The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 12:10 p.m., on Friday, April 30, 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 Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Bernice Mathews (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), voiced support of A.B. 14.

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified that the Clark County School District is in support of A.B. 14. She referred to Exhibit C as proposed language to amend A.B. 14. Ms. Tittle explained that the proposed language would open an avenue for teachers with concerns about a student with a disciplinary problem to address the issue with the principal. She pointed out that the ultimate legal responsibility of deeming the student a habitual disciplinary problem would be the principal’s decision. Chairman Rawson asked if there might be a situation where a teacher or a principal would be afraid to deem a student a disciplinary problem. Ms. Tittle replied the situation might occur; but as a principal for 12 years, it was her practice not to let students intimidate her. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Cahill if the language proposed by the Clark County School District was of concern. Ms. Cahill expressed approval of the proposed amendment to A. B. 14.

Senator Wiener referred to line 13, on page 2 of A.B. 14 and inquired whether "a school bus or school sponsored activity" should be included in the language. Ms. Tittle responded that there would be no objection to the inclusion of such language. Ms. Cahill supported the language if the inclusion of such language would not delude the overall effect of "on school property." Chairman Rawson said he would pursue the issue. He commented that he was aware of circumstances where a student was battered within 100 to 200 feet of the school, but nothing was done because it was not considered "on school property." He suggested designating a certain distance around the school as school property and asked if it would complicate the issue. Ms. Tittle replied that it would not complicate the issue. Ms. Tittle added that in the Clark County School District 38 students were deemed as habitual disciplinary problems. Ms. Tittle opined the law that was passed in the last legislative session took a long time to put into practice. Chairman Rawson commented that it shows the schools are not abusing their authority. In response to Chairman Rawson’s suggestion to designate a certain distance within proximity of schools as school property, Ms. Tittle averred, would be an appropriate addition to the bill.

Senator Washington questioned whether the parents of the students deemed as having disciplinary problems were cooperative with the school authorities. Chairman Rawson asked if the parents were also a problem in this situation. Ms. Tittle replied that she did not have that specific information.

Senator Wiener referred to line 21, on page 3 of A.B. 14 and asked for the definition of the language "… equal to one school semester …." Chairman Rawson replied that a student might be suspended at the end of one term and the suspension would carry over into the next term. Ms. Title concurred with that analogy.

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, stated that A.B. 14 amends chapter 392 of Nevada Revised Statutes and was the result of the Legislative Commission‘s Study of Special Education and Student Discipline. She said that during the last legislative session a statute was created that deemed a student a habitual discipline problem, and this bill tweaks that language. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referred to Exhibit D which proposes two language changes to A.B. 14: one, changes the language on line 13, page 1 to read "… deem a pupil a habitual discipline problem if they are found to have violated (a), (b) or (c) of this section or …" and two, "… a suspension shall be deemed to have occurred …"; on line 3, page 1. Chairman Rawson asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if she had any objection to amending the bill to include ’school bus and school activity" in the language on line 13, of page 3. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied in the affirmative and explained that the language in section 2 of Assembly Bill 14 would give the authority to implement the law.

Senator Washington referred to line 10 on page 2 and questioned how the number of "five suspensions" was determined. Assemblywoman Giuchigliani responded that five suspensions are current law.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani introduced Assembly Bill (A.B.) 15.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted that line 36, on page 2 of A.B. 15 changes the language in current law for the purpose of reporting student attendance and truancy. Continuing, she pointed out that a bill was passed during the last legislative session that allows a student, with the parent’s permission to withdraw from high school at the age of 16 to attend an adult education or a general equivalency diploma (GED) program. This has caused students to be labeled as "dropouts", which is not fair, and it also caused difficulty with the school district’s accountability reports. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that if a student withdraws from one school to attend another school and does not request a transcript, that student is considered a "dropout "for reporting purposes. She said because of these problems the language of lines 1 through 5, on page 3, is proposed.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated that lines 39 through 42, on page 3, and lines 1 and 2, on page 4, address the habitual truancy section of the bill and is "cleanup" language. Calling attention to section 3, on page 4, she explained that this change returns language that was overlooked when two bills were merged last session, and clarifies that a student who has three unapproved absences is not a truant. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained that the language in sections 4 and 5, on pages 4, 5, and 6, provides school administration more flexibility addressing habitual truants. Senator Washington referred to line 39, on page 4 of A.B. 15 and asked who were the members of the advisory board. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied that the advisory board was composed of law enforcement, parents, counselors, and people who deal with the juvenile court system.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that page 8 of the bill clarifies the duties of the chairman and the advisory board. Referring to lines 30 and 31 on page 8, she explained that this language addresses the problem of "ditching" a class. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted that the district attorneys in the juvenile courts recommended the language changes on pages 9, 10 and 11 of A.B. 15.

Ms. Giunchigliani submitted an e-mail (Exhibit E) from Dan Fox, Superintendent, Pershing County School District, for the committee’s information and the record. The e-mail expressed concern because truancy cases are being dismissed by judges who say that a student who is 17 years or older cannot be truant.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani testified that Assembly Bill (A.B.) 37 addresses the issue of informing parents, students, and faculty of law changes that directly impact the classroom.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stressed that parents, students, and faculty cannot be held accountable for violations if they have not been notified of changes in the law in a timely manner. She noted that A.B. 37 addresses that issue.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani testified that Assembly Bill (A.B.) 47 was intended to create a teacher core program and identify areas of shortages in the state.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani remarked that there was discussion during the formation of this bill relating to establishing scholarships for students entering into the field of education. She said that A.B. 47 is not mandatory but provides time, if funds become available, to address the teacher core program or shortages throughout the state.

Chairman Rawson invited additional testimony in support of A.B. 14, A.B. 15, A.B.37, and A.B. 47.

Charlene T. Bybee, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teacher Association, Chairman and Parent representative of the Washoe County School Attendance Advisory Board, voiced support of A.B. 15. She stated the board endorsed such changes as, three actions trigger an additional action rather than a citation, and the addition of the school attendance review board. She stated the bill clearly spells out the steps to be taken by all parties involved and the consequences for students who do not comply. Ms. Bybee further averred support for the increase in community service hours. Speaking as a parent representative for the Washoe County School District she referred to line 2 on page 7, and said the verbiage "… his designee or alternate …" should mean a parent who has child enrolled in the school district.

Kristine K. Jensen, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated that A.B. 14 was designed to address the issue of habitual discipline problems. She called attention to line 11 on page 3, and requested that the verbiage "… contract of behavior …" be changed to "plan of behavior" because a contract is a legally binding document on the parties. Ms. Jensen suggested the need for an appeals process because the contract appears to be an ultimatum if it has not been agreed upon. She indicated that another change would be to delete the word "shall" from line 13, on page 1 of A.B. 14, and replace with "may" to avoid misuse of authority.

Ruth Joseph, Attendance Administrator, Clark County School District, spoke on behalf of the recommended changes to A.B. 15. She applauded Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for her efforts to build flexibility into the law to better serve students and the community. Ms. Joseph stated that the Clark County School District and Washoe County School District advisory boards have worked together to provide statewide continuity. Ms. Joseph submitted for the record written testimony and a summary of recommended changes to A.B. 15 (Exhibit F).

Charles (Steve) Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, said that he was speaking for Betty Barker, Attendance Supervisor for the Washoe County School District, supporting A.B. 15. Mr. Williams testified that the Washoe County School District, also was in support of A.B. 37 and commended Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for her support and willingness to compromise in the formation of the bill.

Ms. Jensen read from prepared testimony (Exhibit G). She expressed concerns and made recommendations to amend A.B. 15.

Keith W. Rheault, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, State Department of Education, voiced support of A.B. 37. He requested some flexibility with the requirement listed on page 2, lines 3 through 13, as it relates to the July 1 date. Dr. Rheault recalled that he summarized 51 bills after the last session of the Legislature but that it took 3 weeks to accomplish. He stated that the requirement of 30 days after the close of the legislative session to summarize and disperse the information would be a difficult undertaking, because some bills require a more in-depth research. Dr. Rheault requested the following changes to line 4, on page 2 of A.B. 37, after "… the superintendent shall …" add " to the extent practicable, not later than July 1." Concluding his remarks, Dr. Rheault averred support of A.B. 47.

Ms. Cahill stated for the record NSEA’s support of A.B. 15, A.B. 37, and Assembly Bill 47. She asserted that by changing "shall" to "may" on line 13, of page 1 of A.B. 14, it would make the language too permissive.

Ms. Tittle stated for the record that the Clark County School District supported A.B. 37.

Chairman Rawson invited opposing testimony to A.B. 14, A.B. 15, A.B. 37, and A.B. 47.

Craig Banko, Concerned Citizen, expressed concerns about A.B. 14. He questioned the following: the legality of a binding contract with a minor and collecting funds; giving a student another chance after four suspensions; and whether a law was necessary for only 38 out of 200,000 students? Mr. Banko added that penalties designated in the bill were not consistent or equitable. He commented that if parents were not conscientious about their children then a law would not make a difference. Mr. Banko stated that he opposed A.B. 14.

Mr. Banko asserted that A.B. 47 does not advocate ability; a proven track record; or the desire and passion to help our future adults as requirements for teachers. He opined that the priorities in A.B. 47 are reversed and recruitment of teachers, not the professional development, should be the first priority. Mr. Banko stated his opposition to A.B. 47 because it falls short of meeting the goals to recruit qualified, experienced, and dedicated professional teachers. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Banko urged the committee to either vote against A.B. 47 or completely rewrite the bill. Chairman Rawson asked if his comments were referring to the original or amended version of A.B. 47. Mr. Banko replied that it was the amended version.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearings on A.B. 14, A.B. 15, A.B.37, and Assembly Bill 47 and commented that there would be work sessions next week.

Tilisa L. May, Executive Director, Ron Wood Family Resource Center, requested that a letter dated April 27, 1999 (Exhibit H), be entered into the record. The letter expressed the Carson City Truancy Advisory Board’s position of support of A.B. 15 and their proposed change regarding the declaration of students as habitual truants.

Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 1:07 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: