The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:20 a.m., on Monday, April 26, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst

Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller

Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators

Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teacher Association

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

Dave Cook, Member, State Board of Education

Ann Gustin, Member, Elko County School Board of Trustees

Marcia R. Bandera, Superintendent, Elko County School District

Larry Otheim, Member, Elko County School Board of Trustees

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum

Jack Kenney, Lobbyist (representing himself)

Senator Raggio asked the committee to review Senate Bill (S.B.) 303 and Senate Bill 304.

Senator Raggio pointed out the bills had been heard previously and amendments had been discussed. He recapped Amendment No. 716 to S.B. 303. The amendment will allow for the return of $2,500,000 in principal to the trust fund after July 1, 2001, if the Clerk of the State Board of Examiners finds that sufficient money exists from the appropriate revenue sources to effect the repayment and with approval of the Interim Finance Committee (IFC).

Senator Raggio reviewed Amendment No. 717 to S.B. 304. He noted the amendment to the bill allows a similar return of $5 million of the principal amount of the trust fund after the upcoming biennium with the approval of IFC if sufficient state funds are available.

In order to accommodate the State Controller, Senator Raggio announced Assembly Bill (A.B.) 150 would be heard.

Kathy Augustine, State Controller, outlined the reasoning behind the request for the bill as included in her written statement (Exhibit C). She explained the elimination of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) payroll clearing account will simplify payment and accounting procedures. Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller, concurred with the remarks made by Ms. Augustine.

Senator Neal asked why the Assembly repealed the section which instructs the director to place the account in one or more banks. Mr. West responded the account has a zero balance and the section is not necessary.

Robert D. Chisel, Chief Accountant, Accounting Division, Nevada Department of Transportation, reported the department does not oppose the bill.

There being no further testimony, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 150 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 661.

Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), explained A.B. 661 will appropriate $1,359 from the Highway Fund because the department was not charged for the insurance premium for one individual prior to the close of Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 and the funds will be used to pay a stale claim.

John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, said A.B. 234 will repeal Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 362.173 which is the Permanent Net Proceeds Fund. He explained the fund was established in 1993 to deposit the first 5 percent of the state’s share of the net proceeds tax as a "rainy day fund." He said the fund could only be expended by an appropriation made by the Legislature when net proceed tax collections fell. He said that later the Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government (Stabilization Fund) was created and it has reached nearly $129 million.

Mr. Comeaux noted the Permanent Net Proceeds Fund is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was created. He said the $2.6 million in the fund will be transferred back into the General Fund upon passage of the bill.

Senator Neal commented he normally associates "net proceeds" with mining. He asked whether that was the fund being referred to. Mr. Comeaux replied it was.

Senator Neal recalled a bill was proposed to cancel the estimation clause and require payment after the fact. He wondered whether A.B. 234 will affect that legislation. Mr. Comeaux responded it will not have any effect on how the tax is imposed or collected.

There being no further testimony, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 234. He announced the committee would recess in order to proceed with the scheduled Interim Finance Committee meeting.

Upon resumption of the Senate Committee on Finance meeting, Senator Raggio invited Brian Krolicki, State Treasurer, to review a portion of his budget regarding the Allodial Title Trust.

OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER

State Treasurer – Budget Page ELECTED-79 (Volume 1)

Senator Rawson remembered the Allodial Title Trust program was approved in a previous session, but there was insufficient funding to contract for the actuarial services necessary to develop the regulations for the program. He said he has been contacted by 25 or 30 people who are waiting for allodial title, and one or two have been so anxious they have offered to pay for the actuarial costs. He explained a trust fund is established when an individual prepays property taxes and receives an allodial title. The property can no longer be taxed or attached for taxes because the taxes will be paid out of the trust fund.

Mr. Krolicki distributed copies of a program developed by his office with input from Senator Rawson (Exhibit D). He pointed out there is no similar program anywhere else in the United States, but his office has received many inquiries about it without benefit of any advertising. He credited John E. Adkins, Chief Deputy Treasurer, Office of the State Treasurer, with preparing the proposed budget.

Mr. Adkins said the Office of the State Treasurer, which is charged with administration of the Allodial Title Trust, proposed that the program be funded through an appropriation loan for a period of 4 years, from FY 2000 through FY 2003. He declared that will give the program the opportunity to mature and be fully implemented within the 4-year period. He stated if the program is not fully funded and the payback is not available by that time, the program should be disbanded.

Mr. Adkins said the office is seeking a General Fund appropriation loan of $357,000 for FY 1999-2000 which will be the sole source of revenue for that period. He said a Management Analyst, Grade 39 Step 1, and a Program Assistant, Grade 25 Step 1, will be required to administer the program at a cost of $89,768 for salaries and administrative overhead. He said the $7,000 out-of-state travel expense is estimated for travel to Washington, D.C. to obtain opinions regarding the tax ramifications of the program.

Mr. Adkins reported the in-state-travel expense will provide funding for a representative from the office to go to each county assessor to determine what impact the program will have on the assessor’s activities. He noted the approximately 35 to 40 percent of normal operating expenses will be attributed to contracts for actuarial, advertising, legal, and marketing services.

Senator Raggio wanted to know why it will cost so much to implement the program. He noted that over the biennium the total will be $817,000, with advertising services expensed at $150,000 and marketing and legal costs at $100,000 each. Mr. Adkins opined that in order to make the program self-sufficient it will require enough publicity to encourage adequate participation.

Senator Raggio asked whether the Office of the Attorney General could handle the legal contracts. Mr. Adkins responded the legal expenses will be paid both to the attorney general’s office and to outside legal sources. He said that because of the uniqueness of the program an outside attorney is necessary.

Senator Rawson commented the experience with the prepaid college fund was used as a basis for estimating marketing costs. He said this budget mirrors the college fund budget.

Senator Neal asked what advantage allodial title will have over regular ad valorem property taxes. Mr. Krolicki replied the Allodial Title Trust will provide the ability to prepay property taxes at one point in time. He said that frequently, upon a death, a family’s financial circumstances can change substantially. As an example, he said a widow left with a ranch would have a continuing property tax liability, and if she is unable to meet the taxes, the property can be taken away. He said the proposal will allow a family that still has financial viability to prepay the obligation so that the situation will not occur during her lifetime.

Senator Neal wondered how the amount to be prepaid can be established. Mr. Krolicki responded it will be the job of the actuary to figure out what the anticipated property liability will be on a particular parcel for that particular county, how the funds will be invested and perform, and what life expectancy can be calculated for the survivors.

Senator Rawson interjected that if everyone took out allodial title there would be a more stable tax base because there would be no defaults.

Senator Raggio commented that in the interest of time the budget would not be closed during the hearing. He asked whether Mr. Krolicki had anything else to discuss at the time. Mr. Krolicki did not.

Senator Raggio stated, "There are, with reference to Senate Bill 466, two basic questions today about education reform: where are we, and where do we go from here?" He noted 2 years ago the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 482 of the Sixty-ninth Session, the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA).

Senator Raggio’s comments are included as Exhibit E in which he describes the mission of S.B. 466 and the progress since passage of the NERA. He complimented the school districts for their endeavors in implementing accountability efforts. He stated the data has been very informative and helpful. He asserted initial findings indicate the approach has had a significant, positive effect upon student achievement in schools needing improvement which have declined from 23 last year to 8 this year.

Senator Raggio said S.B. 466 is a compilation of other measures before the Legislature and contains proposals and refinements from various sources to fine-tune the reform act passed last session. He distributed a booklet (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.) containing a summary of S.B. 466 and outlining five key areas that may help Nevada sustain its reform efforts. He stated those include provisions regarding governance, teacher quality, remediation, alignment of academic standards, and financial accountability of the system. He described the provisions of the bill as recounted on pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit E.

Senator Raggio noted various discussions have been going on for several years regarding the policies of the State Board of Education and whether the board should undergo changes or even be abolished. He opined there has been a change of direction in the board and a commitment to improvement. He reminded the committee that it was instrumental in saving the board during the last session of the Legislature.

Senator Raggio said the Legislative Commission on Education proposed creation of a testing advisory committee which has been operating in an unofficial capacity. It also proposed regional professional development centers. He acknowledged that since passage of S.B. 482 of the Sixty-ninth Session the State Board of Education has formed various subcommittees regarding testing and standards, which he opined indicates the bill was an incentive to the board.

Senator Raggio declared fiscal responsibility for public education has always been the key for the Legislature. He pointed out a majority of the state General Fund and other resources not within the General Fund are directed toward public schools and higher education. He opined membership in state educational policy bodies should be expanded and those selected to serve should "reflect the Legislature’s authority and responsibilities." He said 32 states, including those leading reform efforts, have appointed boards of education that are appointed, and any proposals regarding changes in the method of selection should be considered and discussed.

Senator Raggio alleged there has been an absence of parents and business representatives in the arena of educational policy, which has resulted in the polarization of opinions. He suggested some of the tragic incidents that have occurred across the country lately indicate a need for more parental involvement in knowing what their children are doing and what their course of education is. He added there has been a deficiency of participation by business interests, and the education community should recognize the need for such participation.

Senator Raggio reported many studies have demonstrated a need to improve teachers’ knowledge of content to help them teach to the higher standards. He indicated several portions of S.B. 466 address that concern. He expressed unease over a lack of reliable data as to how Nevada spends approximately $3 billion each biennium on public education and suggested a way must be found to track use of those funds. He stated, "Schools and school districts must learn to rethink and restructure the way they operate." He clarified his statement was not meant as criticism but rather as a concern about bringing change to achieve more effective results.

H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, verified S.B. 466 makes several changes to the selection of members of state level education boards and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. He gave committee members a list of methods used by other states to select boards of education (Exhibit G). He referred to page 3 of Exhibit F outlining proposed changes. He said the bill also creates new advisory boards and makes permanent the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools.

Mr. Sturm described specific provisions of the bill, saying it proposes replacement of the 11-member elected State Board of Education with a 9-member appointed board. The Governor would appoint five members, the Senate majority leader would appoint two, and the Assembly speaker would appoint two. He indicated the bill proposes nine members of the Commission on Professional Standards in Education be appointed similarly by the Governor, the majority leader, and the speaker.

As an aside, Mr. Sturm said, in 10 states the Governor appoints the superintendent, and in 2 the Governor approves appointments. He noted section 7 of S.B. 466 reduces the term of appointment of the superintendent from 3 years to 1 year and allows for removal from office for cause. Section 8 requires the superintendent to submit a biennial state of public education report to the Legislature, and Sections 18 through 21 shift responsibility from the board to the Council to Establish Academic Standards for the statewide standards-based testing program and creates a Testing Advisory Committee to assist the council. He said section 3 establishes a 9-member Business and Education Coalition of Nevada (BECN) to prepare a strategic plan for improving public schools. He distributed copies of a report (Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.) on the successful achievement of educational goals in North Carolina and Texas.

Mr. Sturm noted several other bills are pending that address many of the items proposed in S.B. 466.

Mr. Sturm addressed provisions in the bill regarding teacher quality. He reported section 46 was derived from regional workshops held by the Legislative Committee on Education and will establish four regional professional development centers to train teachers and school administrators in academic standards, related high-level subject matter content, instructional techniques, and measuring, analyzing, and interpreting test scores. Other sections require teachers to attend programs on academic standards, require tiered licensing for science and math teachers, appropriate funds to provide assistance to schools that qualify for remedial education courses, and establish mechanisms to identify effective professional development programs.

Mr. Sturm identified section 40 as another proposal from the regional workshops that will allow a 5 percent salary increase for teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. He added the same section prohibits districts from giving salary credits to teachers unless continuing education coursework is related to the subject area in which the person is licensed. Section 41 prohibits schools from hiring teachers for positions for which they are not licensed unless no qualified candidates are available, he said.

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, continued the discussion of the bill as laid out in Exhibit F. She indicated the bill contains several sections concerning remediation and improving pupil achievement. Authority is included to utilize class-size reduction appropriations for remedial programs that were funded by Senate Bill 576 of the Sixty-eighth Session and Assembly Bill 659 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Ms. Botts explained that both measures allowed funding for third-grade class-size reduction to be used for alternatives such as remedial education programs that have been found to be effective. She said Lyon, Washoe, and Humboldt Counties are currently using some of those funds for Reading Recovery programs. She reminded the committee the Fiscal Analysis Division puts out a list of approved programs.

According to Ms. Botts, S.B. 466 will appropriate $4 million to the State Department of Education for proven remedial programs as outlined in section 44. She indicated the allocations will be made by the IFC. She added the section allows additional at-risk schools and some small schools to access remediation funds, not just those classified as having inadequate achievement. She commented preference will be given to schools that utilize an extended day or summer school programs, or those that maximize the use of federal funds for remediation.

Ms. Botts discussed the key components of S.B. 466 which she said will help align other segments of the system with new academic standards. She explained section 22 of the bill rewrites the courses of study set in statute for academic standards in core subjects and provides for instruction in enrichment standards. She stated the bill aligns curriculum and textbooks with the standards as depicted in sections 6 and 29. She noted section 20 specifies that content and performance standards be developed in the core academic subjects for each grade.

Ms. Botts pointed out S.B. 466 establishes test reviewing and reporting requirements for the academic standards council in sections 20 and 26. She added the bill phases in standards-based tests and revises the time limit for testing implementation. It also establishes reporting requirements to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). She said reporting is addressed in sections 24 and 30.

Ms. Botts indicated the bill contains provisions to create a cohesive structure for fiscal accountability. She drew attention to the provisions outlined on page 8 of the summary booklet (Exhibit F) including implementation of a statewide financial accounting program to track spending on education. She said academic standards will be linked to teacher training.

Ms. Botts reported that under section 13, S.B. 466 will provide for audits of school districts and provide a training program for district financial officers. She said both sections 13 and 14 set forth certain requirements for consultation and cooperation in the preparation and administration of budgets and in matters relating to financial accountability.

Ms. Botts called attention to pages 9, 10, and 11 of the booklet where a summary of appropriations is laid out. She said a total of $11.7 million will be appropriated by S.B. 466.

Edward C. Keller, Manager, Fox River Learning, Inc., reported he has been working since last July with the Fiscal Analysis Division to devise a program to track expenditures to the classroom level and to aggregate information from throughout the state. He gave committee members a folder (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.) summarizing his testimony. Turning to page 3, he said his company proposes to use a financial analysis model for education called In$ite [Insite] which is currently being used by 380 school districts and 5 states. He said In$ite tracks expenditures by the program, by the site, and by type of expenditure, so that every dollar appropriated by the Legislature or spent by a local school district will be followed.

Calling attention to page 4, Mr. Keller noted it displays 32 areas in which data would be aggregated. He stated school districts will not be required to make any changes to their existing ledger systems in order to implement the system and produce reports at the state level, the district level, and the school level. He said all school districts will report to the state, using In$ite, which will allow the State Department of Education to more easily make compliance reports to the federal government or the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) and to provide better information to the public.

Mr. Keller highlighted features of the In$ite program listed on page 8 of the folder. He said the data to be provided will increase school accountability, will give comparisons across the state and across the United States, and will streamline financial data. He explained it will be possible to review one comprehensive report, or reports for every school site across Nevada, and all financial reports will be consistent and uniform. He said the reports tend to strengthen the financial credibility of districts and legislators.

In response to a question from Senator Raggio, Mr. Keller reiterated the school districts will not have to change any accounting systems, and most likely In$ite will do the implementations for the school districts, train the staff, and show the staff how to engage the public in using the document.

Mr. Keller said the report on South Carolina depicted on page 11 is similar to that which will be prepared for Nevada if the process is approved. He noted the report shows South Carolina has 655,375 pupils and total public education expenditures of $4 billion including all subsidies, federal, state, and local. He pointed out the report indicates $.53 of each dollar is spent in the classroom. He stated the report will assist administrators in determining how to provide a higher percentage of spending for the classroom.

Senator Mathews asked whether all the data in Mr. Keller’s report is already available and being reported in some manner. Mr. Keller responded there is generally lots of financial data in departments of education, but rarely is it all brought together where it can be tracked. He claimed the In$ite program will bring all the data together to allow for better decision-making.

Ms. Botts answered that at present information is not reported and tracked in the manner being proposed. She said though it may be possible to use state resources for tracking, the In$ite program appears to track the information better and to provide a wealth of different reports not now available. She acknowledged information received over the past 10 years has been improving.

Senator Raggio asserted it should not be necessary to turn to fiscal staff in either the Legislature or the Executive Branch and have them search for weeks for this type of report. He opined this type of report should be available upon request, and he expressed approval of the report on South Carolina.

Senator Mathews agreed the report is commendable but reiterated it should be possible for the state to generate the same information. Mr. Keller responded there is compliance data available on school district finances, but in order to move into performance management by tracking schools and considering performance by program, something similar to In$ite is needed. As an example he asked the committee to look at the sections entitled "Operations" and "Other Commitments" on the South Carolina page. He explained that if a client wishes, once the information is available his company will train the districts how to reallocate those funds to the classroom beyond existing processes. He stated that so far his company has seen a return of 10 to 15 percent. He added that by using the same process in Pennsylvania his company has found $13 million in six districts. He asserted the process will fall in line with the objectives for Nevada.

Agreeing with Senator Mathews that it should be possible for Nevada to generate a report on its schools comparable to the one on South Carolina’s schools, Senator Raggio challenged anyone in the state to provide a sheet of similar information by Friday.

Mr. Keller said inclusion of public participation in problems of school finance is one of the cornerstones of In$ite. He drew attention to a report in the folder numbered page A-1 at the top which reflects the format for financial data that would be used for every school and district and the entire state. He noted each page of the report breaks down the information from the previous page and all 32 functions tracked will appear uniformly as presented on page A-3 and subsequent pages.

Saying he had not seen the report before, Senator Raggio interjected, "This is the kind of information every school district, every parent, every teacher, every taxpayer should have without having to search through a lot of information." He called the report "excellent." Mr. Keller responded it is very rewarding when the program is implemented, administrators are trained, and the public is included.

Senator Neal surmised Mr. Keller was suggesting that the problem with education is the inability to track funding. Mr. Keller disagreed but said he believes tracking funds is the first step. He stated his company’s philosophy is that it is impossible to determine "what works for which students at what cost" until a district knows where the funds are going. As an example he opined that if South Carolina finds itself spending 49 percent of the funding on instruction and 3 percent on the business office, too much is being spent on the business function and it should be reevaluated for performance management. He said the next step would be to identify which programs work best. He pointed out the report is the first step in implementing a total cost-benefits system.

Senator Neal asked how improvements are made in the learning ability of children when the cost-benefits system is in place. Mr. Keller responded that when reports are used to change the utilization of funds, the gains reported in scores of children are matched to the dollars spent for each classroom to determine which are the most cost-effective strategies. He reported that in Texas, when the process was used teachers were identified and charted with the gain scores of pupils, and it was found that year after year the low-performing students of one teacher were found to exceed the Texas state assessment. It was determined she used a different method of teaching, so that was adopted as a model for other teachers to use.

Senator Neal suggested the teacher was allowed to develop a lesson plan tailored to those particular students. He asked what correlation there is between the total cost-benefit system and the lesson plan developed by that particular teacher. Mr. Keller replied, "She took the objectives in the state assessment and spiraled them five different ways into the curriculum," including learning kits, lectures, and one-on-one study. He explained that in another class the children regressed, and the teacher explained that although she taught the subject matter, "they didn’t get it." He said a third teacher whose students entered below standards and left below standards indicated she had no support from the administration, and the teacher only stayed one year. He said the strategies of the successful teacher were adopted for all classes in the school and the students improved.

Mr. Keller repeated the In$ite program is the first step to determine where funds are being used and then, in order to use the funding most effectively, a determination is made as to which strategies work best.

Ms. Botts pointed out the system will allow comparison of schools to schools, districts to districts, and this state to other states using the same system.

Senator Coffin requested that Mr. Keller provide more information about his company, Fox River Learning, Inc., including ownership, client list, location, and whether anyone is employed by the company within Nevada.

Senator Raggio requested that others testifying avoid repetition in the interest of time.

Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, gave a report (Exhibit J) on behalf of the education coalition. She explained the education coalition is a group of representatives from various educational organizations to study legislation and the impact it has on K-12 education.

Ms. Peterson stated the coalition supports remediation programs and funding for them, as well as funding for professional development, as depicted in a brochure for the coalition (Exhibit K). She introduced Debbie Smith, Chairman, Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools.

Ms. Smith explained the council is not a member of the education coalition, but she participates in the coalition as president of the state Parent Teacher Association. She acknowledged the standards council has not met to discuss S.B. 466, but a meeting is scheduled next week and she intends to report to the legislature after that discussion is held.

Ms. Smith provided a report on standards in Nevada (Exhibit L), a news release on accountability (Exhibit M.), a news release on educational progress (Exhibit N), and a plan on education governance prepared by the Education Commission of the States (Exhibit O). She said content and performance standards in English, mathematics, and science for grades 2,3,5,8 and 12 have already been adopted by the standards council for the first phase. She said indictors of progress were also adopted to assist teachers in developing methods and lesson plans to work with the standards in the "off" grades, and standards are being developed for social studies, computer education, health/physical education, and the arts in phase II. She expressed satisfaction with the reviews of Nevada education in a publication that rates standards in each state.

Ms. Peterson drew attention to Exhibit L, saying it is a portion of the American Federation of Teachers’ report on "Making Standards Matter" in which the progress on standards in Nevada is described. She said inadequate schools and high achieving schools are reviewed and approved remediation programs are listed in the press release on accountability (Exhibit M).

Senator Raggio asked whether Lyon County has resolved a problem with its remediation program. Ms. Peterson was unaware of the problem.

Ms. Peterson said that last year 23 schools were designated as having inadequate progress in remediation, but this year the number has been reduced to 8. She said 5 schools are in the second year and on probation. She said Exhibit N is a press release on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in which Nevada grades 4 and 8 participated for the first time in 1998. She stated the question regarding S.B. 466 is, How the bill will continue to improve student performance and school accountability?

Ms. Peterson declared there are a variety of planning efforts under way including Goals 2000, which was established by a group that included business leaders, educators, and parents. She explained Goals 2000 developed a strategic plan for education in Nevada and has been leading the way in standards-based reform. She asserted the Goals 2000 panel, unlike the proposed BECN (Business and Education Coalition of Nevada), is subject to the Open Meeting Law. She wondered whether BECN will strengthen existing planning efforts, and whether it should be subject to the Open Meeting Law.

Senator Raggio asked what special efforts are being directed at the five schools that continue to underachieve. Ms. Peterson said her staff has met with people from the five schools regarding improvement plans and the staff is putting together a school improvement planning team for each school that includes specialists in curriculum, Title I, and distinguished educators from other schools in the state. Senator Raggio requested that monthly reports be made on those schools when possible. Ms. Peterson agreed to provide the requested reports.

Anne Loring, President, Board of Trustees, Washoe County School District, spoke from written testimony (Exhibit P). She explained there are two K-16 councils in Washoe County, one consisting of the school district, the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC), and parents and business leaders. She said the council worked with the district to define academic standards for Washoe students that exceed state standards, and on the School-to-Careers program.

Ms. Loring said there is also a K-16 council at Incline Village which is similarly composed except that Sierra Nevada College is represented instead of UNR. She indicated the Incline Village council commenced improving standards prior to the 1997 Legislative Session’s reform. She opined the schools at Incline Village are probably further along in professional development and curriculum and standards alignment than any other schools in the state.

Ms. Loring suggested the strength of both coalitions is a result of all stakeholders in the district working together for education.

Ms. Peterson again questioned whether S.B. 466 will "further strengthen and improve standards, accountability, assessments, and planning." She asked, "Given the efforts that we already have in place, will it strengthen them?" She requested that the committee turn to the second page of her testimony, Exhibit J, regarding issues and concerns over governance, audits, class-size reduction, grade-level standards, licensing requirements, the Commission on Professional Standards in Education, and financial analysis accounting programs. She said various members of the coalition would raise concerns about those specific issues.

Ms. Smith commented that writing standards for every grade level is a bigger challenge than originally perceived. She stated that to go back and write standards for all grade levels would require more than "simply picking up and starting with those off-grades." She declared it would be necessary to go back and revisit all of the work accomplished over the past 18 months. She said many decisions made at the writing-team level and then at the council level were based on a bench-mark grade with the assumption there would be a test at that grade level.

As an example, Ms. Smith said if a decision were made as to when the multiplication tables should be mastered based upon when a test was given, the decision in which year to give the test might have to be shifted if standards are written for every grade. She reiterated it would take "a tremendous amount of time and effort and money to go back and revisit all of the standards."

Ms. Smith added her concern regarding a lack of funding in S.B. 466 for the standards council. She acknowledged the fiscal note addressing travel and meeting expenses but said the funding required to actually write, review, and adopt the standards is "tremendous." She stated it was a struggle to find adequate funding for the activities of the last 18 months and to finish the work this year. She estimated the cost will be nearly $500,000. The funds would be used to finish writing standards, for outside consultants to assist, to work with the public, and to publicize the new standards.

Senator Raggio asked whether she would have the same concerns if funding were available, and whether she recommended continuation of the standards council or not. Ms. Smith replied she had no recommendation, but after the council meets next week any concerns will be conveyed. She said that in the past the council believed the Legislature should define what should be done.

Senator Raggio admitted an imposition has been placed on everyone involved, but noted everyone has accepted that responsibility willingly and with the gratitude of the Legislature. He said the Legislature would like to continue the project if the council members are still committed. He pointed out approximately $250,000 is included in the budget and there should not be a lack of funding, and he opined there is also federal funding available. He said furtherance of the goal to reach higher standards should be the determining factor, not funding. Ms. Smith agreed.

Ms. Smith asked for clarification of section 57 of S.B. 466 which changes the year of implementation to 2000-01. Senator Raggio stated that is the intent, but he indicated the provisions of the bill will be coordinated with previous intentions.

Ms. Smith declared the council has taken a position in support of professional development and remediation, and appreciates the funding included in S.B. 466 for those purposes.

Senator Neal asked how the coalition of business and education members will function in regard to the governance of the educational process, or whether it is so fragmented it may damage the process itself. Ms. Peterson replied there appear to be two issues for the business and education coalition. Regarding duplication of existing efforts, she said Goals 2000 has developed a strategic plan for education over the past 3 or 4 years, and local school districts have used the funding to develop their own districtwide planning. She voiced the understanding the coalition proposed in S.B. 466 would be charged with the same task.

Ms. Peterson said the second issue is whether the coalition is sufficiently diverse in its makeup. She said the Goals 2000 panel has representatives from business, education, parents, and a wide variety of people from the community. She said it appears the coalition recommended in S.B. 466 is limited to the business community. She questioned whether the business community should be the only group determining strategic planning.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), agreed everyone is together on the goal of improving education but said each person sees something different in S.B. 466 and each may endorse certain portions of the bill. Referring to his written testimony (Exhibit Q), he said there is one provision that appears to reflect a change in long-standing policy regarding changing selection of the State Board of Education from an elected body to an appointive body.

Mr. Etchemendy suggested a state board appointed in the proposed manner would function effectively since those making the appointments share a common vision. But he wondered what the situation would be in future years when there may be a significant philosophical difference of opinion. Because the Governor would appoint the majority of the board, he said, it would be likely that the Governor’s wishes would dominate the actions of the board.

Mr. Etchemendy opined an elected board would have better potential for independent deliberations and actions. He noted it has often been stated that the strength of public education lies in keeping government at the local level, and an elected board more closely follows that preference. He pointed out one local board believes no state board is necessary because of the existence of the various state boards, commissions, and committees.

Senator Raggio interjected there appears to be a lot of activity at the local school board level. He opined that approximately 60 percent of the time, school board positions are unopposed. He said five seats were up for election for the State Board of Education in 1998, and three were unopposed. In 1996, he said, six seats were up for election, and two were unopposed; and in 1995, of five seats up for election, four were unopposed. He noted the Legislature created the school board as an elected body, and he wondered whether the best people are representing the issue of education.

Mr. Etchemendy agreed there has been little opposition to some candidates over the years, but he gave credit to those who run because they perform a public service. He concurred a diversity of background is desirable for any board, and especially for the State Board of Education.

Senator Raggio remarked an argument has been made that an appointing authority would be searching for a diversity of qualifications.

Mr. Etchemendy explained the proposed amendments to S.B. 466 attached to the back of his statement (Exhibit Q). He commented the business and education committee proposed in section 3 would have to post meetings in accordance with the Open Meeting Law, and language should be included to clarify that intent.

Mr. Etchemendy proposed a change in section 7 on line 40 which limits the term of a state superintendent to 1 year. He declared the provision has prevented many qualified people from applying in the past, and the present 3-year term should continue.

Mr. Etchemendy noted section 13, subsection 1 on line 28, page 5 regarding audits is a duplication of NRS 354.624 and should be deleted. He said the association has no objection to the provision for training financial officers.

Mr. Etchemendy drew attention to section 27, line 35, page 12 and noted there already is an existing testing advisory group that is fully qualified and experienced and said that group should continue to provide those services.

Turning to page 18, Mr. Etchemendy suggested changing line 4 in section 36 to allow for the Governor to appoint to the Commission on Professional Standards two teachers and a school board trustee instead of three teachers. He explained this will provide a specific slot for a person from the management structure of public schools, which is not provided elsewhere in the bill.

Next, Mr. Etchemendy drew attention to the provisions on lines 35 through 43 on page 18. He said those provisions provide administrative authority to the Commission on Professional Standards, whereas it would be preferable to keep the administrative authority relative to teacher licensing and waivers with the State Department of Education, where it currently rests.

Mr. Etchemendy voiced approval of the inclusion of boards of trustees of each school district in the review and evaluation of teacher training courses as set forth on page 19, lines 1 and 2. He suggested a similar inclusion be applied with respect to the text on page 32, lines 27 through 30, regarding standards of content and performance on examinations of proficiency and achievement.

Mr. Etchemendy noted there are two bills pending in the Assembly that will be reviewed by the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities regarding textbooks and supplies, and he suggested the financial implications of those bills be discussed along with the financial applications in S.B. 466.

Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA), expressed gratitude for the inclusion of funding for regional training centers in S.B. 466 and said the association is working to provide workshops in technology for administrators statewide. He said the association received a grant of $125,000 for the workshops.

Mr. Byington offered a list of proposed amendments (Exhibit R). He specifically drew attention to section 40, subsection 3 on page 20 lines 41 to 43, which he surmised means any candidate for a master’s degree in administration, counseling, curriculum instruction, or any other candidate could not receive a professional pay raise until he or she moved into that position. He said he did not propose an amendment, but he felt it should be considered and suggested it be changed to provide that at least 25 percent of the credit hours be related to the field of instruction.

Senator Raggio remarked there is a nationwide concern that teachers are inadequately qualified to teach their respective fields, and there is a necessity for incentive to encourage teachers to continue education in their areas. He said it is especially important in the fields of science and mathematics. Mr. Byington voiced confidence the teacher’s association will address the matter more thoroughly. He said that when he managed the Washoe County School District master’s equivalency program this was an area of considerable concern.

Mr. Byington continued, noting his first written amendment on Exhibit R on page 18, line 4, suggests adding "or two teachers and a counselor." He explained NASA is concerned that there would be no administrator on the Commission on Professional Standards, meaning teachers and lay people would determine the qualifications for administrators. Therefore, he proposed the addition and creation of an administrator’s licensing commission.

Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA), agreed there is always room for improvement. She said the PTA prefers retaining the elective process for members of the State Board of Education because they are directly responsible to the electorate. She said the PTA has always encouraged more input from the public in regards to education, and the PTA would not want to remove the ability of the public to participate in the election of the state board. She declared the PTA supports public participation in the election of all officials.

Ms. Clark noted PTA fully supports small classes and is concerned over the flexibility option in class-size reduction funds. She reported PTA believes all parties, both at the district level and at the school-site level, should be involved in the decision-making process whether to use the funds for remediation at the third-grade level. She opined there have been times when neither parents nor teachers have had input as to whether a school district shall request a waiver.

Ms. Clark expressed dismay that there is no parent or teacher representation in the proposed Business and Education Coalition of Nevada (BECN). While acknowledging that business people may also be parents, she suggested members of BECN may not give the emphasis to their roles as parents if they are selected to represent the business community.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), noted that her organization does not have a common position relative to the Commission on Professional Standards in Education. She stated NSEA is very concerned about sections 36 and 37 of S.B. 466. She reported NSEA testified against Senate Bill 59, which contains the same provisions, during the hearing in the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.

Ms. Cahill explained the NSEA areas of concern begin with the fact that in 1987 it was Nevada that led the way in establishing a board for teacher licensing, a function that was previously performed by the State Board of Education. Since that time NSEA has worked very closely with the commission. She said the provisions in both S.B. 59 and S.B. 466 would eliminate the balance of members of the commission which presently includes representatives from all levels of schools, counseling, and special education as well as a member of the public at large.

Ms. Cahill suggested further discussion should be held on giving the commission more autonomy, giving it a staff and executive director, and other recommendations that might come from more contemplation of the duties of the commission. She suggested it would be "somewhat hasty to move forward with the recommendation represented in S.B. 466."

Regarding the selection method for the State Board of Education, Ms. Cahill reported NSEA favors retaining the election of members. She stated it would be unwise to eliminate the vote of the public even though there has been a noticeable absence of candidates. Senator Raggio commented that may be due to the excessive requirements to file reports and disclosures in order to run for office. Ms. Cahill agreed, although she expressed satisfaction with the elected board.

Ms. Cahill pointed out NSEA would like to see the specific inclusion of a teacher in section 27 creating a testing advisory council. She added section 22 appears to conflict with Senate Bill 445.

Ms. Cahill explained that section 22, subsection 3 of S.B. 466 requires the adoption of regulations establishing the courses of study for nine areas. She said those areas were eliminated in S.B. 445.

Ms. Cahill stressed the belief of NSEA that emphasis on professional development is critical, and funding professional development is a major commitment. She stated NSEA has concern about the proposed four regional centers and will make an alternative suggestion.

Senator Raggio asked whether NSEA has taken a position regarding flexibility on class-size reduction. Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, stated NSEA is concerned that section 16, subsection 2(b) will result in "wholesale dismantling" of the class-size reduction program without any safeguards being built in to prevent a return to larger classes.

Senator Raggio commented S.B. 466 does not change the required ratios which are funded, it only allows school districts the flexibility to use the funds in the most effective manner. He stated there is no intention to change the mandated ratios already in place. Mr. Bellister responded that is reassuring, because NSEA did not see safeguards in section 16. Senator Raggio reiterated there will continue to be accountability for the schools to meet the statutory ratios, but the schools will be allowed the flexibility that has proven effective in some school districts.

Mr. Bellister explained the situation in Lyon County. He said the Lyon County Teachers Association signed off on the district’s class-size reduction plan, and the local association president has expressed concern that where the Lyon County School District has implemented alternative programs and deviated from the 19:1 mandated ratio in third grade, the class size has begun to "creep up" to higher levels. Some of those are as great as 25 to 1. Mr. Bellister agreed there is concern that the language in Section 16 may not safeguard against increased ratios.

Senator Raggio asked whether the goal is to reduce class sizes or improve achievement. Mr. Bellister replied the ultimate goal is to improve student achievement. He asserted the recent evaluation of the class-size reduction program indicates that test scores for students in grades 1 and 2 have been better than test scores for those students who did not experience class-size reduction.

Mr. Bellister cautioned the schools should not be put in the position of choosing between remediation funding and class-size reduction funding, and there should be both. Senator Raggio noted that when there is insufficient funding for both, a determination must be made as to which is more important in a specific situation. He declared improving achievement must be the first goal. He stated districts must be allowed to use the funding in the way which will best reach that goal. Mr. Bellister responded NSEA has no disagreement with that viewpoint.

Mr. Bellister drew attention to section 40 at line 41 on page 20 regarding salaries. He said NSEA believes NRS Chapter 288 covers the area, and it is mandatory that salaries are subject to bargaining between local teacher associations and school boards. He opined the subject more appropriately belongs at the local level. He said some salary contracts may allow a broader application than set forth in section 16.

Senator Raggio asked what the NSEA would suggest that will encourage and provide incentives for teachers to be better qualified in the area of instruction. He pointed out this has been a matter of national concern. Mr. Bellister stated, "Senator, I disagree. I’m a strong proponent of collective bargaining." He reiterated such decisions should be made at the local level. He added, "I think a system of incentives could easily be bargained into place."

Senator Raggio pointed out S.B. 466 provides an incentive to teachers to obtain training in the areas in which they specialize. He asked what is wrong with giving such an incentive. Mr. Bellister responded:

Mr. Bellister added that in the rural counties many school districts encourage teachers to become more versatile to allow teachers to fill a variety of roles. He reiterated the language in the bill could deny the teacher advancement on the salary schedule for taking that coursework.

William E. Sparkman, Ph.D., Dean, College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno, spoke as an individual from written testimony (Exhibit S). He commended the Legislature for its strong approach to academic standards and professional development.

Dr. Sparkman agreed it is appropriate for school districts to reward teachers for taking courses in their subject areas, but he voiced the hope teachers would also be rewarded for taking courses in new areas or improving their teaching skills. He suggested an amendment that would permit additional salary for teachers seeking a license or endorsement in a related educational field or for courses aimed at improving the teacher’s knowledge of pedagogy.

Senator Raggio said it would be helpful if those who have proposed amendments would submit them in written form.

William Hanlon, Vice President, State Board of Education, spoke in opposition to S.B. 466. He asserted the bill is redundant and many provisions have been introduced in other legislation. He alleged the bill will fragment the governing structure of public education in Nevada. He said it would be frustrating to have to work with so many different groups with varying philosophies.

Mr. Hanlon declared the bill will take a fundamental right to vote away from the people. He stated S.B. 466 contradicts itself, suggesting that if the premise is that elected school officials cannot be trusted, neither should other elected bodies. He said that not only does the bill propose to change the elected state board, but also the appointed professional standards commission. He averred, "It would seem that you are admitting that the important boards don’t work to your satisfaction either. This bill, then, would have to be seen as nothing more than as a power grab."

Mr. Hanlon recalled a time when the state superintendent of public instruction came under scrutiny in the early 1990s which he asserted was due to a difference of opinion with Governor Miller. He declared the relationship deteriorated and spread to the state board. He opined the board made correct decisions while standing firm in its policies to include basics in the course of study at a time "prior to the standards council work."

Mr. Hanlon said the board expressed concern over a lack of memorization of basic mathematical facts and algorithms. He reported that when the board demanded these elements be placed back in the course of study, its members were criticized and received letters of opposition. He averred the board made the right decision to insist on the inclusion of these in the course of study.

Mr. Hanlon recalled the board was criticized when it demanded and voted to seek an increase in licensure standards, reciprocity, and alternative routes to teacher licensure, and requirements for teachers to be current and competent in the fields they teach. He noted the bills addressing those matters died in the Legislature.

Mr. Hanlon observed that many of the bills being considered this session reflect state board initiatives, including professional development, national certification, incentives to teach in at-risk school, methods to attract teachers in areas of shortage, amendments to the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA) to address public access and mediation funding, and increased categories of school performance.

Mr. Hanlon asserted NERA has been successful because it started with a goal in mind, and the flaws are being addressed this session. He pointed out the goal was to refocus education on academic standards to increase student achievement. He said he does not believe S.B. 466 started with an end in mind, and it may result in harming NERA. He declared the newly created entities have adopted state board positions, but the current structure gets in the way of itself. He called it "foolishness" to believe that academic standards, teacher licensure, technology, and assessments are independent of one another. He stated, "They clearly impact each other." He suggested it would be more logical to make the committees on academic standards, teacher licensure, and so forth subcommittees of the state board. He said the state board is the umbrella that ensures all entities work together for the same goal, to increase student achievement, and to report to the Legislature.

Mr. Hanlon maintained all the segments must blend together, and there is no goal that can be reached by further fragmentation. He said there is a great deal of confusion, and he asserted the state has difficulty attracting and retaining personnel. He declared the state must be able to hire qualified people, and a 1-year contract for a superintendent will "make a bad problem worse." He opined it would be difficult to find someone to hire "for such a low-paying position with a stipulation of a 1-year contract."

Mr. Hanlon indicated disapproval with the section concerning middle school licensure. He expressed the belief it will be a problem if kindergarten teachers and eighth-grade teachers are subject to the same license, and it would "devastate" the system to enact that provision. He said 60 percent of the middle school teachers in the state work under a K-8 license. He declared a commitment to increased academic standards must be matched by an equal commitment to providing the best classroom teachers, and all means possible should be used to provide professional development for teachers. He opined that other than parents, nobody is more important than a classroom teacher.

Regarding remediation funding, Mr. Hanlon suggested there must be an expectation that more students will not reach the academic bar on the first attempt when it is raised. He said schools and parents must teach persistence, and students must be encouraged to try again if they first fail to achieve academic goals. He opined that failure to reach academic standards in one or two of the four specified subjects should be sufficient for a school to be designated inadequate.

Mr. Hanlon asserted the United States is first in the world economically and militarily due to a good public education system, even though there are failures in public schools. He stated his belief NERA has successfully addressed the widening responsibilities of public education by refocusing on academic standards. He commended Senator Raggio for his commitment to the educational system and his insistence on providing an academic focus on public education.

Mr. Hanlon repeated his opposition to S.B. 466, saying it does not appear to have a specific end result, it is full of redundancies, it fragments the governing structure, and it erodes parental involvement by denying the public’s right to vote. He suggested the proposal to appoint the board be put on the ballot to allow the people to decide whether they prefer to have an elected school board.

Senator Raggio interjected that 32 states have appointed boards, although he specified he was not advocating a position one way or the other. Mr. Hanlon noted some of those states with appointed boards have elected superintendents, thus allowing a public voice. Senator Raggio noted that in 35 states the chief state school officers are appointed by the board of education.

Dave Cook, Member, State Board of Education, testified against S.B. 466 and voiced agreement with the comments made by Mr. Hanlon. He likened democracy in governance to accountability, which he called critical. He stated that often it is thought appointed boards should be redesigned because they are not balanced properly or they are not representative of the appropriate groups. He noted the State Board of Education is properly balanced in terms of population and geography.

Mr. Cook suggested there is frequently no lack of opposition in school board for seats, although he acknowledged there are times when there is no opposition against incumbents. He noted this is common among local school board races. He opined that once school board members have demonstrated ability they tend to stay in office. He reiterated school board members are accountable and receive calls from constituents regarding all matters. He asked, "Who are appointed officials accountable to?"

Ann Gustin, Member, Elko County School Board of Trustees, Marcia R. Bandera, Superintendent, Elko County School District, and Larry Otheim, Member, Elko County School Board of Trustees, came forward to testify in opposition to S.B. 466. Ms. Gustin reported the board supports elimination of the elected State Board of Education and would oppose replacing it with an appointed board. She explained that with the advent of numerous state-level boards, commissions, and committees, including the Commission on Professional Standards, the Council to Establish Academic Standards, the Commission on Educational Technology, the standing Legislative Committee on Education, and others with specific purposes, it appears the state board is no longer necessary.

Mr. Otheim stated the Elko County School Board of Trustees supports the class-size reduction provision but suggests a language change. He said the board would like an option for the district to go to a 22:1 pupil-teacher ratio as well as use remedial programs. Senator Raggio commented the Elko district has gone on the record in support of a method to avoid team teaching. Mr. Otheim indicated Ms. Bandera has reviewed the matter and the board supports her position.

Ms. Gustin offered support for the provision to prohibit school districts from hiring teachers for positions for which they are not licensed. She said the way the board interprets current regulations, Elko already follows the proposal.

Ms. Bandera provided a copy of a letter written to Mr. Etchemendy (Exhibit T) outlining the position of the Elko County School District Board of Trustees on specific provisions in S.B. 466. She mentioned both the Elko County and the Douglas County school districts have concern regarding remedial programs for at-risk students in schools that will not be designated inadequate. She asked that remediation funding be available for summer school for specific students but not tied to the particular indicators of a single school. She added her board supports the BECN based on the belief that business and education have a place in the strategic planning process and on the fact that because it is temporary, it has a focused purpose and need.

Ms. Bandera pointed out the other concerns are contained in the letter to Mr. Etchemendy. Senator Raggio remarked the appearance of the group shows real commitment on the part of Elko County.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, reported a letter has been mailed to legislators stating the position of Nevada Concerned Citizens. She said the organization supports some parts of S.B. 466 and opposes others. She voiced opposition to changing the elected board of education to a politically appointed one. She opined that retaining the election process is of value to Nevada.

Ms. Lusk added the organization also has concern regarding formation of the Business and Education Coalition of Nevada because it seems to turn education to a position of satisfying labor market needs rather than promoting high academic standards. Senator Raggio noted many businessmen express dissatisfaction with hiring students who cannot function. Ms. Lusk agreed it is a problem, but said it should be corrected with the implementation of higher academic standards.

Ms. Lusk offered support for section 6 requiring compliance in the courses of study with performance and content standards. She said the group also would like to see standards established for each year, with pre- and post-testing to determine student progress. The creation of the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools she noted, includes parents not otherwise affiliated with the public schools and makes a very important point. She asserted that appointing parents who may also be affiliated with the schools dilutes the unbiased parental view.

Ms. Lusk concluded that the item calling for salary increases for those who hold National Board for Professional Teaching certification has very little value in children’s education. She added it will be very costly, and the national board is very subjective as to how it awards certification. She opined the board gives no valid reasons for disapproval, does nothing to help train good teachers in the classroom, and distracts teachers from time spent teaching by requiring compilation of a portfolio over an extended period of time.

Ms. Lusk reiterated S.B. 466 has both good and bad provisions, and the Nevada Concerned Citizens believes the good would be overwhelmed by the bad if the measure were passed intact.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified there should be accountability in reporting to allow parents to see what is really happening in the schools. She said she is against taking away the right of the people to vote on members of the State Board of Education. She suggested many of the problems with the board arise because much of its power has been dispersed into miscellaneous boards and advisory groups. She opined appointed boards and commissions are not responsive and are generally unaccountable to the public. She asserted they often treat the public with arrogance.

Ms. Hansen complained she has had bad experiences with the Goals 2000 education panel, the strategic planning commission, sex education advisory committees, and others. She charged many of the organizations have limited public input. She suggested the state board has been controversial because many people do not want to accept change brought about by education reform.

Ms. Hansen asserted the state board lacks sufficient authority to correct problems which they perceive. She related that while attending a State Board of Education meeting she was "shocked at the disdain and arrogance by the [legal] counsel of the State Department of Education" toward board members on particular issues. She opined the legal counsel took an adversarial position against the board members. She urged continuation of election of board members.

Jack Kenney, Lobbyist, declared the duty of the state board is to set policy, and then administration is to be carried out by other people at various levels and by various committees. He suggested the problem lies with a "bottleneck" in which board policy "only flows upwards through the superintendent." He voiced support for an appointed board in his belief it will bring more skeptics to the board.

Mr. Kenney suggested it would be helpful if an appointed board were allowed to go to the Interim Legislative Committee to bring requests for subpoena. He surmised subpoena power approval by the Interim Legislative Committee would forestall delays. He reiterated the duty of the board, whether elected or appointed, is to set policy and lay down rules for the administrators. He said, "That’s where the baffle-gab comes in. A baffle-gab is defined as baffling them with your position, but keeping your faith in cement and not moving."

Senator Raggio announced the meeting would have to conclude in order to start the floor session, but further discussion would be held on another occasion. He adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Judy Jacobs,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: