The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Wednesday, April 7, 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. Exhibits C through K contain materials distributed at the meeting. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Williams announced Mrs. Cegavski was excused from the meeting.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani reported the following changes had been agreed upon by those participating in a work session on A.B. 14 (see Exhibit C):

• Tightened language in section 1 to reflect the school principal and two teachers;
• Left current language pertaining to "initiating the fights," but clarified "upon each suspension" so parents could be notified as needed;
• Clarified that documentation wouldn’t require a special mailing, but could be included with other mailings;
• Refined when a suspension occurred for the purposes of that provision and section only;
• Added a recommendation that summer school or Saturday school could be assigned if the district happened to provide it;
• Deleted throughout the reference to the $100 fine; and
• Changed the word "contract" to "plan".

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 14.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL.

In response to Mrs. Angle’s question, Ms. Giunchigliani indicated an amended fiscal note based upon the previous recommendations would be drafted and if necessary the bill referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Williams opened the discussion on A.B. 15.

Ms. Giunchigliani drew the committee’s attention to the amendments before them and noted current state law provided three unexcused absences would "kick in" a truant, but a screening process was desired so not every child was automatically considered truant without the opportunity of meeting with the parents. She reported the subcommittee instituted the amendments with participation from concerned citizens, teachers, school districts, and individuals representing the juvenile courts.

According to Mr. Collins, two sections of A.B. 245 had been incorporated into A.B. 15. Ms. Giunchigliani explained that A.B 15 tightened loopholes in existing law. She responded to Mr. Collins’ question by noting that parental notification could be either written or oral (see Exhibit D).

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 15.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Williams opened the discussion on A.B. 245.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE

A.B. 245.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE.

Mr. Collins reiterated pertinent sections of that bill had been incorporated into A.B. 15.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Williams opened the discussion on A.B. 37.

Ms. Giunchigliani related that agreement on the following amendments to A.B. 37 had been obtained after discussions with the involved school districts and Assemblywoman Cegavski bill (see Exhibit E):

• Removed Assemblyman Brower’s concern about access to the library;
• Clarified where copies of statutes would be made accessible;
• Changed information on 60 days versus 30 days;
• Allowed for inclusion within other mailings rather than mandated separate mailing;
• Tightened references regarding jurisdictional recommendations from trustees and state board;
• Narrowed definition so district could determine which statutes directly impacted students, parents and school personnel and which would require a plan. She said if a plan was required, that would be communicated, but not every statutory change involving education would involve notification; and
• Provided some flexibility in the timeline for implementation of the requirements in the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned representatives of Clark, Washoe and the rural school districts agreed upon these amendments.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 37.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Williams opened the discussion on A.B. 47.

Ms. Giunchigliani informed the committee A.B. 47 needed to be rewritten by fiscal based on suggested amendments. She reported the bill now allowed the Department of Education, in cooperation with the Board of Regents, to draw up regulations to establish a program determining which licensed teachers might wish to switch their field based upon a shortage of teachers in that area, or to encourage teachers to obtain an endorsement in a field of specialization where a shortage of teachers existed, or to obtain a degree in education. She noted it would be a teacher corps program established jointly on paper, but which would not become effective unless scholarship dollars were made available (see Exhibit F). She explained it was enabling legislation which would be in place if, for example, the governor’s proposed Millenium Scholarship program became a reality. She mentioned the Board of Regents and the Department of Education had until July 1, 2000, to develop the regulations. She repeated all fiscal impact had been removed from the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 47.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Williams opened the discussion on A.B. 411.

Assemblyman Price testified A.B. 411 was a bill following his long-term philosophy that the Attorney General’s Office should serve as the legal representative for all boards created in the executive branch. He drew the committee’s attention to a legal opinion that indicated the university system and the Board of Regents operated under the executive branch (see Exhibit G, Item 1).

He explained the last representation of the Board of Regents by an attorney general was in 1981 and encouraged the committee to study the issue carefully.

He clarified that A.B. 411 would go into effect in 2001 so that, if enacted, there would be opportunity to build the change into the budget.

In response to Chairman Williams question, Mr. Price explained his philosophy by noting private counsel understandably had a tendency to develop solutions and answers that were favorable to the client, whereas the attorney general represented the interests of the state of Nevada as a whole.

Nancy Price, former regent of the University of Nevada system, expressed her opinion that private counsel for the university system was in direct violation of NRS 228.110. She suggested the change from representation by the Attorney General’s Office to private counsel was done without proper discussion or authorization. She referenced her handout and requested either a change be made in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 228.110 or the system be required to utilize counsel from the Attorney General’s Office (see Exhibit G, Item 2).

Mrs. Price answered Chairman Williams’ question by stating that prior to 1981 the counsel for the university system was from the Attorney General’s Office. She defended the constitutional autonomy of the university system, but indicated it should follow those laws that applied to the state. She reiterated that either the law should be changed to permit the hiring of general counsel or the attorney general should take over legal representation for the university system.

Mr. Collins asked whether many of the problems experienced by the university system over the past 20 or so years might have been avoided had the attorney general been providing representation. Mrs. Price responded affirmatively, saying that in reality counsel whose livelihood was dependent upon the client might tend to provide advice that pleased the client, rather than what was actually the best advice. She gave an example of the attorney general representing the Florida university system who made a public statement to the effect, "I cannot defend you because what you were doing was illegal."

Mrs. Angle wondered where the funds for salary of the university system’s attorney were derived. Mrs. Price replied that was one of the concerns, as legal counsel salaries were part of the university system’s budget and were higher than what they would be for representation from the Attorney General’s Office. Mrs. Angle asked if savings could be utilized for other purposes, such as programming. Mrs. Price remarked it could be addressed as part of the overall discussions and her primary concern was with the university system not following current law.

In response to Mrs. Angle, Mrs. Price answered she believed counsel for the university system was hired as need dictated, and they did not keep an attorney on retainer.

Jill Derby, chair of the Board of Regents, expressed opposition to A.B. 411, saying the bill was both unconstitutional and unnecessary. She testified the Board of Regents was a constitutionally created corporate body with authority to select its own counsel. She said the current system was functioning very well, adding a majority of university systems across the country utilized in-house counsel. She referenced a recent survey that noted in no state was the university system represented solely by the attorney general. She cited a Nevada Supreme Court ruling which declared the Board of Regents had exclusive executive and administrative control of the university and was not subject to the control or supervision of any other branch, board, or department of state government. She added a published opinion of the attorney general also held the university system was an independent, constitutional corporation with a large degree of independence from other branches of state government. She emphasized the board had the authority to manage the day to day operations of the entire system, including the hiring of officers and employees. She said the general counsel was an officer of the board, hired by the board. She asserted that NRS 288.110 had never been officially interpreted to include the university system and although the university could seek assistance from the attorney general, it could not be forced to do so. She contended the university system had independent legal counsel for many years and since all legal needs were adequately being met there was no need to add staff from the Attorney General’s Office. She closed by saying it was the view of the Board of Regents that A.B. 411 should not be passed.

Board of Regents member Dorothy Gallagher provided historical perspective on the issue. She said the university system changed to private counsel in 1983 because it was felt proper representation wasn’t being provided, and it was taking too much time and more help was needed. At that time, she said, the regents reviewed the same questions being discussed today and determined they had the constitutional right to hire their own attorney, which they had done since 1983. She strongly suggested the bill not be passed because it could result in changes to the other constitutional rights of the university system and would not serve either the system or the state.

Mrs. Chowning inquired how the change from Attorney General’s Office representation to private representation was accomplished. Mrs. Gallagher remembered she testified before a legislative committee, but the issue was not pursued as legislative action was not needed. The regents felt it was unconstitutional to interfere with their independent authority.

Tom Ray, general counsel for the University and Community College System of Nevada, related he presumed the transfer was accomplished through the budget process. He indicated since there was no need to change statute, the legislature would have included general counsel in the system’s budget. He referred to a brief he prepared regarding the constitutional issue (see Exhibit G, Item 3). He noted Mr. Price’s handout was an opinion of a private attorney, not a representative of the Attorney General's Office. He pointed out the Attorney General’s Office had never expressed an opinion the university system did not have legal authority for hiring its own counsel. Further, he stated, the Attorney General’s Office had authored an opinion indicating the system was an independent public corporation. He declared A.B. 411 would infringe upon constitutional autonomy, because NRS 228.110 applied to the executive branch and not to the Board of Regents. He called attention to Article IV, section 11 of the Nevada Constitution, which stated that a board of regents should control the university system. He emphasized that the university system was not part of the executive branch of government, so there was no conflict with existing statute [note: later in the meeting Mr. Collins pointed out the correct reference was "Article XI, section 4"]. The Board of Regents could employ any individual needed to carry out its responsibilities consistent with the constitutional authority to control the university system. He strongly disagreed that most public institutions were represented by the Attorney General’s Office. He said the typical situation was that public institutions had general counsel for day-to-day representation, and the attorney general represented them in civil litigation. He emphasized a very good relationship existed with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office and the university’s general counsel often served as deputy attorney general and both offices consulted each other often.

Mr. Ray dispelled a myth that implied general counsel was overpaid. He cited virtually identical salary ranges for the university’s general counsel and the Attorney General’s Office. He agreed that most of the attorneys hired by the general counsel were at the higher salary range, as they required a certain level of expertise. He noted those four assistant general counsels and one general counsel provided representation for a system with approximately 11,000 employees, 80,000 students, and a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

He said he took offense to earlier testimony that the general counsel was "too close" to the client to provide good representation. He declared it was difficult giving advice that the client might not want to hear but general counsel always provided the best and most honest legal advice at all times.

In response to Mrs. Angle’s question, Mr. Ray clarified in addition to himself, there were four assistant general counsels, two in Reno and two in Las Vegas. He added that the only time outside attorneys were hired was in the event of a conflict of interest circumstance.

Mr. Collins pointed out Mr. Day’s earlier citation of "Article IV, section 11" was incorrect and the actual reference was "Article XI, section 4." He expressed concern about accuracy of other parts of the testimony. Mr. Collins asked whether general counsel assured the regents obeyed the law. Mr. Day responded that he would give legal advice to the best of his ability. Mr. Collins referenced the constitution and said the legislature had the power to change the authority of the Board of Regents. Mr. Ray disagreed.

Mr. Collins wondered about the collection and disbursement of checks for the various foundations and asked Mr. Ray about legal representation in those instances. Mr. Ray indicated the general counsel did not represent nor advise the foundations, which were considered quasi-public.

Mrs. Angle asked where the general counsel fit in if it was not part of the executive branch. Mr. Ray referred to the university system as an independent public corporation, which was how the Attorney General’s Office had described it. In response to another question from Mrs. Angle, he said he answered to the Board of Regents, who answered to the voters.

Chairman Williams suggested the issue was a constitutional one.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO RE-REFER A.B. 411 TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Williams opened the discussion on A.B. 576.

Mark Brown, senior vice president with the Howard Hughes Corporation, testified as a member of the Clark County School District steering committee for the selection of a new superintendent. He advised that the committee was created late in 1998 in reaction to the announcement of Superintendent Brian Cram that he would retire in July 2000. Mr. Brown said the committee was charged with recommending an executive search firm and serving as liaison between the firm and education community, as well as making recommendations. He observed current law required a superintendent to be a licensed school administrator. The steering committee and school board had studied the issue and recommended the law be amended to permit flexibility to hire an individual who may not hold an administrators’ license. He called attention to the fact the Clark County School District was eighth largest in the country, with over 200,000 students, an operating budget approaching $1 billion, and a recently-approved school construction budget over $3.5 billion for the next 10 years. He said the proposed bill would not preclude hiring a traditional educator, but would allow the district to hire the most qualified individual. Mr. Brown apprised the committee the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce supported A.B. 576.

Ruth Johnson, president of the Clark County Board of School Trustees, reported the bill had been discussed at length and unanimously supported by the trustees. She indicated finding the best candidate for superintendent was the goal and looking outside the traditional would be in the best interest of the school district. The superintendent’s cabinet would be structured so success of educational programs would be guaranteed in light of accountability.

Susan Brager, Clark County school trustee, stated the district was determined to find the best superintendent and by looking at all candidates the trustees would be able to address all needs of the school district, not merely the educational ones.

Dr. Lois Tarkanian, Clark County school trustee, echoed the previous remarks and noted the selection of the school superintendent was one of the most important decisions to be made in Clark County. She reiterated it would be the board of trustees who would make the final selection. She added she had great respect for the qualifications of those holding the administrators’ licensure and the bill would not negate that fact. A.B. 576 would enable the trustees to hire the most effective superintendent even if that person did not have administrators’ certification. She gave as an example the many individuals who had been trained as administrators but who had gone into private industry, broadened their experience and knowledge, and let their license lapse. She asserted those individuals should be considered as viable candidates for superintendent. She suggested many individuals without traditional administrator training had proven to be among the best superintendents in the country. She stated licensure in any area could not provide a monopoly on leadership and encouraged the committee to pass A.B. 576.

Chairman Williams clarified the school trustees unanimously supported the bill and asked Ms. Johnson to elaborate on her comments regarding the superintendent’s cabinet.

Ms. Johnson said the trustees would assure a structure providing not only leadership, but also accountability and quality education for all students. Chairman Williams wondered if the bill should contain language to that effect. Ms. Johnson replied the bill was enabling and the trustees retained the opportunity to require an administrators’ license in the future should circumstances change.

In answer to Mrs. Angle’s question, Ms. Johnson said other districts had had varying degrees of success or failure when hiring nonadministrators. She added that was why the trustees would have policy in place to assure quality of education. Ms. Tarkanian interjected that districts hiring only licensed administrators had similar experiences and sometimes superintendents did not meet the expectations.

Mrs. Angle noted a trend over the past few years of seeking out CEOs because of the large budgets of school districts and asked if it was what prompted the bill. Mr. Brown responded that historically most superintendents had come up through the system. He said the selection committee had not yet determined the "skill set" and would be doing it with input from the teachers’ and administrators’ unions, the PTA, and various business and community stakeholders. The selection committee did feel broader skills were needed because of the phenomenal growth and the enormous building program faced by the district.

Speaking in opposition, Debbie Cahill of the Nevada State Education Association, contended removal of any education requirements went too far. She offered an amendment which would permit the board to employ any person holding a current administrative license, or having been licensed as an administrator within the last 5 years (see Exhibit H). She conceded there may be many qualified persons whose license had lapsed but insisted that intimate knowledge of school law and the functioning of a school district were vital for a superintendent.

Doug Byington, Nevada School Administrators Association (NASA), reported the board of that association of over 600 members unequivocally opposed A.B. 576 because they felt individuals in the education arena should be educators. He mentioned there were at least three cases where outsiders were employed and two had not been successful.

Allen Chandler expressed opposition to A.B. 576 on behalf of the approximately 775 members of the Clark County Association of School Administrators (CASA), of which he was executive director. He urged retention of the current requirement that a superintendent be a licensed administrator. He added his organization would support the proposed amendment suggested by Ms. Cahill.

Sue DeFrancisco, principal of Bonanza High School, also spoke in opposition to the bill. She said selection of the Clark County superintendent would be one of the most important decisions faced in the coming year. She agreed a person with business or industry background could manage the administrative functions of budget, plant management, technology, and personnel. She said there were current opportunities within the school district for persons with those capabilities and in fact there were over 100 nonlicensed individuals currently employed in Clark County School District in those areas. She emphasized curriculum, instruction, special student services, special education, second-language programs, testing and assessment, and teacher development required the skills of an educator. She added that students were the top priority, and it must be assured the leader of the district was an educator first and foremost and intimately involved and familiar with the world of children. Ms. DeFrancisco noted as an administrator she might have the management skills to work in the casino or hotel industries, but her background would place her at great disadvantage in the culture and environment of that type of operation. She conceded she would not have the skills to be the CEO. She said the same consideration must be given when seeking the leader of the Clark County School District. She declared the operation, mission, and responsibility of schools was tied to what happened classroom by classroom, teacher by teacher, and student by student. Unless an individual had worked in those contexts the educational side of a district would not be served.

Sue Strand, president of the Clark County Education Association, also spoke in opposition to A.B. 576. She said she was concerned because it appeared to her there was an effort to change the role of the superintendent, but she was unable to get a clear answer from the trustees. She noted Clark County was the only district which requested a change in the law and stated it was not the role of the legislature to change the law for only one entity and not the state as a whole. She asked if the trustees could select the head custodian because they felt he was qualified. She agreed there were areas other than education in a district, such as custodial, food service, grounds, and maintenance. She said of the cabinet level positions the budget area was the only one that did not require an administrators’ license. She believed the bill was almost a slap in the face of those people in the budget division. She added the trustees would not achieve their goal if they hoped to hire a superintendent who was knowledgeable in all fields. She doubted if a Lee Iacocca or a Colin Powell would apply for the job anyway. She urged indefinite postponement of A.B. 576.

Ms. Parnell indicated she might surprise a number of people but suggested that Ms. Cahill meet with the bill’s sponsor to facilitate language where both sides would be pleased. She suggested people in the education field sometimes became defensive, but she, as an educator, felt the concept had validity in a district as large as Clark. She reminded everyone the same issue arose when Washoe County recently chose a new superintendent. She added what surprised her was the state legislature actually dictated to the local districts how the superintendent would be selected. She urged the two sides cooperate on a solution to keep the bill alive.

Chairman Williams indicated a vote on the bill would be taken the following day and said if both sides wanted a compromise, or if amendments would be offered, that should be done by 5:30 p.m. April 8. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 376.

Assemblyman Bache, Clark County District 11, related his concern about consolidation of police officer powers throughout the state. He said A.B. 376 would place the Clark County school police under jurisdiction of Las Vegas Metro. He noted school police now had a chain of command within the police department but were also subordinate to the principal of the particular school. Assignments of the school administrator sometimes conflicted with duties under the chain of command. He referenced section 4 of the bill that transferred current employees into a separate division of Metro and provided a "firewall" under the current contract. He said section 3, subsection 3, provided a separate bargaining unit for school police. He noted he had discussed the issue with Lt. Stan Olsen of Metro who neither supported nor opposed the bill but indicated the separate unit would facilitate handling any problems. Mr. Bache referenced an instance where a school police officer left a school campus to assist a Metro officer at a nearby incident and that type of occurrence would be easier to handle.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired how retirement would operate. Mr. Bache responded the Public Employees Retirement System coverage was the same whether an officer was under Metro or the school police division. He noted the move from the school district to Metro had no fiscal impact. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if a school police officer received any benefits by that change. Mr. Bache answered the current contract would transfer with them and future contracts would be negotiated with Metro. He noted the school district would have an interlocal agreement for the provision of police service. He divulged a current problem existed over a similar situation in an interlocal agreement between White Pine County and the city of Ely and legislative efforts were underway on dispute resolution language to deal with such potential dilemmas.

In response to Ms. Ohrenschall, Mr. Bache replied tenure would continue. If a school police officer wanted to apply to Metro as a regular officer, they would have to apply separately, but that was currently the case so it took nothing away from the officer. He added additional training benefits would be available through Metro.

Ms. Ohrenschall wondered what the difference was between a truant officer and a school police officer. Mr. Bache believed truant officers had limited duties and did not have the same peace officer status as school police who, he thought, held Post One certification.

Mrs. Angle inquired who would be the authority over the school police, Metro or the school. Mr. Bache said the sheriff would be the head of the chain of command because the district would enter into an interlocal agreement for provision of police service. The school would take any problems to the sheriff. Ms. Angle asked if the money would go from the school district to the sheriff. Mr. Bache said the interlocal agreement would set the amount based upon the current contract which, he thought, had 2 years remaining. Metro service would be paid by school district funds allotted for school police. Mr. Bache disclosed A.B. 376 provided those districts not currently having school police would in the future have to contract with the local sheriff for service.

Seniority was the next issue about which Ms. Angle wondered. Mr. Bache said Lt. Olsen would address the issue during his presentation.

Mr. Williams asked why the university police were not included in the bill. Mr. Bache said the university was a subdivision of the state rather than the county but he felt similar consolidation of law enforcement should take place at the state level as well.

Chairman Williams encouraged those testifying to make their presentations as brief as possible since discussion remained on three bills.

Phil Gervasi, president of AFL/CIO Local 95, the Police Officers’ Association of the Clark County School District, indicated he was speaking on behalf of the majority of that association. He distributed and discussed testimony which contended the safety of children would be enhanced by passage of A.B. 376 (see Exhibit I).

He cited recent tragedies and asked what percentage of the 200,000 guns estimated to be in school districts were in Clark County schools. He said laws could be written and enforced toward a goal of zero weapons tolerance in schools. He called attention to a 1989 murder of one student by another in a school cafeteria and said over 1,000 guns, some high-powered, multi-round automatics, had been confiscated since that time on school grounds, in addition to several thousand knives and other dangerous weapons. He called attention to the fact that Clark County school police officers were trained in a category I police academy along with officers from other departments. He cited school district regulation 4213 which provided that if not actually involved in an arrest or investigation the officer was under the direct supervision of the site administrator. He noted most educators were committed to excellence in education but often did not understand law enforcement principles or crime prevention methods, and there had been problems with a few site administrators. He said the purpose of an officer on campus was provision of a safe learning environment including continuous patrol to assure criminal activity did not take place. He divulged that some site administrators required officers to stand by the flagpole in front of the school and had brought charges against officers for insubordination if they did not. Mr. Gervasi related how students quickly caught on and went to the back or side locations to fight, deal drugs, or cause other problems, knowing that the officer must stand by the flag pole as window dressing. He continued by saying the administrator could claim since no criminal activity was detected or reported the school was crime free. He asserted that false sense of security actually placed students in jeopardy. He cited a time when he detained a student who had pushed a girl down a flight of stairs but was ordered by an administrator to release the student because the student was scheduled to pitch a baseball game. He testified that two young female students had complained to their principal that a male teacher was touching them inappropriately. The principal took written statements from the students and sent the girls back to class with that teacher, but never notified school police of the incident. Mr. Gervasi continued that a parent finally apprised the school police who investigated and filed charges. He called attention to several other instances of image taking precedent over safety, administrator inaction, or outright cover-up described within his handout.

He contended educators should do what they do best and leave law enforcement to trained individuals. He claimed school police would receive consistent and fair supervision under the sheriff and would not be subjected to the whims and inconsistencies of the administrators at different schools. He emphasized the problems he described resulted from only about 5 percent of the administrators, the larger percentage being committed to the safety of the students and staff. He hypothesized a tragedy was bound to occur at the problem campuses unless school police were placed under the trained law enforcement supervision of the sheriff. Mr. Gervasi said the Police Officers’ Association in consultation with the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs sent a letter to the school board in December 1998 outlining the acute need for new direction and requesting a full review of the operational structure of the school police department. To date, no response was received from the school district.

He indicated the rank and file members of his organization asked that page 2, line 7 of A.B. 376 be changed to read "may contract" instead of "shall contract," and page 2, line 18 be changed to "may enter" rather than "shall enter." Those changes would enable all possibilities addressing the safety of children and staff of the district to be researched before implementation. He communicated that his organization would insist upon wording which assured school police officers would not be replaced by Metro officers upon expiration of the current contract.

Chairman Williams reiterated his earlier request that remarks should be brief and written testimony provided when possible.

Sidney Franklin, assistant superintendent with school police services for Clark County School District, spoke in opposition to A.B. 376. He contended that during his 9 years as administrator of school police for the Clark County School District the department evolved from nontrained security officers and hall monitors to a state-certified police force. The trustees recently reaffirmed their support of school police services in Clark County. In 1990 the legislature was requested and approved the placement of Clark County school police as Category II officers. They were trained as Category I, but jurisdictional concerns placed them as Category II. He explained he had spent 15 years as a building principal in Clark County and many years before as an assistant principal. He disclosed police services prior to 1990 were inadequate, but subsequently the force had become an essential element in a positive educational environment with safe schools. He declared that school police officers practiced "prevention before apprehension." He said Metro officers fought crime and criminals while the prime responsibility of school police officers was to protect school staff and students. He described various training and community programs in which school police participated, including Boy Scout troops, in-service training, and staff development activities such as school safety, gang abatement, and verbal judo. The school police were involved in a cooperative program with Las Vegas Metro called Z² for ^"zero weapons, zero tolerance." He contended earlier testimony was a collection of past incidences that may not have occurred precisely as described. He expressed the school police division had worked hard over the past 9 years with the community, the school board, and the Police Officers Association toward the goal of safe schools. He stressed the current structure was functioning well and the school police were dedicated, well trained, and committed. He urged the committee to retain the existing school police structure.

Mr. Collins referenced different discussions which indicated the Clark County School District spent about 70 percent of the time and funding on construction rather than on education and wondered what the time and cost breakdown was for school police versus what it would be under Metro.

Mr. Franklin said he did not see any prospective savings and believed the cost would actually go up while the service went down. He brought up the fact that in some outlying areas such as Mesquite and Boulder City the school board currently had an interlocal agreement to provide school police service.

Jack Lazzaratto, director of police services for the Clark County School District, reported that in February, 1999 the U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, asked the Clark County School District to make a presentation on innovative approaches to school-based policing since research, surveys, and statistical data indicated the district had one of the more successful educational policing programs. He believed A.B. 376 had been drafted without any substantiating survey, statistical gathering, or documentation. He advised that the Police Officers Association and Clark County Administrators Association had cooperated to resolve differences and felt the bill did not take that into consideration.

Dan Reyes of the Clark County School District police department spoke against the bill and indicated he had many of the same concerns held by Mr. Franklin and Mr. Lazzaratto.

Mr. Franklin responded to Chairman Williams’ inquiry about reported coverups by administrators to assure the image of the school was not devalued. He insisted school administrators were doing the best they could, but errors and problems occurred at times through the efforts to be fair to all concerned. He added that quite often those who questioned certain actions did not have all the facts because personnel and other regulations pertaining to investigations could not be made public. He noted school police officers were confiscating guns and making arrests when necessary, and the district was not trying to cover any of it up.

Lt. Stan Olsen, Metropolitan Police Department, responded they supported the changes in "shall" to "may" but had no position on the bill otherwise. He took exception to earlier testimony that implied Metro officers might be less than "user friendly." He said the comments about police officers looking more toward punishment than prevention were unfounded and demonstrated a lack of understanding about how law enforcement actually operated.

Lt. Olsen answered Mr. Williams by stating although he had spoken about issues such as financing, training, and qualifications with Mr. Bache, Metro held no official position on the bill and Metro had not solicited that type of arrangement. Lt. Olsen clarified that Metro officers earned more at both the starting and top levels than school police officers and said if the bill passed, the school police contract would be negotiated separately from the Metro officer contract.

Mr. Collins referenced other legislation that proposed to increase authority of school police to pursue suspects off campus. Mr. Olsen replied dangerous situations could arise when plain-clothes school police entered the jurisdiction of uniformed police officers. If the legislation passed, Metro and the school district would cooperatively develop plans to address the situation.

Dennis Carew, school district police sergeant, reported he spent 21 years as a regular police officer and 17 years in Las Vegas with the school district. He asserted the concept of educational policing dealt very well with school protection. A body of people cooperatively developed it with the best interests of the schools, staff, and students in mind. He noted that Mr. Gervasi served on the security committee of the school district and said that any problems should be brought to the attention of the committee. He wished that Mr. Bache had come to individuals who had served with the school police for a number of years so they could have provided him with information that reflected how concerned they were with the safety of students.

Ken Young, sergeant and line officer with the Clark County School District, said the department was evolving and used the following words to describe the process: faith, insight, prevention, and relationships. He suggested the district showed faith starting in 1967 when they started on the process. Insight was demonstrated in 1989 when the district took the process to the next level as it became a full-fledged police department operating in an educational setting. Prevention pertained to the Category I level training so officers were prepared to deal with adult and student criminals. He cited student growth from 14,000 students in 1991-92 to approximately 200,000 students today, with 20,000 employees and 110 officers, saying very strong relationships had been built with administrators as a result. He agreed that very few administrators wanted to see Metro officers in the campuses. He reiterated the feelings of others testifying against A.B. 376, "If it’s not broken, don’t fix it."

Judy Thomas, parent, expressed support for A.B. 376. She noted a school police officer stationed at the front of a building was unavailable to provide assistance elsewhere. As a parent of a seriously injured assault victim at Cheyenne High School, she claimed she was shocked to learn school officers weren’t allowed to patrol the grounds or pursue assailants but were stationed in one location. She asserted that educators should be limited to educating and the job of enforcing the law left to trained police officers.

Mr. Collins said he was sorry to hear about Ms. Thomas’ son and added he had heard numerous other distressing instances at the high school, which was in his district.

Andy Anderson, representing the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs and also members of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, indicated the attack related by Ms. Thomas happened in October 1998, not several years ago. He explained A.B. 376 should not be construed as a criticism of the school police, who were very dedicated individuals. The bill was drafted to support those officers in performing their duties and to prevent interference by some administrators who did not understand law enforcement. He asserted the school police were doing a fine job, but often their hands were tied, and the bill merely provided a buffer system for the chain of command so those officers could do their job based upon their training and expertise.

Ms. Chowning asked Mr. Anderson where the protections for officers appeared in A.B. 376. She added when she toured Cheyenne High School she was told there were cameras to monitor activity that might occur out of sight of officers. She said if a problem existed at Chaparral it existed at all new high schools since they were all of the same design. She suggested if that was the case, then it was a problem which could be rectified with design changes. She repeated she didn’t think the bill addressed the safety concerns described.

Mr. Anderson responded the bill created a different chain of command that took the principals, deans, and counselors out of police operations. He referred to the attack instance which could have been avoided if an officer had been present. The officer would have taken immediate care of the injured youth and not placed him in a room by himself. He emphasized that administrators were not trained to deal with crime and criminal activity and should not be supervising police officers.

Chairman Williams asked for clarification regarding instances where police officers went on campus to arrest a student without notification of the administration or parents, which was in violation of current law.

Mr. Anderson said A.B. 376 would not affect that problem. He said if state law mandated administrators and parents be notified prior to a student being arrested in a classroom, then that law should be followed whether it was a school police officer or a metro officer following up on off-campus criminal action. He declared A.B. 376 did not alter the fact school police officers now had the full authority to arrest and detain a student. The bill just enabled the officer to do his job without an administrator, for example, requiring the officer to remain stationary in the front rather than patrolling the entire campus.

Mrs. de Braga asked how Mr. Anderson felt about the suggested "shall" to "may" language. Mr. Anderson indicated the permissive language would merely permit discussions on details between the school district and Metro prior to anything being implemented.

Mr. Collins reported the Committee on Judiciary, on which he sat, had also taken testimony indicating school police were fully qualified officers so he wondered why supervision was under an administrator, and why costs would be higher if the officers were a division of Metro. He said student safety should be the prime concern regardless of cost in any case.

Mr. Anderson said A.B. 376 provided a buffer zone between police and education and changing the chain of command would not result in higher costs. He called attention to the fact that McCarran airport police fell under the auspices of Metro although they were funded separately by the county. Similarly, he said, school police would continue to be funded by the school district under an interlocal agreement which would be more efficient yet cost the same. He added he would feel better if school officers were at least on the same radio frequency as Metro so they could communicate in an emergency.

Mrs. Angle said she served in 1992 on the school board in Nye County at a time when they wanted to allow local law enforcement to handle crime on campus. The school board obtained an agreement with the county sheriff and developed a policy which outlined the operation and provided notice as to what issues would be resolved by the sheriff. She wondered why A.B. 376 was specific to Clark County and not the entire state. Mr. Anderson answered it should be effective statewide since the issues were the same.

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said they supported A.B. 376 because they felt school police officers should be supervised by appropriately trained law enforcement officers. They also felt there would be more prompt response to dangerous situations, more likelihood that due process would be observed, and better and more appropriate response to crime. She suggested school administrators should be allowed to spend their time and energies in the education field for which they were trained. She noted although the permissive language amendment opened up the lines of discussion between the school district and Metro, it also meant there was no assurance the intent of the bill would be accomplished.

Mr. Collins clarified Ms. Lusk had served on the Clark County School Board and favored the bill with that knowledge and background.

Ken Young communicated that some administrators assigned campus patrol areas just as traditional officers were assigned beats. He said two officers were assigned each high school, officers assigned on campus at each middle school, and a patrol division to back up calls as needed.

Greta Pea and Gertrude Scruggs, legislative advocates of the Nevada State Education Association and Clark County Education Association, spoke not as representatives of those organizations, but as concerned educators. They both emphasized their comments did not necessarily reflect the official stand of either organization.

Ms. Pea asked for clarification from Mr. Bache regarding the actual intent of A.B. 376.

Ms. Scruggs also questioned the intent of the bill and wondered if it outlined a merger or a takeover. She added that the school police officers had maintained a rapport with faculty and students at the various schools and asked if there had been discussions among all parties regarding placement of officers and operating procedures.

Mr. Franklin apologized for his earlier remark regarding police "mind set." He said he used that term just to emphasize the differing roles of school officers and Metro officers. He said he fully appreciated the efforts of Metro and said there had thus far been nothing but cooperation in any contacts with Metro and hoped that would continue.

Allen Chandler, Clark County Association of School Administrators executive director, relayed his concern that negative inferences had been made about several individuals in the school district who were not present to respond. He claimed the district had been diligent since the beginning in letting police officers do their job. He said the district developed regulations covering lines of authority and overlap. He added the administrators were charged with carrying out enforcement of school rules and procedures and the school police quite often assisted in those areas. He noted criminal matters were the responsibility of the school police and when supervisory or backup assistance was needed the officer contacted not the principal but the school police department.

Assemblyman Bache disclosed he was a 24-year teacher with the Clark County School District and resented some earlier comments implying he did not understand student needs. He also disagreed with the implication he should have obtained school district approval before having A.B. 376 drafted. He understood the desire to change "shall" to "may" and would support it. He declared it was imperative, however, that if the school police remained within the school district they needed to be restructured so the chief of school police had a law enforcement background rather than an education background. He contended the chief should be responsible directly to the school board of trustees. He referenced concerns about the rapport that had been established between the school police and students by declaring there was no plan to change personnel and the only difference would be with the existing officers’ chain of command. The same officers would become a division within Metro as opposed to a division within the school district. He declared his main concern was a more effective and efficient school police department and repeated if the school police were to remain within the school district the department should be restructured.

Mr. Gervasi said the school police could not do their job properly if school administrators interfered with enforcement procedures or covered up instances of infractions in order to make crime statistics appear lower than actual. The officers insisted they wished to remain at the schools dealing with students, and it did not matter where the department was administratively located so long as the chain of command was through trained law enforcement individuals and not education-trained administrators.

Mr. Bache articulated he discussed the issue with numerous front line school police officers who all related to him they would like either a move to Metro or a restructuring of the existing department but weren’t comfortable about testifying because they feared criticism by the school district.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 376.

Vice-Chairman Collins noted the committee would change between a committee and a subcommittee as members left and arrived the room on breaks.

Mr. Collins opened the discussion on A.B. 568.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, Assembly District 16, outlined the information packet he prepared on an amendment to A.B. 568 (see Exhibit J, Item 1)). He referenced the map and demonstrated how school districts often purchased land in undeveloped areas because of the cost involved and then had to bring utilities and other infrastructure to the site in order to build the school. He suggested developers would then benefit from the school district expenditures. He observed the $7 million cost for that infrastructure in the 1994 school year and noted only about one-sixth of that had been repaid by private developers. He said A.B. 568 basically empowered the school district to get a real dollar reimbursement on its expenditure of taxpayers’ money without any sunset provision. He said current ordinance allowed reimbursement of 95 percent of the actual cost, but the city of North Las Vegas established a lineal foot fee for reimbursement which limits reimbursement to $17 for each side of the street. He put it into perspective by noting an 8-inch water main costs about $50 per lineal foot to build.

Mr. Thomas replied to Mr. Collins that the amendment was a redo of the whole bill and clarified that school districts were currently penalized for developing school sites beyond developed areas.

Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County assistant district attorney, indicated opposition to the original bill by the Washoe County Commissioners and said their concerns remained with the amended bill. She said the bill was a disincentive for school districts to do planning to locate close to existing infrastructure. She said in Washoe County bond estimates included all costs for infrastructure to new sites. She noted that fiscal accountability dictated that all costs of school construction be reflected. She believed Mr. Thomas attempted to allow certain costs to be shifted to private developers who took advantage of utilities paid by school districts; however, A.B. 568 did not accomplish that. She advised that authority already existed to permit reimbursements as new people came on line. She warned the bill went beyond just utilities and touched upon areas such as various impact fees not now authorized for counties.

Mr. Collins clarified procedures and practices varied from county to county. Ms. Shipman said Washoe County currently had procedures for reimbursement to a developer, including the school district, for infrastructure costs. Those costs would be offset as new people came on line to the systems put in by the developer. Ms. Shipman warned that Washoe County was unique and other counties did not have exactly the same authority.

Betsy Fretwell, city of Henderson, explained she understood what Mr. Thomas was trying to accomplish, but agreed with Ms. Shipman that there were many concerns with the bill. She pointed out that most local governments were diligent in coordinating planning with school districts to assure school sites were placed close to development so that costs were kept as low as possible. She added that when schools were by necessity located away from current development, government cooperated to keep costs as low as possible. She testified the recent school bond in Clark County included all costs associated with construction of 88 new schools over the next 10 years. She said A.B. 568 would shift the tax burden to local government and if that was desired then the entire issue of who was responsible for school construction should be investigated and provision made for local government to plan the most economical siting of new schools. She closed by saying the city of Henderson did not support A.B. 568.

Barbara McKenzie, city of Reno, echoed Ms. Shipman’s comments.

Alex Ortiz, Clark County, introduced Mark Wood, deputy district attorney for Clark County, who read remarks indicating Clark County’s concerns with A.B. 568. Mr. Wood outlined how school districts often obtain land outside normal population centers at little or no cost and the bill would effectively set priorities for other government entities by expecting the infrastructure to be paid by local government and public utilities even though the site was chosen solely by the school district. He said special assessment districts to finance increased costs were not viable because of due process and constitutional protections in NRS chapter 271. Problems pertaining to a school districts’ budgeted revenue stream and bond retirement elements would also arise. Mr. Wood interjected if payments were tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index, it would result in either unbudgeted deficiencies in pledged revenue for bond retirement or local governments and public utilities paying in excess of improvements actually received by the school district (see Exhibit J, Item 2).

Vice Chairman Collins pointed out that the local government had final approval of where a school was located so site was not solely a school district decision.

Mr. Woods disagreed with Mr. Collins statement that if a district could build for less than an approved bond issue amount, under A.B. 568 the taxpayers saved because fewer bonds were sold and the infrastructure costs would be shifted to developers who came after the school. Mr. Woods gave an example of a school district paying $1 million for improvements, which would be included in the amount being bonded. If reimbursement was based upon the Consumer Price Index, the amount could be more or less than the actual expenditure. Mr. Woods expressed the total cost for building the school would be what bonds were sold and any reimbursed amounts would not be paid in one lump sum, nor would they be paid before contractors had to be paid by the district.

Dusty Dickens, Clark County School District, emphasized that A.B. 568 would help taxpayers. She noted schools were built to assist the public, not to make a profit on financial investment as was the case with private developers. Under current law the infrastructure improvements made by a school district were only partially reimbursable. She said in the 1994 building program the district had a total of $7 million in off-site improvements, only about $1 million of was reimbursable. She voiced the $6 million shortfall would cover the cost of one more elementary school. She disagreed that A.B. 568 would encourage schools to go out further and stated that schools were built based upon projected enrollment impact. If student growth was anticipated, then that was where the schools were built. She said schools sometimes went out a bit further than the district preferred because of land costs, but the district attempted to place all schools as close to students as possible and that would not change if the bill was passed. She said oftentimes a school location seemed remote, but other development in the area had in fact already been approved. She noted how school site and opening dates were announced publicly and development followed, taking advantage of infrastructure put in by the district. She declared the district had never recouped most of the cost and had in fact subsidized developers. She agreed that local government entities in Clark County dealt on a cooperative basis with the school district, but reiterated that taxpayer money would be saved if A.B. 568 was passed.

Judy Stokey, Nevada Power, spoke in opposition to A.B. 568, noting that Public Utility Commission rule G.O. 9 would have to be changed. Currently a school district entered into a contract with the utility to cover estimated costs minus estimated credit for other development and as others connected they paid their portion of infrastructure costs. That resulted in each entity paying a fair share for service. She added poor precedent would be set, opening the door for hotels and other developers requesting reimbursement for their development costs.

Susan Miller, Sierra Pacific Power Company, agreed with Ms. Stokey and added her company already contributed heavily to the school district through franchise fees, with 2 percent of their net proceeds being passed through the county directly to the school district.

Chuck Hauser, General Counsel for the Las Vegas Valley Water District, added when water lines were put in, the school district was reimbursed as others connected over 10-year period. In response to Mr. Collins question, Mr. Hauser said that connection costs for meter installation were the same for each user.

Margaret McMillan, representing Sprint in Las Vegas, indicated the same concerns were shared regarding G.O. 9 of the Public Utilities Commission.

Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Bell, stated they also fell under G.O. 9 with regard to line extensions. She felt the bill raised many more questions pertaining to sharing of proportionate fees and was not in support.

Bob Ostrovsky, Cox Communications, also opposed A.B. 568 and noted his company provided funding and free services and equipment for the school district.

Irene Porter, executive director for the Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, said southern Nevada developers had for some time donated land free of charge for school construction. She cited 11 sites currently being held in Henderson for the Clark County School District in case those were needed for future schools. She added oftentimes the infrastructure development in and around those sites was already in by the time the school was built. She rnoted the 1997 legislature accomplished a cooperative agreement between the Clark County School District, the gaming and homebuilding industries, and the business community for the long-term construction of schools. She explained the real property transfer tax paid by developers, room tax, and property tax were part of the school construction funding package approved by the legislature for the next 10 years. She declared it was estimated the school district might have a surplus of between $720 million and $1 billion above what was required for the district to buy land, build schools, and provide infrastructure over the 10-year period. She added that the funds would also pay for necessary renovation of existing schools. She closed by emphasizing the development industry was actively working with local government and the school district to provide school sites and needed infrastructure and was therefore opposed to A.B. 568.

Mr. Collins mentioned the homebuilders did not voluntarily donate the land, but it was a condition of development that land be provided for schools. Ms. Porter agreed and emphasized that the school district received the land at no cost in any event. Ms. Fretwell added accommodations for schools were set up with developers and the school district based upon anticipated student population.

Mr. Ostrovsky, representing American Nevada Corporation, indicated that much time had been devoted to dealing with the school district toward obtaining bonds and school construction assistance. He asked to go on the record with his displeasure that the school district would come back with the request when it was all part of an previous arrangement that was supposed to address problems for a long time.

Marta Brown, city of North Las Vegas, communicated that the city of North Las Vegas opposed A.B. 568 and expressed concern about the legality of portions of the amended version that dictated agreements between new developers and utilities.

Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, called attention to the fact there were 16 other counties and school districts the bill would affect. He agreed with Ms. Shipman’s point that the bill would not do what its author wanted it to do.

Mr. Thomas said it was incorrect that the amended bill required local government to make improvements. He clarified the change related only to the reimbursement feature.

Mr. Collins said he thought developers and local governments were now interacting better with the school districts than in the past and closed the hearing on A.B. 568. He then turned the meeting back to Chairman Williams who opened the hearing on A.B. 413.

Greg Brower, Assembly District 37, introduced James Clark, representing Independent Incline, and Mike Jabara, representing the Tahoe Citizens Committee. Mr. Brower testified that, although lengthy, A.B. 413 basically changed the various sections of statute so a community school board could be established for the Lake Tahoe region, and a pilot program could be set up to examine community school boards for remote portions of Nevada’s other county school districts. He explained the legislation was enabling only and allowed local voters to decide whether they wished to set up community school boards. He gave as examples the Lake Tahoe portion of Douglas County and the Incline Village portion of Washoe County.

Mr. Brower distributed a summary of amendments to the bill (see Exhibit K, Item 1). He emphasized the community approval feature and the focus on student achievement. He said when voter approval was obtained a community would elect a five-member board which would adopt a statement of goals and standards in concert with state standards, would establish educational achievement priorities, would develop methods of instruction, and would select instructional materials, supplies, and equipment. He remarked the duties of the local board would not include hiring, firing, or discipline of personnel. Funding for operations would not change and bond proceeds would be allocated upon a percentage equal to the number of schools within the community school board area divided by the total number schools within the district, with any excess funds not needed for repair, improvement, or replacement of schools returned to the district.

Mr. Brower testified the bill was not an attempt to criticize the Washoe County School District, although in the past there was great dissatisfaction with the district. He commended the new superintendent for alleviating many of the past problems.

Mrs. Chowning inquired about page 11, section 14, questioning the cost to the local government before sunset of the bill in 2005. Mr. Brower clarified the bill was intended to be enabling only and would not cost any more than what would be expended in any event.

Mr. Jabara noted the closer the government was to the citizens the more they became involved and believed the permission to create local boards encouraged parental involvement in the education process. He cited the South Lake Tahoe schools, where the board was local and not in Placerville, the county seat of El Dorado County. He strongly urged approval of A.B. 413.

Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Jabara’s remarks and read into the record a letter from Dorothy Dermody, trustee for District A, Washoe County School District (see Exhibit K, Item 2). In the letter Mrs. Dermody disclosed the Washoe County Board of Trustees voted 4 to 2 to oppose the community school board measure, although she voted in favor of the measure. She went on to explain how distance and weather conditions often precluded Incline Village residents from taking part in education decisions. She said creation of local boards that were more accessible and accountable to local voters would enhance the education of students and further, the experiment enabled by the bill would have wide applicability to geographically remote areas throughout Nevada.

Mrs. Koivisto inquired why an application was not done for a charter school. Mr. Jabara replied a charter school would have to fund its own facilities, and it was not desired to have a separate system but to improve upon the existing one.

Mr. Brower interjected that most parents were pleased with the schools but would like to have more local control over the three schools currently in Incline Village.

Mr. James pointed out that school district boundaries in Nevada were the same as county boundaries, and while current statutes permitted the formation of a city, town, or township there was no statute with respect to decentralization of the school district.

Answering a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Brower made it clear that all principals and other education personnel would not report to the community school board, but would report to the county school district as is the case under current law.

Steve Williams, school planner and government affairs representative with Washoe County School District, thanked Mr. Brower for his efforts in seeking a reasonable compromise on elements of the bill. Mr. Williams submitted written testimony opposing A.B. 413 (see Exhibit K, Item 3). He contended the educational needs were the same for all students in Washoe County and disagreed that geography somehow made Incline Village students unique. Mr. Williams continued that having a third set of standards for Incline Village was not necessary and even though principals would remain under the authority of the Washoe County School District, curriculum would be established by the community school board, leaving the lines of communication and authority rather blurry. He felt it was also unreasonable to require the Washoe County School District to pay legal expenses of the community school board should it be sued. He closed by pointing out the county district cooperated very closely with the citizens and schools at Incline Village through the K-16 Council, the Chamber of Commerce and the PTA. The school district recently commissioned a special facilities committee at Incline Village and recommendations from the committee were incorporated into the recently passed school bond issue in the form of a new elementary school for Incline Village. Mr. Williams pointed out the new superintendent and school board members made frequent trips to Incline Village to confer with parents, students, and other citizens.

Mr. Williams noted the bond issue was passed by a majority of Incline Village voters. He also noted statistics showing Incline High School had a dropout rate of less than 1 percent with 89 percent of graduates going on to college. He noted colleges that had admitted Incline High School graduates included Stanford, University of California at Berkeley, and all of the military academies. He concluded the present level of success of the students indicated another bureaucratic level between the students and the elected county school board would be neither appropriate nor beneficial.

Mrs. de Braga wondered what problem existed at Incline Village that caused the issue to continually come before the legislature, noting that other school districts were geographically spread and seemed to deal with it rather well. Mr. Williams responded there was an active core group that wanted to split off from Washoe County and by and large most residents of Incline Village were pleased with the efforts made by the school district to address the needs of the community. Mr. Williams answered Mrs. de Braga’s question relating to school board composition by noting trustees were geographically specific with two overlapping at-large positions and currently Incline Village had two members on the six-member board.

In response to Mr. Collins question regarding the formation of the infrastructure committee, Mr. Williams indicated the Washoe County School District formed the committee, consisting of school board members, administrative staff, teachers, parents, PTA members, and interested citizens, at the request of citizens, teachers, and parents at Incline Village. Mr. Collins noted the Washoe County School Board had the power to form committees of that type and continued by suggesting the school district form a local school board committee to include the elements proposed in A.B. 413. Mr. Williams noted the infrastructure committee was an ad hoc group, not a full-time continual committee, and he believed the functions were already being provided through the K-16 council, which was a standing committee.

Don Forrester, member of the Douglas County School Board, introduced board members Cheri Johnson, George Echan, Michelle Lewis, Douglas County School District Superintendent Pendery Clark, and Business Director Rick Keester (see Exhibit K, Item 4).

Mr. Forrester testified the Douglas County School Trustees voted 7to 0 against the bill prior to viewing the amendments. He noted his unique position in having run against Senator Jacobsen in the past election so he had been very involved in issues from the Incline Village area. He wondered how Douglas County became attached to the proposed bill and suggested the main issue was a tax issue, with assessed valuation going up 40 to 50 percent a year in the Incline Village area. He noted there was no particular grievance procedure for citizens unhappy with a school board other than coming to the legislature. He hypothesized that a specific standing committee, perhaps within the State Department of Education, could deal with many of the problems. He noted the increasing disparity of representation between the Lake Tahoe area, which was limited in growth and the valley areas that were rapidly expanding. He suggested that creating another layer of bureaucracy would do nothing to solve any problems. He cited 70 to 80 schools in Washoe County with only 3 at Incline Village, and 12 in Douglas County with 3 at the Lake. With regard to bonding in Douglas County, he advised, 25 percent of the funds should technically go to Lake Tahoe, so getting bonds passed would become more difficult. He repeated he understood the motivation for the Incline request but could not understand how Douglas County became included. He suggested that until the property tax question was addressed, there would be continued problems as Incline Village residents resented paying high taxes they felt were subsidizing growth in the valley area.

In response to Mr. Collin’s earlier question, Cheri Johnson responded there was nothing in statute that precluded establishment of a standing local committee. She referenced isolationism and student achievement. Ms. Johnson noted that Douglas County held every other meeting in Lake Tahoe and 20 percent of their action teams and strategic planning groups were composed of lake parents, which was concurrent with the population. She reported in 1997 a task force was established in Lake Tahoe to address facility issues and $2.6 million would be expended in 1999 to address facility issues. She said a forum had been held to discuss South Lake Tahoe issues with parents at the lake specifically to address concerns for the legislative session. She disclosed test scores from the lake were consistently higher than in the valley and the county ranked higher than the statewide average. She felt creating another layer of bureaucracy would be a setback hampering student achievement. She reported the class of 2002 would be the first to graduate under Douglas County’s competency based system, in which students had to demonstrate competency in seven core areas which were significantly higher than standards currently in place for the state. She said it would be unfortunate if Lake Tahoe schools had to start over.

George Echan noted he specifically represented a district at the lake on the school board. He added he was a 20-year resident of Lake Tahoe, had twice been president of the Tahoe Douglas Chamber of Commerce, was chair of the Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority, and was present at the inception of the Tahoe Douglas Citizens Committee. He conceded he was speaking for himself but had attended every parents club meeting at schools at the lake, every curriculum meeting, most business functions, and endless sports activities. He reported little public knowledge or appetite for the bill. Mr. Echan emphasized he was not criticizing Mr. Brower, but said the executive committee which endorsed the bill consisted of just 4 to 6 people. He said there had been no general meeting of parents or the Tahoe Douglas Citizens Committee prior to announcement of support for the bill. Summarizing comments from two members of the citizens committee, Mr. Echan insisted a local citizen’s school board was unnecessary and unsuited for the county and area.

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Echan asked the committee to review carefully the argument that the bill would be effective only after being approved at an election. He clarified if it was really important there should be referendums on being a city, on community boards for recreation and parks, for the county commission, for the franchise tax board, and so on. He noted Mr. Jabara’s previous support for consolidation of the numerous improvement districts. Mr. Echan said the amendments to the bill virtually "disemboweled" it, leaving only the five-member board who would provide input on curriculum, supplies, and textbooks. He contended the school district budget was about 90 percent salaries, administration fees, and benefits. Of the remaining 10 percent, about 8 percent was applied to fixed costs, leaving 1 to 2 percent. He said a shortfall could occur should redevelopment result in a drop in student population at Lake Tahoe. Concluding, Mr. Echan said A.B. 413 should not be passed since it had dubious community support, the school board had been responsive to community needs, a "neutered, junior board" with a potential for funding problems would be established, and divisiveness would be encouraged.

Superintendent Pendery Clark said the Douglas County School District administration was also very supportive of addressing Lake Tahoe needs. She believed the bill was a holdover from the 1997 session, and there was no substantial grass roots support in Douglas County. Dr. Clark concluded by stating the bill would unnecessarily impede efforts toward raising standards and increasing competency for all students in the district.

Rick Keester, Douglas County School District business director, reported section 37 of A.B. 413 applied operating funds in the same proportion they were in the prior year, so a drop in pupils at the lake or an increase in operating costs could result in a shortfall.

Jacques Etchegoyhen, chair of the Douglas County Commission, asked the committee to keep in mind A.B. 413 was proposed by a very small group of people yet the bill contained broad policy implications for the county and the state education system. He cited the original consolidation to a county school district system in the 1950’s and suggested the bill would begin to unravel that excellent system.

Mr. Collins closed the hearing on A.B. 413.

Chairman Williams noted there was a subcommittee meeting scheduled upon adjournment and recommended postponement of A.B. 313 until April 8.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Mary Bean,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: