MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-First Session
April 30, 2001
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:49 p.m., on Monday, April 30, 2001. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mrs. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Bonnie Parnell (Excused)
Mr. Tom Collins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Terry Care
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Mary Drake, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Daniel Grimmer, Legislative Affairs Manger, MGM Mirage
Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada
Jim Richardson, Representative, Nevada Faculty Alliance
John Gwaltney, Member, Nevada State Board of Education
Annie Rees, Member, Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Nevada Department of Education
Chairman Williams called the meeting to order as a subcommittee until members arrived to function as a quorum. He opened the hearing on S.B. 236 and asked Senator Care to make the presentation.
Senate Bill 236: Requires certain entities that employ children in entertainment industry to pay for tutoring. (BDR 34-1035)
Senator Care, Senatorial District 7, stated S.B. 236 was a result of a request from a constituent, Doreen Saly, whose son, Kristofer, was the subject of the legislation. He noted the committee received a copy of a neighborhood newspaper article (Exhibit C) about Kristofer. Senator Care explained for the past two years, Kristofer Saly has had a principal part in the MGM Grant production of “EFX.” Mrs. Saly had several conversations with Senator Care about the difficulty of educating Kristofer while he worked as a performer. Senator Care said Kristofer’s work scheduled required him to rehearse in the afternoon, work two shows at night, and return home at midnight. Because of his work hours, Kristofer was home schooled.
Senator Care said Mrs. Saly brought to his attention a California statute covering similar situations, primarily in the motion picture industry. He explained S.B. 236 did not contemplate situations where children worked sporadically in the entertainment industry for the course of week or so. The bill was directed to full-time performers, who were minors, engaged under contract for a period in excess of 120 days. Senator Care said he discussed the proposal with members of the motion picture industry, and they agreed on the terms outlined in the bill. Senator Care pointed out the bill had an amendment (Exhibit D) to which he had agreed.
Senator Care then reviewed the language of the bill, which allowed that a child in a situation similar to Kristofer’s be eligible for tutoring at the expense of the entertainment industry employing the minor. Tutoring would be for three hours a day, five days a week. He said when the bill was heard in the Senate, Mrs. Saly and Kristofer testified before the committee, and all issues were worked out. The motion picture industry also had no problems with the bill as amended.
Chairman Williams asked if the three hours per day was a standard time for tutoring. Senator Care said it was; it was one-on-one time as opposed to a school environment with the many distractions.
Mrs. Chowning asked if the purpose of the bill was to pay the expenses incurred by the parent because of the home schooling, or was the purpose of the bill truly to provide education. She queried if children working in the entertainment industry were not being educated.
In regard to the education of children in the entertainment industry, Senator Care said he had no knowledge of that. He noted in this particular case, Mrs. Saly tried on her own to do home schooling, but she also had another child to care for and her husband’s work schedule to work around. He explained Mrs. Saly’s position was if the resort wanted to employ her child, they needed to provide assistance because she had no time to home school, and Kristofer’s schedule prevented attendance at a regular public school. Senator Care said the bill was tailored to that one situation.
Mr. Daniel Grimmer, representing MGM Mirage, explained the amendment to S.B. 236, which was attached as Exhibit D. He said the amendment was in two parts. He noted the MGM Mirage approached Senator Care about an amendment to the bill prior to first house passage. When the measure went to bill drafting, there was a misinterpretation about the point of the amendment. The second part of the amendment to S.B. 236 removed language on page 1, lines 12 through 15, prepared in bill drafting.
Mr. Grimmer continued, the intent of the first part of the amendment, which amended Section 1, subsection 1, by inserting “unless otherwise agreed to by a parent or legal guardian of the child,” was to allow flexibility reaching the goal of providing educational assistance to a child under those types of circumstances. The intent was also to give parents as many options as possible, and to be as broad and inclusive as possible. Mr. Grimmer said there were a number of different ways that would accommodate each different situation, whether it be some type of educational scholarship, stipend, long distance education, correspondence, community college courses; whatever would best accommodate the need of the parent and the child. In addition, if an agreement was not reached between the employer and parent or legal guardian, the parent or guardian could, under the proposed bill, request that tutoring take place, and the casino or resort hotel would provide it under the law.
Mrs. Chowning said in reading the bill, she felt it came out “very odd.” She asked for clarification on the meaning of the amendment language in Section 1, subsection 1, that states, “unless otherwise agreed to by a parent or legal guardian of the child.” To her, it sounded as if the parent could opt out of the education portion and be given money instead if they decided they did not need help with education. She asked someone to explain what the actual goal of the bill was.
Senator Care told Mrs. Chowning if she had that interpretation, perhaps others did as well. For the record, to him it would mean that, at a minimum, the child would get three hours a day, five days a week of instruction. If there was something more the parent and the resort or motion picture company could agree to, that would be fine. He said it was not intended to mean that, in lieu of education, they would give the parents a check. The child was to be educated. Senator Care said perhaps the bill language needed clarification. To him, if three hours a day, five days a week of instruction would not work in a particular situation, then something else could be added to achieve that minimum amount of instruction.
Mrs. Chowning commented she thought all committee members agreed with the other avenues offered in the state to reach an education, such as correspondence courses, community college as a high school senior, and the Internet. She understood the bill was trying to accomplish more flexible means of education, but not to opt out of the education.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 236 and opened the hearing on S.B. 17.
Senate Bill 17: Repeals duplicative provision that prohibits unlicensed driver from operating vehicle for transporting children. (BDR 34-923)
Senator Wiener, Senatorial District 3, presented S.B. 17. A copy of her written testimony was attached (Exhibit E). Senator Wiener explained S.B. 17 was part of a commitment she made every session she served to find statutes to remove from the law, which was what S.B. 17 did. Senator Wiener advised in 1999 the Legislature added or amended more than 3800 pages of state laws in an effort to reduce the volume of laws on the books. Her goal was to repeal those laws that were no longer necessary. S.B. 17 would repeal duplications in law prohibiting unlicensed drivers from operating a vehicle for transporting children. That particular provision in the law was approved during a 1956 special session of the Legislature and had not been changed since. The law was found under Title 34, Education, and not in the transportation laws. The law stated employment of any unlicensed person to drive a vehicle transporting pupils was unlawful, and the person violating provisions of that section would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Senator Wiener called attention to NRS 483.590 and 483.600 prohibiting the employment or authorization of any person to drive a motor vehicle without a proper driver’s license. She provided a copy of all three laws for the committee’s review (Exhibit F). The more pertinent laws were located under NRS Chapter 483, which specifically provided for the issuance of a driver’s license as opposed to NRS Chapter 392, which concerned pupils. Furthermore, Senator Wiener said, NRS392.390 was worded in a “very peculiar” way, and could be interpreted as allowing an unlicensed person to drive a school vehicle as long as there were no pupils on board, which was certainly not the intent of the law. Senator Wiener said for those reasons she asked the committee to repeal that section of the law: the provision was a duplication and unnecessary.
Mrs. Chowning said she applauded Senator Wiener’s efforts. She acknowledged the way the current statute was written, it could be interpreted to mean people could drive without a license as long as they were not transporting pupils.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 17 and said he would accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 17.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (MR. COLLINS, MS. ANGLE, MRS. CEGAVSKE, MRS. KOIVISTO, AND MS. PARNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
Chairman Williams then opened the hearing on S.B. 113.
Senate Bill 113: Makes various changes to provisions governing program for Millennium Scholarships. (BDR 34-433)
Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), spoke on behalf of S.B. 113. She explained it was essentially a four-part bill put forward by the UCCSN Board of Regents, and was the result of one year of experience working with the Millennium Scholarship Program and the Millennium Scholars.
Dr. Nichols explained the first request in S.B. 113 was to set the fees for the Millennium Scholarship amount paid for students who might attend the new upper division program at Great Basin College. She clarified it was an upper division fee for community colleges set at $60 per credit and matched the tuition for the program, which was about half way between the tuition for a regular community college course and the university cost of attendance. Dr. Nichols added if state colleges were created, there was a provision for $60 per credit for a student attending a UCCSN state college.
Dr. Nichols continued the second part of the bill was the inclusion of provisions that created opportunities for students attending school in Nevada to attend a Nevada-based, nonprofit, higher education institution. The UCCSN felt it was appropriate for the Millennium Scholarship to be used in the state of Nevada to support Nevada students continuing on to higher education at both the public sector institutions and the private sector Nevada-based, nonprofit, nonsectarian institutions of higher education. She emphasized that given the demands to meet the needs in Nevada, encouraging the development of private higher education would enrich the state. At the current time, the school made eligible by this provision was Sierra Nevada College.
The third part of S.B. 113 was the deletion of the repayment provision. Dr. Nichols explained the original bill required students who dropped out or failed to maintain a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 2.0 restore the 2.0 GPA and repay the Millennium Scholarship dollars received in the semester they dropped out or failed to maintain the 2.0. Current practice required that students attend another institution at their own expense to restore the cumulative 2.0 GPA. Once completed, the student could reapply for eligibility and repay the cost of the semester they dropped out. Dr. Nichols said 736 students faced that provision in their freshman year; most were reenrolled trying to reestablish eligibility. Of those losing eligibility, approximately 31 percent were minority. The UCCSN recognized the provision fell disproportionately on the lower income student, and was clearly an obstacle for those students to stay in college. UCCSN recommended a deletion of the repayment provisions since lower income students were one of the groups UCCSN intended to open the doors of opportunity to complete a college degree.
Dr. Nichols continued the fourth area of the bill was the deletion of the adult high school diploma from the eligibility for Millennium Scholarships. She explained in the original bill, NRS Chapter 396 provided that students were eligible for the Millennium Scholarship if they graduated from a public or private high school program with a designated GPA of 3.0. She noted the Board of Regents was uncertain how to interpret that provision in Chapter 396; it was unclear if it included students in the regular adult high school diploma program. It was clear, however, the students in that program were not of high school age.
In regard to the adult high school diploma program, Dr. Nichols said in the fall of 2000 there were 13 people incarcerated who were eligible for the scholarship and attended one of the UCCSN institutions on the Millennium Scholarship Program. Out of the regular adult education program, eight persons attended that were not incarcerated. In the fall of 2000, 13,940 Nevadans were enrolled in a regular adult high school diploma program. Dr. Nichols contended those individuals were not the traditional 18- and 19-year-olds, and concerns were raised that a comparable GPA for those students was just not possible. She explained when assessing a high school student’s eligibility for the scholarship, the UCCSN looked at the cumulative GPA over all the high school work. The method of establishing grades and GPA and the ability to have a cumulative GPA was extremely difficult for the adult population. The UCCSN felt it was not comparable to those Nevada students in the traditional high school programs working toward the 3.0 GPA.
Dr. Nichols concluded the UCCSN believed it was the intent of the State Legislature to encourage regular high school students to stay in school, to work hard, and earn their diploma with a high GPA. She opined that to open the doors to adults in the educational programs for adults and not to other adults who stayed in high school and completed their degree seemed questionable. The UCCSN was asking the legislators to close that loophole making it clear in the legislation the adult high school diploma program was not an entry into the Millennium Scholarship Program. Dr. Nichols clarified it did not affect the GED students. Those students did not receive a high school diploma and were covered in the legislation under the section referring to Nevada students that were not high school graduates. The UCCSN had a provision for GED students to receive the Millennium Scholarship if they passed the proficiency exam, scored at a certain level on the ACT/SAT tests, were Nevada residents, and met all the other requirements. The provision was limited to students of traditional high school age who would in all other ways be comparable to the current Millennium Scholarship recipients.
Mr. Manendo questioned if students who dropped out or failed were currently repaying. Dr. Nichols explained the way that provision worked was the student who lost eligibility in the fall semester of 2000 or the spring semester of 2001 would then apply to restore eligibility for the fall semester of 2001. To date, no particular student was required to repay. Mr. Manendo asked if that was since the beginning of the Millennium Scholarship Program. Dr. Nichols confirmed it was. Mr. Manendo said he wanted to clarify if it needed to be done retroactively. Dr. Nichols explained if the legislation passed at this time, it would be accomplished in time so that no student would be disadvantaged by repayment.
Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, said he wanted to go on record supporting S.B. 113. He said he had a particular interest in the modification or deletion of the payback provisions. He felt the provision was punitive and worked against lower income minority students who might be less prepared for college and, therefore, have more difficulty in college. He urged the committee to support the bill and, particularly, to take care of that provision which could be interpreted in a punitive and discouraging way for students who had difficulty with the first semester.
John Gwaltney, member of the State Board of Education, said the board was going on record in support of the expansion of the Millennium Scholarships. He noted the city of Las Vegas was coping with a shortage this year of potentially 1400 teachers, and it was the board’s position providing additional scholarships could expand the number of teachers. On behalf of the Board of Education, Mr. Gwaltney encouraged the committee to look at, if not act on at this time, the fact there were a number of other institutions in the state providing educational materials and educational training. Given that situation, Mr. Gwaltney said, future difficulties meeting the need for educators could make it necessary to expand the legislation.
Mrs. Chowning asked how many other facilities and students would this open the doors to. Mr. Gwaltney responded he had surveyed the CEOs of both for-profit and private institutions not-for-profit, including institutions such as the University of Phoenix and Nova University. Based on the responses he received, expanding the scholarships to include students majoring in education at both for-profit and private institutions could increase the number of teachers by approximately 200. He indicated there would be a start up time; however, he did not poll them as to the length of that time. Mr. Gwaltney said the State Board of Education was not suggesting the Millennium Scholarship Program include private institutions in other than the educational majors.
Mrs. Chowning asked if the inclusion of for-profit and private institutions was currently in the bill. Mr. Gwaltney said it was not; he felt it would take a year to gear up for that kind of support. He cautioned there might only be two options available to meet the teacher shortage challenge. One would be to recruit from out-of-state, and there appeared to be evidence that out-of-state teachers tended to return home fairly quickly. The second option was to educate Nevadans in any method, as long as the quality was there. That, he felt, would be the superior option. He added the State Board of Education preferred that the state universities and colleges would produce the maximum number of teachers. Since Nevada was the fastest growing state in the nation, however, major strains were being placed on the resources of the universities and colleges.
Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Gwaltney if he were proposing a friendly amendment. He said he was not asked to propose a friendly amendment, but rather convey for the record support for the bill and that the challenge was before the legislators; no one wanted the classrooms in Las Vegas to open without qualified teachers. Mr. Gwaltney said he was leaving it to the best judgment of the legislators.
Ms. Von Tobel asked if Nova University offered an undergraduate degree in education. Mr. Gwaltney said they had a teacher-training program. Dr. Nichols clarified it was not an undergraduate program. Ms. Von Tobel then stated if Nova University did not have an undergraduate program, they could not be included in the Millennium Scholarship Program. Mr. Gwaltney said Nova University did offer a training program in education. He remarked no one was asking to fund the undergraduate program, but to encourage the teaching. Ms. Von Tobel said she understood the point of the Millennium Scholarship was for the four-year undergraduate program; it was not allowed for anything above that. Mr. Gwaltney opined the committee was in charge of deciding that issue. Ms. Von Tobel felt that would widen the scope beyond what was intended. Mr. Gwaltney said he was not there to debate that issue, but to stress the need for more teachers.
Ben Blinn, taxpayer, spoke in opposition to the one provision of S.B. 113 which eliminated Millennium Scholarship eligibility for persons receiving a high school diploma through the educational programs for adults. He said he was opposed to anything that limited educational assistance. He believed people in the prison system were often not able to attend high school and must get their high school diploma as adults. He stressed people should not be excluded from opportunities because they did not receive a “regular” high school diploma. Educational opportunities should be made easier for prisoners in an effort to help them become better citizens.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 113 and asked Senator Wiener to present S.C.R. 18.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 18: Urges and encourages various persons, organizations, agencies, governmental entities and educational institutions to take certain actions to promote school safety and reduce juvenile violence. (BDR-R-198)
Senator Wiener, representing Senatorial District 3, presented S.C.R. 18. Exhibit G was a written copy of her testimony. Exhibit H was a memo from Juliann Jenson, Senior Research Analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, describing the programs listed in S.C.R. 18.
Senator Wiener began her testimony by stating the recent school violence incidents in El Cajon and Santee, California, had raised the question: Was violence on the rise or were the violent acts being orchestrated on a larger scale? She continued the National School Safety Center tabulated the number of violent deaths on school campuses in 1999-2000 at 16, which represented an eight-year low since 1992-93 when there were 54. In the year of the Columbine tragedy (1998-99), 30 people died as a result of school violence. She emphasized violence involved more than death; it included everything from bullying to threats or harm and to fear itself.
Senator Wiener articulated that children were more fearful than ever about going to school. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 1999 about 5 percent of high schoolers felt too unsafe to go to school at least once in a 30-day period prior to the study. That represented a 25 percent increase since 1997. The perceptions of fear permeated the schools. In addition, many adults were concerned about the portrayal and glorification of violence in the media. Senator Wiener continued, stating every effort must be exerted to help children recognize that violence was not an option when it came to making life choices. She maintained the effort must start by listening to children and helping them learn that adults could be trusted with their messages, and would act to resolve their pain, fears and needs.
Senator Wiener submitted that S.C.R. 18 took a positive step toward accomplishing some of those tasks. It urged and encouraged various persons, organizations, agencies, governmental entities and educational institutions to take certain actions to promote school safety and reduce juvenile violence. S.C.R. 18 was one of three bill drafts on behalf of the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence.
Senator Wiener explained the creation of the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence was a result of a bill from last session (A.B. 686 of the Seventieth Session) submitted by Speaker Dini as an emergency bill following the Columbine High School incident. The commission heard extensive testimony by representatives from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, and the Crisis Management Institute, along with testimony from all the “stakeholders”—parents, youth groups, teachers, school administrators, business and community leaders, and local law enforcements. The commission also reviewed local and nationally recognized school emergency response plans.
Senator Wiener said the goal of the commission was to find the best practices that would work in Nevada. The result of the hearings was three bill drafts to accomplish the following:
Senator Wiener concluded her testimony by saying school violence was not just a school problem; it reflected what was happening in the communities on a larger scale. She then highlighted the prevention and intervention programs and practices addressed in S.C.R. 18:
Senator Wiener said the commission was cognizant of the fiscal challenges facing the state. For that reason, S.C.R. 18 was drafted to avoid imposing any unfunded mandates on schools and communities. She stressed that no matter how significant the words in the resolution were, nothing would be as meaningful as taking action on the messages within the resolution. Children should not have to focus their energies everyday on remaining safe until the final school bell rings.
Annie Rees, who was the rural parent appointee on the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence, urged adoption of S.C.R. 18. She encouraged the committee to get the information in the resolution out to the community so that community members were aware of the wealth of information the Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence had to share.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.C.R. 18 and asked Dr. Nichols if she would respond to issues on inmate eligibility for Millennium Scholarships raised by Mr. Ben Blinn during his testimony on S.B. 113. Chairman Williams asked Dr. Nichols if there was any way to still service that population.
Dr. Nichols said students who received their GED through the prison programs and were the traditional high school age were still eligible under the alternative provision in the Millennium Scholarship bill. That population, she emphasized, was not affected by the proposed change. The other adult educational programs available to inmates had historically been funded through prison funds, although, she explained, the funding had an “up and down” history. The UCCSN strongly supported those programs, and would like to see those funds used for inmates to attend the institutions.
Mrs. Chowning asked who was excluded from S.B. 113.
Dr. Nichols explained the exclusions applied to adults who returned to the school districts’ programs for the adult student, namely, the adult high school diploma program. Dr. Nichols remarked those individuals ranged in age from 20 to 70 years, who wanted to take adult classes, did not have a high school diploma, and were enrolled in the school district’s adult high school programs.
Mrs. Chowning asked if students in the adult high school diploma program could be 19 years old. Dr. Nichols said it was her understanding students that age were more likely to pursue a GED. The GED program was set up for them, particularly those students who did not complete the high school degree in a timely fashion. Those students typically participated in the GED program rather than the adult high school diploma program.
Mrs. Chowning asked if a 19-year-old who received a GED would still be eligible for the Millennium Scholarship. She said traditional high school age meant, to her, the cut off point would be 18 years old.
Dr. Nichols said the UCCSN wrote into the rules that only those students of traditional high school age who otherwise would have graduated from high school after May 2000 would be eligible for the Millennium Scholarship Program. She emphasized the UCCSN did not feel it was fair to extend the Millennium Scholarship Program to others when it was not being extended to high school students who graduated in May 1999, for example. She said the date set by the Legislature, May 2000, was the beginning point; in order for a 19-year-old to be eligible for the scholarship program, they would have had to graduate from high school in May 2000; there had to be a historical start time.
Mrs. Smith asked Dr. Nichols to repeat the number of students enrolled in the adult high school diploma program. Dr. Nichols said as of fall 2000 there were 13,940 Nevadans enrolled in a regular adult high school diploma program.
Mr. Manendo said he had a question about the waiver students would be asked to sign for the Millennium Scholarship, and if that was addressed in this bill or only addressed in S.B. 258. Dr. Nichols responded it was not addressed in S.B. 113.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent with the Nevada Department of Education, commented he considered the ineligibility provision of S.B. 113 an equity issue. The cutoff date for high school graduation was May of 2000 for scholarship eligibility. He cited as an example a student who should have graduated from high school four years ago, but instead earned a GED by the cutoff date of May 2000. That student would be ineligible for the scholarship. He explained the reasoning was that students who did graduate from high school four years earlier were not eligible since the Millennium Scholarship was not in effect; therefore, why should a student getting a GED four years later be eligible.
Dr. Nichols followed up with a comment that the changes proposed in S.B. 113 did not in any way affect the GED. The GED language used was to be eligible a student had to meet the following requirement: They would have graduated from high school after May 1, 2000, had the student been enrolled in high school. Dr. Nichols emphasized the UCCSN was attempting to maintain the equity of, for example, a 16-year-old with a low GPA who decided to drop out of high school, pursue alternative education, and become eligible for the scholarship program. The UCCSN wanted to close that loophole. The GED recipient did have a way to come into the Millennium Scholarship Program, but only by their normal progress in high school. Additionally, there was a provision that the GED student had to have at least a 3.0 weighted or unweighted GPA in all courses completed in a Nevada high school.
Chairman Williams said Mr. Blinn raised some good issues in his testimony. He knew the program was designed for Nevada high school students, but it was important that the message in the bill was not to prevent Nevadans from being educated. Chairman Williams said the committee would appreciate any changes or information relative to adult education or high school education. He emphasized the committee did not want to send the message they were rejecting educational opportunities for prisoners.
Chairman Williams also commented he understood the bill was time sensitive due to recruitment issues. He asked Dr. Nichols to provide information on that issue.
Dr. Nichols said UCCSN would like passage of S.B. 113 as soon as possible. The bill could open opportunities for Sierra Nevada College, which would make a difference in student choices. It would also make a difference to UCCSN in planning for students who might attend upper division courses at Great Basin College. In relation to the repayment issue, Dr. Nichols added UCCSN would like to get the word out to students to encourage them to persevere, stay in school, and return in the fall semester.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 113 and said he would accept a motion on S.B. 236.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 236.
Mrs. Chowning asked if the committee could hold off on action on S.B. 236 until the committee had an opportunity to review the amendments.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE WITHDREW HER MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 236.
Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 113.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 113.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Cegavske disclosed for the record her son was a recipient of the millennium scholarship.
Mrs. Koivisto disclosed for the record she worked for the UCCSN, although the legislation would not affect her.
Chairman Williams said he wanted to reiterate it was not the intent of the bill or the bill’s sponsors to shut education out for anyone in Nevada. The committee would like to work closer with the Department of Education and the UCCSN on opportunities to provide education for all Nevadans, including those who were incarcerated.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT.)
There being no further business, Chairman Williams closed the meeting at 4:53 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Mary Drake
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman
DATE: