MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 23, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Education was called to order by Chairman Wendell P. Williams, at 3:45 p.m., on Wednesday, June 23, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

     

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

      Mr. Ken L. Haller, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Vonne Chowning

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mrs. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Ms. Sandra Tiffany

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None.

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Senator Ernie Adler, Capital Senatorial District

      Senator Len Nevin, District 2

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Donald Williams, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Bob Dickens, University of Nevada, Reno

      Leslie Sully, UNLV Foundation

      Dorothy Gallagher, UCCSN Board of Regents

      Mark Dawson, UCCSN

      Sandy Coyle

      Deidre Hammon

      Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards

 

      Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association

      Jeanne Simons

      Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association

      John McKenna, Carson City Chamber of Commerce

      Dr. Greg Betts, Rural School Districts of Nevada

      Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association

 

Chairman Williams announced the committee would begin as a subcommittee since several members were attending another meeting.

 

SENATE BILL 91 -  Allows school-based decision making in public schools.

 

Sandy Coyle, parent from Douglas County, read from prepared testimony in support of the bill (Exhibit C).  Mrs. Coyle explained the bill would allow each county to meet their unique needs by permitting the local board of trustees to prescribe the rules relating to the creation and administration of programs of school-based decision making.  According to Mrs. Coyle, the local boards could not waive statutory requirements except upon application to the State Board of Education.

 

In conclusion, Mrs. Coyle emphasized the passage of SB 91 would increase parental involvement, improve better educational outcomes for all children, and create a better working environment for the teachers.  Mrs. Coyle submitted a letter to Chairman Williams for the record (Exhibit D).

 

Deidre Hammon, Chairman of the Special Education Parent Advisory Committee, Washoe County, presented testimony in support of the bill.  Mrs. Hammon emphasized parents wanted to be involved in the changes currently taking place in schools which could make a difference to the education of their children.  Mrs. Hammon submitted a letter of support of the bill for the record, and urged the committee to pass SB 91 (Exhibit E).

 

Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association, stated NSEA was in support of the bill with a proposed amendment to the language on page 2, subsection 10.  Mrs. Jydstrup indicated the language was unnecessary and should be omitted.

 

Mrs. de Braga alluded to AB 290 and questioned why both bills were necessary since AB 290 implemented a pilot program.  Mrs. de Braga referred to Section 4 and was concerned with the course of study being waived by the decision-making group.  Mrs. Jydstrup pointed out there was a difference between the two bills and Senator Adler would address the issue.

 

Senator Ernie Adler, Capital Senatorial District, explained the bill was the result of a consensus between parents, teachers, and administrators regarding parental involvement of school-based decision making.  Senator Adler pointed out the program had been extremely successful in Dade County, Florida, with a major turnaround in the drop of teacher absenteeism.

 

Senator Adler clarified Section 2 would allow the school district to prescribe rules relating to the creation and the administration of the program of school-based decision making.  The rules must provide for the establishment of a school council consisting of individuals whom the school districts approved.  Record keeping would be required, along with a procedure for appealing the decision of a school council.  Senator Adler emphasized a procedure would be established for a school to obtain a waiver of requirements of regulations of the board of trustees or the state board, in addition to a method for determining the progress of a pupil who was part of a program of school-based decision making.

 

According to Senator Adler, a plan for each participating school should be determined which included the objectives for improving the school.

 

Referring to Section 10, Senator Adler agreed he had no problem with deleting the provision.  Further, Section 3 allowed the school districts to waive the requirements of the board of trustees and the state board of public schools within the district which adopted school-based decision making.

 

Senator Adler pointed out a school could go through its board of trustees and the state board to waive certain state laws and regulations which would allow the flexibility of high quality vocational education.

 

Senator Adler clarified there was a difference between SB 91 and AB 290.  According to Senator Adler, AB 290 began at the top with the State Board of Education and worked its way down. In SB 91, the programs began with the parents and teachers making the decision of implementing the programs in the schools, and there was no limitation of how many schools might participate.  The language in AB 290 was limited to only ten schools being allowed to implement pilot programs which would eliminate many schools interested in the program.

 

Senator Adler concluded the programs could be cost effective by producing an improved product at a much lower cost.

 

Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturer's Association, presented testimony in favor of the bill.  Mr. Bacon indicated schools throughout the country which had participated in school-based decision making had found monumental improvements in the quality of the students, along with a decrease in the dropout rate.  Mr. Bacon urged the committee to support SB 91.

 

John McKenna, member of the Carson City School Board and Director of the Carson City Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the bill.  Mr. McKenna clarified the bill would allow experimentation yet would maintain the level of education, and he urged the committee to pass the bill.

 

Jeanne Simons, parent, presented testimony in support of the bill.  Mrs. Simons emphasized the need for change in the education system along with increased teacher and parental involvement in decisions relating to schools.  Mrs. Simons referred to an article from the Nevada Appeal newspaper discussing quality circles which was, in her opinion, what site-based management was all about.   

 

Mrs. Simons maintained SB 91 was a better bill than AB 290 due to the limitation of only ten pilot schools being able to participate in the process.  Mrs. Simons justified SB 91 offered more flexibility with the local school districts being involved, rather than the state board, as in AB 290.  Mrs. Simons submitted a document explaining site-based management and the states which currently were using it (Exhibit F), and urged the committee to support the bill.

 

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, presented testimony stating the bill, as written, was acceptable and could make progress in the educational system. 

 

Mrs. Lusk referred to the provisions in Section 2, Subsections 10 and 11, and indicated her support since the programs were experimental and could be different in each school. 

 

Dr. Greg Betts, Rural School Districts of Nevada, spoke in opposition to the bill.  Dr. Betts agreed site-based management was a worthy concept; however, SB 91 was too "prescriptive" and mandated every school board develop rules accordingly.  In his opinion, AB 290 was a better bill which encouraged the concept, but did not "launch it."

 

Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, presented testimony in opposition to SB 91.  Mr. Etchemendy referred to line 3 which stated, "The board of trustees of a school district shall prescribe rules."  According to Mr. Etchemendy, such language was considered a mandate and would eliminate local control of the school districts.  Mr. Etchemendy agreed with Dr. Betts regarding AB 290; it would be a far better vehicle than SB 91.

 

Referring to Section 3, lines 6 through 9, Mr. Etchemendy questioned the waiver clause, and he indicated regulations by the State Board of Education had the full force and effect of law and could not be waived by local school districts.

 

Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Etchemendy if he would support the bill if the word "shall" in line 3 was changed to "may."  Mr. Etchemendy indicated he would be comfortable if the local school districts were "strongly encouraged" to participate in school-based decision making rather than mandating it.

 

Senator Adler explained the reason the school districts requested the word "shall" rather than "may" was to ensure any  districts engaging in the program would follow a specific set of rules.  The school districts would establish the criteria with the rules included.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on SB 91. 

 

SENATE BILL 322 -Regulates university foundations.

 

Senator Len Nevin, Senate District 2, explained the bill mandated the university foundation defined as a "nonprofit corporation formed exclusively to support a university or community college in Nevada" must comply with the state laws regarding open meetings and public records.  However, contributors names and donation amounts were not required to be disclosed.

 

Senator Nevin indicated the bill was the result of problems which had surfaced in southern Nevada regarding the questionable expenditures of foundation money.  The bill would require the foundations to open their records and comply with the open meeting law; however, the donor's identity would not be disclosed.

 

Senator Nevin maintained Board of Regent's member, Shelly Berkeley, had contacted him and acknowledged her full support of the bill which she felt would straighten out the current situation.

 

Senator Nevin alluded to the fact SB 322 had been voted out of the Senate with 19 yeas, 1 abstaining, and 1 absent.

 

Chairman Williams questioned if it was the intent of the bill to address any group which donated money to public education.  Senator Nevin replied, "Yes." 

 

Mark Dawson, Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada, disputed Senator Nevin's allegation of Regent Berkeley supporting the bill.  Mr. Dawson maintained the board was currently attempting to develop a contract between the foundations and the university to "spell out" the rules and regulations by which both parties would operate.  Mr. William Hutton, a tax attorney from San Francisco, was currently working on an agreement between the foundations and the Board of Regents which should be completed and voted on sometime in September. 

Mr. Dawson suggested adding language to the bill which would protect the donors, and the information pertaining to donors, should the committee choose to pass SB 322. 

 

Mrs. Segerblom asked if there were problems at UNR.  Mr. Dawson responded, "No."

 

Dorothy Gallagher, member of the Board of Regents, spoke in opposition to the bill since she did not feel it was necessary.  Mrs. Gallagher was certain when Mr. Hutton developed the proposed agreement, it would be feasible to all parties.  According to Mrs. Gallagher, it was imperative to guard the confidentiality of the donors, along with their financial information. 

 

Mr. Collins emphasized requests by the public for disclosures regarding the southern Nevada foundations had been occurring for quite some time; however, currently nothing had transpired.   

 

Bob Dickens, Director of Governmental Relations for the University of Nevada, Reno, presented testimony in opposition to SB 322.  Mr. Dickens referred to two handouts to the committee; the UCCSN Foundations Fundraising Model (Exhibit G) and information regarding what was requested and retained in foundation files (Exhibit G).  Mr. Dickens explained after a donation was made, the amount was reported to the Board of Regents, the expenditure was then authorized by the board, and the expenditure reports were opened to public scrutiny.

 

Mr. Dickens referred to the items in Exhibit H titled, "Items Found in Foundation Files," "Prospect Summary Sheet," and "Corporation Summary Sheet."  The latter two items were marked "Confidential."  Mr. Dickens pointed out the Prospect Summary Sheet included information requesting business affiliations, business and profession, place of residence, civic, social, and religious affiliations.  The Corporation Summary Sheet requested information on the corporation's business such as sales, assets, net income, employees' earnings per share, etc. 

 

Mr. Dickens referred to Section 1, Subsection 2, and indicated the only information SB 322 allowed the universities to keep confidential was the name of the contributor and the amount contributed.  Mr. Dickens emphasized there was a vast amount of information contained in donor files which should remain confidential and, if opened, could put the foundations out of business.  Such information was contained in "Items Found in Foundation Files" in Exhibit H.  If the bill passed, Mr. Dickens suggested an amendment to protect the donors from such information being opened to the public.

 

Leslie Sully, attorney for the UNLV Foundation, explained during the fall of 1992, extensive hearings had been held in Las Vegas regarding the controversies involving the UNLV basketball program.  An outgrowth of the hearings were the affairs of the UNLV Foundation.  Mr. Sully stated a question had been raised as to whether the foundation was public or private, and his response was, "It was hybrid."  The foundations were setup as private corporations and were nonprofit; however, their purpose was to serve the public universities and community colleges in Nevada.

 

The foundations were formed to raise revenues from the private sector through charitable donors.  Mr. Sully maintained the UNLV Foundation operated on a slim budget of which the expense  represented 5 percent or less of its income on an annual basis.  Mr. Sully emphasized there were "not" vast amounts of public funds being put into the UNLV Foundation.  Certain employee services were made available to the foundation through the university system and the value of such services equalled approximately 12 percent of the foundation's current budget.  Of the $1 million it cost per year to operate the foundation, the 12 percent was in the form of salary offsets and government employees. 

 

Mr. Sully pointed out the Board of Regents had the authority, power, and control over the various foundations.  All foundation

records were available for inspection by the board at any time.  Mr. Sully justified due to the problems the UNLV Foundation had faced, all parties involved had been working to satisfy the public's need to know of the affairs of the foundation.  Negotiations had been entered into with the Board of Regents and an agreement had been submitted to the board.  Mr. Sully clarified the UNLV Foundation had offered to make substantial portions of its records available for public inspection.  However, Mr. Sully stressed if other competing charities were able to obtain information through public examination of records, the UNLV Foundation would be placed at a competitive disadvantage in attempting to raise funds.  Mr. Sully suggested if the committee decided to pass the bill, it should apply across the board and not be restricted only to university foundations.

 

Mr. Sully concluded the Board of Regents and the UNLV Foundation were working closely on an agreement addressing confidentiality and the need to know; however, it would take time due to conflicting schedules of the parties involved.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked if the foundation's concern appeared to be no protection of confidentiality, relating to personal information, since the UNLV Foundation was not regarded as a public entity.  Mr. Dickens referred to page 1, lines 14 and 15, and replied, according to the language, there would be no authorization to maintain the confidentiality of any information other than the name and contribution of a donor.  Mrs. de Braga pointed out since the foundation was not a public corporation, the language would not apply.  Mr. Dickens responded the foundations were incorporated under the NRS provisions dealing with private corporations; however, since the funds were spent for public purposes, the bill would apply. 

 

In his opinion, Mr. Sully felt the intent of the bill was to address private corporations as if they were public organizations.  Mr. Sully added there were many documents within the records of the various foundations which could lead to the disclosure of confidential information and should not be open to the public.

 

Mr. Dickens indicated accountability was handled once the Board of Regents received funds from a particular foundation and authorized their utilization by the campus.

 

Ms. Tiffany questioned if the large contributors literally controlled the direction of the foundation, and how the public was assured such control did not occur.  Mr. Dickens replied the size and the wide articulation of interests attempted to prevent such occurrences from happening.  Mr. Sully added the purposes for which funds would be utilized or raised stemmed from the university first, and were then presented to the foundation.

 

Mr. Sully clarified the Board of Regents had the power to elect the trustees of the various foundations and the regents were directly responsible to the voters.  Therefore, the system of checks and balances was in place.

 

Ms. Tiffany referred to "shadow accounting" (changing funds internally) and questioned how it could be prevented.  Mr. Dickens alluded to the fact there were two types of gifts:  the first was the restricted gift and was donated for a specific purpose; the other gift was unrestricted and could be used for a wide range of needs which fit the institution's purpose.  Mr. Dickens emphasized unrestricted gifts mainly paid for things state, federal, or grant funds could not.  Ms. Tiffany was concerned the unrestricted funds were being used for questionable purposes such as newspaper subscriptions and other items which had been the subject of the press.  Mr. Sully maintained donors always had the option of knowing where their contribution had been spent.

 

Chairman Williams agreed the regents should have the responsibility of handling the expenditures from the foundations; however, it was the perception of the public the job was not being done.  Chairman Williams suggested amending the bill to include other foundations, specifically, public schools.

 

In his opinion, Mr. Sully felt the situation should be left to the discretion of the Board of Regents to establish a solution, and he was concerned legislation such as SB 322 could prolong such a solution from occurring.

 

Mrs. Chowning referred to the Prospect Summary Sheet previously discussed and emphasized, in her opinion, no form should question an individual's religious affiliation.  Mrs. Chowning questioned if the Board of Regents had access to all expenditures, salaries, housing, automobiles, etc. of the university.  Mr. Dickens replied, "Yes," all funds and their purpose had to be authorized by the regents before they could be expended on the campus.

 

Mrs. Chowning summarized, according to Mr. Dickens' comments, all regents should be able to view a balance sheet and identify if something was "out of kilter."  Mr. Dickens added the regents approved the contracts, salaries, benefits, perks, etc.  Mr. Sully added the trustees of the UNLV Foundation had decided to make its funds available to the university in one lump sum.  The university would then have the discretion to decide how the funds should be expended, and the information would be public, since the university system was not a private institution.

 

Mr. Dickens clarified there were approximately 38 separate foundations of varying size within the system; however, some were extremely small with specific dedications for funds.  The large foundations were located on the individual campuses.

 

Mr. Collins questioned if the Board of Regents hired the employees for the foundations.  Mr. Dickens responded, "Yes."   Mr. Sully added not all clerical staff was hired through the board.

 

Chairman Williams asked if a constituent of a member of the Board of Regents could examine records with the regent.  Mr. Sully indicated he did not feel it would be appropriate due to the disclosure of confidential information outside of the arena of the Board of Regents.

 

Chairman Williams asked if the parties opposed to SB 322 were agreeable to some type of workable situation if the bill addressed their concerns of confidentiality.  Mr. Dickens responded the Board of Regents would prefer to establish their own agreement; however, if the committee chose to pass the bill, an amendment specifically identifying the types of information which must be maintained in confidential records would be necessary.

 

Chairman Williams asked Mr. Dickens to submit his proposed amendment the following day in order for all parties to reach an agreement.  Chairman Williams again suggested including public school foundations in the amendment.

 

Senator Nevin clarified he previously stated regent Shelly Berkeley supported the bill, not the entire Board of Regents.  Senator Nevin referred to the language in the bill regarding donors and emphasized it had been added by request of Senator Raggio.  Senator Nevin alluded to line 15 and suggested adding the following language at the end of the sentence, "Or any identifying or personal information" which, in his opinion, would eliminate the problem.  In addition, Senator Nevin recommended language which stated, "Donors are permitted to access all information the foundation is holding on them."

Senator Nevin emphasized the universities were a public system, owned by the taxpayers, who had a right to know where their money was being spent.

 

Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, pointed out federal law oversaw many foundations due to the fact the taxpayers subsidized all nonprofit corporations and foundations.  The federal laws encompassed tax returns of such entities being made public, along with the names of donors.  Mrs. Engleman maintained information which had been denied to reporters was how the money had been spent for the benefit of the various universities.  According to Mrs. Engleman, certain members of the Board of Regents had stated they had not been able to access such information.

 

Mrs. Engleman clarified the reason one check was written to the Board of Regents rather than various personnel was due to Nevada's new ethics law.  The law prevented an individual from receiving supplemental income for a job which he was already being paid for.

 

Mr. Collins asked if the language on page 1 stating, "The university not be required to disclose the names," should be eliminated since federal law would supersede it.  Mrs. Engleman replied the press was not concerned with the donors' names or any personal information; however, under federal law, the names would be required to be published at some point. 

 

Mr. Collins was confused with the issue of using taxpayers' money to pay employees who worked for the private foundation.  Mrs. Engleman was under the impression the foundation would employ them, not the public.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on SB 322.

 

Chairman Williams appointed a subcommittee for SB 91 chaired by Mrs. Chowning and including Mrs. Segerblom and Mrs. de Braga.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 761 -     Specifies relationship between certain statutory and regulatory provisions regarding absences of school employees and provisions of collective bargaining agreement with school district.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS AB 761.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:42 p.m.

 

     

                             RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                                         

                            Marilyn Cole, Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Education

Date: 

Page:  1

 

 

Assembly Committee on Education

Date:  June 23, 1993

Page:  2