MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 5, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, June 5, 1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom Senator Raymond D. Rawson Assemblyman John C. Carpenter STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: David Horton, Lobbyist, Nevada Freedom Coalition Rosita V. Lee, Chairman of the Board, Asian Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas Belen P. Gabato, President, Filipino-American Nurses Association Vilma Gorre, Associate Editor, Asian Pacific Journal Mary Henderson, Director of Government Affairs, Washoe County Jeff Burr, Chairman, Committee for Community Schools Corie Craig, Concerned Citizen Caroline Edwards, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District Cidney Hoskin, Teacher, Clark County School District Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association Wanda Rosenbaum, Concerned Citizen Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Bobbie Youngblood, Concerned Citizen Marjorie Broderick, Member, Washoe County School Board Sylvia Harper, Concerned Citizen Phil Stout, Concerned Citizen Philip Goldstein, Concerned Citizen Richard Price, Concerned Citizen Claire McDonald, Concerned Citizen Marcia Garcia, Concerned Citizen Senator O'Connell opened the meeting as a subcommittee. The hearing was video conferenced to Las Vegas. Senators O'Connell, Shaffer and Townsend were present at opening of the hearing of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 31-1439. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 31-1439: Directs issuance of Nevada silver coins. David Horton, Lobbyist, Nevada Freedom Coalition, explained the need for this BDR. He stated this bill is an actual implementation of 10th Amendment rights, dealing with the delegation of the right of states to issue money. He said the purpose for committee introduction of the bill draft request is to get the bill before the committee to allow all of the testimony to be heard. He said they would provide a much more in-depth explanation of the bill upon introduction of the bill draft request. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31- 1439. Mr. Horton provided a handout for the committee (Exhibit C). Senator Porter asked, if they passed the bill, would the bill be constitutional? Mr. Horton responded that the bill is to correct the constitutional infraction. Senator Porter asked if this bill is intended to correct Nevada's constitution? Mr. Horton responded that it is to correct the failure of the Congress of the United States to apply the federal constitution. He explained it would stimulate Nevada's economy. Senator Porter asked how it would affect the bonding capacity of Nevada? Mr. Horton explained available funds would be increased. Senator Townsend asked if a fiscal note from the Office of the State Treasurer or any of the local governments was available. Mr. Horton responded that the last time the bill came to the Legislature, it did have a fiscal note. He said that fiscal note addressed counterfeiting. Senator Porter asked if the Office of the State Treasurer supported the bill? Mr. Horton responded that the treasurer is opposed to the BDR. He testified he has been corresponding with the treasurer since 1990. He said he received a memo from the treasurer that he was opposed to the bill. He said all federal and state office holders are sworn to support the constitution. This measure enforces the constitution and he wants to know why a particular state or federal officer would be opposed to it. Senator Porter requested confirmation that the bill has been proposed in the past. Mr. Horton responded that they introduced this BDR in the Assembly last session, A.B. 910 of the Sixty- seventh Session. He said it came up for a hearing, passed out of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, passed out of the Assembly, but was not heard in the Senate. ASSEMBLY BILL 910 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Authorizes state treasurer to issue money. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS O'CONNELL AND TOWNSEND VOTED NO. SENATORS O'DONNELL, RAGGIO, AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on BDR 31-1439 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 525. ASSEMBLY BILL 525: Authorizes certain counties to create commission to study Asian-American communities. Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, testified first on A.B. 525. She explained the bill is to authorize a study of the Asian-American community by county commissioners. She stated endorsement of the bill. Rosita V. Lee, Chairman of the Board, Asian Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas, testified next on the bill. She explained this bill is the first time that the Legislature has recognized the Asian- Pacific community in Nevada. She stated little history is written about the Asian-Pacific people, or their contributions to society. She testified although the census of 1990 states there are 35,000 Asian-Pacific people in Nevada, there are 65,000. She emphasized the bill asks for parity, not handouts. She stated small businesses, education, and youth programs as important issues for the Asian-Pacific community. She drew the committee's attention to section 1, line 7, page 1, and asked for an amendment to change the word "may" to "shall." She stated the word "may" indicates that the study is not important. She reiterated how important the bill is. She stressed that funding for the study was not included in the bill; this has caused concern for the Asian-Pacific community. She commented that she understood for the bill to be passed rapidly, the funding mechanism had to be eliminated. She maintained they should fund the Asian-Pacific community study since the alien highway and the tortoises received funding. She concluded her testimony by stating that clear, concise statistics will show the viability of the Asian-Pacific community. Senator O'Connell stated they have not funded the E.T. Highway. She noted the Senate yet has not heard the bill. She explained a federal mandate has created the concern over the tortoises. She stressed the state has had no choice in that instance. She stated that the counties do not pay for the tortoises; the home builder associations pay for the tortoises. She emphasized it is "outside funding, not taxpayer dollars." Ms. Lee responded, "There is no comparison." Belen P. Gabato, President, Filipino-American Nurses Association, testified next on A.B. 525. She asked for committee support of the bill. She defined the Asian-Pacific community as the "silent" community. She said everyone hears about the successful Asian and no one pays attention to the Asians who are not successful. She listed important issues for the Asian-Pacific community. She stated a cultural difference exists between parents who were raised in the Pacific Rim Islands and their children who are growing up in the American culture. Vilma Gorre, Associate Editor, Asian Pacific Journal, testified in favor of A.B. 525. She stated the bill will offer credibility to the Asian-Pacific community. They will be accepted as members of the State of Nevada. She requested that the community pass the bill and identify economical, cultural, and educational contributions of the Asian-Pacific community in Nevada. She added many members of the Asian-Pacific community have fled their homelands because of political concerns. Ms. Lee reminded the committee that representatives of many organizations in Nevada are from the Asian-Pacific community. She explained the Asian Chamber of Commerce has 200 members. She explained 500-600 nurses in the Filipino-American Nurses Association work in the state. She asked for committee support. Ms. Gabato stated the Asian-Pacific community would like to help work on the study when it occurs. She said they wanted to help do voter registration for the Asian-Pacific community so that they will count "politically" in the state. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 525 and opened the hearing on A.B. 562. ASSEMBLY BILL 562: Removes limitation on cost of printing ballots for elections. Mary Henderson, Director of Government Affairs, Washoe County, testified in favor of A.B. 562. She explained a cap in statutes restricts how much money a county can spend to print the ballots. She said with the increase in printing costs and paper the counties have reached a point where it is no longer feasible to operate and print ballots under the cap. She stated this bill will eliminate the cap and allow competitive bids for printing of the ballots. Hearing no further testimony, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 562 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 511. SENATE BILL 511: Authorizes certain cities to form independent school districts. ASSEMBLY BILL 644: Provides for division of large school districts. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 30: Directs Legislative Committee to conduct interim study of desirability and feasibility of dividing large school districts into smaller school districts. Senator O'Connell asked the Las Vegas audience if they were aware of the bill to have an interim study on this issue? Jeff Burr, Chairman, Committee for Community Schools, stated the audience is aware of the interim study bill if they cannot get S.B. 511 out of the committee. He explained this bill is a request by the Committee for Community Schools. Senator Townsend asked Mr. Burr if he is aware of the Senate Committee on Human Resources debate regarding charter schools? Mr. Burr responded he was aware. Senator Townsend asked if this bill corresponds with the bill for charter schools? Mr. Burr responded that his position regarding charter schools would apply whether the school districts were split into smaller districts or not. Senator Raymond D. Rawson gave the committee an overview of the bill. He stated this is a complex, complicated, emotional issue. He stressed a problem needs to be addressed in the Clark County School District. He said education is providing the leaders and the work force for the nation's society. He told the committee of some complaints about the education system. He stated parental complaints about education are up and they are sharper criticisms than in the past. He noted the charter schools, the education vouchers, and the significant reforms are being driven by people perceiving significant need. He commented the school districts need good public relations people that can simply sit and talk with people. He said when parents come in with a complaint, their complaint is not handled; the people are "managed." Senator Rawson insisted it is not as simple as putting money in. He cited other places in the country where they put significant money into the system and the system fails. He stated: That's what makes this so complex is to get in and design anything that is going to make it better without losing a generation of kids. As we have faced all of the reform in this session, I have tried to look at the issue, `Is this radical enough that we might lose a generation of kids out of this?' That's my fear in anything that we do. ...The Nevada system of funding is probably one of the fairest in the country. Many states are modeling their system after Nevada because it takes into account all kinds of factors, such as the size of the community, the wealth of the community, and other things. The Nevada plan is not a bad plan for funding. As we consider splitting the districts so that there is more than one district per county, we have to be careful of this issue of equality in funding. I think it is the one thing that can invalidate anything we do if we end up in court and have our whole system thrown out because we have developed an inequality. In other words, there are some things we should go into this whole process with. One of the caveats should be that we are not going to create rich and poor districts. If there is anything that will do that, there is no further discussion. We cannot allow that to happen. . . . Without getting into calling our system good or bad, I think we could say it is not as responsive as it should be. Parents may be dehumanized, certainly they are handled in a bureaucratic way. Their complaints oftentimes are not really addressed. We might be able to accomplish a reasonable reform by going in and creating more districts. We might get the people closer to the administration. We might make the districts more responsive to those people that have particular concerns. In other words, we could get the parents closer to the decision makers. As you look at the bill...there's two that we ought to start with. Section 2 authorizes a city with a population of at least 25,000 people, and with two or more contiguous cities, to be able to break that school district up if it meets certain conditions. The conditions are basically that we don't want to create a district that has fewer than 5000 kids in it in a big area or fewer than 1,000 in a rural area. In other words, a city like Sparks might create its own district if Reno and Sparks both agreed to it and if all of the area, other than Sparks was left with enough students to form an adequate district. This takes a vote of the people in both areas to be able to accomplish it. It isn't something where an affluent area can simply decide they want to take all of the marbles and leave and accomplish that. They couldn't do that. Section 3 talks about a special election is held to elect the members of the board of trustees and it talks about how you really do that. In other words, with each school district formed, you would have to have a governing board that would really respond to it. There are some things that this bill doesn't cover that I am worried about. We ought to look at one of those. It's in italicized language early in the bill. I think it is section 35, `If an independent school district is formed pursuant to section 2, then the personal property of the county school district, from which the independent school district was formed, must be divided between the independent school district and the county school district in the same proportion as the total assessed evaluation of the independent school district bears to the total assessed evaluation of the county school district.' We have to sort that out. Does that really accomplish what we want? Should this be divided out on a per pupil basis? I think that bears close scrutiny. There must be fairness in the process. This bill doesn't deal with the issue of bargaining. If we have a county that now has a bargaining unit for teachers, and we divide that into two districts, have we split the union also by making these changes? That is not the intention of the bill, but I think that is something that very carefully has to be studied. We deal with the issue of do we have an area-wide bargaining unit and the same work conditions that would have to exist between the different districts? That is a question that has to be answered. I guess I would sum up by saying we worked very hard to get a bill into this session that could begin the discussion. I think there are some unanswered questions in this bill and I would not be opposed to dealing with the issue through an interim study. I think Senator Porter has a bill that could serve that purpose, but we ought to sense what everybody has to say about this and how much support there is and how quickly we could move if this bill is used as a vehicle for any reform here, then I think we need to direct some timetables and procedures so that it is done in a systematic and orderly way. That we don't take quick steps to carve up the district and if it is a mistake, you can't simply say, `Oh, never mind.' We have children that have been damaged by that process. We ought to make sure it is done in a very orderly systematic way. This is a debate that is time we got into it. I think the discussion needs to be held. Let's see how the citizens feel about this. Senator Shaffer asked if they pay the board of trustees. Senator Rawson responded they are set up the way the school boards are set up now. He said three school districts in Las Vegas would be three times the current levels of administration. Senator Shaffer asked if a majority of registered voters voted in a particular election and not in another? Senator Rawson answered if it is a majority of the voters, that could be an issue. Senator Porter concurred; the change must occur in an orderly and systematic fashion. He commended Senator Rawson for the work on the bill and for the concerns for his constituents. Senator Rawson stated New York City does not have school districts as big as Clark County. He asked what they knew about that situation that Nevada does not know? He noted that Clark County is between the eighth and tenth largest school district in the county and commented on the power that accompanies districts like that. He emphasized there are reasons not to break up the counties. He stressed all of the reasons need to be examined. Senator Townsend asked if an interim study occurs, how does the committee get more dollars into the classroom? He stated there is substantial research that educational money over the years has not gotten into the classroom. It is absorbed in bureaucracies and growth. If the interim study shows that a redirection of the money is appropriate, the Legislature may have won a small battle for the students of Nevada. He said that looking at a large amount of money is hard and to "find out that we are not getting done what we would certainly like to have done." Senator Rawson stated many people do not understand what it means to get the money to the classroom. He said 87 percent of the education budget goes to teacher salaries. He stated less money gets to the classroom when the district has more levels of administration. One advantage of a smaller district is the fewer levels of administration, but a disadvantage is fewer resource people. The class-size reduction plans have put more money directly into the classrooms. Technology measures in this legislative session will put more money into the classroom. He said most of the $29 million that the Governor advocated as a one-shot funding will go into the classrooms. Senator Townsend stated a corollary to that debate is that there should not be preconceived notions that the Legislature is going to decide there should be one district in Clark County or one in Washoe or five or whatever. He urged that the study should determine these factors. He said if someone has the responsibility to care for and educate a child, then he or she should have the authority. He suggested this be included in the study. Senator Rawson stated parents are less and less willing to give teachers the authority that they need. If the Legislature embarks on this issue, it will be the biggest issue that they have embarked on in education. Senator O'Connell asked Senator Rawson how he envisioned the information gathering tools for how they will structure the districts to utilize the central buying power of the school district, where the boundaries will be, how they will determine the boundaries, financial concerns, and collective bargaining units. She asked him if he had envisioned a committee or someone to handle and work out the problems. Senator Rawson stated that one approach is an interim study. If they establish Senator Porter's study bill, they will have the resources of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and will define whoever else will be included in the study. He testified: There has to be more than is involved in this bill. There has to be either a direct appropriation to have the consultants and the staff to do this, or you put this responsibility on the school district, the existing school district, to do it all. The results you get will depend upon what their attitude is going into it. If they want to see this, then we will see the kind of study that will accomplish it. If they don't want to see this, we will never get through the negatives that have been put up. That is why when I look at the bill now, I think there needs to be an appropriation with the issue of an oversight group, whether it is interim finance, or a subcommittee of Interim Finance on Education, or the Legislative Commission calling a committee to do this, or if you simply turn it over to counsel bureau staff with input from various groups. I think we need...I think this is as serious a study as you can have. It may be that we need to go into something like we did on the Price Waterhouse. It is as big an issue. This budget is a $2.2 billion dollar budget this session. Let's not glide past that lightly. It is a big deal and if we are going to do it, we need to face that issue. Mr. Burr continued his testimony by thanking the Legislature for addressing this issue. He stated the Clark County Board of Trustees has taken no stand on the issue. He said Clark County is one of the best urban districts in the country. He voiced concern over the inequities in the current system. He explained the inequities exist when seven trustees represent Carson City. Those trustees each represent 7000-8000 people. The seven trustees in Washoe County each represent 30,000 each. He emphasized his task in Clark County is impossible. He represents 100,000 in his district. The school issues are emotional and parents want to be involved. He testified that his constituents have been frustrated that he has not had time to represent them. There is a lack of representation of parents in Clark County due to the size of the district. The national trend is to go to smaller government. He stressed parents and citizens need to have a say in how they operate the schools. Mr. Burr addressed the issue of breaking up school districts. The Nevada plan sets up a system under which each district would have the opportunity to receive revenue based on the number of students in the district. He stated he favors allocating additional dollars to students who are at-risk. He cited smaller districts that help interaction between trustees and parents. He testified, "It is an issue of democracy and letting our voices be heard." He told the committee the bill provides for a vote of the people to decide to form their school district. He stated it is enabling legislation. Mr. Burr commented the main issues are financial issues. Clark County has sizeable assets that would have to be split equitably. He stated the assets should not be split according to assessed value as suggested by Senator Rawson. It should be split on a per-pupil basis to be fair. He commented that accomplishing the task of installing different school boards for the different proposed districts is not difficult. Only a vote of the people in the new school district should be required to pass the bond issue for that new school district. He said they have asked to be able to create special assessment districts which would include the strip corridor to fund all of the districts proportionately to help fund bond issues. He explained there is a fear that passage of this bill will damage the intercity areas. Mr. Burr suggested four separate districts in Clark County: North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City and the City of Las Vegas, leaving about 80,000 students in a county-wide district. He stated if people consider the older parts of Clark County, they are more concerned about their money going to build new schools. If these areas had their own school district, they could vote for rehabilitation and modernization of schools in their area. If they knew that money was coming to their area, they would be more apt to support a bond. He said this type of system would allow for needs of individual areas to be addressed. He said that addressing all of the needs on a county-wide basis is difficult. Corie Craig, Concerned Citizen, addressed S.B. 511. She said she is the parent of a special education student. She stated she is concerned about the effects of the bureaucracy affecting special education. She testified that having an uninterrupted education is important for special education children. She noted they can digress and have to start over. She cited the dedication of the special education teachers in Clark County. She noted her son's teacher spends the summer visiting her students, ensuring that they are working during the summer. She explained the paperwork due to federal requirements and the number of people which the teachers have to report to are overwhelming. She commented that they conduct goals and measurements of achieving goals on students once a year. She said these are running about 100 pages per student per year and it is the teacher who is writing these reports. She stressed the time, to complete this paperwork, takes the teacher away from working with the students. It is not helpful to their education. Caroline Edwards, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, testified next on S.B. 511. She stated the board does not have a position on this issue. She said they divided the board in their ideas regarding the bill. She testified several members do not favor the interim study; however, they would be interested in having the time to study the issue. She noted there has been no full vote about what splitting the district would mean. She said: Before anyone could take a legitimate and intelligent vote, they would need all kinds of information. For instance, financially, would it be a good thing financially for the taxpayers to split the district. All of these facts and figures would need to be brought before this body or an interim committee from this body. In general, we would be enthusiastic in assisting Senator Porter in his efforts to bring a study in front of this body to split the district. But at this point, we are concerned that we have 2 to 3 weeks left in the session and this would be such a big issue with so many very different sides to be considered that a longer time would be needed to look into the issue. Cidney Hoskin, Teacher, Clark County School District, addressed her parent and teacher concerns regarding S.B. 511. She stated she worked in small and medium school districts before teaching in the Clark County School District. She cited the frustrations teachers experience in the large size school districts which they did not have in smaller districts. She commented problems are addressed easier in smaller districts. She remarked that her children would have a better education if they were in a district where education was placed ahead of politics. Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, testified that this is a complex issue. However, she expressed reservations that S.B. 511 may not address the solution. She said there is a bill on the Assembly side which addresses the consolidation of larger school districts based on enrollment. She said if the legislative body is looking for more parental participation and more efficient service delivery, city boundaries may not be the best solution. She cited examples of places in the country where geographical boundaries cause more transportation costs than it is worth. She endorsed Senator Porter's interim study. She stated they endorse site-based decision making and said it should be part of the interim study. Wanda Rosenbaum, Concerned Citizen, testified that the Clark County School District is so large that no one is accountable in the district any longer. She stated the district has become a huge employment agency. The district has packaged old programs while protecting their political base. She termed it a "bureaucratic shell game." She testified curriculum accountability is lacking. The curriculum is not consistent, continuous and is irrelevant. She described large classrooms with rampant discipline problems. She noted the failure of written policies. She stated poor purchasing, wasteful expenditures, duplicative services, travel expenses for recruitment, and legal fees for crisis management are destroying the budget. Ms. Rosenbaum stated the Clark County School District does not handle parental concerns in a timely manner or to the benefit of the child. This is due to the politics and union power in the school district. She said the trustees cannot effectively represent their constituents. She said they try to decipher district misinformation and respond to crises. She said the board is polarized on capital improvements, equity issues, personnel salaries, zoning, etc. She said the territorial decisions only help the few not the many. She said the inability of the district to rid itself of ineffective employees has produced a noncompetitive attitude which is at the root of the entire lack of accountability. She commented that she supports all of the education reform bills. She said breaking the unions into smaller units would be good for the districts. She cited smaller districts require less administration so they could channel administrative savings back into the classrooms. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified this bill, as written, expands beyond the limits of Clark County. He said the limit of a city with 25,000 meant there are two cities in Washoe County that exceed that limit. He cited there is a city in Nevada which is fast approaching that limit. He said other bills address school reform, but an interim study, via S.C.R. 30 is the most responsible way of addressing this issue. He stated support of S.C.R. 30. Bobbie Youngblood, Concerned Citizen, suggested that the bargaining units had bought off Senator Rawson and that he was trying to kill S.B. 511. She stated the Clark County School District funds four levels of administration. She said site- based management decisions are thwarted. Teachers are transferred instead of reprimanded. She stated, "When a superintendent campaigns for bonds instead of books, it is time for de-consolidation." Senator Porter stated Senator Rawson has been working very hard to find solutions for all of the students in Nevada. He asked that all personalities and personal agendas be put aside and that everyone work together to come to the right decision and do the right thing. Marjorie Broderick, Member, Washoe County School Board, testified the board has taken no position on the issue. She said while she has been a trustee in Washoe County, it has never been an issue which constituents have addressed to her. She said since the proposal will potentially impact the Washoe County School District, it is imperative that they contribute to the discussions. She commented to act on this bill with so little time left in the session would be to deny the worth of a thorough study of all the issues. She stated support of an interim study. Senator O'Connell explained the voters must initiate the change in the school district. Ms. Broderick responded the study should be completed first to allow the voters more opportunity to know the consequences of all the issues. Senator Townsend asked for Ms. Broderick's reaction to allocating revenue to hire an independent source during the interim study to provide an efficiency or performance audit and to provide suggestions for improving large districts. He explained the source would be independent from the State of Nevada. Ms. Broderick responded that they would never deny the public any study which would improve services for the students. She stated she favors the study. Senator Townsend explained many times the Legislature gets an independent analysis of their own work, and how to improve things. It is beneficial because it gives people a fresh look at their own work. He stated an independent study often opens dialog on issues. He agreed that Washoe and Clark County School Districts are large entities. Sylvia Harper, Concerned Citizen, addressed the issue of monopolies is analogous to school districts. She stated competition was healthy. She asked why they did not consider education. Students and teachers are numbers in the bureaucratic shuffle. She tendered her resignation from the Clark County School District citing that she cannot be part of a system which professes to care about education of students, but does the opposite. Phil Stout, Concerned Citizen, stated this is enabling legislation. He urged the committee to allow the citizens who want to de-consolidate the opportunity to do so. He stressed a study is important to get the information to the voters to get their support for this project; however, he questioned its validity. Philip Goldstein, Concerned Citizen, testified next on S.B. 511. He told the committee the goal of the bill is to improve education. It is not an anti-union bill, an anti-contract purchasing bill, nor an anti-northern or anti-rural Nevada bill. He suggested Professor Wallberg from the University of Illinois conducted a study which proved that smaller school districts result in higher test scores, no matter what community. He stated this bill gives the school district an added partner, the city government. He added that city governments cannot contribute successfully to county school districts because entity boundaries are being crossed. Mr. Goldstein noted making three districts out of Clark County does not result in three times the bureaucratic staff. He said if the Clark County School District goes from serving 150,000 to 50,000 students, there will be streamlined districts. He said smaller districts will create streamlined, efficient bureaucracy. He stated there is no need to separate bargaining units because all of the school districts will be similar. He said the focus is to make them smaller and more independent. He noted the contracts can be county-wide contracts. He cited opportunities for cost efficiency and effectiveness with smaller districts. Richard Price, Concerned Citizen, addressed the committee next. He urged the committee to consider S.B. 511. Claire McDonald, Concerned Citizen, stated support of S.B. 511. She told the committee that developers have donated school sites to the Clark County School District. There are 13 donated sites presently, but there is no money to build the sites. She said the population in the valley will double in the next 5-7 years, and this problem will continue to get worse. She said the people should decide if they want their own school districts and what they are willing to pay. She said without legislation there will continue to be overcrowded conditions, double sessions, year-around schools, or unacceptable conditions. She urged the committee to give the people the ability to solve the problem on a local level. Marcia Garcia, Concerned Citizen, stated that programs and curriculum in the Clark County School District are fragmented due to the size of the district. She said some of the best programs cannot be duplicated due to lack of revenue or resources. She said the size of the district has parents pitted against each other. She said the board of trustees have to decide which children are more deserving than others. She said the growth creates more of a problem. She addressed Chapter 1, a program with limited dollars, where the schools have to decide who gets the money. She said deserving children who meet requirements do not get the programs, dollars, and help they deserve in the classroom. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 511 and opened the hearing on A.B. 341. ASSEMBLY BILL 341: Makes various changes concerning group insurance coverage of trustees of school districts. Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, testified regarding A.B. 341. Referring to the previous bill, S.B. 511, he told the committee that Elko is the third largest school district in the state. He explained A.B. 341 would allow former trustees to continue with their health plan if they paid for the plan themselves. It would be limited to trustees who served at least one full term or who were retired or defeated in the 1994 elections. He stated a limited number of school trustees, who have served for many years, depend upon this as their primary insurance. Senator O'Connell asked if there was opposing testimony to the bill when it was heard in the Assembly. Mr. Carpenter said there was no opposing testimony, but the committee wanted to narrow the scope of the bill. He stated the first draft of the bill would have opened the bill to any former trustee. He emphasized the Assembly wanted to ensure that the trustees would be responsible for all of their own premium payments. Senator Townsend asked if there was testimony on the rate for retired trustees. He asked if it was a continuation of the group rate, or if it is an independent rate set by the provider. Mr. Carpenter responded it would be the same rate that the program provides for. He said eight districts pay the premiums for the trustees, but the trustees have to pay the premiums for their dependents. He stated his understanding is that the rate remains the same as is currently in effect. He said the trustee is responsible for any increase or decrease in premiums. Senator Townsend stressed that having that stated in the record by the insurance commissioner who oversees these things is important for the intent. He said that having an opinion on this situation is important. Mr. Carpenter agreed that having the trustees receive the group rate is important. He said his understanding was that was the way it would be. Senator O'Connell asked Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst, to research this information for the committee. Senator Porter stated each individual in a group plan affects the rates of the group. He said prior board members might have health problems, but each individual in the group affects all the rates for that group. He stated a similar problem with entity insurance is that one member may have higher health insurance which affects the total rates of the group. Hearing no further testimony, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 341 and adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs June 5, 1995 Page