MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-First Session
April 11, 2001
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:54 p.m., on Wednesday, April 11, 2001. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was also video conferenced in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 E. 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. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mrs. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David Humke, District 26
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Mary Drake, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Nevada Public Employees Retirement System
Debbie Cahill, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association
Sandra Hudgens, representing self
Dr. Larry Moses, President, Educators Unlimited
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, Nevada Department of Education
Al Bellister, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative, Washoe County School District
Barbara Clark, Representative for Nevada PTA
Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada
Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Ron Dreher, President and Nevada Chapter Director, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Stephen Turner, Director, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Ken Kruger, President, All American Driving School
Rhonda Bavaro, Business Programs Manager, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Alfredo Alonso, representing U.S. Interactive
Jim Kidder, Associate Vice President for Planning, Budget and Analysis, University of Nevada, Reno
Lt. Todd Renwick, University of Nevada Police Department
Randy Flocchini, Chief of Police, Truckee Meadows Community College Police Department
Chairman Williams called the meeting to order as a subcommittee until a quorum was present. He opened the hearing on A.B. 633, which, he stated, was requested by the Committee on Education. Chairman Williams explained A.B. 633 had the same intent as A.B. 555, which was a bill sponsored by the Nevada Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), so the committee was willing to withdraw A.B. 633 since the same issues were addressed in A.B. 555. He asked Dana Bilyeu with PERS to make a statement for the record.
Assembly Bill 633: Revises provisions governing public employees’ retirement system to authorize certain retired employees to accept employment as teachers. (BDR 23-1300)
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer for the PERS, stated that A.B. 555, called the PERS technical bill, carried reemployment provisions which exempted individuals from the reemployment restrictions if they returned to work in an area declared to be one of critical labor shortage, including the school districts. A copy of her statement is attached as Exhibit C.
Debbie Cahill, Legislative Representative for the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said the NSEA was in support of A.B. 555 with the rehire provisions, and believed the bill provided adequate coverage in that area. NSEA supported withdrawing A.B. 633.
Chairman Williams said there would be no further consideration of A.B. 633 since it was encompassed in A.B. 555. He asked Sandra Hudgens, who was testifying in support of A.B. 633 from Las Vegas, if she wanted to make a statement for the record.
Sandra Hudgens, representing herself, said she was unaware of A.B. 555. She was currently unable to work as a substitute teacher for the Clark County School District because she was a retiree from the State of Nevada and could not be employed by the school district because of the rehire restrictions. Chairman Williams explained to Ms. Hudgens that A.B. 633 was drafted as a safeguard measure in case A.B. 555 was not introduced. He advised her A.B. 555 had been passed out of the Committee on Government Affairs.
Chairman Williams then opened the hearing on A.B. 127 which dealt with distance education.
Assembly Bill 127: Authorizes school districts and charter schools to provide programs of distance education for pupils at risk of dropping out of high school. (BDR 34-461)
Ms. Von Tobel, Assembly District 20, introduced A.B. 127 on behalf of Dr. Larry Moses, President of Educators Unlimited. She emphasized it important to add “tools” to every “toolbox” in every school district in the state. Nevada had the highest dropout rate of any state in the nation, and she felt A.B. 127 allowed another tool for those students who did not want to continue with traditional education. The bill would allow those students to still receive an education and a diploma through distance education. She felt it important to adopt a distance education plan for the state. Exhibit D outlined the provisions of the bill, and Exhibit E is a copy of a background paper on distance education at elementary and secondary school levels provided by Policy Analyst Susan Scholley.
Dr. Larry Moses, President of Educators Unlimited, testified on behalf of A.B. 127 and disclosed he was a board member of the Odyssey Charter School of Nevada, and while A.B. 127 was a distance education bill and not a charter school bill, the Odyssey Charter School was very interested in becoming involved in distance education.
Dr. Moses stated the intent of the bill was to provide the necessary statutes to allow school districts or charter schools the ability to offer courses necessary for a pupil to acquire a high school diploma through distance-learning programs. The program would take the form of video classes, Internet courses, correspondence courses, or any combination thereof. Distance education would serve the needs of a “distinct” group of pupils who, for one reason or another, opted out of the regular classroom setting.
Dr. Moses explained how the program worked. A school district board of trustees or a charter school board could, subject to the approval of the State Board of Education, operate a distance-learning high school. The students attending those classes would include, but not be limited to, students who were pregnant, chronically ill, self-supporting, lacking in academic credits, requiring a more individualized educational program, chronically absent, or in danger of dropping out prior to graduation.
He further explained the program would allow students to have either shorter or longer day sessions, receive instructions at any time, or receive instruction on any day of the calendar year. The course program provided students the opportunity to satisfy requirements for either a regular high school diploma or a high school diploma for adults. Teachers would provide all the assignments, and the pupils and teachers would meet or otherwise communicate at least once a week to discuss progress.
Dr. Moses continued, the bill allowed that any student was eligible to enroll in any distance-learning program recognized by the school district’s board of trustees. Attendance would be computed based on the time the student spent on the computer, time spent with the instructor, time spent viewing videos, and the time worked on teacher-assigned lessons. To receive a diploma a student must complete 22.5 credits and successfully complete the state required proficiency exam. Funding for a student would be based on the funding allotted to their school district of residence or the district in which the pupil enrolled, whichever was the lesser allotment.
Dr. Moses advised the program was geared toward students who had dropped out of school and were not receiving education. It would provide them an educational setting directed by professional educators.
Ms. Parnell commented the description of the program sounded like home schooling. She asked Dr. Moses how it differed.
Dr. Moses said a recent settlement reached between a charter school, the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE), and the Attorney General’s Office concluded the charter school in question was not receiving public money for a program of home instruction because the program consisted of instruction provided by a licensed teacher and a licensed administrator using course curriculum. The teacher directed all instruction. He acknowledged one of the problems differentiating between home schooling and distance learning was there was nothing in state law or the state administrative code defining home schooling. All the areas covered in the “public school” definition in statute were covered in the distance learning bill. He said distance education functioned more like a public school because it operated under an application approved by the NDOE and the local school district.
Mr. Collins questioned how the per-pupil funding was addressed in the distance education scenario. Dr. Moses said cost savings were realized by the fact no building was required; any rental facility used had to come out of the per-pupil allotment. He noted there was a suggestion to lower the funding level for students in distance education. The second area where distance education saved money was staffing; there were very low administrative costs associated with distance education.
Mr. Collins commented his concern was determining what was equitable. Distance education also had higher technical costs associated with that type of program. He noted distance education was currently offered in the Clark County School District through the Channel 10 station.
Dr. Moses offered to give Mr. Collins a copy of a mock-up budget for the program. He acknowledged there were funding questions, and one of the more important issues was that distance education be funded based on the funding received by the school district. In that way, distance education programs would not draw or “pirate” students from other school districts whose per-pupil funding was higher. Dr. Moses thought the current pupil allotment of $4,500 in Clark County would cover the distance-learning costs.
Mrs. Cegavske said she found the concept “exciting.” The state was looking for alternatives for students, and the proposal may answer some of the problems. She remarked she had recently completed a college Internet course just to experience how it worked, and found it very motivating. She felt technology offered a great alternative in education.
Mrs. Angle said she had a similar experience with a distance learning program, and felt the program met the needs of the students targeted. Not every child was a “cookie cutter” child who could fit into the regular school program. She asked Dr. Moses if he was familiar with the White Pine County distance education program, and if it was possible to use some of their ideas. She inquired if the proposed measure was just for Clark County.
Ms. Von Tobel told Mrs. Angle the program would be a statewide policy. She felt that the students who dropped out of high school were lost to the system; that was one more avenue to bring them back to education. For some reason, those students were not “fitting into” the standard public schools. She cautioned, however, that limiting the number of credits could limit participation by some students who might see it as an option for their entire high school education.
Mrs. Smith mentioned there was discussion at a previous meeting about how quickly students could amass credits. She asked if that was addressed in the bill.
Dr. Moses responded the minimum for credit was 60 hours of course work toward graduation. As an example, a student could choose to do a full semester of history and complete that portion quicker.
Mrs. Smith clarified she was concerned about how quickly students could complete the total work. Dr. Moses answered that was controlled by the amount of time students were required to spend on any one subject. He estimated a student could possibly complete one course in nine weeks, but that meant the student did not complete any other course work. The amount of time per credit was the same. The student must have 180 days of instruction expanded over a 365-day year.
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District (CCSD), made some general observations relative to A.B. 127. He began by stating the CCSD was a proponent of distance education. The district currently offered classes through the Internet, the Cyber Schoolhouse Program, and through the distance instructional TV Channel of KLVX. The CCSD continued to encourage participation in correspondence courses and independent study programs. He emphasized the CCSD recognized the value of electronic and other nontraditional instructional opportunities.
Dr. Kadlub continued, through all the cited cases, the CCSD used as a guideline NAC 389.730, which stated: “A pupil may apply not more than six units of credit earned by independent study toward meeting the requirements for graduation from high school, and that not more than three units of credit earned by independent study in English, math, science, and social studies may be applied toward meeting the requirements for graduation.”
Dr. Kadlub stressed that while the CCSD supported distance education, they did not feel it was presently an adequate substitute for classroom experience on a full-time basis at the high school level, with the exception of legitimate physical or mental disabilities that could constrain a student’s attendance. He emphasized the hands-on classes such as science that demanded speaking and listening skills could not be effectively delivered through a computer or a program of self-study.
Dr. Kadlub said since A.B. 127 targeted students at-risk for dropping out, and because NRS 386.500 defined “at-risk” students and included economically disadvantaged families, pupils of limited English ability, and students who did not meet minimum standards of academic proficiency, the CCSD was concerned that many of the children who would qualify for participation in distance education programs were the very ones who could not afford the technology. Those students might also lack the reading and math skills to guide themselves through text-based tutorials and pre-imposed tests.
Dr. Kadlub stated the CCSD recommended that before any student was approved for participation in such program, the school district be given some assurance the literacy skills necessary to succeed in the program that relied heavily on self-guidance were met. The CCSD also believed the state should certify distance education programs to be used to ensure compliance with Nevada standards.
Dr. Kadlub then made a few specific comments about A.B. 127. Referencing Section 2, subsection 4(b), he noted that provision appeared to exempt distance education students from the space and qualification requirements expected of other students. That, he felt, was contradictory to the language in Section 29, subsection 5. He suggested deleting all the new language in Section 2, subsection 4(b) to ensure program capacity and a student’s level of readiness for a course continued to be conditions of admission for all students.
He noted Section 20 essentially stated that for accountability purposes, every full-time student in a distance education program would be assigned to the school the student would normally have attended. In terms of the CCSD, there could potentially be 250 different principals responsible for collecting hundreds of bits of information about students with whom no one in the school had any contact. The CCSD therefore recommended that the distance education program assume responsibility for collecting all data required as it related to those students. He maintained that would better enable the district to evaluate the efficacy of the distance education program and how well the population was being served. Dr. Kadlub had a prepared amendment for the bill provision that he submitted to the committee as Exhibit F.
Dr. Kadlub concluded his testimony by stating the CCSD appreciated the sponsor of the bill keeping charter schools and distance education at the forefront of the education discussion, and hoped the comments were received in the constructive manner in which they were intended.
Mrs. Cegavske said she understood some of the concerns expressed by Dr. Kadlub. She questioned why it was different for the school district to implement such programs when the universities and community colleges were currently implementing them. Dr. Kadlub answered that public education was different than post-secondary education; the CCSD felt an important part of a public education was exposure to public schools. He emphasized the school district was a proponent of distance education; the reluctance was the leap from a six-hour program to virtually an entire high school career. Post-secondary students, by virtue of graduating from high school, had proven literacy skills and could guide themselves through a program. Those students also paid the tuition for the course work. That, he contended, could not be said for a ninth grade student who did not read well.
Mrs. Cegavske asked Dr. Kadlub if he could support the bill if his suggested amendments were included. Dr. Kadlub said he was very agreeable to working with Ms. Von Tobel on the measure. As he stated in his testimony, however, the CCSD was concerned about going to a full-time high school program at this point. When technology progressed to a level where it was more interactive, there might by a place for it; however, the school district was not now ready to make the leap from six credits to 22.5 credits overnight.
Mrs. Cegavske asked if the school district preferred a phased-in program. Dr. Kadlub said he would like to see a stricter definition about who was eligible for the program. It was critical that students had literacy skills to participate in distance education. The definitions in NRS 386 discussed students who had little or no literacy skills, which, he noted, made them eligible for the program. He doubted, however, how well those students could succeed using self-guided tutorials.
Mrs. Cegavske said that in working in the special education area, the committee found that students with learning disabilities and physical handicaps such as blindness did well with the computer programs. That was why she felt the program could work, and that the state was possibly a few years late phasing in distance education.
Mr. Collins remarked he felt the language in the bill gave the school districts the “hammer” on controlling the program. He thought if the school district determined the hours, then the school district could decide how many hours of instruction were needed for credits.
Dr. Kadlub replied his understanding of the bill was that if passed exactly as written, it enabled a school district to offer distance education full-time, such as they now did with charter schools. The school district would not, however, have any authority over the degree to which they participated in the program because the law enabled the creation of full-time programs. In referencing Mrs. Cegavske’s comments on the computer skills demonstrated by special education students, he clarified he did not presume to say those students could not succeed; he merely asked that students demonstrate some level of proficiency so that the school district was not taking them from one program where they were guaranteed failure and placing them in another program where they were guaranteed failure.
Mr. Collins concurred with Dr. Kadlub’s comments. He felt there needed to be assurances that the students could succeed.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent with the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE), spoke in support of A.B. 127 within the context that there needed to be regulations or statutes in state law defining distance education. He said the NDOE was concerned with another piece of distance education legislation, S.B. 108, which was currently before the Senate Finance Committee and would open distance education up to any student from K-12. There were advantages and limited opportunities where distance education would be beneficial, for example homebound students. A.B. 127 was specifically for “at risk” students, and he did see an application for advanced program courses at rural sites that could not get the advanced classes. He did not see where A.B. 127 would allow that. Dr. Rheault remarked he liked the provision in S.B. 399 where it spelled out who would be eligible to take distance education. He preferred A.B. 127 to S.B. 108 because S.B. 108 opened distance education to every student, and the NDOE felt there were still some quality issues that needed to be addressed. They would like to phase the program in slowly. He added he did not feel it would be beneficial for full-time students; it was a means for credit-deficient students who attended regular school during the day to make up credits. He did not feel the quality was there for six hours a day.
Chairman Williams asked Dr. Rheault if he shared the position of the Clark County School District. Dr. Rheault responded he did. He also noted the wording in A.B. 127 was very similar to the wording in S.B. 108. In particular, he had concerns with the language addressing apportionments made from the Distributive School Account. The NDOE felt that would pose some reimbursement problems. There were currently Nevada regulations that stated a freshman, for example, must take six classes or courses. Dr. Rheault felt it would be simpler to pay on a course or class basis. He mentioned a case where one student participating in distance education completed fourth year English in 73 minutes. The NDOE believed it was the school district’s responsibility to oversee the programs. They must offer 180 days of credit; Nevada regulations required 120 hours of instruction. When distance education courses were designed, the NDOE would approve them based on meeting that criteria, and base it on a percentage-of-time basis; if a student only averaged 90 hours for a course, an auditor might only partially reimburse them or disallow them totally, yet they would receive credit for the course.
Dr. Rheault concluded the NDOE was willing to work with the legislation since they felt there needed to be some distance education language in statute. Their primary concerns were with the eligibility issue and the apportionment piece.
Mr. Collins said several years ago a satellite was purchased for Railroad Valley so students would not have to drive the 70-mile distance to Lund to attend school. He asked Dr. Rheault the status of the program. Dr. Rheault responded those students attended classes every day; only select higher-level courses were “beamed” because they did not have the teachers in Lund to teach those classes. It was a supplement, not a total distance education package.
Mr. Collins suggested finding out how that program worked. Dr. Rheault said he visited the site during the time it was in operation, and it seemed to be very effective. The students had direct interaction with the teacher from Texas and could call on the phone, ask questions, and get a response at the same time they were watching the course. He noted it seemed effective, but was also expensive, which was one of the reasons the program was discontinued.
Al Bellister, Legislative Representative for the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said the association supported distance education. He commented that S.B. 399, which was currently in the Senate Human Resources and Facilities committee, was a proposal on distance education that was more focused in nature. The position of the NSEA was distance education supplemented existing programs, not replaced them; it lacked the depth and breath of the regular classroom experience, particularly at the high school level.
Mr. Bellister then addressed the NSEA‘s concerns with A.B. 127. He began with Section 6, subsection 2(b), which addressed apportionment. As worded, that provision required that the remainder of per-pupil funding paid toward a student residing in one county but receiving distance education from another county be paid directly to the county where the student resided. He cited as an example Lincoln County, where the per-pupil allotment was $7,000. If a student residing in Lincoln County received distance education from Clark County, where the allocation was $4,000, Lincoln County could then receive the “remainder” amount, which was $3,000. Mr. Bellister commented he found that language “peculiar.”
He opined the bill seemed to be a wide-open invitation to earn a diploma through distance education for home students. The NSEA felt that was a subterfuge for home schooling; a student would never have to set foot on a high school campus.
Mr. Bellister pointed out Section 14 seemed to contain a loophole. That provision discussed specific purposes for distance education for “at risk” pupils; however, subsection 4 stated the program was for students who “required instruction on a more personal basis.” Mr. Bellister contended he could not think of a more ultimate isolation from personal contact than distance education. The bill only required weekly contact.
Mr. Bellister then addressed the track record for the distance education providers in Nevada and the ratings of the schools. He said the rating for the Odyssey Charter School of Nevada, which was a distance education provider, was ranked as “needing improvement.” The charter school Gateway to Success, also providing distanced education, rated “needing improvement.” He noted at the Nevada Virtual High School in Ely it was discovered the students were taking multiple pretests until they passed the pretest, thereby avoiding taking lessons. He referenced the case Dr. Rheault mentioned where a student passed senior English in one hour. He concluded distance education needed close scrutiny; it was a good service from some students, but not all students.
Mrs. Chowning remarked she agreed with Mr. Bellister’s comment that distance education was well suited for some students, but she felt some of his characterizations were unfair. She believed some students could go through a semester of work in three weeks because of the one-on-one or individualized style of learning. Furthermore, if the student in question had dropped out of high school and had the knowledge stored, it was possible to go through the course quickly. She thought the program was good for some students, and more methods of alternative education should be available, particularly for students with severe illnesses.
Mr. Bellister replied the NSEA looked at the student records for Nevada Virtual High School and there were no adults enrolled; they were all high-school-aged students. He remarked that record was not atypical; what the students were able to do was take a multiple pretest, which was self-correcting. The students were quick enough to pick up the answers and take the test again, get the answers correct, and then proceed through the curriculum without ever going through the material provided. There were multiple examples of students “beating the system” through an unregulated distance education arrangement.
Mr. Bellister stated he agreed that distance education provided a good alternative for students at risk of dropping out of high school. It should, however, be a limited experience within the framework that currently existed whereby a student could earn six credits. It would work for advanced course work in the rural school districts, and for alternative placement students. He emphasized distance education should not be a substitute for the regular classroom experience.
In response to Mrs. Chowning’s comments, Ms. Parnell said since the 1997 legislative session when the first charter school laws were passed, the state had attempted to open up avenues for students through charter school legislation, broadening home schooling legislation, home-bound programs, independent study and correspondence courses. She felt there were enough opportunities in place to provide the structure for any specialized needs. In terms of educational funding, she questioned if the limited dollars should be stretched to include distance education programs.
Mr. Bellister commented there was a fiscal note attached to the bill; he was not certain of the dollar amount. He did know from the experience of other states exploring distance education that it was a multi-million dollar investment.
Chairman Williams noted for the record that all members of the committee were present and made a quorum for committee action. Mrs. de Braga was excused.
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), addressed the WCSD’s concerns relative to A.B. 127. A copy of her testimony is attached as Exhibit G.
Dr. Merrill began her testimony agreeing that distance education provided some exciting opportunities for students. She noted several legislative proposals on distance education had been introduced during the session, with some of the proposals having distance education provided by charter schools and others by local school districts. A.B. 127 allowed either or both to provide the service. She said WCSD had three concerns with all of the distance education proposals, and would offer “friendly” amendments to address two of those concerns.
Dr. Merrill said the first concern with all the distance education proposals focused upon pupils who were allowed to be enrolled full-time in the local school district as well as be enrolled full-time or part-time in a program of distance education regardless of its sponsor. She noted Section 18 attempted to resolve the potential fiscal problem by language that required the pupil to obtain the written permission of the board of trustees of the school district in which the pupil resided before the pupil could enroll full-time or part-time in a program of distance education provided by another school district. The pupil who enrolled full-time in a charter school distance education program was not, however, subject to such a requirement.
Referencing the requirement in Section 18, Dr. Merrill cautioned that, knowing how desperate credit-deficient students became during their junior and senior years, it was possible that a dual full-time enrollment could occur without the knowledge of the local school district in which the pupils resided. The WCSD saw that provision as a fiscal loophole in the measure, which could result in different entities claiming the apportionment for the same student. She said it was imperative that if the charter school acted as the distance education provider, it notified the school district in which the pupil resided prior to the provision of the services. Following that process could also eliminate the potential for a scenario where a student was taking a course in the school district of residence while at the same time taking the same course through distance education. That could allow the student to take the higher grade at the end of the course experience.
In order to prevent that scenario, Dr. Merrill proposed new language to Section 18 stating: “The charter school acting as a distance education provider shall notify the school district within which the pupil resides of the proposed services to be provided prior to the provision of those services.” She advised another way to accomplish that would be to eliminate lines 34 through 37 in Section 18, subsection 1, and change the language in line 30 to read: “Before a pupil who is enrolled in a public school of a school district may enroll full-time or part-time in a program of distance education that is provided by a charter school, the pupil must obtain the written permission of the board of trustee.”
Dr. Merrill noted the second concern focused upon the issue of dropping out. She said it might be argued that a student was at-risk of dropping out of high school from the moment that student enrolled as a freshman. She felt it appropriate that the school district of residence had the opportunity to make every effort to work with students during their freshman year to have a successful beginning. She believed the bill seemed to presuppose that there was no need for the local district to make the effort. The WCSD therefore proposed that the definition included in Section 12 be amended to read:
Program of distance education means a program comprised of one or more courses of study that is designed for sophomore, junior or senior pupils who are credit deficient and therefore at risk of dropping out of high school, or students who because of extenuating circumstances are not able to attend the classes of instruction regularly provided in high school. Such a program uses distance education as its primary mechanism for delivery.
She noted there might be other sections not identified where clarifying language would be needed.
Dr. Merrill concluded her testimony by noting one other area of concern. She stated that regardless of whether the distance education provider was a school district or a charter school, the WCSD felt strongly that it was necessary to be 100 percent certain the person engaged in the educational process through distance education was the student himself, rather than a parent or guardian. How that was accomplished was, she felt, best left to the provider. She said the language in A.B. 214 mandated that local school districts verify student identification before students take the high school proficiency exam. She emphasized it was equally incumbent upon the distance education provider to verify student identification during the process when students were earning graduation credit, taking exams for that credit, and potentially taking the high school proficiency exam.
Chairman Williams said he hoped that the Washoe County School District would take the opportunity to work with Ms. Von Tobel on their concerns.
Barbara Clark, representing the Nevada PTA, said their position was akin to the position of the Nevada State Education Association as represented by Al Bellister. She said distance education should be a supplement and not a replacement. The program should focus on children who were at-risk, needed independent study within the six credit limit, lived a distance from school, or had physical or medical conditions.
In closing, Ms. Von Tobel said she took notes on the concerns and appreciated the amendments submitted. She noted the one amendment she would have concerns with was not allowing a ninth grade student to participate in distance education. She said the intent was to reach students who had dropped out or were at-risk of dropping out; the bill was not proposed as an alternative to regular school.
Dr. Moses asked to address some issues brought up in testimony. He said there was a requirement in the bill that a student must received 180 days of instruction. He stated if the Clark County School District did not feel ready to go to a full-time distance education program, the bill did not require it. A.B. 127 only made it possible for a school district to do that if they so desired.
Dr. Moses said as a personal note on the Odyssey Charter School of Nevada and the characterization that it was an “inadequate school,” he called attention to the fact the tests were administered two months after the students enrolled. He noted since the school had such a small enrollment, if only one student in the middle range had scored above, the school would have received “exemplary” ratings. They tested every student to determine their progress, and would test students at the end to see their progress. At that point he would be willing to talk to the committee about whether that type of education could be successful.
Dr. Moses continued, one of the issues of phasing in at 15 credits was there would still be students not able to graduate from high school. The six credits did not allow students to pick up enough credits to “save themselves.”
Ms. Von Tobel addressed the concern that students would not be able to work on a computer. She felt the program would provide the opportunity to take a ninth or tenth grader reading at first or second grade level and include a program to teach the student how to read. Having the flexibility to single that student out would not exist in the regular class setting. Computers could be used to bring the student up to the reading level needed to complete the work at the ninth or tenth grade level.
Responding to a comment made about the impersonalization of distance education through the Internet, Dr. Moses suggested that many students might receive more personalized attention then they received in a classroom of 30 students. In terms of the lack of guarantees that students were performing the work themselves, Dr. Moses said in a regular public school setting there were no certainties the students were doing their own homework. The important piece of the distance-learning program was there would be a mid-term and a final exam, which would show whether the student had done the work himself. Furthermore, the students had to complete all their assignments before taking the test and receiving credit for the class. He said in a regular school environment, students did not have to complete all assignment to receive credit for the class as long as that student received a grade of 60 percent or above.
Mr. Collins asked Dr. Moses if the program would be limited to full-time, or could the program be both part-time and full-time. Dr. Moses said under present law, a student could not take more than six hours of distance education. A.B. 127 would allow more flexibility.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 127 and opened the hearing on A.B. 634. He noted there were amendments offered on A.B. 634 that he was in agreement with.
Assembly Bill 634: Authorizes creation of campus review boards to review allegations of misconduct against peace officers of police department for University and Community College System of Nevada. (BDR 34-862)
Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), spoke on behalf of A.B. 634. She indicated the UCCSN understood the concerns about the opportunity for a review or advisory board in relation to any allegations of campus police officer misconduct. The UCCSN offered amendments to the measure which, they felt, would make the bill work better. She informed the committee the UCCSN was currently undertaking a study of the police within the system, which was initiated by the Board of Regents, and the report would be released at the June 2001 meeting of the board. The report dealt with such issues as structure, the adequacy of the police force, and current policies. Rick Bennett from University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), would discuss the proposed amendments (Exhibit H).
Chairman Williams reminded the committee that if A.B. 634 passed, the language was permissive; it was not a mandate.
Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations with UNLV, began by explaining the NRS allowed the University System Board of Regents to create a police department for each campus, if the campus chose to do so. Currently UNLV, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) had police departments.
Mr. Bennett said some of the suggested amendment language was in keeping with the concept of allowing each campus to establish a police department. In that regard, UCCSN suggested provisions that allowed for a “campus review board” as opposed to a “review board.” He explained that was in the amended language, so in several sections of the proposed amendments, “campus” was added to “review board.”
Beginning with Section 2, subsection 1, he said the amendment would read:
The board of regents may create a campus review board to advise the relevant institution and, when appropriate, the board of regents on issues concerning allegations of officer misconduct of peace officers of the police department for the system.
He pointed out the committee did not have a copy of one proposed amendment, which was in Section 2, subsection 2, where it indicated the review board could consist of 15, 20, or 25 members. The UCCSN suggested the language read: “15 members or more.”
In Section 1, subsection 3, the proposed language would read:
The campus review board must be appointed by the board of regents from a list of names submitted by interested persons from within the University and Community College System of Nevada and the general public.
Mr. Bennett explained UNLV had established a public safety advisory board made up of students, faculty, classified staff, professional staff, police officers and members of the public. He clarified that the review board provided for membership from within the campus and from the general public.
In Section 2, subsection 4(c), Mr. Bennett indicated the UCCSN was advised that NRS 289 was related to local government and therefore the appropriate NRS chapter for state employees, which was NRS 284, should be referenced.
In Section 4, subsection 3, the new language indicated that rather than a referral made to the “system,” the referral would be made to the “applicable institution.”
In Section 4, subsection 4, the proposed language change would read:
The police department for the system shall make available to the panel of the campus review board any information within the personnel file that is specific to the complaint or other material specific to the complaint.
He said the review board did not require all information within a personnel file, but only that information specific to the complaint.
In Section 4, subsection 6, the language change would read:
The chairman of a panel of a campus review board shall report the findings and recommendations of the panel regarding disciplinary action to the police department for the system and the president of the applicable institution and to the board of regents upon request.
Mr. Bennett said the police department and the president of the institution should have the findings; there was no need to report every incident to the Board of Regents. The information, however, would be available to the board upon request.
In Section 4, subsection 8, the language change would read:
The findings and recommendations of the panel of the campus review board are public records unless otherwise declared confidential by state or federal law.
Mr. Bennett said that language was similar to a bill passed during the Seventieth Legislative Session related to local government review boards.
The final amendment in Section 5, subsection 1(d) would read: “Require the production of books, papers and documents specific to the complaint.”
Mr. Collins inquired why the campus police would have to report incidents to the “campus review board” instead of reporting them to the faculty.
Dr. Nichols clarified the intent of the bill was to provide an avenue for someone with a complaint against an officer to have an avenue in which that complaint could be addressed. It was her understanding the normal day-to-day operations of the police department were not subject to review by the “campus review board.” She felt it would create more credibility for all parties involved in the incident.
Mr. Bennett added the police department had a process for handling complaints related to officers, and that process would still be followed. There were cases, however, where the complainant did not feel the complaint was properly addressed. When that was the case, the complainant would request referral of the complaint to the review board; the board would then investigate the incident and make a recommendation or determination.
Mr. Collins indicated he thought there were internal controls that handled those types of matters. He asked if the intent was to make the “campus review board” an independent body that would ensure “legitimacy.”
Dr. Nichols confirmed it was a matter of public perception; it created one more avenue for issues that were not satisfied. Several situations had arisen in which allegations were made.
Mrs. Koivisto asked if the language in Section 2, subsection 4(c), that required any member of the “campus review board” to complete law enforcement training before serving on the board was specific to UCCSN, or a part of the police review board for the Las Vegas Metro Police Department.
Mr. Bennett said the language for the “Metro” review board was similar to the bill language. That allowed the members of the review board to have some understanding of police department operations in terms of handling complaints.
Mr. Ron Dreher, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, spoke in opposition to A.B. 634. Mr. Dreher emphasized he was not opposed to the concept of the bill; he thought that was sound and similar to the existing language in NRS 389.380, 389.383, 389.387, and 389.390. He queried, however, why the legislation was needed. Mr. Dreher pointed out the UCCSN already had a process in place for internal affairs. He worked 12 years with the Reno Police Department in the area of major crimes, and was very familiar with internal affairs review processes. Several past Supreme Court cases would come into play in terms of A.B. 634 with issues such as confidentiality and the release of information, compelling statements for officers to testify, and veracity and truthfulness to a police officer’s statement. He cautioned if the “wrong people” evaluated an internal affairs hearing or a complaint, and the complaint falsely labeled the officer, the officer’s career would be over. The minute the complaint went into the hands of a review process, the confidentially was removed. A compelled statement from the police officer, even before a review board, would breach the confidentiality that the officers were told occurred. The minute the findings were released publicly, the confidentiality and compelled statement would be gone. The officer under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was denied equal protection under the law. Compelled statements from officers were acceptable as long as there was protection for them.
Mr. Dreher felt the current system in place worked well. The University police officers operated under NRS 284 that provided the avenues A.B. 634 was attempting to address. He also noted that civilian review boards were typically more lenient than the police internal affairs process. Most officers dealt with “hard” incidences and were there to either mediate a situation or take enforcement action.
In summary, Mr. Dreher said if a civilian review board falsely accused an officer, or came out with a “finding” either for or against the officer that was then made public, an officer might hesitate in another situation before taking action. He cautioned in the field of police work, hesitation meant death. If the perception was that UCCSN had a process that had not worked, then the process itself needed to be addressed and fixed, but the review process needed to be internal and within the confines of the Constitution.
Chairman Williams told Mr. Dreher since the UCCSN had brought forth both the bill and the amendments to A.B. 634, the opposition from the campus police surprised him. He informed Mr. Dreher the review boards would not bring forth allegations; only students or others on campus would do that.
Mr. Dreher said the reason for the opposition was the creation of a “campus review board” consisting of individuals between the ages of 18 and 23 who would be reviewing police officers and deciding their “fate.”
Chairman Williams said the review board would include students as well as faculty members and individuals from the public.
Mr. Dreher said if the members of the advisory board were familiar with the work of police officers and the dangers they faced, he would be supportive of the concept. He reiterated the current system was not broken; if it was broken it needed to be fixed, not removed. Since it was permissive legislation, Mr. Dreher wanted to point out some problem areas. He was concerned that the system would force an officer to put his career on the line by not answering or standing up to testimony. He suggested looking at the city of Berkley, which had the oldest established civilian review board, and see how they addressed the issues. If the intent was to form a committee to see how the campus police were performing, he was agreeable; but the language of the bill said the campus review board would have an investigative capacity and would be looking at internal affairs files which were currently protected. That was the concern.
Chairman Williams said it would only be the incidence in question that would be reviewed. The bill only allowed the UCCSN to have the review board available to them if they choose to use it.
Steve Turner, Director with the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, explained he was a sergeant with the Reno Police for 25 years and had worked often with internal affairs. His concern with the formation of the campus review board was that it was given an investigative function that, from his experience, required skills that must be developed over the years. He noted that the internal affairs board for the Reno City Police included only senior officers and supervisors. In terms of the campus review board, he felt to subrogate the function to individuals who did not have an investigative background could compromise investigations. Internal investigation officers must possess knowledge of case law in order not to create legal defects for the police department. There were many considerations not addressed in the bill that a simple training course for the board members would not correct.
Chairman Williams said since it was permissive legislation, those arguments could be discussed at a Board of Regents meeting. The legislation was only to allow or disallow the creation of a “campus review board.” The functions of the review board should be debated with the regents.
Mr. Turner responded the concern of the Police Officers Association was that those considerations be placed in the bill. Chairman Williams said the reason the bill was made permissive was so the legislators were not involved in policy discussions. He did not believe the UCCSN would move forward with the creation of the “campus review board” without conducting meetings on the issue.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 634 and opened the hearing on A.B. 271.
Assembly Bill 271: Revises provisions concerning education and training of drivers. (BDR 34-1011)
Assemblyman David Humke, Assembly District 26, said Mr. Ken Kruger would make the presentation in support of A.B. 271. Exhibit I is a copy of Nevada Administrative Code provisions provided by Mr. Kruger that were relative to driver training schools.
Mr. Ken Kruger, President of All American Driving School and representing the Nevada Professional Driving School Association, began the presentation explaining he had been teaching as a licensed driver for 31 years and had managed driving schools in four states. He believed there were three requirements for good drivers: good judgment, ability to see well, and good driving habits. The role of the professional driving school was to help drivers develop good habits, which was done through repetition. To teach habits, the driving school must use a very expensive simulator or an automobile. Simulators were the best method of teaching because it demonstrated the consequences for bad habits. However, the simulators cost $37,000 each and only one student at a time could use it; private driving schools therefore must use the car.
Mr. Kruger said Nevada Administrative Code regulations for private driving schools to teach the required drivers education program for people under 18 years of age (Exhibit I) stipulated that behind-the-wheel training could not be part of driver education. The professional driving schools wanted the option of teaching while driving in a vehicle. Section 1 of A.B. 271 did not mandate teaching in the car, but only provided that option. The term “classroom” in the bill would mean anything the school district wanted it to mean, such as an indoor classroom, a field trip, or computer terminal. That would allow the professional driving schools the ability to teach in a vehicle.
Addressing Section 2 of the bill, Mr. Kruger explained Section 2 was a technical change for a mistake made last legislative session. Training requirements put into statute for classroom instructors mandated all driving instructors have the same training. Those requirements should not have been included for behind-the-wheel instructors. Since those requirements would not take effect until October 2001, passage of A.B. 271 would repeal that provision. He said training requirements still existed in regulation, which was where they should stay.
Dr. Keith Rheault with the Nevada Department of Education spoke in support of Section 1 as written. He explained private driving schools were required to meet the same course of study as required for high school driving courses. A.B. 271 would put private driving schools on an even footing by identifying the number of hours of instruction, which he anticipated to be a 9-week course, or 30 hours. He said the school districts did not have a problem with that change.
Mrs. Cegavske asked Dr. Rheault and Mr. Kruger if the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) approved the bill. Mr. Kruger indicated he spoke with Rhonda Bavaro with the DMV, who said they were neutral on the bill. Mrs. Cegavske asked Ms. Bavaro to state the DMV’s position for the record.
Ms. Rhonda Bavaro, Business Programs Manager with the DMV, confirmed the DMV was not taking a position on A.B. 271. If passed, they agreed to work with the NDOE and the industry to make the appropriate changes in regulation.
Mr. Alfredo Alonso, representing U.S. Interactive, which was an Internet and video-based company, offered a “friendly” amendment to A.B. 271 (Exhibit J). He described it as an enabling amendment, which allowed the DMV to hold hearings and write regulations that would allow communications technology systems to be used in the state. U.S. Interactive’s goal was to make the standards as high as possible. He felt communication technology was a compliment to existing driving schools, with no intent to replace it.
Chairman Williams asked Mr. Alonso if Assemblyman Humke was comfortable with the amendment. Mr. Alonso replied that was his understanding.
Mrs. Cegavske said she had an opportunity to view U.S. Interactive’s Internet program and found it impressive. She asked for confirmation that the amendment was discussed with the DMV. Ms. Bavaro confirmed it was. She asked Ms. Bavaro if in adopting regulations, was the DMV planning to form some type of advisory board that including the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE).
Ms. Bavaro said the DMV supported the amendment and would be working with NDOE and the industry to adopt regulations, along with holding public workshops and public hearings.
Mrs. Smith asked if the amendment wording for Section 2 could include language indicating the interactive programs were “as secure and as stringent” as other classroom measures. The language only referenced “security” and she felt it needed to address standards.
Mr. Alonso said that was their intent, and the language could be changed to include curriculum standards. He had been in touch with Clark County and the justice court judges indicated they would like to see the program implemented.
Mrs. Chowning said she was in agreement with the DMV adopting regulations allowing that type of opportunity to be given to students. She asked Mr. Alonso to explain to the committee the type of security measures built into the program to ensure the student was actually taking the course and not someone else.
Mr. Alonso answered there were several ways to use the system. The simplest was a mix of video and Internet. When signing on to the computer, the individual was asked a series of questions, which only they could answer. Unless someone knew how to “hack” the system, there was no possible way to breach the security. There was also a time limitation on the program, which was three days.
Testimony having concluded, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 271. Mr. Bennett asked Chairman Williams if he could make a brief presentation related to a report on the activities of the UCCSN police department. Exhibit K is a copy of the report.
Mr. Bennett explained NRS 396.329 required the Board of Regents of UCCSN to provide and submit to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) a report concerning the activities of the UCCSN police system. Mr. Bennett acknowledged the report had never been submitted on the date specified; neither the UCCSN nor the LCB had ever followed through on that reporting requirement. Speaking on behalf of the UCCSN Chancellor’s Office, Mr. Bennett apologized for the oversight. He said the full report was due April 15 to the LCB.
Jim Kidder, Associate Vice President for Planning, Budget and Analysis for the University of Nevada, Reno, explained he was making the presentation for Adam Garcia, newly appointed Director of the University Police Services, who was in Washington, D.C. The abbreviated report material submitted to the committee (Exhibit K) represented the salient narratives of the report, which addressed six sections including crime statistics, use of force policy, community activities, staffing levels, training report, and allegations of excessive force. The committee would receive the full report on April 15.
Mr. Kidder drew the committee’s attention to the crime statistics in Appendix A of Exhibit K. He noted under “arrests,” the numbers were fairly steady between 1991 and 2000; however, the liquor law violations increased almost four-fold in the same reporting period. Under Appendix C, which was a summary of police services and community activities, Mr. Kidder pointed out the UCCSN police department had begun to address the problem by not only enforcing the law on alcohol violations, but also increasing the awareness program.
Appendix F covered the allegations of excessive force. In 1999 there were only two allegations that were sustained; the hearing officer overturned both. In 2000, there were no allegations. Mr. Kidder said he believed that the lack of allegations were due to the UCCSN’s “use of force” policy.
Mrs. Cegavske asked Mr. Kidder to define what the liquor law violations included. She also wanted to know if the fraternities and sororities were aware of the “no tolerance” policy of alcohol on campus, and was there an avenue the universities could take to control drinking on campus.
Addressing Mrs. Cegavske’s first question, Lt. Todd Renwick, University of Nevada Police Department, explained one liquor law violation could be “minor in possession” meaning in possession of an alcoholic beverage. There was also “in possession internally” which meant in consumption. Mrs. Cegavske asked if it was possible when arresting minors to determine who was the contributor of the alcohol and if the campus police made arrests for contributing.
Lt. Renwick said they always asked those questions; rarely did they get the information needed to track down offenders. Many times students were in possession of false identification. In that matter, the police officers confiscated the IDs and educated the stores around the campus by taking the false IDs to the stores to make them aware of what was going on. The students were prosecuted for using false identification.
In terms of the fraternities and sororities, Lt. Renwick said he knew there was a push toward alcohol-free fraternities and sororities. All sororities had an alcohol ban. Typically, the police went into the fraternity houses and educated the members on the law and showed videos on binge drinking. In terms of regulating campus drinking, Lt. Renwick explained there was an on-campus events board that approved parties; the parties must meet certain standards to be approved. The campus police sat on the board. If the applicants received approval, they could serve alcohol. There must be procedures in place, however, to check for minors.
Mr. Manendo asked if the liquor law violation statistics included anyone over the age of 21 in an area where no alcohol was permitted. Lt. Renwick said it only included minors in possession. Mr. Manendo asked if alcohol was allowed in campus buildings for students over 21. Lt. Renwick said it was only allowed at controlled events. Mr. Kidder elaborated that the approvals for alcohol at campus events included indicating how minors would be prevented from attending the event. The Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs made the approvals.
Mrs. Cegavske asked why the universities could not just ban any alcohol at the fraternity houses. Mr. Kidder said the universities allowed charters to be granted to the fraternities and, as such, could establish the conditions for living on the premises. Mrs. Cegavske said if the university must sanction the charter for a fraternity, could the university not mandate a prohibition on alcohol at fraternity houses. Mr. Kidder said the campus could do that. Mrs. Cegavske recommended the university consider a sanction on alcohol.
Randy Flocchini, Chief of Police for the Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) Police Department, presented the TMCC police department’s activities report (Exhibit L). He explained the department instituted a “use of force” policy in 1998, and since that time there had been no “use of force” complaints. The TMCC police department was very involved in community-ordered policing and problem-solving efforts within the community, and tried to respond to those needs within the organization and the community college system. The department was currently providing three times the minimum state-required training to each officer.
Chairman Williams thanked the UCCSN police personnel for their reports. He then opened the work session and asked Policy Analyst Susan Scholley to discuss the bills under consideration. She distributed the work session documents to the committee (Exhibit M).
Assembly Bill 213: Revises provisions governing discipline of pupils. (BDR 34-217)
Mrs. Scholley explained the Legislative Committee on Education proposed A.B. 213. The bill proposed to permit school board of trustees to allow pupils classified as habitual discipline problems to be enrolled in alternative education programs on a case-by-case basis as determined by the school board. There was no testimony in opposition to the bill and there were no proposed amendments.
Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on A.B. 213.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 213.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Assembly Bill 221: Authorizes expenditures from state distributive school account for certain remedial and tutoring programs. (BDR S-216)
Mrs. Scholley said A.B. 221 was also proposed by the Legislative Committee on Education and proposed the continuation and expansion of remedial programs both for schools needing improvement and for individual student remediation. The bill proposed appropriations, and was not concurrently referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Mrs. Scholley suggested the committee refer the bill to Ways and Means to review the fiscal implications.
Chairman Williams asked that the committee refrain from action on the bill until the committee meeting of April 16. Mrs. Scholley pointed out that the Department of Education mentioned in its testimony on A.B. 221 that they wished to propose an amendment to close what they perceived to be a possible loophole by schools needing improvement. She noted those amendments were a part of the work session documents.
Assembly Bill 297: Makes various changes regarding educational personnel. (BDR 34-297)
Mrs. Scholley said A.B. 297 was presented by Assemblyman Anderson and added three days to the length of the school year for professional development; created an enhancement to the Distributive School Account in the amount of $6.4 million; appropriated additional monies for enhanced compensation programs for teachers; and provided for teacher evaluations similar to A.B. 332 of the Seventieth Session, which was vetoed last year by the Governor; and contained an appropriation for the regional professional development programs which duplicated similar appropriations in other bills. She noted the bill was referred to and reviewed by a subcommittee and Mrs. Smith, who chaired the subcommittee, could speak to the subcommittee report.
Mrs. Smith explained the subcommittee met twice and all parties who testified at the subcommittee meetings agreed to the proposed language. Mrs. Scholley further elaborated the only amendments proposed to the bill were in Sections 5 and 6 of A.B. 297. The 60-minute evaluation requirement was changed to permit shorter segments of not less than 45 minutes for probationary teachers; and a total of 60 minutes, with one observation being no less than 30 minutes, for post-probationary teachers. In terms of the other portions of the bill, the concerned parties agreed to take language out of the bill and revert to the original NRS language.
Chairman Williams called for a motion on A.B. 297.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 297.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Scholley interjected that the bill also needed to be referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Williams said the motion was amended to amend, do pass and rerefer to Ways and Means.
THE MOTION WAS AMENDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO TO AMEND, DO PASS AND REREFER A.B. 297 TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Assembly Bill 416: Revises provisions governing special education and class size. (BDR 34-1085)
Mrs. Scholley explained that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had presented A.B 416. Several witnesses testified they felt the limitation of allowing only 30 percent of a class to be special education students might be unduly restrictive. The sponsor of the bill agreed to an amendment that would make that provision in A.B. 416 permissive.
Chairman Williams called for a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND, DO PASS AND REREFER A.B. 416 TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Assembly Bill 499: Revises provisions governing policy for renovation or reconstruction of schools and authorizes use of money from fund for capital projects for continuation of pilot program for replacement of schools in certain school district. (BDR 34-861)
Mrs. Scholley explained A.B. 499 was presented by Chairman Williams and provided for an amendment to the Clark County school replacement pilot project at Madison Elementary School by expanding the pilot program to five additional schools in the upcoming biennium. She noted there was no testimony in opposition to the bill. Pat Zamora from the Clark County School District (CCSD) indicated the district wished to propose amendments that addressed opening up school bond funds or clarifying the scope of school bond funds as a general proposition, not just restricted to pilot projects. The amendments proposed by the CCSD were attached to the work session documents, and would amend NRS Chapter 387. A.B 499 in its original form did not address NRS Chapter 387.
Chairman Williams said he believed the committee could not accept the one amendment because of the difference in the chapters. Mrs. Scholley said she thought it would be unlikely also, although the Legal Division would be the final determiner. However, she felt the amendment was not sufficiently related to A.B. 499 for that to be an appropriate amendment.
Mrs. Cegavske explained the problem she had with the amendment was the CCSD testified that they could revert to 1994 bond money and use it for equipment, furnishings and transportation; however, Mrs. Cegavske emphasized, that was not what was voted on in terms of the bonds. She felt, therefore, the committee would be changing something that had already been passed. That, she concluded, was her opposition to the proposed amendment.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 499.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Gustavson asked if A.B. 499 needed to be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Williams said it did not; it involved local bond money only.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Williams said he would accept motions on the bills heard during the course of the committee meeting. He began with A.B. 127.
Mrs. Von Tobel said she was in agreement with almost every amendment proposed for the bill. She agreed to delete Section 2; and to change the language on page 23, subsection 5, as proposed by Dr. Craig Kadlub. Dr. Kadlub had requested that the responsibility of the pupil be based on the distance education program and not the school zone within which the student lived. She was in agreement with that change.
Ms. Von Tobel felt those amendment proposals also addressed the Washoe County School District’s (WCSD) concerns. WCSD had proposed to exempt freshman. Ms. Von Tobel felt it did not make sense to exempt freshmen if they wanted to participate; the bill was not encouraging any student to drop out.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 127.
Chairman Williams asked if all the proposed amendments from the WCSD and the CCSD were included in the motion. Ms. Von Tobel clarified the amendments would be to delete Section 2 and change the language in Section 20, subsection 1, to read “shall ensure that the program of distance education assumes responsibility for each such pupil.”
Mrs. Chowning said she was not clear on all the amendment proposals and therefore could not vote on the bill. She asked if all the proposed amendments could be restated, or the committee could wait to take action until the amendments were stated in writing.
Ms. Von Tobel said on page 3, Section 2 would be deleted. Mrs. Chowning asked if that included the entire section; Ms. Von Tobel answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Chowning said she was unclear what the amendments were after that point.
Mrs. Smith suggested the committee wait until the April 16 meeting to take action in order to see the changes in writing. She still had some questions for Ms. Von Tobel on the bill. Chairman Williams agreed to postpone the vote on A.B. 127.
Chairman Williams then said he would accept a motion on A.B. 271.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 271.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Cegavske noted she had some concerns about taking away the simulator training from the students. That was one of three components normally involved in driver’s education. Mr. Kruger said the bill did not take anything away from the classroom; the classroom could be whatever the school district decided it would be. The simulators would not be removed from the high school. Mrs. Cegavske said her concerns were that the driving schools would no longer use the simulators. Mr. Kruger said the driving schools could use a simulator if they had one, but it would be part of the classroom training. Mr. Kruger said current regulations do not allow driving schools to use one. Mrs. Cegavske said she thought that was what Mr. Kruger stated in his testimony. Mr. Kruger clarified what he was stating was the best way to teach habits was through the use of a simulator which, he noted, no one had in the state at that time.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on A.B. 634.
Mrs. Smith indicated she had concerns about the bill due to discussions in the Committee on Government Affairs concerning A.B. 323. She referenced page 2 of the amendments presented by Mr. Bennett (Exhibit H) that amended Section 4, subsection 4. After hearing testimony about “compelled statements” relative to the hearings on A.B. 323, she was concerned about the personnel file issue and therefore not comfortable with the proposed language. It created a legal issue for the officer if the officer’s “compelled statement” was in the personnel file that the campus review board could then access. She did not feel the committee “wanted to get into that.”
Chairman Williams said the difference between A.B. 634 and A.B. 323 was the latter addressed the whole personnel file as opposed to information specific to a complaint. Mrs. Smith said if a compelled statement was in the personnel file, it would be relative to the complaint; she felt it put everyone in a precarious position.
Mr. Bennett said he shared Mrs. Smith’s concerns related to access to personnel records, which was why the amendment language was suggested requiring access being limited to information specific to the request. He related that Mr. Andy Anderson with the Las Vegas Protective Association reviewed the amended language and was comfortable with it.
Mrs. Chowning said she was not comfortable with the language either; she felt it was too “open.” She remarked NRS statutes said “compelled statements” could not be held against the officer in a criminal complaint, but they could be held against the officer in civil complaints, and that was the debate with A.B. 323. Even though the language in A.B. 634 said “any information within the personnel file that is specific to the complaint,” if it was a compelled statement, it would be available. She indicated she also did not understand why a member of the review board must not be employed as a peace officer.
Chairman Williams addressed Mrs. Chowning’s last statement by explaining the bill language patterned the language used last session for a similar measure that addressed local government review boards; the language “specific to the complaint” was also patterned after a bill passed last session. Mrs. Chowning commented she felt a peace officer on the board would have more knowledge about the job functions. She concluded by saying the measure “did not feel right.”
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 634 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE UCCSN.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Smith said she would vote “no” on the bill because of the reasons she just discussed. She felt the concept was fine, but that one issue was of concern to her.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Williams said he wanted to return to A.B. 221 because he just received clarification on the bill.
Mrs. Cegavske asked if the dollar amount in A.B. 221 had been lowered. Mrs. Scholley explained the NDOE asked that the money be reduced as indicated in their amendment in the work session document (Exhibit M). The bill would have to be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. There were also some discrepancies to be worked out between the Governor’s budget and the original proposal from the Legislative Committee on Education.
Chairman Williams asked for a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 221 AND REREFER TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
Chairman Williams asked what was being amended in the bill. Mrs. Scholley explained it was a two-part amendment request from the NDOE. One was a monetary amendment and the other was to close what the NDOE perceived to be a loophole, which was preventing a school designated as “needing improvement” testing less than 90 percent of their pupils to avoid a second year designation of “needing improvement.” Testing less than 90 percent of the students tended to raise the test scores achieved by the school as a whole on the TerraNova exam. The NDOE believed that had occurred once; they were preparing a report on the incident that would be available in May 2001.
Mrs. Cegavske said her motion included only the monetary amendment; it did not include the “loophole” amendment.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Ms. Von Tobel asked if the committee would reconsider again taking action on A.B. 127. Dr. Merrill with WCSD had left written testimony covering the amendment request (Exhibit G). The amendment request was in Section 12. She explained that Dr. Merrill felt the existing language encouraged students to drop out. Dr. Merrill wanted the language to state:
“Program of distance education” means a program comprised of one or more courses of study designed for sophomore, junior, or senior pupils who are credit deficient and therefore at risk of dropping out of high school or students who, because of extenuating circumstances, are not able to attend the classes of instruction regularly provided in high school. Such a program uses distance education as its primary mechanism for delivery.
Ms. Von Tobel said she did not have a problem with that language as long as it included “freshman.”
In terms of the “freshman” issue, Mrs. Smith said she was concerned with a scenario where a student went directly full-time into distance education without attending a regular high school. She suggested a compromise where freshmen could attend distance education on a part-time basis.
Mrs. Cegavske said she was concerned with eliminating “freshman” because it could affect a special education student who might need distance education full-time as a freshman. She felt the students the program was trying to capture were those students who were good on computers and needed an alternative to regular school.
Mrs. Smith asked Ms. Von Tobel how much time a student would have to spend to earn a credit. Mrs. Smith thought Dr. Moses indicated 60 hours; however, she did not see that in the bill. She said from the way she read the legislation, it looked as if a student could complete high school in two years through distance education. She could not find where that was covered in the bill, and expressed her discomfort because she did not feel that was the intent.
Ms. Von Tobel said the legislation was enabling. The State Board of Education would approve the plan, similar to what they currently did with charter schools.
Mrs. Smith then queried if the school in White Pine County mentioned during testimony made separate regulations for its distance education program. She contended she did not understand the bill well enough to feel comfortable voting on it.
Mrs. Cegavske said the language on page 11, Section 13, could cover Mrs. Smith’s concerns. She emphasized the legislation was enabling and must go through both the State Board of Education and the local school board of trustees.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 127.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Smith said she would vote for the bill to move it out of the committee, but she reserved the right to change her vote.
Ms. Parnell echoed Mrs. Smith’s concerns and said she wanted to wait until she had access to the amendment changes. Chairman Williams asked Ms. Von Tobel to clarify if the amendment included freshmen. Ms. Von Tobel said freshmen would be included. Chairman Williams asked Mrs. Scholley if the bill was concurrently referred. She answered it was not. Mrs. Chowning asked why the bill indicated there was a fiscal effect on the state. Ms. Von Tobel said at the time of bill draft, the State Board of Education thought there might be additional reporting requirements; however, since the measure was enabling, it would not require extra reporting.
Mrs. Chowning said she would agree to vote on the motion with the same reservations stated by Mrs. Smith and Ms. Parnell, and based on the fact that she had not had a thorough review of the bill or the amendments. She also requested to rerefer the bill to Ways and Means based on the fiscal note; she requested a fiscal note be included.
Mrs. Koivisto said she also would vote to pass the bill out of committee, but reserved the right to change her vote; she did not feel the committee had enough time to study the bill.
Chairman Williams asked Mrs. Angle and Mr. Gustavson if they agreed to rerefer the bill to Ways and Means. As the maker, Mrs. Angle agreed to rerefer; Mr. Gustavson, as the second, also agreed to rerefer. Chairman Williams then clarified that the motion was “amend and do pass, and rerefer to the Committee on Ways and Means.” Chairman Williams noted that the fiscal bill book did not indicate a fiscal note to A.B. 127, so therefore the motion was then to amend and do pass.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Williams asked that the record reflect Mrs. Smith, Ms. Parnell, Mrs. Chowning and Mrs. Koivisto reserved the right to change their vote on the Floor of the Assembly on A.B. 127.
Mrs. Angle asked Chairman Williams if the committee could take action on A.B. 226. Chairman Williams agreed.
Assembly Bill 226: Makes various changes relating to treatment of pupils. (BDR 34-88)
Mrs. Angle noted there was no testimony in opposition to A.B. 226 when the committee heard the bill on March 12, 2001. There were requests to amend some of the language; Mrs. Angle indicated she e-mailed the language changes to all concerned parties. She read the proposed amendments:
Section 1, Chapter 392 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:
1. A person who is an employee or agent of a school district shall not:
(a) Suggest to a pupil or to a parent or guardian of the pupil that the pupil has a certain diagnosis and/or should or should not take a psychotropic drug unless the person is a physician.
(b) Prohibit a pupil from attending class unless the pupil takes a psychotropic drug.
2. A person who is an employee or agent of the district may suggest an evaluation of a pupil for placement in a special education program pursuant to NRS 388.470.
3. As used in this section,
(a) Physician means a person who is licensed to practice medicine as a physician pursuant to Chapter 630 of NRS.
(b) Psychotropic drug means any Class II, neuroleptic or other psychoactive drug which produces a mind-altering effect in a person.
Section 2. This act becomes effective on July 1, 2001.
Mrs. Angle said that was the bill in its entirety. Chairman Williams noted there was opposition to the bill at the hearing. Mrs. Angle said the amendments addressed the concerns expressed at the hearing. The school districts were not opposed to the bill. A comment was made that the teachers’ association was opposed to the bill. Mrs. Angle said she was unaware of that opposition, and they had not seen the amendments.
Mrs. Scholley said she did not have her file on A.B. 226 and said she could put together the amendment and summarize the testimony and bring it back to the committee on April 16. She could not represent at that time what the various parties testified to at the hearing on March 12.
Referring to her notes, Mrs. Angle said, according to testimony on March 12, Bobbie Gang from the Nevada Women’s Lobby opposed A.B. 226 because it needed to be handled on the local level. Mrs. Angle represented there were three districts that handled it locally; however, it was not a uniform, local-level policy. Local-level policies were not effective. Testimony confirmed that the policies had not worked. Mrs. Angle also noted Al Bellister with NSEA testified that the bill was unnecessary because policy was already in place. Mrs. Angle declared since local policies were not effective and not uniform, she felt the regulations needed to be in statute.
Chairman Williams said he would be more comfortable seeing Mrs. Scholley’s summary of the bill. He asked that the committee wait until the meeting of April 16 to take action on A.B. 226.
There being no other business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:14 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Mary Drake
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman
DATE:__________________________