MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-second Session
April 21, 2003
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 3:38 p.m., on Monday, April 21, 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 K. Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Todd A. Plimpton, Lobbyist, Pershing County School Board
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards/Reno
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Karyn Wright, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Charles W. (Chuck) Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Executive Director for Veterans’ Services, Office of Veterans’ Services
Ex-Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County
Ron Gutzman
Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 175.
ASSEMBLY BILL 175: Provides for appointment of temporary replacement to board of trustees of school district for member who enters active military service. (BDR 34-426)
Todd A. Plimpton, Lobbyist, Pershing County School Board:
I am a member of the Pershing County School Board and the Nevada National Guard. When I was deployed for 9 months in Egypt, I was able to attend board meetings by waking up at 3:30 a.m. and participating through teleconferencing and e-mail. We drafted this bill in the hope this concern will be addressed for all citizens who may be activated into military service.
Senator Mathews:
How many board meetings can be missed before there is a reappointment?
Mr. Plimpton:
The bill allows sufficient flexibility for each board to make a determination on a case-by-case basis.
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards/ Reno:
The association is strongly in support of this bill to aid our servicemen and servicewomen.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 175.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 218.
ASSEMBLY BILL 218 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing temporary alternative placement of disruptive pupils. (BDR 34-1276)
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9:
Assembly Bill 218 was introduced in order to confirm the intent of A.B. No. 521 of the 70th Session. That bill established teachers could remove a student from their classroom under certain circumstances. It has since been found plans are not being implemented in all schools, and there needs to be a penalty to assure plans are enforced. The bill allows for a principal’s salary to be placed in escrow if they are not implementing the law. The primary issue we hear from parents is the matter of safety. The intent of this legislation is to do all we can to assure children are safe while in the classroom as well as on the campus.
Senator Cegavske:
If a principal is not in compliance, is it legal to hold their salary?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes it is legal. If the administrators are not following the master plan, they are responsible. This is not a change from the original law, which has been in effect for 4 years. What this says is, when an administrator receives a notice and still has not adopted the plan, the administrator must get the plan adopted or have his salary placed in an escrow account. This is specifically for administrators, and described in subsection 5 on page 2. No other party is responsible for implementing the plan.
Senator Neal:
If this has been the law for 4 years, are some schools choosing to ignore it? Have the schools given any reasons for not being in compliance?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
In my opinion some schools merely choose to ignore this. My understanding is this has been implemented in many schools around the State, but not all schools.
Senator Neal:
Where is the alternative placement for disruptive students as called for in the plan?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
In many schools placement would be on the school site, based upon a plan developed with the principal, students, teachers, and parents. The teacher uses his or her right to have the students removed from class. The parent must be notified within 24 hours of the occurrence. The concern is if there is not a decent discipline plan in place, you have an inconsistency in how students are disciplined.
Senator Cegavske:
Would it be the responsibility of the State Board of Education to administer this for the State? I would like to see a report showing where each of the 17 school districts in the State stand in complying with the requirement of the bill.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
When the law was created, it gave the responsibility directly to the local school districts. Page 3 of the bill states the districts shall compile a report. Unless there is actually a survey, it is not known which schools are in compliance. This was omitted in the original bill. Assembly Bill 218 will give us a first-time look at those schools in compliance versus those who are not. There may be a way we can receive some statistics through e‑mail connections the districts have. We have put a lot of burden on the local districts during session. They will have to decide if they can provide you with information.
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
The association supports A.B. 218. It was the association that brought A.B. No. 521 of the 70th Session to the Legislature. We have worked diligently to inform our membership about the provisions of the bill and we habitually receive complaints, comments, and concerns from teachers.
Senator Cegavske:
Can you give us any information about the teachers who have spoken to you about this problem?
Ms. Cahill:
I have not heard from any teachers in the rural districts. Currently most of the comments have been from southern Nevada. We have not done a survey in every school. The complaints we have received indicate a plan is in place but it is not being followed by the principal.
Senator Cegavske:
Have the teachers been instructed to talk to the administration about situations or to file a grievance to make sure the school board is aware of the problem? Have any of the school boards had reports filed about noncompliance?
Ms. Cahill:
I am not aware of any complaints to the local school boards. We have instructed our members to go to the administration with their complaints.
Senator Cegavske:
I still have questions about the legality of holding a person’s salary. I think if you do this to a principal, the next step may be holding back teachers’ salaries if they do not follow their program.
Karyn Wright, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
The Clark County School District believes every classroom should provide an environment conducive to learning which is safe and orderly. The district believes we have provisions in regulation governing temporary alternative placement of disruptive pupils. An assistant regional superintendent supervises each principal and includes the compliance of submitting a discipline plan in the principal’s yearly evaluation. There is a procedure to reprimand a principal who is found to be out of compliance. The district supports the involvement of parents, teachers, and administrators in developing and implementing a plan for progressive discipline of students. To date there have been no concerns regarding the implementation of the discipline plan at any school. If a teacher were to have concerns about his or her principal, the Teacher Advisory Committee would hear those concerns. There are adequate disciplinary means currently in place to ensure appropriate placement of disruptive pupils.
Chairman Rawson:
What retaliation could be brought against a teacher if they did complain?
Ms. Wright:
Discipline is a concern to everyone in the schools and they honestly want to hear from a teacher if the plans are not being followed.
Chairman Rawson:
Do teachers jeopardize their position with the principal by making a complaint? A bill like this does not emerge unless somebody has a grievance.
Ms. Wright:
When I spoke with the assistant regional superintendents and the regional superintendents, they assured me the plans and the implementation procedures are in place. To date a teacher has not come to them with a grievance.
Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators:
The lineage of this bill goes back to A.B. No. 521 of the 70th Session, which formalized the procedure of progressive discipline. It was reviewed again with A.B. No. 319 of the 71st Session. I have spoken with key administrators in Lyon, Pershing, Elko, and Churchill counties, and they state A.B. No. 521 of the 70th Session is working.
Senator Wiener:
In A.B. No. 521 of the 70th Session we had to start from scratch. If we are now asking each principal to submit a plan or to review the master plan adopted by the trustees, is there a principal who has not reviewed the plan in order to comply with what was asked in 1999?
Ms. Wright:
We do have a plan for each school in the Clark County School District. Each principal has reviewed the plan in accordance with A.B. No. 521 of the 70th Session.
Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association:
In Washoe County we review the plan each year with staff and keep binders in the office of the area superintendents.
Senator Wiener:
Again, if there is a problem, we wish to address it. Have we had a principal who has not submitted a review or revision of the master plan from Washoe and Clark Counties? We have a master plan, but we need to know if principals are not providing a review or revision as a part of the team effort. Do we have principals who are not complying?
Mr. Shields:
To my knowledge, in Washoe County, there are no schools out of compliance.
Ms. Wright:
The same is true for Clark County. Every school is in compliance.
Mr. Byington:
According to Pershing County, all of the schools in the district have a plan which is reviewed at the beginning of the school year, and acted upon from there. The other rural counties do it in the same manner.
Senator Cegavske:
We have heard testimony that a handful of teachers are concerned their principals will not enact the plan. I would like to know if anyone here has had a teacher file a complaint or spoken to any of you about concerns at their schools.
Ms. Wright:
I have spoken with each of the five regional superintendents and assistant superintendents, and there have not been complaints filed in the Clark County School District.
Senator Cegavske:
Has every school been checked for a plan they understand? If there is an occurrence, is there a plan to follow? What do you do with disruptive students? I know in-house suspension is not viable at every school.
Ms. Wright:
I spoke with the regional superintendents today. There are in-house suspension programs. In a secondary school for a first occurrence the student is sent to the dean. In each of the discipline plans for the middle and high schools there are procedures once the student is sent to the dean. At the elementary level, teachers partner and send a disruptive student to the partner’s classroom. The parents and students know this. The procedure is in place with the principal as part of their plan. To my knowledge the student is removed, the plan is followed and implemented as stated. All of the superintendents I spoke with today indicate they are willing to work with any school if a teacher at the regional office informs them. There are procedures in place for disciplining a principal not in compliance with A.B. No. 521 of the 70th Session.
Mr. Shields:
Speaking for Washoe County, when the bill was first proposed, I asked if there were any complaints. Four administrators replied there were none. I also contacted the president of the Washoe Education Association and did not receive a response. To the best of our knowledge we are following the law to the best of our ability.
Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators;
All school employees, including administrators, are obligated to comply with State law and school district regulations. There are progressive discipline policies in place in all districts. Under these discipline procedures, employees can be suspended without pay for failure to comply with State law or district policies and regulations. The ultimate discipline for noncompliance is termination. We disagree with the provision in A.B. 218 of withholding a portion of the principal’s salary or other compensation and consider it a bad precedent.
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 247.
ASSEMBLY BILL 247 (1st Reprint): Provides for creation and administration of various accounts for veterans’ homes and residents thereof. (BDR 37‑534)
Charles W. (Chuck) Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Executive Director for Veterans’ Services, Office of Veterans’ Services:
The bill gives the authority to veterans’ homes to comply with Department of Veterans Affairs regulations. An account for each resident in the home is deposited in a separate trust fund. The maximum amount of the fund is $3000 with no more than $50 for each resident. Assembly Bill 247 also provides for the establishment of a reserve account not to exceed $2000 to be used for the payment of bills requiring immediate payment by the veterans’ home.
Ex-Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County:
I would like to express my support for A.B. 247. This account would be able to accept monies people contribute to pay for amenities meant for the veterans.
Ron Gutzman:
The American Legion is in support of this bill. We think it is a bill to make life easier for administrators and patients.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 247.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 396.
ASSEMBLY BILL 396 (1st Reprint): Requires Clark County School District to continue program for replacement of certain schools. (BDR S-1007)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Assembly Bill 396 is to continue the program Clark County started with the rebuilding of inner-city schools. By increasing the bonds to $230 million, which was accomplished by extending the date to 2008, will allow 10 schools to be rebuilt. On line 2 of page 1 and line 17 of page 2, we would like to have the word “pilot” reinserted before the word “program.” There is some concern the district might move away from some of the prototypes for the type of buildings they are doing such as the multiple stories.
Chairman Rawson:
This is discretionary money. Are we leaving the school board any choices and should we leave money for other things?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
When we passed the law, we allowed the district in Clark County to roll over their bond capacity and that money has been segregated for the rebuilding of schools. This is not new or additional bond dollars, just within the fund currently being collected. The money is there, and by extending the date to 2008 there will be up to $230 million. The committee wanted to be clear that Rancho High School was next on the list. There is a middle school to be considered, and then as many elementary schools as can be rebuilt. The school board has adopted regulations specifically for this program, the replacement of schools. There are several hundred million dollars in addition to be used for other purposes.
Senator Neal:
How many of the schools are two stories?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The Wendell P. Williams Elementary School is two stories. The board is looking at age, maintenance costs, and whether there is sufficient land on the site when deciding the schools to be rebuilt. In the future the district may look at broadening the bond in order to accomplish more things, and the board has been cooperative about the need to build inner-city schools. In some cases remodeling is appropriate, but in many cases extensive maintenance is throwing good money after bad.
Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
Assembly Bill No. 499 of the 71st Session allowed Clark County School District to use an amount not to exceed $90 million for the replacement of five schools with a completion date of 2005. The district has completed Sunrise Acres Elementary School which opened in January 2002, and Wendell P. Williams Elementary School which opened in August 2002. Virgin Valley and Booker Elementary Schools have been approved. The total cost of the 4 schools is expected to be approximately $58.8 million, leaving approximately $31.2 million for the construction of the fifth replacement school. Assembly Bill No. 499 of the 71st Session focused on replacing elementary schools. However, through the methodology outlined in the district’s policy on school reconstruction, it has been determined the next school to be replaced should be Rancho High School. Assembly Bill 396 expands the scope of the school replacement mandate, increasing the number of schools to be replaced from 5 to 10, increasing the dollar amount by $95 million, and extending the time line to 2008.
Senator Neal:
Which students are assigned to the upstairs of a two-story elementary school?
Ms. Haldeman:
State law requires kindergarten and first grade to be on the first floor. I am not certain if second grade is also required to be on the first floor.
Senator Rawson, you asked earlier if the school boards would be looking at the bond issues. When the bonds go out in 2008 for reauthorization, there would be a third component. In the past it was 60 percent for new schools and 40 percent for renovation of existing schools. Now that we have a large number of schools older than 40 years of age, there will be a replacement factor.
Senator Neal:
Are there schools scheduled to be remodeled or built on the west side of Las Vegas?
Ms. Haldeman:
Yes, William P. Williams Elementary School has opened. Booker Elementary School and Rancho High School are scheduled.
Chairman Rawson:
What happens to the students while you are replacing Rancho High School?
Ms. Haldeman:
We will be able to build the school on the existing ball field. Then the school will be torn down and the ball field will be rebuilt.
Senator Cegavske:
I keep remembering change-order problems we have had in the past. Are we still having those problems?
Ms. Haldeman:
With the exception of one school, we are using prototype replacements and the change orders are kept to a minimum.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Section 2 reinforces the types of designs Clark County School District is using. We encourage other districts to look at the prototypes we are using.
Ms. Haldeman:
The cost of Sunrise Acres Elementary School was $13.9 million. We have been fortunate the schools we have replaced included room to build the new school and then tear down the old building.
Senator Cegavske:
Can this money be used for other things besides replacement of schools? Also, this bill does not have to go to the Senate Committee on Finance.
Chairman Rawson:
You are correct, this bill is not required to go to the Senate Committee on Finance. This money can only be used for replacement.
Ms. Haldeman:
None of the monies can be used for administrative buildings nor have they been.
Chairman Rawson:
We will prepare a work session document on this matter. This meeting is adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: