The Committee on Education was called to order at 4:05 p.m., on Monday, April 26, 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. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Jon Porter, Senatorial District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on S.C.R. 2.

With no one present to testify, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.C.R. 2 and opened the hearing on S.B. 445.

Jeanne Botts, senior program analyst from the Fiscal Analysis Division, said she was not testifying in support or opposition but only presenting S.B. 445. She said the bill prescribed the academic subjects for public schools and revised the courses of study to reflect the new academic standards created by the Council to Establish Academic Standards and adopted by the State Board of Education. The measure set forth that the standards for English, mathematics, science, and social studies were to be considered the core academic subjects and they "shall" be taught in all public schools, which was in section 3, subsection 1. She said the enrichment subjects of the arts, computer education, health, and physical education would be taught to the extent practicable, which was in section 3, subsection 2. However, if the state board required the completion of a course for graduation or promotion to the next grade the public school "shall" offer the course. For example, if the state board required one half credit of health, even though it was part of subsection 2 and should be taught to the extent practicable, then the school would have to teach it if it was required for graduation.

Further, the measure detailed the descriptions of certain additional courses of study from the statute, which was in subsection 3. It required the state board to adopt regulations concerning those subjects. She said subsection 3 provided that most of the remainder of the courses of study currently found in chapter 389 "shall" still exist in regulation of the state board, but there was no language in statute that would require they be taught, but they could be offered. Those courses could also be included within core subjects or within the enrichment subjects, which were as follows:

• Physiology;

• Hygiene;

• Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR);

• Suicide prevention;

• Child abuse;

• Economics of American free enterprise (which was already in the social studies standards);

• American Sign Language;

• Environmental education (which was already in the science standards); and

• Adult roles and responsibilities.

She said schools also had to set aside time for patriotic observances and said those courses were found in subsection 4 of section 3. She noted there was a conflict with A.B. 144, which required the pledge of allegiance daily and patriotic observance was optional. Therefore, that language would have to be amended in S.B. 445.

Ms. Botts said S.B. 445 was requested to align the state courses of study in chapter 389 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) with the academic standards recently established by the Council to Establish Academic Standards and adopted as regulations by the State Board of Education. Courses of study previously detailed within statute and currently specified within regulation were still referenced in statute and would continue to maintain those identities within regulation. She said there were some sections of chapter 389 that were not affected by the bill and still remained intact, which were as follows

• National and state proficiency testing programs;

• American government;

• Violent crimes;

• American history;

• American history and government courses required for graduation;

• Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS);

• Human reproduction and sexual responsibility;

• Drivers education;

• Independent study requirements;

• High school credit for higher education courses;

• Credit for community service projects; and

• Occupational guidance and counseling.

Mrs. Cegavske had a serious concern with the repealed sections of the bill and wanted to know why drivers education was being repealed.

Ms. Botts said there were two sections dealing with drivers education and the one that taught drivers education remained in the bill. She said the part that was repealed was the section that provided for an allocation from general fund from drivers education. When she researched it she could not find any evidence that section was ever used, which was why it was repealed.

Mrs. Cegavske said most school districts unfortunately did not know about that section, and she was told districts would ask for some of the funding during the current session. Therefore, she wanted to leave it in the bill.

Chairman Williams asked if all of the provisions were repealed because of duplications in statute. He knew that Mrs. Chowning several sessions ago put into statute the instructions on prevention of suicide and fought long and hard to include that into statute.

Ms. Botts replied those provisions were not exactly repealed due to duplications and believed the bill helped streamline NRS chapter 389. She said the effort of which began in the 1995 legislative session when the Department of Education was requested through A.B. 610 to conduct a study of chapter 389 and return with some recommendations. She said the department provided a report to the 1997 Legislative Session and received a letter of intent to once again take a serious look at streamlining the chapter and aligning it to the standards. Particularly the phases of standards and subject matters in the standards that were contained in The Education Reform Act. She said the Department of Education reported to the Legislative Committee on Education in November of 1996 and rearranged all of the sections within the chapter. At that time, Senator Rawson requested the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff to examine the sections and return with some recommendations and the end result was S.B. 445. She characterized it as trying to put more emphasis on the core curriculum and the subjects for which standards were being developed or had been adopted and then taking the other areas and putting that within the purview of the State Board of Education to deal with through regulations.

Mr. Collins asked why the legislature kept trying to tell the State Board of Education and the school districts what the curriculum should be. He thought different areas in the state would require different curriculum. For example, in White Pine or Lincoln County the curriculum might emphasize more agriculture, which was part of the repealed subject of environmental education, and in Clark County the curriculum might emphasize more business.

Ms. Botts thought S.B. 445 attempted to simplify the core curriculum and said it was requiring schools to teach English, math, science, and social studies and then define what social studies meant, which was history, geography, economics, and government. She explained if a course related to the subjects in section 2 such as arts, computer education, health, and physical education was required for graduation by the state board then the school would have to offer it, otherwise they were not required to offer that class. It would be up to the state board to adopt regulations for instruction in other areas such as physiology, child abuse, and suicide prevention, but there would not necessarily be a requirement that those be taught. Therefore, she did not think the legislature was telling the schools they had to teach all of those subjects and thought the responsibility was on the state board.

Mr. Collins thought there was already a requirement to teach English, math, science, and social studies.

Ms. Botts replied that the State Board of Education required those courses for graduation and in regulations but they were not in chapter 389. Therefore, the bill was attempting to align chapter 389 with the standards that had been adopted.

Mr. Collins said the State Board of Education was being told they had to develop standards and then 2 years ago, when the board was nearly done with their standards, the Education Reform Act was passed and rules and standards were changed. In the current session there were more bills such as phonics being mandated that would change those rules and standards again. Therefore, he was wondering why the legislature did not just leave them alone and let them do their job.

Pepper Sturm, chief principal research analyst for the Research Division, said the bill was a distillation of what the State Department of Education and State Board of Education gathered as a recommendation. He explained the state department wanted any future courses of study in the form of a resolution to present to the state board so they could take a look at adopting regulations along those lines. A lot of what was in the bill resembled what they proposed to Senator Rawson to accommodate his request that it be streamlined. He thought the resolution accomplished what the state department and state board wanted to do.

Mrs. Angle wanted clarification that the bill had mandatory language for communities with a population over 100,000 and permissive language for school boards that were under 100,000, which was in section 2, on line 18. Therefore, Clark County and Washoe County would be the only counties mandated by existing language. Ms. Botts agreed it was existing language and it only applied to occupational guidance and counseling in accordance with chapter 389.180.

Mrs. Angle wanted to know if all of the language after section 3 was permissive.

Ms. Botts said it was not because section 3 applied to all school districts. She said only section 2 broke it down by population.

Mrs. Angle drew attention to line 38 in section 2, which discussed the core academic subjects. She offered an amendment to the reading part, which would state, "reading as defined by scientifically based reading research which has the meaning ascribed to it in the Reading Excellence Act, Title 8 of public law 105 through 277." She said it would just define "reading" so Nevada could possibly qualify for federal money for training and curriculum in reading.

Chairman Williams said the proposed amendment did not have to be addressed right away. He thought Ms. Botts could meet with Mrs. Angle to absorb some of the information and decide if it could be amended into the bill.

Ms. Botts replied she could work on some suggested language for Mrs. Angle if the committee wished to do so.

Ms. Parnell saw the bill basically as mandating schools, whether it be a charter school, public school, or magnet school, to teach the four core subjects and then allow a program to be designed beyond that.

Chairman Williams said the sections repealed were mentioned in other places in statute and there was other verbiage that went with those particular sections in reference to those subjects. He said the language in some sections of statutes was stronger than in S.B. 445 and if those subjects were repealed, he thought the idea to teach those subjects might not be appreciated by some people.

Mr. Sturm thought the intent with subsection 3 on page 3 was that there were board adopted regulations currently in place for each of the courses of study. He said those courses were in the repealed section but still appeared in subsection 3. Therefore, the very detailed list in NRS chapter 389 would not be there anymore. However, those courses would maintain their identities through subsection 3 of the bill and the regulations adopted by the board would still exist for those courses of study.

Dr. Keith Rheault, representing the Department of Education, supported the recommendations of S.B. 445 and provided his written remarks (Exhibit C). He said the department had been working on the issue over the last 4 years and completed a report from 1995 to 1997 because they were asked to determine if NRS chapter 389 could be streamlined. He said the department developed a lot of input from school district personnel and the public. He said the report, which was provided to Senator Rawson, followed what was in the bill. The department wanted core subjects to be identified in statutes so there was some back up to go with the new standards in English, math, science, and social studies. He said the department also agreed with the other subjects such as art, computers, health, and physical education because they were in line with the other standards on which the department was working. He said the courses on page 3, in subsection 3, were electives and the board fully approved of the sections that were being repealed because it was a "clean up piece." For example, the department would not forget about the prevention of suicide if it was deleted from statute because it was in subsection 3 to where the board still had to have regulation on that subject in the course of study. There were courses of study developed in statute and by deleting the sections he did not think it would change anything that was already in regulation.

Mrs. Angle asked if there were any sanctions in place if the mandate was not met.

Dr. Rheault replied it currently stated the state board "shall" adopt courses of study and school districts "will" implement those courses of study. He said the department had never imposed sanctions if they audited a school and found they were not teaching all of the English standards. He supposed it could be to the point where money was withheld, but sanctions had never been imposed. He thought it would be evident who had not implemented the content standards through the testing programs in place. He thought the accountability built into the courses of study would dictate a lot more attention to districts that were not meeting the requirements. He said there were no sanctions other than the wording that said schools "shall" implement those courses of study that the state board adopted for the mandated or required courses for graduation. Most of the courses of study in subsection 3 had been and would continue to be elective courses. He said the department developed a course of study in American Sign Language but districts were not required to offer that course unless there was a need and a demand for it in the district.

Chairman Williams wanted to know if any of those courses were actually required for graduation.

Dr. Rheault drew attention to subsection 3, page 3, item (a), where it listed the academic subjects set forth in subsections 1 and 2 and said those would be required but most of the other subjects had been integrated into health courses or other courses. For example, physiology, hygiene, and CPR courses were usually integrated into a physical education or a health course. Instead of offering separate courses to meet the intent of the regulations they were incorporated into other courses of study.

Chairman Williams asked if students at charter schools would have to obtain the required courses for graduation regardless of the direction or specialization of a charter school.

Dr. Rheault understood those students would have to obtain the required courses for graduation. He said a section on page 2 of the bill required the charter schools to at least offer the core subjects that were required.

Chairman Williams drew attention to page 3, lines 13 and 14, and said there was an exemption in that language for charter schools. He wondered why that exemption was there because he thought those students had to obtain the courses required for graduation.

Ms. Botts replied the charter schools had to offer the core academic subjects, which were in subsection 1, page 2. However, charter schools were not required to offer the so called "enhancement subjects" listed in subsection 2, on page 3, such as arts, computer education, health, and physical education unless they were required for graduation.

Ms. Parnell complimented the Department of Education on the job they had done and asked if they were trying to get back to teaching the basics and still giving the option to teach other subjects in addition to the core curriculum.

Dr. Rheault replied that was exactly what the bill was trying to accomplish. He thought the bill was to clean up the statutes in the area of courses of study but yet still have them available through regulations by the state board.

Dr. Rheault responded to Mrs. Angle’s intent to amend the section on reading and said "English including reading" was currently defined in regulation, which was done when the content standards for reading were adopted. He thought the definition she wanted to include might not match with those reading content standards currently in place.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 445 with no action taken. He opened the hearing on S.B. 435.

Chairman Williams commented on the efforts made by Mrs. de Braga regarding the dilemma of schools that were in deplorable conditions. He hoped the state would become more mindful of the "pockets" of communities that had schools that definitely needed to be replaced. He understood there were problems in Clark County but thought the problems needed to be addressed statewide.

Mrs. de Braga appreciated S.B. 435 and said it definitely suited what several rural counties were facing such as the inability to sell bonds, the inability to raise money to do simple repairs, and those sorts of things. She said it was a nationwide problem and knew of a bill at the federal level to assist with the problem, but all it did was allow for federal payment of interest on bonds, which would not help if the bonds could not be sold.

Senator John Porter, representing District 1, echoed Chairman Williams’ comments regarding construction of schools statewide and also commended Mrs. de Braga for her efforts. He thought it was a very serious problem throughout the state and said there were children attending schools that were unsafe to a point in which two buildings in a certain school were recently condemned and shut down.

Mr. Porter said S.B. 435 was brought forward by a group called the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority and said it was authorized/mandated under S.B. 383 of the 1997 legislative session. That bill mandated local governments in Clark County to work together with the community to create a strategic plan that set forth the goals, objectives, and strategies which addressed the affects of growth on the following characteristics:

• Education;

• Transportation;

• Environment;

• Water;

• Public Safety;

• Housing;

• Parks and recreation;

• Local land use;

• Economic development; and

• Sewage and sanitation.

He said the issues facing the southern Nevada community were complex, which was why the planning authority was created. It was also created to provide for a structure and process to enable citizens and elected officials to determine what the optimum future would look like and then create a "road map" to lead Nevada to that point.

He said the specific responsibilities of the planning authority were as follows:

1. To identify and evaluate the needs of Clark County relating to growth;

2. To prioritize the objectives and strategies relating to growth of Clark County;

3. To review the master plans, policies contained within the master plans, and capital improvement plans of the planning agencies of Clark County and to determine if they were sufficient to meet the needs;

4. To address the expected amount of growth in Clark County over the next 20 years; and

5. To develop the needs assessment that identified the issues relating to the growth of Clark County over 20 years and to develop a strategic plan.

He said part of that strategic plan was presented under S.B. 435 and the planning authority developed a 20-year plan, which was available to those interested.

Larry Spitler, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD) said he had the pleasure of working with the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority over the last biennium and was also part of their lobbying effort. He said a lot of work went into S.B. 435 by a lot of people. There were a lot of diverse opinions in terms of how construction in general should be handled. However, he thought the planning authority "hammered out" a very good first bill.

He said the district was currently in the process of evaluating how it constructed schools in general. Determining, for example, if the district should be their own construction management company or if they should contract out to a construction management company. The district had experience in both of those areas and was evaluating them. The district was also trying to determine if they should be in the construction business and therefore, conducted ongoing meetings examining that fact.

He said the bill had started, in one of its forms, being mandatory. The planning authority felt it was probably premature to have a mandate to take school construction away from the district. The authority also thought the school districts needed, at least for another 2 year period, to evaluate and determine what the most economical way would be to open schools as quickly as they were needed. He said an equivalent of an elementary school was opened approximately every 44 days. He did not think the construction should get behind schedule because the district was growing at the rate of approximately 12,000 to 14,000 students every year. Therefore, the challenge before the district was monumental in terms of meeting the needs of children in school.

Mr. Spitler explained individual sections of the bill and said the language was permissive. The boards of trustees and populations over 400 "may" establish a commission to oversee school construction. The bill went into the terms and appointments of those members. Section 2 identified the terms and section 3 identified what the commission would be doing. The commission would elect a chairman prescribed by law for its management, meet as necessary, and comply with the provisions of the open meeting law. Section 3 identified the obligations of the board of trustees, which were as follows:

• To prepare and submit the 3 and 5 year building plans;

• To appoint someone who would be working with them who directly oversaw construction;

• To consider each of the recommendations made by the commission; and

• To provide the administrative support to the commission.

The activities of the commission itself would be as follows:

• To work with the board of trustees regarding school construction and renovation;

• To review the 3-year plans and make recommendations for revisions as necessary;

• To receive public input in those areas; and

• On a quarterly basis, or more frequently if the commission determined necessary, evaluate the program of school construction.

Mr. Spitler said section 4 was developed by the Senate and was reviewed more carefully. He said the planning authority recommended section 4, subsection 4 be amended out of the bill because the mechanics of the committee could not review every agenda, and it would create a fiscal note due to the time it would take to review those in great detail. Subsection 6 of section 4 required annual reports to be submitted to the oversight panel for school facilities.

Mrs. de Braga asked if he thought there was enough emphasis placed on the renovation of those schools that were not up to par. She knew the problems of a school district that was growing fast were different than in other areas but they still had the same problems in rural districts where children were in "substandard" schools.

Mr. Spitler thought that was a very good point and said schools in the past had not traditionally torn down facilities. Unfortunately, that resulted in older schools becoming deteriorated. He was aware some of those schools were in Clark County, and there were major problems throughout the state. He said CCSD hired an architectural firm to evaluate three schools in the district and determined if those schools should be renovated or reconstructed. He understood the board was trying to figure out where to put the students while the rebuilding of schools was being done. They were looking at portables and reassignments to other schools. He said the district knew they would have to begin looking at reconstruction as schools or buildings would become condemned as it had happened throughout the state.

Senator Porter said he was not opposed to examining some kind of alternative for a pilot program for reconstruction. He said one of the findings of S.C.R. 30 when looking at reconfiguring school districts was to look at smaller schools, which he thought was one of the best things that could be done for education. He suggested that when the pilot program was discussed the size of those schools be examined at the same time. He mentioned there was a lot of data available from 18 months of research.

Chairman Williams said some so called "experts" were telling him that in some cases reconstruction for new schools could start on the existing land before the old schools were actually torn down. Therefore, the students could just be transferred after construction was completed.

Mr. Manendo knew his constituents were excited about the school district getting back to teaching rather than having to deal with school construction. He thought there needed to be a closer look at demolishing schools, whether it was accomplished by a pilot program or if something needed to be put into statute because parents kept putting money into schools that were beyond fixing. Those roofs were leaking, the air conditioning units did not work, walls were crumbling, and carpets were not laid correctly which caused students to trip. He thought it was time to be proactive and really take a firm step in deciding where the building or refurbishing of schools should go in the future. He thought Chairman Williams’ idea was great regarding the use of existing property of older schools to build new schools.

Mr. Collins recently visited schools in Austin, Eureka, Ely, and several other rural areas and was very shocked at the deterioration of the buildings. He did not think any good businessman would conduct business in those buildings or even step foot in those buildings and yet children were in those buildings every day. He knew the issue before the committee needed to be addressed. He said an oversight panel for school facilities was developed in the 1997 legislative session and wondered if the legislature was disbanding the panel to form the new commission.

Mr. Spitler said the commission would be separate and said the oversight panel for school construction and renovation existed solely to be an approval layer to access the property tax approved by the voters each time the school district sold bonds.

Mr. Collins wanted to be sure the new commission was actually needed because there were so many different commissions in existence.

Mr. Porter said the idea was to create something similar to local government. The goal was to provide a planning commission type of board to examine the construction issues and to allow the board of trustees to do what they did best, which was get back to education.

Chairman Williams remembered comments by members of other commissions in Clark County who complained the commission really "had no teeth" and their idea could not be implemented because they did not have the power to move forward. He asked if Senator Porter would be in favor of strengthening the bill to give the members more authority.

Mr. Porter said the boards of trustees were elected and the planning commission was appointed. He was not opposed to strengthening their role and responsibilities, but thought the committee needed to be cautious about determining what the difference was between elected and appointed officials. Therefore, he was open to suggestions.

Ms. Parnell wanted clarification that the commission was advisory in nature. Mr. Porter said it was advisory.

Ms. Parnell drew attention to page 2, line 5 where it said the commission "may" solicit recommendations from the general public. She said she would feel much more comfortable if that said "shall" because "may" meant the commission could do all of their business with no input from the public.

Mr. Spitler said the language could be changed to "shall", with which he did not have a problem. He mentioned that the commission fell under the open meeting law where the public had to be a part of their discussions. He thought that language was referring to sending out requests to other people who testified before the commission on specific issues.

Mr. Spitler explained that 1997 was the first time in Nevada where sources other than property taxes were examined to support school construction. He said it was one of those things where it was beginning to look "a little bit rosier." But he thought the legislature had to proceed cautiously while looking at elected bodies and who was responsible for what, so the overall issue was not confused as change was evaluated. He thought the legislature gave great direction and the important thing was everyone working together to accomplish the same goals.

Mr. Gustavson realized the cost would be lower if subsection 4 of section 4 was deleted, but wondered if there would still be an unfunded mandate. He said he liked the bill and did not have a problem with it if the district did not have a problem.

Mr. Spitler said there was a cost associated with the bill without that section, which was approximately $16,000. He said the CCSD felt they could absorb that cost without sending the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means. If the cost were to go up then the district would ask for some support.

Mr. Spitler said the district would be very happy to work on a subcommittee or whatever the committee wanted to set up to examine and discuss reconstruction more in depth.

Mr. Porter was also willing to work on the issue in further detail.

Louie Overstreet, a licensed professional engineer for 30 years, said that if the intent of the bill was to provide the public and the legislature an independent ongoing assessment on how effectively the school districts managed and planned to manage capital funds totaling in the billions of dollars then, colloquially speaking, "you can not get to there from here with S.B. 435." He said the bill recognized a need to hold a district accountable that would spend over $4 billion over the next decade.

He said he was testifying to what he believed to be documentable facts. The CCSD represented to the public, in the summer of 1998, that the development cost estimates were inflated by 5 percent annually. Yet, within the same document it could be determined that the district used a rate of 9.8 percent, which was almost twice what was represented to the public. If the district used a 5 percent rate, as they indicated, it would have given an unencumbered balance of $400 million over the next decade, just in interest rates alone. The district was charging a rate of 10 percent for in-house administration, or $350 million over the next 10 years, which was on top of the charges for project management and services by the private sector. Just in 1999 alone, the district increased in-house staff by 21 percent, going from 292 employees to 354 employees. Yet, amazingly the budget submitted to the state indicated that the total cost for salaries and benefits would go down, which he thought was impossible.

He said there was a critical need for independent oversight. Thus, a bill that had permissive language versus mandatory language would not produce results. Further having a board appoint all members to the committee would produce the same results of the "do nothing, rubberstamp" bond oversight committee, on which he currently served. Therefore, he suggested the following adjustments be made:

• Make the establishment of the commission mandatory.

• Expand its membership to include chairs of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Education.

• Hold quarterly public hearings on the progress of planned construction schedules and budget forecasts.

• Require the districts to submit a comprehensive and cost effective staffing plan to meet program objectives consistent with the above suggestions on an annual basis.

Mr. Overstreet commented on previous testimony and said it would be very doable, in a lot of areas, to build on existing school property. He said new schools could be built on existing parking areas or playground areas and then the old building could be converted into a new parking area or playground area when the construction was completed.

He said there was a concern for the $854 million that was scheduled for rehabilitation. It was read into the public record at the last board meeting that those funds could be used for new construction. Therefore, the need for rehabilitation would almost be eliminated if new schools were built and the funding source of $854 million could be available for new construction. Naturally not all of that money would be available, but with the unencumbered amount, just in the interest forecast alone, would be enough to rebuild the 30 schools that were presently over 40 years old.

Additionally, there was concern about inspection. He said the reason projects were coming in over budget with change orders was because the inspectors were not trained sufficiently., thereby causing inconsistent assessments of what was required to fulfill contract requirements.

Mr. Collins asked if Mr. Overstreet thought change orders were due to poor drawings.

Mr. Overstreet said prototypical designs were being used and the joins were not cleaned up, therefore mistakes that existed in those joins were being replicated. Also, as the function and curriculum of schools changed, sometimes those schools became no longer functional. He said there were required upgrades such as fire codes and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, which caused an impact on an annual basis, if not annually, then every 3 or 4 years, therefore adding to the cost. Mr. Overstreet said the joins might not be site specific because it depended on such things as how far the utilities were from the site, the contour, and the topography of the land. He said there was a lot of cost for a prototypical design whereas a school designed for site specific use could reduce some of those costs, which was not currently being done by CCSD.

Franklin Simpson, a citizen of Las Vegas, testified in support of S.B. 435. He commended Senator Porter for moving the piece of legislation before the committee forward and for taking a closer look at the way past practices had been accomplished. He was pleased with Assemblywoman Parnell’s comments referencing the language that the commission "may" solicit recommendations from the general public. He thought individuals that were making the decisions were starting to rely on the existing system of values and they were failing to reach out beyond the norm. When the commission solicited general comments from the community he encouraged that maybe there could be something that would allow an equal amount of time for the participants to make their full comments.

In closing, he said there was a newspaper article that said the CCSD was using extra money on replacing older schools in poor neighborhoods. He thought timing of the commission, the open dialogue reference in the bill, and the pilot projects were necessary for the holistic approach to move forward to see what could be done about changing past practices as the next millenium was approaching.

Chairman Williams thought it was refreshing to see, he thought on the same day, in two newspapers that the superintendent of schools in Clark County indicated there was a current need to replace some of the older schools. He thought that in itself brought the district a long way just with those comments.

Chairman Williams announced that he would appoint a subcommittee during the next meeting to start addressing the issue with Senator Porter, Mr. Spitler, and others in the community.

With no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: