The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 3:05 p.m., on Wednesday, April 7, 1999, in Room 2135 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 Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Jill Smith, Advocacy Director, Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center

Mary Zuccarini, Director of Nursing Systems, West Hills Hospital

Ray E. Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association

Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teachers Association

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education

Charles (Steve) Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District

Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada

Don Forrester, Member, Board of Trustees, Douglas County School District

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Janice Smith Flanagan, Concerned Citizen

Cindy Hannah, Welfare Director, Welfare Department, Churchill County

Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Educare Community Living Corporation

Keith W. Macdonald, Executive Secretary, State Board of Pharmacy

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Pharmacy

Lawrence P. Matheis, Lobbyist, Nevada State Medical Association

Jill Smith, Advocacy Director, Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center, testified the center opposes S.B. 73 because a physician does not have the expertise to evaluate clients with mental disorders.

Mary Zuccarini, Director of Nursing Systems, West Hills Hospital, read testimony verbatim stating objections to S.B. 73 (Exhibit C). The testimony defines why efforts to accomplish a second opinion have been unsuccessful. Under current law, a professional who has a "contractual" relationship with the facility could not perform a second evaluation. Since very few psychiatrists in Reno, Sparks, and Carson City do not have privileges with West Hills Hospital, the language should be changed to read "an employee or one who has a financial interest in the facility".

Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Smith and Ms. Zuccarini their opinion of an amendment to strike the word physician and define the relationship of a professional with a facility. Ms. Smith and Ms. Zuccarini stated that would be acceptable.

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on S.B. 385.

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, testified in favor of S.B. 385, declaring a number of states are considering similar measures and the concept is gaining nationwide momentum. Senator Washington said many students are unable to read, and must attend dilapidated schools. The United States Supreme Court has upheld a voucher system implemented in Wisconsin, and Nevada lawmakers need to help those children who fall through the cracks. Chairman Rawson mentioned he was familiar with the Wisconsin policy, but reform measures the Legislature is advocating seem to address many of the problems to which Senator Washington is alluding. Senator Washington stated he applauds the strides Nevada has made, and S.B. 385 will help children caught in a cycle of ignorance, poverty, and criminality. He concluded it is incumbent upon elected officials to lend a hand.

Senator Schneider questioned how school vouchers help people leave impoverishment. He said private schools should be a pay system, and parents who are involved enough to help their children choose to make sacrifices. This bill would not allow voucher schools to accept any money from parents. Senator Washington responded the key to breaking out of poverty is education. Children who are not educated become indoctrinated in the concept that somebody else will take care of them.

Ray E. Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, indicated the association endorses the public schools. Speaking in favor of S.B. 385, Mr. Bacon said the public schools have little incentive to improve performance. To allow parents greater freedom and economic support in school choice will encourage advancement in the public schools.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, said the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that the voucher system was not unconstitutional. She averred the United States Supreme Court sided with the Wisconsin decision. She added that S.B. 385 could be compared to the GI Bill, which allowed veterans of World War II to attend the college of their choice.

Lynn P. Chapman, Lobbyist, and Jeanne Simmons, Concerned Citizen, voiced their support of S.B. 385.

Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teachers Association (PTA), explained the PTA opposes S.B. 385 because such funding methods would create division and separation within the community. The PTA supports adequate funding to correct dilapidated schools and poor student skills, as a means to help all students in Nevada.

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, believes S.B. 385 is unconstitutional because it would provide a subsidy to parochial schools. Mr. Bellister claimed if all students eligible under the bill were to transfer out of the public schools taking funding with them, the fiscal impact is potentially sizeable and additional students currently attending private school would also be eligible for the program. The bill states the Department of Education shall not interfere with the operation of a voucher school; however, overseeing textbooks, testing, and teacher qualification by the department is not interference. In conclusion, Mr. Bellister said S.B. 385 has no provision for accountability of expenditures. According to Mr. Bellister, five studies by the University of Wisconsin suggest there is no significant difference in student achievement in voucher schools.

Senator Rawson acknowledged the fiscal note of approximately $140,000 annually would require the issue to be referred to the Senate finance committee, but transferring of students from public schools to voucher schools would be neutral. Mr. Bellister opined the majority of Nevada private schools are sectarian.

Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, clarified the fiscal note refers to additional staffing for the department to administer the program, as required in S.B. 385.

Charles (Steve) Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, provided testimony to the committee which he read verbatim (Exhibit D). The exhibit summarizes the objections of the district to S.B. 385. Mr. Williams corrected earlier testimony. He stated the United States Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the Wisconsin plan, but in an 8-1 ruling the court, without comment, refused to hear a legal challenge to Wisconsin’s policy of subsidizing tuition at private and religious schools.

Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, said the league opposes S.B. 385, and takes the position that the allocation of public funds to private schools would financially weaken the public schools and require additions to the bureaucracy.

Don Forrester, Member, Board of Trustees, Douglas County School District, testified vouchers are not in the interest of public education. Mr. Forrester pointed out before the GI Bill was initiated, free college was not available, whereas free schools already exist. Under S.B. 385 taxpayer money would go to private school operators instead of public schools.

Ms. Peterson testified she does not believe S.B. 385 would withstand the test of constitutionality, and the Nevada Constitution states clearly that public funds shall not be used for sectarian purposes. The bill does not guarantee funds will be properly accounted for, nor provide equal opportunity for low-income students, and the transportation issue is not addressed. A portion of S.B. 385 that reads "enrollment means the count of pupils who are enrolled in and scheduled to attend a charter school" could result in counting some students twice. Senator Amodei commented he had some of the same concerns Ms. Peterson has brought forward today; however, the portion of S.B. 385 that requires the department to adopt resolutions prescribing the process for submission of an application for a private school to become certified as a voucher school should speak to those concerns. Ms. Peterson concurred.

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified in opposition to S.B. 385. She asserted there has been no conclusive research that indicates improved student achievement is a result of voucher programs.

Janice Smith Flanagan, Concerned Citizen, read written testimony stating the opposition to S.B. 385 by the American Association Of University Women, Nevada (Exhibit E).

Roberta Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby, and National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter, stated both organizations oppose S.B. 385 because they oppose diverting public funds to private schools. Ms. Gang also alluded to the fact the bill does not make any reference to transportation.

Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association, added the association opposes S.B. 385 for the reasons heard today. He added the bill will weaken the pool of voters who are likely to approve school bond issues, and taxpayers could insist on additional regulations for private schools since taxpayer funds support them.

Chairman Rawson stated that testimony in opposition S.B. 385 from the Nevada Association of School Boards will be entered as a part of the record (Exhibit F).

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 385 and opened the hearing on S.B. 469.

Debbie Hosselkus, L.S.W., Deputy Administrator, Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation Division, Department of Human Resources, stated S.B. 469 amends and broadens the statutes and allows the division to serve people with mental retardation.

Cindy Hannah, Welfare Director, Welfare Department, Churchill County, testified the department opposes S.B. 469 because the definition of related conditions is vague. The bill identifies related conditions as "any other condition, other than mental illness, which results in impairment of general intellectual functioning or adaptive behavior similar to that of a mentally retarded person and requires treatment or services similar to those required by a mentally retarded person." The counties are fearful of the potential fiscal impact of such a wide-ranging definition.

Ms. Hosselkus responded S.B. 469 codifies a federal definition that came about as the result of a lawsuit, and the division has been serving this population since 1997. Ms. Hosselkus said the federal definition is a disability such as autism, cerebral palsy, or a seizure disorder, that originates before age 22, is likely to continue indefinitely, and results in substantial functional limitations in three or more areas of major life activity. Senator Washington inquired if S.B. 469 paraphrases the federal definition. Ms. Hosselkus said it does, but the verbiage gives the state more leeway. Ms. Hannah reiterated giving the state more leeway could result in the county picking up more of the financial obligation. Ms. Smith said the bill specifies the recipient must have three or more limitations of seven areas of life activity. Senator Rawson asked if all parties could live with an amendment that spoke of any condition as defined under federal regulations. The parties agreed.

Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Educare Community Living Corporation, testified in support of S.B. 469.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 469.

SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on S.B. 518.

Chairman Rawson commented S.B. 518 is the same as an Assembly bill that has been amended and passed. It has not yet been heard on the Senate side, and the committee will follow the Assembly bill.

Ms. Zuccarini offered written material stating an objection to S.B. 518 (Exhibit G). Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Zuccarini if her concern would be addressed if verbiage to include the private facilities were included in the bill. Ms. Zuccarini concurred. Chairman Rawson averred there would be no action on S.B. 518 today, and if change discussed today is not in the Assembly bill, the committee will recommend it at that time.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 518, and opened the hearing on S.B. 519.

Keith W. Macdonald, Executive Secretary, State Board of Pharmacy, testified S.B. 519 will amend and add to current legislation by expanding the definition of those allowed to administer: animal euthanasia; medications to persons confined to their homes; and preventative immunizations and vaccines. A Nevada physician must write the standard for a pharmacist to administer immunizations or vaccines and pharmacy technicians are not included.

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, speaking in favor of S.B. 519, said allowing a pharmacist to sponsor vaccination clinics could have a benefit of improving Nevada’s low immunization record.

Lawrence P. Matheis, Lobbyist, Nevada State Medical Association, said the association objects to the language of section 4, subsection 4, in S.B. 519 which states:

Mr. Matheis averred this comes very close to an unacceptable expansion of a nurse’s scope of practice regarding the administration, and perhaps in effect the prescribing of certain drugs. If the specific order by the physician would also include an acknowledgement of those emergencies that a nurse could handle, and what drugs a nurse could administer, it would encourage accountability.

Chairman Rawson asked if the language were stricken would there still be concerns about S.B. 519? Mr. Matheis answered under the immunization portion of the bill, if the population covered was stipulated as adult only and under the written authorization of a Nevada licensed physician, the association could live with the bill. Senator Mathews pointed out that current law allows a nurse to carry emergency drugs, under the authorization of a doctor or a home health agency.

Kirk Wentworth, Concerned Citizen, testified the pharmacy he owns in Carson City has sponsored several immunization clinics with great success, under the auspices of a home health agency. Mr. Wentworth added S.B. 519 would be a helpful benefit to many people who cannot afford a doctor visit or are unable to schedule an appointment.

Chairman Rawson said he would instruct staff to prepare an amendment and S.B. 519 will then be reconsidered by the committee.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on S.B. 163.

Richard J. Panelli, Chief, Bureau of Licensure and Certification, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, testified the bureau worked with staff to address concerns raised by residential care home operators to provide a minimal regulatory presence in the licensed homes. The amendment removes the requirement that persons caring for one or two persons in their home install sprinkler systems. Mr. Panelli testified S.B. 163 regulations would be minimal; pertaining to care and sanitation, abuse, neglect, and exploitation issues, with an initial on-site survey, and one survey within every 36-month period for homes without complaints. The regulations allow financial penalties for those who operate without a license, and the money would be deposited in a separate fund as mandated under federal regulations. Mr. Panelli said a proposed amendment to S.B. 163 submitted by Theresa Brushfield-Owens, which restricts the ability of a person to operate more than one registered home is not a concern of the bureau. He averred an able operator could own many facilities with success.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 163 and opened the hearing on S.J.R. 6.

Chairman Rawson explained a proposed amendment to S.J.R. 6 encourages the U.S. Department of Energy to continue to explore the technology of transmutation and strike out any relationship to Yucca Mountain.

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 6.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

*****

Senator Amodei said he could not second the motion because existing language in the bill is not specific enough that Nevada is not taking a position on nuclear energy. Senator Wiener said she would rather not vote on S.J.R. 6 until the committee is able to see a new amendment.

SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND S.J.R. 6.

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cynthia Cook,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE: