MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

May 7, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:47 p.m., on Monday, May 7, 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

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell, Vice 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 EXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     Tom Collins

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Valerie Wiener

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Annie Rees, Member, Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence

Debbie Cahill, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association

Steve Williams, School Planner and Governmental Affairs Representative, Washoe County School District

Stan Olsen, Government Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Randy Robison, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards

 

 

Chairman Williams called the meeting to order as a subcommittee until members arrived to function as a quorum.  He asked Senator Wiener to make the presentation on S.B. 289.  Exhibit C was a copy of her testimony.

 

 

Senate Bill 289:  Makes various changes concerning responses to certain crises involving violence on school property, at school activities or on school buses. (BDR 34-200)

 

Senator Wiener, Senatorial District 3, began her presentation by explaining S.B. 289 was one of three bills this legislative session proposed by the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence.  The commission was created as a result of A.B. 686 of the Seventieth Session.  She said one of the directives to the commission was to establish a statewide emergency response plan to any incidence of school violence.  Specifically, A.B. 686 of the Seventieth Session required the commission to develop and distribute a plan to all school districts in the state describing: 

 

 

Senator Wiener continued, stating the commission completed the plan in January 2000 and sent it to all school districts for implementation by July 1, 2000, as required by A.B. 686 of the Seventieth Session.  She said the plan should have been adopted now by all school districts, and that S.B. 289 was the codification of the requirements under A.B. 686 of the Seventieth Session.

 

Senator Wiener said the approach the commission took to developing the plan was in terms of statewide guidelines.  She explained the commission recognized from the onset how important local control was, and that local understanding and input would result in the best response plan.  The commission also recognized the most important response would be affected by what happened in the initial stages of a crisis, which was the first two minutes of a crisis on campus.

 

Senator Wiener testified the commission learned not all schools in Nevada had an emergency response plan, and those that had plans had not updated them for many years.  Given those facts, the commission began the process of drafting the crisis plan by developing a master blueprint.  She explained the first task was to develop definitions, in particular defining what “violence” was.  She said the consensus definition in S.B. 289 was that violence was “an act that caused injury to persons or property committed with the intent to cause harm, or with the awareness that harm may be caused, or with reckless disregard that harm may be caused.” 

 

Senator Wiener continued the commission then had to define “crisis.”  The intent was to assure parents and the communities that if a crisis occurred on campus, the plan would address more than what happened at Columbine High.  The commission wanted to ensure parents of their children’s safety, so the focus was on how to address an incidence of violence and produce a prompt response.  The commission brought in collaborators in an effort to understand what it would take in terms of partnerships at the local and state levels.  Additionally, the commission realized each school district needed the flexibility to develop plans that worked best in their districts.  Lastly, the commission needed to integrate the oversight by state agencies to ensure each school was properly prepared and supported during a crisis involving school violence.

 

Senator Wiener then summarized the major provisions of S.B. 289.  The first requirement was that each school district’s board of trustees establish a development committee to create a crisis response plan for all schools in the district and review those plans annually.  The governing bodies of each charter school and each private school were also included in this requirement.

 

Senator Wiener said each school was required to establish a school committee to annually review the plan for the school.  The school could apply to the development committee if it determined a need to deviate from the district plan.  S.B. 289 allowed school districts, charter schools and private schools to accept gifts, grants or contributions from any public or private source to help pay for employee emergency response training.

 

Senator Wiener stressed that due to the sensitive nature of the information included in the response plans, the bill allowed the development committee and the school committees to keep the details of each plan confidential, and limited the number of persons or agencies having access to the plan.  Senator Wiener added that those who needed to know the plan would be trained in its implementation.

 

Senator Wiener noted the bill required the State Board of Education to develop a statewide crisis response plan.  The legislation encouraged the state board to work with the plans developed at the district level in an effort to coordinate resources.  The bill included provisions for funding response training and school violence assistance through the Disaster Relief Fund, which included the Emergency Assistance Account.

 

Senator Wiener concluded her testimony saying she had only provided the committee a very brief overview of the legislation.  She emphasized the response during the initial stages of a school violence incident was a critical factor in reducing the risk of further injury and loss and urged support for S.B. 289.

 

Chairman Williams asked if there was a fiscal note to the bill.  Senator Wiener explained it was a local government fiscal note.  She said there was testimony on the Senate side that the estimated implementation cost for Clark County would be approximately $500,000.  She indicated that amount was probably minimal because the school districts should have implemented the plans; A.B. 686 of the Seventieth Session required implementation by July 2000.  Senator Wiener said any fiscal note should have been responded to before the beginning of this session.

 

Annie Rees, member of the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence, urged passage of S.B. 289.  She said one of her daughters had an incidence of violence against her at school, and her daughter also urged passage of the bill so that the teachers and principals knew how to respond in those events.

 

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), urged passage of S.B. 289.  She asked to state for the record how impressed NSEA was with the way Senator Wiener handled the commission during the interim.  She noted it was a very difficult and far-reaching undertaking, particularly as it related to the issue of local control.  There was discomfort with adopting policies at the district level that would then be handed down at the school level.  She felt a level of understanding was reached by having a district-level policy, which could then be amended by each school as appropriate, thereby ensuring that community resources would help schools deal with a Columbine-type of school incident.  Ms. Cahill indicated those who participated in the process during the interim came to have a strong sense of comfort with the plan as represented in S.B 289.

 

Steve Williams, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), said they supported S.B. 289.  He indicated that Tamara Evans, WCSD Police Chief, who was unable to attend the meeting, furnished written testimony (Exhibit D) suggesting one minor change to the bill language in Section 9, subsection 2(d).  The new language would read, “one school police officer of the school district if the school district has school police officers.”  Mr. Williams explained the way the WCSD system worked, the high schools had two assigned police officers, but the other officers roved the district covering the various schools.  Ms. Evans’ suggestion was that the roving school officers be available to serve on the individual school committees.

 

Senator Wiener commented to Mr. Williams that the suggested language was already in the bill; if the school had a police officer, that officer would be a member of the school committee.  The bill also required the development committee at the district level have a school police officer as a member.

 

Mr. Williams clarified that the elementary schools did not have police officers assigned to them.  Ms. Evans’ point was that the elementary schools should have an officer on their committee, even though no officer was specifically assigned to the school.  Senator Wiener asked Mr. Williams if the officer would have that school as part of their jurisdiction.  She noted the point of police officer representation on the committee was the officer had knowledge of the school facility.  Mr. Williams said the school police would have the school within their jurisdiction.  Senator Wiener felt including that language should be the call of the Committee on Education.

 

Stan Olsen, Government Liaison with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said he worked closely with Senator Wiener and the commission during the interim on S.B. 289 and supported the bill as written.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked Mr. Williams why the WCSD amendment was not proposed to the bill sponsor at a more appropriate time.  She also asked Mr. Olsen if he felt the proposed amendment was already covered in the bill.

 

Mr. Williams responded he only recently received the amendment proposal and did not feel it was a “show stopper,” but more of a clarification in the language.

 

Mr. Olsen remarked the WCSD amendment, as he understood it, was not necessary.  The bill, as written, allowed for school police officer involvement in addition to police officers from the primary police agencies.  He felt the overall law enforcement portion of the plan should be decided at the district level, as opposed to the school-by-school plan.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 289 and opened the hearing on S.B. 115.

 

Senate Bill 115:  Revises provisions governing suspension and expulsion of pupils. (BDR 34-381)

 

Randy Robison, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), said S.B. 115 was forwarded from the NASB Legislative Committee.  He explained the bill as an attempt to provide some discretion to the local school superintendent regarding zero tolerance policies.  The bill removed the provision from Section 1, subsection 1, dealing with “dangerous weapons” and moved the “dangerous weapons” language into Section 1, subsection 2.  He noted on page 2, lines 6 through 8, the bill read, “The superintendent of schools of a school district may, for good cause shown in a particular case in that school district, allow an exception to the expulsion requirement of this subsection.”

 

Mr. Robison said the bill retained the mandatory expulsion in cases where a student committed a battery against a school employee, or who sold or distributed any controlled substance.  In cases where a student was found in possession of a dangerous weapon, it allowed the local school superintendent discretion.  He stated the bill helped address concerns about students who carried various objects that were not described in the definition of “dangerous weapons” and were not dangerous weapons.  He said as it stood right now, the school districts had no flexibility.  If they found an object on a student, even if it was a nail file, under current definition the student must be expelled.  The bill allowed the school superintendent the discretion to make a decision on a case-by-case basis.

 

Ms. Von Tobel said approximately two weeks ago a parent phoned her to relate her son was threatened at school by another student with a weapon.  The parent was upset because the student who made the threat was suspended for three days.  Ms. Von Tobel remarked when she reviewed the current statutes, they indicated the first occurrence mandated suspension.  She asked if this bill would strengthen current law.

 

Mr. Robison felt this bill strengthened current statute because it did provide that local discretion.  He said all districts had a policy regarding expulsion and providing for due process, with an appeals process for the student or the student’s parents.  He emphasized the intent of S.B. 115 was to address those cases currently not as egregious as the case Ms. Von Tobel cited.  He said at this point, local school districts had no flexibility to address incidents on a case-by-case basis; the school simply must expel the student.  The language in S.B. 115 stating “for good cause shown” allowed the school superintendent to make a decision based on the situation.

 

Ms. Von Tobel felt the school superintendents already had enough flexibility; they could decide how long a student should be suspended.  Since the current language said, “be suspended or expelled,” the incident she just cited caused her to believe the superintendents had some leeway on how they read the statutes.  She asked Mr. Robison to clarify that, with the new language in S.B. 115 stating “for good cause shown,” a student could argue that something such as a nail file was not intended as a weapon.  Mr. Robison confirmed that was correct.

 

Mr. Gustavson said he was confused about the reason for removing the language “dangerous weapon” out of Section 1, subsection 1, and putting that language into Section 1, subsection 2, whereby a student could be expelled for possessing a firearm or dangerous weapons.  He noted the language in subsection 2 still allowed the superintendent the latitude not to expel a student.  Mr. Gustavson also asked if Mr. Robison could define “sand-club” and “sand-bag,” which were listed as “dangerous weapons” in Section 1, subsection 7(b).

 

Mr. Robison answered he could not define the terms.  He indicated he had also inquired as to the definition of those two terms and did not receive a clear explanation.  The only answer he could offer was at some past point there was a device referred to as a “sandbag” which was believed to be a dangerous weapon.

 

Mrs. Cegavske expressed her appreciation that the bill came forward.  She related an incident where a student she knew was using his parent’s car and, unbeknownst to the student, there was an old knife in the glove compartment.  Because the student had another student in the car that was a truant, the school police searched the vehicle and found the knife.  The school subsequently suspended the student for possession of a dangerous weapon.

 

Chairman Williams said since the committee had questions concerning the definition of dangerous weapons and other issues, he wanted to send S.B. 115 to subcommittee to work out details.  He assigned Mrs. Smith, Mr. Gustavson, and Ms. Von Tobel to the subcommittee.

 

Ms. Von Tobel suggested since she might have a conflict due to her occupation as a substitute teacher, she probably should not be on the subcommittee.  Chairman Williams said he would allow Ms. Von Tobel to serve on the subcommittee and if it was determined she had a conflict, she could refrain from voting.  Chairman Williams assigned Mrs. Smith as Chairwoman.

 

Ms. Parnell commented there was a discussion at a school in which she taught over the definition of “dangerous weapons.”  A knife was confiscated from a student.  Ms. Parnell said the Sheriff’s Office indicated, by definition, that particular knife was not the type of weapon that would force the sheriff’s officer to take the student into custody.  She added she brought the issue to the attention of the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division, but no satisfactory solution to the definition of “dangerous weapons” was arrived at.  She asked that the issue of defining “dangerous weapon” be brought back to the committee.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 115.  He noted the committee could take action on S.B. 289 at the next meeting. 

 

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.C.R. 18, which was heard at the committee meeting of April 30.

 

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)

 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.C.R. 18.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

There being no further business, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:26 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: