ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

Seventy-First Session

May 21, 2001

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:01 p.m. on Monday, May 21, 2001. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was also video-conferenced to Room 4001 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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. Vonne Chowning

Mr. Tom Collins

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mrs. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33

Senator Maurice Washington, Senatorial District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Steve Williams, Legislative Representative, Washoe County School District

Debbie Cahill, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association

Ray Bacon, representing the Nevada Manufacturers Association

Barbara Clark, representing the Nevada PTA

Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada

Dan Miles, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada

John Swendseid, Attorney, Swendseid & Stern

Tom Ray, General Counsel, University and Community College System of Nevada

Richard Bjur, Director of the Office of Sponsored Projects, Administration and Technology Liaison, University and Community College System of Nevada

Larry Struve, President, Nevada Technology Council

Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance

Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Al Bellister, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association

Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education

Ed Iverson, Chairman of the Board, Logos Christian Academy

Bob Gunn, President and Business Administrator, Grace Community Church

Dr. Fred Harris, Academic Advisory, Calvary Baptist Church School

Chairman Williams began the meeting as a subcommittee until members arrived to form a quorum. He opened the hearing on S.B. 127.

Senate Bill 127: Authorizes Elko County School District to continue demonstration project in lieu of complying with class-size reduction program. (BDR S-172)

Assemblyman John Carpenter, District 33, testified in support of S.B. 127, specifically Section 2 that addressed the continuation of the Elko County School District (ECSD) class-size reduction demonstration project. Assemblyman Carpenter noted the class-size reduction ratio of 22-1 worked well in the ECSD. He pointed out one reason for the success was the school district had the funds to build the additional classrooms needed for class-size reduction. He further noted Elko County had a 75-cent ad valorem tax. He said over the past two years the ECSD utilized modular classrooms to achieve the 22-1 ratio; however, this year one school with modular units would be replaced with a “brick and mortar” building. It was anticipated additional “brick and mortar” school facilities would be constructed to replace all the modulars.

Assemblyman Carpenter said the third through fifth grade students were the greatest supporters of the 22-1 ratio because it allowed hands-on attention from the classroom teacher. He emphasized that in Elko County class-size reduction worked well, and encouraged continuation of the demonstration project.

Mrs. Chowning asked Assemblyman Carpenter if there was a 22-1 ratio from K-6. Assemblyman Carpenter confirmed there was. The first year of the project did not include the total school district; however, last year the project covered the K-6 grades. He additionally noted two years ago Elko County had the highest tax rate in effect next to Lyon County; the 75-cent “pay as you go” ad valorem tax had been in effect for ten years, and Assemblyman Carpenter was confident the taxpayers would vote the school district tax back in for another ten years. He acknowledged school districts must have the funds available to construct the necessary extra classrooms.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the 22-1 ratio was the maximum in ECSD. Assemblyman Carpenter answered there may be some variations in size; however, the figures he saw indicated many classrooms may be lower than 22-1. He noted since it was a pilot project, the ECSD tried to adhere to the 22-1 ratio.

Mrs. Chowning noted she, Chairman Williams, and Assemblyman Carpenter were legislators in 1989 when the class-size reduction program began. She said the original goal was to fund one class per year, and had the program been implemented as first planned, class-size reduction would now be carried through to the twelfth grade. She thought the optimum class-size was 19-1, and that Elko County was very close to that mark.

Chairman Williams asked Assemblyman Carpenter if he could speak to Section 1 of S.B. 127. Assemblyman Carpenter said in terms of Section 1, which allowed school districts to submit written proposals for approval to carry out demonstration projects in lieu of complying with the class-size reduction program, he felt if school districts had the classroom capability the project could work. He said the ECSD administration was committed to the project, which was one of the reasons for its success.

Chairman Williams thought Section 1 could jeopardize the ECSD pilot program. He asked Assemblyman Carpenter if he felt either Section 1 or Section 2 should be deleted from the bill. Assemblyman Carpenter answered his concerns were for the continuation of the ECSD project. Chairman Williams said Section 1 of the bill may “hold up” the ECSD project. Assemblyman Carpenter said he needed to keep Section 2 in the bill; he would let the committee decide on Section 1.

Ms. Von Tobel said her understanding was that Section 1 was “enabling”; she did not see it as mandating class-size reduction programs, but rather allowing school districts the option to carry out a demonstration project such as the ECSD. Assemblyman Carpenter said he did not believe Section 1 was mandatory.

Mr. Collins commented on his problems with the legislation. He said the state over the years had allocated money to build schools in Schurz, and had designated dollars to help Lincoln County and White Pine County. He said special legislation had been used to fund projects in counties; however, the Legislature could not get support to pass a statewide tax for education because many of the projects, particularly in the rural areas, had already been “cash-funded” by legislation.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented he felt the state had built very few schools. The reason the class-size reduction worked in Elko County was the citizen had “stepped up to the plate” and paid the 75-cent ad valorem rate. He reiterated it required extra classrooms to make the project work; it could be done with the per-pupil allocation funds.

Mr. Collins said Clark County had not turned down a school bond issue since 1984, and the Legislature had funded schools for rural Nevada. He wanted to see the program expanded to include the whole state at the original ratio, which would allow class-size reduction dollars for all the schools.

Assemblyman Carpenter said he always felt it was the responsibility of the local communities to build the schools. Referencing the projects Mr. Collins’ mentioned in White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Assemblyman Carpenter said sometimes the Legislature had to make those commitments.

Mr. Collins said the legislative representatives from the rural areas needed to “step up” and support tax increases for education. His concern was they did not have to because the state gave them the funds.

Assemblyman Carpenter remarked there needed to be a “broad-based deal” in terms of taxes; something across-the-board where everyone was paying.

In terms of Section 1 of S.B. 127, Mr. Gustavson commented he thought the language was permissive. He felt something needed to be done about “team teaching,” and class-size reduction could assist with that.

Ms. Von Tobel noted there was no fiscal note attached to the bill. The legislation would allow school districts to use their class-size reduction dollars, extend it to other grades, and use the 22-1 ratio for all the grades without requiring additional resources. She questioned whether there would be a need for more classrooms if the class-sizes were increased in the first and second grades, which then allowed for smaller class-sizes in the third, fourth and fifth grades.

Assemblyman Carpenter felt if the program were to be done, it would require more classrooms. He said the reason most school districts did not do the 16-1 class-size was from lack of classroom space. He believed 22-1 was a better overall ratio than having 16-1 for one or two grades, with the remaining grades having over 30 students.

Ms. Von Tobel said it was her understanding that most first, second, and third grades had a 16-1 ratio; therefore, the classroom space was being utilized. She felt the bill gave the school districts more flexibility working with existing dollars.

Chairman Williams noted the purpose of the pilot project was to determine what worked and what more was needed to make the project work. The Legislature approved the Elko County pilot project in an effort to explore the possibilities of expanding the program beyond Elko County. The Legislative Committee on Education voted during the interim to extend the ECSD program, which allowed them to explore the class-size reduction process.

Chairman Williams continued, saying if the committee passed Section 1, there would be no need for the Elko County pilot project. The pilot was to learn things to duplicate; the Legislative Committee on Education extended Elko’s project because the report from ECSD received during the interim was very positive, which left the committee believing Elko needed more time to continue with the project in order to see if the program could be extended to other counties. Chairman Williams felt Sections 1 and 2 of the bill conflicted; if other school districts were allowed to adopt a pilot project now, it could lessen the effectiveness of the Elko project in terms of learning from their progress.

Ms. Von Tobel said Section 1 stated the pilot project was to be used for grades 1 through 5, which was the initial pilot; however, Section 2 discussed expanding the pilot to include grade 6. She thought that language allowed school districts to practice what Elko learned in grades 1 through 5, while Elko was still involved in their own pilot project up to grade 6.

Chairman Williams observed the ECSD presentation made during the interim indicated they had more to learn in terms of the pilot and asked for more time on all grades in order to provide better information. Chairman Williams said what he supported during the interim was to give Elko more time before expanding the project to other schools. He felt if the Legislature was to expand the concept to all districts, there would be no need to continue with Elko’s pilot.

Assemblyman Carpenter said there was no question that Elko County needed the project and wanted to continue it.

Mrs. Chowning asked that before proceeding with more testimony, the committee clarified what S.B. 127 was setting out to achieve. She read Section 1 to be enabling; any school district may submit a proposal for a pilot project that included grades K through 5. The school district would then submit the plan to the State Board of Education and the State Board of Examiners for review. She commented that the language of the bill indicated the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) had the final approval of the pilot project. If approved by the IFC, the demonstration project was only in effect for one school year. At that point, the school district would bring the project back to the Legislature for review during the next legislative session; the project would only continue through legislative approval. Mrs. Chowning contended all school district proposals were pilot projects, including Elko’s.

Chairman Williams said the Legislative Committee on Education dealt with educational policy; the IFC dealt with educational appropriations. He said S.B. 127 allowed the IFC to determine a policy that normally should fall under the jurisdiction of the Assembly Committee on Education.

Martha Tittle, legislative representative for the Clark County School District (CCSD), said the CCSD supported S.B. 127, and had followed with interest the Elko County School District pilot project. They supported expanding the program to the other school districts in the state. She noted there would be facility issues that must be taken into consideration in every district; however, the CCSD would welcome the opportunity to conduct pilot projects along with the Elko County model. She suggested when looking at pilot projects, it would be valuable in terms of policy decisions if the committee looked at an expanded base of demographics and types of schools involved to see if there was a positive result.

Mrs. Chowning asked Ms. Tittle, and extended the question to the other school districts, if they supported the pilot project, why they had not come forward and asked for legislative approval for such a program. She also remarked she was “nervous” about the IFC making policy decisions; normally, that was the function of the Committee on Education. She noted the ECSD pilot project was approved last session through the Committee on Education.

Ms. Tittle answered the CCSD had followed the Elko County model and attended the meetings that discussed research studies on the student achievement issues related to class-size reduction. She affirmed the CCSD was interested, but also realized they would have to start on a very small basis due to the number of schools involved. They were willing to look at drafting a separate piece of legislation to propose a project; however, when it was presented in the Senate, CCSD did testify in support of S.B. 127 with the language that enabled them to have pilot projects.

Steve Williams, legislative representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), said they supported S.B. 127, and had registered their support of the measure when it was presented in the Senate. He said the intent of their support was a philosophical one in that it provided flexibility to the school districts. He emphasized, however, he could not state with certainty that the 22-1 ratio would work for the WCSD; it might not, but they would appreciate the opportunity to look at it. Through the provisions in Section 1, they would be required to put together a proposal that looked as if it would work; it was not a giveaway program, but one that would give them the opportunity to explore the project.

In response to Mrs. Chowning’s question to the school districts, Mr. Williams said the WCSD did not come forward with a pilot project because they were looking at the Elko County project first to see how it progressed. S.B. 127 presented itself as a vehicle where the WCSD could seek the flexibility. Mr. Williams said he did not feel 22-1 was a “magic” number; he felt there were various configurations of class-size reduction schemes that would work. He said the WCSD would support the investigative efforts to determine what did work.

Ms. Tittle said she wanted to respond to the concern about the IFC. She said the CCSD did not have strong feelings one way or another about who the reporting committee should be, or how the approval process worked.

Chairman Williams said the Committee on Education did not have the authority to approve fiscal issues, and he did not believe the IFC had the authority to deal with policy. To expand the issue to allow a “small group of legislators” who did not typically deal with policy issues authority to approve the program was, to him, suspect.

Ms. Debbie Cahill, legislative representative for the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said when the bill was in the Senate, the NSEA did testify in opposition; however, some of their concerns were addressed in the bill’s first reprint with amendments. She noted, however, all the concerns were not addressed, so the NSEA was in opposition to S.B. 127.

She testified that the Legislature had established a policy for class-size ratios. After much discussion and many heated arguments, when the bill went forward in 1989, the class ratio was determined at 15-1, but subsequently funded at 16-1. Her concern with S.B. 127 was it took a giant leap forward institutionalizing a new policy, which would be 22-1. The bill did not provide flexibility to the districts; the only option was 22-1 if the districts did not want to do what law currently mandated. The NSEA had envisioned giving school districts other options to look at for class-size reduction.

Ms. Cahill said the NSEA supported the Elko County pilot project because Elko’s concern was to eliminate team teaching; however, the studies conducted in Elko determined the teachers did not feel removing team teaching was necessarily good for the teachers. She noted one first-year teacher, who in the second year went into a classroom with a 22-1 ratio, lost her mentor. Ms. Cahill offered that team teaching was not always a bad situation. She thought if the stated goal of the class-size demonstration project was to eliminate team teaching, perhaps the districts needed to do a better job of pairing people in teaching situations. In that way, another critical issue could be addressed, which was a mentor program for new teachers.

She concluded her remarks by again expressing opposition to S.B. 127. She said the state of Nevada had already spoken on the issue. Nevada was a leader in the nation on the issue of class-size reduction, particularly for the primary grades, at 15-1. The NSEA requested that the committee not back away from that.

Ms. Von Tobel said she thought the ratio of 22-1 was no different than what was currently in the classrooms. She pointed out since there was no cutoff, as students moved in and out of the school districts, there was no addition to the class-size reduction formula; once those cutoff days arrived, students continued to move in. She did not feel the 22-1 ratio should be that much of a concern since she had not seen a class in the Clark County School District that was at 16-1; they varied and she assumed they would continue to vary with the passage of S.B 127. She felt 22-1 was more of a “goal to shoot for.” She noted the only way currently to achieve flexibility in class-size reduction was to request a variance. S.B. 127 at least gave the school districts some flexibility when using class-size reduction dollars to try different formulas.

Ms. Cahill said the way she read the bill was the only other option was 22-1 if a school district wanted to do a pilot program. Her concern about going to 22-1 was the “creep factor” mentioned by Ms. Von Tobel; the districts had to receive waivers. If the goal was 22-1, it was possible to end up with a classroom of 25 to 26 students.

Ms. Von Tobel said it could also go in the opposite direction. She had taught in classrooms that went down in enrollment due to moving students around.

Mr. Ray Bacon, representing the Nevada Manufacturers Association (NMA), spoke in support of Section 2 of S.B. 127 from the standpoint that the demonstration project had been outstanding and needed to continue. He said the NMA read the bill as requiring that if only Section 1 was passed, Elko County would have to go through the entire application process again.

Mr. Bacon said there were some good provisions in Section 1 that should be considered; however, from the NMA’s standpoint, Section 2 needed to continue. Elko County had gathered good data, but the data seemed to change as they moved further along with the project.

Chairman Williams asked that the record reflect there was now a quorum, with Mrs. Cegavske excused.

Barbara Clark, representing the Nevada PTA, spoke in opposition to the bill. In referencing Ms. Cahill’s testimony, Ms. Clark also noted the numerous discussions that took place determining the class-size reduction ratio. She commented that now another number was being discussed, and no one knew what the actual number would be. She felt it was a “scary proposition” for parents when the education system decided what was being done did not work, and they must try something different. She said it was a real concern for the Nevada PTA that school districts were making decisions not always based on research. They were also concerned with the equity issues; some schools could work with the high ratio numbers and some could not.

She summarized by saying from the parents’ perspective, lower class-sizes worked. The system was built to give a good foundation for the first, second, and third graders in their education; raising the number diminished that. She said smaller class-sizes helped students become better readers by third grade. She expressed frustration with educational policies that constantly changed; systems that were built based on research were again changing. She encouraged a “no” vote on S.B. 127.

Senator Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District 2, spoke on behalf of S.B. 127. He said he understood the “fear factor” from those in opposition to the bill, but he would submit that no one in favor of the bill wanted any less for the children. The goal was the best educational opportunities for children to succeed and be successful. He contended the bill presented an opportunity for school districts to submit proposals flexible enough to allow them to achieve the optimal results of class-size reduction. When schools were mandated to work within a prescribed number, they were being set up for failure. He referenced the testimony on team teaching, lack of facilities, and the other resulting issues when school districts were not able to meet the mandates of current statutes. But, he noted, it was proven in Elko County that flexibility in class-size reduction could be successful; he felt there were more benefits than failures with the project.

Senator Washington said S.B. 127 was an attempt to give each district the opportunity to create a program that best met the needs of the district in fulfilling their obligations to educate children. Senator Washington emphasized the language of the bill was permissible; it did not mandate the ratio had to be 22-1. The number could be anywhere from 1 to 22 and covered K-5. Currently, schools must comply with the 16-1 ratio from grades one to three; the bill called for an expansion of class-size reduction to the fourth and fifth grades and raised the number to a potential ratio of 22-1.

Mr. Collins asked if there was representation from the University and Community College System of Nevada that could answer a question on course catalogs. Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), was present and would reply to the inquiries.

Mr. Collins said when he was attending college the course catalogs rated colleges on their student-to-teacher ratios. He asked Dr. Nichols if that system was still in operation.

Dr. Nichols replied the UCCSN did not have information on student and faculty ratios and, to her knowledge, the UCCSN did not publish the average for a particular college in the student information catalogs. She said the classes varied in size.

Mr. Collins said many colleges used their faculty-to-student ratio as a selling point for the college, and he was curious to see if it was still a practice.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 127 and opened the hearing on S.B. 500.

Senate Bill 500: Revises various provisions of University Securities Law. (BDR 34-915)

Dan Miles, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration with the UCCSN, introduced John Swendseid with Swendseid & Stern, who was the bond counsel for UCCSN.

Mr. Swendseid said S.B. 500 made technical changes to the UCCSN securities law, which was the law passed by the Legislature that allowed the Board of Regents to issue revenue bonds. He noted all of the changes in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 were already made through the state’s securities law, which allowed the state to issue State General Obligation Revenue Bonds, and the local governments’ securities law, which allowed cities, counties, and school districts to issue bonds. The request in S.B. 500 was nothing new; the UCCSN was only asking for the same procedural changes as allowed for the state, cities, counties, and school districts. Mr. Swendseid then addressed the various provisions in the bill.

He explained Section 2 allowed the Board of Regents to delegate to the chief financial officer or chief administrative officer the right to set interest rates and other details of bonds, thus giving the UCCSN more flexibility in timing their bond sales. The state and local governments frequently took advantage of that provision in their acts.

Section 3 allowed the UCCSN to issue floating rate bonds, which, again, was allowed for state and local governments. Section 4 allowed the UCCSN to invest bond proceeds in certain guaranteed investment contracts that were collateralized with government securities, again a practice allowed for state and local governments. Section 5 allowed the UCCSN to enter into interest rate exchange agreements, with the same limitations on the UCCSN that were imposed on state and local governments.

Mr. Swendseid explained that Sections 6 and 7 were the only areas of change not already approved for local governments. Section 7 was a change to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applicable to all government securities and necessitated because of changes made to the UCC during the 1999 Legislative Session that would take effect July 1, 2001. That legislation changed the way liens worked for government bond issues; however, since its passage in 1999, bond counsels realized the legislation passed was “not the best thing” for government bond issues. The amendment proposal in Section 7 exempted government liens from the provisions of the UCC adopted in 1999 and would revert back to the language in effect prior to the 1999 bill passage. That language was what was now in effect.

Mr. Collins asked why bond counsels wanted to stay with the existing code when the other entities were operating under the new code.

Mr. Swendseid said, pursuant to the acts already passed, when governments issued a revenue bond, they provided in their adopted resolution that the bondholders had a certain lien on the revenues, and the bondholders counted on those liens on the revenues pledged. He said the way existing law worked, a resolution was passed and the government entity said what the lien was. The proposed amendment to the UCC provided that, instead of going by the bond laws to decide what the lien was, the entity must look at the UCC code provisions on priority of security interests. The UCC had different provisions on how priority of liens was established. Generally, he stated, when money was in the bank, the bank had the first lien on the money, which was “bad” for bondholders. If bondholders were told in a resolution that they had the first lien on the money, that was what they counted on.

Continuing with his explanation, Mr. Swendseid said in addition, the UCC generally required that the entities file financial statements with the Secretary of State once every five years. The bondholders counted on their lien once they were given the bond; they were not counting on having someone file a new financial statement every five years. Mr. Swendseid said the Commission on Uniform State Laws recognized the need to go back to the old language, which Mr. Swendseid believed was appropriate.

Vice Chairman Parnell closed the hearing on S.B. 500 and opened the hearing on S.B. 543.

Senate Bill 543: Makes various changes concerning contracts that faculty members and employees of University and Community College System of Nevada may enter into or benefit from. (BDR 34-1172)

Dr. Nichols spoke in support of S.B. 543. She explained the bill was requested by the UCCSN Board of Regents and was based upon a growing realization within the UCCSN and the state that the University System must take a lead to build a stronger, broader-based economic foundation for Nevada. She said the UCCSN had looked at other states to find models, particularly in the high-tech areas such as “Silicon Valley.”

She noted the most successful models had as a common factor a strong research university and a very strong capacity of the faculty at those universities to participate with and encourage the development of business and products that resulted from the research. The UCCSN recently completed a study, known as the Batelle Study, which made a number of suggestions relative to what the UCCSN needed to do. Dr. Nichols said UCCSN staff looked carefully to make sure all “ingredients” were in place to be posed to transfer the value of the research and the value of what the faculty would bring to the private sector.

Dr. Nichols advised that S.B. 543 addressed a problem that existed in the Nevada Revised Statutes. The measure would allow the UCCSN faculty, within the policies set by the Board of Regents, and with the permission of the president of the institution, to work with both a private company and the university to ensure that the three entities could work together to bring a product to market, create a new company, and to bring to Nevada the benefits of research and development. She said it was congruent with the direction the UCCSN had to go to build a strong high-tech industry in Nevada. Dr. Nichols then introduced Mr. Tom Ray, UCCSN General Counsel, who continued with the presentation.

Mr. Ray said the intent of the bill was to enhance research and development in the universities in Nevada. The bill had the potential to enhance faculty by hiring higher qualified researchers, to present additional revenue streams for the UCCSN, and to enhance economic development and diversity within the state. Mr. Ray said S.B. 543 “fine-tuned” existing law, specifically ethics law, which had the unintended consequence of hindering the ability to foster research, development, and economic diversity.

Mr. Ray first expanded on the basic relationships between faculty researchers, the university, and private enterprise to explain why the UCCSN had brought the bill forward. He said what the university generally wanted to do within those partnerships was to enter into an agreement with the faculty member, the university, and private enterprise to research and market the faculty member’s ideas with the hope the idea would be developed into a product. The state’s ethics laws generally prohibited a contractual relationship between an employee of the State of Nevada and the State of Nevada. He cited as a typical example an employee of the state who owned a separate business. The ethics laws would appropriately prohibit the employee’s company to enter into a contract with the state because of the conflict of interest. However, the ethics laws did recognize that in certain circumstances, where it was appropriate to allow such relationships, the law currently provided exceptions to that prohibition by allowing faculty members of the UCCSN to enter into contracts with the State of Nevada as long as the faculty member did not participate in drafting or formulating the contract proposal.

Mr. Ray explained the problem lay with the provision that the faculty member could not work to develop the contract proposal, which then prohibited the faculty member and the university from entering into an agreement with private enterprise to market and development ideas. He said the unintended consequence was the creation of a disincentive to bring research to the university because it encouraged faculty to take research out of the university and enter into agreements independently with private enterprise while the universities provided the facilities and all necessary tools to conduct the research. S.B. 543 allowed the universities to participate in product development; in the event the product went to market and was profitable, the manufacturer, the faculty member, and the university could participate in the profit.

Mr. Collins mentioned a bill presented this session that stated an employer kept all patents, ideas, and proceeds from any money made while an employee was on the payroll. He thought S.B. 543 would be in conflict with that bill.

Mr. Ray said he had looked at the bill, and it was consistent with S.B. 543. The bill Mr. Collins referred to recognized the employer was the owner of the idea; with S.B. 543, the university would be the employer, and thus the owner of the idea. It was consistent with the intellectual property policies because it allowed the university to enter into a contract with the faculty member to share in the profits of the idea since the research was being conducted using university facilities and tools.

Vice Chairman Parnell asked Mr. Ray if the Ethics Commission had reviewed S.B. 543. Mr. Ray replied he had not personally discussed it with the Ethics Commission, and was unaware if anyone else had. He had not, however, received any opposition to the measure; in fact, there was a great deal of support for the proposal.

Mr. Richard Bjur, Director of the Office of Sponsored Projects Administration and Technology Liaison with the University and Community College System of Nevada, restated the importance of the bill as it related to managing conflicts of interest within the faculty and as it related to research and the transfer of intellectual property to the private sector. He noted it was the role of the university in stimulating economic development to become increasingly active in research and scholarships within the institutions. He said that as new inventions were discovered, private companies became interested in the inventions. The companies were also interested in further developing their own inventions within the University System. He pointed out, however, that as soon as the universities and private companies started to interact at that level, they found themselves in conflict with existing statute. The purpose of the bill was to correct that; it would not change any of the normal interactions between the faculty and the community under normal circumstances. The only time the UCCSN could involve faculty in situations that would normally be in conflict with the current provisions was when the public interest was best served, which was a very high standard to meet. The bill enabled the various university institutions to have certain interactions between faculty and private companies and bring those technologies and research back into the institution when it was in the public’s best interest.

Mr. Larry Struve, President of Nevada Technology Council (NTC), spoke in support of S.B. 543. He explained the NTC was a partnership of academic, government, and private sector organizations that promoted technology-based economic development in the state of Nevada. He said he wanted to publicly acknowledge the strong support the NTC received from the UCCSN to maintain dialog among the three sectors as they tried to diversify the state’s economy and attract more technology-based industry. Mr. Struve echoed the comments of the previous speakers, and stressed that Nevada was in a very competitive arena now. He noted those states most successful in attracting technology-based industries relied heavily on university faculty to create and develop new products that would make economic diversification a reality. He said the members of the NTC hoped that the UCCSN Board of Regents, using the authority contained in the bill, could create, consistent with the ethical standards in the state, policies that would give incentives for the faculty to work with private industry in developing new products and helping the private sector to implement a strategy. That strategy would be incorporated into the Batelle Study.

He concluded by stating the NTC considered S.B. 543 an extremely important bill; without it, the restrictions would prevent the same “tech transfers” in Nevada currently enjoyed by other states with which Nevada was competing.

Ms. Von Tobel commented the provision in Section 2, subsection 6 stating: “any person violating this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall forfeit his office” was strong language which, she assumed, was the reason the UCCSN felt compelled to change the statute if individuals benefiting financially were committing a gross misdemeanor.

Mr. Struve said he would characterize the language more as a disincentive. He did not believe the UCCSN faculty set out to intentionally violate law; many researchers were not aware of the restrictions until their contracts went to the General Counsel, and then they discovered the tight restrictions under existing law. S.B. 543 gave permission to the Board of Regents to establish policies that would enable faculty to go forward with research in cooperation with private industry and not worry about violations that may subject them to a legal sanction or disciplinary action within the university. The NTC saw the bill as enabling legislation to bring Nevada into a more competitive stance in attracting technology-based companies to the state.

Ms. Von Tobel felt it could provide exciting opportunities for Nevada, possibly developing something so financially sound that it could be self-supporting for additional projects in the future. Mr. Struve concurred and said that had been the experience of other states. The “tech transfer” from the University System had been a very strong “engine” that added to the tax roll and created high quality jobs.

Mrs. Chowning added the bill had the potential to be a revenue generating measure.

Mr. Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance Chapters throughout the state, said the bill put Nevada in a more competitive position by attracting and retaining good quality researchers; it allowed them to do what they could do at virtually any other major research-oriented university throughout the country. Mr. Richardson further noted there was an expectation the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, would become a major research university; without the passage of S.B. 543, they could be hindered along the course.

Vice Chairman Parnell closed the hearing on S.B. 543 and opened the hearing on S.B. 55. She noted there was no one registered to speak on the measure.

Senate Bill 55: Makes various changes to provisions regarding Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (BDR 34-814)

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 55.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Collins commented S.B. 55 made changes to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) program. Policy Analyst Susan Scholley explained the measure required an application fee of $50 and specified the money would be deposited into the commission’s student loan fund. It also authorized the commission to use money from the fund for administrative purposes. The commission may designate certain facilities at the UCCSN as underserved areas; graduates, however, must serve at those facilities at least four years rather than the two years specified for other underserved areas. The measure made permissive in current Nevada law that Nevada commissioners of WICHE must assess certain penalties against program recipients returning to the state who did not practice in an underserved area. The bill repealed separate requirements for the placement of student physician assistants, with the current agreements pursuant to that provision still valid. She noted the application fee specified by the bill was intended to encourage serious applicants and help defer the cost for incomplete applications. In terms of the penalty provisions, under current law, persons who received funds to attend school under the WICHE program must return to Nevada to work in certain underserved areas. The commission was required to assess a penalty triple the amount of the grant, plus interest, if they returned to Nevada and did not practice in an underserved area. It allowed WICHE commissioners the flexibility to make exceptions to all or part of the triple penalty requirement and allowed for a waiver in certain hardship cases.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING WITHDREW THE SECOND ON S.B. 55.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO WITHDREW THE MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 55.

Ms. Von Tobel said the WICHE program was an excellent program; she felt the bill should have been referred to the Ways and Means Committee because it dealt with fee changes. She asked that the committee not make a recommendation and forward the bill to Ways and Means. Vice Chairman Parnell said the bill was not exempt, so it required action now.

Ms. Von Tobel said the measure asked for a fee increase, and she felt the WICHE program provided a needed service to Nevada by allowing Nevada students to go out of state and participate in programs Nevada did not provide. The student’s tuition was reimbursed if they served in underserved areas of Nevada, which, she said, was desperately needed. Ms. Von Tobel stated she would move for approval, and the committee could reserve its right to change the vote once the measure went to the Assembly Floor.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 55.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Scholley interjected there was a conflict notice with S.B. 55; therefore the motion would have to be “amend and do pass.” She said the conflict related to removing the “apostrophe s” from “physician’s assistant.”

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 55.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Chowning asked if a triple penalty was a component of the bill. She noted on page 2, the language changed from “shall” to “may.” She felt that was an important provision in the bill; if a person did not practice in the location of the state, the triple default charge was in place. She did not agree with changing it to “may.”

Mrs. Scholley said it was her understanding the commission wanted to allow waivers to the penalty provision in hardship cases. She said there was testimony before the Senate Human Resources and Facilities Commission that addressed situations such as an individual with terminal illness or other extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Collins said he supported the bill because it did not restrict students to service only in the rural areas, which he thought were declining, but allowed the students to work within their own community college systems where there were shortages.

Vice Chairman Parnell said S.B. 55 would require a two-thirds majority and called for a vote. Mrs. Scholley clarified the bill only needed a simple majority vote.

THE MOTION FAILED. (NO VOTES: ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH, ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON. ABSENT FOR THE VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA, CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS. ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

Vice Chairman Parnell called for a two-minute recess. After recess, she opened the hearing on S.B. 243.

Senate Bill 243: Makes various changes concerning charter schools. (BDR 34-348)

Rose McKinney-James, legislative representative for the Clark County School District (CCSD), spoke in support of S.B. 243. She explained the school district requested the bill in an effort to clarify the terms and conditions under which school district employees involved in charter schools might deal with the issue of reemployment.

She noted that the first reprint of the bill did not reflect one of the important agreements arrived at during consensus discussions. That provision allowed existing statutory language to remain in place. She concluded the provision was inadvertently left out during amendment drafting and was an administrative issue that needed to be clarified. She then reviewed the provision left out in the reprint.

Ms. McKinney-James said the significant language removed from the bill proposed that school districts that sponsored charter schools could receive, if they chose, a portion of each charter school’s per-pupil funding to offset expenses incurred with mandated charter school oversight. The CCSD had originally requested that 3 percent of the charter’s per-pupil dollars be set aside for that purpose; however, as a result of discussions with interested parties, the language was amended to reflect 2 percent in the first year and 1 percent in each year thereafter.

Ms. McKinney-James pointed out as the number of charter schools grew, the school district’s workload increased. Currently two schools were granted charters with a third pending; additionally, there were two pending applications. She provided copies of a document compiled by Dr. Craig Kadlub (Exhibit C) that outlined how other states funded districts with charter schools, and concluded by urging support of S.B. 243.

Al Bellister, representing the Nevada State Education Association, provided copies of the proposed language change referenced by Ms. McKinney-James (Exhibit D) that made S.B. 243 consistent with the agreement reached with the Clark County School District in the Senate; he urged support of the amendment.

Explaining the proposed amendment, Mr. Bellister said it accomplished two things. First, transfer rights for employees from a charter school back to a school district would only apply to those employees who were on a leave of absence from a school district; it would not apply to employees of a charter school. Only employees of a school district could be reassigned back to the school district.

He noted the second part of the amendment was current law; it was a provision added to the original charter school language that provided a safety net for employees on a leave of absence from a school district so they had guarantees to reemployment to their same position or, after six years, to a comparable position. The NSEA would not want to see that safety net taken away from those employees on leave of absence.

Mr. Collins asked if employees could come back if they provided a written request to return. He also asked how seniority was factored in. Mr. Bellister explained the process had three stages. If an employee decided to return to the school district within the first year, the employee would be guaranteed to return to their former position. After the third year, the employee was guaranteed reemployment, but only to a comparable position. The same applied after six years.

Mrs. Angle said her understanding was charter schools were public schools, so an employee who went from one school to another was still a school district employee. She questioned why a distinction was made between charter school employees and public school employees.

Mr. Bellister said the distinction was between two separate employers, not public schools. The charter school employed some teachers working in charter schools and some teachers on leave of absence from the school district. The intent of the original statute was only those employees on leave of absence from the school district had reemployment rights back to the school district, not those employees hired by another employer. The reason for that, he explained, was the different standard of employment between employers.

Mrs. Angle asked Mr. Bellister to clarify that those teachers working for a charter school were not working for the school district. Mr. Bellister said that was correct. The teachers who moved from the school district to the charter school were on an approved leave of absence.

Vice Chairman Parnell added it was her belief that most contracts across the state required teachers to apply to take a leave of absence. She also said it was important to note charter schools did not require teachers to be certified in order to teach.

Mr. Bellister concluded his testimony noting he wanted to assure there was concurrence with the Clark County School District that the amendment presented was part of S.B. 243, and not what appeared in the first reprint of the bill.

Vice Chairman Parnell closed the hearing on S.B. 243 and opened the hearing on S.B. 223.

Senate Bill 223: Revises provisions governing private elementary and secondary educational institutions. (BDR 34-1151)

Presenting S.B. 223, Senator Washington noted the bill was requested by the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE) to address licensures for religious and faith-based institutions that provided elementary and secondary education. The provision exempted those institutions from the Private Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act. Senator Washington said current statute exempted other private schools that were non-sectarian.

Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services with the Department of Education, thanked Senator Washington for bringing the issue forward, and provided background on the bill. He said in December 2000, private, exempt schools within the state registered concerns to the NDOE about the way the state required them to file as a private, exempt school. Dr. Rheault said under current statute, private, religious schools could only be exempt under the provisions that covered “fraternal or benevolent institutions offering instructions.” With that, however, came the requirement that the NDOE become involved in the membership determinations of that church. Dr. Rheault said Nevada was the only state that ran the private, religious exempt schools from the “fraternal or benevolent” type of exemption. He emphasized S.B. 223 was a clarifying bill that provided a clear exemption for elementary and secondary education institutions operated by churches, religious organizations, and faith-based ministries; it would stop the unnecessary “red tape.”

Dr. Rheault explained there was a second provision in S.B. 223, which was a consensus agreement among all the administrators of the exempt schools that they would support legislation that required them to notice the parents or guardians of the child that they were an exempt school within the state. Most of those institutions had a contract or agreement the parent signed that made it clear the school was exempt. Dr. Rheault clarified the term “exempt” meant exempt from licensing. The schools were still required to follow the course of study, excluding the religious education they provided; meet all the health and safety requirements; and prove they were a religious or faith-based organization.

Mrs. Chowning asked Dr. Rheault to explain what “exempt” meant in terms of what the parents could expect; what were they “exempt” from.

Dr. Rheault said the main difference between an “exempt” school and a “licensed private school” was there were more requirements for licensed private schools; they mirrored almost identically what was required of public schools. The exempt schools had more freedom in terms of who they hired as instructors and meeting the course of study or standards adopted by the state.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the exempt schools were required to meet the same academic standards as the public schools. Dr. Rheault said they were; they had to provide assurances that their course of study, exclusive of religious study, was the same as or equivalent to the course of study adopted by the State Board of Education.

Mr. Collins asked if the written notice of exemption would be obvious to the parents. Dr. Rheault said the schools had to provide evidence at the time they submitted their application renewal to the NDOE that the notice was clear and evident to the parents or guardians.

Vice Chairman Parnell asked if schools exempt from the Private Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act did not have to provide special education services. Dr. Rheault said that would be correct, although he believed the parent of a special education student would enroll their child in institutions that could provide the services. Vice Chairman Parnell hoped that was made clear to the parents when they noticed the school was exempt; there should be some reference to the fact those services were not provided.

Mr. Ed Iverson, Chairman of the Board for the Logos Christian Academy, said their school was an exempt school. He provided a written statement (Exhibit E) in support of S.B. 223, and shared the school’s experience in gaining exempt status.

Mr. Iverson said the academy applied for exempt status two years ago. The NRS statute then in place assumed that churches would operate schools with a vision and a structure of a church-related school. He said Logos Christian Academy was not a church-related school; it was an independent, board-run school and there was no policy in place to offer an exemption to faith-based schools that were independent, board-run schools. The school could apply for an exemption, but the process was convoluted and subject to arbitrary interpretation. Mr. Iverson emphasized the bill would bring clarity to the matter of exemptions granted to private, faith-based schools.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Iverson if the exempt status exempted teachers from fingerprinting requirements in order to do background checks. Mr. Iverson said he would have to defer that question to a school administrator; he noted their hiring policy would also take into account faith-based initiatives. He acknowledged the school would not require state certification for teachers. Addressing Mr. Collins’s question about the exempt status notice, Mr. Iverson said parents were very aware the school was not licensed, which was one reason they enrolled their children.

Mr. Bob Gunn, President and Business Administrator of Grace Community Church, testified in support of S.B. 223 as written. He said the Grace Community Church preschool presently had an attendance of 160 students, with approximately 200 children on the waiting list. Addressing Mrs. Chowning’s question concerning fingerprinting, he noted their school did fingerprint and run background checks; that included all employees who interacted with the children.

Mr. Gunn said the passage of S.B. 223 would eliminate the discriminatory language presently in statute, which allowed exemptions for only two different denominations. The measure would also allow organizations to apply for exemption “in good consciousness” since they were not qualified to apply under the current provisions because they taught more than just religious subjects. Filing under “fraternal and benevolent” forced them to provide membership determination factors to the NDOE, which then forced the state into making a subjective determination on their legitimacy.

Fred Harris, Academic Advisor for Calvary Baptist Church School, indicated their church had a child protection policy that required fingerprinting for all employees. In regard to teacher standards, Dr. Harris noted with interest that he had a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, a double major in physics, minors in history and English, a master’s in educational administration, and a master’s and Ph.D. in computer science, yet he was not qualified to teach in a public school in the state of Nevada because he did not have a teaching credential. He was, however, qualified to teach at the University of Nevada. He contended the Calvary Baptist Church School wanted to hire highly qualified teachers. In terms of standardized testing, the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), which most of the private schools in the state were members of, requested that their members do standardized testing on their students. Dr. Harris said most of the private schools in the state did that because the parents wanted to see those results. He also urged passage of S.B. 223.

Vice Chairman Parnell closed the hearing on S.B. 223.

Chairman Williams then opened the work session.

Mrs. Scholley distributed the work session document to the committee (Exhibit F) and began the discussion with S.B. 165.

Senate Bill 165: Makes various changes regarding education. (BDR 34-218)

Recapping the key provisions of S.B. 165, Mrs. Scholley said the bill:

Provided additional requirements to school improvement plans and panel reports for schools designated as needing improvement;
Deleted schools designated as needing improvement based on testing too few students for eligibility for remedial funds;
Clarified that a student who dropped out of school and was approved by the local board of trustees to take the GED exam was exempt from compulsory attendance. She noted it also changed the requirement granting permission to take the GED; it would be the responsibility of the local school board and not the State Board of Education;
Extended the current Hold Harmless provision for declining enrollments from one year to two years;
Included as a requirement that the American history and American government courses include the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

She pointed out that “Tab Q” in Exhibit F contained technical amendment requests that clarified charter school report requirements must conform to current practices. “Tab R” contained the testimony of Dr. Rheault related to Sections 16 and 17 on the American history and government courses; and “Tab S” contained the verbatim testimony of Steve Williams that proposed an amendment to Section 16 requesting the language read: “at least one year in all secondary schools.”

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 165

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 165

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Parnell asked if Section 16 was amended to include the term “secondary” substituting the word “high”; or was it still just one year in all high schools. She needed that clarification before she could vote on the bill. She had argued against using the term “secondary” because that would include middle school, and she did not want to see government eliminated in either eighth grade or twelfth grade.

Mrs. Smith stated it depended on which amendment was being used; the first amendment removed all reference to high schools. She also asked for clarification on the amendments.

Ms. Parnell said the maker of the motion did not clarify if it was the amendment in Section 16, first choice on page 2 of the work document, or Section 16, the second choice on page 2 of the work document.

Mr. Gustavson said he also wanted clarification; did the motion include both high school and secondary school.

Mr. Manendo said his motion was to eliminate both Sections 16 and 17.

Mrs. Chowning indicated she could not agree to eliminate Sections 16 and 17. She did agree with Dr. Rheault’s amendment that deleted the requirement each subject be taught for at least one year in high school; that would give the flexibility needed to teach all the additional academic standard requirements. She also agreed to keep the terminology “in all high schools” rather than changing it to secondary schools; that would include grades 9 through 12 only. She felt it would provide more benefit to the students since they would receive instruction in history and government in the eighth grade, which would be a double benefit to them.

Mrs. Scholley clarified the motion “amend and do pass” would include the amendments in “Tab Q,” which were the amendments to Section 10 related to charter school reporting. The other amendment would be to delete Sections 16 and 17; the effect would be the language currently in NRS remained.

Mr. Collins asked if the motion meant there would be no changes to NRS 389.020 and 389.560. Mrs. Scholley confirmed that was correct; NRS 389.020 currently read:

1. Instruction must be given in American government including, but not limited to, the essential of the constitution of the United States, the constitution of the State of Nevada, the origin and history of the constitutions, and the study of and devotion to American institutions and ideals.

2. The instruction required in subsection 1 must be given during at least one year of the elementary school grades and for a period of at least one year in all high schools.

Mrs. Scholley said with respect to American history, NRS 389.030 reads: “American history, including the history of the State of Nevada, must be taught in all of the public schools in the State of Nevada for a period of at least one year.” That language would remain unchanged in the current version of the NRS. It deleted the additional references to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights added by the Senate amendment.

Ms. Parnell said she could support the motion with the amendments from “Tab Q” and the deletion of Sections 16 and 17; she felt it important to note that the references in Sections 16 and 17 were currently included in the social studies academic standards.

Chairman Williams called for a roll call vote.

THE MOTION FAILED. (NO VOTES: ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING, ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL. ABSENT FOR VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA. ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 165 WITH THE AMENDMENTS IN “TAB Q” AND THE AMENDMENTS IN SECTIONS 16 AND 17 AS PROPOSED BY THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Scholley clarified the motion would include the Sections 16 and 17 in the work session document under the heading of “The Department of Education”; the red lettering would be deleted from the current version of the bill; the blue lettering would be added; and the green lettering was the amendment the committee was proposing. The blue, red, and black type was already in the bill.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if the language in blue type, which included the Bill of Rights, was the language included in the motion. Ms. Parnell affirmed it was.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ABSENT FOR VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA. ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 543.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 543

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Koivisto disclosed she was an employee of the UCCSN; the bill, however, should not affect her so she would be voting on the measure.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ABSENT FOR VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA. ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

Chairman Williams called for a motion on S.B. 500.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 500.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Koivisto said the Committee on Judiciary recently agreed to pass the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), yet this bill requested an exemption to the UCC. She said in three or four more sessions, the legislators would have to come back and decide whether to have or not have a Uniform Commercial Code. For that reason she had an issue with S.B. 500.

Mrs. Smith said the committee testimony indicated the state had already made changes to the provisions, so not passing the bill would be a conflict with those changes. She noted she supported the legislation to ensure the UCCSN was aligned with the state changes.

Mr. Collins stated the UCC bill passed in the Assembly Judiciary Committee brought the state into compliance with national as well as state codes and requirements. He noted the Judiciary Committee amended the UCC frequently, and it must be amended regularly to ensure compliance when dealing with out-of-state transactions. He did not feel comfortable allowing an exemption when the testimony indicated the party requested the amendment because they did not want to report on their bonds and securities every five years. He did not find the testimony compelling enough to support the legislation.

Mr. Miles, with the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), said Mr. Swendseid’s testimony indicated the amendment was based on a recommendation by the National Commission on the Uniform Commercial Code that the correction be made to the UCC, even though the national code was not corrected yet. Other states had already made the correction. Mr. Miles said the reason for the amendment was to leave the bondholders in the position they expected to be left in when they purchased the bonds. The new Uniform Commercial Code could leave the bondholders in a secondary position in terms of collecting on pledged revenues. When bonds were sold, specific revenue was pledged to redeem the bonds. If the bondholders were put in a position where the pledged revenues could be requested by another party based on the list of priorities established by the UCC, it could have an effect on the ability to sell bonds.

Mr. Collins asked who was placed in front of the bondholders by the legislation just passed out of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Miles said the bank holding the money was in front. Mr. Collins asked what position the contractor who built the facility was in. Mr. Miles said he did not know the answer to the question; the intent of the legislation was to keep the bond- holders in the same position as they were in now in relation to pledged revenues to repay the principal and interest on the bonds.

Mr. Collins inquired if the bill would put a conflict on the measure just passed.

Mrs. Scholley said there was a conflict notice in S.B. 500; however, when she examined the two bills, it was not a substantive conflict. There was an identical amendment in S.B. 474 as was in Section 7 of S.B. 500. To her knowledge, no other conflict notice was received regarding Sections 1 through 6 or Section 8 of S.B. 500.

THE MOTION PASSED. (NO VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS. ABSENT FOR VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA. ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 243

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 243.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if the bill was being passed without the amendments. Chairman Williams said the motion made was “do pass.”

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WITHDREW HIS SECOND.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 243.

Chairman Williams called for a roll call vote.

MOTION FAILED. (NO VOTES: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS, ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO, ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH, CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS. ABSENT FOR VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA; ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

Chairman Williams asked for a subsequent motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 243.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Von Tobel pointed out the language in the proposed amendment was not much different than the language in the original bill. The maker of the amendment had an opportunity to change the language in the Senate. The bill would be going back to the Senate, and if there was no concurrence, it would go to conference committee. She felt since the language was so close, the bill could be passed out of committee with the same language as was passed out of the Senate.

Mrs. Angle said she shared the same point of view as Ms. Von Tobel. She said her conversations with some members of the Senate committee indicated they had not seen the amendment. The amendment maker did have the opportunity to present it to them.

Mrs. Scholley said she wanted to clarify that the amendment was presented to the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities; there was apparently a misunderstanding as to what was proposed, so the change to the language in Section 1, subsection 7, was left as it was in the original version of the bill and not made in the first reprint. She said in fairness to the makers of the amendment, they did present it in the Senate; the amendment was inadvertently not carried forward.

MOTION PASSED. (NO VOTES: ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL. ABSENT FOR VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA; ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 223.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 223.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ABSENT FOR VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA; ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 127.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS, DELETING SECTION 1 OF S.B. 127.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Von Tobel felt leaving Section 1 in the bill offered school districts some flexibility to create a demonstration project such as Elko County. To delete Section 1 removed that opportunity. It would give school districts the opportunity to provide class-size reduction in upper grades. She pointed out that both Washoe County and Clark County School Districts testified in support of Section 1; additionally, the provision was not mandatory. She did not understand the move to eliminate Section 1; therefore, she could not support an amendment that would remove the section.

Mrs. Smith wanted clarification on the motion. Chairman Williams said the motion would delete Section 1 and retain Section 2. Mrs. Smith said she had real concerns about using pilot or demonstration programs and then not following up on those programs and not extending the programs to the point where good information was collected. She said although there were good reports on the Elko project, the reports were anecdotal, not scientific. She wanted to be very careful how class-size reduction was approached. She had grave concerns about ending up with classes that were 25, 26, or 27 students, since class-size reduction calculations allowed classes to expand beyond the minimal number. She could support the provision, but requested the committee revisit the issue to see how it worked.

Mrs. Koivisto noted the testimony indicated the data was changing. She did not feel the project was in place long enough to gather sufficient data to justify extending the pilot project to other districts. She therefore supported the motion.

Mrs. Angle said she could not support the motion because the language in the bill was enabling. She said the Elko County report on class-size reduction showed the 22-1 ratio not only gave more opportunities for smaller class-sizes through the fifth grade, but also saved money by adding one student in the lower grades. She was in support of expanding the pilot project. She noted how difficult it was in terms of budgets for some of the school districts to meet the class-size reduction requirements, which was why Elko County had asked for the exemption. The enabling language in Section 1 gave more opportunity to the districts and addressed some of the issues that resulted from class-size reduction mandates, such as team teaching. The objective was what was best for the children.

Mrs. Chowning said the original class-size reduction legislation and the Elko County pilot program were passed by the entire Legislature. Section 1 did not require approval by the legislature; it only put in steps with the decision-making authorities being the State Board of Education, the Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation, the State Board of Examiners, then the Interim Finance Committee. She emphasized this would be the first time the Legislature was not involved in changes to the class-size reduction program.

Mrs. Chowning also pointed out Section 1 did not give flexibility; the ratio was 22-1. The bill did not require review from either the policy committee or the finance committee; she therefore could not support the bill.

Mr. Gustavson said by making Section 1 permissive, it allowed the educational system the ability to research and experiment with class-size reduction. He did not want Section 1 to be removed.

Mr. Collins said he was not convinced to change his mind on the motion. He believed one reason school districts were not keeping up with school construction was due to the tax caps on property taxes, which was where the bond money was generated to build more schools. That prevented school districts from meeting the 16-1 ratio for the first three grades.

Mr. Collins further stated the other counties outside of Elko County did not have the money to build the necessary classrooms to meet the program in an effective way. He saw the passage of Section 1 as an attempt by Washoe and Clark County School Districts to use a larger class-size ratio, which in turn would reduce the benefits to the lower grades. Additionally, he believed the other counties could not use the permissive language because they did not have the funds to create the classroom space. Finally, Mr. Collins contended the Elko County “experiment” had not been in place long enough to prove its worth. He strongly believed Section 1 should be removed, and he further agreed with Mrs. Chowning’s comment that the program should be reviewed by the full Legislature with the proper backing and documentation.

Mrs. Chowning again reiterated that Section 1 did not require approval by the Legislature; that, she contended, was the function of the Legislature. The members should not willingly turn over their responsibilities to four different committees.

Addressing that point, Chairman Williams commented he felt it “strange” the Legislative Committee on Education was not even included in the review. He noted the Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation was comprised of staff, not committee members.

Ms. Von Tobel said when class-size reduction was adopted, the Legislature did not know how the program would enhance education; it was an experiment. She believed Section 1 did not ask any more than the initial legislation that approved class-size reduction; it provided flexibility to class-size reduction. It gave the school districts one more choice in how they could implement the class-size reduction dollars. She questioned why the committee was saying “no” to two of its largest school districts when it was known funding was “tight.”

Ms. Parnell expressed her conflict with the bill. She liked the bill and felt there needed to be alternative ways to continue class-size reduction. She was particularly interested in addressing the needs of kindergarten, which had not been done to her satisfaction. She also noted she had some concerns about team teaching. She said she would support the motion, but reserved the right to change her vote on the Assembly Floor.

Mrs. Smith said the discussion was about total change, not flexibility. She felt it would be different if Section 1 provided some limits; however, the language talked about total change to the program.

MOTION PASSED. (NO VOTES: ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL. ABSENT FOR VOTE: ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA. ABSENT: ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE.)

Ms. Parnell thanked Chairman Williams for “graciously” allowing her the opportunities to serve as Vice Chairman during the committee hearings.

Mrs. Smith said she appreciated the direction Chairman Williams’ bill went with the communication piece on the proficiency exam. She asked if there was some way during the interim to look at the proficiency exam in an effort to thoroughly study it; she was concerned there was not sufficient “philosophical discussions” based on how long the exam had been in place, the type of graduation, and other issues. She asked Chairman Williams if there was any avenue for the committee to examine the issue.

Chairman Williams said the issue could be presented to the Legislative Committee on Education during the interim. He noted the chairmanship would switch over to the Senate; however, the committee could look at it. He suggested the Assembly Committee on Education draft a letter to the interim committee urging the committee to look at high stakes testing.

Addressing Mrs. Smith’s comments, Ms. Parnell said the issue of high stakes testing was across-the-board now; it was not limited to just proficiency exams. She felt a philosophical study on both issues was in order.

There being no other business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: