that these materials have to be provided to these students.  They are required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Each of our institutions has capacities, and in various ways work together, or contract to make sure that these are provided.  We work continually to make sure there are no glitches.  We are often dependent upon publishers and instructors getting the names of textbooks to us in a timely fashion so that these materials can be provided to students.  Our commitment to do this is very strong and very clear.  This bill, as amended, does require us to go first to the publisher.  If the material is available, the publisher has to provide it to us in a timely fashion.  If it is not, we have to provide the electronic version in a timely fashion.  We are committed to doing that.  The bill before you today has our full support.

 

Steven Dickerson, Private citizen representing himself:

I’m here to offer testimony in support of Senate Bill 62.  Additionally, I’m here to offer you the opinion of a private citizen who brought this legislation to the attention of Senator Rawson who originally proposed it.  I also want to offer you the opinion of a student who has had to deal with what is at the core of this proposed legislation, and that is having timely access to textbooks in a format that can be accessed by a student with a print access disability.

 

God willing, in the start of January 2004, I’ll be pursuing a doctoral degree at the University of Nevada, Reno, in special education.  I have no doubt that, connected to that, there will be an enormous amount of reading.  All this reading that I will be doing will be connected to my pursuit of higher education.  In that, I will need to have timely access to printed materials.  The original concepts that I brought forward to Senator Rawson, in Senate Bill 62, were about bringing the publishers to a point where they were providing electronic text files of textbooks to the UCCSN.

 

I believe that the electronic text files are the wave of the future for students, especially those students who have print access disabilities.  In the hearings that were conducted on the Senate side, I believe there was a shift of focus from what the publishers are required to do versus what the UCCSN is required to do.  I fully appreciate everything that was done in support of Senate Bill 62 up to date; however, I think there is still work that needs to be done.  I think that things that need to be addressed are more directive in nature to the publisher than directive in nature to the UCCSN.  I believe those things can be accomplished without a fiscal note, and I believe they can be accomplished without creating a chill effect on publishers wanting to do business with the UCCSN. 

 

[Steven Dickerson continued.]  I have prepared most of my testimony in written form (Exhibit G), which I have supplied for all of you, because I realize the fullness of your agenda.  Also, I have supplied a copy of Kentucky’s current legislation (Exhibit H), which was just passed about a month ago and deals with the exact same issue.  In that legislation, you can see that they had questions on how to address this very same point, as well as fiscal note questions.  I believe that Kentucky was very artful in the way that they crafted their legislation, should there be funding available to do certain things, but also within the body of the language of the Kentucky law, they did very clearly state what the requirements would be from publishers.

 

I think that technology use has become something that we need to embrace fully.  I have no doubt that the UCCSN will continue to do the wonderful things they are already doing.  However, I believe that Senate Bill 62 needs to be very clear in its direct mandate on what publishers are going to be required to do so that students will be able to have all the necessary tools that they need to make sure that their educational experience is rewarding.  I am available to answer any questions that you may have related to this issue.  I urge you to consider the language that is currently in Senate Bill 62 and take a path that will be bringing Nevada more towards the future. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Chancellor, how do you feel about this amendment?

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

I have not seen the amendment that he has presented to you, but if I understand the thrust of the amendment, we did testify on the Senate side in opposition to the requirement on the publishers at this point in time.  Our fear is that, because Nevada is such a small purchaser of textbooks, we do not have the ability to force a publisher to provide that format if it is not already available or financially feasible for the publisher.  The state of California has, in fact, gone on record and required those materials in their university system to be provided by the publishers.  However, their purchasing power is so much greater than ours.

 

Our professors are concerned that if they have a particular book that is, for example, an historic book that may not have been newly created within the last ten years and was not now available, that they might be forced to select another book.  That is the chilling effect that Mr. Dickerson refers to.  I applaud Mr. Dickerson in wanting to give us the leverage to force the publisher to do this.  This is really a judgment call on all of our parts.  We do not believe, in our conversations with publishers, that they would respond.  We think they would simply say that the book is not available.

 

[Dr. Jane Nichols continued.]  Under this legislation, if it were written that it had to be available from the publisher or we couldn’t use it, we would have to select another book.  I think in two or four years we could come back and put that requirement in place as the field progresses.  At this point in time, our professors are fearful of that absolute requirement being in there.

 

If you would give us the time to record, for example, just how many textbooks are not available in electronic form, we would be in a much better position to judge whether it would be possible for us to do this.  There is no question that, nationally, publishers are being pressured to have materials available.  This bill would force the publisher to provide them to us.  We think that, at this point in time, this bill is where we need to be.  We have an absolute commitment that all students will receive these materials in the correct format.

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you, Chancellor.  Mr. Dickerson, what is your response to the Chancellor’s position on that amendment?

 

Steven Dickerson:

I believe that publishing is already embracing the concepts of providing universally accessible textbooks.  The publishing industry is currently signed on to support the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, and that is a piece of national legislation that will address this same issue in the K-12 grades.  I believe that Nevada uses many of the same publishers that California also uses.  I believe the publishers within this region are ready to provide this material, but I believe they want a clear mandate on what it is they’re supposed to provide or not provide.

 

I believe that this particular hearing, as well as the Senate hearing, was an opportunity for publishers to come forward and voice their opposition, if they had any.  As of yet, I have not seen anyone from the publishing industry come forward to say that they are opposed to this.  I believe that is in part because the American Association of Publishers has completely signed on and is committed to making electronic textbooks available in all different types of media.  I think publishing sees this as the first step on expanding their market.

 

I don’t believe there will be a chill effect, and I also don’t believe that publishers will run for cover if legislation is passed that has very clear and definite mandates.  California, Kentucky, Arkansas, New York, and Texas are examples of states that have already passed legislation dealing with this exact same issue in their postsecondary educational systems.

 

Dr. Jane Nichols:

Our professors disagree.  Many of the books that are used, and much of the material that is used in our classrooms at the university level, or at the graduate level, are not textbooks.  They’re not what you would traditionally think of as textbooks, and they often might not mirror California, or Texas, or Kentucky.  We do not disagree in philosophy, and we do not disagree in the direction that the field is moving.  We simply ask that, at this point in time, you not tie our professors’ hands to a publisher having to provide material. 

 

There is nothing that forces the publisher to have the textbook at our universities.  They can say it is not available, and therefore we would not be able to use it at this point in time.  We do not have the “power of the purse.”  I think the national legislation, and national trends, will move us in that direction.  At this point in time, we would ask that you pass S.B. 62 in its current form, as passed out of the Senate, and we will guarantee that our students get the materials in the format that they need.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions from the Committee?  Ms. Bibb?

 

Chelsea Bibb, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) student and representative for Service for Sight in Reno:

[Introduced herself.]  I am here in support of S.B. 62.  It is my feeling that every student has the right to learn in the best way possible, regardless of disability.  This last month, I was part of a campus fundraising effort that raised over $1200.  That will stay within the University to help pay for a reader and other nonprinted instructional material.  This equipment, and the equipment and materials outlined in S.B. 62, is necessary for a positive and productive learning environment.  I urge your support of S.B. 62.

 

Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby and National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Nevada Chapter:

Both organizations, the Nevada Women’s Lobby (NWL) and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Nevada Chapter, support S.B. 62.  I really should tell you that both organizations independently looked at this and made their determination, and I’m happy to be able to testify on many bills in support for both groups.  I believe that Steven Dickerson has presented the case very well for providing access to printed materials for students who are visually impaired.  I’m sure that it’s already clear to the members of this Committee how much Steven relies on technology to achieve his educational goals.  I must admit, listening to him, his accomplishments are certainly a record, and he has achieved a great deal, and still has a great deal to do.

 

[Bobbie Gang continued.]  While we respect the Chancellor’s comments in support of S.B. 62 as well as the University’s commitment to provide the necessary materials in electronic form, we also feel that Steven knows firsthand what is needed from the student’s point of view.  We would like to see S.B. 62 amended, as Steven has suggested, or perhaps there is some language that could be drafted to accommodate both the University’s concerns and Steven’s concerns.  We urge you to consider the request that has been made in his amendment.

 

Chairman Williams:

It’s an important piece of legislation.  Whatever form that legislation ends up in coming out of this Committee, I hope it serves as many students as possible.  I think your suggestion of coming up with an alternative look at some other things that can be worked out is a good one.  The Legislative Committee on Education meets after the session, and one of the things that had been suggested by staff is a Letter of Intent.  The Chancellor could keep us informed on how the process is working, if the amendment is not successful.  I think there is some support for the amendment.

 

By the same token, we want to make sure that we pass legislation that helps these students to get the necessary equipment, materials, and reading materials that they need.  My opinion is that it’s not an “either/or” with the bill.  With or without the amendment, I think we can move toward getting both of those accomplishments done.  I appreciate your support and your willingness to suggest that some diplomatic resolution comes forward on this.

 

Bobbie Gang:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I think you’ve gotten my message tonight.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there anyone else to testify on this bill?  If not, we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 62 and open the hearing on the last bill on the agenda today, Senate Bill 317.  Senator Wiener?

 

Senate Bill 317 (2nd Reprint):  Makes various changes relating to incarcerated persons. (BDR 34-594)

 

Senator Valerie Wiener, representing Senatorial District No. 3:

[She introduced herself and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit I)].  S.B. 317 is the end product of work done in the interim by the Governor’s Study Committee on Corrections.  Assemblyman Greg Brower, Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Senator Mark Amodei, and I were appointed to that Committee to find ways to improve the state corrections system.  We, along with other appointees from very special interest areas who brought expertise to the table, worked for an entire year, sometimes in two-day meetings, to help establish recommendations that we could send to the Governor suggesting cost-effective improvements in the Department of Corrections’ operations, policies and practices.  S.B. 317 represents that work product in one area, and that’s corrections education. 

 

[Senator Wiener continued.]  S.B. 317 creates an enhanced relationship between the Department of Education and the Department of Corrections.  In Section 3, you’ll see that the Department of Education will consult with the Department of Corrections to adopt regulations to establish a statewide program of education for incarcerated persons.  The Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Corrections, will also coordinate and assist school districts in operating programs of education for incarcerated persons.

 

The statewide program that is established by this legislation may include courses of study for a high school diploma, basic literacy, English as a Second Language, general educational development, life skills, occupational skills, and postsecondary education.  The statewide program will not include general education programs, vocational education programs, and training; those courses will be established by the Board of State Prison Commissioners.  The statewide program must establish standards for each course of study in terms of curriculum, qualifications for entry, and evaluation of incarcerated persons for placement.  Also, the statewide program must establish procedures to ensure that credits earned in an educational program operated in one school district can be transferred to another institution operated in another school district.

 

Section 4 of the bill creates a fund for programs of education for incarcerated persons.  This fund is allowed to accept donations, gifts, and grants from any source.  However, money in the fund must not be considered in the negotiations between recognized employer organizations and school districts or in any efforts to reduce the amount of money that would otherwise be made available to programs for incarcerated persons.

 

The Department of Education is required to establish a formula for equitably allocating money from the fund to each school district that operates a prison education program.  Also, the State Board shall establish, annually, as the money is available, a basic allocation to each school district that is operating a school prison program.  Section 5 allows a school district board of trustees, with the cooperation of the Department of Corrections, to operate a program of education for incarcerated persons in a facility or institution that the Department of Corrections operates in a particular county and within that school district.

 

[Senator Wiener continued.]  A school district that operates such a program shall comply with the Department of Education’s standards established for the statewide program that I mentioned earlier in my testimony.  To receive an allocation from the statewide program’s fund, the school district has two major requirements.  They must submit to the Department of Education an application to operate the program, and they must submit a detailed budget.  Section 6 allows the Board of Regents of the UCCSN, in cooperation with Corrections, to offer courses that lead to postsecondary degrees for incarcerated persons.  This, again, is an enabling provision.

 

Section 7 addresses situations where the Warden, or Facility Manager, might exclude an employee of the operating school district from the facility or institution.  This provides for an interagency panel to address the expulsion, and the panel will include the Director of the Department of Corrections, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the immediate supervisor of the excluded employee.  Sections 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the bill provide for earning credits for educational achievement.  These are earned according to the educational program.  For earning a General Educational Development certificate, 30 days; for a high school diploma, 60 days; for an associate degree, 90 days. 

 

You will also note changed language in Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17.  These are updates.  I’ve become the antiquated statutory language queen in the Senate.  It’s antiquated language in this particular section, but it’s been resolved in the Education sections of NRS, so we are updating the language here.  What we refer to as the General Equivalency Diploma, which does not exist, will be changed to reflect the accuracy of the document, which, in new language, is the General Educational Development certificate.

 

Section 15 is a new section that was added in the Judiciary Committee in the Assembly, by request.  This section deals with new procedures to relieve the overcrowding of city and county jails.  I’ve asked Captain Jim Nadeau, who’s representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, to explain this in more detail, both what it involves and the reason for it.  Senate Bill 317 reflects a needed change that is long overdue, and I’m probably underestimating to say, decades overdue.  It is the hope of the Governor’s Study Committee that with this particular piece of legislation, we will create an effective, fluid educational system that will produce opportunities for inmates to reenter their communities with an education and, most often, with a vocational skill.

 

This will provide them with opportunities for legitimate success, not the likelihood for illegal behavior and failure.  Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 95 percent of our inmates will one day see the other side of an institutional wall.  We want to substantially reduce the recidivism that we are now experiencing.  We want to rehabilitate inmates so that they can be contributors to our communities, not just takers and victimizers.  S.B. 317 will help us accomplish these goals.  It is for these reasons that I urge your support for Senate Bill 317.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions from the Committee?  Thank you, Senator.

 

Marta J. Hall, Academic and Vocational Programs, Department of Corrections:

[She introduced herself and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit J).]  I urge your support for this bill as well.  Upon receiving recommendations from the Governor’s Study Committee on Corrections, I started doing my homework.  What I discovered is that correctional education systems that are left in the hands of educators are much more effective than those done by correctional systems themselves.  Other states, such as West Virginia, Delaware, Florida, and Maryland have very strong connections with their Departments of Education.  They also have some of the best practices in the nation.  That was the model upon which we built our proposal.  Your support for this bill would allow the Department of Education, and the Department of Corrections, to collaboratively do the right thing in providing a correctional education system for our inmates. 

 

Carl Shaff, representing the Nevada Department of Education:

[Introduced himself.]  First of all, I’d like to thank Senator Wiener for bringing this bill to the forefront and for giving us the opportunity to present it.  We have been working for the better part of 18 months with the corrections institution, the school districts, and the Department of Education to come up with some kind of solution.  This is the first time I can recall that we came to a consensus, and we all agree that this is something we should do, and we should work together on.  I would like to thank everybody for your time.

 

We’ve already developed, or are in the process of developing, the curriculum.  We’re in the process of making sure that the transferability of credits is acceptable among all institutions, and I would certainly like to urge your support for Senate Bill 317.  In addition, I would like to add that there is no fiscal note.  It’s something that we are currently doing; it would just give us the chance to enhance what we’re currently doing in a better way.

 

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association:

[Introduced herself.]  NSEA is in support of S.B. 317.  We want to again thank Senator Wiener for ensuring that we were brought to the table in discussion of this bill.  Section 7 of the bill addresses an area of concern for us that deals with discipline of teachers who teach in these facilities, and it gives us a form of due process that we previously did not have.  We believe this is a great improvement.  If a teacher were removed from the prison property by the warden, previously there was no hearing, and there was no recourse for that teacher.  Section 7 of this bill does provide due process, and we are very pleased with that.  We do support this bill. 

 

Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:

[Introduced himself.]  I would like to thank the sponsors of S.B. 317, Senator Wiener and her associates for letting us tag onto the bill.  I would also like to thank you and the Committee on Judiciary Chairman Anderson for sharing the bill [by concurrent referral].  I will explain the language in Section 15.  This language will streamline the process for releasing inmates in an overcrowded jail situation.  It will avoid intervention by federal courts.  The Washoe County Jail is, at this particular time, starting to encroach on our maximum population for the jail.  We anticipate that it won’t be long before our jail will be overpopulated.  We’re hoping this language will allow us to avoid any type of federal consent decree or intervention and give us the tools to release inmates out of that jail.

 

The process will be for us to petition the Chief District Court Judge for an order to release prisoners.  He will then consult with the lower courts, the Justice and Municipal Courts.  At that point, they will issue a court order.  This process, as outlined in this statute, basically codifies what has been used in Clark County, and it is a process that we feel needs to be codified in order for us to implement it.  We have support by our Criminal Justice Advisory Committee, the Nevada Judges Association, the Eighth Judicial District, and the Second Judicial District.  We’ve had no opposition to any of the language in this bill.  We appreciate everyone for allowing us to bring forward the initial amendment to the Judiciary Committee and to you for sharing this bill with Mr. Anderson.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any comments?  With that, we’ll close the hearing on this bill.  Is there a motion?  Mr. Mabey?

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 317.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Andonov and Mr. Geddes were not present for the vote.)

Chairman Williams:

We’ll now go to the work session documents.  We have two bills on the work session.  We just received word that Senator Cegavske and Ms. Cahill have reached a consensus on Senator Cegavske’s bill, S.B. 390.  They both agree on it, so we’re ready to entertain a motion on that bill.  Ms. Cahill, do you want to confirm this?

 

Debbie Cahill:

I have had an opportunity to review Senator Cegavske’s proposed amendment (Exhibit K) to the bill, and we are in agreement. 

 

[The amendment specifies that, until 2007, the appointment noted in subsection 2 of Section 1 be made by the appointing authority to the extent qualified persons are available who are eligible and willing to serve.  Section 3 is deleted altogether, and Section 1, as written, would then be effective January 1, 2007.] 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 390. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Andonov and Mr. Geddes were not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

In the work session document, we have Senate Bill 34 [Tab A of the Work Session Document Exhibit L].  Ms. Stonefield?

 

Senate Bill 34 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions governing pupils in public schools. (BDR 34-639)

 

Carol Stonefield:

Senate Bill 34 was before the Committee on Monday, May 12, 2003, and was set aside for additional information.  The work session document contains the opinion of the Attorney General from 1999 that relates to the section of the bill that concerns the apparent conflict of two sections of the NRS.  If you turn to page 2 of the Attorney General’s opinion, there’s a bracket in the margin highlighting two paragraphs.  The Attorney General’s opinion there highlights the two sections of the NRS that seem to be in conflict.

 

The opinion does resolve that issue, as far as application of those two sections is concerned.  The Attorney General found that those provisions in NRS 392.125 which require that a pupil be retained in a grade only one time are applicable to all other grades except eighth grade, and that NRS 392.033, which requires that a pupil meet the requirements in order to be promoted to high school, would apply to the eighth grade.  That was the information that was requested on Monday.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

The bill would allow preschoolers to go to kindergarten, and I think there are some fiscal issues there.  As I recall, Clark County School District and Washoe County School District were opposed to it.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

I appreciate your giving me a chance to speak on this bill.  Unfortunately, I was providing testimony in another committee hearing the afternoon this Committee most recently took testimony on this bill.  Dr. Craig Kadlub of the Clark County School District included Washoe County School District in his testimony.  We agree with the opposition that Clark County School District has put on record about this.

 

There is an emerging body of research that indicates that, in the spring of the kindergarten year, younger children had lower reading and mathematics knowledge and skills on the average than did their older counterparts.  We believe there is other research that indicates this.  This is research that has come out of the Education Testing Service in 2002 that, because of the complex nature of school readiness, decision-makers should carefully consider early admissions policies for children into kindergarten.

 

I believe that you’ve also heard from Dr. Craig Kadlub, and I will reiterate, that the Washoe County School District does not have a gifted and talented program for children in first and second grades.  If the target population is gifted and talented preschoolers, there seems to be research that indicates those children might have developmental issues that would result in their lower reading and math skills, on the average, than their older counterparts.  We would not be able to provide challenging gifted and talented programs for them in the first and second grades.  We have continuing policy concerns about this issue, and we also have concerns about the equity piece that is now included in the bill. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Dr. Merrill, if Section 1 were amended out, and we left in subsection 2, could you support the bill?

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

May I take just a moment?  [Dr. Merrill looked over that section.]  Yes, Mr. Chairman, in response to your question, we would definitely support the bill if it went forward with Sections 2 and 3, and if Section 1 went away.  We have asked for guidance from LCB legal staff on this very issue, and we certainly have relied upon the Attorney General’s ruling, but we believe this is important clarification on the statute.

 

Chairman Williams:

So, those in opposition would support the bill if Section 1 were amended out.  Is there a motion?

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 34, WITH AMENDMENT DELETING SECTION 1.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Andonov and Mr. Geddes were not present for the vote.  Mr. Mabey abstained from the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

We have one other bill in the work session.  I want to remind members that Mr. McCleary’s wife was gracious enough to prepare for the Committee tonight a full turkey dinner with all the trimmings.  She thought we would be here really late tonight, but she still will get here by the time we finish up this last bill.  The last bill to be heard is Senate Bill 306.  Ms. Stonefield?

 

Senate Bill 306 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions governing educational benefits provided to members of Nevada National Guard. (BDR 36-991)

 

Carol Stonefield:

Senate Bill 306, Tab B of the work session document (Exhibit M), repeals the current provisions in the Nevada Revised Statutes setting out the program for paying educational benefits for members of the Nevada National Guard.  It replaces them with language specifying that the Board of Regents may grant certain waivers for tuition and fees.  The measure provides that the Board may waive tuition, registration fees, and laboratory fees for any member of the active Nevada National Guard including a recruit.

 

In order to qualify, a person must be a resident of Nevada; be a member in good standing of the active Nevada National Guard; and maintain a minimum Grade Point Average (GPA) of 2.0 for each semester.  The Board of Regents may seek verification that a person is an active member in the Guard.  If the waiver is granted to a recruit, and the recruit does not enter full-time National Guard duty within one year after enlisting, the recruit must reimburse the Board of Regents for all tuition and fees waived.

 

[Ms. Stonefield continued.]  Proponents cited an existing program in New York, and also stated that this could be used as a recruiting tool for the National Guard.  There were approximately 150 students utilizing the benefit on average.  It was characterized as an incentive program, not a scholarship.  It was noted by the National Guard that if the residency requirement remains in the bill it may negatively impact recruitment, since 68 percent of the members of the Nevada National Guard are not residents of this state.

 

There has been an amendment that has been proposed.  It is in your work session document.  It proposes to direct the Board of Regents to extend a reduced nonresident tuition benefit to Guard members who reside outside of the state of Nevada and who enroll at an institution of the UCCSN.  I did want to point out that, as staff, Senate Bill 306 does not specify whether the educational benefit is limited only to undergraduate education, or if it applies to graduate degrees as well, because the bill is currently silent on that issue.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 306.  THE AMENDMENT DIRECTS THE BOARD OF REGENTS TO EXTEND A REDUCED NONRESIDENT TUITION BENEFIT TO GUARD MEMBERS WHO RESIDE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA AND WHO ENROLL AT AN INSTITUTION OF THE UCCSN.

 

Chairman Williams:

There’s a motion to amend and do pass by Mr. Horne.  Is there a second?  No second?  Mr. Horne, do you mind if there is discussion before your motion?  Mrs. Koivisto?

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

My concern is with the amendment.  Nevada already has lower tuition rates than most states, and we have a good neighbor policy that affects counties of states neighboring Nevada.  I am recalling Ms. Stonefield’s remarks that only 6 to 8 percent are out-of-state students.  I have a real concern about that.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I echo Mrs. Koivisto’s comments.  Six to 8 percent is the size of the Guard from out-of-state; that’s not necessarily the student population, unless I misunderstood that.  I don’t think that amendment’s necessary.  Either way, I can live with that.  When I was in the National Guard, they paid for half of your college tuition, the federal government did, for joining.  Are we going to be reimbursed for that portion?  Do you see what I’m saying?  I think that was brought out in the testimony, but I don’t remember if it was answered.  Does anyone have an answer to that question?

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

As I recall, that was discussed.  This would supplant.  As I look at the tuition issue, we did not want to have the tuition come back, in a roundabout way, out of the General Fund.  What this does is removes money from the General Fund, in a roundabout way, but we don’t want it to come back and then have another assessment.  This tuition waiver ends up being a better deal for the Guard member, as well as for the state.  I think it is of benefit to both, and I suspect there’s a lobbyist who could answer some of those specific questions if the Chairman would entertain such comments. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Mr. Fiorentino, would you like to spend time with the Committee members that may have some concerns?  We don’t have to vote on this today.

 

Mark Fiorentino, representing the University System (UCCSN):

Allow me to reiterate that this is not our bill.  I would be happy, if you pass it with or without the amendment, to work with the members of the Committee who have a concern.  I checked, at your request; I do not have an accurate answer to what happens to the federal dollars; that’s beyond my scope of knowledge.  I checked with both Senator Care and the University System about this amendment.  The idea of this amendment would be to remove the residency requirement, but to make sure you didn’t get “double-dipped.”  If the University grants a waiver, for purposes of budgeting, they would deem a National Guard member an in-state student.  When they do the budget, they would count an in-state fee.  If you’re waiving a fee, it doesn’t matter whether you’re waiving an out-of-state fee, or an in-state fee, you’re waiving it either way.  That was the intent.

 

To go back to the beginning, we’re happy—and I think Senator Care would appreciate moving the bill along—to work with Committee members who had concerns and to fix it as we go along.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

That’s how I remember it.  Also, I would like to go on record saying I like it with the amendment waiving the tuition for out-of-state Guard members, primarily because these individuals are still serving our state.  That’s why we’re doing this; we’re doing it because these individuals serve our state.  Mr. McCleary noted that he served in the Guard; I did also, and we have another veteran, Mr. Andonov.  Maybe I’m coming from a different point, but I grew up an Air Force brat.  I remember a time when, if you served in the military, you were taken care of.  My grandfather was taken care of; he served in the military, and he became disabled from that service.  My father, who died while in the service, was taken care of and all of us were taken care of.  I have noticed over the years how that level of care has diminished, for whatever reason.  It’s not the same as it used to be.  All we’re doing here is talking about, with the Air National Guard of Nevada, a handful of those service members, and we’re going to waive their fees because they’re serving our state.  I have no problems with that, and I will vote for this bill.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Geddes and Mr. Andonov were not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

Go back to Senate Bill 62, the one that we heard earlier, regarding the print access.  There was an amendment proposed; the Chancellor was not friendly to that amendment, but the Chancellor was friendly to monitoring and giving reports to the progress on this.  There was also a suggestion of a Letter of Intent.  I’m bringing this back to the Committee to see what the thoughts are with the Committee.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 62.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Andonov and Mr. Geddes were not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

Regarding Senate Bill 59, the alternative scheduling, I would feel comfortable, and it appears that the sponsors of the bill would feel comfortable, with the population clause to deal with the rural schools that have expressed specifically what their concerns are.  What is the wish of the Committee?

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

I would feel comfortable with a population cap, and I would like to see it at 100,000.  I don’t know if you are prepared to move now, or if you want members to have an opportunity to discuss this with some of the other folks who may have had concerns. 

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

Will we also be able to consider rural schools in Clark County, or will it be that the whole county would have to follow the same rules?  Laughlin is certainly rural and some of the other small communities.

 

Chairman Williams:

Good question.  We could do population and rural communities.  Mrs. Angle?

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I would like to see this go the way it is, don’t amend it with the population cap.  I think with the things that are in place right now within the bill, those concerns are taken care of for the more urban areas.  If we were going to put a population cap on it, it would be something that you would deal with, because I don’t think that Washoe County has any problems with this.  I think there are areas in Clark County that should be considered, and I think, with the way the bill is, those concerns are taken care of.  I would make a motion to do pass. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I represent Mesquite to Laughlin, Moapa Valley, Logandale, Bunkerville, Primm, Jean, and everything in between.  The reality is there are rural schools there that could benefit from some alternative scheduling.  It would allow them increased class time, even in Moapa, where there’s a school with a beautiful gym.  There are some schools that would benefit in rural Clark County that I represent.  I think the Department of Education of the state and the school district can have the flexibility, especially in the permissive nature of the bill, so that I would feel comfortable having my rural schools having the opportunity to participate in more classroom time, and still get their other benefits, as well as the teachers who are in the same situation with traveling.

 

Chairman Williams:

What about urban districts that may do this because of other reasons that haven’t been brought to our attention?

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I think there are some advantages, with the permissive nature, to look at those things that were discussed with the larger schools, or the larger school districts.  If you really got down to “push and shove,” you could talk about alternative schedules just in what time the school starts.  If you’re looking at energy savings even.  I like the concepts of the minutes that the child is exposed to in the classroom, and to the teacher, and “minutes” is a standard that is much better than “days” because it’s the minutes that the kids are in class.  Particularly, as you pointed out, the collective bargaining standard is in the bill.  I think it gives some flexibility that would be good on both sides.

 

Chairman Williams:

This collective bargaining position was agreed to, but it’s not in the bill.  What if we take out the population clause, and put that language concerning the collective bargaining agreement in the bill?  Mrs. Angle, would you feel comfortable with that?

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Would you repeat that again?

 

Chairman Williams:

Those who testified today indicated that if the district chose to go with an alternative schedule, it would be subject to collective bargaining.  They all agreed to that, but it’s not in the bill.  If we do not go with the population clause, would you feel comfortable putting that language in that any change in schedule would be subject to collective bargaining agreements? 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Yes.

 

Chairman Williams:

I would, too.  I would back away from my position on the population clause.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 59, WITH AN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Geddes was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ve had, Mr. Atkinson, seven bills and all the work session documents completed.  Good thing we’re not in the same room since 8:00 a.m. this morning.  Mr. Mabey?

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

I really had a long speech prepared, but since it’s late, I wanted to tell you thanks, it’s been a pleasure serving on the Committee with you.  [A round of applause ensued.] 

Chairman Williams:

I appreciate that.  We will be back, though.  We have a couple of bills that are exempt.  Save the long speech for then, but I appreciate that.  We want to give you a reminder that the turkey dinner will be here probably about 6:30 p.m.  Is that the time it will fly in?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

She should be here between now and 6:30.  She might even be here now.  For those who are leaving, I’m sorry, you’re going to miss out on some good chow. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Let’s give Mr. McCleary a hand that today his wife would do such a nice thing.  [A round of applause for Mr. McCleary and his wife was given.]  We have a couple of bills that are exempt, yes.  [Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m.]

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

Victoria Thompson

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

 

DATE: