MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
April 15, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:18 a.m., on Tuesday, April 15, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, District No. 1
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District No. 8
Assemblyman John Oceguera, District No. 16
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill 266: Revises provisions governing education and makes appropriations for education. (BDR 34-903)
Chairman Arberry recognized Anne Loring, President of the Nevada Association of School Boards, who thanked the Committee for the opportunity to hear A.B. 266, which was popularly known as the “iNVest proposal.” Ms. Loring acknowledged Chairman Arberry with a special thank you for accommodating them today. Parents, teachers, students, and other educators had traveled across the state to be present for an event yesterday afternoon and for the hearing this morning. Profound gratitude was also extended to staff because Ms. Loring understood this had been a very difficult time during the session and she was very appreciative of the help.
She read the following testimony into the record:
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the most sweeping education bill ever enacted by the United States Congress, No Child Left Behind. This law places an enormous responsibility upon Nevada’s Legislature, who under our Constitution has responsibility for public education in our state. It also places an enormous responsibility upon your 17 school districts and their boards, to whom you delegate the governance and administration of public education in Nevada. The intent of No Child Left Behind is that by 2014, every Nevada student will be proficient in Nevada’s standards in reading, mathematics, and science. To get there, steady progress must be made by each separate ethnic group, as well as low socioeconomic, special education, and limited English-proficient students. The federal law prescribes very extensive and detailed requirements for assessments, accountability reports, corrective actions, and other related matters such as teacher and paraprofessional qualifications.
The Nevada Senate is currently working on the implementation legislation that will put No Child Left Behind into effect in Nevada – Senate Bill 191. This is a major undertaking that will require considerable work and money. But this deals just with the bureaucratic aspect of No Child Left Behind. As important as that is, there is much more.
That Senate bill is about implementing No Child Left Behind. But our bill – A.B. 266 – is actually about Leaving No Child Behind. They are two very different issues.
We need to step back a moment and look at this task before us. In the early part of the 1900s when my dad, who is now 94, graduated from high school in Pennsylvania, about 75-90 percent of high school freshmen dropped out of high school before graduation. That was true nationwide. It wasn’t until the 1950s that we passed the 50 percent dropout point in this country – the point at which more students graduated from high school than dropped out. In that era, that was okay. A man could support a family with unskilled labor that did not require a high school diploma – whether it was in the coal mines of Pennsylvania or manufacturing jobs or other unskilled work around the country.
As we start the 21st century, that is no longer true. Now students preparing to enter the workforce need to plan on graduating from high school and pursuing at least some post-high school education or training to obtain a job that will support themselves and their families. The days of unskilled jobs that will support a family on one paycheck are gone. Even now in Nevada, minimum wage or low-skill, low-pay service jobs will not support a family, which is why in many households both parents must work, not uncommonly at more than one job each, to earn enough to live. As Nevada struggles to diversify its economy, we must provide a skilled workforce to attract high-paying jobs to our state.
Educating all of Nevada’s students to high standards is not just about meeting the requirements of a federal law. It is about giving Nevada and all Nevadans a bright future. But understand – never before in the history of this state or of this country have we ever tried, or had to do this. This is a huge challenge.
The challenge is even more than this because our state’s population is changing dramatically. Large numbers of our K-12 students arrive in our schools not speaking or understanding English. Those numbers will continue to grow dramatically. While that was also true at the turn of the last century, the difference then was that a rudimentary knowledge of English and a willingness to work hard could provide enough money for a family to live. Today, a student must not only know how to speak, understand, read, and write English but also know and be able to use algebra and geometry and science in order to obtain a good job. This is an incredible challenge.
During the last legislative session, you and Governor Guinn asked us – our 17 school boards and our superintendents – to lay out what it would take to educate Nevada’s children to the standards you set through the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997. We are here today with the answer. Let me just say, because some folks have not clearly understood, that we understand this plan cannot be funded in a single stroke, especially in these very trying times. But you asked us to lay out the plan, and here it is. What we must do is get started funding and implementing this plan – not just to implement No Child Left Behind but to keep Nevada strong.
A.B. 266 is based on four tenets. I will very briefly describe them and then present our superintendents to give you more detail.
The first tenet is that we must stabilize the basic support of our school systems. We simply cannot continue to keep “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” or delaying textbook purchases to pay for liability insurance. I am continually asked by our constituents, “Why, if you get more money per student, do you have to cut anything?” That’s a fair question. The answer is that the “more money” hasn’t been enough in recent years to cover the skyrocketing cost of health insurance premiums for our employees, or gasoline for our school busses, or electricity for our classrooms, or post-9/11 increases in liability insurance, or that threshold cost of opening a new school building.
The second tenet is that we must have the capacity to attract and retain a high-quality workforce to operate our schools. In the last four years, purchasing power of our employees has been eroded by up to 10 percent at a time when competition for high-quality teachers, administrators, and classified employees has become tougher. We need to provide training and professional development to our staffs to meet the requirements for high-quality teachers and paraprofessionals in No Child Left Behind and to operate safe and efficient school facilities. We now know the incredible power of effective teachers on our students’ learning, and we must ensure that every child has an effective teacher in every subject, every year. That takes time and professional development.
The third tenet is time – instructional time for students. We know that the children entering kindergarten in Nevada arrive with enormous variations in the level of their preparation. The achievement gap exists the day the children walk in the door. There is no way to close that gap if in their first year these children all get the same 2½ hours of instruction and over the next 13 years the children who start out behind never have the chance to catch up. We must give them that time. And we must give extra time to the students who need extra time to figure out algebra, or physics, or reading.
Finally, we must provide additional educational opportunities for the most challenging students. We cannot expect the students who come to us not speaking English to be able to master Nevada’s standards without extra help. Regrettably, some of our students are serious discipline problems and yet we must educate them to the same high standards.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, you and we, the 107 elected school board members in our districts, have a huge task ahead of us. We must Leave No Child Behind – not because it is the law but because it is the right thing to do for those children and for Nevada’s future.
I would now like to introduce five of our district superintendents representing the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, who will walk through the bill with you.
Ms. Loring introduced Dr. Mary Pierczynski, Superintendent of the Carson City School District. Dr. Pierczynski advised she was appearing before the Committee on behalf of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents.
Dr. Pierczynski commented as the members had heard from Ms. Loring, this bill was a plan about how to improve student achievement in Nevada. It was a long-term road map and although the superintendents were not asking that everything be funded this session, they were encouraged that one-third of the items included in A.B. 266 were already in The Executive Budget. This was a good start and Dr. Pierczynski said this would be a point of dialogue in the years to come.
The first tenet of A.B. 266 was that the state must stabilize the basic support of the school systems. Dr. Pierczynski called attention to Section 1 of the bill wherein she said the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall propose within the Distributive School Account a budget that would realistically project costs for all aspects of K-12 funding, including costs for salary, merit, and benefit increases, cost-of-living adjustments, costs for supplies, equipment, services, fuel and utilities based upon published indices and research; costs for existing and proposed educational programs, and general operations of the school districts.
Dr. Pierczynski indicated Section 2 showed there was no fiscal impact associated with the section that proposed that school districts shall maintain a 5 percent ending fund balance, not to be used to settle arbitration disputes between employee organizations and school districts, or to settle any negotiations between employee groups and school districts. The superintendents contended that a 5 percent ending fund balance was necessary to maintain positive bond ratings and the potential to deal with emergency revenue situations.
For example, Dr. Pierczynski said, the Clark County ending fund balance would operate the school district for two and one-half days; Washoe County contended they could only operate their schools in the morning until noon on their ending fund balance. That was a major issue, commented Dr. Pierczynski.
Chairman Arberry asked how much the ending fund balance would help. Dr. Pierczynski responded that Clark County estimated their ending fund balance was at approximately 1 percent.
Referring to Section 13, Dr. Pierczynski said the superintendents and trustees in all 17 school districts had to cut numerous important educational programs and/or reduce important educational services in order to provide balanced budgets as required by statute. Section 13 proposed to add amounts necessary to restore those programs and services, and the total amount required was $158.5 million over the biennium. Section 14 reflected that again inflationary costs had far outstripped enhancements to the Distributive School Account (DSA). Dr. Pierczynski said Section 14 proposed that the DSA fully fund increases for utilities, property and liability insurance, health insurance, and educational supplies. The total cost necessary to keep up with inflation in those areas was $40 million over the biennium.
In Section 15, Dr. Pierczynski indicated that little else had risen in cost as much as instructional supplies, instructional equipment, and textbooks. For example, the average 10th grader in Nevada used textbooks that cost approximately $324 per year. Even supplies and materials for kindergarten cost more than $210 per student per year. There was no doubt the cost of textbooks would continue to increase. Therefore, in Section 15, Dr. Pierczynski proposed that $39 million be allocated for the important use of ensuring that the lack of decent materials did not stunt student achievement.
Dr. Pierczynski called attention to Section 18 and said all Nevada school districts had seen costs for health insurance rise dramatically in recent years. A healthy workforce would result in a healthy instructional environment in which all educational personnel and students benefited. The cost for that proposal was $71 million over the biennium.
Dr. Pierczynski introduced her colleague, John Soderman, Superintendent of the Douglas County School District, and said he would speak about the second tenet.
Mr. Soderman indicated he was also speaking on behalf of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents regarding the second tenet of iNVest. The school districts must have the capacity to attract and retain a high-quality workforce to operate schools. The first section to deal with that tenet was Section 17. To begin to adequately compensate educational personnel, A.B. 266 proposed a 5 percent salary increase in each year of the biennium. As was noted earlier, teachers and other educational personnel had lost purchasing power in the last two bienniums, and only 2 percent had been made available on the salary schedule through legislation. The cost of that increase over the biennium was $268 million.
In order to attract highly qualified, effective teachers to Nevada, Mr. Soderman called attention to Section 19, which proposed signing bonuses, as established by the Legislature in 2001, be continued for the next biennium. The cost of that proposal was $10 million and represented $2,000 per newly hired employee for approximately 2,500 employees in each year of the biennium.
Mr. Soderman said that in recognizing the difficulties of hiring professional employees in certain areas, Section 20 proposed stipends to attract and retain high-quality teachers in math, English language learning, special education, and school psychologists. It was also recommended that teachers in at-risk schools received a stipend, and those at-risk schools were defined as having 50 percent or more students who received free and reduced-price school lunches. The stipend in those schools would be $3,000 per teacher. The superintendents had proposed $33 million for that purpose.
Section 21 proposed the addition of five days to the school year to be used for focused professional development for educational personnel. Mr. Soderman advised that funds were requested in the amount of $87 million, and Section 21 stipulated the funds could be used only for the professional development of teachers. Currently, school districts had minimum days or non-school days for needed staff development required to meet high standards. This section would put those days outside the student contract year, and thus increase the school contract year by five school days.
Mr. Soderman advised that three more superintendents would be presenting the last tenet of the iNVest proposal.
Nat Lommori, Superintendent of Lyon County School District, indicated he was before the Committee on behalf of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents. The third tenet was instructional time for students. Sections 3, 6, 12, and 22 related to a proposal for full-day kindergarten for at-risk students. It should be noted that this proposal had been included in The Executive Budget. Children at high risk came to school in need of that extra time to catch up and be prepared to have a successful life in school.
Mr. Lommori said Section 7 provided enhanced opportunities for Nevada children to achieve the rigorous and challenging content of the performance standards as established by the Legislature. It was proposed that an additional five days be added to the school year to enable educational personnel to provide meaningful instruction focused upon improved student achievement.
Section 23, continued Mr. Lommori, was to ensure that “no child was left behind” in mastering Nevada’s content and performance standards. It was recognized that those programs would be necessary for tutoring, summer school, and intersession programs. To be successful, those programs must be adequately funded. It was known that not all children had the same ability and learning levels at the same time; therefore, additional time for tutoring in summer school was very important for the children’s success. It was estimated that approximately $14 million would be needed for those programs.
Charlotte Petersen, Superintendent of Humboldt County School District, indicated she was also representing the Nevada Association of School Superintendents. She called attention to the fourth tenet of the proposal in A. B. 266 that stated additional educational opportunities must be provided to those most challenged students. Sections 5, 8, 9, and 10 were very important to school superintendents because they proposed that the school district had some flexibility regarding class-size reduction. It was not an attempt to do away with class size, but was an effort for local school districts to propose a plan that more closely matched the needs of each local school district. The Elko plan had proved successful with a 22:l ratio, and although Ms. Petersen did not feel that was a magical ratio to ensure student achievement, the ratio could vary from one district to another.
Ms. Petersen felt there were two keys to the proposal. One, the overall pupil-teacher ratio must be reduced and the plan must be fiscally neutral, so it would not affect the budget one way or the other. Section 16 was critical in that the superintendents believed that no Nevada population group had grown as quickly as the English language learner group. In the Clark County School District alone, the English language learners made up 16.7 percent of the population. Statewide, there were over 53,100 students who would qualify as an English language learner, which was more children than in 15 of the 17 school districts put together.
The $77 million in that part of the bill would be used to staff classes for that important group of students at a much lower ratio to increase their ability to achieve in learning English, which in turn would allow these children to better master Nevada’s standards.
Carlos Arturo Garcia, Superintendent of the Clark County School District, said he was also representing the Nevada Association of School Superintendents. Regarding Section 24, an educated workforce was important to the state’s employers for the 21st century. He wanted to ensure that Nevada’s businesses had a highly qualified workforce, and it was proposed that $10 million over the biennium be allocated for career and technical courses. Not everyone would go on to college, but people needed to be trained for the workforce, and that proposal would enable the schools to provide the training.
Mr. Garcia called attention to Section 25 and said at times student behavior interfered with learning, and potentially with the entire class. To provide a place for disruptive students to cool down and refocus on learning, it was proposed to provide a temporary alternative placement program within each school. That program could be modeled on the successful program implemented by Squire Elementary School in Clark County, or other models that existed in the state. It was estimated the cost of the program would be approximately $56 million.
In conclusion, Mr. Garcia said this was an historical event because it was the first time ever that all 17 counties in Nevada had gotten together, 17 superintendents and 17 school boards. It was hard enough to reach consensus on one item, yet alone the entire packet of proposals contained in the iNVest program. As superintendents, Mr. Garcia indicated they recognized that the program was not going to happen overnight. However, it was desirable to have a vision of where the state should be heading, and what it should strive for. He opined that iNVest set out a vision and it was recognized by the superintendents that although this was a difficult economic year, the Governor had included approximately one-third of the proposals in The Executive Budget. The approach was to take a little bite at a time until the program was fully implemented.
Mr. Garcia encouraged the members to join the schools in this long-term vision of funding for education in Nevada. This session would mark the first step toward the vision that everyone had for student achievement and performance in the state. Just as President George W. Bush did not want to leave any child behind, Nevada definitely did not want any child left behind. He implored the Committee for their help. Mr. Garcia thanked the Chairman and members for the special accommodation to make their presentation today.
Ms. Giunchigliani called attention to the issue of inflation, and as she understood, the budget did not have inflation built into it in the M-100 decision unit for textbooks or anything else. Dr. Pierczynski stated that $39 million had been discussed as a total inflation figure, but that amount was not funded.
Ms. Giunchigliani referred to Section 8 regarding class size, and it appeared that all kindergartens had been included for class-size reduction. Mr. Garcia responded that was correct.
With reference to the five additional days outside professional days, Ms. Giunchigliani advised that a bill had just passed out of the Assembly Education Committee which recommended five extra days, reduced from ten days. It appeared A.B. 266 proposed five more days with the children and five additional days that were separated from the budget, or was the proposal for ten days total, five with children and five without. Mr. Garcia explained they were trying to separate the staff development days to five outside the current year. The districts varied, but they were allowed up to five days which were part of the total 180 days of required class time. Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed the proposal to segregate five days out of the 180 and add five more days for the students, to which Mr. Garcia said was correct.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the intent of one section was to have one teacher in a classroom and eliminate the team teaching. Mr. Garcia responded that was absolutely the goal, but some flexibility was still needed. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the intent was to increase the salary schedule, so if the dollars were available, would that be more preferable than to devise other incentives for recruitment and retaining. Mr. Garcia replied he was amenable to all those types of discussions.
Mrs. Chowning found it interesting this bill was being heard on April 15, which was income tax day, because if taxes were not passed by the Legislature, then the goals of this bill would not be accomplished and neither would the goals of this Legislature that had been set many years ago. The class-size reduction program was put into place in the 1989 Legislative Session and the Education Reform Act was put in place in 1997. If those goals had been properly funded all those years ago, the Legislature would not be faced with these challenges today.
Mrs. Chowning indicated she agreed with every goal contained in the bill, and it had taken a lot of hard work of those who put the bill together. She applauded all the people who had worked on this bill. However, she did not understand Sections 5 and 8 because, at one point, it seemed to take the class-size reduction goal away, and yet in Section 8, it appeared back in the bill. She asked if someone could resolve the confusion. Mrs. Chowning said she was very much against taking the class-size reduction away because it took too many years to get it in place, and too many students had benefited by the small classes. Now, if the class-size was at 22 with two teachers, she wanted to know if classrooms would be built to accommodate 44 students. She was adamantly opposed to taking the class-size reduction away because of the needs of the students and the amount of benefit they had received.
Dr. Pierczynski addressed the class-size reduction flexibility and explained that currently most of the school districts were working with classrooms with a ratio of 32:2. The bill requested the funds remain for class-size reduction flexibility, but that the superintendents be able to present plans through the Department of Education and on to the State Board of Education, to accommodate each one of the districts that faced different needs. For example, Elko worked very well with the 22:1 ratio. However, Dr. Pierczynski was unsure whether Carson City would be able to obtain a ratio of 22:1, but certainly a ratio of 23:1 or 24:1 could be accommodated. She believed that would be a better educational situation for the students. Dr. Pierczynski pointed out this issue was not approached blindly thinking that districts could create a plan without having those plans approved. It must be a plan that legislators could support after it had been presented to the Department of Education and to the State Board of Education.
Mrs. Chowning reiterated that Section 8 seemed to put the class-size reduction mandate of 15:1 back in the schools. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that this may be a bill drafting issue, as Section 5 dealt with the actual audit, where Section 8 then picked up the language for class-size. However, she echoed Mrs. Chowning’s concerns about moving away from the 15:1 ratio. Nevada had been the first state in the nation to approve that ratio and she felt a further disservice would be done for students in kindergarten through third grade if the 22:1 flexible ratio was implemented. She understood the need for districts to be able to get the classroom space, but she was fearful that if the language was removed a disservice would be done to the children and the standards issue would not be met. She strongly argued against watering down the class-size ratio.
Ms. Giunchigliani understood the kindergarten budget was closed with a recommendation from the iNVest plan to incorporate the full day kindergarten as a pilot program. She asked if this bill dealt with the pilot program, and several witnesses indicated this was the pilot program for $6 million.
Chairman Arberry recalled the focus was on obtaining good teachers and educators, to retain them, and ensure they would stay in Nevada by paying them bonuses. Mr. Soderman responded there were some parts of the bill that would address that issue. One was the 5 percent salary increase for inflation in each of the next two years, the other part was for bonuses. One part was to help people stay because they were making a livable wage, and the other was to attract teachers to the state with the bonus. The final piece of the bill would help ensure great incentives for teachers that had the most difficult certifications currently – psychologists, special education teachers, math teachers, and the at-risk assignments, trying to keep qualified, talented teachers in the more difficult schools in which to teach. That was the bonus for the at-risk assignments.
Chairman Arberry asked if all the increases, bonuses, and incentives were bound together, would there be enough funding to do what was intended in the bill. Mr. Soderman replied that it was anticipated there would be enough funding, but only time and the market would tell. The teaching shortage was a nationwide problem and all the districts were recruiting. There were no guarantees the funding would be sufficient, but it was certainly a step in the right direction.
Chairman Arberry explained he had heard that some states were offering $10,000 in incentives, and he did not want Nevada to offer those increases without the ability to follow through. Mr. Soderman felt the offers were conservative enough and the school districts realized that all the funding would not be immediately available. For example, Mr. Soderman said he had attended a job fair in Douglas County as a recruiter and sat across from a school district representative from Modesto, California. The starting salary in that district was $42,000 compared to Douglas County, which started at just under $30,000, and the Modesto district was offering a $10,000 bonus. The recruiters from Douglas County quickly emphasized other aspects of living in Nevada. Clark County School District recruited nationwide and Douglas County must compete with them as well. Mr. Soderman understood there were openings for 64 math teachers in Clark County, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, graduated only two math teachers. Therefore, Clark County was obligated to find 62 teachers from somewhere else in the nation and lure them to southern Nevada. Mr. Soderman wanted to give the Committee those comparisons and said if the funding in A. B. 266 was approved, it would be a step in the right direction.
Chairman Arberry called attention to the deliberations between the various school districts and asked if the funding request in this bill was the very least amount of money requested or if there was some room for negotiation. Mr. Soderman replied the districts felt very strongly about raises for teachers, which was why a 5 percent increase in each year of the biennium had been requested. He realized the salary increases were high, but the districts felt that by bringing the salary schedule up, plus bonuses, Nevada would be approaching the problem a little more comprehensively in the long run. Teachers wanted to see high starting salaries, but it was also important that there were other incentives to encourage teachers to stay in Nevada. Building those increases into the salary base would in the long run help the schools tremendously.
Chairman Arberry remarked that if this bill was implemented, what type of measuring device would be in place to ensure the increases were having the desired effect, for example, were the students seeing benefits. Mr. Soderman answered that the districts had spent over one year in the development of the iNVest program and had taken a great deal of pride in it. An accountability provision was tied to every section of the iNVest program, for example, what the state would get for its investment. Every single section would require that the districts would report back to the Legislature with statistics, and the proof would be in the results.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not think any district was currently starting teacher salaries at $30,000, and a salary schedule had to be built. Rather than the Legislature trying to formulate a schedule, she suggested that a pool of dollars could be provided to the districts to negotiate different alternative salary schedules, such as skills-based, performance, career ladder, and so forth. That way, Ms. Giunchigliani opined, depending on the shortages within one area, the districts may choose to pay salaries differently, because not every district had a shortage of special education teachers and not every district had a shortage of math teachers. That way, the differences could be worked out within the employee groups, and a report could then be made to the Legislature. Mr. Garcia responded the districts were open to any good ideas.
Chairman Arberry asked if every child would have a book if this program was implemented. Dr. Pierczynski responded that was the goal; the figures provided to the Committee of an average of $324 for a high school student and $210 per elementary school student for books was based on information from Washoe County. The district had done a fairly extensive study, so the goal was for every child to have a book for each class.
Chairman Arberry inquired if part of the plan was for technology – would the schools be using laboratories or would there be a point where every child had a computer on their desk. Mr. Garcia advised the districts had a long way to go in the technology field, but by restoring the cuts already made in technology, the $158 million would assist the schools in doing a much better job in that field.
Dr. William (Rob) Roberts, Superintendent of Nye County School District, commented he would like to give another perspective to some of the questions asked by the Committee. At the present time, Dr. Roberts said he had non-teaching positions that he had been unable to fill this year with the salaries and signing bonus that had been offered. Nye County consisted of 18,400 square miles with many rural communities. For example, in Round Mountain, there was a 12th grade English teacher position that had not been filled, and a substitute teacher had been filling in all year because no one wanted to move to Round Mountain. In Gabbs, there were three or four students in an elementary level where a teacher would normally have seven children in a class, and the teacher was teaching three grades. In Duckwater, Dr. Roberts explained, he had seven students and one teacher in a one-room schoolhouse.
Dr. Roberts advised that the rural districts had different challenges than the larger districts, but everyone needed quality teachers. He agreed that signing bonuses and fair, equitable salaries would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Mr. Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA) and the Clark County Association of School Administrators (CCASA), said he wanted to go on record that NASA was an ardent supporter of the iNVest plan and A.B. 266. Both NASA and CCASA believed that Nevada required a level of funding for public education that would provide for increased quality and quantity of educational services for students.
Additionally, Mr. Brusa advised that in representing the CCASA group there was a concern with respect to the ending fund balance of 5 percent, which CCASA felt was somewhat high. For example, the budget of $1.4 billion required a $70 million ending fund balance, and from CCASA’s point of view, they felt the balance was too high. Mr. Brusa asked that the issue be reviewed by the Legislature.
Former Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell said she was representing three clients, the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA), the League of Women Voters of Nevada, and the Nevada Association of School Psychologists. Those organizations wholeheartedly supported the intent of the iNVest program, and all wanted to applaud the efforts of the 17 schools districts, superintendents, and school boards who had taken the time and reached a consensus on what everyone knew was a needed vision for the state and for the benefit of all children.
The Nevada PTA had concerns about class size, advised Ms. Parnell. Those legislators who had been in office when that program regarding class size originally passed knew the PTA had a very paramount involvement and role in support of that legislation. They respected that all districts were different and Ms. Parnell hoped that the Legislature and the superintendents could come to an agreement on how best to handle the issue. In closing, Ms. Parnell said all the groups she represented encouraged support from the Committee.
Marjan Hajibandeh stated she was the student representative to the Nevada State Board of Education for the past 2 years, and a student in the state of Nevada for the past 13 years. She explained she had received many compliments over the last couple of days from legislators, parents, and students commenting on her professionalism and ability to speak in public. Ms. Hajibandeh testified that people should not be fooled, all the students in the state of Nevada had this high caliber of achievement, high standards, and at the very least the potential for the same. She wanted to reaffirm the Committee members’ faith in Nevada’s superintendents and school boards, teachers, administrators, and support staff. As a student who started kindergarten knowing less than two words of English, Ms. Hajibandeh testified to the unbelievable amount of work done by the schools and the well-spent money allotted to the districts.
Ms. Hajibandeh fully supported the iNVest plan, or A.B. 266, in that she had seen the direct effect in classroom sizes. Having attended a magnet school, she appreciated the student-teacher ratios remaining at a minimum. She could tell firsthand the effects of activities, of staff development days, and things of that nature.
Ms. Giunchigliani thanked Ms. Hajibandeh for helping to put a face on school-aged children. Too often the consideration was only for dollars, but it was the young men and women that were here to help ensure they could be as successful as Ms. Hajibandeh. It was discouraging to read in one of the Las Vegas papers that Nevada’s students were not well educated, but, in fact, they were and the newspaper did a disservice to those children.
Ms. Sheila Moulton testified she was president of the Clark County School Board of Trustees. She ran for office and represented over 200,000 constituents in Clark County, but more important, she represented 255,000 students today, and in the school year 2003-2004, 266,000 students. Ms. Moulton said she also represented the 20,000 live births that would occur in Clark County this coming year, and emphasized her support of A.B. 266. Ms. Moulton complimented Ms. Hajibandeh on her presentation and said she was truly a product of the Clark County School District.
Ms. Moulton said in January 1999, she raised her arm in the oath of office and promised herself that the day she began making decisions that were not good for students, she would cease to be a trustee. Today, Ms. Moulton asked the Committee for something that went against the grain of all people – to take her money and give those dollars to the generations to come for funding of education. She implored the members to do so for the 360,000 students in Nevada, to fund the iNVest plan, and fund hundreds of millions of dollars for education. The bottom line was that school today was not what it was when Ms. Moulton and others her age were going to classes.
There were three significant changes, said Ms. Moulton, one, special education was being taken care of through federal mandates. She had walked into a classroom to do a reading and there were seven children in that classroom, with one teacher and two aids taking care of those autistic children. Special education concerns had increased. The second change was safety – Ms. Moulton asked if anyone remembered having policemen and hall monitors in their classrooms, she certainly did not. However, those people must be in the schools because the primary source of concern for parents was the safety of their children while they were on school premises. The third change was the increase in English language learners. Ms. Moulton said she had none in her class when growing up and up to five or ten years ago, there were not significant numbers of children learning English.
Ms. Moulton commented that this year she had the opportunity to take a state senator to three schools that had been attended by the legislator’s daughter. The duo had visited Woodbury Middle School, Chaparral High School, and George E. Harris Elementary School. At the elementary school, Ms. Moulton and the senator attended a kindergarten class and had been told by the teacher she only had 21 children in her morning class, but 15 spoke no English.
Ms. Moulton had mentioned three significant needs, but there were others. She added that a diverse economy was a must. Business and industry would not come to Nevada and bring their best and brightest employees if the state did not have the standard of education to sustain their employees. Everyone would win with better education. Additionally, the state had a constitutional responsibility to fund education.
Ms. Moulton, as a fellow elected official, sincerely thanked the Committee members for their service and sacrifice. She asked for their support of A.B. 266.
Chairman Arberry recognized David Brady, President of the Douglas County School Board. Mr. Brady stated he would like to make a comment on some previous testimony. He had been a member of the school board since 1995 and he was a financial adviser by trade. He felt very strongly about the board policy that protected the ending fund balance. He believed a 5 percent ending fund balance was not unrealistic and the Nevada Revised Statutes provided for an allowance of 8.5 percent. The 5 percent ending fund balance did provide fiscal integrity to the board and allowed them the opportunity to provide that rainy day fund for unforeseen expenditures. Mr. Brady said the policy was prudent and reasonable and should remain at 5 percent.
Ms. Nancy Hollinger, a member of the Washoe County School District Board of Trustees, said the board had taken a unanimous vote in favor of A.B. 266. In order to avoid cutting programs, teachers, and other school personnel, extra funding was needed. As a retired teacher with 38 years of experience, Ms. Hollinger understood the need to provide the best possible education for students. Nevada was ranked 44th in the nation and that was not good enough, the state should strive to be number one. With help from the Legislature and all the boards, teachers, and superintendents, she felt Nevada could reach that goal.
Ms. Chanda Cook said she was a parent representative of the Clark County School District, a 43-year resident of Clark County, and a product of the Clark County School District. She advised the Committee she would be speaking in favor of A.B. 266. Although she was aware the superintendents felt it would be best to implement the bill in increments, Ms. Cook, as a parent and a volunteer, opined all the sections of the bill needed to be funded as soon as possible. By the time the program was funded in full, it would benefit her grandchildren, not necessarily her children. All children were now facing challenges that did not exist when she was going to school. Ms. Cook implored the Committee to fund A.B. 266. She was in complete support of the bill at all levels within the school district, and at the county and state levels as well.
Mary Jo Parise-Malloy indicated she was from Las Vegas. She agreed with Ms. Cook that this bill would not affect her children; her son was a junior in high school and her daughter was in the 6th grade. The cuts and obstacles which the schools had been forced to overcome had been numerous. There was money in Nevada, said Ms. Parise-Malloy, everyone knew it and everyone knew that education needed funding. She asked the Committee members to step up to the challenge and raise taxes. Ms. Parise-Malloy was a small business owner and she was willing to pay her fair share.
Carolyn Babara advised she was a mother in the Clark County School District, president of the PTA, and a volunteer in the school. Her son was in the first grade and her daughter was to start kindergarten next year. She was very concerned that her children’s education might become lost in the system. Ms. Babara was born and raised in Minnesota and when she came to Nevada, she was amazed at the great things in Nevada, but had concerns about the system of education.
When her son started kindergarten, Ms. Babara dropped him off for two and a half hours of class time with 1 teacher and 35 other students. Within a couple weeks of the start of school, the number of students grew to 39, but dropped to as low as 32 children. Her son was now in first grade and there were 19 children in his class. He had struggled to read this year and had finally reached a desired level, but teachers could not keep up with children who had special problems. Children could not be taught to read if there were no teachers who could focus on those with special problems. There were wonderful programs in the schools, and they needed continued support.
As a parent who had a spouse working in the business community, Ms. Babara said to tax her – she was willing to pay more taxes because her children’s education was the most important thing to her and she felt every child needed to be well educated, not just the children whose parents could afford to send them to private schools.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if someone could provide the actual amount of the fiscal note on A.B. 266. Anne Loring, President of the Nevada Association of School Boards, said she could not provide the exact fiscal note at the moment, but she would get back to the Committee with an answer. Ms. Loring again thanked the Chairman and the Committee for their time today.
Since there was no further testimony on the bill, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 266.
Senate Bill 417 (1st Reprint): Creates Election Fund to receive money pursuant to Help America Vote Act of 2002. (BDR 24-1265)
Chairman Arberry announced S.B. 417 had been heard by the Committee at the meeting held yesterday, April 14, 2003, and he would like to discuss the amendment. The Chairman recognized Dean Heller, Secretary of State, and advised him that the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau had reviewed the way the language in the bill had been crafted. It was desirable that the money received by the Secretary of State through this legislation be routed in such a way that the funds would not be directly deposited to the Secretary of State’s account.
Mr. Heller explained the bill created an election fund and the majority of the money in the bill, approximately $5 million in federal funds, would be lost if the election fund was not established by April 29, 2003. The problem was that the money would be spent within two to three months, and Mr. Heller indicated his concern was trying to meet the very tight deadlines imposed by the federal government to be prepared for the next presidential election.
Mr. Heller agreed that there should be more oversight by the Legislature regarding funding for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). He proposed a subsection 6 that would require the Secretary of State to report directly to the money committees on a quarterly basis. Mr. Heller felt there may only be one report because that would be how quickly the money would be spent. It would give the Secretary of State the flexibility to do the job and meet some of the time lines. He felt that could be done by the addition of subsection 6 that said the Secretary of State shall report to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on a quarterly basis regarding all of the expenditures from the Election Fund.
Mr. Heller indicated he would be willing to prepare a budget for the money, but the funds would come and go in such short order that he was concerned that having to appear before the IFC or another organization every time a dollar was spent would really hamper progress and compliance.
Chairman Arberry asked Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, if it was possible to amend the bill in the fashion suggested by Mr. Heller. The Chairman was concerned, with all due respect to the Secretary of State, there must be accountability for those funds. Mr. Heller interjected that he could prepare a budget for approval before the end of session and seek approval to expend those funds. Thereafter, the Secretary of State could report to the IFC as to how the dollars were spent. Mr. Heller was looking for the ability to make the necessary decisions on an expedited basis and avoid hampering the progress. Chairman Arberry agreed that progress on this issue should not be stalled.
Ms. Erdoes said there had been some concern because when the Committee amended the language in subsection 2 to have the federal funds placed in the state General Fund and then appropriated to the Secretary of State, the language in subsection 4 was left in the bill which authorized the Secretary of State to expend the money pursuant to the federal act, which meant the money would not go through the state General Fund. Therefore, the Committee must choose one or the other. If the Committee chose to agree with Mr. Heller’s most recent proposal, the bill could be left as it was and a budget would not have to be prepared in the normal budget fashion. If a budget could be developed immediately to allow Mr. Heller to expend this money, that could also work.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Heller if the money was expended as soon as it was received, why couldn’t he go through the same process as all the other agencies because it was a one-time occasion. Mr. Heller would not be required to come before the IFC if the money was run through the General Fund. Mr. Heller advised there was some additional money coming in. Also, there was an amendment in subsection 4(a) to put in language that read that the Secretary of State may only expend or disburse money in the Election Fund in accordance with the provisions of the act. Mr. Heller said he would support that amendment as well, for it specifically provided instruction to the Secretary of State and gave the Legislature the necessary oversight to make the correct choices.
For example, the statewide voter registration system was in a bill coming from the Senate and contained some very specific time lines in order to prepare the system by the beginning of the year. Mr. Heller did not feel the normal budget cycle could be used in order to have a statewide voter registration system in place by the beginning of next year. For that reason, Mr. Heller had asked for a provision in the bill to circumnavigate the bid process. He had spoken to the Budget Division and the Purchasing Division and asked if there was certain criteria that could be utilized because there were other roadblocks that would make it very difficult for the Secretary of State to meet all the provisions within this act in a timely manner.
Chairman Arberry inquired what the Secretary of State intended to do with the money in this bill. Mr. Heller responded the act was very specific – there must be a statewide voter registration system, machines must be acquired for every voting district so that disabled people would have an opportunity to vote, and there must be two of those machines for every voting precinct. The act was very specific and designated how the money was to be expended and where it should go. Mr. Heller said the advisory committee was meeting now to review the specific issues and how the money would be spent. There must be assurances that the disabled would be able to vote as well as those who spoke an alternative language must have an opportunity to participate. If barriers continued to be erected, the necessary time lines would not be met.
Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the issue of statewide voter registration had been discussed in both houses of the Legislature, and the feeling was that to come into compliance with the act, a Web-based system could be utilized for this next election that would not cost that much money. That would allow the funding to be used more for the disabled access and to bring the rural counties up to speed. She asked if Mr. Heller was aware of the discussions in the Senate at this point and if he was looking at buying an entire new voting system.
Mr. Heller advised that the current systems within the state were being reviewed. Many counties used several different vendors, but at the present time 70 percent of the state was utilizing one system. Clearly, that swayed the Secretary of State’s Office into the direction the state should go. It would be certainly easier to add the remaining 30 percent of the state to the system being utilized by 70 percent. There were some fairly obvious decisions that would have to be made, and the voting system was one of the criteria.
Ms. Giunchigliani agreed that the state should not just “jump” to a new system, and reiterated that with a Web-based system, for instance Clark County could access the Secretary of State’s Web site, add their voter registration list, and the agency could have one statewide piece while the other counties were being moved into whatever system was chosen. Mr. Heller responded they had met with several vendors, and, in fact, yesterday they had met with a Web-based vendor that specifically addressed just what Ms. Giunchigliani had suggested. Even if this system brought the state into compliance, Mr. Heller insisted the state must work very quickly with the chosen vendor. It was critical to move forward even if a temporary system was put into place.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the initial $5 million was tied to any particular expenditure at this point. Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, advised that the statewide voter registration system would require training in all counties in order to meet the January 1, 2004, deadline and may necessitate use of some of the funding. The voter registration application had to be revised as of January 1, 2003, pursuant to HAVA. The Department of Motor Vehicles did not have the funding appropriated for those revisions, and as soon as the funding from this bill became available, it might be possible to reimburse the department and the other counties where revisions were made last year.
Ms. Parker commented it had been estimated that it would cost $1.50 to $2.50 per voter, even using a HAVA compliant, Web-based, statewide voter system, as a basic cost. If the system was not one which was currently used in the state, 100 percent of the voting public would have to be registered. If the system already in place had 70 percent of the voters registered, then only the remaining 30 percent would have to be drawn into the system, which would minimize the cost.
In response to a comment from Ms. Giunchigliani, Ms. Parker advised the goal of the Secretary of State’s Office was to meet the January 1, 2004, deadline for statewide voter registration. That goal would absorb the bulk of the $5 million; all the vendors had stated they needed a contract awarded by the middle of May in order to meet that January deadline. Otherwise, Ms. Parker explained, the state would have to go through the self-certifying waiver process which would bring in other issues that the state would prefer to avoid.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired how much more money the state would qualify for regarding the Election Fund. Responding, Ms. Parker said the $5 million was Title I money that did not require a state match. Under Title II, there was $5.7 million the state would be eligible for, and in order to obtain that money, the HAVA advisory committee and state plan must be certified by the Governor that they would absolutely comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The state could then be eligible for an additional $3 million which was not in The Executive Budget. The only certain appropriation was an additional $5.7 million; between the $5 million which was coming to the state now and the additional $5.7 million, it appeared it would be expended entirely with poll worker training, voter registration applications, potential issues with provisional balloting that needed to be available by the next election, and the statewide voter registration system. Ms. Parker stated the rest of the funding would be used to install one Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system in each polling place by the January 1, 2006, deadline. A contract would have to be awarded and the funds expended prior to the next legislative session.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the issue now was the budget and to see exactly what was required by HAVA, what the state must do to comply and what was going to be expended. She understood that some contracts would have to be issued in a more timely manner, but she wanted to ensure that an entirely new equipment purchase would not be made unnecessarily and, as a result, those dollars could be directed into other program areas that Ms. Parker had mentioned. Ms. Giunchigliani did not feel the matter could be resolved this moment, but at a minimum, deleting the language in subsection 2, at lines 9 and 10 – “All money which is deposited or paid into this Fund is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of State.” Language could be added that said if a budget was presented, the agency could expend funding based on what was appropriated, and if expenditures were exceeded, the agency would have to come before the IFC and spending authority could be granted based on another budget. Ms. Giunchigliani said the language could be crafted more appropriately, but this was the gist of what she had in mind.
Mr. Heller informed the members if the language in subsection 2 was deleted, the Secretary of State’s Office would not be able to move forward, which would hamper compliance with the HAVA. He appreciated Ms. Giunchigliani’s comments about being able to save some dollars, and many dollars could be saved in Clark County by using the same registration system which was currently in place. In fact, the county had offered to help with training and the use of their servers, which could save the state $250,000 to $500,000 without having to buy new equipment. He understood the point Ms. Giunchigliani was trying to make and the agency must be very careful in the direction taken to implement the HAVA; however, he was looking for the necessary flexibility because responsibility rested with the Secretary of State. Mr. Heller concluded what the agency was looking for was the authority to comply with the federal act.
Ms. Giunchigliani said her intention was to authorize the $5 million, but it would not be appropriated directly to the Secretary of State, because that was not how the state did business. She suggested that the Legislature would authorize the expenditure, the agency would provide a budget, and the federal funds would be spent by the agency.
Mr. Stevens inquired if there was any state money included in the $5 million, or if it required a state match, to which Mr. Heller replied in the negative. Mr. Stevens suggested that a section could be added to S.B. 417 to authorize expenditure of $5 million by the Secretary of State’s Office -- that would be an authorization, not an appropriation, and since this was not state money, the authorization would provide the Secretary of State’s Office the ability to expend the money up to $5 million.
Mr. Heller agreed he could work with that amendment and any additional dollars received could be brought before the IFC, because he was unsure what, if any, additional dollars would become available. In the event other dollars were received, the issue of the match would have to be addressed.
Mr. Stevens reiterated the discussion to ensure the language was correct and the amendment could be prepared before the Floor session to expedite the bill:
Mr. Stevens remarked he would need some guidance from the Committee as to the Secretary of State’s suggestion about the reporting provision. A provision could be added for the Secretary of State to report to the IFC on a quarterly basis. Chairman Arberry pointed out that would be fine, but Mr. Heller had stated that he would expend all the funds in one shot.
Ms. Parker advised that the additional $5.7 million would potentially be received during August or September, assuming there was a state match, and the Legislature should be out of session and unable to amend the bill through the IFC. She inquired if it was possible to have a budget approved for that funding during the session so there was a way to handle those dollars when they arrived. Ms. Parker was concerned that if the language was deleted in subsection 2, if even one dollar of the $5.7 million was expended, or $500 for voter registration applications, the Secretary of State would have to come before the IFC for authorization.
Mr. Stevens proposed to handle that matter in budget closings in the Secretary of State’s budget. The $5.7 million would require a state match, so obviously some state money would have to be put in the Secretary of State’s budget in order to receive those federal dollars. Some time would need to be expended to determine how much state money needed to go into the Secretary of State’s budget for that match, if that was the pleasure of the Legislature. That issue could be resolved before the budgets were closed, unless there was a problem with the IFC. The immediate problem was the first $5 million that did not require a state match.
Assembly Bill 371 (1st Reprint): Requires State Land Registrar to convey certain land to Nevada FFA Foundation. (BDR S-773)
Assemblyman Tom Collins, District No. 1, explained that this bill would simply turn over a piece of property to the Nevada Future Farmers of America (FFA) Foundation. The bill would save the state money because the property had been losing money over the years through lack of attention and promotion. Mr. Collins testified the youth associated with the FFA would promote the property more effectively, and he asked them to make a presentation to the Committee.
Dylan Krenka, representing the Nevada FFA as Treasurer, called the Committee’s attention to a PowerPoint presentation, which would be running during his testimony, showing the current condition of the Clear Creek Youth Camp.
Mr. Krenka advised that four years ago he attended the FFA Nevada State Leadership Camp. At the camp he learned skills to be successful in every endeavor of his life. Mr. Krenka had used the leadership skills to become student body president of Elko High School; he used teamwork skills to become the captain of the Elko High School football team; responsibility skills to become chapter president of the Ruby Mountain FFA Chapter; and the people and communication skills to live out his lifelong dream of becoming a Nevada FFA officer.
The mission statement of the FFA read as follows: ”The FFA makes a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth, and career success.” Mr. Krenka assured the Committee the Nevada State Leadership Camp had lived up to their mission statement when he attended the camp four years ago. If the Clear Creek Youth Camp was gifted to the Nevada FFA, it would be put to immediate use as the FFA Leadership Camp as soon as it was acquired.
Mr. Krenka noted the camp would be opened for use by any youth organization throughout the state, whether a church group, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America (VICA), Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA), or any school organization or sports team for use as leadership or training camps. This was a great opportunity, as Assemblyman Collins had indicated, for the FFA to better itself.
Initially, the renovation of the camp would be done solely by the FFA and would be the only organization involved as they had proposed to take over the camp and do the work on their own without the help of the state. The FFA could do this project by giving members the hands-on experience, which was the lifeline of the FFA organization, and practice their career development, including welding or landscaping, which would be an essential key in the renovation of this property. Mr. Krenka added this would be a great opportunity for the FFA state officers because in most states, other than Nevada, the state officers were required to take a year away from college to serve the FFA Foundation. With the procurement of the Clear Creek Youth Camp, the Nevada FFA officers would have centralized housing, 20 hours of work experience each week, and would be able to attend Western Nevada Community College to take the required core classes to further their education.
Mr. Krenka reiterated Mr. Collins’ statement that the sale of this camp to the Nevada FFA would also benefit the state. Approximately $230,000 was spent each year by the state to maintain the camp and keep it up to code. He referred to the slide show and pointed out there was much work to be done and the FFA was ready and willing to do that work. The FFA would lift the burden off of the state regarding maintenance, finance, and management of the camp, and would take on the property solely on their own. This camp would also be a large fundraiser for the Nevada FFA Association and allow it to become self-reliant and less dependent on yearly grants and funds from the state.
With all these facts aside, Mr. Krenka advised that the leadership camp he attended four years ago was the backbone and driving force in molding the person who testified before the Committee today. He asked the members to keep in mind the FFA mission statement in developing premier leadership, personal growth, and career success. He urged the Committee to give the other FFA members and the youth of Nevada the same opportunity to be motivated as Mr. Krenka was four years ago.
Chairman Arberry recognized Andrea Paris, who said she was currently a junior at the University of Nevada, Reno, majoring in public relations with a minor in marketing. She graduated from Elko High School in 2000, after completing four years of agriculture education. Ms. Paris remarked that throughout four years of agriculture education, she was given the opportunity to experience a variety of situations and gain a lot of knowledge, not only in agriculture and education, but in overall life skills, including teamwork, leadership, and cooperation.
Ms. Paris said one of the key things she walked out of Elko High School with, besides the general knowledge of reading, writing, arithmetic, and agriculture, was the confidence to act as a leader, not only in her school, whether high school or college, but within her community. She learned those skills and obtained those opportunities in the Elko High School agriculture room. In the “ag room” as Ms. Paris called it, she found real life applications from pre-calculus and biology classes, in farm business management, and veterinary medicine classes. She was able to develop cooperation, teamwork, and communication skills while serving as a FFA chapter officer and planning the various events the FFA chapter sponsored, including banquets and fundraisers. Through the supervised agricultural experience project, Ms. Paris earned enough money to pay for her entire college education. She found herself making connections and relationships not only with her peers from across the state, but with fellow agriculture educators and agriculturalists from across the state. One of the key places she made those relationships was at leadership camps, state conferences, and other seminars.
Ms. Paris advised that the Clear Creek Youth Camp would provide the FFA with a summer leadership camp. She had attended the leadership camp on seven occasions, four times as a student and camper, two times as a state officer and national officer candidate, and this last year, she attended the camp as the director. Ms. Paris had also attended the Clear Creek Youth Camp as a delegate to the Nevada Girls State and she was confident that this facility would be excellent for Nevada FFA to host summer leadership camps and to give students an opportunity to gain the sense of confidence to be leaders in their schools. Also, this opportunity would help the Nevada FFA Foundation to be self-reliant, to continue programs, and develop the curriculum students needed to learn outside the leadership-based activities at the camps.
Ms. Paris said she realized the Clear Creek Youth Camp required a lot of work but the FFA was very willing to put forth the effort to do the work and they were willing to make the camp available to FFA members as well as any group or organization that would like to use the facilities. As Mr. Krenka had mentioned, ultimately the goal of the FFA was to promote premiere leadership, career success, and personal growth. Ms. Paris said the FFA would like to do that for their members, but also extend that opportunity to the youth across Nevada and the western United States. This could be accomplished with the possession of this camp.
Chairman Arberry commended both Ms. Paris and Mr. Krenka on their speaking abilities and suggested they should consider running for legislative office.
Ms. Leslie also complimented the FFA members and advised that she sat on the Girl Scout board and they had looked into doing the same type of leadership program. She agreed the camp should be turned over to an organization for use by various youth groups. However, Ms. Leslie said the reason for not pursuing the acquisition of the property was because the Girl Scouts had obtained the records of the camp and saw that the asbestos problem and the kitchen had not been inspected for a very long time. The condition was so appalling it was decided not to send Girl Scouts to the camp in the future. Ms. Leslie asked if there was an estimate of the cost to bring the camp up to a level where youth groups could safely use the facility, and if the FFA was willing to commit that amount of money.
Ms. Paris responded she did not have an exact figure, but two more people wished to testify on the bill and could answer Ms. Leslie’s question. Mr. Krenka called attention to the service and labor issue and said the FFA currently had approximately 1,500 members statewide, and many of those were involved in different activities of career development, such as landscaping, floriculture, welding, and construction. Many of those skills were taught and instilled in FFA members, and they would be willing to use those skills on the renovation projects. Much of the construction cost would be absorbed by the FFA.
Mrs. Chowning inquired how the deed was conveyed; usually it was a quitclaim deed which meant there were no guarantees there were no liens or encumbrances on the property. That could pose a liability for the group as well as the entire liability issue. It appeared the property was in terrible shape and there was concern whether the FFA had enough liability insurance to cover claims in case there were injuries or other problems.
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, explained there was general state law that provided the state passed title to property by quitclaim. It was standard procedure, but the Division of State Lands would ensure, especially if it was the will of the Legislature, that the property be transferred with the title in acceptable condition. In this case, the federal government owned the property before the state acquired the camp, so the chain of title was very short and in good condition.
Mr. Jim Cooney, an agriculture education instructor at Elko High School, stated he had been at the school for 26 years. He represented the Nevada Agriculture Teachers Association and was speaking before the Committee on their behalf. He supported A.B. 371 for several reasons. The acquisition of the Clear Creek property by the Nevada FFA Foundation was a vital link in the continuation of student leadership training for the state of Nevada. This was vital to not only the FFA, but Girls State, Boy Scouts, and many other groups. It was felt the leadership training for the youth of Nevada was extremely important. With the current structure of the Nevada FFA Foundation, they had the skills and ability to manage this camp to the best of its ability and to better this particular camp.
From an agricultural teacher’s perspective, this afforded the ag teachers in the state of Nevada the opportunity to expand the classroom, to take students from the classroom, have actual on-the-job training to build the camp, pride in community service, as well as a camp that would serve the state of Nevada for years. Mr. Cooney urged support for A.B. 371.
Mr. Perkins inquired if it was anticipated there would be any restrictions on the conveyance. For example, if the FFA decided it was not what they wanted to pursue, would the property be returned to the state. Also, how many groups used the facility now and was there going to be the same number of groups using the property should it be sold.
Heather Dye, Executive Secretary to the Nevada FFA Foundation, commented they had been looking at the numbers, and when the camp first opened, the records showed the camp had 15,000 overnight users. Usage had dropped to a little over 5,000 overnight users, and usage was definitely an area the FFA was reviewing. The first really big task would be marketing the camp. With regard to Ms. Leslie’s question about costs, many people had been asked to help. The purchase of this property would open a tremendous amount of grant money to rebuild the camp and private money donations had also been offered. However, until the FFA received the property, it was a waiting game at this point.
Mr. Perkins reiterated if the Foundation found the property too expensive to maintain, he asked if it would be returned to the state, if it was an asset of the FFA to be sold, or were there other options. Ms. Dye pointed out that was a very important part of the bill, as this was a win/win situation for the FFA and for the state. If the title ever left the Nevada FFA Foundation, it would revert back to the state. Therefore, if something went wrong and Ms. Dye was no longer in the Executive Secretary position, this was not a piece of property that would be sold to just anyone. The camp would be for Nevada youth and other groups as well and the state would not incur a loss in either process.
Mr. Perkins asked if any groups would be excluded from use of the camp. Ms. Dye replied everyone would be allowed into the camp, which was part of the marketing piece she had mentioned previously. It was interesting the number of people who lived in Carson City who had no idea there was a youth facility in their community. The marketing task would be a huge project and youth groups would be the focus.
Ms. Dye explained the sole purpose of the Nevada FFA Foundation was to provide financial support for Nevada agriculture education. After hearing testimony from the previous speakers and students, it was apparent that there were great students and a great program. Additionally, financial assistance was provided and the Foundation was always looking for an opportunity to increase that funding. This was why the FFA was pursuing the Clear Creek Youth Camp. If the FFA was to receive this property, Ms. Dye said the first couple of years would be spent just fixing the property, obtaining donations, using manpower, and marketing the property.
In this whole process, Ms. Dye said several items had arisen which dealt with money. The state had been putting over $200,000 per year into the camp, and there were still areas for improvement. This would be a savings to the state over the years and the usage would be increased due to improvements over the long term. The state had decided this camp was a financial burden and in the existing economy, had decided to sell the Clear Creek Youth Camp. The figure of $3 million had been bounced around as a sales price. In the short term, the state needed money, but in the long range an opportunity would be provided for students and other youth across the state and this was a goal for the future of the state.
In doing research for this project, Ms. Dye discovered that when the state had originally acquired the property, it was a Job Corps camp and was built in the 1960s. A private citizen in the Tahoe area donated land at Tahoe to the state to purposely trade for this camp, so that the camp could be used for the youth of the state. The Nevada FFA Foundation would continue that mission and purpose, without it being a burden to the state. She urged support from the Committee and provided Exhibit C, which contained a narrative as well as a budget. The main sources of income would be to increase membership, obtain outside donations and grants, and fix the property so everyone could be proud of the facility.
Former Senator Lawrence Jacobsen remarked he knew more about Clear Creek because he had been around the property all his life. All the transactions taken over the years appeared in Exhibit C. He felt the camp was one of the most beautiful sites in Nevada. It originated as a Job Corps camp and he was one of those who had asked that the camp be built. He furnished the heating oil and the gasoline to run the camp. Additionally, Mr. Jacobsen said over the last ten years, he had provided most of the furnace parts at no cost that kept the furnaces going.
Mr. Jacobsen commented that over the years the camp had been used for a multitude of activities; church groups, school and youth groups, and even the National Guard had used the facility over a number of years as a training camp for their officer training school. It had also been used by fire crews, hotshot crews, the Division of Forestry, and many others. It was a very valuable asset. Approximately four years ago, former Senator Jack Regan and former Senator Jacobsen wanted to transfer the camp to the Rite of Passage organization. They were very interested, and still were today. However, the organization was based in California and it was felt the camp should be kept in Nevada’s hands.
Mr. Jacobsen said the Nevada FFA Foundation had been very active and one that came forward and presented a plan. Mr. Jacobsen had served on the Foundation and had been instrumental in getting people to join the group. Don Bentley of Bentley Corporation had become a member of the Foundation, and in addition to others, the Foundation had a well-rounded group of important people involved. That was an asset that needed to be used, but the camp had fallen into disrepair over the years.
Mr. Jacobsen indicated he had also served on the Marlette Lake committee for 30 years and they had found the water rights were never guaranteed for that area, and with the help of Roland Westergard, former Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the problem had been solidified. The boundary lines had never been firmly established – wherever Clear Creek ran was the boundary, and whenever the high water came, the boundary line changed. That had now also been clarified.
Clear Creek was a very beautiful site and Mr. Jacobsen said that although the property was somewhat in disrepair, it was something that could be fixed. There had only been one real disaster, and that was when the gymnasium burned down, but a new facility had been built. The facility had many amenities, maintenance buildings, workshops, and school rooms. There was one aspect of which most people were unaware; the facility had its own water system and sewer system. The effluent was transported to the Stewart facility and was used to irrigate the prison farms. Over the last few years, the prison had been able to harvest a hay crop and maintained a dairy herd that numbered from 30 to 35 cows, which supplied all the milk for the prison institutions. There would be no better group to take over the camp than the FFA. Mr. Jacobsen said it was a win/win situation, but the facility must be maintained. He would be delighted to give a tour to anyone who wished to see the camp.
Chairman Arberry recognized Gary Murphy, who said he represented several groups of people who met at Clear Creek on numerous occasions during the year. Those people were in recovery from substance abuse and over the years, Clear Creek had provided a good, solid spiritual place to take people who were in recovery. That group was a 12-step recovery program and Clear Creek, especially the steps to the dining hall, had given a new meaning to the step program. Mr. Murphy had seen what had happened to the facility due to lack of maintenance, and it had been disappointing. However, the ambiance and spirituality of the facility remained. When Mr. Murphy heard the camp might be sold he was concerned; however, when he heard the FFA wanted to take over the camp, it was very exciting. That was the type of group that could do something with the facility that would perpetuate a valuable asset. Mr. Murphy supported the FFA and felt they would do a good job and were the very group to do so.
Paul Pugsley of the Carson Valley Conservation District said, as staff to the District, he supported the Clear Creek Watershed Council. At the most recent meeting of the Council they had asked that the Assembly consider support for this piece of legislation, and the Council would like to see the facility transferred to the Nevada FFA Foundation.
Nat Lommori, speaking as a private citizen, wished to testify in support of the transfer of the Clear Creek Youth Camp to the Nevada FFA Foundation. By investing in Nevada youth, the future was bright, and this was an excellent opportunity for the state to step forward to provide for youth for years to come. As a native Nevadan and a business owner, Mr. Lommori urged support of A.B. 371.
Rick Broo said he was with Coldwell Banker Real Estate, and had submitted a solicitation to list the property, but it did not influence his opinion one way or the other. He had served with groups that had used the facility for the last 29 years. As an individual, he had some real concerns about A.B. 371 and what the FFA had not been told about this property.
As the Committee was aware, $1.5 million had been allocated last session for improvements to the property. That money was wisely not spent because there were some environmental issues, oil leaks, and far more other problems than the FFA may be aware of. Unless the FFA was prepared to come forward with $2 to $3 million in donations up front, it would be a difficult road. Mr. Broo did not want to see the FFA fail in this endeavor; he would like to see this group of young leaders go forward and those issues must be addressed before the bill was passed.
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, informed the Committee that there was a long story surrounding Clear Creek, and the Committee had heard several different versions of that history. The camp consisted of 120 acres as shown on the map presented as Exhibit D. The acreage was received in an exchange from the United States Forest Service in 1987, but at that point, the state had already been using the camp for 17 years under a special use permit. The camp was used primarily for youth activities, but many other groups had used the site, and when possible, state agencies had used the facility. The property was acquired partially in exchange for an Incline Village property, but the property was not donated to the state in order to acquire the camp. The Incline Village property was donated by Robert Goulet, the entertainer. Some years before then, Mr. Goulet wanted the state to use that property for the state’s advantage. When that opportunity arose, the Incline Village property was used as an exchange, but it was not donated for that purpose. The property in Incline Village could have been sold and the revenue placed in the General Fund.
Ms. Wilcox explained that Clear Creek had been unusual among state properties from the beginning in that no state agency ever really wanted the camp and state agencies had not used it very much. She could not think of any other state-owned property in the state that had been owned and maintained by the state for use by non-public groups; therefore, Clear Creek was unique. Because of that, Clear Creek had always received close scrutiny from the money committees, and over the years, every time the Clear Creek budget came up for hearing, it was a difficult issue and a lot of time had been spent discussing it.
As the buildings had gotten older -- most of them were nearly 40 years old having been built in the 1960s -- more problems had arisen and the cost of maintenance had risen. Ms. Wilcox said the property had come under closer and closer scrutiny both from the Budget Division and from the Legislature. In the meantime, the character of the neighborhood in which the camp was located had been changing. In the beginning it was rather isolated, but now there were many valuable homes along Clear Creek Road. At the end of the road, across the creek from the camp, was the Snyder Ranch, which had been approved for development to put in a golf course and a high-end residential development.
Ms. Wilcox advised that it had always been known that if the state could not make Clear Creek viable as a youth camp, that it was a valuable state asset. At some point in the future, it would be appropriate to discuss its disposal. Over the last few sessions, Ms. Wilcox had been asked to first look for another state agency that could take over the property and had specifically asked in a Letter of Intent the possibility of State Parks taking over the camp. None of those options had worked. Ms. Wilcox indicated there was no state agency whose job it was to provide a facility for non-public groups, so all those ideas had fallen by the wayside.
In general, state law provided that state lands be maintained for use by state agencies, and that if a time came when the properties were excess to the state’s needs, they should be disposed of. Ms. Wilcox pointed out that she and Mike Meizel, Administrator of the Buildings and Grounds Division, had been the two people who, more than anyone, had tried to keep Clear Creek open for youth groups. However, it had been a long road and they had come to a stage where the facility had aged to a point where it would take a great deal of difficulty and expense to put it back together. She seriously did not think the state was doing the FFA any favors by going down that road. In the meantime, the property had appreciated in value, it was estimated the current value was at $3 million. An appraisal had been commissioned, which was being done at this very moment, and an actual appraised value should be available in early May, while the Legislature was still in session, to assist in making this final decision.
Ms. Wilcox said, as a state official who had over the years held title to the state’s property and been responsible to this Legislature and to the people for the use, it was without precedent to discuss giving a state asset worth millions of dollars to a non-public group. She noted that, frankly, that was inappropriate.
Mike Meizel, Administrator, Division of Buildings and Grounds, disclosed that over the last few sessions, he had spoken about Clear Creek and the different alternatives that had been discussed. He knew the state could not be in the business of operating a youth camp, and he also knew the state could not maintain the site as it should be. During the last session, he had asked the Legislature for a capital improvement program of approximately $1.5 million to do all types of projects – roofs, life safety work, concrete, and so forth. Mr. Meizel had not felt the money should have been spent, but that it should be held because a Request for Proposal (RFP) had been considered for someone to take over the camp and run it during this last biennium. The FFA was the only group that came forth with a viable proposal. Mr. Meizel said the group was very reputable and it was felt they were capable of running the camp.
The issue at hand, continued Mr. Meizel, was this was probably the worst of all years for the state to recommend someone to take over the camp for free. This was a legislative session where tax increases had been contemplated, state agencies had dealt with budget cuts, program cuts, and Mr. Meizel felt it was fiscally imprudent to give the camp away.
Mr. Beers asked if the concerns about giving the camp away to someone else was not tempered by the provision that if the FFA could not make the camp viable, it would come back into the possession of the state. Ms. Wilcox responded that was a provision that had been added in part because of the objections from agency heads. It certainly made the transfer a little more palatable, but this was still a very valuable state asset at a time when the state really needed revenues, and contemplating giving the property away to a non-public group was unprecedented. In all the years that Ms. Wilcox had been in her position with the state, that had never happened before.
Ms. Leslie inquired what were the alternatives. Should the property remain as it was and continue to deteriorate, because, for instance, the Girl Scouts would no longer use the facility. If more youth groups knew the appalling conditions of the camp, they would not use it either. Ms. Wilcox advised the property would be disposed of; the Governor had directed that according to state law, the property would be sold at auction. There was a great deal of interest, as evidenced by one realtor who had testified today. Ms. Leslie asked if it would be preferable to sell the property for development rather than continue to use it as a youth camp. Ms. Wilcox disclosed it would be up to the buyer how the property would be used.
Mr. Hettrick pointed out the facility was unique as testified to by former Senator Jacobsen. If the property were maintained, which he agreed was a huge task to be taken on by the FFA was one thing, but to see the site sold for development would be very sad. The camp was in a beautiful location and it should be restored to what it once was, and could be a showpiece. If the state could resume ownership should the FFA be unable to make the project work, Mr. Hettrick suggested the Foundation should be given an opportunity to try. If the property was sold, the funding would come into the state and be spent in no time. In the meantime, that whole, unique site and the facilities there that could be used by a group of talented young people like the FFA, would be lost forever, which would be a shame. Mr. Hettrick reiterated that the Nevada FFA Foundation should be given an opportunity to improve the facility. If the FFA could make the project work, good for them. If not, the property would revert to the state and be worth even more money than it was now. The liability issue was a problem and the state had already committed over $200,000 each year to maintain the camp. The $3 million could be recouped in a couple of years by spending $200,000 per year, plus the $1.5 million that had been appropriated for capital improvements.
Mr. Beers inquired of Ms. Wilcox if the appraisal would include a provision concerning the acceleration of property value appreciation. He felt this piece of property would become much more valuable over the next ten years than other properties in the Carson City area. If that was the case, that appreciation may have an impact on the decision made by the Committee, especially if this piece of property was about to undergo substantial appreciation. The state may want to retain the property for another ten years, and if the FFA was not able to make a go of the facility, then the state could make some significant money by allowing the FFA to try.
Ms. Wilcox responded the appraisal would discuss the character and the trends of the neighborhood generally. Mr. Meizel added that this was not a vacant piece of property, it had a lot of structures on it, and he opined it would not be wise to keep the property for inflation because money must be spent every year to keep it maintained. This was not the type of property that could just sit without any upkeep. Even at the bare bones, the state would appropriate approximately $100,000 per year to keep that property. Mr. Beers pointed out the state would be relieved of that cost if the FFA would be doing work on the property for a couple of years. Mr. Meizel agreed that was true, and rather than just keeping the property, possibly a deal should be worked out with someone, but the property should not be kept with an eye toward inflation. The cost of keeping the property would outstrip the inflation.
Chairman Arberry indicated the hearing on A.B. 371 was closed and opened the hearing on A.B. 341.
Assembly Bill 341: Effectuates specific and limited waiver of immunity of State under Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution with regard to certain federal laws regulating employment practices. (BDR 3-356)
Assemblyman John Oceguera, representing District No. 16, explained A.B. 341 was a policy decision made in the Assembly Judiciary Committee to make clear that a cause of action in federal court could be brought against the state by a state employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Oceguera said the issue before the Committee was the fiscal note associated with this bill and whether it was an appropriate figure or not.
In response to a comment from Chairman Arberry, Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, representing District No. 8, said the testimony on this bill would only address the money issues. However, she wished to address one other part of the bill so the Committee would understand the importance of this legislation.
Some of the best laws in the country, the Fair Labor Standards Act, age discrimination, family medical leave, race discrimination, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, were great laws that had passed with bipartisan votes, some signed by Republican presidents and some by Democratic presidents. Those laws represented principles that were supported by everyone; the question was whether or not the state should follow those laws. It was not good public policy that every other private business should follow these laws, but the state put itself above them. Therefore, Ms. Buckley said, A.B. 341 should have the support of the Legislature.
With reference to the fiscal note, Ms. Buckley said that up until 1999, all those laws were available to state employees. They had the same rights as every other employee, but the United States Supreme Court changed that in their decision of State of Maine vs. Alden (1999). A mechanism had been built into this bill to diminish any such fees and costs that might be of concern to the Attorney General – and that mechanism was “don’t discriminate.” Ms. Buckley said she supported Assemblyman Oceguera and A.B. 341.
Mr. Goldwater inquired if anyone from the Attorney General’s Office would be testifying on the fiscal note. He said he found it fascinating that in essence the Attorney General’s Office had requested a fiscal note at a cost of $1.5 million per year, so the state should be prepared to pay when they broke the laws against discrimination. Mr. Oceguera noted that no one was present from the Attorney General’s Office, but the fiscal note appeared to be exactly the point where there was a problem.
Mr. Oceguera explained this bill had come to be drafted after he read about the case of Nevada Department of Human Resources vs. Hibbs. Testimony had been heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee that this case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The first settlement offer was for $5,000 and reinstatement of Mr. Hibbs’ job. The Attorney General did not agree with that settlement offer and took the case to the Supreme Court, and the state lost the case.
Ms. Giunchigliani said that very reason should be enough for the elimination of the fiscal note because she did not want to create an incentive for the state to take people to court when they were complying with the federal law. She felt that possibly the fiscal note had been prepared to actually kill the bill, but she reminded the Committee they could reject fiscal notes if it was believed the agency did not reflect the cost properly. However, if nothing had been expended since 1999 when the law was in place, and Nevada was complying with the law, there was no argument for the need for two deputy attorneys general unless there was a plan to discriminate against someone. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the Committee should reject the fiscal note.
Ms. Leslie inquired if the two deputies were laid off after the law was changed. Ms. Buckley noted that she had asked the same question in the Judiciary Committee, and she was not provided with an answer.
Jim Richardson, representing Nevada Faculty Alliance chapters throughout the state, testified that the Nevada Faculty Alliance was affiliated with the state conference for the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), a nationwide organization of 45,000 faculty members, that had been in existence for a very long time. A series of 5 to 4 decisions by the United States Supreme Court had rejuvenated the notion of sovereign immunity. The AAUP filed amicus briefs opposing the development of this new doctrine which had the effect of saying that some ten federal laws that dealt with discrimination of various kinds did not apply in some instances to public employees. That meant that higher education faculty members around the country would be left uncovered by those laws.
Mr. Richardson said the Nevada Faculty Alliance supported A.B. 341. Most of the higher education in Nevada was taught or provided by public employees, which meant that those laws did not protect any faculty members if those decisions held or if the state did not waive immunity. Mr. Richardson noted that some states had waived immunity, the most thorough situation had occurred in Minnesota, where a law very similar to A.B. 341 had been passed, effective July 1, 2001. Some other states had also enacted piecemeal legislation, so this bill was not unprecedented. Mr. Richardson encouraged support for the bill.
Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), asked why Nevada state employees continued to be treated as second class citizens. Government should set the example for private sector employers. All casino workers in the state of Nevada had federal laws to protect them as did other private sector employees in the state. Private sector companies were motivated by profits, while state government was motivated by providing service to the public. Yet the state of Nevada had not seen fit to follow federal laws, as proven by the Hibbs case as well as the Robinson case. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 284.345 adopted the reference to federal laws through Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) regulations. NACs could be changed without the Legislature’s involvement.
Mr. MacKenzie asked why the state would want to be able to change what already existed under federal law, and he wondered if it was wise to attempt those changes. California had gone beyond some federal laws in many cases, and Nevada could follow their example, or the federal law could be accepted. A.B. 341 allowed the standard set by federal law to apply to Nevada state workers. What was the purpose of NRS 284.345 and the corresponding NAC regulations if the state of Nevada did not honor those regulations. He asked for the Committee’s support of A.B. 341 to put the truth back in the state of Nevada and start dealing with employees with honesty and integrity.
Mr. MacKenzie indicated he would like to read an excerpt from a memorandum sent to him by the lawyers for Mr. Hibbs – When Mr. Hibbs asked why the state would not allow him to take his unpaid leave, they gave him no reason, no accounting of the leave, and essentially no hearing. They simply fired him. Mr. Hibbs actually received a check for his unused leave when he was terminated. The lower court in Nevada granted summary judgment for the state and the court cited Eleventh Amendment protection for the state, even if it violated the act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, stating Congress was well within its authority to impose the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) on states because the act had been passed in order to remedy sex discrimination.
Women were protected by the FMLA, said Mr. MacKenzie, because women were employees and employers expected that if someone in the family was sick at home, the employee would go home. Thus, employers gave women less responsibility and less pay for this expectation.
Mr. MacKenzie also read an excerpt from the Las Vegas Sun, dated Sunday, June 24, 2001: “Ruling could hinder disabled workers. Fallon resident Robert Robinson had a bone to pick with the U.S. Supreme Court. The former Nevada correctional officer won a $588,754 judgment against the state in district court in 1999 for alleged discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). He won’t be able to collect, however, because Robinson was stunned by a high court ruling earlier this year that prohibited state employees from suing states for monetary damages in federal court under the ADA act.”
This morning, Mr. MacKenzie was presented with a memorandum from Jeanne Greene, the Director of the Department of Personnel, which stated that the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA) had misrepresented their testimony in the Judiciary Committee. He read from the memorandum, “Mr. Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees Association, recently stated that a supervisor in state service could intentionally disregard the provisions of FMLA without penalty if the supervisor did not like a particular employee. This statement is patently untrue.”
Mr. MacKenzie explained what he was trying to say was that the state of Nevada did not hold the management accountable for disregarding FMLA provisions. That was not to say there was no other recourse for state employees, but it had been the experience of the SNEA that management that engaged in denying state workers their rights, those workers had no recourse from the state. As an example, Mr. MacKenzie told the Committee that at the High Desert State Prison, the warden disliked the SNEA and forced members of the union to be fingerprinted and photographed, searched them and gave them “drop slips” to the union. This was a First Amendment violation under the Constitution, and there was a lawsuit now in federal court. There was no recourse against the warden for that behavior; examples could be found all over the state of managers who were not held accountable for their behavior. Unless that changed, there might be a fiscal note attached to this bill because the behavior of many of the people who worked in high offices in this state were not held accountable. Those issues must be addressed in A.B. 341, asserted Mr. MacKenzie.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the warden at the High Desert State Prison had been disciplined in any fashion, to which Mr. MacKenzie replied not at all. She asked if there was a listing of potential discrimination cases that had been brought forward. Mr. MacKenzie responded there was no such accounting, but he could gather some information to show examples of discrimination in different agencies and the lack of accountability. Ms. Giunchigliani interjected that the behavior was shameful and it was a twofold issue that included training and accountability. The Department of Personnel had testified in favor of training dollars during their budget hearing, and it was important to ensure the training was worthwhile and resulted in better management.
Mr. MacKenzie agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani and cited the Nevada Youth Training Camp in Elko, which was another example of management running amok without any accountability. The workers in Elko were aware of what was going on, but they were afraid to come forward to speak of the abuse at the camp because there was no accountability.
Mr. Richardson interjected that he had neglected to mention two handouts, Exhibit E, The Alliance news sheet which contained an article on the Hibbs case, and Exhibit F, a list of the 30 or more groups which had signed on the amicus brief in the Hibbs case.
Mrs. Chowning called attention to Mr. MacKenzie’s allegations of abuse by state employees in high office, but she felt that he actually meant people in high positions in the state, and that statement must be clear for the record. Additionally, some training had been requested in the Department of Personnel to address some of those situations through arbitration. In any event, the abuses needed to be dealt with severely.
Jeff E. Parker, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, introduced Stan Miller, Tort Claims Manager, Attorney General’s Office, and said he had previously testified before the Assembly Judiciary Committee, but would not repeat that testimony before this Committee. He summarized that the position of the Attorney General was not against A.B. 341 in policy. The point of his testimony was to simply alert the Legislature as to what was likely to happen should the bill pass. Mr. Parker provided the Committee with his written testimony, Exhibit G.
As the defender of the state of Nevada, and because the Attorney General’s Office managed the Tort Claims Fund, it was Mr. Parker’s duty to tell the Legislature what was likely to happen if the bill passed, and that was the point of his testimony. He indicated Mr. Miller would summarize how the fiscal note was calculated in terms of financial impact.
Mr. Stan Miller, Tort Claims Manager, Office of the Attorney General, pointed out that when the fiscal note was developed, it was unknown how many additional cases this bill would bring. A best estimate was made of the increase, and the Committee had just heard testimony that the Robinson case of 1999 awarded the correctional officer more than $250,000. If that award had been allowed to stand, in addition to that sum, the state would have paid all his attorney fees and costs. That was only one case. Currently, Mr. Miller explained, there was a state remedy for those causes of action where the claims could be brought to state court, but they were subject to a $50,000 cap. If the claims were taken to federal court, there was no cap on the award. It was up to the members of the Committee to decide whether the state wanted to take on that exposure.
Mr. Goldwater inquired if there were private liability insurance policies that covered that type of exposure. Mr. Miller responded that currently the state had an excess liability policy, with a deductible of $1 million, and would cover the state up to $10 million. When asked by Mr. Goldwater if the excess liability policy was reflected in the fiscal note, Mr. Miller said it was not because the state could not predict if it would receive a judgment in excess of $1 million or if there might be ten judgments of $500,000. However, the state was currently paying for an insurance policy which would cover the state regardless of any judgments. The premium for that policy, continued Mr. Miller, was $250,000 per year. There was a concern that once that policy was used, the premium would skyrocket and coverage may not be available at all. That situation was similar to car insurance – if a claim was made, typically, the premium would go up.
Mr. Goldwater understood what Mr. Miller was saying; nonetheless, it was frustrating for the Committee that the state was already paying for an insurance policy that covered those types of issues, yet there was more than a $3 million fiscal note that had been pieced together for this bill. There was a policy issue and a fiscal issue to be resolved in this bill, and the policy issue appeared to be very clear, but the fiscal issue was clouded by empty estimates and the state seemed to be already covered. Mr. Miller explained the state was covered for anything over a $1 million judgment on one case only. If the state received a judgment for $500,000, that policy would not help the state at all, it would have to pay the $500,000. Mr. Goldwater questioned if there were private policies available to cover judgments under those amounts. Mr. Miller said that the state did not have private policies now and he was unaware if there were any available.
Ms. Leslie recalled her previous question and asked if in 1999, before the Supreme Court decision, if there were two full-time deputy attorneys general and a legal secretary employed to handle those cases. Mr. Miller apologized for his short institutional knowledge of the office, he had only been employed at the office for two years, and Mr. Parker had been appointed only a couple of months ago, and neither had an answer. Ms. Leslie said it would be interesting to have the historical perspective, because it appeared the fiscal note was just a guess at the amount of staff required to handle those cases.
Ms. Leslie understood the Solicitor General wrote an amicus brief to support Mr. Hibbs, and asked if that information was correct. Mr. Miller responded the state Solicitor General had not written a brief in support of the Hibbs case; however, it was possible the United States Solicitor General might have. The Supreme Court argument was in January 2001 and he began his employment in February.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the two deputy attorneys general positions and the legal secretary had not been eliminated from The Executive Budget, so obviously, there was still staff in place. As she recalled, the positions were requested in 1999 to handle those types of cases.
Chairman Arberry recognized Thomas J. Ray, General Counsel for the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). Mr. Ray indicated he would be brief due to time constraints, but he wanted to point out to the Committee members the real issue involved with A.B. 341. This was a state’s rights issue; the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provided that certain decisions shall be reserved to the states for their own determination. The United States Supreme Court, in a number of recent cases, had held that certain federal claims should be reserved to the states and not decided by the federal government. Therefore, certain claims would not be available against the state. If A.B. 341 was passed, a state would give up its constitutional right to make self-determination issues and that right would be given to the federal government.
Mr. Ray commented he could not speak to the costs associated with such cases because he did not know what those costs would be. However, there would be an increased cost. Mr. Ray explained a state statutory scheme could be found in Chapter 41 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. The statute specifically provided that the state of Nevada reserved its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and A.B. 341 would abrogate that statute. The statutory scheme also provided for a cap on damages of $50,000, and that cap would not apply to certain federal claims. A lawsuit brought in federal court for damages under these federal claims would not be subject to the cap and the judgment could be far in excess of $50,000. The Legislature had set a state statutory scheme for the types of claims that could be made and the amount of damages that could be awarded. By passing A.B. 341, that statutory scheme would be given up and abrogated to the federal government to decide those claims in federal court.
Alternatively, Mr. Ray continued, the case made in favor of the bill was somewhat overstated. The reason being that Title VII claims were alive and well; the court had never held that an individual could not sue in federal court for a Title VII violation and that right had not been affected at all. Mr. Ray said he was not familiar with the incident Mr. MacKenzie had testified to, but the nature of that lawsuit would be covered under Title 42 United States Code, Chapter 1983, because it was in violation of the United States Constitution. Those claims were also alive and well and states’ rights would not affect them at all. The only issue under discussion were certain federal laws that the federal government had passed which would be imposed on this state. That was an issue which should be left to the Legislature, and the United States Supreme Court had said the states should decide what those laws should be. If the bill was passed, the state would give up its right to make those types of decisions.
Mr. Goldwater thanked Mr. Ray for his testimony on the policy portion of A.B. 341, and it appeared from Mr. Ray’s testimony that there would be a fiscal impact. He concluded from this testimony that in some way, the state would violate employment laws, no matter what action was taken. Secondly, Mr. Goldwater had heard earlier testimony that the state had anticipated exposure to this type of liability, money was reserved for this purpose, and an excess insurance policy was purchased. Under the current Eleventh Amendment interpretations and under the current statutory construction, Mr. Goldwater asked where the increased costs would come from. Was it anticipated there would be an assault on state employees.
Mr. Ray agreed there would be a cost associated with A.B. 341, but he did not know the amount of that cost. With reference to the insurance policy mentioned by Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Ray explained that was an excess liability policy. There could be ten lawsuits for less than $1 million and the state would have to pay for those lawsuits. Each lawsuit could be $500,000, but the policy would not cover that amount, it would only cover an individual case where the judgment was in excess of $1 million. Therefore, there would be a cost associated, and Mr. Ray explained that under state claims, there was a cap of $50,000, and under federal claims, that cap would not apply. That was where Mr. Ray saw the potential increased costs, instead of a limit of $50,000, the judgment could be $200,000 or more.
Mr. Goldwater inquired if there were punitive damages associated with those cases. Mr. Ray answered that potentially there could be, but the state was not subject to punitive damages, but individuals could be subject to punitive damages.
Ms. Leslie referred to the $50,000 cap and asked if a person lost more than that sum in lost wages, if those lost wages could be recouped. Mr. Ray explained that would be a contract claim, so the person would be entitled to whatever lost wages could be proven, even if it was in excess of $50,000. However, if there were separate or independent damages other than lost wages, those damages would be capped at $50,000.
Since there were no further questions or testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 341.
Assembly Bill 466: Makes appropriation for special assessment on state-owned property assessed for improvements relating to flood protection project. (BDR S-1253)
Senate Bill 396: Makes supplemental appropriation to Health Division of Department of Human Resources for unanticipated shortfall in money for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 resulting from increased cost of maintenance of effort requirement for Substance Abuse and Treatment Block Grant. (BDR S-1226)
Chairman Arberry informed the members and the audience that if anyone was present to testify on A.B. 466 or S.B. 396 that due to time constraints, the bills would have to be rescheduled for another day. However, before the meeting ended, there would be a hearing on A.B. 474.
Assembly Bill 474: Revises provisions governing payment of expenses of Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses from money in Heil Trust Fund for Wild Horses. (BDR 45-1261)
Cathy Barcomb, Administrator, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, introduced Lucy Zeier, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Ms. Barcomb commented she would like to provide the Committee with some history on the bill to explain why it was before the Committee today.
In the early 1970s, a gentleman named Leo Heil passed away in California and left his estate to the state of Nevada. At the time, the amount was approximately $230,000, and after some properties were sold the total amount of the original Heil Trust was $485,000. In 1985, the Governor established a committee to assess how to spend the funds because, at that point, the interest income and the funds were in excess of $1 million. The committee at that time recommended the establishment of the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses as a state agency. When the statutes were established, it provided that the expenses of the Commission would be paid from the interest earned on the Heil Trust, and it placed a threshold of $900,000, below which funding could not be spent.
In 1997, Ms. Barcomb said the Nevada Legislature expressed concerns over the wild horse program in Nevada and management of the program by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). There were feelings the program had been mismanaged and there were other problems as well. The 1997 Legislature mandated that the Commission hold public meetings throughout the state, sometimes every two weeks, for the next two years, and publish a report of its findings to be presented to the 1999 Legislature. That report was called the Strategic Plan for the Management of Wild Horses and Burros in the State of Nevada. Workshops and meetings were held throughout the state, and Nevadans devised the plan, the Commission just wrote the report. There were recommendations in the plan as to how the state felt it could go forward with the wild horse program.
Ms. Barcomb told the members the BLM owned and managed the horses, owned the land, and the Commission could only make recommendations. In that plan, the Commission recommended several programs where everyone could work together to make the program better rather than pointing fingers at each other. One of the top recommendations was the creation of the National Wild Horse and Burro Foundation. The cost of establishing and running that foundation for approximately two and one-half years was $800,000. A feasibility study was done on the formation of such a foundation and the cost.
Ms. Barcomb explained that the feasibility study was presented to the 1999 Legislature and the plan was endorsed and recommended wholeheartedly to go forward. Through those studies, the plan was then presented to the 2001 Legislature with the associated costs. The Commission, supporters, and the Legislature recommended funding one-half the cost, $400,000, to be matched by the BLM and the United States Congress. The Congress stepped forward and vowed to match that $400,000 so that the National Wild Horse and Burro Foundation could be created to assist in the adoption, marketing, and education of the wild horse program. The foundation was currently operating and doing very well. Ms. Barcomb anticipated the executive director to be on board in the next few weeks.
The result, as presented to the 2001 Legislature, said Ms. Barcomb, was the statutes had to be changed to allow the trust to be drawn below the $900,000 threshold. The funds could not be expended without changing the statutes. It was known at the time what the ramifications of that change would be. Eventually, by taking the trust below the $900,000 threshold, the interest income would not support the Commission in longevity. At that time, it was anticipated the remaining funds in the trust would be available for approximately the next 10 to 12 years. Ms. Zeier had recently prepared some charts that showed the acceleration of the depletion of the trust was because the impacts on interest rates after September 11, 2001, and the reduction of interest income that everyone had experienced statewide. Ms. Barcomb commented that when she first became administrator of the Commission, there was interest income of $104,000 to $108,000 per year, which had dropped to a projected $19,000 and $17,000 interest income over the next two fiscal years.
The request in A.B. 474 was to change the statute to allow the Commission to spend the interest income on the trust and some of the original trust itself. Ms. Zeier had put together a chart that would take the Commission to approximately 2010 by expending into the trust. If not, the Commission may not have enough funding for the next two fiscal years, depending on interest income. Ms. Barcomb said she would be pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. Marvel asked if the expenses of the Commission were paid out of the trust fund, how much money would be left. Ms. Barcomb said the current value of the trust was just under $800,000, and at 5 o’clock last evening, the exact amount was $796,893.99.
Sherry O’Mahony, President, Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association, referred to Exhibit H. She implored the Committee not to allow the Commission to deplete the trust. Mr. Heil wanted to preserve the horses and Ms. O’Mahony and her association felt very strongly that the Commission should operate on the interest generated by the trust. She asked the members to review her handout as it contained some very important information.
Lacy J. Dalton, acting President and cofounder of Let’em Run Foundation, Inc., said this organization was a nonprofit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation in the state of Nevada that was in partnership with community, government, and business for the preservation of wild horses. She had been personally involved with wild horses since 1990 and since 1999, the Let’em Run Foundation had raised a great deal of national awareness and thousands upon thousands of dollars for Nevada’s wild horses. She provided the members with Exhibit I.
Ms. Dalton said the Foundation was before the Committee today to strongly oppose the passage of A.B. 474. She did not believe that the principle of the Heil Trust Fund should be breached for any reason except those already addressed with specific language in the Nevada Revised Statutes and should remain as it stood. Secondly, the Foundation believed the interest and earnings from the trust, which had been substantial, should continue to be used to support worthwhile projects as they had been doing all along.
In conclusion, Ms. Dalton felt the principle of the Heil Trust Fund should never be breached for activities that were redundant to federal programs which were already amply funded.
Shirley Allen presented her testimony on Exhibit J, and said she would be very brief. Ms. Allen explained she was the Adoption Program Manager for the Least Resistance Training Concepts (LRTC), a horse adoption agent for the state of Nevada. The Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses could and should play an important role in preserving Nevada’s wild horses. There was a burgeoning tourist industry based on Nevada’s 19th century history, of which the predecessors of many of the wild horses of today played an important role. The Commission should be instrumental in preserving Nevada’s wild horses through the development and facilitation of education programs, tourist-related wild horse opportunities, and promotion of economic development in historic districts through horse-related concepts and projects. Ms. Allen said the LRTC was opposed to A.B. 474.
Ms. Giunchigliani remarked the issue appeared to be that the money being requested would be used for programs that the federal government was already funding and it was not necessary to duplicate that funding at the state level. Therefore, the principal could be maintained and the interest income used for maintenance of the wild horses. Several members of the audience indicated that Ms. Giunchigliani was correct in her summarization.
Arlene Sillings submitted her written testimony to the Committee as Exhibit K. She indicated she was speaking as an individual who was concerned about the preservation of the wild horses in the state of Nevada. Ms. Sillings opposed A.B. 474, which would change the authority for distribution of funds from the principal of the Leo Heil Trust Fund. Mr. Heil did not give his money to the federal government to use for its program, it was to be used to preserve Nevada’s wild horses.
Ms. Sillings said if the Legislature was considering any changes to the operations of the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, it must first ensure the Commission was compliant with Leo Heil’s will and that the funds from the estate were properly accounted for.
As there was no further testimony either for or against A.B. 474, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing.
Senate Bill 417 (First Reprint): Creates Election Fund to receive money pursuant to Help America Vote Act of 2002. (BDR 24-1265)
Before the Committee could adjourn, Chairman Arberry explained the previous action on S.B. 417 must be rescinded.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON S.B. 417.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
* * * * *
Chairman Arberry said he would accept a new motion to amend the bill. Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained he had reviewed the previous amendment and the last sentence in subsection 2 was removed. In subsection 4(a), the first sentence would read “only expend or disburse money in the Election Fund . . . .” Additionally, Mr. Stevens said one new section had been provided to the bill which authorized the Secretary of State to spend $5 million to implement Title I of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and to provide for a detailed accounting to the Interim Finance Committee on how the money was expended.
Ms. McClain inquired if the bill should specifically state “Title I.” Mr. Stevens responded Title I represented the $5 million that did not require a state match and the Secretary of State needed the funding immediately to get the program in place. Title II funds would be handled in budget closings.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 417.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
* * * * *
There was no more business before the Committee and Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 11:08 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Reba Coombs
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: