The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, March 3, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

GUEST LEGISLATORS:

Dean A. Rhoads, Senator, Northern Nevada Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Hampton, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Raggio stated these bills are recommendations from the Legislative Committee on Education. He said S.B. 60 is concerned with the need for pupils to meet higher academic standards. He pointed out that individuals previously testifying told the committee good teaching matters a great deal. He stated parents have always known that which teachers their children have is very important and recent research shows this to be accurate. He called attention to a Texas study that found the average reading scores of a group of Dallas 4^th graders, who were assigned to three highly effective teachers in a row, rose from the 59^th percentile in the 4^th grade to the 76^th percentile by the end of 6^th grade. A similar but slightly higher-achieving group of students were assigned to three consecutive ineffective teachers and their scores fell from the 60^th percentile in 4^th grade to the 42^nd percentile by the end of 6^th grade, he said.

Senator Raggio pointed out there was a gap of about 35 percentage points among students who began at about the same level. He said the committee felt this was a highly significant finding. He noted a similar impact of teacher effectiveness was seen in mathematics. Senator Raggio said Jon Snyder of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future testified another Texas study found that 43 percent of the variance in math scores was attributable to teacher qualifications. He said the qualifications were defined as scores on licensing exams and experience. He noted that although 49 percent of the variance in scores was due to home and family factors that schools cannot control, the study shows that school districts can improve the quality of their teachers.

Senator Raggio stated the education committee recognized the next step in educational reform in Nevada is to ensure that teachers are prepared to teach to higher standards. He said this led to the committee sponsoring four regional workshops around the state to learn what is needed to teach to more rigorous academic standards and the best way to meet those needs. He explained that to gain insight into teaching to higher standards, the committee invited teachers, school administrators, school board members, parents, and representatives of higher education and business to formally discuss what teachers need to teach to higher standards. He pointed out some of those suggestions formed the basis for S.B. 60.

Senator Raggio said workshop participants thought teacher training should be standards-based, results-driven, and job-embedded. He maintained that to teach to higher standards, teachers need a "strong dose" of subject matter content in their course work. He said the standards-based training model most often cited was the one followed by Geographic Alliance in Nevada (GAIN). He explained that in the GAIN program college professors provide teachers with high-quality instruction in their content area, followed immediately by instruction from master teachers in effective methods of teaching the content. Senator Raggio said the GAIN model was praised for its collaboration between the university and the public schools. He said the GAIN model also provides follow-up training and a support network for teachers.

Senator Raggio emphasized the workshop participants stressed the need for training to be developed by veteran teachers, and the importance of ongoing support to ensure that new practices are adopted by those receiving the training. He said other successful methods of providing ongoing training and continued support to teachers in the field include the use of what is known as the "Trainer of Trainers" model and the use of "learning strategists" in schools. He stated that participants also thought training programs should be brought to the schools. He said there appeared to be consensus on the part of most involved in the workshops that there is a need for regional professional development centers (PDCs).

Senator Raggio stated the committee agreed such centers should be created and training should focus on how to teach to the higher standards. He said that, based on the input from the regional workshops, committee members recognized the need to train teachers and administrators to use achievement data to guide classroom activities and to direct school- and district-level policies. He said that ideally the centers should also model the latest technological tools which have been approved for use in Nevada’s classrooms as part of the instructional mission.

Senator Raggio explained that S.B. 60 appropriates approximately $6.8 million for the next biennium directly to Clark, Elko, Douglas, and Washoe Counties’ school districts to set up regional training centers for teachers and administrators. He said that under the bill and the appropriation it provides, training would focus on the new standards established by the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools, measuring pupil achievement, and analyzing and interpreting test scores. Additionally the training would be focused on teaching higher-level content and basic skills such as reading instruction using phonics, and basic math computation skills.

Senator Raggio said it was suggested by the committee, as part of this measure, that each center would be governed by a board of directors consisting of the superintendents of the school districts within that region or their designees, master teachers identified by each of the superintendents, and representatives of higher education. He stated the proposal would suggest that the funding be used to provide incentives for teachers to gain new skills and knowledge, including arranging for college or recertification credit, providing books, supplies, and instructional materials, or offering a stipend. Senator Raggio explained the funding under the bill may be distributed to school districts to reimburse travel expenses of educators attending the training center programs or for trainers to travel to schools.

Senator Raggio stated that each regional center will employee professional and support staff who will work with existing trainers in the region, the State Department of Education, institutions of higher education, and other resources, to provide the necessary training. He said there is also a $100,000 appropriation in the bill for an outside contractor to conduct the required annual evaluation. He stressed the appropriation in this recommendation is not in The Executive Budget, so it will be considered in that light. He said there was a discussion the day before in the joint subcommittees on reallocation of some of the funding that would also apply in the area of professional development and school improvement issues. Senator Raggio pointed out that when this bill is processed, if it is, there may have to be coordination to allocate some of the funding that is already suggested in The Executive Budget with other funding that might become available.

Senator Raggio gave background on S.B. 70. He said the Legislative Committee on Education received testimony on the implementation of the Nevada Education Reform Act. He explained that S.B. 70 amends several sections of the law pertaining to the state’s school accountability program. He said some of the more significant changes are:

1. The "inadequate school" designation is changed to "a school demonstrating need for improvement."
2. The "exemplary achievement" school is defined as one that tested at least 95 percent of those eligible for testing, had at least half of those tested score in the top quarter, and had an average daily attendance (ADA) of at least 95 percent.
3. The "high achievement" school is redefined as a school testing at least 93 percent of students eligible with at least 40 percent of those tested scoring in the high quarter, and having an ADA of 93 percent.
4. Teachers’ attendance will be tracked but not used as one of the criteria for designating a school as "in need of improvement."

Senator Raggio said the inclusion of teacher attendance as one of the criteria considered in school designations seemed to have the inadvertent effect of discouraging professional development, and the committee, therefore, acceded to the suggestion that teacher attendance be eliminated from the criteria. He remarked there is no desire to do anything to discourage professional development. He reminded those in attendance that previous recommendations considered were designed to retain teachers, particularly in at-risk schools or those deemed to need improvement.

5. The school accountability reports would include the percentage of teachers teaching outside the field in which they are licensed, only if they are teaching courses in the core curriculum areas of English, mathematics, science and social studies.

Senator Raggio stated that more detailed information on the teaching assignments of all teachers would still be reported by the districts and monitored by the Commission on Professional Standards.

6. Schools will be required to explain differences between the number of pupils tested and the number of pupils enrolled.

Senator Raggio stressed it is the number of students enrolled that should be tested, not the number of students in attendance. He explained that schools with adequate achievement scores, who fail to test at least 90 percent of pupils required to be tested would have to submit a written explanation of the reason more pupils were not tested. He said the reason for this is obvious: without such a requirement there is the capability, for whatever reasons, to distort the comparisons that need to be made. He stressed that if the situation does not improve in subsequent years the school may be designated as a school needing improvement, but it would not be allowed to share in funding available for remedial education. Senator Raggio stated a disincentive is obviously needed.

7. The number of students who are habitual discipline problems must be included in school- and district-level accountability reports.

Senator Raggio stated the committee felt this was a needed statistic.

8. The requirement has been restored that the number of pupils retained each year be reported by grade and by school within the school accountability reports as required under this bill.
9. Other recognized parent groups besides the Nevada Parent Teachers Association are included among the groups that may be consulted by the Superintendent of Public Instruction concerning the accountability program.

Senator Raggio said there is recognition of the importance of input from the organized Nevada Parent Teachers Association (PTA). He pointed out the committee heard testimony that suggested a superintendent should have the option of seeking advice or input from other recognized parent groups.

10. The timeline for the school accountability report has been amended to allow schools demonstrating a need for improvement an opportunity to develop plans for improvement and adopt approved remedial education programs prior to the start of the subsequent school year. Also, the school district accountability reports must indicate actions taken and progress to date concerning recommendations from previous reports.

In regard to the above provision, Senator Raggio indicated that without it there is not much sense in doing the reports.

11. The schools demonstrating need for improvement must adopt an approved remedial program. The school district must ensure that each child who fails to demonstrate at least adequate achievement on required statewide examinations shall receive appropriate remedial education.

Senator Raggio said the amendment recognizes the need for effective remedial programs, certainly in the low-achieving schools, but also acknowledges the responsibility of the school districts to provide appropriate remediation for each individual child. He said this is one of the most important elements of the entire school reform effort.

12. For the 1999-2001 biennium, $4 million under this bill would be appropriated for remedial programs for schools demonstrating need for improvement, which means more than 40 percent of the pupils received an average score at or below the 25th percentile on all four subjects tested.

Senator Raggio stated these funds would also be available for schools that were not designated as needing improvement but had more than 40 percent of pupils receiving an average score at or below the 25^th percentile on three of the four subjects.

Senator Raggio said this summarizes the recommendations of the Legislative Committee on Education. The committee then processed several bill draft requests.

Senator Raggio offered Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-1453 for committee introduction. He stated the budget office requested this bill. He recalled the Governor indicated in the State of the State message that due to necessity, the funding for the National Judicial College and the National College of Juvenile and Family Law Enforcement would be recalled for the next biennium.

Senator Raggio said BDR S-1453 is the same measure as the previous BDR but pertains to the National Judicial College.

Senator Raggio said BDR S-1454 makes an appropriation of approximately $88,000 from the General Fund and $3.6 million from the state Highway Fund. He called attention to the additional amounts of $10.5 million from the General Fund and $5.6 million from the Highway Fund under section 2. He said these funds would provide for the continued development of the Integrated Financial Management System over the next 2 fiscal years. He stated this bill was requested by the Executive Branch.

Senator Raggio explained that Elko County requested BDR S-677. He noted this is an appropriation to Elko County proposed in the amount of $1 million.

*****

Senator Raggio offered BDR S-524 for committee introduction. He said this would be an appropriation in the amount of $250,000. He stated the Humboldt Basin Water Authority requested this BDR.

*****

Senator Raggio explained BDR S-1457 requests an appropriation of $562,000. He noted this BDR was requested by the Budget Division.

SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL, O’DONNELL, AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Senator Raggio said all of these bills will be introduced as committee bills. He emphasized that introduction by the committee does not necessarily indicate the favorable recommendation of any of the bills at this time.

The hearing on S.B. 60 and then S.B. 70 resumed at this point.

Roy J. Casey, Assistant Superintendent for Education Services, Douglas County School District, provided testimony in support of S.B. 60 (Exhibit C). He said the next step to ensure the implementation of the state’s high standards can only be accomplished through the professional development of teachers and administrators in the awareness and use of a standards-based system. He stated teachers will have to be trained to recognize whether what is written in instructional materials supports and ensures the teaching of the state standards.

Mr. Casey called attention to a survey in School Board News which reported that of teachers surveyed, those who were involved in short-term sessions of professional development for fewer than 8 hours gave their experience low marks, but those who participated in longer-term sessions were more likely to say their teaching ability improved. Also, teachers involved in frequent planning and collaboration with other teachers were more likely to report these activities helpful and 70 percent of teachers having a teacher mentor said weekly sessions were a great help.

Mr. Casey stated the model presented by the Douglas County School District is a model that educators will support, according to the national survey results. The model allows for the training of teacher trainers and subject area specialists, who in turn provide training and mentoring for teachers at each school site within the five school districts of Douglas, Churchill, Lyon, Mineral and Carson City. He pointed out the training for teacher trainers will be ongoing and not used as a "one-shot" professional development activity. He stressed the focus is to train teachers when they are not in school. He said it will also allow the educators being trained to develop and present lessons during the summer training session and to receive immediate feedback on the effectiveness of the lessons.

Mr. Casey said that at each elementary site within the region, two teacher trainers will be trained, based on the needs of the site. These trainers will receive their initial training during the summer institute in July 1999 and 2000, and at the same time building administrators, hopefully under a Goals 2000 grant from the State Department of Education, will be able to receive training in the same content area and instruction in how to implement a standards-based system.

Mr. Casey stated it is important to note the coordinating district will train three educators to be on-site in each county, one in each specific content area, to become trainers and coordinators of training for the summer institutes, weekend workshops, and mentoring for onsite teacher training. He said the trainers must be practicing educators and must be able to work at the regional PDCs for a period of 2 years.

Mr. Casey said the location of the regional PDC would be the Douglas High School campus in Minden, Nevada, and the center will be set up in a modular unit to be purchased through this initiative. He said the unit will house three regional trainers and a clerical person and will also provide meeting and training space. Computer workstations will be provided within the existing technology laboratories in the school districts, so it will not be necessary to duplicate technology.

Senator Raggio asked how long this model has been in the planning stage. Mr. Casey replied the planning stages for the PDCs began a number of months ago. He said this concept is not new to Douglas County. The county has had a PDC since the initial legislation funding PDCs in Nevada. Mr. Casey stated Douglas County would like to extend the development centers to the four neighboring school districts.

Senator Raggio inquired about the cost of this model. Mr. Casey answered he has cost figures for full and partial implementation. He pointed out S.B. 60 is for partial implementation. He said the first year of partial implementation is estimated to cost approximately $760,000 for training. He explained most of those funds are focused on the site trainers. Mr. Casey stated the second year of partial implementation is focused on the assessment portion of a standards-based system. He said some equipment costs will diminish, so the cost will decrease to approximately $610,000. He pointed out that with the partial implementation plan, administrators would be eliminated from attendance and that is the reason all five regions have come together as a consortium to submit a grant application to the State Department of Education to fund the administrator’s portion of the standards-based professional development.

Senator Raggio said The Executive Budget does not recommend this funding and if funding for full implementation is not available, some adjustments will have to be made to ensure these high priorities are funded in some way.

Robert E. Dickens, Director, Governmental Relations, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), spoke in support of S.B. 60. He said the university has been part of the nationwide K-16 (kindergarten through Grade 16) movement since 1994. He stated the university has a critical role to play in standards-based education. He pointed out that curriculum content at the university is being revised in order to provide the content-based instruction for students in the process of becoming teachers as well as for those currently teaching. Dr. Dickens stated the university supports the notion of a regional training center and appreciates the recognition UNR has as part of its mission to reach out to teachers throughout Nevada to provide content-based instruction. He said the university is committed to the mission. He stated there has been a great deal of discussion on how access will be provided. He said legislation requires that two teachers from rural areas attend the workshops discussed in the bill.

Dr. Dickens noted the university will be exploring ways in which to extend distance education coverage and access capability, in concert with Great Basin College (GBC) and Elko County School District. He said the ability to have professional development provide academic credit, books, supplies, stipends, and master teachers is desirable. He stated the legislation recognizes the university’s content expertise in the professorate and also recognizes the fact that expertise in the teaching methods which expert teachers can provide is rare.

Dr. Dickens affirmed that the Geographical Alliance in Nevada (GAIN) model works. He said there are 850 GAIN teachers, all of whom are now on-site trainers for their colleagues. He stated the GAIN produces the content-capable teacher, raises teacher expectations, and gives teachers confidence that they are content-capable, and provides the information needed to be successful in the classroom. Dr.  Dickens requested the committee proceed with authorization to establish the advisory committee, even if there is difficulty in appropriating the funding, and allow for the option to seek nonstate funding. He said that in addition, a letter of intent permitting the governing board to accept an operating budget to implement the terms of the legislation would be in order.

Dr. Dickens stressed S.B. 60 provides tremendous benefits to teachers and ultimately to students, raises and meets expectations, recognizes the university’s role in education reform, and, most importantly, empowers the classroom teachers.

Senator Raggio asked for clarification on the suggested letter of intent. Dr.  Dickens replied the letter of intent would be to clarify the point that the governing board has a budgetary role and, as a particular implementation model and a budget are established, to pursue the terms of S.B. 60. The governing board would have approval authority.

William Sparkman, Dean, College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno, testified in support of S.B. 60 and elaborated on the responsibility of the College of Education’s role in teacher preparedness. He said it is gratifying to be part of a state that has taken strong action to support education, and the College of Education wants to be part of the process.

Dr. Sparkman stated the academic standards that have been adopted have "raised the bar" in education and it is now time to provide appropriate education and training opportunities so teachers and administrators can help students be successful, in terms of the students’ learning. He called attention to the history of collaboration in academic disciplines with Washoe County and other school districts. He stated he has told faculty that the future of the college is tied directly to the success of public schools and he takes that responsibility seriously. He maintained that through the PDCs this responsibility can be realized.

Dr. Sparkman said teacher education is a university-wide responsibility and one shared with school districts and increasingly with community colleges. He pointed out the PDCs provide a coordinated, focused, and sustained response to the pressing need to equip teachers and administrators with a mix of content knowledge, education pedagogy, and teaching skills and activities necessary to address the new academics and performance standards. He stated the GAIN model is one that brings to bear the academic prowess of those in the College of Arts and Sciences, the pedagogy skills of those in the College of Education, and the rich repertoire of skills that master teachers bring to the process.

Dr. Sparkman said the college is actively involved in ensuring that programs and courses reflect the standards and that preservice teachers can address those new standards. He stated that as a result of discussion with the Washoe County School District and others in the university, support for the PDCs was sought and has been received from the board of directors of the Greater Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce. He said the Forum for the Common Agenda that has been adopted in Washoe County clearly focuses on professional development for teachers and administrators as a key part of school reform. He strongly supported the creation of the PDC and pledged support within the College of Education to work in collaboration with colleagues to "pursue the important work that must be done in Nevada."

Senator Raggio asked what the College of Education is doing, in addition to supporting the PDCs, for students currently in the teaching program to develop the students’ capability to teach to the higher standards. He recalled previous notice was given to the College of Education that the college should be aware of the higher standards and should be preparing future teachers. Dr. Sparkman answered the College of Education has been very active since the standards were first adopted. He said that in October 1999, in collaboration with Washoe County School District, the college sponsored a statewide conference that brought together teacher educators, colleagues in the academic disciplines, and public school faculty and administrators to begin discussing the academic standards and mutual shared responsibility.

Dr. Sparkman stated that following the conference, faculty from the College of Education were involved in a joint meeting in Las Vegas where the first steps were taken to analyze programs and content. He said that following the meetings, faculty were directed to begin looking at UNR’s programs and courses to ensure the standards were being addressed. Matrixes have been developed for the various courses indicating the standards and showing courses that will address the standards. Dr. Sparkman called attention to the development of a university-wide teacher education council. He said this council will enlarge the university’s responsibility and bring together a variety of individuals to ensure the standards are being addressed across the curriculum.

Dr. Sparkman stressed faculty will be engaged in a strong assessment to ensure the College of Education is dealing with the new standards. He maintained the college has taken a very proactive stance. Senator Raggio expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the College of Education.

Senator Jacobsen commented it does not seem right to have to retrain teachers who have completed education programs. Dr. Sparkman acknowledged the senator’s concerns. He stressed that there is no doubt the education of educators must be improved at all levels. He said educators who have been in the field for many years entered the field when there was not "a press" towards the new, higher academic standards. He stated the PDCs would aim toward this group to ensure that existing teachers are "brought up to speed" on a very strong content and in strong and appropriate pedagogical skills, and to involve master teachers in the training.

William N. Cathey, Associate Vice President, Instruction and Undergraduate Programs, Academic Affairs, University of Nevada, Reno, stated the university welcomes the attention to academic standards. He said this helps the university recognize its responsibilities with respect to these standards and, most importantly, helps to focus resources on the highest priorities of K-12 to improve the educational system K-16.

Dr. Cathey commented on the collaboration between the university and the school districts on the design of the PDCs and supporting these centers as proposed in S.B. 60. He said the PDC concept has been discussed with department chairpersons in the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Education. He stated that representatives from each of the disciplines within the university and individuals from the College of Education will be meeting next week to work out more of the details associated with the PDCs. Dr. Cathey commented on the increased communication between university faculty and teachers in the school district. He pointed out that knowing the teachers personally improves the overall quality of the system in a very intangible but real way. He said the PDCs foster that kind of connection and collaboration.

Dr. Cathey pointed out that some of the courses taken by preservice teachers do not cover all the content contained in the K-12 academic standards. He said several days were spent reviewing university courses in detail and identifying the areas where teachers need a slightly different course at the university level to enable them to have the content associated with the standards. He emphasized this has been good for higher education as well as for K-12.

Dr. Cathey stated that at the university level, exploration of a standards-based approach to curriculum is being considered. He said what works well for K-12 oftentimes works well for higher education. He strongly supported S.B. 60 and the approach identified with the bill. He said it is a very effective way to use the university’s expertise and is consistent with the purposes of a land-grant institution and an institution with a college of education. He stated S.B. 60 provides a reasonably efficient and effective way to provide professional development.

Dr. Cathey added that having the council with K-12 has enabled the university to move quickly and very effectively in responding to the needs exhibited in the bill. He said there is a much more coordinated approach toward education now than there has been in the past and a greater connection between higher education and K-12. He stressed that teacher performance will be greatly improved.

James Hager, Superintendent, Washoe County School District, spoke in support of S.B. 60. He said his past experience in working with higher education has not been a good one, but, in this case he believes there is a very strong collaboration and cooperation being exhibited. He stated it seems to be a "co-equal" venture and a highly effective, efficient way to look at ways to use content specialists but also ways to use teachers and administrators to be trainers of trainers. He stressed the concept is a very critical one. He said he looks on this training as a concept, not a "location." Dr. Hager commended the Legislature for looking at the issue of professional development. He said that at a recently concluded governors’ conference, the number one concern cited was the quality and reform of education in the United States. He added that the two key "ingredients" centered on the lack of literacy in schools and the quality of teaching as it relates to the new standards and expectations.

Dr. Hager expressed the belief that S.B. 60 addresses these issues locally, and between the university and the school district an exemplary program can be developed to serve not only Washoe County and supporting counties, but the entire state.

Senator Raggio commended Dr. Hager and the Washoe County School District for the extra effort put forth in achieving even higher standards than those that have been mandated. He added the extended effort in professional development to meet the standards is impressive and should serve as a model for other districts. He indicated the Legislature, along with the State Department of Education, will be looking to the superintendents and administrators of the various school districts during this biennium for better methods of achieving professional development. Senator Raggio pointed out some portions of school days may need to be utilized for the purpose of professional development.

Dr. Hager emphasized he believes other superintendents stand ready to support and assist in any way they can.

Kendyl Depoali, Curriculum Coordinator, Washoe County School District, testified in support of S.B. 60. She stated she has more than 20 years’ experience as a classroom teacher in grades 6-12 in every content area with the exception of physical education. She said a teacher needs clear direction on what is required to be taught, and to improve the quality of what is taught in the classroom, more knowledge of the subject matter is required. She pointed out teaching assignments and grade levels change, and the quality and quantity of information teachers are asked to teach grows enormously over 20 years. She stated that is why the PDCs can be important in improving the quality of teacher education. She said assessment will provide the feedback teachers need on how they are performing their job.

Ms. Depoali stressed that GAIN is a powerful model and was selected by National Geographic, after extensive research, because this model is results-driven. She urged support of the PDCs.

Marcia R. Bandera, Superintendent, Elko County School District, spoke on behalf of the superintendents in Humboldt, Lander, Eureka, Lander, White Pine and Elko County School Districts (Exhibit D). She stated all of the superintendents are in support of S.B. 60. She pointed out there has been a partnership between the Elko County School District and Great Basin College (GBC) since 1995 and all of the elements of this legislation suit the governance structure and partnership already existing in northeastern Nevada. She said resources for technology have been shared and leveraged to make the most of the available funds.

Ms. Bandera stated the model used includes distance learning, follow-up and mentoring and a mixture of methods to deliver the instruction to teachers. She said approximately $l.2 million is available to service northeastern Nevada. She pointed out adjustments can be made depending on funding and the number of teachers and administrators to be served over a 2-year period.

Nancy Remington, English Instructor, Great Basin College, spoke in support of S.B. 60. She provided a diagram of the professional development training center partnership in Elko County (Exhibit E). She said she is most familiar with the instruction and planning portion of the training. She pointed out some models are already in place that are standards-based, results-driven, and job-embedded. She stated funding for the bill would formalize and extend what is already in place.

Senator Raggio asked how the mentoring program works. Ms. Remington answered some master teachers have been selected. Senator Raggio inquired how these teachers are identified. Ms. Remington explained they are identified through self-identification and through participation in workshops and extended summer activities that demonstrate the abilities of the teachers. She mentioned that eight of the teachers would be presenting a workshop for teachers on the upcoming weekend.

Ms. Remington remarked on the planning of the proposed Teacher Education Program at GBC and the active work with school districts in the region to have teachers be a part of that program.

Senator Raggio asked whether training from teachers is favorably received. Ms. Remington responded yes.

Senator Neal said specific content areas are referred to in the bill. He asked who determines what areas are included in the PDCs. Ms. Bandera replied that a curriculum-mapping project currently under way in the school district examines the content and performance standards being adopted and put in place by the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools. She stated this will allow the district to identify what is in the curriculum and what needs to be added. She said material needing to be added to the curriculum will determine the course content to be delivered through the regional PDCs, so the requirements and expectations at the state level can be met.

Senator Neal inquired whether each school district will make the determination of what needs to be taught. Ms. Bandera answered each district would have to see where it is lacking and "fill in the gap." She said the final result is that each district needs to reach the standards that have been set.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether it is possible to hold training at the community college rather than set up another level of regional centers. Ms. Bandera said the Elko County School District is requesting that the district’s model, which matches the one in S.B. 60, be used. It utilizes GBC and the five rural school districts to provide the training. Ms. Bandera stressed a new level is not being established and noted the governance structure has been in place since 1995 to provide technology training for teachers.

Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, State Department of Education, testified in support of S B. 60 (Exhibit F). He said the bill is very similar to a BDR submitted by the State Board of Education to establish six PDCs. He explained the BDR provided for up to three teacher leaders and administrators from each school in the state to be trained using the "train the trainers" model. The plan will train approximately 1,580 educational personnel during the fall of 1999.

Dr. Rheault explained that after the leaders received training they would return to their individual schools to provide the same training to all of the teachers at the school. He said the proposed PDCs were estimated to cost approximately $860,000 a year. An additional amount of $10,350,000 a year would be needed to add 2 days to teachers’ contracts.

Dr. Rheault stressed that professional development must be focused strictly on implementing the new standards and having teachers be able to assess the achievement of students. He said 72 percent of teachers hired last year were from out of state, so everyone has to have the same message and use the same standards when they are teaching. He stated all teachers have to receive training as quickly as possible and there must be a good evaluation component, such as the one contained in S.B. 60.

Dr. Rheault said the State Department of Education is requesting consideration of one amendment to S.B. 60 in subsection 8, section 1. He said the department would like to have a representative on the governing body. He explained that department representation would provide links to the subject area consultants in math, English, and science and knowledge of what kind of federal funds might be available to support the PDCs.

Pendery A. Clark, Superintendent, Douglas County School District, spoke in support of S.B. 60. She said it has been clear in meetings over the past several years that if standards implementation in the state of Nevada were to be successful, professional development would have to occur and there would need to be opportunities for remediation for students having difficulty meeting the standards.

Ms. Clark said there is a strong recognition of the importance of professional development in terms of supporting the entire effort and ensuring it is successful. She urged the committee to consider the model presented as a potentially successful model for implementing professional development.

Ms. Clark explained the proposed model gives the rural counties access to quality professional development. She said these counties have a continuous struggle in finding individuals and resources to provide the training teachers need. She pointed out the model is based on strong research which shows the most successful way to train teachers is to have teachers do the training. She stated the GAIN model would enable local control and decision-making by having each district identify where the most help is needed in implementing standards without infringing on valuable instructional time. Ms. Clark said the reason this is such an excellent bill is that it provides a fiscally responsible and efficient model.

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, gave testimony in support of S.B. 60 (Exhibit G). She stated that comprehensive, high-quality, and continuous professional development is essential to the improvement of student learning and achievement. She said the bill provides the structure and resources needed for the training of teachers in the standards adopted by the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools and includes the flexibility needed to address local school district needs. Ms. Tittle maintained the professional development model must include ongoing sessions that are conducted over time.

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated NSEA strongly supports professional development. He said, however, there is concern that S.B. 60 is not the proper vehicle for professional development, given the current budget constraints. He offered an alternative shown in Exhibit H. He said association members have reported there have been few opportunities for sustained professional development with a focus on student learning and content and opportunities for staff collaboration and mentoring.

Mr. Bellister stated some districts have flexibility to provide professional development opportunities within the instructional year by redesigning some of the school days. He pointed out many teachers have additional days in their contracts beyond the instructional year.

Leslie Fritz, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, testified professional development and effective opportunities for teachers are a critical component of education reform in Nevada. She said that given the current financial status in Nevada and the essential need to provide professional development, NSEA has a plan that is alternative to what is proposed in S.B. 60.

Ms. Fritz stated NSEA is working on developing this plan and appreciates the need to work with all of the "players" in education to agree on details of the plan. She explained that what NSEA is proposing would be called the Nevada State Standards Professional Development Project and it would emphasize professional development for teachers that would allow the implementation of new state standards. She pointed out the training would be provided in a manner that is consistent statewide. She said a concern with the regional centers is that several models to implement the standards might be employed. She stated consistency is critical, particularly at this stage of the plan.

Ms. Fritz said this project would be administered by a variety of groups and individuals as listed on page 4 of Exhibit H. She explained the State Department of Education would select or design a professional development program that would provide support to teachers in the implementation of the new state standards. An individual or team would then be hired or appointed to design a training program for teachers who would be responsible for providing professional development to teachers on-site at all Nevada schools.

Ms. Fritz explained how a cadre of trainers would be formed and how the training sessions would be structured as shown on page 4 of Exhibit H. She said that during the 2000-01 school year, every Nevada school would conduct at least 4 half-day sessions during which they would implement their respective school professional development plans. The primary objective for the plans is the ongoing professional development of teachers in the implementation of new state standards. Plans will include opportunities for teachers to meet as whole faculties or in content-specific or grade-level groups to discuss the implementation of the new state standards and to participate in ongoing professional development activities specific to school and teacher needs.

Ms. Fritz stated NSEA’s concern is that professional development be provided in the most cost-effective way possible, but also in the way that works best. She said she explained the NSEA plan to Dennis Sparks, Executive Director, National Staff Development Council, and he said that the further away professional development opportunities get from teachers, the less likely they are to truly be effective. She stated the concern with the "train-the-trainer" model is that the professional development might not impact every teacher at every school. Ms. Fritz stressed that professional development must be sustained, teacher-driven and a part of the regular ongoing work routine so teachers learn that part of the regular workday is getting together with other teachers and talking about what is happening with the implementation of the new standards.

Senator Raggio inquired whether the NSEA proposal would have the training at each school and each school would set aside at least 4 half-day sessions for training. Ms. Fritz answered yes. Senator Raggio asked whether the half-day sessions would be days already utilized for other purposes. Ms. Fritz responded the short days teachers have could be utilized to a greater extent than now occurs. She said this plan is not suggesting additional days be added to teacher contracts. She stated that between utilizing some short days in session and taking better advantage of the days already added onto the 180 days in most district contracts, the training can be done without the addition of days.

Senator Raggio asked whether this plan would have any additional cost. Ms. Fritz replied the cost of implementing this plan needs to be worked out. Senator Raggio said his understanding is that a cadre of 100 teachers would be trained and would go to each school to conduct training for teachers. He asked whether there would be a disadvantage to having 100 or more different programs of teacher development, when in fact if the PDCs were established there would be more likelihood of having a consistent development program that would be more effective.

Ms. Fritz said the 100 trainers would be trained in a single model. Senator Raggio asked where individuals would be trained. Ms. Fritz answered they would be trained by an entity or person hired or appointed by the State Department of Education. She pointed out one of the expenses would be bringing the trainers and teachers together for the training. Senator Raggio inquired what the difference is between the NSEA model and the one proposed in the bill. Ms. Fritz explained the difference is there is a potential that each of the four regional centers would adopt a different model for implementing standards. Senator Raggio pointed out the NSEA model would have more than 100 trainers. Ms. Fritz reiterated all of the 100 trainers would receive training in one model and then take that one model to every school in the state.

Ms. Fritz stated it is important that trainers receive training and support in helping schools develop an individual school professional development plan. She said the cadre members would not only be trainers but professional development facilitators going to the individual schools.

Senator Raggio suggested NSEA develop the plan, determine the cost, and submit the information to the Senate Committee on Finance as soon as possible.

Elaine Lancaster, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, gave testimony in support of S.B. 60. She stated she has had more than 30 years in public education. She indicated that as she travels the state the number one concern of teachers is professional development. She stressed teachers want to do the best they can in the classroom and feel that professional development is the area in which they need the most help.

Ms. Lancaster pointed out that by bringing a cadre of trainers into a school, if the training is to be done during the school day, the problem of hiring substitute teachers is eliminated, She said the NSEA plan allows teachers to remain at the site, meet classes in the morning, and have release time in the afternoon to do the kind of planning needed at the individual schools. She maintained this plan is the best way to provide the necessary professional development.

Senator Jacobsen asked what is currently being done on teacher institute days. Ms. Lancaster answered she can only speak for Washoe County where she taught. She said there was one in-service day a year that was generally used for a countywide program in the morning, with total school faculties working on plans within the individual schools in the afternoon. She added there are days within the contract year that can be used for professional development.

Senator Raggio asked whether NSEA is impressed with Douglas and Elko Counties’ success with professional development, which seems to be modeling what is proposed in S.B. 60. Ms. Fritz responded that Winnemucca had its own professional development center when she taught there. She said what made the center work was that she could go to the center and once she finished, the trainers came to her classroom and watched while she taught a lesson that was modeled at the PDC; then the trainers gave her feedback. She stated this was done at least twice. Ms. Fritz noted she went back to the center each of the following 2 years for continuing classes.

Ms. Fritz stated the difference between her experience and what she thought was now being proposed is that she was able to go to the center and the trainers came to her classroom. She said the concern is that not every teacher will be directly exposed to the benefits of the regional centers. She pointed out this is a matter of logistics due to the great distances to be traveled. She said individuals will take advantage of the opportunities offered in different ways. She stressed individuals seeking out courses will leave the district to take the courses and invite master teachers into the classroom. She said others are more used to going away in the summers and taking a college class or workshop to obtain professional development on their own.

Ms. Fritz pointed out there needs to be a shift away from individual development pursuits and every teacher must be involved in the same model of professional development.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether local school boards or superintendents evaluate teachers. Mr. Bellister replied school districts are required by law to evaluate teachers annually.

Senator Neal noted the bill speaks of "geographic alliance in Nevada," but he did not see it mentioned in the NSEA proposal. Ms. Fritz replied GAIN has been a very effective model and has gained a great deal of support in the state. She said NSEA has no problem with the Nevada State Department of Education, in consultation with various education "players," giving consideration to adopting the GAIN. She stressed the need to take advantage of the resources already in place rather than start over.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, testified in support of S.B. 70. She stated a major concern with legislation in the previous legislative session was the inclusion of teacher attendance information as part of the descriptor for labeling schools as "inadequate" or other categories. She said experience showed some problems were being caused in the school districts with a lot of pressure being applied against teachers not to use leave, which by contract is a teacher’s right. She pointed out that in S.B. 70 the language which deals with teacher attendance as a part of the criteria to label schools is being eliminated and NSEA supports that deletion. Ms. Cahill said the record of attendance will not be totally ignored. She stated that for those concerned about teacher attendance, districts will still be reporting attendance levels. Ms. Cahill said NSEA also supports the creation of an "exemplary performance" category for a school and especially appreciates the change in designation from "inadequate" to "needs improvement." She said it was very distasteful to teachers who taught in schools labeled "inadequate" and it caused low morale.

Ms. Cahill stated NSEA supports the new standards and the testing programs that are taking place, but the concern of members is that as student test scores are recorded, transiency levels are not being given consideration. She pointed out there may be students whose scores on tests are being included who have not been enrolled at the school for more than a matter of weeks. She said that when test scores are reported for the purposes of labeling schools, the scores which should be considered are those of students who have been in the school for a sufficient length of time.

Barbara L. McLaury, Principal, Bernice Mathews Elementary School, told the committee S.B. 70 would be very beneficial (Exhibit I). She said the school had been initially designated as one in need of improvement and testing scores this fall showed the school had moved into the adequate category; however, the school would qualify for the additional remedial funding under the bill.

Dr. McLaury pointed out it takes time for schools to make significant change and it is critical for schools to have multiple resources available to meet the needs of the diverse populations. She said she was pleased with the accountability factor.

Dr. McLaury was hopeful there would be support for the entire bill. She said her school has a very diverse population. She testified that 75 percent of the children are Hispanic and 70 percent of those students take English as a Second Language (ESL) classes; 12 percent are African Americans; 2 percent, Native American; 9 percent, Asian-Pacific Islander; and 32 percent, Anglo.

Dr. McLaury pointed out staff development time is provided throughout the week because of the time school is in session. She noted school begins earlier on Fridays so teachers have the afternoons available for staff development. She stated that this month faculty has worked on ESL strategies in the classroom, and has also examined the impact of poverty on the instructional process within the classroom. Dr. McLaury said the school is negotiating for an IBM writing-to-read laboratory and the school was awarded funding from the federal government which will provide an additional computer-driven program for the children.

Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified in support of S.B. 70. He suggested that amendments to the bill would improve the system and clarify some of the procedures involved (Exhibit J).

Mr. Etchemendy said that on page 5, line 7 of the bill, is a requirement to report the transiency rate within the district. He pointed out that when school districts rezone, a large number of pupils move from one school to another. He said this has caused some problems in interpretation, and language should be added to the bill indicating if a pupil is transferred to another school as a result of zoning, that student is not a transient.

Mr. Etchemendy called attention to page 5, line 20 of the bill. He said the suggested amendment addresses some of the concerns expressed at each of the four regional workshops. He stated it would be helpful to add this language to the bill:

Mr. Etchemendy called attention to a suggested amendment on page 12 of S.B. 70. He said there would be a panel established to oversee the improvement of a school that is not achieving. He stated the panel would be made up of nine members. He recommended the number of panel members be increased to 11. He said that currently there is a requirement for three educators to be on the nine-member panel and this proposal would be to add an additional two educators to the panel. They would have specific identification. One would be an administrator from a different school district than the school needing improvement and one would be a teacher who provides instruction in a classroom at the school which is the subject of the evaluation. He maintained this would be helpful and would provide valuable input and assistance to the panel.

Scott Meihack, Principal, E. C. Best Elementary School, Fallon, Nevada, gave testimony in support of S.B. 70. He stated his school has been a recipient of funds for schools being designated as inadequate. He provided the committee with information on a reading program at the school (Exhibit K). The report reflects information from the inception of the program in November 1998. Mr. Meihack stated the Reading Renaissance Program was adopted as a recommended remediation program. He spoke about the success of the program as indicated by the figures shown on page 2 of Exhibit K. He explained that after a student reads a book, he or she goes to a computer to take a test on the book and receive the test score.

Mr. Meihack stated that current TerraNova test scores have taken the school off the needs-to-improve list. He called attention to the circulation report from the library with figures on the number of books checked out since the inception of the reading program shown on page 1 of Exhibit K. He stated that since the beginning of the school year, 28,000 books have been checked in and out of the library. He stressed that since the inception of the program the number of books checked out has doubled. Mr. Meihack stated that two students in the first grade have read more than 100 books each.

Charles Steven Williams, Assistant Director, Plant Facility, Washoe County School District, commented it would seem that this bill and S.B. 169 could come together rather than go forward individually.

Mr. Williams remarked the Washoe County School District Director of Testing, Dotty Merrill, wanted to assure that students who are currently unable to pass a language assessment, and also students who are in some other way impaired, would not be counted in the 90 percent testing level referred to in S.B. 70. He said there are a number of schools with a high percentage of students whose first language is not English as well as schools which are centers for special education students.

Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, pointed out S.B. 169 also makes certain revisions to the accountability law. She stated that her comments would bring the two bills into alignment. She said the current timelines for reporting would be changed under the accountability law. She called attention to page 6, section 6 of S.B. 70. Ms. Peterson said the reporting date for submission of accountability reporting to the Governor, the State Board of Education, the Senate Committee on Finance, and the Legislative Counsel Bureau has been recommended in S.B. 169 to be March 31. She stated this date would coincide with the date the residents of the district receive the accountability reports.

Ms. Peterson said the elements of the report are the same whether the report is submitted to the residents or to state entities. She maintained the March 31 date is a reasonable date for submission of the reports to all entities.

Ms. Peterson said section 14 on page 11 of the bill requires the department to prepare a plan for schools to increase the number of pupils taking the required examinations. She maintained a more responsible agent for making the plan would be the school districts. She said the districts know the schools better and could better answer why there may be a problem with not having enough students tested. She said the State Department of Education would be willing to assist with the plan, but the districts should be the parties designated as responsible for this effort.

Ms. Peterson called attention to page 12, section 16, of the bill. She said the bill would amend the date to establish a panel to supervise the academic probation of certain schools from January 15 to April 10. She said S.B. 169 recommends the date be changed from January 15 to August 1. She pointed out the August date would allow the waiver process to precede the establishment of a panel for a school on academic probation.

Ms. Peterson said page 13, section 16, subsection 5 amends the date for the State Department of Education to grant a waiver to schools on academic probation from February 15 to May 1. She stated the recommendation in S.B. 169 is that the date be changed from February 15 to June 1 to allow the State Department of Education to receive waiver requests by May 1 and process the request by June 1.

Ms. Peterson pointed out that schools which receive funding for remedial programs in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 should also be funded in FY 2000 to continue the remedial efforts already occurring in the schools.

Patricia Sherbondy, Dean of Students, Agnes Risley Elementary School, Sparks, Nevada, testified on the "remarkable" results at the school brought about by efforts of the entire faculty (Exhibit L). She said Agnes Risley is now in its fourth year of a systematic restructuring of its literacy program using the best practices in good teaching and literacy instruction for grades K-6. She stated the staff at the school made a commitment to full implementation of the Reading Recovery program. She pointed out that Agnes Risley is no longer considered an inadequate school.

Ms. Sherbondy emphasized the need to continue funding to schools that have succeeded in making the progress mandated 2 years ago to ensure the continued growth in student achievement that has been realized this year.

Senator Raggio asked about the importance of the reading program to the higher achievement of the school. Ms. Sherbondy said she sees the Reading Recovery program as the "safety net" for the school. The schoolwide literacy program provides instruction that is in articulation with the same effective practice in the classroom.

Jackie Manley, Teacher, Libby Booth Elementary School, Reno, Nevada, testified in support of S.B. 70. She said the school had been designated as inadequate. She said the Success for All program, which is a comprehensive school reform model, was adopted (Exhibit M). She stated that at this time the program focuses on literacy. She pointed out that last year 65.2 percent of students scored in the lowest percentile and this year 40 percent are in that category. She stressed this is a wonderful gain considering that besides implementing the program the school started multitrack year-round classes.

Dr. Manley expressed gratitude for funding given the school in the past and advocated the continuation of funding so the school can maintain the services that have been started. She said there will be no need to continue the funding forever because most students will come up through the program. She stated there is a transiency rate of approximately 60 percent, but the majority of those students would still be served by federal funds.

Kristine K. Jensen, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, supported S.B. 70. She referenced page 8, line 37 and page 9, lines 22 and 33. She stated she is deeply troubled by the deletion regarding teacher attendance. She said it should be clarified in S.B. 169 that if the staff development or training cannot be done at times other than when the children are in school, the teacher would be considered to be in attendance. She asserted that teachers should not be counted present if they are absent due to illness. Ms. Jensen pointed out that students are not counted present when they are ill and can lose credit if there are significant absences even though the absences are excused.

Ms. Jensen maintained that children would be held to one standard and teachers to another. She stressed this would be the epitome of hypocrisy. She stated that children do not have a negotiated contract to allow for sick days and personal leave. She said it is critical for teachers to be present in the classroom. Ms. Jensen cited an instance wherein a teacher was on leave for 6-8 weeks and the school was unable to find a replacement to teach the Japanese language class, so the children went without instruction for almost 2 months. She pointed out this situation can affect test scores.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 70 and opened the hearing on S.B. 107.

Paul J. Iverson, Administrator, Division of Agriculture, Department of Business and Industry, mentioned that if this bill is passed and the appropriation approved, the funding would go to budget 4540, Plant Industry. He said the analyst position would be paid from that budget and the supervisor would be John O’Brien in Plant Industry. He stated the analyst would work for the first year and part of the second year with Dr. Young at the University of Nevada, Reno, at the research facility studying biological controls. He said the fiscal impact would be primarily salary costs and an additional amount for in-state travel and operating costs.

Senator Raggio asked whether an individual with the necessary qualifications can be employed for the salary indicated. Mr. Iverson responded that if the position is filled in October, the first year will be covered and the division will have to make it work. Senator Raggio inquired whether anyone was currently performing the functions of the job. Mr. Iverson said there are no funds to be used for noxious weed control. The division does have the regulatory responsibility and some individuals perform noxious weed work, "but primarily those individuals are performing the job as they can," he said.

Senator Raggio pointed out the requested budget includes two new agriculturists and asked whether one of those individuals could perform the functions of the analyst. Mr. Iverson answered that with the things needing to be done with nurseries and pest control operators, it was doubtful one of the agriculturists could be dedicated to other functions. Senator Raggio voiced doubt there would be funding available for the position and asked whether there is an alternative that could serve in the interim. Mr. Iverson said the only alternative would be to continue to take individuals with other responsibilities and have them dedicate time to controlling noxious weeds. He stressed that the program must be continued and the division will do what has to be done.

Robert E. Wilson, Extension Educator, Nevada Cooperative Extension, White Pine County, University of Nevada, Reno, provided testimony on the necessity for the analyst position (Exhibit N). He explained that invasive weed species are plant species that have been introduced, without controls, from other continents. He said these weeds can invade, establish, and dominate and a few are highly competitive and self-invasive. He stressed the weeds are a threat to Nevada’s rangelands, waterways, agriculture, and economy. He said the problems are not insurmountable, but given a relatively short period of time, they will be. He stated this would be inevitable if steps are not taken to stop their introduction and spread.

Mr. Wilson testified many states have had to spend multimillions of dollars to try to keep the weeds in check. He pointed out Nevada is not at that point, but if the state continues to let the weeds expand at the rate they are starting to expand, the state will be spending substantial dollars on this problem.

Senator Raggio inquired about the types of weeds. Mr. Wilson responded the kinds of weeds are shown in Exhibit N. He said the weeds are not necessarily harmful to cattle but are mostly plants that can crowd out whatever is on the land now. He stated there are about 30 different species of plants that cause concern in Nevada. Mr. Wilson noted that in Nevada, citizens’ groups have been used to work on the problem. He said some control has been established in one area, but the one area difficult to address with citizen groups is research, and the university is looking to the state to help in this area.

Sherman R. Swanson, President, Nevada Weed Management Association, mentioned this association is a coalition effort among environmental, wildlife, and agricultural interests as well as people representing local and state and federal agencies. He said the association is very concerned about the invasive weed issues. He stated these weeds need to be differentiated from the common ordinary weeds. He stressed these plants can control the way Nevada’s land works and the way the land can be used in the future.

Dr. Swanson emphasized the association strongly supports the bill. He said this issue will exist forever and it is a question of "pay now or pay later." He stated the opportunity is here to "get ahead of" the issue, at least in regard to some of the weeds. He said some other weeds will be here in substantial numbers and that is where biological control is particularly important. He maintained the state has not done very much work on this issue, but this is clearly the time to manage some of these weeds through biological control. Dr. Swanson pointed out that the opportunity to work with a research scientist the caliber of Dr. Young is an opportunity to be taken advantage of.

Senator Neal asked why the university has not taken over this function since it deals with research. Dr. Swanson responded the new dean at the College of Agriculture is very interested in this issue. The dean has talked with people in rural Nevada and the number one interest of these individuals is rangelands. Dr. Swanson said the weeds issue is prominent in the rangelands issue. He stated the concern exhibited is largely due to the educational process the Nevada Weed Management Association has been involved in.

Dr. Swanson said the dean would like to have increased attention devoted to the area of weed control and an initiative to that effect may come before the Senate sometime this spring. He stated that in the meantime the dean plans to reallocate some of the existing scientists’ time to the issue of weed control. He pointed out that through the years some scientists’ time has been devoted to the issue, but because of the magnitude of the problem, it has not been enough.

Dean A. Rhoads, Senator, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, testified the Legislative Committee on Public Lands held nine meetings throughout the state and at every meeting the two issues most addressed were the wild horse problem and the noxious weed problem. He stated that in some of the western states there are thousands of acres with so many weeds the land is no longer of any value and owners have stopped paying taxes. The situation in Nevada is not as bad as in other western states but it is important to control the weeds. Senator Rhoads pointed out information from hearings indicated federal and state agencies, cities, counties, and private property owners are "getting on top of" the weed control. However, he said, a position such as the Weed Analyst position is needed to document what needs to be done.

Doug Busselman, Lobbyist, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in support of the bill. He stated that as society moves forward, public concern over the use of chemicals for the control of noxious weeds and other kinds of pests is becoming more prevalent. He said S.B. 107 is a visionary step designed to look at what needs to be done to develop the tools in Nevada, through biological controls, to address the long-term concerns about the weeds.

Mr. Busselman stated chemicals cannot be used to kill the weeds, so other methods must be found to address the concerns. He said biological methods are specialized control agents that need to be tested, adapted and adopted for Nevada’s use. Senator Raggio asked whether any spraying for weeds is allowed. Mr. Busselman answered it depends on the situation. He said that in many areas close to water or where there is an endangered species of some sort there are severe limitations on control of noxious weeds. He stated the biological methods being developed through this type of a program are geared toward the ability to fill a niche that cannot be addressed otherwise.

Senator Raggio noted the committee is aware of the need for the program, but the question is whether or not the funding will be available.

Joseph C. Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, indicated support for S.B. 107.

John M. O’Brien, Agricultural Programs Coordinator, Bureau of Plant Industry, Agriculture Division, Department of Business and Industry, provided the committee with a handout on the weed control program (Exhibit O).

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 107 and opened the hearing on S.B. 111.

James T. Spencer, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Government Affairs Section, Office of the Attorney General, spoke in favor of the bill. He stated that prior to 1985 a state agency could purchase retirement credit for an employee. He said several instances came to light where a person who was going to retire had the agency purchase retirement credit on his or her behalf. He pointed out that in 1985 the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), jointly with the state budget director, came forward with a bill that was intended to place constraints on the ability of agencies to purchase retirement credit. Mr. Spencer stated that bill resulted in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 286.3007, which is the subject of today’s proposed amendment. He said this statute required written agreement with an employee prior to the employee’s hire and approval of the agreement by the State Board of Examiners (BOE). He added that a retention component required that the employee be continuously employed with the hiring agency before the retirement credit would be purchased.

Mr. Spencer pointed out it seemed the statute was very clear until 1995 when the State Dairy Commission came to the BOE with a proposed contract, under the statute, to purchase retirement credit for the executive director. He stated the executive director had been continuously employed by the commission for a period of more than 10 years. He said he advised the BOE to deny the contract, which the board did. He told the committee that 2 years later the commission came back with the same contract claiming the dairy commission’s private legal counsel advised the contract was lawful and the BOE could approve the contract. Mr. Spencer reiterated he recommended again that the BOE deny the contract.

Mr. Spencer noted the executive director retired and sued the State of Nevada on the theory that he was advised by legal counsel and had justifiably relied on that advice. He stated this case went through summary judgment, which was denied, but a jury, on a vote of 4 to 2, found in favor of the executive director and awarded more than $70,000.

Mr. Spencer said this proposal will clarify what the "hang-up" was in regard to private legal counsel’s interpretation. He stated the request is to change the language "was employed" to "before hiring" to clarify that purchase of retirement credit only applies as a recruitment device and not as a device to give golden parachutes to continuing employees. He maintained this bill is an attempt to partially "close the loophole" in the existing statute. Senator Raggio inquired whether this bill would take the statute from being mandatory to permissive. Mr. Spencer replied yes. Senator Raggio asked whether this bill would have broad application. Mr. Spencer answered the situation it addresses would occur rarely.

Senator Neal asked why the old language in the bill was not sufficient. Mr. Spencer  replied he was surprised the case went as far as a jury trial. He said the finding completely ignored the BOE’s function as a check and balance on these types of agreements. He stated that hopefully this bill would clarify the law enough that there will not be another case of this type.

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, SNEA, agreed with Mr. Spencer’s comments and said the association supports the bill.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 111 and opened the hearing on S.B. 193.

Senator Rawson stated a mass disaster identification team was set up in the last legislative session with an appropriation of $90,000 and this bill would continue the appropriation for one more session. He said it also allows the team to be activated by the chief of the Division of Emergency Management, so there would not have to be a presidential or gubernatorial declaration of a national state of emergency. He pointed out the bill would allow the director to request assistance for any jurisdiction needing help.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 193.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED S.B. 193 BE RECOMMENDED FOR DO PASS.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Patricia Hampton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: