The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Wednesday, February 10, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31

Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, Assembly District 22

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 144.

Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, Assembly District 40, introduced A.B. 144. She said she was there not only to introduce the bill, but also to clear up some misconceptions regarding the bill. She read from prepared text of Exhibit C. She stated she was also a social studies teacher and in many classrooms there was no observance of patriotic exercise. Many of Nevada’s children had never experienced saluting the flag or the pledge of allegiance or any other form of patriotic observance.

Ms. Parnell exclaimed the waiver allowing for noncompliance was recommended by legal counsel and was not part of the original Bill Draft Request (BDR). The waiver was inserted by the legal counsel during bill drafting based on a long standing constitutional principal announced by the United States Supreme Court in 1943. She was recently advised A.B. 144 would remain constitutional even if the waiver sentence was removed.

Ms. Parnell indicated her concern was a daily observance of patriotic exercises was extremely needed, but the committee needed to be sensitive to the Supreme Court’s ruling. When she learned the Supreme Court’s ruling of the waiver sentence did not have to be duplicated in state law, she was willing to remove it and amend A.B. 144. Therefore, she asked the committee to amend the waiver sentence from the bill by deleting line 9, starting with the word "if," through line 11, ending with the word "time." The result would be the individual schools would be required to apply the statute in accordance with the constitution even though the statute would remain silent in that regard. She hoped that cleared up the confusion regarding A.B. 144. Ms. Parnell was very upset about a news article that stated the intent of the proposed legislation was to allow for non-participation in patriotic observances. She stated she hoped to see 100 percent participation while being sensitive to the constitution. She thanked Speaker Dini for his support.

Speaker Joe Dini, Assembly District 38, stated Ms. Parnell had asked him to be a co-sponsor of A.B. 144. He thought the bill was a great idea. Speaker Dini explained when he went to school, not only saying a prayer and reciting the pledge of allegiance was required, but he also learned how to remove the flag from the pole and put the flag on the pole, as well as how to fold it. It was part of our heritage. He said the bill was an effort to be sure schools had time every day to teach students patriotism, which would help them become better Americans.

Speaker Dini received some e-mail letters, which stated A.B. 144 was a communistic conspiracy. Speaker Dini was very angered from those e-mail letters because the bill was an effort for every day human beings to strengthen and improve the law to develop good patriotism among young children. He exclaimed patriotism had disappeared from society and the bill was a good attempt to go in the right direction. He strongly urged the committee members to reconsider A.B. 144.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if an amendment could be considered on line 6 which stated, "a public school shall determine the manner in which. . . ". She was hoping the committee could recommend time spent on patriotism, instead of the individual schools, so there would be some consistency throughout Nevada.

Ms. Parnell thought the pledge of allegiance would be satisfactory to show patriotism. She said that was why she left some latitude in the bill because many teachers in other states showed patriotism by reading or singing. She thought it would allow for some variety.

Speaker Dini commented he met with three different school districts, which stated they did not want the state to mandate how to show patriotism. The school districts wanted to be able to decide what to do in their individual districts. Speaker Dini suggested the legislature should work with the school districts and create the language appropriate for them, instead of mandating legislation.

Kim Morgan, Assembly Bill Drafting Advisor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated she participated in the drafting of A.B. 144. The waiver was not part of the original BDR submitted by Ms. Parnell. Legal division thought the waiver would be helpful.

Ms. Morgan referenced (Exhibit D), the 1943 Supreme Court case in West Virginia. The West Virginia schools required every child to recite the pledge of allegiance, and if it was not done, the child was suspended from school causing the parents to be punished for not having the child in school. The reaction to the Supreme Court case was that it needed to acknowledge the first amendment, freedom of speech rights, even for school children. The case also involved a Jehovah Witness family that legitimately stated they had reasons not to say exactly the words within the pledge of allegiance. The Supreme Court acknowledged their right. Ms. Morgan stated if a school child was mandated to recite the pledge of allegiance, speech would be compelled.

Ms. Morgan explained the reason legal division thought it could be helpful to include the waiver. For instance, some school districts did not have legal expertise available, and might think they could require the pledge of allegiance, which could cause them a lawsuit because there was no helpful hint to be considerate of the first amendment right. Therefore, the legal division would be happy to take the waiver out. It would be a committee policy choice of whether to use the waiver or not.

Lynn Chapman, American Legion Auxiliary, was in favor of A.B. 144 especially with the amendment. She stated an honor society of the American Legion visits 17 elementary schools in Sparks every year. The children were each handed an American flag. Some children actually asked what it was.

Ms. Chapman said she had attended a Girl Scout function and the room was full of not only Girl Scouts, but also their parents. The color guard marched in and Ms. Chapman, her husband and one other parent stood up and saluted the flag. After the function, Ms. Chapman told the coordinator everyone should be asked to rise because people did not know to stand up and show respect to the colors. A parent overheard her say that and asked what colors meant. Ms. Chapman responded it was the flag. The parent stated she thought that was a strange way to say flag.

Ms. Chapman stated those two incidences showed an obvious need to have some type of flag history or etiquette taught in our schools. She reiterated

A.B. 144 was a good bill.

Chairman Williams reminded the forthcoming witnesses Ms. Parnell had suggested the amendment to remove lines 9 through 11.

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31, supported A.B. 144 especially after all the criticism it received. He stated he was a high school teacher and had taught American History and American Government for 27 years. Mr. Anderson stated the school where he taught, required the pledge of allegiance to be recited as part of the daily school announcements.

Mr. Anderson thought it was interesting Ms. Cegavske brought up the question of what kind of tools were available to teachers. He said he always kept a book called The American Reader on his desk. The book included words that had moved the nation such as great speeches and patriotic songs. The Almanac of American History was another book that divided the time periods of history into understandable segments so a teacher would be able to make a reference to the book if needed.

Mr. Anderson believed elementary schools had done a great job by reciting the pledge of allegiance every day. The middle and junior high school level had done a fairly good job. The high school level generally did not have the same consistency.

Mr. Anderson stated he felt the criticism directed at A.B. 144 was very unfounded because the bill went a long way to establish very clearly what the legislative intent was in terms of making sure the public schools conformed to the patriotism necessary.

Mrs. Angle suggested that 5 minutes a day could be the required time to show patriotism. She stated the pledge of allegiance did not take 5 minutes so it would also offer extra time to show patriotism in other ways, such as some of the ways Mr. Anderson stated. She wanted to know Mr. Anderson’s opinion on that idea.

Mr. Anderson stated he did not feel there should be any additions or subtractions to or from the bill, other than what the author had stated. The legislature had mandated and micromanaged classroom time to such an extent the instructional day was beginning to suffer. His concern would be how legislation would be micromanaging the minutes of the school day.

Chairman Williams commented the bill did state at the beginning of the school day the school districts would provide appropriate time to show patriotism. Students, who were not in a government class at the beginning of the school day, would have another time in the day to show patriotism.

Mr. Anderson agreed with Chairman Williams.

Chairman Williams stated it would be assured all students would be exposed to that particular exercise with the bill stating the school district would set aside the appropriate time.

Mr. Anderson said it would be important for those students who were in "pull-out" programs, such as vocational training or other kinds of out of school activities, to also be assured of having that patriotic exposure.

Merritt (Ike) Yochum, Independent American Party, was in favor of A.B. 144. He claimed it was exciting to him to finally see something being done to create more patriotism within our country. He stated the flag and the pledge of allegiance had a special meaning to him because he was a World War II veteran.

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum, supported A.B. 144. She wanted to see the bill specifically require the pledge of allegiance, but not limit other exercises to show patriotism. She believed the pledge of allegiance was a way to reconfirm being a part of a republic and the children needed to learn that.

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, lent her support for A.B. 144. She believed requiring the pledge of allegiance would strengthen the bill. Using the term "with appropriate time" concerned her because it could be seen as 30 seconds of silent contemplation, which would not be an adequate amount of time spent. She realized the intention of the sponsors of the bill was to have recognition for patriotic observances. She reiterated if the pledge of allegiance was required, it would set a minimum time standard for schools.

Mrs. de Braga said the bill stated, "a public school shall determine the manner in which it will satisfy the requirement of this section, including without limitation, setting aside time for pupils to pledge their allegiance to the flag of the United States." She asked if that meant the pledge of allegiance had to be included.

Mrs. Lusk stated she hoped it was required, but when she spoke to Ms. Parnell, she explained it did not require the pledge of allegiance.

Francis Gillings of the Independent American Party testified how important it was to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag. He stated his support for A.B. 144.

Steve Williams with the Washoe County School District was in favor of A.B. 144, and thought it was an improvement over the existing language. He responded to previous testimonies, which wanted the bill to allow for schools to have latitude. He appreciated the latitude being left within the bill.

Mrs. Chowning asked if Mr. Williams viewed the language within the bill, which stated, "appropriate time at the beginning of each school day," to take 30 to 60 seconds each day.

Mr. Williams stated he could not answer that question because the language stated, "an appropriate time," which meant a school could interpret that any way they wanted.

Mrs. Chowning said Mr. Williams testified that language was a strengthening of the existing law because it included the pledge of allegiance, which the existing law did not. She asked him to comment on what he meant.

Mr. Williams thought A.B. 144 was strengthened in a couple ways. The pledge of allegiance should be the basic requirement. The existing law stated one hour should be set aside each school week which might not have been satisfied, whereas, the amendment stated each day. He believed that was a stronger statement that would be followed.

Mary Peterson, Department of Education, believed A.B. 144 was a good bill and an improvement to the existing law because it required regular daily patriotic exercises.

Paula Winne an employee of the Nevada Assembly testified as a private citizen and read from prepared text of Exhibit E. She was in favor of A.B. 144 because that bill would provide more of a specific guideline for the principal of a school to have his/her teachers follow.

Douglas Byington spoke on behalf of the Nevada Association of School Administrators and was in favor of A.B. 144. He stated the current statute had not succeeded and believed the amendment would allow more flexibility for the schools to decide how they would show patriotism in the classroom. Mr. Byington mentioned he was authorized to speak on behalf of Hank Etchemendy, representative for the Nevada School Boards Association, who was also in favor of the amended bill.

Randy Robison testified on behalf of Lincoln County School District (LCSD) and supported A.B. 144 with reservation regarding the amendment. Mr. Robison realized the waiver within the amendment could be removed, however, LCSD would be in favor of leaving the waiver within the text of the bill. In conclusion, Mr. Robison stated LCSD would like the school districts and school boards to be able to determine how to show patriotism in conjunction with the pledge of allegiance.

Chairman Williams reminded the committee members legal counsel had explained the waiver could be deleted because federal law superseded state law and the waiver was already covered within federal law.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the testimonies touched her greatly because she felt it was a shame many people did not know what the ceremony of posting colors means. Unfortunately, most children had not participated in Scouting exercises and had missed out on that opportunity; therefore, the schools had been left with the responsibility. She took great pride in making the motion because more patriotism for our country should be encouraged.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 144 WITH THE DELETION OF LINE 9 STARTING WITH THE WORD, "IF," THROUGH LINE 11 ENDING WITH THE WORD, "TIME."

MS. OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Brower supported the amendment because of the ideas brought forth regarding some potential ambiguities in the statute. He suggested any further discussion should be deferred to a work session to strengthen the proposed legislation to make it absolutely clear the goal would be achieved.

Chairman Williams explained a motion was in order with a second and if the motion failed, any other motion would be available. If there was an additional amendment to the motion, he would accept it if acceptable to the maker of the motion.

Mrs. Cegavske suggested a work session to determine if the pledge of allegiance was the main goal of the bill. It should be clarified so there would not be any misunderstandings.

Mr. Williams asked if Mrs. Cegavske wanted the motion withdrawn.

Mrs. Cegavske stated she did not mean that. She said the waiver should be deleted and an additional statement should be added to show the pledge of allegiance to be the base requirement to show patriotism. She reminded the committee members Ms. de Braga thought the bill stated the pledge of allegiance was mandatory, but Ms. Lusk explained to her that Ms. Parnell stated the bill did not mandate that.

Chairman Williams clarified the pledge of allegiance was solely mentioned in A.B. 144 and also allowed for any other act of patriotism to be included. The pledge of allegiance was found to be important and strong enough to be the first suggestion within the language of the bill.

Mrs. Cegavske said he only wanted to make it clear if there was not going to be a work session.

Mrs. Chowning thought she made it very clear in her motion. She stated

A.B. 144 would be much stronger than the existing language within the statute. She did not feel it could be any clearer because that would be the first time the pledge of allegiance was mentioned within any existing statute.

Chairman Williams said he had no problem submitting a letter of legislative intent explaining the pledge of allegiance would be the prime focus.

Mr. Gustavson commented he would be in support of the bill as written, as long as the intent was agreed upon, which he believed it was.

Chairman Williams supported the motion, as a member of the committee as well as the Chair, because the pledge of allegiance was prominent in the language of the bill and was not within the language of the statute. A.B. 144 allowed the school districts and schools to have the leverage for students to participate in what they thought would be patriotic. Students would have a chance to research ways to be patriotic. That could encourage students to use their creative minds to look at things from a new perspective.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WAS EXCUSED).

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 144 and opened the hearing on A.B. 43.

Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, Assembly District 22, referred to A.B. 43 as "the teachers bill of rights." She stated the bill was intended to rectify and balance the existing law, which favored school districts over teachers. The vast majority of teachers would never need the protection of the bill, however, the fact it even existed would benefit all teachers, not just those who had been disciplined.

Ms. Segerblom testified teachers were professionals just like lawyers, doctors, accountants, policemen, and university professors. Teachers were licensed by the state and their skills were not readily transferable to other occupations. Thus, teachers should not be stripped of their income, or threatened with the loss of their job without specific procedural protections.

A.B. 43 would change the existing law in two basic ways.

1. Under current law, a teacher may not be suspended or terminated in most circumstances, unless they had previously received an admonition, which was nothing more than a written warning. As the current law was interpreted, an admonition would remain in a teacher’s file for 3 years, even if the conduct described had been corrected. A.B. 43 would change that policy by mandating admonitions be removed if and when the conduct at issue had been corrected, which in most instances would be much sooner than 3 years.

2. A.B. 43 would provide for teachers who had been proposed for termination to remain on salary until and unless an arbitrator or a hearing officer upheld that termination. Under current law, a teacher’s salary would be removed at the start of the termination proceedings and thus, the teacher had to fight to retain not only their job, but also had to fight to survive. That change would make public school teachers comparable to university professors, policemen, fire fighters, and other professionals who under current law would not lose their salaries until and unless their terminations were upheld by an independent appeals process.

In conclusion, A.B. 43 recognized teachers were professionals who deserved thanks and protection. Those changes would only impact a few public school teachers who would recognize the Nevada Legislature appreciated their dedication and professionalism and was willing to help them succeed.

Mrs. de Braga asked if the current law stated if an issue or a problem was concluded, could a teacher ask if the admonition could be removed from their file. Ms. Segerblom explained a teacher could not ask.

Al Bellister represented the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) and was in favor for some provisions of A.B. 43. The NSEA had some concerns with sections of the bill. He believed the current law would provide for a progressive system of discipline for teachers, part of that an issuance of an admonition. An admonition would be done after a teacher had received a notation on an evaluation their performance was less than satisfactory.

Mr. Bellister referenced page 3, section 2, item (a) of the bill, which stated, "a notation of an oral admonition." The NSEA had a great concern with an oral admonition being issued because that would be where the teacher was given notice their job was in jeopardy. In all instances, that kind of notice must be in writing.

Mr. Bellister stated the NSEA was in favor of reducing the time an admonition remained in a teacher’s file if they had overcome their alleged deficiencies.

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 391 currently lists certain provisions, which were called the five cardinal sins. Those sins described within the statute involved certain transgressions, like moral turpitude and immorality or certain similar offenses, which could be grounds for dismissal. A.B. 43 referred to those five cardinal sins within section 3, item 4, line 1 of the text. Line 2 stated, "if after such a dismissal," which Mr. Bellister assumed, "such," referred to a dismissal for those five cardinal sins. The teacher who would be reinstated would be entitled to benefits greater than those teachers who might have been removed for a lesser offense, which could create an anomalous situation.

Mr. Bellister pointed out if a teacher was reinstated and ordered back to the school, in which the position was held, the NSEA would like to see the bill amended to include the concurrence of the teacher. The NSEA would hate to see a situation arise where a teacher returned to a position that created an untenable situation between the teacher and the administrator who recommended removal of the teacher.

The NSEA supported the deleted section on page 4 concerning suspension without pay. They supported the idea that a teacher should have the right to receive continued pay pending the outcome of a hearing conducted by an impartial arbitrator.

In conclusion, Mr. Bellister had a concern on page 5, which stated the NSEA would have the continued right to negotiate procedures for discipline and discharge with the exception of one item, NRS 391.314, which was the section that strictly dealt with suspensions. The NSEA would like to continue to have the right to bargain over those provisions because often the parties could reach an agreement on those concepts and write language clearer than statute provided. Therefore, if that particular provision were deleted, the NSEA would not be able to bargain.

Dr. Edward Goldman, Clark County School District (CCSD), testified in opposition of A.B. 43. He believed some of the specifics, which dealt with employee discipline, could pose some problems. Some of the changes, starting with page 3, line 15, which stated, "in correcting the probable cause for his potential demotion," was too vague because "probable" was not defined. He explained CCSD could receive several disputes, grievances and lawsuits because the legislature had not taken the time to define what probable cause of someone’s potential demotion was. Previous language within the statute was more permissive because it did not talk about a probable reason. Dr. Goldman also felt some other language was too vague; for example, the bill stated an employee could return to the school where the employee was dismissed if feasible. He felt "feasible" was not defined and he assured that could lead to endless disputes about what was feasible. That should be left up to the parties or local board of trustees to negotiate. There were many reasons a teacher should not be returned to the original school, one of which would be the people in that school community would know what the person had done and it could put that person in a bad situation. Most teachers who had been dismissed would not want to go back to the original school anyway.

Dr. Goldman said another concern was a notation of an oral admonition would be stated for the first time within the statute. He agreed with Mr. Bellister it would not be appropriate to orally admonish an employee. Dr. Goldman stated they had always disciplined an employee in writing and he believed it should stay that way.

Another problem was the issue of remediation. A lot of those disciplinary problems were not questions of remediation. For example, a licensed person who might be an administrator or a teacher punched a student and 3 weeks later could say the problem had been remedied. He believed that was the reason it should be left on their record for 3 years. Whether disciplinary action should be left on record for 2 or 3 years should be left up to the parties to negotiate. Certainly 1 year or 6 months would not be sufficient time to leave on the record in the more serious cases.

The most important concern, Dr. Goldman stated, was the issue of payment of employees while they were suspended pending dismissal. He stated the way the bill was written was a very expensive proposition. Under current law an employee could post a bond or any other surety acceptable to the board of school trustees and would receive continued salary until the proceedings were completed, which could force the parties to try to settle things as quickly as possible. Typically arbitration could take 6 months to 1 year to complete. Under current law an employee would be interested in speeding things up so he could be found innocent and get back to work.

Dr. Goldman believed the current bill could cause an employee to delay the adjudication of the arbitration hearing because they continued to receive pay and never had to pay the money back. His concern was if they disappeared and left town for 3 years and the matter was never completed, they would continue to receive pay from the district. If convicted, how would the district recover its monies. He explained a teachers salary was enough money to cause concern, which at the end of the scale with benefits, was over $60,000 a year. He realized if an employee had been accused of something, they should receive salary until proven guilty. He believed the current law would provide for that.

Finally, Dr. Goldman asked to allow the parties to negotiate contracts when dealing with discipline. CCSD had negotiated those contracts for the 10 years he had worked for them, which seemed to be working very well.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked if he stated the average teacher made $60,000 a year, to which he responded a teacher at the end of the scale, meaning someone with a masters degree plus 32 additional credit hours, with benefits would make over $60,000. The actual gross pay was $52,000 currently, plus 18.75 percent for Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), plus about $4,000 for benefits.

Ms. Ohrenschall then asked how many teachers were in that bracket, to which he responded every teacher with over 14 years of service, which was over half of the teachers in that bracket.

Steve Williams, Washoe County School District agreed on some concerns made by Dr. Goldman. Mr. Williams explained an admonition should remain in an employee’s file for 3 years. In other words, the current language was adequate. He stated if an admonition was removed after 6 months, 1 year, or even 2 years, it would not hold the employee accountable for the infraction. Furthermore it would be a benefit other employees in the state were not afforded. To reduce the length of time an admonition would be kept in an employee file would widen the disparity between how disciplinary issues were handled with teachers and how disciplinary issues were handled with other employees.

Chairman Williams asked if anyone had a motion on A.B. 43. No one responded so Chairman Williams said it would go into a work session with no action taken by the committee.

Meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: