Senate called to order at 1109 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Roll called
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Albert Tilstra.
We know, O God, that there is a time to speak and a time to keep silent. Help us to tell the one from the other. When we should speak, give us the courage of our convictions. When we should keep silent, restrain us from speaking, lest, in our desire to appear wise, we give ourselves away.
Teach us the sacraments of silence that we may use them to know ourselves and, more than that, to know You. Then we will truly be wise. This we pray to Him who has said, "Be still and know that I am God".

Amen.

Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.

Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.

Your Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 51, 54, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Raymond D. Rawson,

Chairman

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, February 5, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bill No. 57.
Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Thank you Mr. President. S.C.R. 5 amends the Joint Rules of the Senate and the Assembly to provide for joint sponsorship of bills and resolutions. This resolution allows an individual legislator or standing committee to introduce a bill or resolution that lists the names of both senators and assemblymen who wish to be joint sponsors on a measure. For example, joint sponsorships could contain all senators then all assemblymen listed together with each house in alphabetical order or the list could be separate with the senators or the assemblymen listed first depending on where the measure originated.
A measure similar to S.C.R. 5 was passed by the Senate last session, however, it was at the end of session and stalled in the Assembly.
Resolution adopted.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 5 transmitted to the Assembly.

By the Committee on Natural Resources:
Senate Bill No. 120--An Act relating to state lands; requiring the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada to cause to be conducted a study of the potential impact on the economic activities within this state as a result of the designation of certain land in the State of Nevada as a wilderness area; making an appropriation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rhoads moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Natural Resources:
Senate Bill No. 121--An Act relating to environmental litigation; requiring the State of Nevada, a local government, a public officer or a public employee to pay the costs of litigation of a prevailing private person in certain civil actions involving environmental issues; providing that such a governmental entity or employee who prevails in such a civil action must not be awarded attorney's fees or costs under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rhoads moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By Senator McGinness:
Senate Bill No. 122--An Act relating to crimes; prohibiting a person employed in a position of authority by a public school or private school from engaging in sexual conduct with a student who is 16, 17 or 18 years of age; prohibiting a person employed in a position of authority by a college or university from engaging in sexual conduct with a student who is 16 or 17 years of age; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator McGinness moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By Senator McGinness:
Senate Bill No. 123--An Act relating to the disposition of unclaimed property; revising the circumstances under which an intangible interest or money held or owing by a business association is presumed abandoned; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator McGinness moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 57.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

J

The Honorable William Raggio
Majority Leader
Nevada State Senate
Legislative Building
Carson City, NV 89710

Dear Senator Raggio:

I am herewith forwarding to you, for filing within the constitutional time limit, and without my approval, Senate Bill No. 70, entitled:

AN ACT relating to professions; providing that an occupational
licensing board is not required to employ certain persons or
to use certain facilities; authorizing the board of examiners
for marriage and family therapists to issue subpoenas for the
attendance of witnesses and the production of books and
papers; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Section 2 of Senate Bill 70 would allow any of the Title 54 occupational licensing boards to avoid some of the important fiscal controls and obligations placed upon all state agencies within the Executive Branch. In particular, Section 2 would allow any occupational licensing board to hire private counsel and to use any building it desired. In doing so, Section 2 intrudes upon the Executive Branch's ability to oversee the fiscal policies of its boards and commissions.

Sincerely,
BOB MILLER
Governor

BM/mms
cc: Honorable Dean Heller
Secretary of State

The question was put: Shall the bill pass, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor?"
Remarks by Senators Townsend, Neal and Raggio.
Senator Raggio requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Townsend:
Thank you, Mr. President. This is not the most earth shattering matter to appear before this body; however, I think an important portion of it needs to be mentioned. This is a simple bill which has to do with our licensing boards. There is a concern in the Governor's message with regard to allowing all boards to hire their own counsel. There are two provisions in this bill which came to our attention in committee. One of these had to do with the ability of these boards to rent space on their own. Currently, the order of importance would be that the state would provide them with space. If space cannot be found in a state building, then the state finds those boards space elsewhere. In committee, testimony was fairly obvious that it is much easier for a small board to find space where they would like to be, with a minimal amount of rent, since these expenditures come out of their licensing fees.
Please understand that no licensing board listed in this bill has general fund money. All of their expenditures come out of fees which are generated. Because of that small independence, they feel that they should be able to directly rent whatever space is needed. I think that speaks for itself.
The other concern, which I think also speaks for itself and which the executive branch articulated in its veto message, had to do with the ability of "all boards under this bill would be able to go out and hire their own counsel". We have completed extensive research on this and realized there was extensive debate before this body. That was never the intent of the bill nor do we believe that is in fact what it does. If you will look under Section 2 of the bill, you will see that is the area of concern. However, our own legal counsel has advised me that this section, on its own, does not allow any licensing board to go out and obtain independent counsel. There must be specific statutory authority to allow that. Therefore, I would say that the analysis is a flawed one. That is not the intent of the bill. There is no history in the record of this bill which says that we have any intention of allowing licensing boards, in a carte blanche fashion, to go out and hire independent counsel. That is not what this bill is about. It does not allow this to happen. So therefore I would encourage you to override the veto.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I spent considerable time early this morning looking at S. B. 70 trying to determine what my position would be on this bill in terms of overriding or sustaining the Governor's veto. As I read the bill, I understood that the measure deals with the licensing boards. Paraphrasing the operative language of S.B. 70 which says that "no board of commission which issues occupational or professional licenses, certificates or permits pursuant to this title to may be required to employ a person who is an employee of the state or use a building, structure, institution or other facilities of this state in discharge of its duties imposed pursuant to the provision of this title". I was somewhat thrown off on this when I first read it because the bill represents a new title so therefore the language of the bill was not "italicized." I don't know whether or not the author of this piece of legislation was trying to hide something from us in terms of these particular boards.
In regard to S.B. 70, there are two types of boards which exist in our statutes. One statute requires the boards to have attorneys. There are other boards which are not authorized to have attorneys. Two boards which are authorized to have an attorney are the Real Estate division and the financial institutions. Those two boards, which I think this measure addresses, have written into statute (645A and 645C of NRS) a common language which states that the attorney general shall represent these particular boards. When I looked at this measure, I wondered what the Governor's office was looking at when it was decided to veto this bill. The language, in the bill, which states that these licensing boards employ people who are not state employees is addressed in general terms. So, in our law, and accordingly a 1980 case La Pena v the State of Nevada, that says that "if a general statute conflicts with specific statute" which is the case of the financial institutions and the real estate division which says that they must utilize the Attorney General as their attorney. The specific statute is the law; therefore,.S.B. 70, changes nothing in terms of employment of attorneys. In other words, by the fact that we had passed this measure, we had done nothing in terms of changing the operation of the law as it applied to the real estate division and the financial institutions. I do not understand the reasoning of the Governor at that particular point.
Also, the other Subsection 2, refers to the use of buildings. Under NRS 334.050, it prohibits the occupational licensing boards, in addition to other state agencies, from leasing, purchasing or owning real property. This section provides that, unless otherwise provided by law, no state department, division, bureau, commission, board, authority or agency or no state officer commissioned representative of the state or other state employees acting for and for on account of any office, etc. is allowed to go out and purchase or lease buildings without contacting those persons within the state who are obligated to do this for them.
Although many of the occupational licensing boards in this state are authorized by specific statute to maintain offices elsewhere in the state in order to carry out their duties, other occupational boards do not have that authority. To determine the manner in which office space is provided for these occupational licensing boards, which do not have the authority to maintain their own offices, it is necessary to examine the provision related to the provision of office space for the state in general. NRS 333.110 states in part that "except as otherwise provided, the chief of Building and Grounds shall determine the occupancy thereof in such a manner as public service many require." If anything cannot be found in-state only then can the chief of the purchasing department has the obligation to go out and find the necessary space for use by these agencies if they are not authorized by statute.
In passing this measure, we forgot to do one thing. We did not authorize these agencies to go out and obtain space so therefore the existing law governs that. When we did not authorize this to be done, it means that they must abide by the existing laws.
I was somewhat puzzled as to why the Governor vetoed this measure. Whatever the person who sought this measure had in mind, it was not accomplished. The statute still remains the same. So, I am in a quandary as to what the Governor was trying to say to us when he vetoed this bill. Perhaps his people did not read it correctly or did not understand the existing law.
In summary, if we did not authorize the boards to engage attorneys; did not authorize them to go out and secure space, then the existing law within our statutes prevails. Therefore, the bill did nothing to change the existing law. I guess what I am saying is that if you override the Governors veto or sustain it, it does not make any difference.
Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President. I agree that this is not an earth shattering matter, but I would ask the question of either the committee which processed the bill or the distinguished senator who just spoke, what about Section 3 which was entailed a substantive change. I assume that if we sustain the veto, then the substantive part of this will not be enacted.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. The Majority Leader is correct, but I was only addressing Sections 1 and 2 which dealt with the attorneys and the space. Of course, yes, if we reject those sections then the other parts of the bill would not go into effect. In that case the, I would have to vote to override the Governor's veto.
The roll was called, and the Senate sustained the veto of the Governor by the following vote:
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 70 of the 68^th Session.
Yeas -- 13.
Nays - Adler, Coffin, Mathews, Regan, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Wiener -- 8.

Vetoed Senate Bill No. 341 of the 68^th Session.
Bill read.
Governor's message stating his objections read.

The Honorable William Raggio
Majority Leader
Nevada State Senate
Legislative Building Carson City, NV 89710

Dear Senator Raggio:

I am herewith forwarding to you, for filing within the Constitutional time limit, and without my approval, Senate Bill No. 341, entitled:

AN ACT relating to education; prohibiting the eliciting of certain information
from a pupil without written parental consent; requiring that certain information
concerning the well-being of a pupil be reported to the parent or guardian of the
pupil; requiring a school district to furnish, upon request of a parent or guardian
of a pupil, copies of certain records relating to the pupil; and providing other
matters properly relating thereto.

I believe all of us agree that more parental involvement in our children's schooling would be beneficial. However, Senate Bill 341 has too many flaws to appropriately address this desire.

Senate Bill 341 violates federal law, in that it requires a school to give a parent access to all records of a pupil in direct violation of the Federal Educational and Family Privacy Act.

The ambiguities in the Bill, including the failure to include psychologists in an exemption while including counselors, and in prohibiting any questions about "behavior that is illegal, antisocial, self-incriminating or demeaning," creates an impossible task for school professionals in dealing with day-to-day administration and crises.

Finally, the Bill is flawed in that it provides no financial support for educating school personnel on how to stay within the Bill's requirements, costs of translating the notices required, and providing duplicates (at no assessable cost) to parents of all school records.
Sincerely,

BOB MILLER
Governor

BM/mms
cc: Honorable Dean Heller
Secretary of State

The question was put: "Shall the bill pass, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor?"
Remarks by Senators O'Connell, Titus, Adler, Neal, Raggio, James and Washington.
Senator Raggio requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.

Senator O'Connell:
Thank you, Mr. President S.B. 341 addressed two areas of Federal law. The Grassley Amendment and the Family Educational Rights and Family Privacy Act, which is also known as FERPA. The intent of the bill was to incorporate into the Nevada statutes the Federal law bringing Nevada into compliance, and assuring parents of the same protection for both State and Federally funded education programs.
There seems to be confusion over application of when and if these Federal laws apply.
More specifically, the issue is, do the laws only apply to a completely Federally-funded program, or do the laws also have application to educational programs funded by state money.
I listened to the Governor's State of the State Speech the other night and was encouraged by the emphasis he placed on parental involvement as it pertains to the improvement of a child's education.
S.B. 341 from the 68^th Session could go a long way in expressing to the public the Senate's commitment to that same cause.
It is very hard for parents to believe that state policymakers, in general, care about the involvement of parents in education when parents are refused the right to their own children's records and their approval is ignored prior to the initiation of very personal surveys and questionnaires given to their children. Questions such as:

1. Are your parents divorced or separated?

2. Has there been a major change in your family's financial state?

3. Which parent provides your emotional support?

• Should women with preschool children work outside the home?"
  
• Should wives make less money at their jobs than their husbands? -
  
• Do your parents attend church?"
  

Senator Adler:
Thank you, Mr. President. I also voted for this bill the first time it was before us, but the measure I voted for honestly did not look anything like this, to be quite honest. This is the result of what happens in conference committees at about 3:00 a.m. on the final day of session. That is one of the problems with the bill. I would agree with the sponsor of the bill that the records portion of this measure is a good portion. I strongly support that and the Grassley Amendment. I concur with her that many of the school districts, prior to this legislation, were violating this section. They were not allowing parents access to records. I know the ord has gone out that they are to comply with this section under Federal law. However, this bill, because of some drafting errors, goes too far.
I would like to point out, in subsection 7 on the last page, it says that "this section does not apply to the voluntary disclosure and discussion of information between a pupil and a licensed school counselor or social worker." That is interesting, because it does not mention teachers, school bus drivers or the school janitor. I did serve on the Parents United Board which is a group formed to combat child abuse and neglect, so I am very familiar with this problem. Many times it is the teacher who sees a bruise on the arm of a child and makes a reasonable inquiry that triggers the child abuse investigation. Many times it may even be the janitor, totally untrained person in this field, who questions a child and discovers abuse. None of these people are listed in that section so, by omission, it suggests that you can not have voluntary disclosure and discussion of information between a pupil and anyone but a licensed school counselor or social worker. That does break down the necessary communication we need.
The other problem I have is that between school staff and children this measure suggests that to do any of these things you need two weeks advance consent, which is in Subsection 3 of Section 2. It also states that the consent can not be more than five months old. That actually places a large burden upon parents. Any parent who has ever had to sign consent forms will know that if we are talking about all teachers, drivers, janitors and nurses and any kind of survey or questionnaire that is administered. We are going to have to sign off on every one of these. We can't give a general consent. That is going to be a burden on the parent. I had one child in speech therapy. Quite frankly, I got tired of going to school and signing all of the consent forms on just that one issue. This imposes a burden on me to have to go to school on numerous occasions just to have to sign a consent form on something I could care less about.
It really does break down the normal communication between the teacher and the student in the school system. This can be cleaned up in a follow-up bill which could be introduced shortly in this session and passed rapidly. I would suggest a corrective measure. Currently, the way this bill reads it creates a danger to kids at schools. Schools employees are the number one reporters of child abuse in our society. This measure cuts off that necessary mechanism which can be used to protect all the children in our schools.
Another comment I have gotten, from police agencies, is that the DARE program which covers many of the things addressed in Section 2 does make a lot of inquiries concerning drug abuse and does get into some of the family affiliations concerning drug use. This measure would also interfere with the DARE program and some of our drug abuse programs which are tailored to keep kids from using drugs and alcohol. When we get into this area where we have to have multiple permission slips, we may be cutting off that necessary drug education from our children. I know that currently, at the school my children attend, they do alcohol and tobacco education and a consent slip is not required. I do not think there should have to be one. I don't mind teachers telling my children that that type of activity is wrong even though it would be in violation of this law.
So, I would urge you to uphold the Governor's veto in this instance and that we all come back with a bill that will plug the holes in this measure. I think this is a very good concept, but it is not artfully drafted.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Senate. I rise to override the Governor's veto on S. B. 341. We heard this bill in a committee on which I served. We worked on it and, as always, I tried to look at what the bill does and then make my decision accordingly. The bill applies to surveys, analysis, and evaluations. These are not directly related to the education of the children. Under this bill, you are not permitted to ask questions about political affiliations, philosophy, mental or psychological problems, sexual behavior, orientation or attitude, behavior that is illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating or demeaning, critical appraisal of family members in relationship with another person. Under the Federal statute, it says that no student shall be required to be a part of any applicable program to submit survey, analysis or evaluation that reveals information concerning political affiliation, mental and psychological problems, potential embarrassment to the student and the family, sexual behavior and attitude, illegal anti-social self-incriminating demeaning behavior, critical appraisal of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationship, legally recognized privilege or analogous relationships such as those with lawyers, physicians and ministers.
The only thing that is in S. B. 341 that is not covered, by Federal statute, is religious affiliation and belief. If you are going to veto the bill, you are actually saying to the public that you want your child to be surveyed according to his or her religious belief or attitudes about religion. I don't believe I would be able to go along with that.
The Governor has said that certain terms in this bill are ambiguous. If that were the case, he should not veto this bill since the same language exists in Federal statute. It should be in Federal court. I think, when we added the term of religious affiliation and religious beliefs, that was the only terms we added to those lists which were required by the Federal statute. If someone wants to take the position that that is unconstitutional, that it is wrong to have religious beliefs not included in this measure, then let them stand up and say so instead of using camouflage language and discussion when deciding they want to sustain the Governor's veto of this bill.
If this bill should pass, it will not affect one counselor, nor one student because I believe that, in terms of survey, analysis and evaluation, that if you want to talk with my child about political affiliation or philosophy, I want to know about that. This bill only states, as does the Federal law, that the parents shall be notified and then given their consent. Nothing is wrong with that. This language has been in the Federal statute for approximately twenty years. This state only recently enacted this language. The reason for doing this was because if we did not place this into our statutes with recognition in the educational departments, then they could walk into any school district in this state and take away their Federal funding. That is why this measure exists. We did not idly place this portion in the bill because we thought it was cute. The only thing we added was religion and beliefs. That is all! Read it - it's there. Forget about what the measure is going to accomplish in terms of counseling. We are forced by Federal statute to do this. In order to do this, you are forced to have some type of representation in law so that they may come in and evaluate. In reading the Federal statute, which I have done, everything that school districts are required to do in relationship to these surveys, analysis and evaluation is listed.
So, ladies and gentlemen, the Governor is all wet on this particular issue. He did not listen to legal advice. It does not support his veto of this measure. Therefore, I call for the members of the Senate to override the Governor's veto of S. B. 341. To do otherwise is to say that you want your children to be evaluated according to their religious and other beliefs.

Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President. I had not intended to speak on this measure. I did not , obviously, participate in committee deliberations last session. I have come here with an open mind and I do not think that this is a partisan issue. I think this is much more important than that. We heard pretty much this same discussion when the measure was considered on the floor at the end of last session. Being heard at the last of the session was not due to action in this house, but was due to the Assembly wanting to trade action on this bill because of another bill then considered necessary to. I do not think that addresses the substance of this measure.
I was impressed by the comments of the Senator from Carson City and the Minority Leader, that there was some problem that it concerned the abuse of children. I recall that we talked about that same concern last session. Looking at the measure again, I want to be sure that my position is this, which is the same as the distinguished Senator from North Las Vegas. First of all, this measure parallels the Federal law. Our legal counsel indicates that it is not in opposition to the Federal bill. I appreciate the good Senator's analysis because it does parallel those areas for which a student may not be surveyed or questioned. I think it is an improvement on the Federal law since we have added the prohibition against ascertaining religious beliefs. We should be commended for this rather than having the Governor veto a measure of this kind.
I am going to suggest to you that we all take a step back, regardless of what we have talked about on a party basis, and talk about what we are doing here. I do not think it is a slap at the Governor if we override his veto. The only argument that has been put forth is that somehow this will prevent the ascertainment, by a school employee, of abuse. I rise because I recall that this issue was raised before. In Section 2, subsection 5, on page 2 of the measure, I thought it was very clear. It states "if an employee of a school district reasonably believes that a serious threat to the well-being of a pupil exists, child abuse or the threat of child abuse, the parent or legal guardian must be immediately notified of the circumstances which present the threat to the pupil unless (a) the matter has been reported to a law enforcement agency or legally authorized agency which provides protective services for children and the agency has requested that the parent or legal guardian not be notified, or disclosure of the information to the parent or legal guardian is prohibited by law." Now, that is my understanding of the law. This measure is not in opposition to the existing law which requires that these individuals notify the appropriate agency of protective service. This enhances that and enforces it. I am hearing some weak arguments. I hope they are not alibis because they do not want to override the veto of the Governor. Let us show some fortitude in this body to show that we do not automatically decide to sustain or override a governor's policy because of our party affiliation. I will say that to whomever or whichever party sits in the office of the Governor.
On this particular issue, I think we need to re-examine our individual positions on what statement we are going to make on this measure. We have all received many phone calls and letters concerning this issue. I think the privacy of children and the rights of families and their welfare are too important to allow this to be decided as a political measure. For that reason, even though in the beginning I was undecided, I am going to vote to override the veto of the Governor.

Senator James:
Thank you, Mr. President. I am like the Majority Leader in three ways because first of all I did not think I would be speaking on this measure. Second of all, I do not think this is a partisan issue. And third of all, I think we need to look at it carefully and examine our positions on the measure.
I am speaking because I think it is necessary to explain why I am voting in the manner that I am. If you look at this bill, the issue that has been raised and the only one which has any true merit regarding why the Governor's veto should be sustained is if this bill would have any effect which would cause a case of child abuse not to be discovered by a school official. This would have a chilling effect. If one child has a home child abuse situation not discovered because of this piece of legislation, then we should re-examine the measure and pass a different bill.
First of all, they said this is just like the Grassley Amendment. It is not. Let's look at the Grassley Amendment. What is says in this amendment is that no student shall be required, "as part of any applicable program" .This law does not say that. This measure states that no survey, evaluation or analysis. Looking at that from a lawyers standpoint, an evaluation is going to be a question. A lawyer, who is looking at this later, is going to say an evaluation is any kind of questioning. It would have fixed most of this bill if it had been worded like the Federal statute and made it part of a program. Then you would get out of the ad hoc situation whereby the teacher suspects that there is something wrong and needs to ask questions. All of a sudden, if this measure is enacted, they are going to say that they need a reasonable belief and need to report something under Chapter 432B and/or report it to a law enforcement agency unless not required to by law. That is too much to ask a bus driver, teacher or the teachers aid to do. It is too much. I respect the analysis of the Majority Leader where he points out what it says in subsection 5 where it says that "if an employee of a school district reasonably believes that a serious threat to the well-being has occurred." But, the law says that the parent or legal guardian must be notified. What if it is the parent or legal guardian that you suspect is causing the abuse? It says "unless disclosure of the information to the parent or legal guardian is prohibited by law." What is that? I don't know. You can't ask the question in the first place unless you know that it is the parent or legal guardian in the first place, and you are going to have to tell them unless you know it is prohibited by law. That is confusing, but the analysis in the mind of the school official is going to be confusing too.
In the last, sort of protective, section it says "the section does not apply to a spontaneous or voluntary expression of sentiments." What is that? These are not going to be spontaneous or voluntary. Child abuse is hidden deep inside of a child. Many children, who are being abused, do not even know that they are being abused. If they are in a home situation which is abusive, it is often a situation in which they have been brought up and they think it is the normal manner in which kids are treated. It is not until someone intervenes that they can be removed from this abusive situation. This section does not provide any protection whatsoever from the problem.
The next says it does not apply to a voluntary disclosure or discussion to a school counselor or social worker. This does not cover the problem because we need to have teachers, bus drivers, teachers aides and others to be able to elicit this information.
Lastly, I would note that the debate here is more substantial because we are looking at why the Governor vetoed the measure. This bill was passed on June 22, 1995 in this chamber. Things get to be pretty hectic during the closing days of the session and measures get passed through quickly. I know the committee examined this measure and became comfortable with it. If I had given it this kind of analysis at that time, maybe I would have felt differently about the way in which I voted.
I agree with everything the Senator from North Las Vegas said about the other conditions in the bill. Parents should have the right. I have gotten many phone calls and letters from people throughout the state asking that we override the Governor's veto because they want to have parental rights and rights of disclosure. I agree with all of that and I intend to do that, but I am not going to do it today in this bill because it has other conditions in it that could cause children to be at risk. If one child is in an abusive situation and that is not discovered because of the chilling effect this measure has, we should not pass it. The Governor did not mention this in his veto message, but I think that is the reason why it should be sustained and why I am going to vote that way.

Senator Adler:
Thank you, Mr. President. I did not intend to speak a second time, but I think one thing needs to be commented on concerning the standards in this measure. It says that "if an employee of a school district reasonably believes that a serious threat to the well-being of a pupil exists." This means that if it is not perceived initially as being serious that no inquiry can be made. A bruise on the arm, a split lip or a child crying in the hall way for no explainable reason may not be perceived as a serious threat to the well-being of the child by a school official. We are telling these school officials that rather than being vigilant and looking out for the best interests of the child, that they are supposed to turn a deaf ear to those signs that indicate something deeper may be happening. If they don't do that, they are violating the law. I think we want to encourage school officials to protect the children of this state. This bill does not do that. Through several simple amendments, as outlined by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, this can be done and produce a bill we can all be proud to vote for. I would be proud to vote for such a measure. I urge you all to uphold the veto and correct the flaws in this current piece of legislation.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I've heard the arguments of the opposition on this measure. As one who served on the committee which reviewed this bill, any other bill that comes out and does not address the things listed and outlined in this bill would be illegal according to Federal law. I do not understand what is being talked about to make this a better bill when the current bill tracks that of the Federal statute. If the Federal statute is wrong, then we should be talking to our representatives in Washington. Currently, this is the Federal law and, in order for us to show faith in terms of complicity of that, we have to have something on our books that makes direction to our agencies to carry out that statute. If not, then I think we will be in jeopardy of losing some of our federal funding.
With that, I here again think it is necessary for us to override the veto of the Governor. The only changes to this statute are in subsection F concerning religious affiliations or beliefs. Maybe someone has an objection to that. If so, then they should state those objections. The other things listed in the measure very well tracks the Federal law as to what the school districts are supposed to do.

Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to respond to the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from North Las Vegas. In this case, as in many, the devil is in the details. He read to us from the Federal statute and suggested that we all read it too since it is the same as the state statute. Well, I have read it and it's not the same. The distinguished Senator from the Judiciary Committee has explained this more eloquently than I can, and as an attorney, he is better able to do so. But, I repeat, there is a big difference between the Federal statute and the state statute. The Federal statute states that "no child shall be required to answer." The state statute says that "no official can ask." There is a big difference between saying that a child is not required to answer and saying the school is not allowed to ask. We can not say to our teachers and our school officials that they can not ask, they can not try to find out if there is a problem.
Now, I would join with the Majority Leader in asking the members of this body not to be partisan, but to think of how they would vote in their hearts. Do they really want to take action which would make it more difficult for us to discover, to prevent and to correct situations in which there might be child abuse in this state.

Senator Washington:
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to stand in regards to the comments made by the distinguished Senator from the south. As a parent, I would become very offended if I found that certain questions were being asked of my children regarding my religious preference, my behavior, my sexual attitudes, my mental or physical conditions, etc. If there is a case of child abuse, after reviewing the bill and sitting in same committee with the Senator from North Las Vegas, we carefully made certain that provision was in the bill so that if any type of child abuse was noticed, it would be properly reported to the authorities. All this bill does is to protect the rights of parents. Somewhere we must ask of ourselves the question of what rights do the parents have? Are parents being abused by being asked certain personal questions pertaining to the family makeup. If those rights are being violated, the parents should have the right to review the school files. If those files are being held confidentially from the parents, then others things may also be withheld. If there are 900 files in the Governor's basement, then they need to be exposed.

S.B. 341 Roll call on Senate Bill No. 341 of the 68^th Session.
Yeas -- 12.
Nays - Adler, Coffin, James, Mathews, Regan, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Wiener -- 9.

Vetoed Senate Bill No. 501 of the 68^th Session.
Bill read.
Governor's message stating his objections read.

The Honorable William Raggio, Majority Leader, Nevada State Senate, Legislative Building, Carson City, NV 89710

Dear Senator Raggio:

I am herewith forwarding to you, for filing within the Constitutional time limit, and without my approval, Senate Bill No. 501, entitled:

AN ACT relating to state financial administration; partially exempting the state
board of sheep commissioners and the committee to control predatory animals of
the division of agriculture of the department of business and industry from the
responsibility of paying the costs allocated for centralized services; prohibiting
the attorney general from charging the board or the committee for services
provided by his office unless the services are requested by the board; and
providing other matters properly relating thereto.

This bill exempts one state board and one committee from charges for Attorney General services and allocated service agency costs. This policy would require other state agencies to subsidize the board and committee.

I believe this would establish a bad and unnecessary precedent.

Sincerely,

BOB MILLER
Governor
BM/mms
cc: Honorable Dean Heller
Secretary of State

The question was put: Shall the bill pass, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor?"
Remarks by Senators Raggio and Neal.
Senator Raggio requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. President, S.B. 501 of the last session provided for the exemption of the State Board of Sheep Commissioners from the collection of the cost allocations provided for in the law, the indirect cost to state agencies as required under NRS Section 228.113. This veto surprised not only the Senate but the Department of Administration as well. When the Finance Committee discussed S.B. 501 with Perry Comeaux, Department of Administration, he indicated his surprise to learn that the veto was used against a board commonly referred to as the Sheep Commissioners Board.
There is no general fund money in S.B. 501, but under existing law, the board was required to sustain a substantial amount of cost allocation. Under existing law, the board would have been required to pay $4,117 which is generated from fees collected by the sheep growers. In the course of discussion with the Budget Office, the Finance Committee agreed upon the content of S.B. 501. S.B.501 was designed to be a fair and equitable method to offset the onerous cost to the board.
The director of the Department of Administration, Perry Comeaux, joined with the Finance Committee to structure S.B. 501 in fairness and indicated the amendment would also meet with Federal requirements. Without going into great detail, if there was ever a veto that should be overridden this is one such veto. There was a lack of communication between the counsel for the Governor's Office and the Budget Director. Because of this, the Governor vetoed S.B. 501. The Budget Director has since,assured the committee the provisions of S.B. 501 will be put in the budget. Rather than delay today's proceedings, I recommend the Senate sustain the Governor's veto and rely on the Budget Director's assurance that the provisions of S.B. 501 will be taken care of through the budget process. In the future, if there is a federal requirement mandating Nevada to pass legislation on certain measures, there must be an assurance that these measures not be vetoed.

Senator Neal:
Mr. President, I laughed last night when I read S.B. 501 because I did not understand the veto or the veto message regarding S.B. 501. The message stated S.B. 501 would cause a burden on other organizations in which the funds were supposed to be generated by the General Fund to support S.B. 501. I agree with the majority leader on this particular issue.

The roll was called, and the Senate sustained the veto of the Governor by the following vote:
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 501 of the 68^th Session.
Yeas - 9.
Nays - Adler, Coffin, James, Mathews, Neal, Raggio, Rawson, Regan, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Wiener -- 12.

Senate Bill No. 12.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 1.
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting line 16 and inserting:
"3. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, each time a prisoner applies for parole, the division shall set the level of supervision that will apply to the prisoner if he is granted parole. The division is not required to conduct a personal interview with the prisoner to set the level".
Amend section 1, page 2, line 3, after "parole." by inserting:
"The provisions of this subsection are not applicable to a prisoner who is not eligible for release from confinement because he:
(a) Must serve a term of incarceration for another offense for which he is not yet eligible for parole; or
(b) Is serving a term of incarceration for an offense for which he must be certified as not being a menace to the health, safety or morals of others before being released on parole, and he has not been so certified."
Senator James moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator James.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 87.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Monday, February 10, 1997 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 12:47 p.m.

Approved:

Lonnie L. Hammargren, M.D.

President of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate