MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Sixty-seventh Session
June 30, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Education was called to order by Chairman Wendell P. Williams, at 8:50 a.m., on Wednesday, June 30, 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. Roy Neighbors
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. James W. McGaughey
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond Rawson, Senate District 6
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald Williams, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association
Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State
Eugene Paslov, Department of Education
Nancy Price, Board of Regents
Jeanne Simons
Sandy Coyle
Bob Dickens, University of Nevada, Reno
Leslie Sully, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Dorothy Gallagher, Board of Regents
SENATE BILL 354 -Prohibits corporal punishment in public schools.
Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association, explained there had been a question regarding escorting a disruptive student to the principal's office. Mrs. Jydstrup suggested adding language to the end of the bill as subsection D which might read, "To escort a disruptive student who will not go voluntarily to the proper authorities." Chairman Williams indicated he had received language which stated, "To escort a disruptive student who refuses to go voluntarily to the proper authorities." Mrs. Jydstrup clarified Senator James was in agreement with the proposed amendment.
Chairman Williams reiterated his feelings on prohibiting corporal punishment in public and private schools; however, he would offer a personal amendment, with the addition of private schools, on the floor.
ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 354.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (ASSEMBLYMEN MCGAUGHEY, GREGORY, AND COLLINS WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
SENATE BILL 66 - Changes date by which superintendent of public instruction must submit certificate to certain county clerks stating number and offices of trustees of county school district to be filled at next general election.
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, presented testimony in support of the bill. Mrs. Lau explained the bill was merely a cleanup measure to change the date for the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to notify the County Election Department regarding the number of school trustees which would appear on a ballot. Current law stated there was a June 1 notification; SB 66 changes the date to January 1 which would provide preparation time for candidate filings.
Dr. Eugene Paslov, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, spoke in support of the bill.
Mrs. Chowning referred to line 10 and questioned the meaning of the word "conterminous." Dr. Paslov indicated the word had been misspelled and should have been "coterminous."
ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS SB 66.
ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (ASSEMBLYMEN MCGAUGHEY, GREGORY, AND COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * * * * * * *
SENATE BILL 447 -Prohibits under certain circumstances surreptitious electronic surveillance on property of public school, on grounds of state facility or on campus of University and Community College System of Nevada.
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, presented testimony on behalf of Senator Bob Coffin. The purpose of the bill was to eliminate the surreptitious use of video and electronic surveillances on public employees. Mr. Gagnier emphasized the bill had "carefully" been worked on with law enforcement agencies to ensure their concerns had been addressed, and there was no interference with the legitimate surveillance involved in criminal investigations. In addition, security systems would be protected and not included as part of SB 447.
Mr. Gagnier pointed out there was an exception for the public schools and universities, regarding classes or laboratories, when the teacher of such classes authorized the use of the camera. The other exception which Mr. Gagnier felt might require the use of a camera was when an employer or agency was suspicious of any type of wrong doing. However, in his opinion, such an exception could, "Gut the bill."
Mr. Haller questioned if the bill would affect the security video currently used in Clark County. Mr. Gagnier referred to Section 1, subsection 2(c) which addressed Mr. Haller's concern.
Mrs. Segerblom asked if a supervisor who was suspicious of certain activities could request surveillance. Mr. Gagnier responded if it was a criminal activity, it would have to be handled by a court order. Mr. Gagnier pointed out currently it was illegal to record oral conversations; however, unless the bill was passed, an individual or individuals could be recorded on camera and, in many instances, a lip reader could determine the conversation.
Ms. Tiffany questioned if the bill was the result of the incident which had occurred at UNLV or the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Gagnier replied it was the UNLV incident.
Mrs. Jydstrup stated for the record NSEA was in support of the bill, and specifically the section related to the provision addressing public education.
Dorothy Gallagher, UNLV Board of Regents, maintained the board had currently passed a policy which addressed the issue for the University of Nevada System. Mrs. Gallagher justified the university policy was similar to SB 447, yet was somewhat more restrictive.
ASSEMBLYMAN HALLER MOVED TO DO PASS SB 447.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE BILL 553 -Requires board of trustees for each school district to administer examinations for achievement and proficiency to certain pupils.
Dr. Paslov explained SB 553 was a trailer bill to SB 67 which changed the testing grade levels from 3, 6, 9, and 11 to 4, 8, and 11. According to Dr. Paslov, the governor's office pointed out students enrolled in the 9th grade during the 1993-1994 school year should be tested. The language in SB 67, without the trailer bill, would eliminate the testing of 9th grade students for the 1993-1994 school year.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS SB 553.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Williams referred to the list of bills from the current session assigned to the Assembly Education Committee (Exhibit C). Chairman Williams clarified the bills on the first two pages which had not previously had any action taken, needed to be Indefinitely Postponed. However, if any of the bills were requested to be reconsidered before the end of session, the committee could vote to do so.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THE BILLS LISTED ON THE FIRST TWO PAGES OF EXHIBIT C.
ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Williams alluded to page 3 of Exhibit C and stated of the four bills listed, three had been passed out of committee as recently as during the current meeting. The remaining bill, SB 322, heard at a previous meeting, would be discussed next.
SENATE BILL 322 -Regulates university foundations.
Chairman Williams emphasized the university regents had taken steps toward eliminating some of the controversy surrounding the UNLV Foundation; however, the reality of the situation was currently a part of the legislature in the form of SB 322. Chairman Williams maintained the bill had been voted out of the Senate Government Affairs Committee by a vote of 5-0, and passed unanimously from the Senate floor. In his opinion, Chairman Williams felt until the public felt the issue had been addressed, and control was in the hands of the regents, the problem would remain.
Chairman Williams referred to the proposed amendment to the bill, Amendment 1150 (Exhibit D), which resolved a conflict notice which had been received earlier in the week. Due to the numerous legislation introduced during the session relating to open records and public information, Chairman Williams justified it was imperative to consider SB 322.
Chairman Williams explained the amendment basically amended Section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 14 and 15, and inserting new language. Chairman Williams stated for the record it was not his intention for the committee to act as an investigative committee since its primary function was to deal with policy. Due to the apparent concern from the public regarding public records and openness, Chairman Williams felt the bill warranted a review by the Education Committee.
Nancy Price, Board of Regents, Las Vegas, called attention to lines 9, 10, and 11 of the bill. Mrs. Price was concerned the language could make legal what was currently considered illegal and unethical by any other standards. Mrs. Price agreed the records should be public; however, she urged the committee to remove lines 9 through 11.
Chairman Williams temporarily postponed the hearing on SB 322 in order to accommodate Senator Rawson, who was waiting to present a bill.
SENATE BILL 527 -Authorizes board of trustees of school district to allow reading or posting of certain historical material in public schools.
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Senate District 6, explained the bill would essentially allow any statements of the Founding Fathers to be used in the educational setting. The board of trustees of a school district would be authorized to encourage any teacher or administrator to read or post any text or excerpt from lines 8 through 18 of SB 527.
Senator Rawson concluded the bill made a general statement that the history which was important to all citizens was basic to the country, and did not require further approval.
Jeanne Simons, parent, presented testimony in support of the bill.
Sandy Coyle, parent from Douglas County, stated for the record she was in support of the bill.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on SB 527 and reopened the hearing on SB 322.
Bob Dickens, Director of Governmental Relations, University of Nevada, Reno, and the UNR Foundation, alluded to the proposed amendment to the bill. Although the foundations' concerns were addressed in the amendment, Mr. Dickens called attention to page 1, Section 1, lines 14, 15, and 16. According to Mr. Dickens, the language was not specific enough. Mr. Dickens was concerned with the possibility of a group of individuals being identified who were foundation donors, i.e., by a religious affiliation or association. In his opinion, such information should remain confidential.
Mr. Dickens referred to the proposed Section 2 of the amendment and emphasized, "It simply did not get to that level of specificity." Mr. Dickens maintained the foundation would like a detailed, specific list of exemptions pertaining to donors to remain confidential in its files. However, the campus expenditures would not be included as part of the confidentiality once they had been authorized by the Board of Regents. Mr. Dickens indicated within the following six months, there would be a set of guidelines for the foundations which specified the way in which such issues would be addressed.
Mrs. de Braga asked if the majority of donors opted to remain anonymous regarding their contributions to the foundations. Mr. Dickens replied some wanted public recognition, yet others were motivated by different thoughts.
Mr. Dickens referred to the foundations' proposed amendment which included a detailed list of items they asked be specifically amended into the bill (Exhibit E).
Chairman Williams pointed out if the regents were successful, by the next session of the legislature, in moving forward to accomplish their goals regarding the public's concern, he would be the first person to vote to repeal the law, should SB 322 pass.
Ms. Tiffany maintained the only reason SB 322 surfaced was due to the fact the public felt the regents were not doing their job. As far as the detailed list of items Mr. Dickens had submitted, Ms. Tiffany remarked it was too specific, and she suggested the foundation change its forms. Ms. Tiffany agreed with Mrs. Price regarding lines 9, 10, and 11, and recommended addressing those lines rather than the items included in Exhibit E.
Mrs. Chowning was concerned with the amendment submitted by Mr. Dickens and, in her opinion, none of the items listed should be made public. Mrs. Chowning suggested listing only the information the committee felt should be revealed, i.e., the amount of the expenditure. Mr. Dickens agreed with Mrs. Chowning's suggestion.
Leslie Sully, UNLV Foundation, emphasized the individuals on the Board of Regents were qualified to deal with the issue of disclosure. In addition, Mr. Sully agreed with Chairman Williams' suggestion when SB 322 had first been heard, which was to include all foundations and entities formed for the purpose of benefitting the public welfare, not specifically the universities, in the proposed legislation.
Chairman Williams pointed out the bill did not single out UNLV alone. Mr. Sully justified, due to the competition for donated dollars, all organizations, not specifically educational ones, should be included in the bill.
Ms. Tiffany questioned how other university foundations throughout the country handled the disclosure issue. Mr. Sully responded certain cases had been addressed through the courts. Some of the courts had limited the examination to public records pertaining to the expenditure of public funds. As far as a consistent, principal rule, Mr. Sully pointed out each of the statutes were worded differently. The foundations and universities were attempting to determine a means of satisfying and balancing the public's need to know with the privacy of its donors.
Ms. Tiffany asked if Mr. Sully was aware of any foundations using the balancing test. Mr. Sully replied, "No." In addition, he was unaware of any state statute which specifically stated university foundations would be treated as public entities. Ms. Tiffany questioned if the UNLV Foundation received general fund money. Mr. Sully responded, "We do." Ms. Tiffany emphasized that would make the foundation public.
Mrs. Gallagher suggested making the language in SB 322 more definitive, should the committee decide to pass the bill, or there could be cases which might end up in court.
Chairman Williams indicated SB 322 would provide a general parameter to function with, and the regents would have the ability to ensure its implementation.
Mr. Sully was concerned the present language in SB 322 was too broad-based, and he suggested some type of delegation of limiting authority by the Board of Regents. Chairman Williams justified public confidence would be gained by superseding what the bill did if the board went beyond what the legislature imposed, in reference to confidentiality and accountability.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 322 BY DELETING ON PAGE 1, LINES 9 THROUGH 11, LINES 14 AND 15, AND ACCEPTING AMENDMENT 1150 TO THE BILL.
THE MOTION FAILED SINCE THERE WAS NO SECOND.
Mrs. Chowning clarified she could not accept the language of the proposed amendment due to the lack of specificity. In her opinion, Mrs. Chowning indicated the language should address the disclosure of only the expenditures. Mrs. Chowning suggested language which would state, "A university or foundation is required to disclose the expenditures of contributors to the University Foundation." In addition, she suggested deleting lines 9, 10, and 11.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 322 WITH THE LANGUAGE SHE PROPOSED.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. de Braga questioned what was meant by the expenditure of donors. Mrs. Chowning responded what the public was angry and concerned about was how much of the donated funds were going to the universities, and for what purpose. Many accusations had been made regarding the funds being used for paying for beauty shop appointments, dog care, etc. Mrs. de Braga justified if only the dollar amount was to be disclosed, not the name of the donor, in her opinion, the bill addressed the issue without the necessity of an amendment.
Mr. Collins commented it would be difficult for the regents to know what the foundation was doing if the legislation was not passed. According to Mr. Collins, the amendment was "clean" and would allow everyone to know how the funds were being spent, and he requested his motion be reconsidered.
Mrs. Chowning was concerned the proposed amendment could be "opening a problem up." Although the language of the amendment indicated there was no requirement to disclose the name, there was no language which would protect against disclosing other personal information. Chairman Williams pointed out the proposed language stated, "The name or any other information which may reveal his identity." Mrs. Chowning stressed there was no protection regarding the disclosure of a donor's religious association, his credit card number, his home address, etc.
Mr. Collins argued a "laundry list" was not necessary; the Board of Regents would have the ability to write the regulations. Mrs. Chowning remarked she would need some assurance or legal opinion from the LCB Legal Department regarding the identity issue.
Chairman Williams recommended drafting language which might state, "Information that reveals the identity inclusive of these items." Mrs. Chowning agreed with the suggestion.
Mr. Collins suggested passing the bill on the condition the proposed language would meet with legal scrutiny.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING RESCINDED HER PREVIOUS MOTION AND MADE A NEW MOTION.
* * * * * * * * * *
ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 322 BY DELETING LINES 9, 10, AND 11, AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN EXHIBIT E.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. de Braga emphasized there was no language in Amendment 1150 which requested the disclosure of a donor's credit card number. Mrs. de Braga justified no donor was forced to fill out the portion of the foundation forms requesting religion, name, age, children's name's, etc. Mr. Sully agreed it was applicable on a prospective basis; however, currently there were files with records containing such information which had been completed over a number of years.
Mrs. Tiffany maintained she could not support the amendment if the complete laundry list (Exhibit E) was included in the bill.
Mrs. Chowning reiterated the language would be general as long as the legal opinion assured it would cover the laundry list without specifying the items.
Mrs. Segerblom emphasized the main issue was how the money was being spent; not how to obstruct the foundations from receiving donations.
Mr. Schneider stated for the record he had a conflict with the bill since his mother-in-law was a member of several boards and foundations, including the Community College Foundation. Therefore, he would abstain from voting on SB 322.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER ABSTAINING.
Chairman Williams requested committee action on SB 527.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS SB 527.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 219 - Revises fees charged by commission on postsecondary education.
Chairman Williams explained the bill requested an increase of fees for private postsecondary education. Chairman Williams read verbatim from a letter submitted by the Commission on Postsecondary Education by the administrator, David Perlman, in support of the bill (Exhibit F). The letter stated the increased fee would reflect the work involved in processing the application. The process was similar to the licensure of a new school regarding financial ability, on-site review, and curriculum approval.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS AB 219.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:19 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marilyn Cole, Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Education
Date:
Page: 1
Assembly Committee on Education
Date: June 30, 1993
Page: 2