MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
June 2, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 9:13 a.m., on Monday, June 2, 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 Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Josh Griffin, (excused)
Speaker Richard Perkins, (excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry adjourned the June 1, 2003, Assembly Ways and Means Committee meeting and opened the hearing on S.B. 184.
Senate Bill 184 (2nd Reprint): Revises certain provisions governing occupational diseases contracted by certain local police officers. (BDR 53-851)
Senator Bernice Mathews, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 1, introduced herself. Senator Mathews said S.B. 184 dealt with testing for hepatitis C for local police officers. Senator Mathews said a baseline test was needed because there was no vaccine to prevent hepatitis C once someone had been exposed to it. Senator Mathews said the baseline test was necessary so that in the event a police officer contracted hepatitis C it would be known that it had been contracted on the job. Senator Mathews said the bill had been modified and now had no fiscal impact.
Mr. Ronald P. Dreher, President, Nevada Chapter Director, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, introduced himself. Mr. Dreher stated he supported S.B. 184 and said that A.B. 313 of the 71st Session of the Nevada Legislature provided certain benefits to firefighters and emergency medical attendants for treatment of hepatitis C. A.B. 313 provided for a conclusive presumption that hepatitis was an occupational disease for certain firemen and emergency medical attendants. The bill also established requirements for eligibility for a statutory presumption as it required testing of such employees for the presence of hepatitis, and provided for other matters therein. Mr. Dreher said S.B. 184 would provide the same benefits to certain local government professional peace officers who were currently listed under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 617.135.
Mr. Dreher said that state law enforcement officers were recently removed from the conclusive presumptive portions of the bill and from the baseline testing due to the high fiscal note that had been placed on the bill by the state of Nevada. However, the state law enforcement officers would still maintain the rebuttable presumption under state law. Mr. Dreher said his organization planned to try to get those individuals tested upon exposure over the next couple of years and return to the 73rd Session of the Legislature to ask for the same benefits for those individuals. Mr. Dreher said that the bill could not move out of the Senate unless the state fiscal note was removed and that had been done. Mr. Dreher said the state Risk Management Division had forwarded memorandums to confirm there was no fiscal impact on the state and the bill had recently been passed by the Senate.
Mr. Mick Gillins, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs and the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, introduced himself. He said he supported the bill and thought it was very important to stay focused on what the bill would accomplish. Mr. Gillins said currently there was law that had been enacted covering hepatitis and the bill would close the gap to allow for conclusive presumptive coverage to those individuals who might not know that they were infected. He said there were many ways that officers could unknowingly become infected during their careers and they should not be left out and not covered under the law the way it was currently written. Mr. Gillins said S.B. 184 would treat those affected similarly to what was currently in place for firefighters. S.B. 184 would provide coverage, not only for the officers, but their families who they would be taking the disease home to.
There being no further testimony on S.B. 184, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 184 and opened the hearing on S.B. 505.
Senate Bill 505: Makes conditional appropriations to National Judicial College and Louis W. McHardy National College of Juvenile and Family Justice. (BDR S-1372)
Judge Bill Dressel, President, National Judicial College, introduced himself and Judge David Mitchell, Executive Director, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Judge Dressel said he was in attendance to address S.B. 505, which provided for funding of the National Judicial College and the Louis W. McHardy National College of Juvenile and Family Justice, as the Legislature had done in the past. Judge Dressel said there was a long history of the Legislature supporting both organizations. Judge Dressel said the National Judicial College was the national training center for judges and was a 501(c)(3) corporation in the state of Nevada. He said the College’s impact went far beyond a national impact and had a direct impact upon Nevada. Judge Dressel said there were six trustees on the Board, three from southern Nevada, and three from northern Nevada.
Judge Dressel said there was a large impact on Nevada as the state’s and the nation’s judges were trained. He said the current year’s impact was especially large due to the training of the new judges from Las Vegas. Judge Dressel said funding had been provided for the first two weeks of training to expedite their ability and competency on the bench.
Judge Dressel said his organization collaborated throughout the state with other organizations in providing training. He said the National Judicial College building existed because of the Legislature providing funding years ago and there were many organizations that used the facility. Judge Dressel said the district attorneys from across the state came to the College for training on new techniques and technical equipment used in prosecuting cases. In addition, the College brought in several thousand judges each year from across the nation for training and there were currently 40 judges there that had been sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to be trained on problem solving in the courts. Judge Dressel said the College also took the name of the state of Nevada around the country and the College’s motto was, “We are proud to be in Nevada and we make Nevada proud.” In addition, the two organizations working together were responsible for many national organizations coming to the state. He said the National Drug Court Institute held its national convention at the College and that brought several thousand people to the state of Nevada and the National Drug Court Institute held eight classes that brought in judges, probation officers, and drug court employees for training. Judge Dressel said that the Judicial College appreciated the support the Legislature had provided in the past.
Judge David Mitchell, a retired judge from Maryland now living in Nevada, who served as the Executive Director of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, introduced himself. Judge Mitchell said that like the National Judicial College, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges was a 501(c)(3) organization that proudly resided in the state of Nevada.
Judge Mitchell said his organization had been engaged in the training of judges for a long period of time and, particularly, recently had been very active in training judges in the state of Nevada. Judge Mitchell said that in his brief tenure he had had the privilege of attending conferences at the invitation of the Administrative Office of the Courts of Nevada to participate in training of the state’s district court judges on juvenile and family court matters, both in Ely and in Minden, Nevada.
Judge Mitchell said he was very happy to indicate that in March 2004, the largest conference on juvenile justice between the District Attorneys’ Association, the National District Attorneys’ Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, would be held in Las Vegas. That conference was held each year in a different community in the nation. Judge Mitchell said that currently there were 80 people visiting Nevada for training. The training began that day for judges and chief probation officers from around the country and they were training on basic probation administration, family and juvenile court administration, and the role of the judge in the juvenile and family courts of our nation. Judge Mitchell stated that they liked to view themselves and the state of Nevada as representing an incubator for judicial reform in the world. It was where the world came for purposes of learning how to do things better for the administration of justice for the communities in which they resided.
Judge Mitchell continued by saying he wanted to address a procedural matter regarding the bill. Judge Mitchell said the name of the organization was the Louis W. McCarty National College of Juvenile and Family Justice. That was the name of the college itself but there was no such legal entity. The legal name was the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and that would be the recipient if the bill was successful. Judge Mitchell said he hated to raise such a small issue at such a late hour in the session but he wanted to be accurate. He said they could work with the bill as it was written but it would be better if it were in a different form.
Judge Mitchell thanked the Committee for its time and assistance in the past and for its consideration in the future.
Assemblywoman Leslie stated that she worked in the court system and had participated in many of the judge’s programs. She said it was quite remarkable that Nevada was home to the two national, top quality, worldwide organizations. Assemblywoman Leslie said she was unsure whether everyone appreciated the depth and reputation of the judges.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the programs had been funded with a direct appropriation in the past. She said that S.B. 505 had a trigger mechanism and that was different than the funding had been in the past.
Judge Mitchell responded that the two organizations had been working very closely together and they recognized the state’s fiscal challenges and the challenges before the Assembly, as well as the Senate. Judge Mitchell said they were not going to ask the Committee to do something that would take away from their core constituency, children. Judge Mitchell asked that if there were funds available that the Committee fund the organizations. He said they recognized that the Committee was still dealing with challenges and the trigger was that funding would be provided if there were surplus funds available in the future. If so, the two organizations would appreciate being remembered.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the judges knew about the state’s dire financial straits and that the funding requested had not been allocated in The Executive Budget. She said the Legislature had not resolved its taxation issue yet so she was unsure how the Committee could appropriate any funds outside of The Executive Budget because that would encourage the presentation of other requests that had not been included in The Executive Budget. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani added that she did not feel comfortable with the trigger that was included in the bill. She said that perhaps the request should be funded with a one-shot appropriation if enough tax dollars were generated.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how many dollars were received by the respective colleges each year.
Judge Mitchell responded that the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges worked primarily with the United States government on a budget of approximately $13 million in grants.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how much money was received in Nevada.
Judge Mitchell said the funding came into the state of Nevada and was administered in the state of Nevada. Judge Mitchell said the organization also received approximately $50,000 to $100,000 annually in charitable gifts and gifts from philanthropic organizations. Judge Mitchell said that although there were offices of the National Council in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., and two small facilities in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Phoenix, Arizona, everything was processed and arranged out of the state of Nevada, which was their headquarters. Judge Mitchell said the bulk of the employees were in Nevada with 80 to 85 employees in the state of Nevada.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the expenses were for the National Council.
Judge Mitchell answered that they had two budgets. Their operating budget for the administrative staff totaled $2 million per year for administrative staff in Nevada. Judge Mitchell said there also was an annual program budget that exceeded $13 million per year for the grants that were received. The funds in that budget came into Nevada and were used for projects in Nevada and outside of the state of Nevada.
Judge Dressel said the National Judicial College’s annual budget was approximately $6 million and approximately 6 percent of that came from grants from the Bureau of Justice Assistance or private funding that was given to support projects. Judge Dressel said the staff was located in the state of Nevada and the majority of the funds were spent on programs that occurred in the state of Nevada with one exception. Judge Dressel said the National Judicial College had an office in Moscow, Russia. He stated that the Judicial College was finishing up a five-year project in helping to set up a national judicial education facility and system for selection and evaluation of judges. That office was off-site, the funding came from the State Department, and was included in a separate budget for spending.
Assemblyman Marvel stated that in the past the Legislature had appropriated millions of dollars that was to be used as “seed money” to be attractive to grants and gifts. He wondered if the funding was still working in that manner.
Judge Dressel responded that it was definitely still working that way.
Judge Mitchell thanked the Committee for its consideration.
There being no further testimony on S.B. 505, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 505 and opened the hearing on S.B. 504.
Senate Bill 504: Authorizes expenditures by agencies of state government. (BDR S-1370)
Mr. Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), explained that S.B. 504 was the General Authorizations Act. He said the Committee had reviewed the language of the Authorizations Act the prior day and had discussed a number of items within it. Mr. Stevens said the bill provided for the non-General Fund, non-State Highway Fund revenues that were approved in each of the budgets that were reviewed by both of the money committees. It also had some language that applied to authorizations. Mr. Stevens said S.B. 504 was one of the major budget bills that needed to be passed before the end of the day.
Assemblyman Andonov asked for clarification that S.B. 504 did not pertain to General Fund money.
Mr. Stevens clarified that with one exception there were no state General Funds or Highway Funds included in the bill. Mr. Stevens said Section 3 of the bill funded the Gaming Control Board. He said the Nevada Revised Statutes provided that a certain percentage of the amount the Gaming Control Board collected could be expended and that amount was authorized. Mr. Stevens said the Gaming Control Board’s appropriation was viewed as an authorization but was General Fund money. He said the amount was $26.9 million in the first year of the biennium for the Gaming Control Board and $406,705 for the Gaming Commission. Mr. Stevens said the second year numbers were shown in subsection 2.
Assemblyman Andonov asked where the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds came from.
Mr. Stevens responded that the funds came from a federal block grant that the state received from the federal government that was utilized in the TANF budget as well as some General Fund dollars. He said the General Fund dollars that were related to TANF would be included in the General Appropriations Act, which was introduced the prior day on the floor of the Assembly.
Assemblyman Andonov asked if the amount of federal funds was driven by the amount the state spent on TANF.
Mr. Stevens responded that there was a maintenance of effort requirement and the state utilized as much as it could of the federal funds. If the state ran out of federal funds and made its maintenance of effort requirement, then 100 percent General Fund would be required.
Assemblyman Beers asked if the state had run out of federal funds recently.
Mr. Stevens said he did not understand the question.
Assemblyman Beers said there had been a very large increase in General Fund funding for TANF. He wanted to know if that would maximize federal funds or had the state run out of federal funds and General Funds would have to be used.
Mr. Stevens said the state used to have a large TANF reserve of federal dollars. Due to caseload increases that amount of money had been exhausted or was very close to becoming exhausted. Mr. Stevens said that any additional costs that were required that could not be paid for with federal TANF dollars was 100 percent state General Fund responsibility. Mr. Stevens said the state General Fund had to “pick up the slack” in each year of the biennium on a projected expenditure basis and that was why there had been an increase in state General Fund dollars in that budget.
Assemblyman Beers said that if he understood Mr. Stevens correctly, the state had overspent the TANF money in the immediate wake of September 11, 2001, so much so that General Fund supplemental appropriations had to be used to fund the TANF commitments.
Mr. Stevens interjected that General Funds had not been used in the current biennium but it was projected that General Funds would have to be used in the upcoming biennium. Mr. Stevens said nearly the entire reserve had been expended in the current biennium.
Mr. Beers said that the caseload was currently down approximately 18 percent since the high of August 2002, and he understood that the budget projected increases in TANF caseloads but if the projected increases did not materialize and the current trend continued and did not reverse, he wondered if there was a mechanism that General Funds would be saved first.
Mr. Stevens stated that if the caseloads went down he anticipated that General Fund dollars would be saved and ultimately reverted. He said Mr. Steve Abba could better answer the question. Mr. Stevens went on to say that General Fund dollars had been added in the next biennium to the TANF budget based on the caseload projections. If those came down, there would be a choice to build the TANF reserve or General Funds could be reverted. From a staff point of view, the funds should be reverted to the General Fund.
Assemblyman Beers asked what percentage of TANF expenditures, combined General Fund and federal funds, were going to the traditional TANF versus the two new programs, the one started two years ago and the one started four years ago.
Mr. Abba said he believed Mr. Beers was referring to the Kinship Care program and he was unsure what the second program was that Mr. Beers was referring to. Mr. Abba said he would get back to Mr. Beers with the information he had requested although he believed the Kinship Care program was running approximately $2.2 million each fiscal year. Mr. Abba said he would verify the numbers for Mr. Beers. Mr. Abba said that for the upcoming biennium the cash assistance levels for all groups receiving TANF funds remained at the current levels and no enhancements had been built into the budget. Mr. Abba said there were no enhancements built-in or rebuilding of reductions made during the current biennium for any nonprofit organizations or assistance to the counties for their Emergency Assistance (EA) programs. Those had all been left at the current biennial levels, which were significant reductions.
Assemblyman Beers asked if the increase he had seen was primarily caseload driven. He said he understood that a large number of employees had been added to the budget.
Mr. Stevens stated that if cases were added, additional caseworkers would be needed.
Assemblyman Beers asked if there was any such restriction in the positions that had been budgeted.
Mr. Stevens asked what type of restriction Mr. Beers was referring to.
Assemblyman Beers asked if the hiring of caseworkers could be done only upon additional growth in the caseload. He said that obviously the existing caseworkers were able to handle the peak in August 2002, which was considerably higher than the current caseload. He asked if the employees would be added on July 1, 2003, in anticipation of the trends turning around.
Mr. Abba stated that in closing the Welfare budgets, there were a certain number of caseworkers currently handling caseloads but there was a significant inventory of applications that were outstanding. The Division had to place redeterminations “on the back burner” and the case processing in the Medicaid and Food Stamp areas were outside tolerance levels. Mr. Abba said the Division was not meeting mandates for Food Stamp case processing in terms of the number of days the Division had to process a case. Mr. Abba said the new workers that were recommended by the Subcommittee, as well as both money committees, would take care of those problems as well as projected caseload growth.
Assemblyman Beers asked Mr. Abba to express as a percentage the number the 128 caseworkers represented as an increase in the number of caseworkers.
Mr. Abba said he believed that currently there were approximately 750 caseworkers statewide.
Assemblyman Beers estimated that the percentage increase was approximately 15 to 20 percent.
Mr. Abba said that all the positions that were recommended in the Field Services budget that Mr. Beers had referred to were not just caseworkers. There were also associated workers who dealt with meeting work participation rates; for example, employment and training specialists, social workers, and support staff. Mr. Abba said he believed there were approximately 75 additional caseworkers that would handle the eligibility part of the work associated with current and anticipated caseloads.
Assemblyman Beers commented that it was wrong to call the new positions caseworkers but it was fair to call them welfare workers. Assemblyman Beers said that we were expanding the welfare worker workforce by almost 20 percent to cope with a drop in the TANF caseload of almost 20 percent since August 2002.
Mr. Abba informed the Committee that the TANF caseload was just one part of the overall caseload. He said that when the budgets were closed last biennium TANF caseloads were estimated at approximately 17,000 to 18,000. There had been a huge increase in Food Stamp caseloads with well over 105,000 cases on an average per month, and there had been a significant increase in the Medicaid caseload with roughly 167,000 average monthly participants in that particular program with a forecast to go upwards of 200,000. Mr. Abba said that in those two areas, Food Stamps and Medicaid, caseloads were not dropping.
Assemblyman Beers asked if the Food Stamp and Medicaid caseloads were somewhat tied together.
Chairman Arberry said he would like to continue the discussion but time was running out and the meeting needed to proceed.
Assemblywoman Leslie said that she had been the Chair of the Subcommittee that had worked on the TANF budget and she wanted to point out that the Subcommittee had dramatically reduced the number of caseworkers included in The Executive Budget and also reduced the caseload based on the latest caseload projections. Ms. Leslie said she was a little uncomfortable that the caseload projections had been reduced too far but she felt that the plan developed by the Subcommittee met the federal mandates, due diligence was done, and she was comfortable with the TANF budget.
There being no further testimony on S.B. 504, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 504 and opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 20‑1376.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 20-1376.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Griffin and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 506: Authorizes sale of National Guard Armory located in Carson City under certain circumstances. (BDR S-1373)
Mr. Stevens explained that there was a new National Guard Armory building and S.B. 506 would allow the sale of the National Guard Armory that was located on South Carson Street, south of the Legislative Building. Mr. Stevens said the bill would allow the state to utilize the facility for up to four years after the sale and the proceeds of the sale would be deposited into the Contingency Fund, which was under the control of the Interim Finance Committee. Those funds would then be utilized if available for construction of the state Emergency Operations Center, which was approved for planning and design funds by the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee and then approved in full Committee in both the Senate and the Assembly. Mr. Stevens said the construction funds had been eliminated and the bill would potentially supply some construction funds.
Mr. Stevens went on to say that the contents of subsection 4 had been included in S.B. 498 and processed by the Committee on June 1, 2003. Mr. Stevens said he was unsure whether the language was exactly the same but S.B. 506 contained the same subject matter from Section 4 to the end of the bill as S.B. 498 contained. Mr. Stevens said he would research the bill and report back to the Committee.
Senate Bill 191 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes governing education to facilitate implementation of federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (BDR 34-635)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that she and Assemblywoman Chowning and Assemblyman Williams worked on the bill together and she would explain what they believed was currently being drafted into the bill.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said there were several sections of the bill that were not required under the federal law, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Those sections were being recommended for deletion from the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani said that Sections 6 and 641 were linked. Because of the new accountability reports that were required under the No Child Left Behind Act, the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 (NERA) would go away so the list of accountability requirements under NCLB would be reduced to specifically what was included in the federal law. Ms. Giunchigliani said Section 6 went on for approximately 5 pages, most of which were requirements that were not necessary. Ms. Giunchigliani said Sections 12 and 13 were not required by the federal government so those were recommended for deletion. Ms. Giunchigliani said Sections 16, 17, and 18 established technical assistance partnerships that were not required by the federal law and they were recommended for deletion. Ms. Giunchigliani said the bill specified the corrective action that could be used for non-Title I schools and that had been narrowed so that corrective action would include institution of a new curriculum, decreased management authority, or extending the school year or school day for non-Title I schools that failed to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP). Ms. Giunchigliani said those were all components under the No Child Left Behind Act that were permitted for corrective action.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that throughout the bill the language that required them to do what the Legislative Bureau of Education Accountability requested had been recommended for deletion. She said those were staff people, not policy makers, and they were not elected. Ms. Giunchigliani said Mr. Williams felt very strongly that they should not be part of implementing the Act or going into districts and dealing with the No Child Left Behind Act language.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said Section 5 would be amended to add Child Haven and another facility. She said in Section 55, (c), (d), and (e) would be deleted as they were not required under the No Child Left Behind Act. She said no longitudinal studies were required so those were removed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said Section 67 was all right and Senator Raggio had been emphatic that Section 67 not be altered. She said she believed it was the right policy decision to change the testing to the spring administration.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the language in Section 127 had been changed to require that there must be a Request for Proposal (RFP) if there were any agreements made to expend funding to do testing analysis. Ms. Giunchigliani said Section 127 went hand-in-glove with Section 43. Ms. Giunchigliani said any RFP would have to be approved by the Interim Finance Committee.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she and Assemblywoman Chowning and Assemblyman Williams were unsure what to recommend to the Committee on the $9 million that was not included in The Executive Budget that had been reinserted by the Senate for educational technology. Ms. Giunchigliani said it had been recommended by the last legislative session but it was part of the 3 percent reductions. She said that the language could be found on pages 107 and 108, Section 127. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was not comfortable in making a recommendation because it had not been discussed as a committee and that was the one major fiscal area that needed to be discussed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the one-fifth retirement credit language would wind up in the Distributive School Account (DSA) and that was why it would be removed from the bill.
Assemblywoman Chowning said that the explanation Ms. Giunchigliani had given had captured everything that she, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, and Assemblyman Williams had felt strongly about. She said that the bill represented a large appropriation and duties that would be thrust upon people. Many of the points in the bill were helpful but many of the points in the bill were not in the No Child Left Behind Act.
Assemblywoman Chowning stated that Section 129 had not been mentioned by Ms. Giunchigliani. That section would make an appropriation for contractual services for a consultant to provide pamphlets for review of the testing that the students took. Mrs. Chowning said that she did not think that was necessary and Mr. Williams did not either. Mrs. Chowning said the school districts themselves did that now and would continue to do that. The section appropriated funds for an outside consultant to do what teachers and administrators were currently doing and should continue to do. Mrs. Chowning said that no outside consultant was needed to tell teachers how to review the tests that their students had taken in order to enhance parent-teacher conferences. Mrs. Chowning said the amount would be $2.8 million and she suggested if the Committee wanted to make that appropriation she suggested it should go to the districts so they could handle it themselves.
Assemblywoman Chowning said that by deleting the Bureau and keeping those duties with the Board of Education, the policy matters would be kept with people who were elected and people who dealt with policy. She said that to ask Legislative Counsel Bureau staff members to implement policy was something she felt was too much to ask of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and certainly not within their duties.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 191.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked permission to add some of the language from A.B. 179 regarding the proficiency exam to the bill. She said she had spoken to Mr. Bill Hanlon, RPDP Coordinator, Southern Region, who told her that he and Senator O’Connell had objected to moving to the 2001 math proficiency examination because they felt the questions did not measure the curriculum being taught in the school districts; therefore, they wanted to stay with the 1999 math proficiency examination. Ms. Giunchigliani thought the 1999 examination was the most appropriate exam because it did not include trigonometry. Ms. Giunchigliani said her suggestion was to make students take the 1999 examination while the 2001 examination was audited for appropriateness. Students would still have to pass the exam in order to receive a standard diploma.
Assemblyman Beers stated that he had been corrected after the Committee’s last discussion of the testing concept by the Department of Education. He said that among graduating seniors the passage rate on the math proficiency test was approximately 91 or 92 percent.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how much money was left in the bill with all of the amendments that had been proposed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the amendments had not affected the funding, they only changed policies and “cleaned up” areas that had not been mandated by the federal government. Ms. Giunchigliani said the only money issue was regarding the $9.4 million that she did not feel comfortable making a recommendation too include or exclude it from the bill.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she had been trying to determine the total amount of money in the bill but she was uncertain.
Mr. Stevens explained that the total funding in the bill was $6.8 million the first year of the biennium and $5.9 million in the second year of the biennium. Mr. Stevens said the funding was shown on page 108 plus $1.4 million per year shown in Section 129.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING RESTATED HER MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS OF A.B. 179, THE COMPROMISE ON THE MATH PROFICIENCY TEST TO USE THE 1999 TEST, AND THE OTHER AMENDMENTS AS DISCUSSED. THE $2.8 MILLION FUNDING IN SECTION 129 WOULD REMAIN BUT THE FUNDING WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE PAMPHLETS FOR THE REPORTING OF THE TEST SCORES.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Beers said he would be voting no on the amendment but hoped to vote yes on the unamended bill.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BEERS, ANDONOV, MARVEL, AND HETTRICK VOTING NO. (Assemblyman Griffin and Speaker Hettrick were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 243 (1st Reprint): Makes appropriations from State General Fund to Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government. (BDR S-1234)
Mr. Stevens said the bill had been heard by the Committee the prior day and the Committee made an appropriation to replenish the Rainy Day Fund in the second year of the biennium. He said the Governor originally recommended a $50 million appropriation to replenish the Rainy Day Fund. The bill would amend that to $30 million and provide for a provision that an additional $20 million would be available depending upon the projections of the Economic Forum on December 1, 2004.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the bill would trigger the Rainy Day Fund and in what year.
Mr. Stevens responded that it would trigger an additional appropriation into the Rainy Day Fund based on the Economic Forum’s December 2004 revenue projections for fiscal year 2005.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if that meant raising taxes to replenish the Rainy Day Fund.
Mr. Stevens said if the money was not available the appropriation would not be made. He said $30 million would be sent to the Rainy Day Fund from the General Fund in the second year of the biennium.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BEERS, HETTRICK, MARVEL, AND ANDONOV VOTING NO. (Assemblyman Griffin and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 504: Authorizes expenditures by agencies of state government. (BDR S-1370)
Mr. Stevens explained that S.B. 504 was the General Authorizations Act that had been previously discussed.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN HETTRICK, ANDONOV, AND BEERS VOTING NO. (Assemblyman Griffin and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 268: Authorizes increased salaries for certain speech pathologists employed by school districts. (BDR 34-660)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she had found a way to remove the fiscal impact from the bill. She referred the Committee to page 3 and proposed amending the language. Ms. Giunchigliani said, “At least the policy would be established and it would be up to the districts and Association.” She said the amendment would be in keeping with what had been done for the counselors and psychologists.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Griffin and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
The meeting was recessed at 10:10 a.m. and due to time constraints, was not reconvened.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lila Clark
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: