The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Wednesday, April 21, 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

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

William Raggio, Senatorial District 3

Kathy McClain, Assembly District 15

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on S.B. 9.

Senator William Raggio, representing District 3, provided his written testimony and said the bill was a recommendation from the Legislative Committee on Education, of which he was chairman during the last interim (Exhibit C). The interim subcommittee felt the bill would give some incentive to retain and acquire teachers.

Mr. Raggio explained S.B. 9, as amended, required experienced teachers who taught and remained teaching in schools designated as demonstrating inadequate achievement would receive 1 year of credit toward retirement for every 5 years of service. To be eligible for that benefit, a teacher had to have taught at least 5 years in Nevada and received satisfactory evaluations in each of those years. The bill applied to employment for a school year that began on or after July 1, 1999. He said the original bill extended the benefit to teachers in "at risk" schools, but the provision was deleted by the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.

While all of the school districts understood the need and perceived it would be helpful to extend the benefit to teachers in "at risk" schools, he explained the provision was deleted mainly because of the fiscal impact. There was some fiscal impact to the school districts under the bill, even as amended. The revised fiscal note estimated school districts would be required to pay approximately $375,000 in each year of the coming biennium based upon eight schools that were designated as having inadequate academic achievement. He mentioned those schools were designated at the time the fiscal note was completed and that it would be changing due to a number of those schools not being designated any longer as having inadequate academic achievement.

He said the interim subcommittee conducted a hearing to review issues associated with teaching to higher academic standards. Following that hearing, the subcommittee directed that a series of four regional workshops be conducted on higher standards to provide information and recommendations for future action. Those workshops produced several recommendations, including two concerning teacher recruitment and retention, which were suggested mainly by teachers.

He explained the subcommittee was encouraged by participants of those regional workshops to review the possibility of offering incentives for teachers who worked in low-achieving, high-risk schools, which was what S.B. 9 was about. Although not in the bill, he said the subcommittee also endorsed the recommendation of the regional workshops that a series of incentives should be established to attract teachers in subject areas in which a high need or shortage existed such as math or science. The recommendation was also to establish programs to attract individuals with expertise in those areas to the field of teachers, including speech pathologists, psychologists, and occupational and physical therapists.

Mrs. Chowning was glad to see the bill presented because she knew there were teachers who chose to work in "at risk" schools for many years without incentives and she felt they needed to be given the credit they deserved.

Mr. Raggio agreed with Mrs. Chowning and hoped there could be more done regarding the issue. He wanted to be sure teachers were retained and given some incentive to stay, especially after they were stable in schools deemed as having achieved inadequately. He said the bill would entitle teachers to be paid by the school district one-fifth of a retirement credit every year and therefore would be an added incentive for that purpose.

Mrs. Chowning was glad to see page 2 required a teacher to be at that school for at least 1 year. For example, Sun Rise Acres in her district was labeled "needs improvement" rather than "inadequate", and was proud to finally have that stigma removed. Because of the bill those teachers would still receive that incentive.

Mr. Raggio mentioned the designation of being "in adequate" was going to be changed to "needing improvement."

Mrs. Chowning thought it was a very good addition to the bill to tighten the requirement for a teacher to have been employed at least 1 year because it did not necessarily mean the school had to constantly be in that category.

Mr. Raggio explained they had to have been a teacher for at least 5 years and had to have been in that particular school for 1 year. He reiterated teachers needed to be retained in those schools because that was where they were needed.

Mrs. Chowning opined a school that was removed from the category of being deemed "needing improvement" did not necessarily mean the needs were not as great. She agreed those teachers needed to remain in those schools to remain off that category.

Mrs. Angle wanted to know what the fiscal note was on S.B. 9. Mr. Raggio replied the estimated fiscal impact was $375,000 collectively for all of the school districts assuming that there were approximately eight schools deemed "needing improvement." He said the teachers at those schools that qualified would be entitled to one-fifth credit for each year.

Mrs. Angle asked who would pay for the fiscal impact and from where would the money come. Mr. Raggio replied the school districts would be responsible for the cost and it would be part of their budgets. He did not think it would have that much of an impact on each individual school district.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if a teacher would receive the credit if a school, after 1 year, was no longer deemed "needing improvement." Mr. Raggio replied he/she would not get the credit after 1 year of the school not being in that category.

Chairman Williams asked if "at risk" schools were deleted from receiving the benefit. Mr. Raggio replied they were deleted because it would have had more of a fiscal impact on the districts. He did not feel there would be a problem if "at risk" schools were included back into the bill.

Chairman Williams said some teachers left schools after being deemed with the label of "needing improvement." He thought schools that were on that list in 1998, but were no longer, still had "at risk" factors. He thought the retention of teachers was the overall intent of the bill and thought the school districts would save more money in the future, even though it may currently sound fiscally strong, if those teachers were retained.

Mr. Raggio agreed with Chairman Williams and said he was not part of the discussion in the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities when the "at risk" schools were deleted. He said if a school was removed from the list as a school "needing improvement" but still was considered an "at risk" school and had "at risk" schools been left in the bill then teachers would have qualified up to 5 years for the additional retirement credit. However, there was a cost to the school districts because there were many more "at risk" schools than those that were deemed "needing improvement."

Mr. Collins asked if the bill addressed other staff members of schools as opposed to only teachers. Mr. Raggio explained the bill only pertained to teachers. Mr. Collins wondered if other staff members were ever discussed. Mr. Raggio responded they were not.

Chairman Williams thought counselors and librarians were classified as teachers.

Mr. Raggio thought Mrs. Chowning would have a better understanding because the bill came from those workshops in which she participated.

Chairman Williams asked Senator Raggio to present S.B. 50.

Senator Raggio, representing District 3, provided his written testimony and said S.B. 50, as amended, authorized boards of trustees of school districts to establish a process through regulations or through collective bargaining regarding the use of accumulated sick leave for early retirement (Exhibit D). He said the amount of service purchased through the process could not exceed the number of hours of unused sick leave or 1 year, whichever was less. To be eligible for the benefit, a teacher could have at least 5 years of service creditable in the Nevada’s retirement system.

Mr. Raggio explained that the superintendent of the White Pine County School District approached the Legislative Committee on Education with a recommendation designed to help attract and retain teachers to rural and remote areas in Nevada. The superintendent’s proposal allowed boards of trustees to establish regulations or negotiate with licensed employees of school districts regarding the use of accumulated sick leave for early retirement. The superintendent felt the approach was effective in reducing absenteeism and he asked that the option be made in Nevada because he had seen it work in Alaska. It appeared that such negotiations might be permitted under current provisions of the collective bargaining statutes; however, the approach was not specifically referenced. The White Pine superintendent had been told by his district attorney that such a proposal would not be permissible in Nevada.

Mrs. Cegavske said that when teachers were very sick or terminally ill they ran out of sick days and other teachers could contribute to them and she wondered if they would still be able to do that under the plan before the committee. Mr. Raggio thought it applied to all state employees, not just teachers. Therefore, teachers would not be prohibited from doing that.

Mrs. Cegavske said testimony in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means wanted "at risk" or "inadequate" schools to be called "at hope." Mr. Raggio said "needing improvement" was agreed upon because it was more appropriate and never intended to make it punitive. He said a message would still be delivered that schools needed improvement.

Mrs. Cegavske thought schools needed to be referred to as something more positive than what was currently being used. Mr. Raggio thought "at hope" could give a false impression and thought "needing improvement" was straightforward and was not a derogatory term.

Mrs. Angle wanted some clarification on S.B. 50 and asked if it applied to schools that were designated as "needing improvement" or wanted to know if it applied to all schools. Mr. Raggio replied it was for any school in Nevada but thought it would be used more in rural or remote areas.

Mrs. Angle also wanted a definition for "certain licensed teachers" because it was language within the summary. Mr. Raggio explained it would be licensed teachers who qualified by regulation or by negotiation. He said page 3 of the bill explained how teachers would qualify and he mentioned it was permissive language.

Mrs. Angle asked if there was a fiscal note. Mr. Raggio replied there was not a fiscal note with the bill because it would be done by negotiation or within their district means.

Mrs. Angle wondered if the bill was necessary because she understood teachers could negotiate almost anything under negotiations. Mr. Raggio reiterated the White Pine County School District superintendent was told by his district attorney that such a proposal would not be permissible in Nevada.

Chairman Williams reminded the committee the bill had permissive language. He asked Senator Raggio to present S.B. 51.

Senator Raggio, representing District 3, provided his written testimony and said S.B. 51, as amended, permitted school districts to provide fully licensed teachers with full credit when calculating seniority on the salary schedule for their years of teaching experience out-of-state (Exhibit E). He said it would apply to teaching experience earned in another state, but only if the Commission on Professional Standards in Education approved that state’s licensing standards. The measure required the commission to establish, by regulation, uniform criteria to be used to evaluate the other state’s licensing standards. The criteria might include whether the commission authorized reciprocal licensure with that state. To allow the commission time to adopt the necessary regulations, the measure would be effective only for teachers hired after July 1, 2000. He explained the bill was permissive.

He said Nevada did not have the capability to produce teachers through the educational system to meet the demand. Therefore, teachers were being recruited from other states. He remembered reading that other states gave large monetary bonuses and incentives to someone who came from out-of-state to teach. He wanted to be sure teachers who met Nevada’s standards were recruited. Therefore, it did mean that any teacher could come to Nevada and receive the kind of seniority proposed in the bill.

Chairman Williams asked if the main intent was to retain teachers. Mr. Raggio replied it was to retain and recruit teachers and said the bill talked about teachers who came to Nevada with previous teaching service.

Chairman Williams asked if Mr. Raggio had a problem with making the bill retroactive for current first year teachers who were successful in their teaching. Mr. Raggio said the bill was designed for recruitment and hoped to "fill the void" because the universities were not producing the adequate amount of teachers needed. He said if it would help retain teachers who had the required qualification he did not see a problem with making it retroactive. However, teachers’ previous service had to be measured in some way to insure they met the level of standards in Nevada.

Chairman Williams knew Clark County School District was doing a massive recruitment campaign and spending dollars to do such. He knew a lot of teachers who left were first year teachers and thought if the opportunity to gain the benefits from the bill was given to those teachers it might help save some of those recruitment dollars.

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), provided some written comments regarding S.B. 9, S.B. 50, and S.B. 51 (Exhibit F). She said the association supported both S.B. 50 and S.B. 51 with the amendments to make them permissive. She thought the bills sent a good policy message to local affiliates and school districts.

She said the association still had a remaining concern regarding S.B. 9 because the bill was not made permissive and would require the districts to pay the cost for the purchase of retirement credits. Therefore, the association believed it was an unfunded mandate to the school districts and requested the committee to make the bill permissive as the other bills were made permissive. She said language in section 1, line 5, and section 2, line 7, needed to be changed from "shall" to "may."

Ms. Cahill brought up the discussion about schools that were deemed "inadequate" would be called schools "needing improvement." She said the association recommended the committee make the bill permissive and change the language back so it included "at risk" schools because there could be some schools that were "at risk" schools and were not designated as "needing improvement." She said research had shown that demands on teachers in schools with "at risk" designations were incredible and those teachers tended to burn out at a faster rate than other teachers. Therefore, the association recommended changing language in section 1, subsection 1, line 4, to "designation of at-risk or demonstrating inadequate achievement pursuant to NRS 385.367" because it would allow teachers at those schools to benefit from the bill and if made permissive there would not be a question about to whom it applied.

Mrs. Chowning agreed with Ms. Cahill regarding the "at risk" schools and wanted to know about the State Board of Education. She thought the issue before the committee was one of their highest priorities to give the incentive to teachers teaching in "at risk" schools. Ms. Cahill knew the State Board of Education had many discussions about the issue but was not positive if they had it as one of their Bill Draft Requests. She knew that when they had their discussion it was for "at risk" schools as well as schools that were "needing improvement."

Mrs. Chowning asked if Ms. Cahill thought it was likely the school districts would actually give the incentive if the language was permissive. Ms. Cahill thought that if the legislature would fund the programs then she could support the bill with mandatory language, but given the fact that there was not a lot of money, she thought it should not be represented as an unfunded mandate to the school districts.

Chairman Williams announced the committee would hear more testimony on S.B. 9.

Martha Tittle, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), said the district was very aware of the importance of placing good teachers in all of its schools and was also aware of the challenges faced by teachers in schools with the designation of "needing improvement." She said there was a remarkable dedication by staff who worked in schools with "at risk" or "at hope" populations.

She said the district did, however, have some concerns regarding S.B. 9. First of all, the district did not have a way to know the exact cost but thought the bill was an unfunded mandate on the district. The district believed the aspects of the bill should be advisory in nature and supported the amended language proposed by Ms. Cahill.

She said section 4 also would bring some unique challenges to the district. For example, the need to rezone and/or the need to reduce staff size due to reduction and student population might require change not anticipated. Section 4 talked about not assigning or reassigning a licensed teacher to circumvent the requirements of the section. However, if there were some rezoning or some need to adjust staff in a school because a new school was built, then it could be a particular challenge to be faced. Ms. Tittle wanted the committee to know the district supported incentives for teachers working with "at risk" populations.

Chairman Williams asked if it would truly be an unfunded mandate or if it would be a matter of reprioritizing recruitment dollars. Ms. Tittle thought it was an unfunded mandate if the bill had mandatory language. She said the more teachers could be retained over time meant fewer would have to be recruited with an incentive as proposed. However, initially the districts would have to absorb the cost.

Chairman Williams asked if CCSD agreed with the concept of the bill. Ms. Tittle said the district did agree with the concept. Chairman Williams still thought it was a matter of shuffling dollars that were currently budgeted for recruitment and retention to possibly carry out some of the provisions in S.B. 9.

Mrs. Chowning asked what type of incentives did the district currently give. Ms. Tittle replied the district was currently working with committees of teachers, administrators, and parents in seeking ways to provide incentives for retaining teachers in working with those "at risk" populations. However, because of the fiscal issues that needed to be addressed it was a challenge in terms of defining which schools were classified to receive incentives.

Mrs. Chowning said the "at risk" population was something that had been growing and growing and the need for incentives was present for many years. She thought that if the school district was in agreement with the concept within the bill it should develop incentives, which she was surprised they had not yet done. It concerned her that if the language was changed to be permissive the districts might not do anything.

Chairman Williams wanted clarification of the types of incentives the district offered. Ms. Tittle replied she did not have that information with her and said she was not aware of specific incentives that were being provided in terms of monetary incentives.

Chairman Williams asked if any type of incentives were offered and asked if she could get that information to the committee before they took action on the bill. Ms. Tittle answered she would get the information to the committee.

Chairman Williams asked if the point was raised in the Senate about the mandate on the bill. Ms. Tittle answered it was raised in the Senate.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani from District 9, representing herself, said she taught at an "at risk" school and commended Senator Raggio and the commission for looking at the idea within the bill. She said "at risk" schools were overwhelmingly where first and second year teachers were placed, which she felt was a real problem. Therefore, she thought there might be something that could be crafted dealing with the policy issue of creating incentives. She said experienced teachers were getting burned out and new teachers were being placed in "at risk" schools. She thought those schools needed teachers who had the experience, discipline, and educational background. She opined schools ought to be able to encourage teachers to stay in place and stay committed.

Mrs. Chowning requested the committee to do research into other states to see what type of incentive programs existed. She thought it was an idea that was long overdue.

Chairman Williams thought Kelan Kelly, committee policy analyst, could research other states in the area of incentives. He found it somewhat disheartening that there were districts that were currently doing nothing for incentives and opposed the idea. He thought the biggest problem was retaining teachers in their first few years and thought it was more cost effective to retain those teachers than having to recruit new teachers every year.

Chairman Williams announced the committee would hear testimony on S.B. 50 and S.B. 51.

Steve Williams, representing the Washoe County School District (WCSD), testified in favor of S.B. 50 and S.B. 51 as they were amended. He also said the district was in support of S.B. 9 with the proposed amendments by Ms. Cahill.

Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, testified in support of S.B. 50 and said it was proposed by one of the school districts in the association. He thought many districts felt they already had the authority. However, the district attorney in White Pine County gave the opposite opinion to the superintendent, which was why the legislation was drafted. He said the association had testified to the Legislative Committee on Education and asked that the bill be made permissive. Therefore, the association supported the bill as long as it was permissive.

Ms. Tittle, representing the CCSD, said the district supported S.B. 50. However, the district felt it currently could negotiate or prescribe by regulation payment of unused sick leave to employees in the form of additional retirement credit under NRS 288. Therefore, she thought there was a difference in interpretation between the attorney general in White Pine County and some of the other school districts. She said the district did not have a problem with the bill because it was permissive in nature and was also in favor of it if it was needed to clarify that right to negotiate in White Pine. She did mention, however, the original testimony from the district was they did not see the need for the bill because they felt they could currently accomplish what the bill was asking for the districts to do.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 50 and S.B. 51. He reminded the committee of A.B. 348, which dealt with deaf children. He said there was discussion at the time when the bill was amended to have the committee consider a resolution.

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, representing District 15, reminded the committee that part of her request during the original hearing was to remove some of the language in the preamble in the bill and add more language to make it a resolution. Therefore, she submitted proposed language for that resolution, which was basically the Deaf Child’s Bill of Rights (Exhibit G). She said the resolution explained the communication modes, the uniqueness of deaf children, and it urged school districts, teachers, and school boards to consider all of the special needs of deaf children in formulating the Individualized Education Programs (IEP’s).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.C.R 15.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, representing District 9, presented A.C.R. 15 and provided a copy of a letter from Sheila Moulton from the CCSD (Exhibit H). She thought that letter summed up concerns not just of Clark County but all of the districts, which was what prompted her to request the resolution. She said the resolution asked the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance to stop the unfunded mandates to special education and to fully fund it.

She gave a brief history and said that when the Federal Government mandated the Public Law 94-142 the initial idea and commitment from the Federal Government was to assist states with the funding of that mandate at 40 percent of the cost. She believed Nevada had never received over 9 percent of that federal funding. She said not only did they provide a mandate, but they never got close to a financial commitment. She said Nevada had taken a different approach in addressing the cost than other states and made the determination to do it by unit funding. She said a unit was defined as a teacher in a classroom. When that unit funding was originally conceived it covered the cost of a teacher in a classroom and the ancillary costs such as speech therapy and psychologists. As the years went by, many special education teachers had master’s degrees or more and generally more than 5 years of teaching experience. Because of that, salaries tended to outgrow the unit funding.

She said Nevada was very under funded and districts had to reach into the general education budget in order to offset costs for special education. While special education students had the right to receive the proper education it got frustrating to have regular education children pitted against special education children because of the budget process. She recognized the current year’s budget was not well funded, but thought the message in the resolution was needed. She also thought there was nothing wrong with setting up a long-term policy or plan for getting rid of the unfunded mandate. She said the cost for special education was currently $168 million. Nevada funded $54 million of that cost, which left $114 million the districts were having to subsidized. She thought that could explain why Nevada was having problems with instructional supplies and textbooks. She said, "the per pupil dollar was having to be spread that much further just to cover the cost of a special education classroom."

Ms. Parnell was surprised that no one from the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA) was present because the cost of special education and the need for full funding for special education had been at least a 20-year concern of the association. She found it very disheartening that individuals had been coming to the legislature for that number of years foreseeing the problem which was currently being experienced.

Ms. Giunchigliani agreed that it was one of the top five issues of the PTA. She said that when Nevada funded a unit at $28,000 and approximate costs were $48,000, anyone could see where the disparity was allowed to grow. If over the years, Nevada had properly funded and kept pace with the cost, it would have been built-in. It was no different than the arguments the legislature had over class size reduction. Every time it was put off it would cost that much more in the future. She did not expect the legislature to come up with $100 million, but did think there could be some gains.

Mrs. Cegavske wanted to include salary increases or incentives for special education teachers because she thought they had an enormous job. She said a concern she had heard was children were being placed in special education that did not belong. Therefore, costs went up because children were being misplaced. She also suggested continuing the study committee that Ms. Giunchigliani had over the last interim to examine litigation costs for districts and determine what the reasons were for the litigations. She also thought regular education teachers needed to have some training in special education, which she had difficulty over the years trying to get the Professional Standards Committee to understand. She believed the standards committee recognized that they had not done anything along the lines of helping regular education teachers learn about children with special needs or that they learned differently.

Ms. Giunchigliani believed there should be some type of incentives for special education teachers as discussed in S.B. 9, S.B. 50, and S.B. 51. She thought the biggest problem was the time it took to prepare a special education classroom. She remembered the committee had passed A.B. 13 and a couple of other pieces of legislation in the current session that encouraged the districts to examine double preparatory times for special education. They also called on the issue of the misplacement of students in special education programs.

She did not think special education teachers should be compensated differently just because they chose to teach in that field. She thought the compensation would be far more valuable by recognizing the experience and time of those teachers. She thought extra preparation times would be a perfect opportunity for special education teachers to set up in service on their own campuses with regular education teachers especially if they did not have time to go through a university program. She thought special education teachers could educate regular education teachers about how to set up modifications in the classroom and how to work with an IEP. She thought special education teachers could become the true resource that resource room teachers were supposed to be and got away from over the years. Therefore, she thought that was the beauty of some of the flexibility that was being requested but unfortunately thought many people still "think in a box." She did not think collective bargaining agreements stopped anyone from doing anything creative, but thought people’s mindsets did and thought the districts and the unions had to get past that and bargain for either creative or flexible language.

If the committee wanted to entertain something on encouraging the litigation costs, Ms. Giunchigliani would not mind studying it again. However, she thought there were approximately 20 interim study requests for the next interim and thought only 4 or 5 would be approved. She thought the districts could provide a listing of their types of litigations and the reasons for them. Therefore if there were modifications to send additional messages she did not object to creating incentives or ideas for recruiting people into the profession because she thought it was a wonderful job.

Chairman Williams did not know if the Commission on Professional Standards could do much about the pay increase. However, he was open for the committee to introduce a resolution for pay increases for all teachers.

Mrs. Angle wondered why A.C.R. 15 was introduced at the state level instead of the federal level since it was the federal government that mandated special education programs. She said the Federal Government assured the states they would pay 40 percent of the cost and wondered why Nevada had not asked the Federal Government why they did not fulfill their promise.

Ms. Giunchigliani thought Mrs. Angle had an excellent point and thought the interim subcommittee focused on the fact that Nevada continued that unfunded mandate and passed it on to the local governments. She thought another potential request from the committee was to send a similar resolution to the Federal Government asking them to commit to their promise.

Debbie Cahill, representing the NSEA, said the association had delivered testimony many times in the past in support of looking at the problem before the committee. Therefore, the association supported A.C.R. 15.

She mentioned the Federal Government had a recent discussion on a bill called the "Ed-Flex Bill." She knew that Governor Guinn went to Washington D.C. and discussed the issue of funding from the Federal Government to meet their obligation financially on the unfunded mandate. She said a United States Senator offered an amendment to that bill, which would have allowed class size reduction money to be used for special education funding if a state chose to do that, but unfortunately that amendment was defeated.

Steve Williams, representing the WCSD, testified in support of A.C.R. 15. He thought the issue before the committee needed to be addressed and thought there needed to be corresponding funding to the requirements imposed. He thought the resolution was a positive step in discussing real dollars and did not think it was right to "steal money from one program to fund another one."

Martha Tittle, representing the CCSD, testified in support of A.C.R. 15. She said the district was so large that the impact to the general fund budget for the special education programs was significant.

With no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: