MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
May 29, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:44 a.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2001. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Kathryn Fosnaugh, Committee Secretary
Senate Bill 367: Provides for administration of certain activities to prevent or delay early sexual activity and reduce rate of pregnancies among unmarried teenage girls in Nevada. (BDR S-26)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District 3, said she urged support for S.B. 367. She explained the legislation promoted certain activities to prevent or delay early sexual activity and reduce the rate of pregnancies among unmarried teenage girls. She stated, in March of 2001, Microsoft/National Broadcasting Corporation (MSNBC) reported that 39 percent of ninth graders had engaged in sex, 65 percent of twelfth graders had engaged in sex, and 25 percent of American girls had been pregnant at least once by the age of 20. She said on the upside, pregnancies had been reduced by about half in the past 60 years. Nevada had ranked number one in teen pregnancies in the past decade, but had fallen to number four for 15- to 19-year-olds. She added Nevada's pregnancy rate for teens was about 75 per thousand.
Senator Wiener said the reality for Nevada was that more than half of its high school students reported they had had sexual intercourse and 1 in 15 of Nevada's teenagers had engaged in sexual activity before they were 13 years old. She expounded, saying there was no single approach that had produced the reduction and no single approach would work in continuing to reduce the rates of teen pregnancy in the state. Senator Wiener said young people stated ways they had become informed about the dangers of pregnancy and early sexual activity included advertising, community-based projects and organizations, faith-based programs, and seeing their friends have children. The harsh fact remained, however, that Nevada had a high rate of teen pregnancy.
Senator Wiener said S.B. 367 was a bill that had involved a strong collaborative effort of people with varied interests and concerns about the problem. She explained the entire mission of the bill was to raise public awareness regarding the problem of teen pregnancy in the state, in the hope of reducing the high rate. She stated a partnership would be created to accomplish the reduction, and a lot of the major efforts in developing the legislation had been to design who would be members of the partnership. Members would include representatives from the Health Division, the Department of Education, Juvenile Justice, Family Court, as well as social workers, health care workers, the faith-based community, child placement agencies, parents, and those who represented populations with high rates of teen pregnancy. There would be statewide representation and regular meetings of the partnership with accountability, which would include regular reporting to the legislature.
Senator Wiener continued, and explained the partnership could receive gifts, grants, and donations from private and public sources. The major source of funding would be federal funding through Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The partnership, explained in Section 5 of the bill, involved a few major tasks that would be necessary to make it succeed. Some of those tasks would include promoting efforts to delay early sexual activity and activities to reduce pregnancies among unmarried teenage girls, working with other organizations to establish and promote Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month, and, most critically, developing and carrying out two social marketing campaigns. One campaign would target populations with the highest rates of teen pregnancy and the other campaign would be designed to target adult and adolescent males. Senator Wiener explained that more than 70 percent of the fathers of babies born to teenage mothers in Nevada were adults over the age of 19. She said, in fact, some statistics indicated that 85 percent of fathers of babies born to unwed teenagers were at least four and a half years older than the mothers.
Senator Wiener added, in Section 6 of the bill the award of grants was listed and the grants would be determined by the statewide partnership. The grants would be awarded for organizations to carry out local projects, and would require mandatory facilitation of collaborative efforts wherever possible, thus teams could be put together and duplication could be avoided. There would be at least one project in Clark County, one in Washoe County, and one in another county in the state. For those who applied, technical assistance would be provided to help fill out the grant applications, and applicants would also be required to report on the use of the funds, as accountability was critical with the program and reporting was a component of receiving money. Eligible entities would include the community-based agencies and organizations that had been involved with youth and youth development, or those that prevented or delayed early sexual activity or prevented pregnancies among the state's unmarried teenage girls. A local project could be one that already existed and had proven to be successful, or it could be an innovated project, as long as it could prove with sufficient evidence that it would be likely to succeed.
Senator Wiener explained that fiscal concerns had been one of the major challenges facing the project, and she was happy when she learned about the agencies and the opportunity to create an interagency agreement between the Health Division and the Welfare Division and to utilize TANF dollars so that the state would not have to come up with money to fund the project. She said it was important that the legislation was a collaborative effort. She added, the bill would help to address a federally mandated goal to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the state. She again urged the committee's support for S.B. 367.
Chairman Arberry asked how much of the TANF dollars would be necessary and Senator Wiener referred the question to Michael J. Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources. Mr. Willden explained the TANF budget had been closed by the joint subcommittee with $1 million within the budget to address TANF goals three and four. The federal government mandated each state to address four goals within the TANF program.
Mr. Willden opined in review of S.B. 367, the process neatly fit within the Welfare Division's requirement to spend TANF funds on goals three and four. He said the division had met with Senator Wiener and others and could use the partnership to help identify and spend TANF dollars and work toward the goals. The plan was to have a partnership with the Health Division and use $500,000 to fund S.B. 367, and the other $500,000 would be used to address the adult out-of-wedlock birth issue. He explained, in closing the budgets, the division had originally asked for $2 million, and the amount had been reduced to the $1 million, but there had been some indication from the joint subcommittee that if the projects were successful, the division could go before the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to request additional funds from the reserve to provide additional funding.
Ms. Tiffany said one of the problems she had with the bill was how the $1 million would be spent. She thought the teens should be given a long-term birth control/time out "type of thing," and now saw $500,000 had been earmarked to go for that specific program, and felt the division should do a Request for Proposal (RFP), so that the community would have an opportunity to be involved. She did not feel that a fair RFP process was being done. She said the other $500,000 had been earmarked for an adult out-of-wedlock birth program, but the Welfare-to-Mothers program was already in place and was the perfect program for that education, and already had existing clientele. She asked why the division was not doing an RFP and why the funds were being spent on administration and not on the actual programs, where a known population existed.
Mr. Willden answered that the division was doing an RFP and explained the partnership that had been created in the bill would do the RFPs. He stated the money would be transferred from the Welfare Division to the Health Division and the partnership created in S.B. 367 would be doing RFPs to both community-based organizations and to faith-based organizations. Based on the proposals submitted, the partnership would select the programs and the programs would be funded. In reference to the allocations of funds, Mr. Willden explained in the fiscal note that had been put together to date, all of the money except for $1,985 was targeted to go to direct program support. He said the $1,985 would be used to support the travel of the partnership members that would help review and select proposals under the RFP process.
Ms. Tiffany said she had understood the bill was for a marketing campaign and a marketing campaign did not directly go to services. She added she had not heard "RFP" and she did not hear anywhere in the testimony that the group would act like the work force initiative board.
Senator Wiener explained the mission of the bill was to raise public awareness, which would include many things. She added that Clark County would get at least one program or more, Washoe County would get at least one program or more, and the other counties would get a possible eight programs. Community-based and local organizations would apply for funding and their focus would be how they would address the adult male or adolescent male population with a community-based program or how they would address the populations with high rates of teen pregnancy. She said that was what had been meant by "social marketing," as the organizations would need to address those two particular populations where there was the most trouble. She said this could be accomplished by a peer counseling program, a mentoring program, etc., whatever the organizations wanted, but the problems needed to be addressed. She said the grants would address those two particular areas in the marketing, and then the organizations could come up with whatever projects they felt would address the needs.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the group being put together would be like a "board" and the "board" would be empowered with the money that TANF was transferring from the Health Division, and if the bill was to create the ability for the board to use the money in the RFP process. Mr. Willden answered yes.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the success rate would be measured. Senator Wiener answered there would be strong reporting requirements, which would include measuring from the beginning as to whether the program had already been successful and how it would continue to be successful. It also required reporting so that the Health Division and the Welfare Division could report back to the legislature in regard to each project that was selected as a community-based project. The definitions of success would be outlined in the RFP and then the two divisions would report to the legislature based on the reporting from the projects.
Ms. Giunchigliani referred to Section 6, page 3, line 45, which defined "eligible entity" and asked if the target was just teenaged girls, or was the target males. Senator Wiener answered the focus would be on adult and adolescent males and populations with high rates of teen pregnancy. Ms. Giunchigliani asked where in the bill adult and adolescent males were mentioned. Mr. Willden said he didn't know if there was a specific reference but thought males would be included in the definition of "eligible entity" where it stated ". . .a community-based agency or organization in the state involved with youth, the development of youth or the prevention of pregnancies among unmarried teenage girls. . . ." Ms. Giunchigliani said she felt it needed to be spelled out more clearly because that had been a tier of the federal requirement that had required the state to take a look at the male involvement in the teen pregnancy issue. Senator Wiener referred Ms. Giunchigliani to Section 5, page 3, line 21 of the bill where it stated ". . . teenage girls in Nevada, or both, and targets adult and adolescent males. . . ." Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged the reference.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if anything would be done, or recommended, to school boards, or in regard to school policies, to help educate middle school students, since they were already sexually active. She explained teachers were not allowed to discuss the issue of sexual activity with students. Senator Wiener said there was language in the bill that said if a program was in the schools all current laws would be followed. Ms. Giunchigliani said none of the schools' sex education curriculum allowed teachers to discuss the most relevant issues. She said part of the education had to begin there, and asked if there was anything within the consortium of individuals that might work with the school boards to make their policies more open and reflective of reality. She asked Senator Wiener to review Nye County's model as it had "pretty good" language.
Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, explained the model and premise of S.B. 367 was based on the local communities' participation. Ms. Giunchigliani said if teachers could not talk about the issue, it did no good. Mr. Haartz said it would be up to the local communities to address the issue at their level. Ms. Giunchigliani reminded Mr. Haartz that it was a state required regulation that allowed the school boards to adopt a "very watered-down curriculum." She said she didn't know if the bill was going to address the issue, but felt it was missing a "whole component" that needed to be addressed, and felt if the division was going to have the kind of consortium described, with participants who actually wanted to do something about teenage pregnancies, it would be necessary to also talk to the State Board of Education about changing its regulations so that school boards would adopt proper representative regulations that would allow people to be able to talk to young men and women about the issue of pregnancy and its prevention.
Senator Wiener said she did not deny that an entire community needed to work together, but the legislation would be one important step working within the community with laws that were already in place, and would involve many organizations that might not have come together except for this opportunity. Senator Wiener said there had been many calls in regard to the bill and it hadn't even passed, which indicated there was strong support at the community level. Ms. Giunchigliani said she appreciated that, and was not trying to stop the bill, but felt one of the goals of the board, if the issue was awareness, was to deal with every regulatory body that impacted the youth of the state. She explained it did no good to have a teacher or counselor when they could not talk about the issue of teen pregnancy and she would have a greater comfort if part of the goal would be to overturn Nevada's "archaic" regulations regarding student pregnancy and the discussion and education in the schools and in the curriculum. She said that did not mean the board could answer her questions but it would be nice if in two years there could be some recommendations on what should be changed. She added that doctors were prohibited to come to the schools to talk about these issues, and Planned Parenthood was not allowed on most campuses. She stated the reality of the year 2001 was that the youth at ages 11, or even 10, were having sex. Ms. Giunchigliani said there was a need to allow the youth to have a comfort level for conversation, or at least that the curriculum properly reflected what was going on, rather than having the fear of talking about it would encourage it. She reiterated that as the discussion and the raising of awareness came about part of the awareness would involve some legislation or mind-opening to change the curriculum to reflect the job the bill was trying to carry through. Senator Wiener said she could not foresee what the dialog of the partnership would be because it would be a diverse group from all walks of life and all ways of thought who had a very strong interest in the partnership. She added she would be happy to review the issue again in two years to see where they were going. She said the main objective was to reduce the rate of pregnancy and sensed they would go in with an open mind to see what it would take to accomplish the task.
Mrs. Chowning said she appreciated all the hard work that had gone into the partnership because it was broad-based and brought in the community as well. She asked if any member of the Attorney General's office would be a part of the partnership. She said Assemblywoman Jan Evans had Chaired an interim study committee on the same issues and the Attorney General had a task force for four years, and the one thing Mrs. Chowning had seen that had been really effective were the commercials where teenage males talked. That had been the first time anyone had seen teenage males discussing teenage pregnancy, and kids paid attention to those commercials. Mrs. Chowning said it was not necessary to "reinvent the wheel" because there had been study after study, focus group after focus group, and the Attorney General's task force, and yes, Nevada's pregnancy rate did go down for a while, but was now number one in the country again. She hoped the good work done previously would not be put on a shelf but could be taken advantage of and headway could be made. She added, she did not see model legislation as an outcome of the focus group and agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani that it should be there. Senator Wiener said the Attorney General had been involved with what was being done and had been 100 percent supportive, and the Attorney General's task force was not excluded from the process, as the project could take counsel from many directions. Mrs. Chowning said she did not want money spent in different directions, and if money was going into the new task force that would be great, but then there was not a need to spend money on the Attorney General's task force.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 367.
Senate Bill 143: Makes appropriations to certain judicial districts for continuation or establishment of programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or controlled substances. (BDR S-178)
Speaking via teleconference in Las Vegas, Nevada, Judge Jack Leaman, Eighth Judicial District Court, said he had also been the Drug Court judge for the past eight-and-a-half years, and was speaking on behalf of S.B. 143, which would allocate $700,000 for Drug Courts in Clark County and $350,000 for Drug Courts in Washoe County. He referred the committee to Exhibit C, which showed the impact of the $700,000 that had been allocated by the legislature during the 1999 Legislative Session. He said as a result of the $700,000 the courts had been able to add 277 adult participants to the Adult Drug Court that he oversaw and to add 59 juveniles for the Juvenile Drug Court. He expounded he thought the Juvenile Drug Court was the most important Drug Court of all, since if "we can get them at the juvenile level" he didn't have to see them at the adult level. He said they were able to add 42 abuse/neglect parents to the Dependency Drug Court. He explained those parents added were drug addicts with children that were abused or neglected and going through the justice system. He said the $700,000 had improved the effectiveness of the treatment services by reducing the client to therapist ratio, and allowed one-on-one therapy for those who needed it. He added, education and vocational services were expanded, and said more and more people were getting jobs because the court had two employment counselors that worked with the clinic and directly with the participants in Drug Court to get the participants into employment and build self-esteem. The funds allowed for the establishment of America's first Child Support Drug Court for non-custodial parents who were not meeting their court-ordered support obligations due to addiction. He stated this was a new program, but was working well, and there were approximately 15 people participating currently, and the program would continue to expand. He expounded, this program involved addicts who were supposed to be paying child support, but so many did not pay it because they were spending money on drugs. He said an additional Drug Court was also established in Justice Court to deal with those charged with both misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor drug charges. He pointed out that 80 percent of all adult graduates of the Adult Drug Court had no further criminal convictions during the past eight years. Judge Leaman said one of the statistics he was most proud of was the fact that 36 babies had been born drug-free to participants in the year 2000 and 17 more drug-free babies had been born in the first quarter of 2001. In conclusion, Judge Leaman said, since last year, 442 participants had graduated from the Drug Court program and in the last eight-and-a-half years, 1,764 people had graduated from the full-year program where a person had to be drug free for six months in order to graduate. Of the 1,764 participants, only 310 had been arrested and convicted of a crime since they graduated.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what was done with the collection of fines. Judge Leaman informed her that they did not collect fines. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if any revenue they received was from the state or the county. Judge Leaman answered revenue was received from the state and from the County Commission. He explained that what had been done when the Drug Court was first started was the county had agreed to set up a county-sponsored DUI school and a county-sponsored traffic school and revenues from those programs had been responsible for bringing in between $300,000 and $400,000 per year to the Drug Court. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if that was where the counties' funding came in and Judge Leaman answered that was correct.
Mrs. Cegavske said in reading the bill, it said its purpose was to continue programs of treatment, and she saw the bill as one-shot appropriations, so she was trying to get a handle on where the money was going for the continuation of treatment, and if, in fact, it was for the administration and staff. Judge Leaman said no, the funds went primarily to Choices Unlimited, which was a treatment center where the participants received counseling, auricular needling, and had to leave approximately 100 urine samples a year. The participants were at the clinic during phase one for six days a week, which was supposed to last two weeks. He explained the participant had to have six consecutive clean urines to get out of phase one, which could mean it would last longer than the two weeks. He said phase two required counseling three times a week and the participant had to leave three urine samples per week. That phase lasted eight weeks. The next sixteen weeks the participant had to go for counseling twice a week, and the last six months of the program they went once a week. He said that was the period of time where the participants were pressured to get jobs, and they were put into programs that would raise their self-esteem.
Ms. Tiffany asked who provided the clinics and the counseling. Judge Leaman said Choices Unlimited, and added it was a private organization that had been the clinic for the Drug Court program from the time the program started in October of 1992. Ms. Tiffany asked about the counseling, and the Judge said the counselors who worked for Choices Unlimited did the counseling. Ms. Tiffany said there was one clinic, Choices Unlimited, that did the counseling and the urine testing, and asked who handled the self-esteem issue. Judge Leaman said that was part of the counseling, and employment counselors had been added to teach the participants how to get jobs. He said unfortunately some people who were involved with the Drug Court had never worked in their lives, so heavy emphasis had been placed on getting them into the work force. Ms. Tiffany asked if the funds would go to Choices Unlimited, and Judge Leaman answered yes. Ms. Tiffany asked if an RFP had ever been done, and if anyone else could compete. Judge Leaman said an RFP had gone out. He explained there had been requests for others to bid and in 1992 Choices Unlimited charged $1,000 per participant for the one-year program, and their cost was currently $2,000, due to increased services for the participants.
David Gibson, Clark County Public Defenders' Office, explained that in Washoe County a bid process was done, but the program did not go out to bid in Las Vegas. They used Choices Unlimited, but they had asked other entities if they were interested and for the price and choice of services that Choices Unlimited had offered, other entities could compete.
Ms. Tiffany said she had been very involved with Westcare, for example, and there were a great deal of community-based programs in the state that really studied alcohol and drug abuse problems. She said she did Welfare-to-Work job placement and saw women coming off Welfare with substance abuse and alcohol problems and there was no program to offer them. She stated, looking at what was put into the coffers of Choices Unlimited, it was a great amount of money to give one company when they were trying to develop a lot of different community-based programs to serve a big population. She said she had a problem just giving the funds to one source without going out to bid again. Mr. Gibson said the funds did go to the one source, but the court had indicated in the past they were willing to go out to bid. Judge Leaman added he would put the record of the Drug Court up against any other program in Clark County or within the state. He said the court's recidivism rate was 17 percent, and the programs that were not headed up by a judge who could impose sanctions were in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 percent recidivism rate. He added, once the participants got into phase two they had two weeks to find a job, and if they did not find a job they were required to perform four hours of community service work per day, five days a week, until they found a job. He explained that the participants were required to do the work either in the morning or the afternoon so that they had a half-day to go out and look for work. Judge Leaman said he would point out to the people that they either would work for nothing for the county or they would be working at even a minimum wage job, where they could earn some money. He stated that had a very beneficial effect, and more and more of the program participants were becoming employed.
Ms. Tiffany said she agreed with the judge that the Drug Court had been effective and many of her Welfare-to-Work women had to report to him, and she had to get them jobs. She said the judge did a fabulous job, and asked if there would be an objection to put an amendment to the bill that would require an RFP. Judge Leaman answered there had never been a fear of going out to bid. He said Choices Unlimited had been a very large part of the outstanding record the Drug Court program had come in with, which was one of the reasons that clinic had been used. He said another reason was the price amount had been known and so far, no one else had put in a bid.
Mr. Parks asked if Choices Unlimited had an exclusive contract, or could multiple providers be used. Mr. Gibson answered, from his perspective, if the RFP was put out, it would be for one company. The reason for this was because when you try to run 875 people through court and you try to get reports together in a meaningful, consistent format, and if you have different clinics running the program then there would be different people required to do different things different ways and that would cause a great deal of confusion. He said the program was designed and organized so that it could function in a court setting with the judge in charge and with a set format so that all the people in the program would understand how it worked and what was required, and therefore not have any deviation. He explained the problem with many of the people that he dealt with was to get them to do the same thing together and in many cases in the beginning to remember for more than a day or two was very difficult. He added it was a situation where there was a set treatment and a set way of reporting which was uniform, so that the District Attorney's office, the Public Defender's office, the defendant, the court, and the treatment would all be together, and everyone would understand.
Ms. Tiffany said it was nice to have one company to work with, but said for the Welfare-to-Work program the state contracted with four different organizations and those four contracts had been less costly to the state with the funds divided four ways than the one contract had been with Choices Unlimited. She said an RFP was what required someone to prescribe a certain treatment and a certain report, because that was what an RFP did, so there was standardization because that was what an RFP required. She said she did not buy the sole source "routine" and even if it was decided to go "sole source" she felt it should be put out for bid, and she had problems with giving a private sector company an automatic amount of funds. She said if the bill passed she wanted to have an amendment to require an RFP.
Mr. Gibson said it was his understanding that the money had been set aside in the Governor's budget and in the Senate Judiciary Committee there had been two other bills, S.B. 429, which would make an appropriation to the Administrator of the Courts of Second Judicial District for continuation of its programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs and S.B. 430, which would make an appropriation to the Administrator of the Courts of Eighth Judicial District for continuation of its programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. Those bills had some typographical errors and it was his belief that S.B. 143 had been processed with the correct amounts, and it was his belief that it was quicker for S.B. 143 to go forward than to correct the other bills, so that was why S.B. 143 was before the committee.
Janet J. Berry, Chief Judge, Second Judicial District Court, said she was speaking on behalf of herself, as well as Judge Peter I. Breen of the Second Judicial District Court, Judge Charles M. McGee, of the Second Judicial District Court, and Deborah E. Schumacher of the Second Judicial District Court, Family Division. She explained the judges were attending a Drug Court conference and could not be present for the hearing. She said, to echo Judge Leaman's comments, that she and the judges she represented had seen the same levels of success in their Drug Court programs. She said they had a couple of different components that addressed self-esteem issues and had a partnership with Foster Grandparents. The County Commission had appropriated funds the last two years to provide minimum wage to some of the court retirees who would come in and do counseling for GEDs. She said the courts had found when they could get their Drug Court participants to obtain a high school diploma or gain a GED they were more marketable in the employment work force and achieved more success within the program. It cost a small amount of money and was providing great success for the graduates.
Chief Judge Berry stated the Drug Court was also seeing a low recidivism rate and for judges the program was great because they were able to see success and in the general population they did not get to see a great deal of success. She spoke of a girl named Charlotte who had stopped by her office to show her diploma from Judge Breen. She explained Charlotte had been in the system since the age of eight, and lastly in the Welfare-to-Work program, and had been referred out of her department when she was 19 years old. She added Charlotte had been sexually assaulted by her stepfather, had a six-page criminal history, and the division had wanted her to be sent to prison at the age of 19. She had been in Judge Breen's Drug Court Step Two and had delivered a drug-free baby a few months ago. She was currently shifting into the Family Drug Court program, had attained her high school diploma, and was working in parenting classes and developing job skills. Chief Judge Berry said the state could have spent $45,000 putting Charlotte in prison for two years, and she would have gone onto a seventh page of criminal history, but now she felt confident that Charlotte would be successful. She explained Charlotte was very proud of her achievements in Drug Court and she was just one of many of the kinds of graduates that the judges all saw. Chief Judge Berry said that the committee should also be proud, because judges from all over the country had come to Nevada to observe its Drug Courts, to learn from the state's experiment, and to develop their programs in their own states. They came from the National Judicial College to visit the judges the committee had supported, and Chief Judge Berry said she respectfully requested the committee's continued support.
Ms. Leslie asked if, in the last two years, Washoe County had expanded their contracts, and was not just with Choices Now, but also with smaller contracts such as Step Two, SageWinds, and Northern Area Substance Abuse Council (NASAC). She said she was not sure if it was the state's money that was being used for contracting or funds from the county. Chief Judge Berry said she was not positive how the contracts came about, but she did know that the Drug Court worked closely with Step Two, SageWinds, and NASAC for inpatient care, as well as Westcare. She said she did know they had done an RFP and no one had come close to what Choices Now had bid, as the closest bid was 30 percent higher than Choices Now. Ms. Leslie said the real issue was that Choices Now did not provide the same level of treatment that the other programs did. Chief Judge Berry said the point was well taken, but what she believed happened was, depending on the level of need, for example, Charlotte had to be in Step Two in addition to Choices Now. Many of the Drug Court participants had mental health problems and were referred into the parallel program at Nevada Mental Health Institute (NMHI) so those programs were working parallel with Choices Now. She reiterated that she could not address how the funds were broken out. Ms. Leslie said there was a lot of resentment in the treatment community that Choices Now was funded through the Drug Court, with basically an exclusive contract, and from the treatment-provider perspective when they do get clients that need "real" treatment, not just what Choices Now did, then the participants "get dumped" on the treatment providers who, until the last two years, did not receive Drug Court funding.
Ms. Leslie added, she supported Drug Court "1,000" percent but she thought there was a lot more work to be done and the message needed to be absorbed that the resentment was "bubbling" in the community with the underfunded "real, according to them" treatment providers, which was a real problem. Chief Judge Berry said that was a point well-taken and added that the Foster Grandparents' program was providing free counseling, and the retirees' program that provided training for participants to obtain their high school diplomas or GEDs were showing a tremendous success. She said the courts had sought to fund that program and it had been a win/win situation with the retirees who received minimum wage for doing God's work, and it resulted in people becoming educated. She added that the judges would take into consideration the issues that the committee had brought up.
Mr. Gibson advised the committee that Choices Group Inc. was fully certified by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA). Ms. Leslie said that when the issue of certification had been brought up previously, the group had gone to the BADA and received a special certification as a Drug Court "service" program, and it was her belief that the group had not been certified as a "treatment" program. She said there continued to be an issue about what "treatment" was. Mr. Gibson said the certification by the BADA was for a Drug Court treatment agency, as an outpatient treatment agency, and as an intensive outpatient agency, and referred to Exhibit D, which was a copy of the certification.
Speaking against S.B. 143, Barry Lovgren read the following statement into the record.
My name is Barry Lovgren, and I'm here to speak with you as a taxpayer. I'll be making references to some statutes and regulations that I've attached in an addendum to my written testimony.
I testified before this committee on AB 73, and this bill is nearly identical – the difference is that AB 73 would begin funding of Drug Courts in rural Nevada, while SB 143 would continue funding them in Clark and Washoe counties. I testified that I thought AB 73 should be amended to require that the funding go to a treatment program approved by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA). I thought that would be a good idea because the taxpayers then would have an independent assurance of the quality of the treatment program we're being asked to pay for.
I thought that would be a good idea. By the time I testified before Senate Finance on this bill I found out that it's the law. NRS 453.580, 458.025, 458.310, and 458.320 all require treatment programs used by the Drug Courts to be BADA-approved.
I told Senate Finance that, and asked for the same amendment to this bill that I had asked this committee to make with AB 73. But it was passed without that amendment. And rightfully so.
This legislature has already told the Drug Courts that the treatment programs to which they assign defendants and to which they administer State substance abuse treatment funding must be BADA-approved. It told the courts this when it passed the bills that now are NRS 453.580, 458.025, 458.310, and 458.320.
One has to assume that the Drug Courts know the laws governing Drug Courts. Why would the legislature want to repeat as an amendment to an appropriations bill what its been telling them for years in statute?
Both AB 73 and this bill cite one of these statutes. NRS 453.580 states, in part, "A court may establish an appropriate treatment program to which it may assign a person pursuant to NRS 453.3363, or 458.300, or it may assign such a person to an appropriate facility for the treatment of abuse of alcohol or drugs which is certified by the bureau of alcohol and drug abuse in the department of human resources."
The Clark and Washoe County courts assign defendants to the treatment program of Choices, Unlimited – now called Choices Group, Inc. That treatment program was established by Choices and is operated by Choices, not by the courts. The role of the courts has been to administer funding and refer clients to it. Administering funds and referring clients isn't establishing a treatment service – if it were, then every General Hospital in Nevada was established by Nevada Medicaid. And I don't think anyone believes that. The point is that the Drug Courts have not been assigning defendants to court-established treatment programs, so what they're left with is assignment to a BADA-approved one.
NRS 453.580 in turn makes reference to assignment to treatment under NRS 458.300. The NRS 458.300 series doesn't provide the option of assignment to a court-established program - it requires that the defendant be assigned to a BADA-approved treatment program.
So much for assignment of defendants. What about administration of money? NRS 458.025 specifies that program that are not BADA-approved are ineligible for receipt of State substance abuse funding. Both the Las Vegas and the Reno Choices' Drug Court Services programs have been approved by BADA for some time. But a Drug Court Service isn't a treatment program, and as SB 143 says, this money is for a "Program for treatment". Like the defendants, the funding has been going to Choices' treatment programs in Las Vegas and Reno.
So the question is: Do the Clark and Washoe county Drug Courts comply with these laws requiring that they assign defendants and administer State substance abuse treatment funding to BADA-approved treatment programs?
When I testified before Senate Finance on this bill, I thought the answer was an unequivocal "No." But when John Marr of Choices testified he characterized my testimony as "outrageous charges", produced certificates of BADA approval of Choices' Las Vegas treatment program, and, testified that while approval had been obtained he not consider it to be required.
These certificates are only for the Las Vegas Choices program. The Reno program remains unapproved. The certificates were issued less than three months ago, on March 19, and expire on September 19. The reason why the approval expires so quickly is because this is only an initial approval that gives the program six months to prepare for inspection. That inspection will determine whether ongoing approval is appropriate.
So where does this leave us?
Well, it leaves me agreeing with Mr. Marr on one thing: I am making outrageous charges. I hadn't realized the full implications at the time, but what this leaves us with is a laundry list of outrages:
This leaves us with the Clark County courts having assigned defendants and having administered State substance abuse funding to an ineligible treatment program for years, finally attaining somewhat tentative compliance with the law on March 19 of this year. With the program yet to be inspected by BADA to determine if it meets the standards for more than just initial approval.
This leaves us with Choices considering state approval of its treatment programs to be discretionary. So we have no assurance that Choices will seek – let alone earn – continued BADA approval of its Las Vegas treatment program after September 19. Nor any assurance that state approval of the Reno treatment- -
Mr. Lovgren said as the committee noticed during the current hearing, the approval tended to be presented as being fully accredited, or fully certified, and clearly it was not fully certified as it was only in the Las Vegas program and was only an initial approval. He then continued to read from his statement.
This leaves us with the Washoe County courts having assigned defendants and having administered State substance abuse funding to an ineligible treatment program for years – and continuing to do so.
This leaves us with not knowing how many defendants over the years have had conviction proceedings resumed, or received harsher sentences, because they didn't complete treatment programs that the courts didn't have authority to assign them to in the first place.
Finally, this leaves us with the Washoe and Clark County courts having for years administered State substance abuse funds to an ineligible program while not even putting the project out to bid to the 25 eligible treatment programs in Clark County or to the 8 in Washoe County.
Now, I'm not a judge and I'm not an attorney. I'm just some guy. It may be that laws that authorize the drug courts to assign defendants to BADA-approved treatment programs can be interpreted to mean that they can assign defendants wherever they like. It may be that the law requiring BADA-approval of a treatment program for eligibility to receive State funding for alcohol and drug abuse programs can be interpreted to mean that the funding can go to unapproved treatment programs.
But that sort of sophistry would be a tragic betrayal of legislative intent and an Orwellian statement that some are more equal than others before the law: If I were to walk into a court room in Clark or Washoe county as a defendant with their track record of compliance with the law I'd consider myself to be in very big trouble indeed.
But it would be a tragedy to kill this appropriation. We need the drug courts. We need a better answer to the drug problem than locking people up until there's only enough free citizens left to guard the prisoners. And I don't want it to get lost in all this that the judges are to be commended for setting up drug courts in the first place.
The problem with this bill isn't that it doesn't stipulate that the funds must be administered in a manner consistent with State law. The problem with this bill is that it appropriates the funding to agencies that don't.
The courts may do a good job of administering justice, but they've shown us that they don't do a good job of administering State funding for alcohol and drug abuse treatment.
Which is why I'm asking this Committee to exercise due diligence in the way my money is appropriated. It would be negligent of this Committee to appropriate the funding to the Clark and Washoe County courts with their track record of how they administer this money. I just cannot imagine this committee doing that given that appropriating these funds to the courts has given the citizens of Nevada a laundry list of outrages in exchange for their taxes.
Keep the drug courts alive. But do it in a responsible manner. Appropriate the funding to an agency that administers my money in a way that complies with the law. Appropriate it to an agency that will administer it in a way that ensures that my money provides the drug courts with treatment programs to which they are authorized to assign defendants.
That agency clearly has not been, and is not, the courts.
Mr. Lovgren concluded his remarks stating in Plato's Republic the question was asked, "Who watches the watchers?" and in 2,500 years there had never been a satisfactory answer to that question. Mr. Lovgren asked, "Who watches the courts?" He said the funds should be appropriated to a state agency who would put the project out to an RFP, and it would be subject to the scrutiny of the state agencies they were subject to, and how they spend the taxpayers' money.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 143.
Senate Bill 448: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for improvement projects at state parks and revises particular purposes and extends periods for expenditure of certain money previously appropriated for park improvement projects. (BDR S-1392)
Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, said S.B. 448 would make an appropriation for state park improvements. He said the bill would also revise and extend particular periods for certain monies the division already had. Of the funds available there were 14 projects, of which 10 would leverage federal grant money. He said the bill would involve a General Fund appropriation of $500,000 and a little over $2 million of room tax revenues. The rest of the funding would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the T-21. He referred to Exhibit E and said it was a list of projects that were planned.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 448.
Senate Bill 109: Makes appropriations relating to education. (BDR S-838)
Speaking in opposition to S.B. 109, Douglas Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education, said originally S.B. 109 had two parts. The first part was to provide a public relations person to publicize the academic standards, which the Council To Establish Academic Standards had requested. The second portion, which the department had opposed since the beginning, would continue the approximate $300,000 appropriation for the biennium to the Insight program. He said the bill, as amended, deleted the first part of the bill and focused only on the portion that dealt with the Insight program.
Mr. Thunder said for some time he had been opposed to the Insight program. He stated he felt it was not needed, as the department and the state required each of the schools to submit annual accountability reports and one important element within that required reporting was the reporting of expenditures per student in about four different categories, as well as revenue. He explained the Insight program was allegedly supposed to present the same numbers, asking schools districts to submit their general ledgers and from the ledgers the numbers were "massaged" to show a per student expenditure in each of the schools. Mr. Thunder said he had prepared a side-by-side comparison of the totals of expenditures per student, for the same year, and there had been a wide variation from what the school reported and what the Insight program had reported. He said some of the variations were as high as over 100 percent difference, and in some cases the differences were $5,000 to $6,000 per student. He added, there may be traceable reasons as to why the differences occurred, however, what had in effect happened was to have two sets of numbers that did not agree with each other and a great deal of time had to be spent to decide which of the two sets of numbers was correct. The numbers that were presented by the schools were prepared in accordance with an accounting handbook for accountability that was prepared by a task force and the numbers were then calculated using that information. Mr. Thunder said it was not his belief that the Insight program, in the first two years, had provided information that had been useful to the districts and most of the people who had been involved with providing the information to Insight had found the task cumbersome and the prepared reports had not proven useful.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 109.
Senate Bill 360: Requires addition of certain marker on Mount Charleston on schedule for placement of historical markers. (BDR S-1227)
Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, said he would present the bill on behalf of the Senate Finance Committee. He said the bill originally came out of the Senate Finance Committee because there had been funding associated with the request for a marker to be placed to commemorate a crash which had occurred in 1955 on Mt. Charleston. Mr. James explained S.B. 360 had been amended at his request because the department already had the funding for the marker, so required no further funding. He said the bill would mandate his office to pursue a marker to commemorate the crash and the department was in support of the idea, and other ideas that the committee might offer.
Mrs. Chowning said the original bill had an appropriation of $10,000 and asked Mr. James if he was saying the department would spend the $10,000 out of their budget for the marker. Mr. James said he did not anticipate the marker would cost $10,000, and the bill was not the department's bill originally. Mrs. Chowning asked how much funding would be allocated from the department's budget for the marker. Mr. James answered there were three different types of markers the department was currently using.
Mr. James said he felt the marker could be funded for around $2,000 or $3,000.
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, District 6, said the bill had originally had a $10,000 appropriation, and he had tried to take it out. He referred to Exhibit F and Exhibit G, which were packets on the Silent Heroes of the Cold War National Monument. The packets represented a presentation made to the Senate with a resolution. He said the program was an exciting program and a very enthusiastic group was involved with it.
Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 360.
Assembly Bill 508: Makes appropriations to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for new and replacement equipment for Division of Water Resources and to account for the channel clearance, maintenance, restoration, surveying and monumenting program. (BDR S-1394)
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said A.B. 508 was to provide new and replacement equipment for the Division of Water Resources. The agency had requested that the bill be amended down and in addition, $100,000 be appropriated to the Channel Clearance account. He said if the committee was receptive to that request, staff would recommend reducing the appropriation for the equipment that was listed on line 3 of the bill from $361,090 to $169,411, and then provide an appropriation of $100,000 for the Channel Clearance account.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblyman Dini, and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 513: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for development of long-term strategic plan concerning health care needs of citizens of Nevada. (BDR S-1407)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 513 was a $1.8 million appropriation for long-term strategic planning for the Department of Human Resources. He explained in the negotiations between leadership and the Governor on areas that could be trimmed back based on the Economic Forum's projection of General Fund revenues, this appropriation was reduced to $800,000.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the previous day it had been determined that there was a need to study a few things within the bill. Those items were the Senior Health Continuum, which would need an appropriation of $100,000; Individuals with Disabilities for the Olmstead Act review, with an appropriation of $150,000; the rural health issue, with an appropriation of $150,000; and the rate study, which would require an appropriation of $400,000. She explained part of the study would have to be done with stakeholders through a Letter of Intent. She said it was not recommended to do a study on domestic violence as there had already been a study and there was already a plan. She said another area where there was no need for a study was the health care insurance program because there was already information available. She said there was no need to study the studies. She said if the Governor had recommended to cut the appropriation in half, it was her recommendation to deal with the areas she had listed.
Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources, said she agreed with the Governor's recommended reduction to $800,000. She also agreed the areas emphasized by Ms. Giunchigliani were the highest priority areas. She said the department had been trying to identify alternative matching funds and thought the long-range planning for a continuum of services, as well as individuals with disabilities was of critical importance, as was the rate study methodology.
Ms. Tiffany asked Ms. Crawford if the department was going to hire someone, or create a grant management group that would be able to go after the grants, or did they already have an existing grant person. Ms. Crawford answered no, the department did not have a grant manager, or a grants procurement position. She said, however, for many programs, for example, the senior programs, and the individuals with disabilities program, the primary background of funding was Medicaid. She explained Medicaid was a state/federal program, which meant for many of the programs, when the goal was research or studies, matching funds might be available because the federal government was a participant. The intent was to contract with a facilitator to incorporate all the stakeholders, affected individuals, advocates, and providers in each of the areas, to ensure all parties were involved to develop a long-range strategic plan. She said it was not an "end-around" on the grants management unit, and they did not need a grants manager, as the intent was not to go after grants per se, rather matching funds, and there were many opportunities available.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS, AGREEING WITH THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE THE APPROPRIATION TO $800,000 IN GENERAL FUND, FOCUSING $100,000 FOR THE SENIOR STUDY, $150,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WITH THE FOCUS ON THE OLMSTEAD ACT, $150,000 FOR RURAL HEALTH, AND $400,000 FOR THE RATE STUDY WITH A LETTER OF INTENT DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT TO INVOLVE THE STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESSES IN THE DEVELOPING OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THROUGH AN RFP.
Mrs. Cegavske asked, since the money went to the department, did the department hire the people to do the study. Ms. Giunchigliani answered that her understanding was the department would have to do an RFP, but part of the Letter of Intent would require that the RFP, even if a facilitator was hired, would be required to work with the stakeholders. Mrs. Cegavske asked if there was a portion in the bill that would deal with autism. Ms. Giunchigliani answered yes, through the section regarding individuals with disabilities and that could be spelled out in the bill.
Ms. Giunchigliani said A.B. 75, which required the adoption of a state cancer plan and mandated administrative action necessary to provide Medicaid coverage to certain patients with breast or cervical cancer, was a proper vehicle to insert the language into and said she would add that to the amendment.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblyman Dini, and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 592: Makes appropriations from state general fund and state highway fund to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for various information technology upgrades. (BDR S-1417)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 592 was not originally in The Executive Budget, and came in a revision from the Governor at $442,019 in General Funds and $562,569 in Highway Funds. He said the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety was indicating that the numbers should be reversed, making the appropriation from General Funds $562,569 and the Highway Funds $442,019. He said if the numbers were reversed it would cost an additional $120,550 in General Funds.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THE BILL.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Dini, Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblyman Beers, and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 596: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for computer upgrades at Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1381)
Mr. Stevens said the bill involved data processing for the Division of Parole and Probation. He said A.B. 596 provided provisions for computer upgrades and the division had requested $20,209. He said there had originally been an error in how the figures were calculated, and if the committee provided for everything requested in the bill, it could still be reduced to $13,380.
Mrs. Chowning said historically the division had been underfunded and they had never been able to keep up with all the cases they had. She asked were the upgrades going to help in managing their ever-increasing caseload. Mr. Stevens said he thought that was the reason for the bill, to give the division some data processing assistance to make them more efficient and to be able to do more work in the same period of time. He said time would tell how effective it would be. Mrs. Chowning said she had been a substitute for the Audit Committee during the interim and it was shown that the division needed a lot of help.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblyman Dini, and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the vote.)
*******
Assembly Bill 597: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for purchase of computers for and ongoing telecommunication costs of Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S- 1382)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 597 also needed an adjustment. The division needed an increase of $18,104 to do what was intended in the bill. The appropriation was for the purchase of personal computers and some operational costs for T-1 lines. He said the total amended request was for $431,046, which was an increase of $18,104 from what had been recommended. He said staff also recommended the appropriations be broken down into one-time costs and ongoing costs because there was $62,149 in each year of the biennium built into the one-shot for operational costs related to communications T-1 lines, etc. Mr. Stevens recommended a one-shot appropriation of $306,748 and then ongoing operating costs of $62,149 in each year of the biennium.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Stevens if he had checked with the division to make sure they were on a three-year rotation cycle, or were they just adding new computers because of new employees, or adding laptops instead of desktops. Mr. Stevens said the division was behind the curve when it came to having data processing equipment. They had not utilized data processing hardware or software to any great extent and the appropriation's intent was to bring the division up to where every officer had access to a computer.
Mr. Marvel said the division was so far behind in collections that they needed to be brought up to speed.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblyman Dini, and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 247: Makes appropriations to Department of Human Resources. (BDR S-1257)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 247 was a supplemental appropriation for the Division of Child and Family Services for their Youth Community Services account. He said it also would provide a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Services' for medications and $350,000 for repair of the hospital in Las Vegas for life safety issues.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblyman Dini, and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 307: Requires real estate division of department of business and industry to hire professional consultants to ensure compliance with certain provisions of federal law regarding appraisers of real estate and increases certain fees of real estate division. (BDR 54-1062)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 307 was a bill that involved the Real Estate Division. It would increase fees by a slight amount and since the fees would go to the General Fund, there was a General Fund appropriation of $22,000 in each year of the biennium to offset the fees that were placed in the General Fund. The bill would provide funding for contracts, professional consultants to investigate complaints and conduct audits, etc.
Mr. Goldwater said he had more research that he would like to do in regard to the bill and needed a few days before he could reach a decision on his vote.
Chairman Arberry held the bill for further discussion.
********
Senate Bill 498: Revises authorized uses of appropriation made in previous session to Lincoln County School District and changes date of reversion of appropriation. (BDR S-1439)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 498 would allow monies that had been provided during the last legislative session to Lincoln County School District to replace a school building that had been found unsafe, structurally unsound, and unsuitable for continued use as a school, and add the language "and the construction and furnishing of a high school." He said it would also provide an extension on the reversion date.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the bill would amend the section where they did the bonding for the Lincoln County School and withheld the money on the White Pine portion. She asked if the bill met the criteria for the current statutes. She was not sure if the high school had been recommended by the board of examiners.
Mr. Marvel said the White Pine School had been "done away with," and Ms. Giunchigliani agreed. Mrs. de Braga said the money that was to have gone to the Pleasant Valley School had been allocated to go to the completion of the Lund High School, neither of which were in Lincoln County, which was a separate situation. She said it was her understanding that the Lincoln County School was to be a K-12 school. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Stevens to find out the answer to the questions being asked.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the next day there would be testimony regarding another bill with amendments to the current law regarding the school construction issue and to request the establishment of a revolving loan fund. She asked if Mr. Stevens could provide the information necessary regarding S.B. 498 and it all could be dealt with at the same time.
Mrs. Cegavske said the amended version of S.B. 498 requested $1 million for the construction of elementary schools and then it went on to say ". . . and for the construction and furnishing of a high school. . . " and asked for additional information on that issue as well.
Chairman Arberry held the bill for further discussion.
********
Assembly Bill 378: Makes appropriation to support certain loan program for nursing students and requires development of plan to increase capacity of programs of nursing within the University and Community College System of Nevada. (BDR S-852)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 378 would establish a program to promote nursing in the state. The bill would provide funding for marketing the program to encourage students to enroll in the program and also to provide a loan program at the University System.
Ms. Giunchigliani said there had been several sets of amendments regarding the bill and thought the groups had determined to take 25 percent, not exceeding $250,000, out of the interest portion of the Trust fund for Public Health administered by the Health Division. She said the bill was extremely convoluted. She said in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)396.890 an entire scholarship program for nursing was outlined, so her recommendation was to "gut" A.B. 378 and refer to the section in the statute that laid out how the regents would do it, and what scores the applicants were required to have, and the funding costs, and then take the 25 percent, not exceeding the $250,000, out of the interest portion of the Trust Fund for Public Health and fund the program.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the law was already set up so that if a student practiced nursing in another area of Nevada, for each academic year they received a loan a portion of the loan would be waived, and the issue regarding if they practiced nursing in a rural area was covered in the law as well. The Millennium Scholarship provision was going to be deleted from the bill, so it was agreed to use the interest for the loan fund.
Ms. Tiffany said how much of the Tobacco Fund money had been allocated for scholarships, and she said she had assumed they were talking about the Millennium Scholarships. Mr. Stevens said 40 percent of the total receipts of the Tobacco Funds went to the Millennium Scholarship program. He said that was not where the funding for this bill would come from. Ten percent of Tobacco Settlement Funds went into an endowment that was administered by the Health Division and what the bill proposed was to take 25 percent of the interest earned on the endowment, not to exceed $250,000. He explained there was currently $8.3 million in the endowment, so it was figured there would be approximately $425,000 of interest generated, so if the bill passed, 25 percent would go to fund the nursing scholarship program. Ms. Tiffany asked if the funds had been attached and Mr. Stevens answered there was an advisory committee that administered the interest off the endowment. The remaining 75 percent that did not go to the program would continue to be administered by that advisory committee for other entities.
Bill Welsh, President and CEO, Nevada Hospital Association, said the bill went beyond the Millennium Scholarship and he did not have any concerns with the recommendations made by Ms. Giunchigliani, but he said there were three other pieces of the bill and he hoped, if the scholarship portion was moved to another piece of legislation, the committee would continue to consider A.B. 378 for the other components. The other components included requiring the University and Community College System to develop a plan that would double the nursing program within the biennium. He said there had been a concern that that component would require the system to double the program by September 2001, and because of the concern, and the concerns with the fiscal aspects of the budget for the state, they had proposed an amendment that would allow them to develop and implement a program that would double within the biennium and come back before the 2003 legislature, having incorporated within their budget and strategic plan the doubling of the program, and request the funding at that point. He said the point would be to require a focus on that issue. Mr. Welsh said this had been reviewed in the past and a report had been produced on manpower issues in 1997 that had been released to the 1999 legislature, which clearly indicated at that time there was a nursing shortage, as well as other health care professionals. He said the study was redone during the last year and it had shown the shortage had worsened, so they felt that part of the legislation was a very important piece.
Mr. Welsh said it had been agreed to remove the Millennium Scholarships' definitions for special consideration. He added another component was that the image of nursing needed to be addressed. He said there had not been much focus or attention brought to the profession other than the negativity that had been battled in the media. While it was necessary to work collaboratively with the nurses to address their concerns, it was believed the profession of nursing needed an infusion of visibility in a proactive, positive manner. He said a piece of the legislation might be developed, so that within the K-12 educational system, a mentoring program with the health care industry could be implemented.
Mr. Welsh reiterated that he did not have any concerns about Ms. Giunchigliani's suggestion to remove the scholarship portion of the bill, but hoped the remaining portions of the bill would be considered.
Ms. Giunchigliani said her problem was the bill was "a mess" and she said she appreciated the part about the advisory committee. She said a lot of the discussion of the plan and the image and public relations did not have to be in law. She said there was nothing that prevented the groups from forming a consortium to be able to move forward on that issue. She said they were trying to do some things in addition to that and the committee had been trying to find the simplest way, in the short time remaining, to get something moving. She said, in clarification, that it would be acceptable to reference the current statute, which already outlined how the regents would administer the loan program, but there had been no mention of funding, so 25 percent up to $250,000 of the Trust Fund for Public Health would be utilized for this purpose. She said it was agreed, in the system's amendment, to strike the Millennium Scholarship, but it was still in law, and that was up to the regents to possibly do that part. She asked Mr. Welsh if she was missing anything. Mr. Welsh said the one piece they still felt must be passed in the legislation was to require the University and Community College System to develop a plan to double the nursing program and bring it back to the 2003 legislature. Ms. Giunchigliani said her concern was if the word "shall" was used it could make things uncomfortable for "many people." She explained the committee was cautious because it would then be a policy decision, and the committee would be "stuck" having to react to it the next session. Ms. Giunchigliani said the system had an obligation to deal with nursing, teaching, social work, etc., and asked if the language was crafted to be an encouragement instead of mandatory, would that be acceptable. Mr. Welsh said that would be satisfactory, and believed the legislature needed to make a statement that the system needed to take a serious look at the issue and even in the form of an encouragement it would be better than where things were currently.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the amendment could say "with the intent to increase their capacity, preferably in doubling," as they could not mandate in law that an agency double their capacity for nursing spots. She said then, if they came back with a plan, there could be a line item that would indicate the costs so that the next session the issue could be considered, along with the financial impact.
Mr. Stevens said it could be required that the system include in their budget a request with an outline of the costs, and then it would be required to be reviewed. He said it was not a mandate that the Governor would include it in the budget, but at least it would be out there so everyone could see what funds were needed and what benefit that would be and a conscious decision could be made.
Ms. Tiffany said the Henderson State College was also looking at a nursing program and maybe in the request for a plan the University System could also include how they were going to migrate the students from Certified Nursing Assistants to Licensed Practical Nurses to Registered Nurses, and also not just to expand at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, or other universities, but also what would be anticipated for the state college. Ms. Giunchigliani said that would be acceptable as part of the plan for the legislature to review.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS, REFERENCE THE CURRENT LAW WHICH WAS ALREADY OUTLINED IN THE NRS 396.890, AND FUNDING THE LOAN PROGRAM WITH THE 25 PERCENT, NOT TO EXCEED $250,000 FOR THE BIENNIUM, OF THE INTEREST PORTION FROM THE TRUST FUND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, AND TO DEVELOP A PLAN, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE REPORTING BACK OF POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES, LOCATION EXPANSION OF THE HENDERSON STATE COLLEGE, AND WHAT STEPS WOULD BE REVIEWED TO MAKE SURE THERE WERE FACILITIES AND INSTRUCTION AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF NURSING.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblywoman Chowning, and Assemblywoman Leslie were not present for the vote.)
********
Being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:32 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kathryn Fosnaugh
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: