MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

May 14, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Educationwas called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Monday, May 14, 2001.  Chairwoman Debbie Smith 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.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs. Debbie Smith, Chairwoman

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Randy Robinson, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards

Steve Williams, Governmental Affairs Representative, Washoe County School District

Frank Brusa, Legislative Representative, Nevada Association of School Administrators

 

 

Chairwoman Smith called the subcommittee meeting to order and opened the hearing on S.B. 115.

 

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

 

Randy Robinson with the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB) gave a brief overview of S.B. 115.  He explained the bill was aimed at providing the local administrator of a school and a school district more discretion in regard to “zero tolerance” policies.  Specifically, the bill dealt with the “dangerous weapon” clause.  He said the “dangerous weapon” definition in Section 1, subsection 7(b) of S.B. 115 was too broad, particularly on lines 43 and 44 where it stated, “or any other object which is used, or threatened to be used, in such a manner."

 

Mr. Robinson continued, saying because of the broad wording in the statute, many otherwise innocent objects, such as nail files and key chains, were viewed as “dangerous weapons.”  The situation was further complicated because school administrators had no enforcement discretion.  He cited as an example one instance where a student brought a butter knife to school to cut a sandwich.  The local administrator was automatically compelled to institute suspension because the student was in possession of a knife.

 

Mr. Robinson explained S.B. 115 would take the “possession of a dangerous weapon” clause in Section 1, subsection 1, line 5, and move that to Section 1, subsection 2, under the “firearm” section.  He argued that by doing this, the local administrator could make decisions on a case-by-case basis.  The new wording in Section 1, subsection 2(b) would 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.”  NASB had added the phrase “for good cause shown” in an effort to allow discretion in non-threatening or even innocent cases.  If the student was in possession of a dangerous weapon, an automatic expulsion requirement was in place.

 

In summary, Mr. Robinson said the bill allowed the local school districts discretion in dealing appropriately with those types of offenses, particularly in cases where the students were innocent.

 

Chairwoman Smith asked Mr. Robinson to clarify the phrase “for good cause shown.”  She asked if that put more “teeth” into the law, giving the school administration more guidelines from which to work.  Mr. Robinson said that was the exact intent of the language.  She then asked if school administrators had any discretion in the “firearm” category.  Mr. Robinson answered the discretion clause on page 2, lines 6 through 8, allowed an exception to the expulsion requirement in Section 1, subsection 2; it included the possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon.  He explained the language change would deal with a situation where a student unknowingly had a firearm in the vehicle.  He noted that section would also address a situation such as Mrs. Cegavske cited at the Committee on Education hearing of May 7, where a student was suspended because of a knife found in the glove box of the vehicle.  Both the vehicle and knife belonged to his father.  He said Section 1, subsection 4, also addressed the situation of a student who typically carried a knife or rifle in a vehicle, as sometimes happened with students living on farms in the rural areas.  The subsection allowed the local administrator approval in those situations.

 

Mr. Gustavson remarked his reading of existing law led him to conclude the school administration currently had the discretion to expel or not to expel a student for possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon.  He noted Section 1, subsection 1 read, “be suspended or expelled.”  Subsection 2(b) also stated, “allow an exception to the expulsion requirement.”  He asked where the problem arose.

 

Mr. Robinson explained Section 1, subsection 1, did allow a degree of flexibility; however, the exception clause only applied to subsection 1.  Including the phrase “for good cause shown” in Section 1, subsection 2(b), gave local administrators more direction in granting exceptions that would stand up to subsequent scrutiny.  The problem, he explained, was centered on those innocent occurrences.  Separating the possession of a dangerous weapon from the other two offenses noted in Section 1, subsection 1, which were deliberate actions, protected the student from inappropriate discipline and the administrator in making those decisions.

 

Mr. Gustavson said he was in favor of increasing the discretion for administrators.  He felt it was a good change.

 

Steve Williams, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), said the WCSD supported the bill.  He said WCSD did not want to encourage the possession of dangerous weapons on campus; however, they did not want to see students suspended from school for innocent actions.

 

Frank Brusa, representative for the Nevada Association of School Administrators, spoke in support of the proposal.  He said the bill brought discretion into the “zero tolerance” policy.

 

Mrs. Smith asked Mr. Robinson to elaborate on a concern raised by Ms. Parnell at the Committee on Education hearing of May 7.  Mr. Robinson related Ms. Parnell had asked if the definition of “dangerous weapon” could be improved or augmented.  She cited an incident at a middle school, which was brought to her attention during the interim period.  Mr. Robinson explained that particular incident was more a matter of interpretation over a local jurisdiction; however, the incident did raise a legitimate concern.  He said the incident involved an object within the possession of a student, which did not necessarily fit the “dangerous weapon” definition found in S.B 115, nor did it fit within some of the definitions referred to in that section, specifically the definition of “knife” as found in NRS 202.350.  Mr. Robinson felt the use of the object could have fallen under the catchall phrase “or any other object which is used, or threatened to be used, in such a manner” as found in Section 1, subsection 7(b) of S.B. 115.  The local law enforcement authorities were unwilling, however, to prosecute because they did not feel the object met any of the definitions.  Mr. Robinson further explained on the school side, there was great concern because the school officials felt the object did present a threat to the students in the school. 

 

Mr. Robinson continued that when he spoke with legal counsel at the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) about augmenting the “dangerous weapon” definition in S.B. 115, staff expressed concern that trying to deal with that specific instance either with the definition or the referent definition in NRS 202.350 could really become cumbersome.  Mr. Robinson said he then spoke with the school personnel involved in the incident.  He said the real concern there was on the juvenile side, and the need to send out a clear message about possessing any sort of object that could be used in a threatening manner.  Mr. Robinson said for purposes of S.B. 115, and at LCB’s direction, the concerns of the school personnel in that incident could be better dealt with through strengthening other relevant statutes.  That could be looked at during the interim. 

 

Mrs. Smith said it sounded like the issue was more about the criminal prosecution, and not about the discipline at school.  The committee was only dealing with the school discipline issues.

 

Mr. Gustavson commented that the language “or any other object” in Section 1, subsection 7(b), made it almost impossible to put into statute every item that could be construed as a “dangerous object.”  The statute needed the flexibility.

 

Mr. Robinson said Mr. Gustavson’s comment echoed the sentiment of the LCB legal staff:  Once you start making the lists, where do you stop?  S.B. 115 built discretion into the statutes; however, more work might need to be done on the criminal side.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DO PASS ON S.B. 115.

 

CHAIRWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION PASSED.

 

 

Chairwoman Smith adjourned the subcommittee meeting at 8:21 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: