MINUTES OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES

Sixty-seventh Session

June 7, 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, June 7, 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:

Senator Ernest E. Adler, Capital District, Carson City

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, District No. 6, Las Vegas

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Judy Alexander, Committee Secretary

Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens

Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association

Dr. Eugene T. Paslov, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, State of Nevada

Margie Broderick, Member, Washoe County School District, Board of Trustees

Sandy Coyle, Parent

Jeanne Simons, Parent

Deidre Hammon, Parent

Carolyne Edwards, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

Captain Randy L. Oaks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

David Rowles, Director, Administrative Services, Clark County Health District

Chairman Rawson opened the meeting with a rehearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 91.

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

Senator Ernest E. Adler, Capital District, Carson City, explained to the committee that approximately 3 months of preparation had gone into writing amendments for S.B. 91. He presented Proposed Amendments to SB-91 (Exhibit C) and Amendment No. 487 (Exhibit D) to the committee. He explained, one of the problems encountered, had been the makeup of the school council. There have been other provisions, such as what type of curriculum will be waived, what control the school council will have over certain functions and so forth. Amendment No. 478 has become the entire bill draft, in an abbreviated form. He read section 2, 3 and 4 of the amendment and explained, section 4 allows for waivers, but the waivers are controlled by the local board of trustees and the State Board of Education. He stated, the composition of a council is decided by the school district on a local level. This abbreviated amendment requires a great deal of accountability for these types of programs, to the board of trustees of the district.

Senator O'Donnell referred to section 2 of the bill, and asked Senator Adler, who would be on the school council. Senator Adler responded, that is in section 2, subsection 1. He pointed out, this is a current issue with Washoe County School District and S.B. 91 would give them a framework from which to work. It would allow the district to gather rules for creation of a school council, which includes who would be on the council.

Senator Adler stated, he had met with certain members of various school districts in Nevada. A superintendent advised him, his school district would like to have this authority which would help in reducing costs, operating more efficiently, and being able to deliver a better educational product, within their district.

Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association testified in support of S.B. 91 with Amendment No. 478, in his prepared testimony (Exhibit E) and stated support for Assembly Bill (A.B.) 290.

ASSEMBLY BILL 290: Requires state board of education to establish pilot program for increased management of public schools by educational personnel.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, advised the committee, S.B. 91 as amended, will allow the school districts to expand their ongoing programs, to improve them at the local level, and they support the amendments presented for that reason.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, stated this amendment addresses some of their concerns and pointed out concerns with the makeup of the school council. She noted a concern in section 4, and made a suggestion for a change in the language, which would require the approval of both the local school board and State Board of Education. She commented, she only had a few minutes to review the amendment and could not be assured that no concerns would arise at a later time. Her board had not seen the amendment, and noted, it does appear to be a step in the right direction. She requested the opportunity to speak, if it was decided to pursue some form of S.B. 91 more similar to its original proposal. She requested the committee to not take action on this amendment today, but to allow several days for thorough consideration.

Chairman Rawson explained, it is his intention to take a vote on S.B. 91 on Wednesday, which would allow everyone time to digest Amendment No. 478. He advised, anyone with concerns are to present those to Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst or himself. He remarked, this bill is beautiful in its simplicity and is worth considering.

Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, testified, they find this amendment very acceptable, and said, "When combined with the accountability bill of Senator O'Connell's, there could be a substantial package that moves education in Nevada forward."

Dr. Eugene T. Paslov, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, State of Nevada, commented Senator Adler's amendments are very similar to A.B. 290. In his opinion, these two pieces of legislation would warrant a strong consideration for putting into place, site-based management. He drew attention to sections 3 and 4 of Amendment No. 478, and stressed, there is a need for waiver authority, which should come first through the local board of trustees and then a waiver authority to go to the State Board of Education.

Chairman Rawson commented, everyone here is interested in a certain amount of experimentation, to try to prove a concept, but they should be careful with this waiver authority being overused. The legislators would not want a wholesale exemption from everything the first session out. Dr. Paslov responded, that is prudent and should be within certain restrictions.

Chairman Rawson asked, does this bill accomplish the same thing as A.B. 290. Dr. Paslov responded, this looks very similar to A.B. 290 in its original form, but A.B. 290 has been amended and he had not seen the amended form.

Chairman Rawson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman O'Donnell for a momentary absence from the hearing.

Lucille Lusk suggested, the new language for section 4 would be, "The state board may waive a course of study otherwise required by statute upon application of a local school board on behalf of a school council." She addressed section 2, number 5, and stated, because that now goes through the school board, who would determine the procedure for a waiver, that is more acceptable than the blanket waivers in the previous bills. It is her understanding, A.B. 290 did remove the waiver provisions in its amendment. In her opinion, this form of waiver provision is more workable. She requested the committee to consider including an opportunity for parents to opt in or out of a school, that is using the site-based decision making process, because education could be different from school to school. She noted, she had language in writing, which she offered previously and advised, that language is available.

Margie Broderick, Member, Washoe County School District, Board of Trustees, explained she represents only herself. In her opinion, the amendments are very comfortable and noted, this would give the Washoe County School District flexibility to allow different school sites to work out their proposals. This also would allow the board to set parameters that would encompass everyone in the district, as they move toward site-based management.

Ms. Broderick responded to a statement by Vice-Chairman O'Donnell and stated, in her opinion, the school district will maintain the basic curriculum. However, there can be not in the what to teach, but in the how to teach, which allows schools to work for the benefit of their own populations.

Jeanne Simons, Parent, presented to the committee a 2 minute video on the subject of site-based management. The video showed the parent as the most vital link to a child's education. The video suggests the parents involvement improves the whole atmosphere, resulting in learning becoming easier. School becomes a real learning community with the number of behavioral problems going down and test scores going up.

Sandy Coyle, parent of four children in the Douglas County School District, urged support of S.B. 91. She referred to a school in San Francisco, where site-based management is in effect and pointed out, before the initiation of the pilot program, only 17 parents came to back-to-school night. By the beginning of the third year in the program, 450 persons attended the same event. She presented a letter (Exhibit F) from Lezlie Porter, Trustee, Washoe County School District.

Jeanne Simons, parent of three children with two presently in the Carson City School District, presented to the committee three handouts (Exhibit G). She suggested that by decreasing the amount of administration in the school system, there may be more money for use in the classroom. She stated, the children are hurt more than teachers and administrators by the budget cuts. She referred to section 1, number 2 of Amendment No. 478, and stated, it should be for the involvement of parents and other members of the community on the school council.

Senator Neal noted, the studies and video suggest, these programs work best when there is a consultation of a lot of people, He questioned the feasibility of a program and if there would be parent involvement, at a school where children are bussed 20 to 40 miles, . Ms. Coyle responded, distance from the school would not bother a dedicated parent and advised that she drives 15 miles to the school.

Deidre Hammon, a parent from Washoe County, of a severely handicapped child, stated she has driven a distance of 20 miles to and from her child's school each day, for the past 4 years.

Ms. Simons advised Senator Neal, she helped build a coalition of parents across the state of Nevada. She explained, there has been an excitement within these parents, as they are coming together on ideas and issues, as all of their children's needs are similar in certain issues. She stressed, those closest to the action, should be able to make the decisions.

Vice Chairman O'Donnell suspended the hearing on S.B. 91.

Vice Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing on A.B. 192

ASSEMBLY BILL 192: Requires board of trustees of school district to establish policy relating to arrest of pupil on school grounds during school hours.

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, District No. 6, Las Vegas, explained A.B. 192 is targeted to bring continuity throughout the state in the school districts, in reference to the situations where students may have to be arrested on school grounds. Through investigation, it was discovered that all 17 counties in the state either have completely different policies in place or no policy at all. The intent of the bill is to allow law enforcement officers, school administrators, parents, and all parties involved, to know exactly what to expect, if an arrest has to take place. It is not intended to dilute the duties of law enforcement or school administrators, but to make sure they are on the same track. He noted, there may be some incidents where the regulations may have to be averted and law enforcement may have to use other means, but if that happens, school districts, principals and administrators will know what to expect.

Senator Neal asked, why are parents not included in this. Assemblyman Williams explained, when the school districts plan and put the policy in place, in his opinion, the school district would notify parents on what is the policy. He stated, if the committee would favor putting that language in, he has no opposition. He added, the administrators of the school district serve legally as the guardian of children on the school grounds, if a parent cannot be notified.

Vice Chairman O'Donnell suspended the hearing on A.B. 192 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 91 for any further testimony. There being no further testimony on S.B. 91, Vice Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 91 and continued the hearing on A.B. 192.

Carolyne Edwards, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, advised the committee, they have worked with Assemblyman Williams on A.B. 192. She pointed out, the most important thing is that the bill includes all the entities and the people responsible, for getting together and making these decisions. She advised Clark County School District does intend to provide a policy in this direction.

Senator Neal referred to line 3 of the bill, and noted, wording has been changed from consulting, to in conjunction with, which is less strength in terms of the school board being able to take action. He stressed, the policy must be, in conjunction with the metropolitan police department and the capital police or whomever. He asked, what happens if there is not an agreement on the policy. Ms. Edwards responded, they are still in the working stages of that policy with the approval of all those entities.

Vice Chairman O'Donnell stated, the intent is to open the lines of communication between police officers, the school district, the school board and everyone involved. He stated, the laws of this state supersede any policy that may prohibit an officer of the court to arrest somebody.

Assemblyman Williams responded to Senator Neal and advised, he had offered the language. He noted, in the first bill draft, the school district had the control, which created a lot of concern. The current language asks for more of a diplomatic approach. One of the problems he saw, and the reason he agreed to change the language, is if the district adopts the policy and the policy they adopt would not allow the police department to do what is genuinely their duties, that could pose other problems on school grounds, if the district adopts something that is totally off base on what law enforcement needs to do.

Senator Neal stated his concern is, to use the wording, in conjunction with, in essence is giving veto power over any policy that is adopted by the school district, by the metropolitan police department or the school police. Assemblyman Williams pointed out, subsection 2 gives more support for making sure that law enforcement adheres to the policy. In conjunction means, united, one couldn't agree without the other. In his opinion, if this bill passes, law enforcement officers could not just go on campus, at will, as they did before.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, explained their interest in the bill is due to the fact that there are some districts with no policy at all. This language would help a policy be put into place. She said, for all concerned, it is the best thing, if a policy is in place and all employees are made aware of the policy, so there are no surprises.

Vice Chairman O'Donnell turned the gavel over the Chairman Rawson.

Captain Randy L. Oaks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) advised he also represents Sheriff John Moran, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. He explained, they are not opposed to this bill as drafted and appreciate the indulgence of Assemblyman Williams in affecting a change to this bill. From a law enforcement standpoint, the original version of the bill is unworkable, whereas it indicates a school board would dictate police policy. Since it is now in conjunction, requiring all parties to come to an agreement and then implement a policy, it is their belief a better policy will result and one with which everyone can live.

Senator Neal asked Captain Oaks, if he thought that METRO has the constitutional authority to go on the school campus without the invitation of the principal. Captain Oaks responded, yes.

Senator Coffin pointed out, the school district has custody of the child, while the child is within the school limits and asked Captain Oaks was this resolved when the amendment was written. Captain Oaks responded, there seems to be a presupposition that there was wrongdoing on the part of the police officers involved in the incident that spurred the creation of this bill. He explained, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department stands behind the actions of those officers, given all of the information that they had at that time. The police officers took custody of that child, with the knowledge of the principal and school personnel.

Senator O'Donnell declared, a police officer does not need the permission of the parents, a guardian, or the person who has custody, to arrest, if they have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by a juvenile. Captain Oaks responded, that is correct.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 192.

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 192.

SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

SENATOR O'DONNELL RETRACTED HIS MOTION.

A discussion ensued by the committee and there was agreement among the members that in general principle, the principal or acting principal should be notified upon the arrival of any law enforcement, if it is not an emergency situation. Senator Neal requested that any policy or regulation be written that it is mandatory for the police to notify the principal or acting principal, anytime law enforcement would come on campus to arrest someone. He noted, this would not pertain to a hot pursuit situation.

Chairman Rawson asked Captain Oaks, if he would have an objection that the contact be through the administrative office. Captain Oaks responded, he thought that is reasonable. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Neal, if he would feel comfortable putting an amendment to A.B. 192, that states a policy should be developed around the principle of contacting the administration, if it is not an emergency or immediate situation. Senator Neal responded, that would settle his mind.

Captain Oaks pointed out, there is no other situation during which law enforcement is required to ask a guardian, if they can arrest a child. If there is probable cause for the officer to believe a crime has been committed and that child has committed it, they have a absolute right to arrest that child, regardless of what a guardian may say.

Senator O'Donnell offered to the committee, a amendment which would replace section 1 of the bill. It would read, "The board of trustees of each school district, in conjunction with the school police officers of the school district, if any, and the local law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the school district, shall establish a policy for the procedures which must be followed by a peace officer in arresting a pupil on school grounds, which would include notification of the principal, during school hours.

Assemblyman Williams referred to the language and stated, Senator Neal's proposed amendment is talking about during school hours and a arrest may be made on school property after school hours. He stated the essence of the bill is to make sure that everybody knows what is going on.

Ms. Lusk pointed out, the language in the new proposed amendment, implies that the principal always must be notified and does not address the question of the emergency situation, which could be a real problem. She suggested that language be included, such as, the policy shall address the conditions under which the principal will be notified. This would draw attention to the need to address that issue, without putting in inflexible or direct language.

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 192.

SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Senator Brown called to the attention of Chairman Rawson, the language for the new amendment for A.B. 192 and stated, acting administrator may be a better choice of words in place of principal. Chairman Rawson responded, in his opinion, no one objects to the addition of those words.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session with S.B. 408 and explained, this bill was amended and passed, and at that time, he was under the assurance, all parties were in agreement.

SENATE BILL 408: Makes various changes concerning protection of Indian burial sites.

Chairman Rawson explained, two of the Indian tribes are not in agreement with the bill. Now the committee is being asked to delete everything, except one section.

Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst, explained, S.B. 408 proposed to make a number of changes, including establishing written agreements about what would happen in certain excavations of graves. It amended the existing law to make a number of changes about what kind of studies could be done of human remains and because agreement could not be reached by the different parties, all were in agreement that the penalty portion of the bill should be retained. The current protection, under current law does protect law enforcement people from prosecution. The penalties bring the state more in line with what the federal government has in the way of penalties for similar crimes on federal land.

Chairman Rawson added, the issues about what kind of studies can be done and what kind of agreements can be formed, are simply stricken from the bill.

Mr. Sturm explained, section 5 of S.B. 408 is the only section retained.

Chairman Rawson explained to the committee, the lobbyist has advised him the Indian tribes have agreed to this change.

Mr. Sturm explained, when the bill drafter addressed the concerns and retained only section 5, they made the changes necessary in Amendment No. 659, attachment A, in Work Session (Exhibit H). Amendment No. 659 is the new bill.

Chairman Rawson addressed the concerns of Senator O'Donnell and explained, the penalties are for anyone who discovers the location of an Indian burial. If a site is open and has been walked on or dug at, the site has already been discovered. If persons were digging and unearthed artifacts, then these people have the obligation to notify.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 408 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 659.

SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Rawson responded to Senator Glomb and explained, Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Walker River Paiute Tribe, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California and Ron James, Historical Preservation and Archeology, State of Nevada have advised him, they are in agreement with this amendment. Mr. James advised Chairman Rawson, he had consulted with the state archeologist on this issue.

Senator Coffin advised Chairman Rawson he would support this bill. In his opinion, the language may cause a problem in the future, and concurred with Senator O'Donnell's concern about anonymous tampering with a site after someone gives notification of a discovery. He pointed out, this bill is not effective until October 1 and should be effective upon passage and approval.

SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT IT BE UPON PASSAGE AND APPROVAL.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDED MOTION TO ADD AFTER NEVADA REVISED STATUTES (NRS) 383.170 THE LANGUAGE, THAT HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCOVERED.

Chairman Rawson asked, would the maker of the motion accept that. Senator Neal responded, yes.

THE MOTION CARRIED ON THE AMENDED MOTION. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

THE MOTION CARRIED ON THE MOTION. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson advised the committee, they have not received the revised fiscal note on S.B. 418 and would wait for this.

SENATE BILL 418: Requires establishment of primary health care network for improving health status of mothers and children.

Chairman Rawson addressed S.B. 461 and explained to the committee, various amendments have been proposed and asked Mr. Sturm to summarize them.

SENATE BILL 461: Transfers certain regulatory authority to county or district boards of health in large counties, and clarifies the authority of certain technicians to perform laboratory procedures.

Mr. Sturm referred to page 1 of Work Session (Exhibit H) and explained, the first item is an amendment the committee had previously discussed, which would make S.B. 461 compatible with S.B. 69.

SENATE BILL 69: Authorizes sale of controlled substances or dangerous drugs to certain persons and agencies that provide emergency care or transportation in order to stock ambulances and other authorized vehicles.

Mr. Sturm pointed out, Mr. David Rowles, Director, Administrative Services, Clark County Health District, presented amendments, attachment C, (Exhibit H) and has made a similar proposal.

Mr. Sturm referred to the second group of proposed amendments, on page 6 and 7 (Exhibit H). Chairman Rawson pointed out, these amendments are in contradiction to the purpose of the bill and stated, he would review the amendments that were proposed by Mr. Rowles. Mr. Sturm stated, that would be attachment D, page 8 through 11.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 461 WITH AMENDMENTS ON ATTACHMENT 1, 2 AND 3 .

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson expressed concern for language on page 13, of Work Session (Exhibit H), and explained, this is for someone to ride in an ambulance, who would be a physician, physician's assistant, nurse practitioner, or a person other than an Emergency Medical Technician. He stated, this bill has been signed by the Governor. This has created a situation, in the rural districts, where they cannot comply. In the existing language, a person who rides in an ambulance is required to have advanced life-support procedures for patients who require cardiac care, or life-support procedures for pediatric patients, or life-support procedures for patients with trauma. He has been advised that is a substandard and should be. None of the rural county representatives will agree to this, because S.B. 461 raises the standard making it hard for the small counties. He stated, he needs to bring these parties together again and find a solution that is workable.

David Rowles, Director, Administrative Services, Clark County Health District, said, "Since the bill provides for the establishment of separate but equal entities, who may by regulation, adopt regulations which provide for the quality of care within the area under their jurisdiction, that perhaps by regulatory language, either by the State Board of Health or if it were a concern in Clark or Washoe County, that we can be more restrictive." He noted, there may already be within the language that the committee has approved, regulatory scope and authority, to adopt and to deal with this by regulation, in this specific entity, and in this case, the State Board of Health.

Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Rowles, if he would speak with the representatives from Mercy Ambulance, who have raised the issue. Mr. Rowles responded, he would and stated that Mr. James Begbie, Administrative Health Services Officer, Washoe County Health District indicated his support for what he had just indicated to the committee. Chairman Rawson stated, if they still have concerns, he will try to address them.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 461.

SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

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

* * * * *

Chairman Rawson addressed A.B. 383.

ASSEMBLY BILL 383: Broadens the authority of local governments to regulate child care facilities and smaller facilities.

Chairman Rawson explained, attachment G, page 15 (Exhibit H) is an amendment that seems to be acceptable to the parties.

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND WITH THE AMENDMENT ON ATTACHMENT G, PAGE 15 EXHIBIT H AND DO PASS A.B. 383.

SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Brown brought it to the attention of the committee, in attachment G, page 15 (Exhibit H), the wording, the child, appears to imply one child and may be better served with the wording, the occasional care of children of a neighbor. Chairman Rawson asked the maker of the motion, did he accept that. Senator O'Donnell responded, yes.

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

* * * * *

There being no further business, Chairman Rawson closed the hearing 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

June 7, 1993

Page 1