MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-second Session
March 12, 2003
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:41 p.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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:
Ron W. Sparks II, Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)
Carolyn McIntosh, Grants Administrator, White Pine County School District
Jennifer Barnum Luria, Vice President of Business Development and State and District Partnerships, The Grow Network
Dean A. Ketchum, Director of State and District Partnerships, The Grow Network
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)
Karyn Wright, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards/Reno
Dorothy L. (Dotty) Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Steven W. Dickerson
James J. Jackson, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)
Chairman Rawson:
We will have a presentation at 2:00 p.m. by The Grow Network, and we will take one bill out of order because of travel commitments. I ask for committee introduction of two bill draft requests (BDRs), BDR 54-1095, and BDR 40-245.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-1095: Revises requirements for issuance of limited license to practice dentistry or dental hygiene. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 283.)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 54-1095.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS WASHINGTON AND NOLAN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-245: Makes various changes concerning public hospitals. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 284.)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-245.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS WASHINGTON AND NOLAN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 159.
SENATE BILL 159: Deletes authority of Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education to adopt certain regulations. (BDR 34-924)
Ron W. Sparks II, Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE):
This housekeeping bill will enable us to clarify whether we are talking about the master organization of WICHE or Nevada WICHE.
Chairman Rawson:
At a meeting the representative from the attorney general’s office asked, “Are you talking about Nevada or Colorado?”
Senator Neal:
Why is the text on page 8 being repealed?
Mr. Sparks:
This was put in statute before the Health Care Access Program (HCAP) was initiated. The HCAP has the same requirements, and the statute refers to dentistry, physical therapy, pharmacy, and practicing as a physician assistant. When we first started the pilot program for the Health Care Access Program, which is now up and running, the physician assistant slots were a part of it.
Senator Neal:
The language was put there so individuals would return to rural areas, in lieu of repayment. Is that still a part of it?
Mr. Sparks:
Chapter 397.0617, section 5, of the Nevada Revised Statutes states: “a profession which could benefit a medically underserved area of this state” includes, without limitation, dentistry, physical therapy, pharmacy, and practicing as a physician assistant. It is not necessary to have a separate section for the language. Section 3 has a requirement placed upon it as follows: “If a person agrees to practice in a medically underserved area of this state pursuant to subsection 2, for at least 2 years, the three commissioners from the State of Nevada, acting jointly, may forgive the portion of the support fee designated as the loan of the person.” According to our contract, it is mandatory. If they do not return to the State, they are required to repay triple the principle and penalties, plus any additional accrued interest. The contract is between WICHE and the student, signed before funds are released. We have that authority.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 159.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on S.B. 150:
SENATE BILL 150: Authorizes school district to sell or lease certain real property for less than appraised value under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-323)
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO):
Senate Bill 150 seeks to enable school districts to dispose of real property for less than appraised value when the property to be sold is surplus. The problem was brought to NACO by the White Pine County School District, who currently spend funds to provide minimal maintenance on surplus, outdated, and dormant high school and middle school facilities which cannot be sold for appraised value.
Senator Wiener:
Would you please explain the posting procedure, and how the public is to be informed of the availability of the property?
Mr. Hadfield:
The noticing procedure would be duplicated each public session. The assumption is people interested are aware of the responsibilities involved such as removal of asbestos, mold, bacteria, and other airborne materials which can adversely affect a person’s health.
Senator Wiener:
In many cases it is the land that has value, not the buildings.
Chairman Rawson:
I believe you are suggesting the sale be advertised to a wider range of prospective buyers.
Senator Cegavske:
Is there any reason you do not bulldoze the buildings and keep the land as an investment, or sell it at appraised value?
Carolyn McIntosh, Grants Administrator, White Pine County School District:
I am hoping for support for S.B. 150. We are a small school district with a shrinking budget. We currently have six sites in need of disposal. We cannot sell them at the appraised value. We have had interested buyers, but when it comes to purchasing at appraised value, with expenditures required to bring the buildings up to code, it does not make financial sense. We will be spending $60,000 this year to maintain the vacant facilities. Many of the exits are boarded up and pose a risk and liability to vandals.
Mr. Hadfield:
There is no money to do as Senator Cegavske has suggested. If there was money, it would be a viable solution. It is very costly to tear down an old school with asbestos removal and other expenses. The district spends money to keep the heat on so the plumbing does not freeze.
Senator Cegavske:
Have you received estimates for the costs of dismantling the buildings?
Ms. McIntosh:
An estimate was received for $200,000 to tear down the Ely Grade School.
Senator Mathews:
If the property remains on the market for a period of time and does not sell, why not just reduce to price?
Mr. Hadfield:
Schools belong to school districts, and the districts do not have the authority counties have to sell property for less than appraised value.
Senator Neal:
What is in the present law that requires changing?
Mr. Hadfield:
We are seeking to add language to give schools the authority to sell property at less than appraised value.
Senator Neal:
As I understand the present law, there is an appraisal and then the property is offered for sale. At a meeting of the trustees the proposals are opened and the property is sold to the highest bidder, unless someone in the audience raises the bid orally.
Mr. Hadfield:
The law does not allow the sale of property for less than appraised value. If all bids are below appraised value, the property cannot be sold. Senate Bill 150 would allow sealed proposals to again be received at subsequent meetings. The property could be sold to the highest bidder at below appraised value. Presently, the appraisal sets the value.
Senator Neal:
Has an appraisal been done on any of the properties?
Ms. McIntosh:
Yes, the Ely Grade School has been appraised. A real estate firm in Ely has listed it for several years, and there have been no offers at the listed price.
Senator Neal:
Could a property be sold for $1?
Mr. Hadfield:
After completing the three separate public processes, if the only bid was for $1, the school district would have the authority to sell for any price. There may be some advantages. The costs of tearing down the building would be eliminated, the property would return to the tax rolls, and the school district would no longer have maintenance expense.
Chairman Rawson:
The district would not have to sell a property for $1. We will close the hearing on S.B. 150. We will hear a presentation by The Grow Network.
Jennifer Barnum Luria, Vice President of Business Development and State and District Partnerships, The Grow Network:
This slide show presentation will show you what The Grow Network does to make standardized tests more useful for teachers and parents. The report forms are connected to the Internet so parents, teachers, and principals can go on-line to learn more. The parent report provides specific information about the student’s strengths and needs. The teacher report provides insight into students’ needs based on their performance on proficiency examinations. Using a sample student test you can see all the children in the class. We then aggregate the scores and show, in the standards area, how each student is doing. The parent report gives information about their individual child, and the standards area breaks down the scores. We explain the standards to the parents. A teacher will receive a personalized password to go on-line, see all the data, and focus on a topic or an individual student. I am distributing to the committee information about The Grow Network (Exhibit C).
Senator Neal:
Who is responsible for the input of the data?
Ms. Luria:
The current test provider inputs the results of the standardized tests; there would be no change of test provider. Grow would merge the results with data from the attendance roster in order to augment and reinforce the testing program.
Senator Mathews:
What is the cost of the program?
Senator Cegavske:
The cost is approximately $1,250,000 for the first year, and the same amount for the second year. It is estimated to be $7 per student.
Senator Nolan:
Does the information provide Nevada’s ranking with reference to the Iowa test scores on how the State compares to the rest of the nation?
Dean A. Ketchum, Director of State and District Partnerships, The Grow Network:
Depending on the assessment program Nevada has in place, and the kind of results the State desires, we are able to customize and give every comparison required.
Senator Cegavske:
We hear complaints from parents and teachers about the late receipt of results.
Ms. Luria:
Grow will give teachers reports based upon their tests in the fall. When teachers are given results at the end of the year, they do not have the opportunity to assist students who need extra help.
Mr. Ketchum:
Normally, results go first to the State and the school districts. It takes time before reaching teachers and parents. Grow reports simultaneously to districts, principles, teachers, and parents.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will reopen the hearing on S.B. 150.
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
The school district supports this bill. Many of the buildings throughout the State and the district are over 65 years old. The bill would be beneficial for all areas.
Chairman Rawson:
We will hear a motion on S.B. 150.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 150.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Nolan:
I have concerns these properties may be sold without the promise they are going to be cleaned up. We might sell to an investor who does not do the necessary maintenance, and we set an example. Is it possible the State could have a first right of refusal on the property?
Chairman Rawson:
I am hearing the stage may be set for fraud. Let us remember this is an elected body, which follows the open meeting laws. Essentially, our rural counties have come to us with a problem they cannot deal with if we do not give them a method. I understand the need.
Senator Mathews:
If this bill were to pass, would it apply to all counties?
Chairman Rawson:
There would be no restrictions. Washoe County School District has public meetings with scrutiny from the public and press. Would it be agreeable if we put language in to give the State the first right of refusal?
Senator Neal:
I do not think it would make any difference. The act, as proposed, has enough safeguards for the public to be heard. White Pine County is now in a recovery period, and I would like to help them.
Senator Cegavske:
I have concerns about the bill. We might consider a population cap.
Senator Nolan:
I think we are closer on this than apart. The buildings are more than just an eyesore; they represent health and fire hazards to the community.
Ms. McIntosh:
We came to NACO for help in preparing this proposal. I do not feel qualified to address the concerns mentioned today.
Chairman Rawson:
I am going to move this along. If anyone chooses to bring an amendment to the floor, I ask you to work with NACO so we do not have a controversy.
Senator Mathews:
Have we explored the possibility of a population cap? Perhaps this could be just for small counties.
Ms. McIntosh:
I would certainly support that, although I believe Washoe and Clark counties have buildings over 65 years old.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CEGAVSKE VOTED NO.)
*****
H. Pepper Sturm, committee policy analyst:
The first bill for the work session is S.B. 31.
SENATE BILL 31: Authorizes boards of trustees of school districts to provide access to classes at community colleges for gifted and talented pupils and establish program of independent study for gifted and talented pupils. (BDR 34-640)
Chairman Rawson:
I would like to indicate again that I am an employee on leave of absence from the University and Community College System of Nevada.
Senator Cegavske:
I have heard from parents who are concerned all students do not have access to this program.
Chairman Rawson:
Current law has programs for high school students to participate in college programs. I do not think this bill invalidates existing law, which allows all qualified student to go to community college. What is the pleasure of the committee?
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 31.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Mr. Sturm:
The amendments proposed for Senate Bill 33 are summarized in Exhibit D.
SENATE BILL 33: Revises provisions governing charter schools and distance education programs. (BDR 34-642)
Chairman Rawson:
There was no controversy with the first three suggested amendments. This bill calls for a motion to be re-referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND RE‑REFER TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE S.B. 33.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson:
Senate Bill 34 has a fiscal note of $20.8 million. I will entertain a motion to re‑refer to the Senate Committee on Finance.
SENATE BILL 34: Revises provisions governing pupils in public schools. (BDR 34-639)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO RE-REFER TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE S.B. 34.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Mr. Sturm:
There is a proposed amendment provided by Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association to S.B. 35.
SENATE BILL 35: Provides for alternate route to teacher licensure. (BDR 34‑637)
Mr. Sturm:
The proposed amendment states a holder of a secondary license is authorized to teach in his major field of study, deleting “or minor.”
Senator Neal:
I do not understand how this bill would enhance the process of receiving an education.
Senator Wiener:
I understood we have existing provisions for alternative licensure.
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NESA):
The association worked with the Commission on Professional Standards in Education to establish an alternative route to licensure, and regulations went into effect in 1997. The NESA supports the concept that an applicant who goes through the process ends up with the same license as those who go the traditional route. We believe S.B. 35 creates a double standard. The bill states when an individual is licensed under the program, which is outside the Commission on Professional Standards in Education, the result is a license that says it is an alternative license. We believe this will cause problems for those people when they go to another state to teach. My understanding of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires the establishment of an alternative route to licensure. I believe the act does not supersede an alternate license program already in place, and Nevada meets the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 200l in current regulations.
Karyn Wright, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
The Clark County School District agrees with Ms. Cahill. When we have a need for teachers, for example bilingual and mathematic teachers, we have successfully used the processes and procedures currently in place.
Senator Nolan:
I have the impression the alternative program currently in place is meant for an individual wishing to make a career change, and not for those who have vocational expertise to teach and have time to teach. I see this as an additional choice.
Ms. Wright:
The current process in place allows for alternative routes to licensure in a variety of areas. If it is determined there is a shortage in a particular area, we can address the need.
Ms. Cahill:
Individuals with a technical background who do not have a degree in the subject area they pursue would not be considered qualified under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
Senator Nolan:
What do you see as being the greatest impediment of this bill?
Ms. Cahill:
Again, our biggest concern is the creation of a double standard for licensure.
Senator Washington:
Senate Bill 35 appears to have requirements, which are the same as those for alternative licensure. Applicants are required to be certified by the State Board of Education and the superintendent of public instruction. Where are the differences?
Ms. Wright:
A great deal of the bill is redundant. We are currently providing more than what is required in the bill.
Chairman Rawson:
What is the pleasure of the committee?
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 35.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS CEGAVSKE, WASHINGTON, NOLAN, AND WIENER VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 35.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL AND MATHEWS VOTED NO.)
*****
Mr. Sturm:
Two amendments have been proposed for S.B. 44 (Exhibit E).
SENATE BILL 44: Revises provisions governing class size reduction program. (BDR 34-643)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 44.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Rawson:
The second amendment suggested by the Clark County School District would allow flexibility in class size reduction in elementary schools, which serve grades 1 through 5. The bill does not mandate.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Mr. Sturm:
The next bill is S.B. 59. Proposed amendments would add the authority of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and limit the bill to rural districts and rural remote areas of all districts (Exhibit F).
SENATE BILL 59: Authorizes board of trustees of school district under certain circumstances to provide program of instruction based on alternative schedule without approval of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (BDR 34-736)
Chairman Rawson:
I have major concerns about going to a 4-day school week to solve problems such as snow days. We might do this as a pilot program, and limit it to rural areas.
Senator Neal:
I am always appreciative of legislation that goes back to local government instead of the State. I think we should leave scheduling to the elected school board trustees after they have held a public hearing.
Chairman Rawson:
I question whether we are to throw 380,000 students into an alternative schedule. Should we go slow and limit it to rural areas?
Senator Nolan:
Is there an opportunity here for a school board to act without having public input on the issue?
Chairman Rawson:
I do not believe so. I cannot think of any executive action to be taken where the public would be excluded.
Senator Nolan:
I would support an amendment for a test program, with results to be reported back next session.
Chairman Rawson:
The superintendent of schools is required to see that a certain number of minutes are completed.
Senator Neal:
On page 3, beginning on line 24, the bill states, “The Superintendent of Public Instruction may, upon application by the board of trustees of a school district, authorize the school district to establish or maintain an alternative schedule upon an application by the board of trustees.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT 2 OF EXHIBIT F AND DO PASS S.B. 59.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Mathews:
Section 2, subsection 2 describes the number of minutes of instruction required for a particular group of pupils.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards/Reno:
This is an issue of equivalent instructional time, not days or hours. If you recall from testimony, the intent was to provide additional instructional time to make up for the time lost by extra curricular activities. Because of travel, this is a problem in remote areas. It is important to point out there are some natural limiting factors in the implementation of this schedule. The impact upon classified employees, and how some parents would take care of the time their child is out of school are two concerns. The plan could not work with just one district doing it. They would have to work in conjunction with other districts to organize activity schedules. Additionally, concerning the involvement of the superintendent of public instruction, I might recommend requiring his approval on the application within a specified amount of time. This is a matter in which a local board would not enter without extensive public hearing and an understanding of the educational needs of the children as well as the needs of their constituents.
Dorothy L. (Dotty) Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
I remind the committee of testimony provided at an earlier meeting. In our school district, we would use the adjustment in time to provide the opportunity for staff development at specific schools. Washoe County would like to have “with the approval of the superintendent of public instruction” in the bill.
Senator Neal:
Should we amend the bill?
Chairman Rawson:
If we are ready to process, I do not know if we need an amendment. We have a motion before the committee.
Senator Nolan:
The second amendment limiting the bill to rural counties and rural remote areas is included in the motion. If we include the first amendment, which includes the authority of the State superintendent of public instruction, and request some report back to this committee, I support the bill.
Mr. Robison:
During the preliminary discussions of the bill, there was talk of bringing back a report to the committee.
Chairman Rawson:
Would Senator Cegavske and Senator Nolan approve of adding back the amendment to require approval by the State superintendent of public instruction, and a report to be provided to the committee during the next Legislative Session?
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION, AND AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 59 WITH THE AMENDMENTS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT F, AND AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT REQUIRING A REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE DURING THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
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)
Mr. Sturm:
The two sets of proposed amendments are described in Exhibit G.
Chairman Rawson:
If we can resolve the fiscal concerns here, we will be better off.
Senator Washington:
Based on the recommendation to delete the fiscal note, would there be any objections to doing so in order to process the bill without any constraints?
Steven W. Dickerson:
I would not be opposed to moving the bill along in order to see the establishment of some procedure to bring the publishers to a point where electronic data is coming in more freely. Giving the student some avenue to take this through the legal system will help to determine if a standard such as this can be implemented. Currently, with nothing in place to address what a student can do, the publishers do not have anything with which they must comply. Sections 9 and 10 help support the totality of the bill as it is drafted.
Senator Washington:
There is nothing in statute to restrict anyone from taking this type of issue to court. My attempt is to process the bill without having to re-refer it to the Senate Committee on Finance.
Chairman Rawson:
I have no doubt it will kill this bill if we create the fiscal note. When you look at the proposed amendments by Chancellor Jane Nichols of the University and Community College System of Nevada, what is most problematic to you?
Mr. Dickerson:
My deepest concern is removal of language from the bill that requires the publishers to act. The recommendations from the chancellor’s office appear to remove any requirement from the publishers. I realize there is a concern with the fiscal note, but I believe putting the onus on the publisher to provide material to the university reduces the need to have a fiscal note. My purpose was to move the publishers in the direction of providing material.
Chairman Rawson:
We could work on a preamble to indicate it is the policy of the State to require materials in an electronic format. In those cases where such a format does not exist, there can be an exception.
Senator Wiener:
A requirement of accountability might create a chill effect for publishers who could be reluctant to provide documents, for fear of the liability that may be imposed.
Senator Washington:
Is there a possibility we might carve the fiscal sections from the bill, have those sections re-referred to finance, and pass the policy part of the bill?
Chairman Rawson:
It is our responsibility to make policy decisions, and it is past the deadline to authorize another bill. The appropriate action may be to accept the chancellor’s amendments with a preamble that expresses our public purpose for wanting this in Nevada. By expressing our legislative intent it would strengthen any case law that may develop.
Senator Wiener:
I would be glad to work on developing language for the preamble.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 62 WITH THE ADDITION OF A PREAMBLE.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
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)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 68.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Mr. Sturm:
The next bill is 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)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND WITH THE FIRST PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND DO PASS S.B. 85.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sturm:
The first proposed amendment is to revise section 1, subsection 6, line 37, of the bill, to add the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to the provision allowing school district boards of trustees to consider a proceeding under the provision of the bill in hiring and disciplinary proceedings. The second proposed amendment is to limit the provisions of the bill only to disciplinary proceedings.
Senator Neal:
Are we asking for sealed records to be opened for school boards to review?
Mr. Sturm:
That is my understanding of what the bill is proposing.
Senator Neal:
I oppose any legislation for sealed records to be opened. I am told we would be the only jurisdiction in the United States to permit that.
Senator Nolan:
It is my understanding records can be unsealed and reviewed during the licensure process. The process of sealing a criminal record, in some cases, is a matter of an attorney petitioning the court, and a judge determining to seal the records.
Senator Washington:
I disagree with Senator Nolan. The testimony indicated the intent was only for first-time offenders with sealed records.
James J. Jackson, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
As I testified previously, the election can only be applied to first-time offenders who have no prior record. Trafficking is specifically excluded from the election.
Senator Nolan:
Can an individual who has more than one drug-related offense have their record sealed?
Mr. Jackson:
This is a one notice of election opportunity in a lifetime. A record sealed under this provision in the law is a one-time shot. Subsequent convictions or charges are not eligible for a notice of election.
Chairman Rawson:
We have a motion.
THE MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 85.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS RAWSON, CEGAVSKE, WASHINGTON, AND NOLAN VOTED NO.)
*****
Mr. Sturm:
The next item is S.B. 94.
SENATE BILL 94: Provides for medical treatment in medical facility other than hospital under certain circumstances for certain allegedly mentally ill persons and for medical treatment for certain persons who are under influence of controlled substance. (BDR 39-745)
Mr. Sturm:
There does not appear to be a conflict between the proposed amendments in Exhibit H.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 94.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Cegavske:
I want to disclose I do some work for the WestCare Foundation, and this bill does not affect me personally.
Senator Wiener:
I am on the advisory board for the WestCare Foundation.
Mr. Sturm:
There were no amendments proposed for S.B. 96.
SENATE BILL 96: Removes certain mobile units from requirement of being regulated as medical facility. (BDR 40-744)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 96.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 115: Provides for designation of State Plumbing Code by State Public Works Board. (BDR 40-540)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 115.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 118: Revises provisions governing ability of State Fire Marshal to regulate construction, maintenance and safety of buildings and structures in certain counties. (BDR 42-850)
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 118.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS WASHINGTON, NEAL, MATHEWS, AND WIENER VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 138: Requires Department of Human Resources to enter into agreement with Federal Government to determine eligibility for Medicaid at same time Federal Government determines eligibility for Supplemental Security Income Program. (BDR 38-703)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 138.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
There being no further business, this concludes the meeting. We are adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: