MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-second Session
February 24, 2003
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:35 p.m., on Monday, February 24, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Barbara Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Jane A. Nichols, Chancellor, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada
Shannon Ellis, Ph.D., Vice President for Student Services, University of Nevada, Reno
Mary Zabel, Director, Disability Resources Center, University of Nevada, Reno
Steven W. Dickerson, Concerned Citizen
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers - Nevada
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Deborah Smith, Concerned Citizen
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Barbara Belack, Director, Employee Management Relations, Clark County School District
Steven Demaree, Assistant General Counsel, Clark County School District
Nancy J. Hollinger, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
James J. Jackson, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 62.
SENATE BILL 62: Requires publisher or manufacturer of instructional materials to provide electronic version of such materials for use by university or college students, staff or faculty with print-access disabilities who are unable to use standard instructional materials. (BDR 34-114)
Dr. Jane A. Nichols, Chancellor, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada:
The college system currently provides services similar to those in S.B. 62, to a narrower constituency. From a legal perspective, goals of the bill may not be met since publishers are not required to sell their products to the university. Recent and proposed legislation help to explain the genesis of the bill. In 1998 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was amended to require federal agencies to ensure disabled individuals who are federal employees have access to and use of information and data comparable to the access by federal employees who are not disabled. Currently before the U.S. Congress is HR490 titled The Instructional Materials Accessibility Act of 2003. The act applies to elementary and secondary schools, and would require publishers and contractors to provide instructional materials in electronic file format. The act would provide for the establishment of a national instructional repository. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires programs be accessible to persons with disabilities. We have a duty to solve the barriers to information access, and have been in that process for a number of years.
In summary, S.B. 62 does not add to existing law from the perspective of the public, but it does purport to require publishers to provide materials in an electronic format which would be helpful to our institutions. It requires the Board of Regents to establish system-wide guidelines for electronic versions of instructional materials. The bill may provide a framework for system institutions to move toward greater compliance with existing law. There is a fiscal note attached to the bill, and meeting requirements for students with disabilities has been an unfunded mandate for higher education.
Shannon Ellis, Ph.D., Vice President for Student Services, University of Nevada, Reno:
A disability center on a college campus ensures students with disabilities have equal access to all services. One goal is the elimination of attitude and architectural barriers. Disabled students are the fastest growing population on campus. The University of Nevada, Reno served 30 disabled students in 1996 and 650 in 2002. There were 40 students receiving text in an alternative format in the fall of 2002. It takes a minimum of 4 weeks to produce alternative text format. Textbooks containing graphs and charts take longer to process. The center is aware of publishers who are cooperative in providing electronic versions of textbooks, and those who are not as accommodating. We produce some electronic formats in-house. The main issue is timeliness of service, which involves knowing what materials will be used in a class. Providing resources for the center would be a positive move for our students.
Mary Zabel, Director, Disability Resources Center, University of Nevada, Reno:
The center is currently producing in-house electronic material for disabled students. Establishing a processing center in the north and south would ensure services would not be duplicated, provide more timely delivery of service to students, and be a cost-saving measure. Some of the smaller campuses do not have Braille transcription devices. Prior to our purchasing this equipment we were contracting Braille materials at a cost of approximately $25,000 per textbook. Most students prefer to receive electronic versions of materials versus cassette tapes.
Chairman Rawson:
How many students do you expect will use a classic text such as Chaucer?
Ms. Zabel:
It is being prepared for one student, and will be kept on file in the likelihood additional students will require the material. When we provide text in Braille, we initially receive it electronically, which is helpful for students with print-access disabilities.
Chairman Rawson:
How many visually impaired students do we have in our system?
Ms. Zabel:
The materials are not only for the visually impaired. Also included are students with specific learning, psychiatric, and severe physical disabilities. We prepare materials for 40 students. I do not know the statistics for the other campuses.
Chancellor Nichols:
I believe the statistics for the other campuses would be similar to those at the University of Nevada, Reno.
Steven W. Dickerson, Concerned Citizen:
I will describe a priority within the community of people who have print-access disabilities. There is much about daily life we tend to take for granted. Reading a menu in a restaurant when we are hungry, using an automated teller machine when we are short of cash, and getting on the right bus when we are in a hurry are abilities we do not even think about. They can be challenging to people who cannot use their natural abilities to carry out these everyday tasks. More than ever, people get crucial information for their work, education, or recreation through visual media such as books, computers, the Internet, and television.
Access is a critical concern for people who are print disabled. Having timely accessto the fundamental items used in the pursuit of higher education can provide its own set of special problems. Accessible textbooks are essential if a person with a print-access disability is to have a chance for success in obtaining a college education. The Disability Resource Center on the campus of University of Nevada, Reno performs an outstanding job. These dedicated professionals ensure each student with a disability has every chance to excel and reach for academic excellence. In fact, today I would like to publicly acknowledge I would not be addressing you if I had not been a direct recipient of the outstanding services from the university’s Disability Resource Center. To everyone there I say thank you for helping me pursue my dreams. Across the State the Disability Resource Centers are one link in a chain that must be committed to ensure students with disabilities have accessible information. Information must be provided in a timely manner, under conditions affording people with disabilities the same degree of access to information as their nondisabled counterparts.
Mr. Dickerson:
Generally, federal and local governmental entities are required under federal law to provide people with disabilities equal access to printed and other information available to employees or members of the public. This requirement makes effective communication possible with people who have print-access disabilities. Fulfilling this obligation goes a long way in breaking down information barriers that perpetuate discrimination on the basis of disability. For information to be truly accessible, and to make effective communication a reality, information must be made available to people with disabilities in their preferred reading media if at all possible. From my brief research in this matter I have found most printed materials from the federal government and the State to be self‑published. When they are not, agencies mandate the delivery of those items in a format easily transformed into accessible media for people with disabilities. The 2003/04 Guide to The Nevada State Legislature is available in accessible portable document format (PDF).
Technology has opened many opportunities to provide access to information. The proposed legislation of S.B. 62 is a matter of allowing technology to provide access to information. Technology offers the potential to provide materials all students, including those who have print-access disabilities, must have in order to receive an equal and quality education. Ultimately, technology will allow for lower material costs, faster delivery, and better student performance. I see the bill as Nevada’s first step toward having universal accessibility to all printed materials.
As a result of injuries sustained in military service, I developed a print-access disability, and prefer to read academic material with the assistance of computer technology. It offers me the greatest flexibility in accessing the reading material, and preserves my independence. There are many students who have different access needs related to printed materials. Colleges and universities are providing Braille, large print, audio, and an array of electronically formatted textbooks to students who have different access needs.
It is my understanding the current process for providing textbooks in adapted formats is dependent upon many factors which determine if students with print‑access disabilities receive books on time for the start of their classes. One break in the process chain, and the student may not have a textbook at the beginning of the college term. While I cannot give all of the details for producing books in alternative formats, I can tell you the process requires everyone in the chain, including the student, to do their part on time and accurately. I have some direct knowledge of this because I have converted many small books and documents into an accessible format. As I was doing this I began to think how nice it would be if I did not need to scan books just to read them. While contemplating the thought, I started thinking no one was producing books with a typewriter and copy machine anymore, so why not just ask for my books in a computer file. Surely no one would object to this, knowing all I wanted was something I could read without first being required to spend added time on scanning and converting printed pages into a computer readable file; especially when somewhere off in the abyss of some publishing company’s hard drive, or storage server, there was probably already a computer readable file just waiting to be put to good use. My personal efforts to get these computer files were not warmly embraced. Thus, I began the journey that now has me before you today.
Mr. Dickerson:
Since returning to college nearly 2 years ago, if I requested an electronic text copy of a required book for my studies, or the request was made on my behalf, there did not seem to be any across-the-board standards of delivery or willingness to deliver within certain segments of the publishing industry. Discussions with the Disability Resource Center indicated this was not a new issue to Nevada, or to a handful of other states who have enacted similar legislation. Over the past year I have listened to several people in public service talk about not leaving anyone behind, the need to improve our State’s overall educational systems, and how we must harness and use technology to make improvements in all of these arenas. For me that is the spirit of this proposed legislation. It is not just about a student who is learning disabled, physically disabled, blind, dyslectic, or attention deficient It is about any student or staff, regardless of the limits of their abilities, to be able to make a purchase of printed academic materials in a format best suited to their needs. I will now present an example of a digital talking book (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
I have heard many things about how this bill will be enforced and funded. I will be the first to admit these are important issues. Not one person with whom I have spoken ever said legislation like this was not needed. When people think about this issue, they realize the concepts are to make improvements on a system being pushed to the limits to keep up with the growing demands. We must provide services to ensure each student with print-access disabilities will receive textbooks at the same time as other students. It would be wrong of me to speak to you as if I was representing all of the people in the State who have a print-access disability, but I trust each of them would want a strong and well supported policy, and I pledge to you my efforts to work with anyone to see S.B. 62 become a reality in Nevada.
This issue is not just a state-to-state issue or just at the college level. Similar national legislation in the form of The Instructional Materials Accessibilities Act, which is currently being worked on in Washington, D.C., will direct many of the same requirements for K-12.
This legislation is a first step, and will offer the single greatest contribution to ensure the reality of many people who have print-access disabilities to receive the same chance for an equal education as their nondisabled peers. On behalf of every current and future college student I say to you, access to information opens doors. This legislation is a door opener. The lives of students will be changed for the better because of it.
Senator Cegavske:
Could this be a benefit to K-12?
Chancellor Nichols:
National legislation currently pending does target K-12. We do not know if our centers can serve K-12 until we receive additional information on the needs of those students.
Senator Cegavske:
Could incorrect information being received from publishers be an issue?
Chancellor Nichols:
No matter what legislation requires of publishers, Nevada has very little clout. Using the Chaucer example, it is quite likely the publisher would say we will not provide it in electronic format. The instructor may have a need for the book, and we would then do as we are doing now. Unlike K-12 we do not have enough publishing influence unless it is something used across the country, or in California.
Chairman Rawson:
Could you suggest language to eliminate the fiscal note?
Chancellor Nichols:
I will be glad to work on that with our centers. In our new formula for higher education there is a factor for disabled students. If our formula is adequately funded, I think it likely we can find the funding for this.
Senator Wiener:
If we were to take a document and convert it for the disabled population, how many formats would result?
Ms. Zabel:
If we are able to provide an electronic format, we can then develop all types of formats. When we requested The Canterbury Tales from the publisher in electronic format, we were denied. Had we been able to obtain it, we would do the last step, which is to transcribe into Braille. We did scan the textbook, which was in Old English and looks erroneous. We then found somebody capable of recognizing and correcting errors. We put it into electronic format, and then Braille. Electronic format is the universal design, which is then transported into various formats.
Mr. Dickerson:
I know quite a few students who use Braille. Electronic formatting does offer a platform to go to many different systems. With refreshable Braille programs some students have attached to their computers, the use of an electronic file copy may reduce the requirement to print the material. A 30-page document would be close to 300 pages in Braille. Screen magnification and screen readers are available for those with low vision. One thing in common with all the spectrums is the electronic file format.
Senator Wiener:
Do you have the capacity to do audio books?
Ms. Zabel:
With the equipment we hope to purchase, and some we already have, we are able to take electronic versions and have them read through the screen reading systems onto cassette tapes. Most students prefer the electronic version since they are better able to control the speed than with tapes.
Senator Nolan:
What criterion is used to determine the material to be translated?
Ms. Zabel:
Students come to the center and identify themselves. We go through their verification to determine the appropriate accommodations, based upon the impact of the disability on their learning and the courses they are taking. An example is a blind student taking calculus. It is not appropriate to put an entire calculus textbook on tape, therefore a Braille format is provided. The same student is also taking a history course, and the materials are on a screen reader. An individual case-by-case plan is provided for each student.
Senator Neal:
Does section 12101 of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) of 1990 require a publisher of electronic versions of printed instruction material to deliver it according to the instrument the student has to receive it?
Chancellor Nichols:
The ADA places the responsibility for the delivery of the material on the college. Publishers work with us, but are not legally required to do so.
Senator Neal:
I asked the question because the proposed bill states the publisher is required to provide an electronic version. If it is not the case, I wonder why such language is in the bill.
Chancellor Nichols:
It is the case for this bill. The Board of Regents would have the authority to require the publisher to provide an electronic version of the material. What is not clear is the penalty if the publisher refuses. If we no longer use the book, the publisher may not care. You are correct, it would be a guideline established by the Board of Regents based on the ADA and our current practice.
Senator Neal:
If the publisher does not have the material, how can you require him to produce it?
Mr. Dickerson:
The Board of Regents will request material already in electronic format. There needs to be an effort on the part of all to ensure total success. As an example, a student with a disability may be involved with animation. An instructor may want to request a comic book not in publication, a difficult task for a publisher to produce in an electronic file format. I am hoping those things will be worked out when the Board of Regents addresses these guidelines.
Senator Neal:
I have concern when we pass laws based on supposition. We try to have a clear knowledge the laws we pass are going to be effective. When we put assumptions into law, and we go to an entity outside of the State, how can we require a publisher to do certain things?
Chairman Rawson:
I have asked Chancellor Nichols to give us language to straighten out the difficulty. We will then schedule a work session. We have a letter from Robert Martinengo, Supervisor, Alternate Test Production Center of the California Community Colleges, to be entered into the record (Exhibit D).
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers - Nevada:
We would like to be on record as being in support of this bill.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 62, and open the hearing on S.B. 68.
SENATE BILL 68: Revises provisions governing terms of members of Commission on Educational Technology and Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools. (BDR 34-638)
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst:
This bill was introduced at the request of the Legislative Committee on Education, based on requests from the Council to Establish Academic Standards and the Commission on Educational Technology. The bill changes the terms of the council and commission members. For the Commission on Educational Technology, the bill provides staggered terms. Terms of the commission members will be changed to calendar years. The revision will enable commissioners to represent the commission during a legislative session. A handout (Exhibit E) has been prepared to summarize S.B. 68.
Chairman Rawson:
Does section 1 of the bill increase the size of the commission from 11 members to 13 members when the ex officio members are included?
Mr. Sturm:
That is a technical change because there are currently two ex officio members.
Senator Neal:
I would like to know where the language came from stating a member shall continue to serve on the commission until his successor is appointed.
Mr. Sturm:
The Commission on Educational Technology, and the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools requested this legislation. The Governor and the Legislature make the appointments. When terms expire, the reappointments are occasionally slow.
Senator Neal:
As I understand the language, the decision is put into the hands of the appointing authority. If the appointing authority does not make an appointment, the existing member will continue to serve.
Chairman Rawson:
The Governor is responsible for appointing approximately 1100 people to boards and commissions. I can see what this legislation is striving to do.
Senator Mathews:
The terms of the members of the State Board of Nursing continue until a successor is appointed.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
We are here to support the bill. The Department of Education is charged with providing the administrative staff to the commission and the council, and we believe the changes will add to the continuity. The language being proposed is currently in effect for the Commission on Professional Standards in Education.
Debbie Smith, Concerned Citizen:
As a former member of the council, I would like to express support for this legislation. The Governor must often make several hundred appointments over a 2-month period, and this has occasionally put a hardship on the council.
Senator Neal:
Mr. Rheault, how effective has the Commission on Educational Technology been?
Mr. Rheault:
I believe there is going to be another bill to call for the deletion of the commission.
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards:
I am speaking today as a concerned citizen. This has been an issue for the council, and I support this legislation.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 68, and open the hearing on S.B. 85.
SENATE BILL 85: Provides school districts with access to information relating to disposition of certain drug offenses for purposes of employment and discipline. (BDR 40-451)
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
There are two representatives of the Clark County School District to testify in favor of this bill. They will be testifying from Las Vegas.
Barbara Belack, Director of Employee Management Relations, Clark County School District:
As part of the hiring process Clark County School District asks applicants 15 specific questions regarding former criminal history, and secures confidential references from former employers. The current law has a loophole through which some drug offenders might slip undetected into our classrooms. Senate Bill 85 will help prevent this. A former arrest or conviction on a drug charge is not an automatic bar to employment. The district distinguishes between minor and major convictions. School districts must be afforded the opportunity to ask the questions. Currently we are unable to ask relevant questions when a drug offender is legally able to fail to disclose their history. The applicant is obligated to inform the Department of Education of their history, and this bill will extend the obligation to school districts.
There were problems with 12 or more teachers last year. Did any of them fall into this category?
Ms. Belack:
We do not know the answer, because we did not have access to the information.
Mr. Kadlub:
This bill is restricted to drug-related offenses.
Senator Washington:
The bill gives the board permission to obtain a copy of sealed records. Does this bill give the school district the ability to obtain a copy of sealed records?
Chairman Rawson:
The licensing board currently has the authority. Senate Bill 85 extends the authority to the school district.
Steven Demaree, Assistant General Counsel, Clark County School District:
Under this bill, the sealed records would be opened only if the district was charging a teacher with misconduct and needed evidence that she or he lied on the application form.
Senator Neal:
How many out-of-state teachers were hired last year?
Ms. Belack:
I do not have that information.
Senator Neal:
We cannot apply our statutes to other jurisdictions, only in Nevada. Since we cannot call for records in other jurisdictions to be unsealed, this would create a double standard. Page 2, line 37 of the bill refers to a proceeding. What is the definition of a proceeding?
Mr. Demaree:
This bill would not apply to an out-of-state applicant. A person convicted in Nevada of certain drug offenses who goes through the court diversion program is allowed to answer “no” to the question, “Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a drug offense?” An applicant from another state would be obligated to answer the question truthfully. If an FBI fingerprint report contradicted the answer, we would call the applicant in for questioning.
Senator Neal:
Are you saying an FBI report would show a sealed record?
Mr. Demaree:
The FBI report would show the person was arrested; it would contain no information about the disposition of the charges.
Chairman Rawson:
If this creates a double standard, does that also apply to the professional licensing board?
Mr. Demaree:
A person may apply to teach some years after they receive their license. We would have no way of knowing if the licensing board saw information about a recent arrest and a court diversion program.
Senator Neal:
Was there a situation to prompt this legislation?
Mr. Demaree:
We have had situations where people have answered questions about a drug offense and the FBI report contradicts their answers. We ask the applicant to explain the discrepancy. If they have lied on the application form and cannot explain it, we dismiss them for dishonesty.
Senator Neal:
If you have the means to take action, why do you need this bill?
Mr. Demaree:
We do not want to be in the situation where an applicant tells us one thing, and we cannot prove otherwise because we cannot get access to the records.
Ms. Belack:
Subsection 6 acknowledges certain boards have access to this information. We are asking the school board be added to the list.
Mr. Rheault:
We are here to support the changes requested by the school districts. I might make one correction. Subsection 6 mentions a professional licensing board may consider a proceeding. When I checked into it for clarification, I found there is a loophole. The professional standards commission sets the licensing requirements, but does not have the authority to revoke, suspend, or issue the license. The State superintendent issues the license and it was interpreted to mean the Department of Education. The other professional licensing boards that issue licenses have the authority to do what is currently in law.
Chairman Rawson:
To repair this, should we put new language in the bill?
Mr. Rheault:
Subsection 6 could be amended to add the State superintendent. The State superintendent is charged with issuing the licenses in Nevada, not the State Board of Education or the Commission on Professional Standards in Education.
Nancy J. Hollinger, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
The Washoe County board of trustees supports S.B. 85.
Ms. Loring:
The Nevada Association of School Boards supports this bill, and the amendment suggested by Mr. Rheault.
James Jackson, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
Under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 453.3363 a limited number of people are eligible for certain terms and conditions known as the notice-of-election process. They can have no prior drug conviction. They must apply to the district court for treatment and if the district attorney does not support the application, it is unlikely the applicant will be accepted. The process is designed to allow first time, low-level offenders to clean up their act, get straight and move on with their life. That is why it specifically, clearly, and obviously allows a person to answer “no” when asked if they have been arrested for, adjudicated on, or convicted of a drug offense. The process the individual must go through once they make the election is: evaluation by a certified drug and alcohol counselor, agreement by the counselor the individual is worthy of and suitable for treatment, and acceptance by the judge. A person granted a notice of election must undergo treatment of between 1 and 3 years. There is no public safety issue. The individual is under the supervision of the Division of Parole and Probation. After treatment is completed, if the court is satisfied, then the adjudication is set aside and the record is exonerated. If exceptions are granted to penetrate those records, it takes away the incentive. Under this statute, an individual is not a liar when answering “no.” FBI records allow the licensing authority at the state level to make further inquiry. The authority should remain there and not come down to the local level.
Chairman Rawson:
There is a presumption individuals can be checked by the licensing board, but the licensing board is not able to get the information. Do you believe there may be reason to clarify the law?
Mr. Jackson:
If there is concern that the licensing board does not have the ability, I think you have the authority to clarify this.
We will now close the hearing on S.B. 85. I ask for committee introduction for two bill draft requests (BDRs).
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1062: Makes appropriation to Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for support of its environmental research. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 227.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-246: Establishes system for classifying teachers. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 226.)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1062 and BDR 34-246.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson:
There being no further business at this time, I adjourn the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: