The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:43 p.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Room 4412, Las Vegas, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Christine R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9

Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mark E. Brown, Lobbyist, The Howard Hughes Corporation, stated he was representing the Clark County Superintendent Search Committee. He explained that the committee was formed to find a replacement for Dr. Brain Cram the current superintendent of the Clark County School District. Mr. Brown said that with the tremendous growth in Clark County the board of trustees and the search committee felt the current law was restrictive, ergo the need for A.B. 576. He pointed out that although this gives broad latitude to the selection process the ultimate decision would still remain with the board of trustees of the school district. Mr. Brown noted that the language does not mandate that this person be a nontraditional educator. He stated that A.B. 576 was amended in the Assembly to state that if a nontraditional educator is hired then there must be a position that will oversee academics.

Lois Tarkanian, Ph.D., Member of the Board of Trustees, District E, Clark County School District, voiced support of A.B. 576. Dr. Tarkanian testified that this bill affords the trustees the option to consider a wider range of candidates by expanding opportunity while maintaining the final selection of the school superintendent at the board level.

Mary Beth Scow, Vice President, Board of School Trustees, Clark County School District, testified in favor of A.B. 576 and the proposed amendment.

Senator Washington asked whether the amendment to A.B. 576 would create an additional fiscal note. Mr. Brown replied that no additional fiscal note would be necessary. Dr. Tarkanian averred that no additional position would be needed, hence no additional fiscal note.

Mr. Brown stated that the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the Nevada Taxpayers Association support A.B. 576.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, voiced support of A. B. 576 and said the bill was a positive concept to expand the narrow bands that presently exist. She expounded on the need to be open-minded and utilize the abilities of people in business as well as education.

Sue Strand, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, stated the Clark County Education Association and the Nevada State Education Association opposed A.B. 576. She said the role of the superintendent in the business of schools is to educate students. Ms. Strand mentioned that research of schools with a nontraditional superintendent shows that success varies, but the area with the least success is with employees’ groups. She emphasized the concern is that a nontraditional superintendent would focus on the business part of the school district and not on the education of the students because there would be another academic person. Ms. Strand urged the committee to not pass Assembly Bill 576.

Kathy Harney, Employee, Clark County Association of School Administrators, voiced opposition to A.B. 576. She stressed that this bill would relegate the business of educating students to a secondary role. Ms. Harney stated that A.B. 576 makes the business and management function of a school district primary and the education role secondary. She pointed out that the mission of a school district is to educate students and the line of authority in the educational structure should be focused in that direction.

Assemblywoman Christine R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, testified that she voted against A.B. 576 in the Assembly. She commented that there is a feeling that schools should be run as a business, and added that schools are in the business of education. Assemblywoman Guinchigliani stressed it is important that the person at the helm be a strong administrator but still needs to know what happens in the classroom.

William Hanlon, Concerned Citizen, stated that A.B. 576 assumes transference of authority. He outlined examples of how businesses are different from education. Mr. Hanlon emphasized that there is nothing more important to education than instruction. He said the major flaw with the Nevada Education Reform Act was it did not address teacher preparation and teacher licensure. Mr. Hanlon added that because instruction is now recognized as important it is vital to have a leader who knows how to make instructional decisions. He pointed out that there is a concern that with instruction being recognized there will be too great an emphasis placed on test results and not on student knowledge and understanding. Senator Washington questioned why it was easier for a superintendent from a school district to enter into the business world and not the reverse. Mr. Hanlon replied that working in private business is very different than working in the public sector. Actions can not be done at will as in the private sector.

Susan Brager, Member, Board of School Trustees, District F, Clark County School District, spoke in favor of A.B. 576. She stated that it was important to get the best viable candidate from a broad range of individuals applying for the position of superintendent of the district.

Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, voiced opposition to A.B. 576. He testified that the amendment would only add to the administrative staff. Mr. Byington stated that the association’s position is that a superintendent of schools should be someone indoctrinated in education. He noted that in cases where superintendents were employed with backgrounds other than education their tenure is short because they are not accustomed to working in the public sector. He cited the case of a military person with no educational background who was a superintendent of schools. Senator Mathews recalled that this individual was a superintendent in Seattle, Washington, and remarked that he was praised for being a "great guy." Mr. Byington replied that this individual was "fairly successful." Senator Mathews asserted that he turned the whole school system around.

At the request of the Clark County Association of School Administrators a letter dated April 28, 1999, and other information (Exhibit C) expressing their concerns regarding A.B. 576, were distributed to the committee and entered into the record.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 576 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 376.

Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11, testified that the amended version of the bill is permissive in nature. It states that the school police of Clark County "may" enter into an interlocal agreement with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro). He stated that the school police need to be more professional than ever before and A.B. 376 would accomplish that goal. Senator Mathews inquired whether the school police in Littleton, Colorado, are part of the sheriff’s department and are armed. Assemblyman Bache replied he did not know. Chairman Rawson responded that they were armed and returned fire. Senator Mathews asked if A.B. 376 would accomplish that purpose. Assemblyman Bache replied that currently the school police officers in Clark County have Category II peace officer status which means they carry weapons.

Senator Washington asked whether the board of trustees of a school district could enter into agreements without a law being passed. Assemblyman Bache answered that it would be necessary to pass a law for Clark County but he opined that Washoe County could enter into an interlocal agreement with anyone for school police services. Chairman Rawson inquired if the Assembly would concur with an amendment that left it open for school districts to contract with whomever they felt appropriate. Assemblyman Bache replied that the appropriate place to enter into those agreements would be if the amendment permitted the school districts to contract with the sheriff’s department. Senator Washington requested that language be inserted into the bill that would allow counties to enter into agreements with local sheriffs’ departments. Responding to Senator Washington’s request, Assemblyman Bache concurred with the additional language to Assembly Bill 376. Senator Wiener asked if Metro would cover the entire Clark County School District. Chairman Rawson commented that Metro would not cover the entire school district because there are other areas such as Mesquite, Logandale, and Glendale. Assemblyman Bache remarked that the language in the original bill was mandatory and allowed the school police to be a division of metro; they could go to any school and would not be concerned with the jurisdictional boundaries. Senator Wiener inquired whether the METRO testified in the Assembly. Assemblyman Bache replied that a representative from the school police union testified in favor of the original bill and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department took a neutral position.

Chairman Rawson invited testimony from Las Vegas on A.B. 376.

Sydney J. Franklin, Assistant Superintendent, Division of Alternate Education and School Police Services, Clark County School District, voiced opposition to A.B. 376. Mr. Franklin pointed out that lines 3 through 11, on page 2 of Assembly Bill 376 would change the existing system in the Clark County School District which is functioning well. The bill would require a school district that employs police officers to appoint a law enforcement officer to serve as chief of police, who would be supervised by the board of trustees. Mr. Franklin asserted that changing the existing system would not necessarily improve the quality of the program. He emphasized that the success of the program is directly attributed to the clearly defined chain of leadership that has resulted in an excellent safety record in Clark County schools. Mr. Franklin stated it would not be practical to have a chief of school police report directly to the board of school trustees because they are not part of the direct management of the day-to-day operations of the district. He noted that the board of trustees recently affirmed their support of the current organizational structure of the Division of Alternate Education and School Police Services of the Clark County School District. Mr. Franklin indicated that the Clark County School District took a neutral position toward the permissive language on lines 12 through 26, on page 2 of the bill.

Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Director, Community Outreach, Clark County School District, iterated opposition of A.B. 376 and the concerns of the Clark County School District.

Chairman Rawson paused in the testimony of A.B. 376 to hear testimony from Assemblywoman Giunchigliani on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 313.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that the fiscal note has been removed from the original bill. A.B. 313 addresses a concern about the appropriate placement of students in special education classes. She explained that the bill seeks to assure that when the review of the examinations is being done a student is not inappropriately placed in a special education class because they have a social maladjustment and therefore labeled as an emotional disturbed child. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked the committee to consider a proposed amendments to A.B. 313 (Exhibit D). She called attention to lines 11 and 12, on page 4 of Assembly Bill 313, and stated that she would not have opposition to changing the language to avoid revoking the entire program. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted that on page 9 of A.B. 313 the intent of the language is to encourage school districts to examine their scheduling time and where appropriate make additional time for the individualized educational program; therefore the language became permissive in nature, not mandatory.

Chairman Rawson paused in the hearing of A.B. 313 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B ) 43.

Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, Clark County Assembly District No. 22, referred to A.B. 43 as a "teachers bill of rights." She noted that section 1 of A.B. 43 changes the notification procedure of meetings held by the board of trustees for policies and regulations set forth on lines 22 trough 34, on page 2 of the bill. Assemblywoman Segerblom read the changes to the current law proposed on page 3 of A.B. 43 and emphasized that an employee should be informed of what is causing the demotion or potential dismissal and be given assistance and time to correct the problem. She indicated that on line 22, on page 3, the language change would require the removal of an admonition from the records immediately instead of "… not later than 3 years after it is issued." Assemblywoman Segerblom highlighted a proposed change to current law that a teacher who has been proposed for termination would remain on salary until and unless an arbitrator or hearing officer upholds that termination. She noted that A.B. 43 would allow a superintendent of a school district to suspend an employee without notice if the employee presents an immediate danger to the safety of students or employees.

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, averred support of A.B. 43. Mr. Bellister highlighted sections of A.B. 43 that the association favored. He noted section 3, lines 21 through 27 on page 3 and the removal of an admonition from the records immediately not within 3 years. Mr. Bellister referred to lines 35 through 41 on page 3, and lines 1 through 3 on page 4, which states that after due process an employee would be reinstated to the position held prior to the admonition with the concurrence. Commenting further, Mr. Bellister declared that lines 4 through 20, on page 4 of A.B. 43 was a great concept. He pointed out that the new language gives the superintendent the right to take immediate action against an employee if it is deemed necessary for the protection of students or other employees from harm. Mr. Bellister mentioned that currently a termination of an employee is always preceded by a suspension without pay, which can result in serious financial repercussions for the employee.

Edward Goldman, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District, asked for clarification on which version of A.B. 43 Assemblywoman Segerblom and Mr. Bellister were referring. Chairman Rawson replied that it was the first reprint of A.B. 43. Dr. Goldman responded that the first reprint was the version at hand. Chairman Rawson invited Dr. Goldman to continue with his testimony and the correct version of A.B. 43 would be sorted out later. Dr. Goldman objected to an employee collecting a salary while arbitration proceedings continue because it would cause a fiscal impact on the districts (paying the employee and their replacement). He pointed out that there is no provision in the bill for reimbursement to the district if the employee is found guilty and no method of collecting these revenues. Dr. Goldman stated that under the current statute an employee would provide a bond acceptable to the board to assure repayment of any salary until the final determination is made.

Dr. Goldman pointed out that on page 3 of the bill, the insertion of the word "immediately" and the deletion of language "… not later than 3 years …" together with existing language that sets a time frame of 3 months for improvement, sets the stage for abuse. He noted that based on the proposed bill, an employee could commit an offense; wait 3 months; have the admonishment removed immediately from the records and commit the offense again. Dr. Goldman emphasized that this new language would create a "revolving door" admonition process for employees charged with misconduct. He questioned the interpretation of the verbiage on lines 10 through 20 on page 4.

George Ann Rice, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources, Clark County School District, spoke in opposition to A.B. 43. Dr. Rice testified that there is existing law, which makes schools accountable for the achievement of students. She said A.B. 43 would make it more difficult to terminate or discipline a teacher or administrator who is ineffective, insubordinate, has neglected their duties or has engaged in unprofessional conduct. Dr. Rice called attention to line 15 on page 3 and stated that the verbiage "probable cause" would require an administrator to make a reasonable effort to assist an employee and find the probable cause for the disciplinary action when the professional teacher has chosen to violate the district’s regulations. According to Dr. Rice, the unions would challenge whether there had been "reasonable effort" given to correct the probable cause of the misconduct. She stated that A.B. 43 would require supervisors to look for the probable cause of a problem before discipline could be administered and the implications are staggering.

Dr. Goldman reiterated that A.B. 43 would bring to bear an extra financial cost on the school district because they would have to pay for a substitute teacher as well as the employee that is being disciplined.

Charles (Steve) Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, concurred with the positions expressed by the Clark County School District. He stated that there are 3100 teachers in the Washoe County School District and the number of admonitions given in a year range from 3 to 10. Mr. Williams said an admonition is a serious action, therefore it should remain in the records for 3 years as designated in current law.

Ms. Harney supported and agreed with the concerns presented by the Clark County School District. She iterated opposition to section 4, on page 4 of Assembly Bill 43.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 43 and resumed the hearing on A.B. 313.

Kristine K. Jensen, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated opposition to A.B. 313. She highlighted section 6, on page 4 of the bill as an area of concern because it brings into question the issue of charter schools. Ms. Jensen said she questioned both the Senate and Assembly research divisions and received conflicting explanations as to whether this section applies to charter schools. She stressed that the requirements would hinder charter schools attempting to organize and move forward. Ms. Jensen pointed out that section 10, on page 7 of A.B. 313 is permissive in nature but will be a "springboard" for a mandate in the future.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, pointed out that the verbiage starting at line 30, on page 3 of A.B. 313 mandates that if a school district is found guilty of assigning a special education person erroneously then the state superintendent must eradicate the entire special education program. Mr. Etchemendy urged the committee to include that amended language in the passage of the bill. He voiced concern with the verbiage on lines 32 and 33, on page 4 of A.B. 313 and said it would mandate a high school that had in excess of 200 pupils to have a driver’s education course. Continuing, Mr. Etchemendy read lines 38 and 39, on page 5 of A.B. 313. He stated that the verbiage on page 4 conflicts with the verbiage on page 5 and neither should be adopted. Mr. Etchemendy commented that based on his investigation there are a small number of driver education teachers in the state and it would create a financial impact on the school districts if teachers were trained in this field and equipment provided. Mr. Etchemendy referred to section 10, on page 7 of the bill and opined that the section poses a potential problem.

Mr. Byington referred to prepared testimony and proposed amendments (Exhibit E) by the Nevada Association of School Administrators to Assembly Bill 313. He stated that the verbiage on lines 10 through 22, on page 4 of A.B. 313 would not be needed because there is existing language on lines 6 through 10 which would penalize a school district if students were inappropriately placed in a special education program. Mr. Byington concurred with the fact that getting sufficient certified driver education teachers is a problem. He suggested that the word "may" on line 38, on page 5 of A.B. 313 be restored and section 10, on page 7 be deleted in its entirety.

Leonard Paul, Assistant Superintendent, Division of Secondary Education and Curriculum, Clark County School District, expressed concern with sections 5 and 6 of A.B. 313 and the driver education language. Mr. Paul stated that Assembly Bill 313 amends the current language in the statute that will change the offering of driver education from an elective to a mandated course. He stressed that the impact would be huge and complex. The bill will cause the school districts to eliminate certain courses to comply with the regulation. He outlined the courses and effect the inclusion of mandated driver education would have on the curriculum of students and staffing. Mr. Paul stressed that an alternative would be to create a seven-period school day but that would shorten the time of each period. The other choice would be to lengthen the school day which "means purchasing more time." Mr. Paul pointed out that Clark County School District in conjunction with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety is offering 30 driver education courses after school, classes on Saturdays, and classes in 14 summer school sites. He said that there are 40 additional teachers registered for training the driver education curriculum. Mr. Paul urged the committee to allow the language to remain permissive, hence the schools that are able to offer driver education within the school day could do so and students would still have access to instruction.

Jane N. Moyle, Lobbyist, Nevada Rural School District Alliance, concurred with previous testimony and requested that the language on lines 32 through 34, on page 5, be stricken from A.B. 313. She urged the committee to make the language on line 38, page 5 of the bill permissive in nature. Ms. Moyle pointed out that there are currently only 35 teachers in the state licensed to teach driver education and 58 schools would be affected by the proposed language on line 39, page 5 of A.B. 313.

Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, provided written testimony (Exhibit F) and pointed out that the course of study provisions contained in S.B. 445 differ from the course of study requirements in A.B. 313 and are conflicting; therefore they should be justified.

Ms. Peterson said it was the State Department of Education‘s belief that the recommendations in S.B. 445 are consistent with the work of the standards council and accurately reflect the intent of the Nevada Education Reform Act. Ms. Peterson reiterated concerns about mandating drivers’ education in the smaller high schools. She drew attention to page 2 of Exhibit F and proposed waiver language to amend section 6, on line 29 of A.B. 313. Ms. Peterson said another alternative would be to make the language permissive.

Chairman Rawson commented that an updated fiscal note would be needed for A.B. 313. He closed the hearing on A.B. 313 and reopened the hearing on Assembly Bill 376.

Jody Thomas, Concerned Citizen, testified from Las Vegas and told the committee of an assault upon her son causing major physical damage to his face and eye as well as emotional problems. She said that even though the perpetrator was disciplined administratively other students are fearful. Ms. Thomas stated that the school police were never notified of this occurrence. She opined that the police were manning their posts and told not to leave. Ms. Thomas noted that she filled out a parent concern form and had the school district address the issue with the principal. She told the committee the only question that she asked the principal was "Why were the police not called?" His response was "If you felt a crime had been committed against your child, it was your obligation to call the police." Ms. Thomas urged the passage of Assembly Bill 376 for the safety of the children.

Andy Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, stated that A.B. 376 is a bill for safety and accountability. He said the original intent of the bill was to bring the Clark County School Police under the metropolitan jurisdiction within the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for the specific purpose of leaving police work to police officers, not school administrators. Mr. Anderson stressed that the intent of the new language in the bill "school police department being assigned a police chief accountable to the elected officials" is important. He stated that someone must be held accountable for the safety of the children in school and that we have input because it will be an elected official.

Phil Gervasi, President, Police Officers’ Association, Clark County School District, testified that A.B. 376 was a bill about safety and accountability. He stated that the Clark County school police officer is trained in a Category I police academy with other police officers from Las Vegas and surrounding areas. Mr. Gervasi said that the Clark County school police officers have had barriers placed in front of them by the Clark County School District through some administrators. He pointed out that these administrators are excellent educators but do not understand the concept of crime prevention or law enforcement duties. Mr. Gervasi stressed the need for more certified law enforcement persons not more administrators. He emphasized that the purpose of the officer on campus is to provide a safe learning environment by using their discretion in patrolling the campus; but have been directed to stand by the flagpole in front of the school or face discipline. Mr. Gervasi remarked that the students recognize this situation and go to the back or sides of the school to fight, deal drugs or cause problems. The result is that if no criminal activities are detected or recorded then the school is considered crime free. He commented this is a false sense of security for the children, parents, and staff. Mr. Gervasi summarized and stated that A.B. 376 tells our children that everything possible is being done to provide a safe learning environment for them.

Senator Wiener asked if there were statistics on the crimes and violence in the Clark County School District. Mr. Gervasi reiterated that crimes are not being reported and therefore not recorded because the officer is stationed in front of the school. He related two incidents to exemplify that all crimes are not reported. Senator Wiener inquired whether there were statistics on school safety and violence. Mr. Gervasi responded that he did not have that information. Mr. Franklin replied that there was statistics. He said that there are quarterly and end-of-year reports given to the board of school trustees and the superintendent. He said he concurred with the national study of 90 percent crime and violence free. Senator Wiener asked for Mr. Franklin’s response to Mr. Gervasi’s testimony about crimes not being reported. Mr. Franklin replied that the Clark County School District has a zero tolerance for weapons and crime and all crimes will be reported.

Senator Wiener asked for the school district’s definition of "violence." Mr. Franklin replied that his personal definition was anything that is a physical or verbal attack depending on the person’s comfort zone.

Chairman Rawson invited additional testimony on A.B. 576.

Bob Thomas, Concerned Citizen, testified that he was in support of A.B. 576. He said that as a former chief executive officer it has been his experience to rely on subordinates to do their jobs and collectively make the decisions that operate the company. Mr. Thomas opined that Clark County would have nothing to worry about if they hired a first class "chief-executive-officer type" as superintendent and an "educational doctorate type" to supervise the nuts and bolts of the educational administration. The chief executive officer will act as a catalyst to make the administrators operate together. He used the Governor as to exemplify how a chief executive officer can make successful transitions within business and as a school superintendent.

At the request of the Clark County Association of School Administrators a letter dated May 4, 1999 (Exhibit G), expressing their concerns and position on A.B.43, A.B. 376, and A.B. 576, was entered into the record.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 576. He opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 94 and introduced Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau.

Mr. Sturm referred to page 5, tab A of the "Work Session" document (Exhibit H.), stating that the amendment was proposed by the veterans’ commissioner to address restricted donations for the veterans’ homes. He explained that the amendment would create a gift account for veterans’ homes so that the restricted funds would have a separate category and would not revert to the General Fund. Mr. Sturm noted it was suggested to put language in the plural for future veterans’ homes. Chairman Rawson commented that plural implications are generally understood in drafting language but in this case it would be appropriate to include them. Chairman Rawson asked the committee for their position on A.B. 94.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 249.

Mr. Sturm pointed out that A.B. 249 had no proposed amendments.

SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 249.

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 429.

Mr. Sturm called attention to page 6, tab B of Exhibit H and noted that the Traumatic Brain Injury Committee is restricted from using any funds for travel per diem, and salaries for the committee members. This amendment would allow the committee to access a federal grant to pay for travel and per diem expenses while conducting statewide planning. He added that the amendment would also allow the use of federal and private or nonprofit entity sources and excludes state money. Chairman Rawson said the original concern was that with the creation of a new commission, travel and per diem expenses could be exorbitant. Senator Washington mentioned that there had been discussion of extending the sunset by 2 years. Discussion ensued concerning the sunset issue. Chairman Rawson commented that the sunset should be removed.

SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 429 AS AMENDED WITH PAGE 6 OF TAB B OF EXHIBIT H.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 284.

Chairman Rawson drew attention to page 8, tab C of Exhibit H and explained that the amendment would exempt Washoe County until financial support is made available from federal grants or other sources. Continuing, Chairman Rawson said it eliminates the fiscal note.

SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 284 AS AMENDED WITH PAGE 8 OF TAB C OF EXHIBIT H.

SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS, SENATOR TOWNSEND, AND SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO.)

At the request of Barbara Hunt, Director, Community and Clinical Health Services, Washoe District Health Department a letter (Exhibit I) stating the district’s support of A.B. 284 was entered into the record.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 152.

Mr. Sturm stated Assembly Bill 152, tab D (Exhibit H), page 9, contained two proposed amendments. The first, restricts the provisions of the bill only to institutions or persons offering only introductory educational services or programs on the use of computer software to customers who have previously purchased that software from that institution or person. The second makes the Commission on Postsecondary Education an autonomous commission. According to Senator Wiener the Commission on Postsecondary Education neither discussed nor had a hearing on the second proposed amendment. Chairman Rawson said that no action would be taken on A.B. 152, at this time.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 141.

Mr. Sturm stated during the Interim Mental Health Study, the Disability Law Center was the only organization that testified against the bill. Senator Washington indicated that during the interim mental health study there were debates concerning involuntary commitment and this bill was the result.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 238.

Mr. Sturm referred to tabs E and F of Exhibit H as two different proposed amendments. Summarizing, he said that tab E prohibited anything in the act from authorizing prenatal genetic testing. Mr. Sturm noted that numbers 2 and 3, on page 10 of Exhibit H restricts the use of information by name, based on religious objection. He said that the language of number 3 allows a written objection to be submitted and their name will be excluded from the data. Mr. Sturm pointed out that numbers 4 through 7 had to do with the security of the data. He said page 13 of tab F refers to the means by which an organ donation is made and whether a hospital would accept drivers’ licenses as a document of gift. Chairman Rawson remarked that there has been testimony concerning the designation of "organ donor" on drivers’ licenses, as not being acceptable by the hospitals and the language in A.B. 238 will strengthen the law. Referring to tab E, Chairman Rawson stated that it would protect the privacy of individuals while allowing them to take part in the data compilation anonymously.

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Senator Washington expressed concerns about allowing birth defects to be registered. He stated he voted for the bill because it had been amended. Senator Washington asked the chairman’s permission to reserve his vote when A.B. 238 comes to the Senate Floor. Chairman Rawson commented that the committee might want to study the amendments. Chairman Rawson opined that there is substantive public health benefit to acquiring data on various disease registries but this information might also be abused. He clarified that the committee was not bound by the decision they make in this committee when they voted on the Senate Floor.

*****

Via e-mail Carol Lee Nudd, Concerned Citizen requested her letter (Exhibit J) opposing Assembly Bill 238 be entered into the record.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:06 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Patricia Di Domenico,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE: