MINUTES OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES

Sixty-seventh Session

May 24, 1993

The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, May 24, 1993, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Diana M. Glomb

Senator Lori L. Brown

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, District 33

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Judy Alexander, Committee Secretary

Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst

OTHERS PRESENT:

Kirby L. Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County

Jerry Tracy, Supervisor, Child Care, Washoe County

Lucille Lusk, Chairman, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens

Lynn Chapman, Concerned Citizen

Ray E. Blehm, Jr., State Fire Marshal

Bill Driscoll, Fire Chief, East Fork Fire & Paramedic District

Kay Zunino, Chief, Welfare & Child Support Enforcement, Welfare Division

Bruce Alder, Division of Child and Family Services

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 383.

ASSEMBLY BILL 383: Broadening authority of local governments to regulate child care facilities.

Kirby L. Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County, explained this is a Clark County bill and read a letter for Miss Denell Hahn, Director of Clark County Social Service, in her absence (Exhibit C).

Chairman Rawson stated, it is his understanding, a number of agencies want to see a basic minimum standard maintained and that there not be a dangerous or abusive situation created for children. He explained, if money exchanges hands for baby sitting purposes, even occasionally, with a neighbor, friend or family member, they would be caught in this regulation, the way the bill is written. Mr. Burgess stated, he spoke with Ms. Hahn, who indicated that was not the intent of this bill.

Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Burgess to provide the committee with the intent of the bill and to please summarize what the objective is. Mr. Burgess explained, they are trying to encourage a situation where they can make sure that people aren't just keeping children in the home under the auspices of providing child care, without duly following the rules and regulations. Chairman Rawson stated, if someone is really in the business of child care and there is an income from that, whether it is bartered or actual money, Clark County Social Services would like to see that they are not a child molester, that there is proper safety and so on. Mr. Burgess responded, that was a correct interpretation and this is Clark County Social Service's attempt to codify those areas of concern. He stated, they would be willing to work with the committee to amend the bill.

Senator Coffin stated, he has difficulty with A.B. 383, because the bill takes aim at people who are on limited means. He explained, there are other regulations, laws and ordinances, at the local level, that regulate how children are treated. He stated, he could support this bill, if Mr. Burgess could show him pressing incidents where abuse occurred, that would require legislation. Mr. Burgess responded, there have been ongoing concerns and this is an attempt to pull all of those together.

Senator Townsend stated, he shares the same concerns as Senator Coffin and advised, the committee needs from the original sponsor, what they are attempting to do. Mr. Burgess explained, they would be willing to work to make this appear in its proper form.

Senator Neal noted, the only subsidy change in this bill from the present law is found on page 2, which goes back to the original bill that was introduced, but gives the board the option to register smaller facilities, regardless whether or not they receive compensation.

Jerry Tracy, Supervisor, Child Care, Washoe County, explained the intent of the first section of A.B. 383 is, if compensation is received for any one of the five, then the providor must be licensed. She explained, there are licensed providers who take care of and are compensated for six children, in child care facilities, in Washoe County. She expressed concern that there is nothing her department can do, if it is discovered there are more than six children under the care of a child care providor, whether or not there is compensation for the additional children.

Ms. Tracy explained, under a Washoe County ordinance, her department is currently registering care givers who care for two to four children, who are together more than 15 hours per week. She explained, a person could watch one full time child and three after school children, and as long as those children are not together more than 15 hours a week, there is no need to be registered under the ordinance as a care giver. She stated, Washoe County has no intention of changing this ordinance or to become involved with the occasional child care giver, even though the language would enable them to do that.

Lucille Lusk, Chairman, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, stated she is not in opposition of the intent of A.B. 383, but is in opposition to the language. She explained, in section 1, subsection 1, the language applies to those who provide temporary, as well as permanent care, if compensation is received for any of those children. She stated, the language is very broad and could apply to a person who baby sits occasionally and for just a few dollars. The fact that the language says temporary, is a critical element. She noted that Mr. Burgess made the comment that registration would not discourage child care by close friends and family, and she differs with that markedly. In her opinion, if a point is reached, where a person is required to go through a registration process, simply to be able to baby sit for a friend's child from time to time, that would have a distinct effect. She believes that was not the original intent, but she urged the committee to not pass a law that says what the legislature does not mean.

Lynn Chapman, Concerned Citizen, testified in opposition to A.B. 383. She is against the language referenced by Ms. Lusk and concurs with her testimony.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 383 and placed it in subcommittee. He explained, he would work on the subcommittee with Pepper Sturm and anyone who was interested. Senator Glomb offered her assistance on the subcommittee.

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on A.B. 194.

ASSEMBLY BILL 194: Requires state fire marshal to delegate his authority and duties to local governments under certain circumstances.

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, District 33, stated under current law three counties in Nevada, Clark, Washoe and Carson City can do fire inspections on their own buildings. A.B. 194 as amended, provides in counties of population with less than 35,000, that the State Fire Marshal, shall upon request, by those local governments, delegate to the local governments the authority for inspection, provided the local governments are as qualified to perform those functions as the State Fire Marshal. He explained, in a remote area like Elko County, there have been times when it was difficult to have a drawing okayed. The supporters of the bill feel there are local governments that can get the expertise to do their own fire inspections, which is the intent of A.B. 194. The sponsors would like to have the State Fire Marshal certify to that effect and let these counties do their own inspections.

Chairman Rawson noted, the key to this bill is on page 2 and 3, line 45 and on, which states, if the local governments personnel and programs are, as determined by the State Fire Marshal, equally qualified to perform those functions. If a local government fails to maintain the qualified personnel and programs, then the State Fire Marshal can revoke the authority. He commented in his opinion, the safety that they want is there.

Senator Neal asked Assemblyman Carpenter, if he is going forward with that particular language, why not make the delegation permissive. Assemblyman Carpenter responded, they felt if the word shall is in there, and the local government went to all of the expense and training that they would have to do, and the State Fire Marshal did not have to do that, then he could back out. The fire marshal is going to set the original criteria, as to how much training and education is needed. If that criteria in training is met, the State Fire Marshal would have to certify them.

Senator Neal stated, if the word may is used instead of the word shall, then the following language would modify whatever authority is being delegated, based upon the local government meeting those criteria as set out by the State Fire Marshal.

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, explained the language as it now exists, says when a county reaches 35,000, trained and qualified or not, that county can leave the State Fire Marshal's office entirely. What A.B. 194 says is that the State Fire Marshal has the opportunity to verify that they have qualified people. The bill allows them only to do that by going in and requesting the State Fire Marshal to certify that those people are qualified. The State Fire Marshal sets the standard and has the right to revoke.

Assemblyman Hettrick responded to a statement on clarification by Chairman Rawson and stressed, the State Fire Marshal has been very helpful and negotiated with them. He is going to do rate adjustment and may be able to maintain the staff that he has now and would speed

up the process for all of the other counties or other entities that need inspection from his office. He stated, the word shall appeared to be a reasonable approach.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented, after the State Fire Marshal sets standards and criteria, if the county then believes they should go ahead to meet them, the sponsors of the bill think that the word shall would make the language more certain. The sponsors wanted the State Fire Marshal to make sure that the personnel, whom the county trained, would then get the chance to do the inspection. They do not want to lessen the degree of inspection and assume this will be better in local hands.

Ray E. Blehm, Jr., State Fire Marshal, gave a history of how the original bill had been written. The population of 25,000 was maximum for a county to be under the control of the State Fire Marshal, from which Elko and Douglas Counties would have been excluded. He stated that he agreed with Assemblyman Hettrick's comments, that increasing fees and reducing their workload would be a way for them to better accomplish their needs for plans review and inspection duties. The end results would leave 13 counties under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal.

Mr. Blehm noted, the language in subsection 10, page 2 is basically the language he had offered. He drew attention to line 45, the wording, all or a portion of his authority, and stated, that was highly important to him. He explained, when a county's population goes over 35,000, they should not be automatically exempted, because there could be a area in that county, that may or may not have programs. Once that small area becomes a incorporated city, programs would have to be set up and would benefit from the direction of the State Fire Marshal. This appears to be a more orderly way to qualify programs, to try and make sure that training and standards are met.

Senator Neal stated, the first shall in the bill would permit the State Fire Marshal to come in after the building has been built. If the word may is in place of shall, the State Fire Marshal would go in before the fact to make the determination, the counties or cities would have qualified people. He commented, in his opinion, the State Fire Marshal should go in before the fact. Mr. Blehm agreed with Senator Neal on how the process should be done. He explained, quite often, they find people building things that are practically finished.

Mr. Blehm explained, the word shall, does not cause a problem, because they are talking about the certification of the people that are the local fire officials doing the inspection. He explained, until they meet the criteria, the shall would not happen. He stated, when the bill says, if the personnel meet the standard, that modifies the shall and says shall does not occur until the standards are met.

Senator Coffin asked for a clarification on the duties of the State Fire Marshal in the counties with population over 35,000, and pointed out, the State Fire Marshal would be limited, until requested to be there. Mr. Blehm directed him to page 1, line 21 and 22 for clarification. He added there are other rulings and modifications through the attorney general. The language says the regulations apply thoughout the state, but who do not enforce the regulations. The local entities would have to enforce the regulation.

Senator Glomb asked, does the State Fire Marshal have any authority in the larger counties to say this structure does not meet code, unless the county asks the State Fire Marshal to come in and make a ruling or a judgement. Mr. Blehm stated, the authority only exists from the standpoint that their regulations, that are adopted, apply. Since they have no enforcement authority, it would fall upon the local government entities to provide that enforcement authority. Senator Glomb asked, if the county is not enforcing the code, does the State Fire Marshal have any authority to bring any action against the county. Mr. Blehm responded, there is some language throughout, that can be construed to give some level of authority, if the State Fire Marshal deems it necessary to go back in.

Bill Driscoll, Fire Chief, East Fork Fire & Paramedic District, spoke for the Douglas County Commission in support of A.B. 194. This bill gives them the opportunity, as a growing community, to work hand and glove with the State Fire Marshal to develop their level of sophistication. Under this bill, the State Fire Marshal can give them, through an agreement, the authority to do any one of a number, or a group, of his duties and responsibilities. Only when the State Fire Marshal is comfortable, can they proceed ahead. At the present time, they have the expertise to certify to his level and do the duties he is doing now.

Assemblyman Hettrick pointed out, the language on line 45, reads all or a portion of his authority or duties. He explained, the State Fire Marshal can actually keep the authority to enforce. In the present language, he has no ability to keep the authority in the larger counties.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 194.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 194.

SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on A.B. 502.

ASSEMBLY BILL 502: Makes various changes to provisions governing support of dependent children.

Kay Zunino, Chief, Welfare & Child Support Enforcement, Welfare Division, explained the Title IV D, Child Support Enforcement Program is a cooperative effort between the federal, state and local governments to provide child support enforcement services. They provide four services: establishment of paternity; establishment of child support orders; location of absent parents; and enforcement of child support. She provided the committee statistics which show their fiscal year of 1992 caseload collections, and the actions that were taken (Exhibit D). She pointed out, the caseload in 1992 was over 58,000 and is now closer to 68,000 in just 1 year. The second page (Exhibit D) shows enforcement action taken and in the fiscal year 1992, a total of 27,334 actions were taken. She pointed out the most successful effort is through wage assignment. She stated page 3 (Exhibit D) shows over $40 million was collected in both in-state and out-of-state cases.

Senator Glomb asked, does page 2 reflect cases in which the child support was not paid in a timely, voluntary way, Welfare & Child Support Enforcement has had to take action in order to get the child support. Ms. Zunino responded, exactly and these 27,000 or almost 28,000 actions were just on a portion of that caseload. She added, some of that caseload is already a paying case load. Some are still in locate status, where the division is attempting to locate them, generally in other states. She explained the collections on page 3 are just in Nevada alone, but that is what they collect, not only for Nevada, but for other states and what other states, have collected for Nevada as well.

Ms. Zunino read from her prepared testimony (Exhibit E). She explained, when this bill was heard in the assembly, Judge Griffin of Carson City and Judge Gamble of Douglas County were with her to provide testimony in support of the bill. She stated, they serve on a committee of three judges, who oversee the program in all of the rural counties. They were unable to be with her at this hearing but did express their support for the bill and indicated they would be willing to discuss this with the senators over a phone call. She stated, she also met with Chief Judge Steve Jones, Family Court from Clark County and the District Attorney's Office with Judge Scott Jordan of Washoe County, both of whom support this bill and amendments.

Chairman Rawson asked are these just in effect if the state is trying to pursue these things or does Aid for Families for Dependent Children (AFDC) have to be involved, or in a simple divorce case, is the law still applicable. Ms. Zunino responded, yes, in a simple divorce case, the child support guidelines, which are contained in the pink pamphlet (Exhibit F) are applied in every divorce case statewide.

Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Zunino, in section 8, subsection 8, if a parent, who has an obligation for support, is willfully under-employed or unemployed, to avoid an obligation for support of a child, that obligation must be based upon the parents true potential earning capacity. He asked, what happens if someone is unemployed, has no money, and fails to make the child support payment. He asked, how is intent proven. Ms. Zunino stated, if he is intentionally unemployed to avoid child support, the district attorney brings the case to the court which makes that determination. If an individual is simply unemployed, cannot pay, then he is brought into court and is given an opportunity to pay. These are masters hearings as opposed to district court hearings where a attorney would be required to represent them. The person can explain to the court master the reason why they are unable to pay. The court master takes that argument into consideration, and asks the individual to pay the minimum, which is $100.00 a month, and then continues that for 6 months, at which time the person would be required to reappear before the court master, to reevaluate the situation. If the person cannot pay at all, then the arrearage simply continues to accrue, and at such time that the person becomes employed, he is expected at that time to pay the arrearage.

Senator O'Donnell stated, his concern was the person would simply be thrown in jail, the amount would not be accrued and this would not be doing the child any good.

Chairman Rawson asked, if a person goes to prison, does that satisfy the request for money. She explained, when he gets out, he still owes. When they find a person who is incarcerated who owes child support, and he may have some ability pay or disability earnings or other earnings, that they can attach, but generally the child support accrues and at such time that the person is released, they look for him.

Chairman Rawson asked, what are the cases where wage withholding cannot take place. Ms. Zunino stated, wage withholding generally cannot take place, if it is with written agreement of the two parties involved, or in a paternity action or a modification action. Generally in a paternity action, the masters will wait to see if he is going to pay voluntarily before they implement wage withholding. The other instance is in a modification, if a decree or an order is modified either upward or downward, and he has been paying monthly as he is ordered to do, that wage withholding will be delayed at that time.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 502.

SENATOR BROWN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 502.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson asked Senator Brown to explain A.B. 502 on the floor.

Chairman Rawson announced, the committee would go into Work Session and introduced a bill draft request (BDR).

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 3-1477: Limits liability of certified emergency medical dispatchers.

SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 3-1477.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson referred to Work Session (Exhibit G) and drew attention to Senate Bill (S.B.) 411.

SENATE BILL 411: Allows use of certain benefits paid to child to pay portion of cost of care and support of children in Nevada children's homes.

Chairman Rawson stated, this bill was requested by the Division of Child and Family Services. The question was raised by the committee, concerning the need for subsection 4, section 1, beginning on 24. Senator Glomb commented, she was the one who raised the question as to why they could not use support payments to pay for the cost of care for the child. She stated, those that testified in the hearing agreed, that should not be there, that they should be allowed to use the money. Chairman Rawson stated, the language states, this is consistent with other sections of the law. Senator O'Donnell commented, after reviewing A.B. 502, there may be differences in the levels in which individual children are reimbursed for child support. He added, if the word it, is deleted, then the superintendent would have free reign over court payments. Chairman Rawson stated, the idea is to set money aside for them, so they can start out life. Senator Brown stressed, the purpose behind child support payments, is supposed to pay the cost for their support, not to give them a savings account. Senator O'Donnell responded to Senator Brown and pointed out, the state has a guideline for the amount the foster child should get and it is not equal for every child. Chairman Rawson commented this money cannot be abused by the foster parents and has to be put into trust. Senator O'Donnell stated, section 1, subsection 4, should be left intact to protect the child's fund.

Bruce Alder, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), explained to the committee, as the former superintendent of the northern Nevada Children's Home, which is no longer in existence, what happened. He stated, this was discovered in a audit, and for some reason the children's homes were the only part of the Division of Child and Family Services that could not use social security money for the support of the kids. That money was then held in trust for them, when the child would leave, DCFS would give the child a check that usually amounted to $8,000 or more. Some of the children would use the money wisely, but unfortunately, the majority of them partied and had spent all of the money in 2 to 3 weeks. The crux of this bill is in the social security portion, which is in section 3. In his opinion, court ordered payments will be irrelevant. In the 15 years as superintendent, the northern Nevada Children's Home did not get any of that money. He explained, if a father was being forced to pay the mother for support of the child and the child ended up in the children's home, the children's home did not get any of that money. The bill came out of the audit committee, because through a series of mistakes made by him, the northern Nevada Children's Home used some social security money to support children. He erroneously read previous statutes and Attorney General's opinions, that said that was authorized, and was contrary to statute. He said, they used social security money for a limited time, which became a exception, and so the audit subcommittee chaired by Senator Adler noticed that and said it should be made consistent with the rest of the statute.

Chairman Rawson asked, is there any contradiction to federal law, if line 24 through 6 were changed, so the money could be used. Mr. Alder responded, not to his knowledge. Chairman Rawson asked, in your opinion, what is the best public policy here. Mr. Alder said, the key is in section 3, and the bill can be left exactly as it is. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Alder, was he was saying, the way the bill is written, there are enough options that the superintendent can do whichever he chooses to do and he asked, is that correct. Mr. Adler responded, yes and the key is in the social security money. That is where the money comes from. On the court ordered child support, there is no money there. He noted, theoretically there should be, but in his 15 years experience as superintendent, there was not.

Senator O'Donnell noted the bill reads, court ordered and other support payments must not be used, and asked, does the division want to be able to use the social security money. Mr. Alder responded, yes, that would be consistent with every other aspect of the Division of Child and Family Services, foster care, treatment homes, and anywhere else a child can be placed.

Senator O'Donnell asked, does the Division of Child and Family Services have to do an accounting each year on all foster parents, and make an accounting of the money that has been received. He stated, he would want an accounting of where the money is spent and that the accounting be provided to the child and family members.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 411.

SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.

SENATOR O'DONNELL AMENDED SENATOR NEAL'S MOTION TO DO PASS AND TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE AND APPROVAL.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson brought to the attention of the committee A.B. 402.

ASSEMBLY BILL 402: Requires university student who participates as member of varsity athletic team to make satisfactory progress toward obtaining degree.

SENATOR BROWN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 402.

SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATOR RAWSON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson brought before the committee A.B. 454.

ASSEMBLY BILL 454: Revises provision governing credit for school teacher's previous service in determining salary of teacher.

Chairman Rawson explained, a Las Vegas resident asked that the committee consider an amendment which is not related to the substance of the bill, but which would affect that chapter of NRS. The amendment would require school districts to consider hiring qualified substitute teachers for a permanent opening, prior to considering candidates from out-of-state.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated that NSEA would be opposed to attaching this amendment to their bill, for the reason, they have never tried to force a hiring preference on local school districts. She pointed out, a substitute who has experience in the district, may be snapped up right away because they are so good. If they are not hired right away, maybe there is a reason why. She added, NSEA feels this is a local control issue.

Chairman Rawson asked, are substitute teachers allowed to join NSEA. Ms. Cahill responded, she did not think there was a category for them. Chairman Rawson advised, NSEA may want to consider that.

Ms. Cahill noted, substitute teachers must be licensed in the state and they are at a premium. However, that is not the intent of A.B. 454, but this may be the subject of another bill. She is certain the school districts would oppose this amendment, if it came into this bill at this point.

Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Cahill, if NSEA could poll or at least contact substitute teachers and find out if there is a problem. Ms. Cahill stated, she could not make any definite commitment, but she thought there should be a way of making some inquiries.

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 454.

SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson drew attention to Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 16.

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION: Supports national education goals for State of Nevada.

Chairman Rawson noted the testimony against this indicated that they would like the committee to develop their own goals for Nevada, rather than following national education goals.

SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO ADOPT A.C.R. 16.

SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson advised the committee, Senator Ernest Adler is anxious to consider the amendments on S.B. 91.

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

Chairman Rawson explained, Senator Adler has a second amendment that would strip this down and give a broad authority to the school board, to allow a site-based management and they would develop the rules.

Ms. Cahill stated, this is Assemblywoman Jan Evan's bill and gives broad authority to the local school board, to establish these programs in each district. The bill has money attached and has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means.

Chairman Rawson stated, the differences between the bills are, Assemblywoman Evan's bill establishes the organization from the top down, and Senator Adler's bill would do that from the bottom up. He noted, they are both very permissive. Ms. Cahill stated, Assemblywoman Evan's bill is a pilot and would allow the state board to establish pilot programs. It allows the districts to determine the structure of each local committee.

Chairman Rawson advised the committee he would see that each member would receive the proposed amendments.

There being no further business, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Judy Alexander,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE:

Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities

May 24, 1993

Page 1