MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES
Sixty-seventh Session
June 23, 1993
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, June 23, 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 Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator Lori L. Brown
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Vice Chairman
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David E. Humke, District Number 26, Washoe
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Alexander, Committee Secretary
Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
David D. Nicholas, Lobbyist, Nevada Health Care Association
Myla Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, State of Nevada
Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Carolyne W. Edwards, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Captain Randy L. Oaks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Debby Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
James E. Pierce, Environmental Health Supervisor, Bureau of Health Protection Services, State of Nevada
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Nevada Legal Services
Chairman Rawson brought the meeting to order as a subcommittee.
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 247.
ASSEMBLY BILL 247: Requires state welfare board to provide written notice before adopting regulations.
David D. Nicholas, Lobbyist, Nevada Health Care Association, and speaking for Welfare Legal Services, Nevada Association of Counties, stated that A.B. 247 is a compromise which was effected in the assembly, between these organizations. A.B. 247 requires notice of the Welfare Board for actions they would take, designates the time, place and manner, identifies the entities that might be financially affected, etc. He commented, A.B. 247 brings the welfare board under their own Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 422, in reference to welfare board meetings.
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Nicholas, are there any parties in opposition to this bill. Mr. Nicholas responded, not to his knowledge.
Myla Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, State of Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 247, as amended. She read from a summary (Exhibit C).
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 247.
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on A.B. 741.
ASSEMBLY BILL 741: Makes various changes regarding attendance at public school of certain suspended or expelled pupils.
Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, read from a summary (Exhibit D).
Chairman Rawson stated, if a student is expelled for inappropriate behavior, that expulsion should be honored by another school district. If the student's only other choice is an alternative school, that should be the same choice in another school district. He asked, is that what A.B. 741 will accomplish. Mr. Etchemendy responded, essentially, except that A.B. 741 would make that pupil ineligible to enroll in another school district, during that term of suspension or expulsion.
Chairman Rawson asked, can the penalties be standardized across the school districts, so that the same ruling would hold for any school district in the state. Mr. Etchemendy responded, there would not be a problem with standardized penalties, because the end result would be what is being accomplished in A.B. 741.
Mr. Etchemendy presented to the committee Proposed Amendments (Exhibit E). He requested that the text contained in lines 1 to 17 inclusive, on page 1 be deleted, and that section 1 and subsection 1 read as shown on the amendment provided to the committee (Exhibit E). The major portion of line 9 and all of lines 10 through 17, should not be included, because of a liability exposure of school psychologists and school districts. Line 10 and 21 inclusive, should be amended as shown in Proposed Amendment (Exhibit E).
Chairman Rawson stated, some learning may still be effected during the period of expulsion and he did not see reasoning in the fact that a student must sit out for a semester. He could see reasoning for placing the student into a alternative school or even a school under incarceration in the criminal justice system. In his opinion, the obligation for school should still go on during the time of expulsion.
Mr. Etchemendy agreed with Chairman Rawson's opinion and stated, he had discussed this issue with Bob McCord, Clark County School District (CCSD). He explained that Mr. McCord stressed that CCSD takes every step possible to keep a student in the education system, as long as possible. That final step is taken only when necessary and alternative schools are provided. Mr. Etchemendy referred to Proposed Amendment (Exhibit E), lines 26 through 30, which addresses alternative programs for suspended or expelled students.
Chairman Rawson asked those present in the hearing who are in opposition to A.B. 741, if the amendments presented by Mr. Etchemendy, clarify some of their opposition. Assemblyman David E. Humke, District Number 26, Washoe, stated that the amendments improve the bill tremendously. He explained, he still has a concern, because A.B. 741 sets up a dual penalty for a young person. When a crime is committed, as listed in NRS 392.466, the student can be expelled for the balance of the semester. A dual penalty is created by depriving the students of their education. Chairman Rawson pointed out, the students should be taken out of the regular school, but should be able to continue their education. Assemblyman Humke explained, the amendment is deficient in this area. The CCSD has sufficient alternative schools for students, but other school districts do not have these alternative schools. He commented, he has observed in Washoe County, more exclusion happening to children who are making trouble and alternative educational placements for them are not being provided.
Mr. Etchemendy advised, the purpose of the bill is a school safety issue. Chairman Rawson responded, the committee does not want to interfere with the ability to expel. Chairman Rawson suggested this be dealt with in language, such as, "expelled from standard school programs but the students education would continue in alternatives, whether in that county or another county." Mr. Etchemendy suggested, after subsection 1, of section 1, of Proposed Amendment (Exhibit E), the language may be written urging all school districts to provide these alternative programs in-house.
Chairman Rawson stated, this would cause a problem in a small school district, by mandating alternative programs be provided, when they may have so few students, that this could not be justified. He directed attention to line 27, of Proposed Amendment (Exhibit E), and suggested the language be changed to, "or expelled students shall be allowed to participate in."
Chairman Rawson announced the committee now has a quorum and is out of subcommittee.
Mr. Etchemendy responded to Chairman Rawson and stated, the language is taken from NRS 392.466. If the word "may" is changed, then NRS 392.466 would also have to addressed. In his opinion, the ramifications on the small school districts would be tremendous.
Carolyne W. Edwards, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, commented, the language on line 27, has been discussed in detail. The CCSD is committed to alternative programs and has a large number of students with which to deal. CCSD has an opportunity board and the board of school trustees also reviews. The current statute allows the CCSD the flexibility to make decisions regarding placement. She stated the CCSD will have problems, if mandate language is added. She asked to be on the record as protecting CCSD's opportunities, schools and alternative programs, in the intent of this bill.
Chairman Rawson stated, if there is a problem in Nevada, where students are being thrown out of school because they are not behaving properly, A.B. 741 protects the students that are left in school, but it does not dissolve the legislature's responsibility to see there is some education still provided to those children who have been expelled. He explained, in A.B. 741, if a student is thrown out in a county that has no alternative program for education, he cannot attend school anywhere else in the state. He commented, he does not think that is appropriate.
Assemblyman Humke commmented, some of the alternative programs are, juvenile training school, juvenile forestry camps, and special alternative programs operated by a school district. He clarified that these training camps are not available, in all areas and are not open to every student.
Chairman Rawson asked Assemblyman Humke, what happens to the students, if the bill is not processed. Assemblyman Humke stated, Clark County would continue to do the job they are doing and the rest of the state has a large responsibility to catch up. It would leave the question, should the student have the right to go to another district and be able to enroll in another school.
Senator Brown asked, under current law, if a student does come from Washoe County to Clark County, and had been suspended in Washoe County, is Clark County required to put the student into a school, or can they continue the expulsion time. Ms. Edwards responded, because the CCSD has a process in place, the student would be processed through the alternative school system. She stated, if all positions are filled in the alternative school system, the student would be placed on a waiting list and would go before the CCSD's opportunity board's review.
Chairman Rawson asked Assemblyman Humke, if this amendment would be processed as it is, would it be an improvement. Assemblyman Humke explained that he believes strongly in this issue, but in his opinion, this is a very bad bill, and the amendment makes it somewhat better.
Ms. Edwards concurred with Assemblyman Humke's position on A.B. 741.
Mr. Etchemendy stated, if the word "may" would be changed to "shall" on line 27, it would cause tremendous problems in a number of school districts. The bill was requested by the superintendents' association following serious problems in several districts. The most aggravated incidence occurred recently when a student shot up a middle school. He then went to live with an aunt in another county and enrolled in that school. Then the student was found on top of the school, in which he was currently enrolled, with another firearm.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 741.
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on A.B. 427.
ASSEMBLY BILL 427: Prohibits pupils from carrying or possessing electronic devices used for paging or communication while on school grounds.
Carolyne W. Edwards, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, stated this is Assemblyman Arberry's bill, not a CCSD bill. She explained, sometimes it is very difficult for a principal to say no, when a parent is making a request. The bill expressly states, in order for a student to carry a beeper, the student must have permission from the superintendent or board of school trustees. She explained, CCSD supports A.B. 427, with the proviso that it is extremely difficult to track.
Senator Coffin commented, there may be times a parent would want their child to have a beeper, so they can check up on them. He asked Ms. Edwards, is the CCSD not permitting that situation. Ms. Edwards stated, the CCSD's current policy prohibits electronic beepers on school grounds. She added, there are provisions in all schools, for children to leave any electronic device in the office, upon arrival at school, and they can pick it up after school.
Captain Randy L. Oaks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police spoke for himself, as a parent, on A.B. 427. He explained, his 16 year old daughter has a beeper, because as a single parent, he has a need to stay in touch with her after school. He explained, due to the CCSD policy against beepers on school grounds, he has advised her to leave the beeper in her car when she goes to school. When she does not drive a car to school, she is forced to carry the beeper in her school bag and put it in her locker. He stated, this bill makes his daughter subject to arrest for a misdemeanor for carrying an electronic beeper in her book bag, onto the school grounds. In his opinion, the school district policy, as an administrative code, should be adequate.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 427.
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 63.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 63: Urges owners of private swimming pools to provide fences or other barriers to entry.
Debby Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified there are codes that are adopted on the local level which address this issue. She commented, the meat of this resolution is in lines 22 and 23, urging more public awareness.
James E. Pierce, Environmental Health Supervisor, Bureau of Health Protection Services, State of Nevada, testified in support of A.C.R. 63. He advised that his division regulates public pools where barriers are required to be installed. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Health Protection Services to regulate private pools.
Mr. Pierce responded to a question from Senator Coffin, and explained, cities and counties develop their own codes to address the private pool.
Ms. Cahill commented, lines 11, 12, 13 and 14 deal with jurisdictions that have a local code, which is not uniform across the state. Because the codes are not uniform, NSEA encourages a campaign on public awareness. She stated, the media is specifically included, for that reason.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.C.R. 63.
SENATOR BROWN MOVED TO ADOPT A.C.R. 63.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL, NEAL AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 51.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 51: Urges Welfare Division of Department of Human Resources to provide alternative child care programs.
Senator Brown explained to the committee, the reason she drafted this bill. Clark County has a workfare program called the Gate Program, which in her opinion, should be expanded throughout the state. Through her investigation in this area, she discovered there is a J.O.B.'s program, which deals with training and trying to get job placements. She was informed, the reason that less than one-third of the people who are qualified for this program, take part in it, is because the state does not have enough money to pay for child care, which is needed to get people into these working programs. This resolution urges the welfare department to seek necessary waivers and come up with the procedures for alternative child care programs. In her opinion, shared babysitting as an alternative, would not cost the state and would enable these people to get into self supporting roles.
Myla Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, State of Nevada, testified in support of the concept of pursuing alternative child care programs, in her summary (Exhibit F).
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Nevada Legal Services, testified in support of S.C.R. 51. He explained, the J.O.B.'s programs under federal law, requires that if someone is mandated to participate in J.O.B.'s activities, that child care must be provided by the Welfare Division. Approximately $300 per month, per participant is allocated to cover child care services. He advised, the main problem is the lack of facilities which can handle non-potty trained children. He stated, if the stated explores a community services program, the Welfare Division would have a very difficult time affording much of a community services program, if the division would have to pay $300 per month for every participant. He stated, ideas such as a latch-key program, with a trained professional utilizing recipients themselves who are J.O.B.s participants, some of the labor force in that program have a lot of potential and could provide a lower cost alternative. Therefore, he is in support of this resolution.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.C.R. 51.
SENATOR COFFIN MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT S.C.R. 51.
SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND NEAL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Rawson brought before the committee A.B. 247 and asked if the language, "written notice before adopting regulations," seems reasonable. He explained, everyone from both sides agreed to this compromise and the language has been amended.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 247.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND NEAL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
A discussion ensued by the committee on A.B. 427 and it was decided to hold this for a few days and then review the bill.
Chairman Rawson directed the attention of the committee to A.B. 741 and asked Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst, to meet with the people involved in this issue and to work out a solution. He added, he would also work with Mr. Sturm and all interested parties.
There being no further business, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Alexander,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
June 23, 1993
Page 1