MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
February 15, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Thursday, February 15, 2001. Vice Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani 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:
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
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman (Excused)
Mr. Richard D. Perkins (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary
Assembly Bill No. 20: Makes contingent appropriation to Brewery Arts Center for purchase of property for development of cultural center and plaza in Carson City historic district. (BDR S-976)
Vice Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani recognized Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, District 40. Ms. Parnell introduced A.B. 20, which requested an appropriation of $750,000 to assist the Carson Brewery Arts Center in purchasing the St. Teresa Church and Rectory to be used to create a cultural arts plaza in Carson City. She then stated that St. Teresa Church was a one-story gothic revival church dated back to 1861 and the rectory housed former Senator William Stewart and former Territorial Governor James Nye. Ms. Parnell noted that the current Brewery Arts Center was housed in what was previously the Tahoe Brewery, or otherwise named the Carson Brewery. She then expressed her pleasure at presenting A.B. 20 to the committee. Ms. Parnell introduced Mr. Joe McCarthy, Executive Director, Brewery Arts Center.
Mr. McCarthy briefly explained the materials he had presented to the committee, which contained a copy of his prepared testimony (Exhibit C), a conceptual drawing of the proposed cultural plaza (Exhibit D), and a copy of the February 2001 Brewery Arts newsletter (Exhibit E).
Mr. McCarthy continued by reading from his prepared testimony (Exhibit C). He explained that the Brewery Arts Center was Carson City’s performing arts center, located on the busiest street in the historic west side of Carson City. Mr. McCarthy then went on to give a brief explanation of the activities that the Brewery Arts Center provided, including poetry readings and workshops, art classes, and theatrical shows. He presented the committee with selected written highlights of previous performances and the number of people who had utilized the center in the previous year. Mr. McCarthy then indicated that the St. Teresa Church property and the Henry David house were “a once-in-a-lifetime, cost-effective way” to expand the cultural center and sustain historic buildings. He also noted that a number of different organizations were currently in search of performance space, and similarly the visual arts community was in need of workspace. The expansion of the Brewery Arts Center would assist in both those needs. Mr. McCarthy verbalized the Brewery Arts Center’s plan for the expansion project, citing what had been accomplished to date. He then expanded on the ability of the Brewery Arts Center to utilize the historical aspects of the buildings desired for expansion, and explained the Brewery Arts Center’s involvement in previous historical preservation projects. Mr. McCarthy completed his presentation by reading from his prepared testimony (Exhibit C) two statements given to him by community members in support of the proposed expansion.
Ms. Shelia Leslie inquired as to what the projected total cost of the project would be. Mr. McCarthy responded that an architectural team was researching what the estimate would be, and that process would be completed in several months. At the current time, Mr. McCarthy was able to estimate that the cost of the properties would exceed $1 million and the rest of the project would not exceed $5 million, for an overall estimate of $6 million. Mr. McCarthy noted that this was a rough estimate, and the budget still needed to be broken down into line items. Ms. Leslie indicated her understanding and said that she was interested in knowing the level of participation being asked from the state. She confirmed that the bill was requesting $700,000 dependant on the Brewery Arts Center raising $1.5 million, which was significantly less than the total cost of the project. Mr. McCarthy agreed with Ms. Leslie and then noted that some of the total monies would be in-kind funding from the Carson City government.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested information as to whether the required $1.5 million referred to in A.B. 20 would be raised from the general public or whether it would be raised from the Carson City Board of Supervisors. Mr. McCarthy deferred to Ms. Robin Williamson. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked if St. Teresa Church had been declared an historic site. Mr. McCarthy noted that the parish had not proceeded with the process of being recognized by the National Historic Register. There had been a few modifications to the church in previous years, and this issue would need to be addressed, but Mr. McCarthy was optimistic that National Historic Register recognition could be received. The Chair inquired as to whether the church was currently vacant. Mr. McCarthy responded in the negative, and indicated that it was anticipated that by the end of October 2001, the church would be vacant. He then indicated that the most difficult part of fund-raising occurred when the property was not yet purchased. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated her desire to know the prices of the property in question. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Henry David house would cost $175,000 and there was currently an option with the owners, and the church property was listed at $900,000 for the church and the rectory, and the Stewart-Nye property, was listed at $595,000.
Mrs. Vonne Chowning stated that she understood that an application had not been submitted to the National Historic Registry, but wondered if one had been submitted to the Commission on Cultural Affairs for preservation monies. Mr. McCarthy indicated that the Brewery Arts Center was familiar with the application process for the Commission on Cultural Affairs, and one of the stipulations was that the group applying must own the property. Once the property was owned by the Brewery Arts Center and construction started, applications would be filled out. Mrs. Chowning inquired as to whether the previous owners had applied to the Commission on Cultural Affairs. Mr. McCarthy indicated that to his knowledge they had not.
Robin Williamson, Chairman of the Carson City Redevelopment Authority and member of the Carson City Board of Supervisors, addressed Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s earlier question regarding Carson City’s anticipated contributions to the Brewery Arts Center expansion project. She assured the committee that the city would be supporting the center through the acquisition of the properties. Ms. Williamson noted that the city was currently in the budget process and was developing a bond issue and when that was completed an exact dollar amount of city contributions would be available. The city did participate in funding a portion of the cultural assessment fund, before the proposed expansion was a possibility. Ms. Williamson expressed her appreciation of Ms. Parnell’s sponsorship of A.B. 20. She then stated that she anticipated that the Redevelopment Authority would participate in funding part of the feasibility study and then seek funds to be used to contribute to the purchase price and to facilitating infrastructure improvements and modeling. The ability to draw people from all regions of northern Nevada was then noted by Ms. Williamson.
The Vice Chair recognized Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District. Senator Amodei expressed his support for the proposed funding for the Brewery Arts Center. He noted that this was a unique opportunity to produce a facility in a public-private partnership, both at the state and local level. He stated his hope that this project would be a priority of the committee.
Ms. Parnell expressed her thanks to the members of the audience, and noted that approximately 75 percent of the audience was there in support of A.B. 20.
Mr. Joe Dini verbalized his support for A.B. 20. He explained his experience with historical restoration, and noted that if this project received the “seed money” requested the remaining monies needed would be easier to find. Mr. Dini gave a personal example of the Yerington Grammar School #9 project and noted that $900,000 had been raised in a community of approximately 8,000 people. He surmised that the Carson City community, of approximately 50,000 people, should be able to raise a proportionate amount of money. Mr. Dini said that the proposed expansion would be a wonderful thing for Carson City and the whole of western Nevada. He commended the Brewery Arts Center for their efforts and Ms. Parnell for presenting the bill.
The Vice Chair explained that the committee would keep an open mind and take all testimony into consideration. She then recognized Cindy Southerland, Director, Carson Valley Museum and Cultural Center. Ms. Southerland expressed her support for A.B. 20.
There was no action on A.B. 20, and the Vice Chair closed the meeting on A.B. 20.
Assembly Bill No. 58: Requires increased salaries for certain employees of school districts. (BDR 34-140)
The Vice Chair recognized Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, District 40, who introduced A.B. 58. Ms. Parnell explained that there was some confusion about what the bill was regarding. When the Fiscal Division first received the bill Clark County was contacted concerning the fiscal impact because it was believed that anyone who fell under the definition of national certification would receive the 5 percent salary increase, which would include bus drivers, cooks and many others. Ms. Parnell spoke with Kim Morgan, Chief Deputy, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and created the very defined groups found within the text of the bill. Ms. Parnell noted that this bill was written in a continuing effort to set high standards within schools. The bill related to non-teaching professionals in schools. She referred to S.B. 46 of the Seventieth Session, which provided a 5 percent salary increase to teachers who received the certification presented by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Ms. Parnell communicated with many non-teacher school professionals after the passage of S.B. 46 of the Seventieth Session, who were interested in meeting or exceeding the same standard set for teachers.
She introduced the people who would be testifying, Kathy Williams, representing school nurses, Dr. Tony Del Vecchio, representing school psychologists, Carol McQuirk, representing school counselors, Nancy Kuhles, representing speech pathologists and audiologists, and Alicia Smalley, representing social workers. Ms. Parnell requested that the committee weigh each presentation, and indicated her belief that each presentation would be informational and compelling, as well as answer the questions and concerns of the committee.
Kathy Williams, school nurse and president of the Nevada State Association of School Nurses, read her prepared testimony (Exhibit F). She explained that the job duties of a school nurse focused around ensuring that a student remained healthy in order to continue learning, and noted that school nurses would come in contact with students with many types of ailments. Ms. Williams then explained that the certification process offered by the National Association of School Nurses was completed by school nurses who were committed to their profession and the students that they served. She explained that this process was voluntary, and few nurses had chosen to undertake it. Ms. Williams then noted that the legislature had given school teachers, who had received national certification, a 5 percent pay increase in an effort to retain teachers. Ms. Williams expressed that she felt school nurses should be given similar benefits. She then briefly discussed the comparison of the education preparation of classroom teachers versus school nurses that she had given to the committee (Exhibit F). Ms. Williams stated that school nurses were asking for the committee’s support on A.B. 58.
The Vice Chair requested clarification regarding whether the National Association of School Nurses was creating a national license or whether one was currently in existence. Ms. Williams answered that there was a certification process, but it was different from the National Board associated with teacher certification.
Ms. Leslie inquired as to who would pay to go through the certification process, and what the cost would be. Ms. Williams answered that the school nurse would pay for his/her continuing education requirement to keep the license current, and for anything above that. The test for national certification was about $300 and proposals were being drafted for a three-unit individual study graduate course with Nevada universities.
Ms. Parnell provided information regarding S.B. 46 of the Seventieth Session and S.B. 47 of the Seventieth Session. S.B. 47 of the Seventieth Session was related to the reimbursement of the cost of the Teacher National Board Certification from the State Department of Education to the individual teacher. Ms. Parnell indicated that there was no correlating bill to A.B. 58, so the individual non-teaching professional would be covering all costs incurred.
The Vice Chair recognized Dr. Tony Del Vecchio, school psychologist and representative from the Nevada Association of School Psychologists (NvASP). Dr. Del Vecchio indicated the NvASP’s support for S.B. 46 of the Seventieth Session, and indicated the NvASP’s opinion that the legislature’s intent was to recognize, promote, and financially reward those teachers who had achieved an advanced level of professional excellence in their field. Dr. Del Vecchio indicated that he would like to see the legislature extend this recognition and financial benefit to other educational personnel who had obtained national certification by their respective professional organizations. He noted that psychologists felt that their national certification process was as rigorous as the teaching national certification process, and psychologists should therefore be included in the proposed 5 percent differential-based pay increase.
Dr. Del Vecchio then introduced the documents that he presented to the committee; Nationally Certified School Psychologist brochure (Exhibit G); Nationally Certified School Psychologist Application and Information packet (Exhibit H); Continuing Professional Development Program packet (Exhibit I); a packet of letters from Nancy Danielson, Ed.S., National Certified School Psychologists (NCSP) President, NvASP; W. Jean Cronin, Ph.D., NCSP Nevada State Delegate, NvASP; Doug Whitener, Director, Support Services, Washoe County School District; Scott G. Reynolds, Director, District-Wide Related Services, Student Support Services Division, Clark County School District; and Ron Jordan, M.S., NCSP Administrative Specialist, Psychological Services, Clark County School District (Exhibit J); and a list of all practicing school psychologists in Nevada (Exhibit K). Dr. Del Vecchio quoted from the packet of letters (Exhibit J), regarding the above individuals’ support for A.B. 58, the standards regarding national certification, and the current number of school psychologists.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired as to whether the attached list on Exhibit J was a list of all nationally certified school psychologists. Dr. Del Vecchio indicated that it was, and the Vice Chair noted that this would help the committee to discover what the budget impact would be. Dr. Del Vecchio stated that the number of practicing school psychologists was 172, and that there were approximately 60 that were nationally certified. Around 34 percent of all school psychologists in the state were nationally certified.
Ms. Parnell indicated that part of the confusion over the bill when it was first introduced was that people believed that any school professional would be eligible to receive the pay increase. She stated that each of the testifiers would be separating their profession into the subset group that would receive the proposed increase.
The Vice Chair noted that in the text of A.B. 58 there was a reference to the Commission on Professional Standards and suggested that the commission should be responsible for setting the criteria for the persons receiving the proposed 5 percent pay increase. Ms. Parnell suggested an amendment to A.B. 58, regarding Section 2, Subsection 3. The amendment would move Section 2, Subsection 6, regarding the Commission on Professional Standards to Section 2, Subsection 3, Subsection (c). This would clarify the fact that the commission was responsible for setting the criteria.
The Vice Chair recognized Carol McQuirk, school counselor and representative for all state school counselors. Ms. McQuirk explained that the packet of information that she presented to the committee (Exhibit L) began with a letter from Helen White, President of the Greater Nevada School Counselor’s Association, and Patricia Cassem, President, Southern Nevada School Counselor’s Association, and although Ms. Cassem had not signed the letter she was in support of the presentation and had authorized Ms. McQuirk to speak on behalf of all state school counselors. Ms. McQuirk explained the job duties of school counselors, which included dealing with food, clothing, and shelter issues, and academic and social issues. She then noted that to qualify for a school counseling position, a person must hold a minimum of a master’s degree and in Nevada have a minimum of 60 graduate credits. The national certification for school counselors required 48 graduate credits, two academic terms of internship with a professional counselor in a school setting, letters of recommendation and a comprehensive national exam. Ms. McQuirk noted that every five years a counselor needed to go through a recertification process with the National Standards Commission, requiring evidence of 100 hours of continuing education. The cost of recertification was approximately $100, and the cost of sitting for the certification exam was approximately $300. Ms. McQuirk stated that there were 690 school counselors employed in Nevada, and approximately 25 were certified nationally as counselors. Approximately 4 percent, 27 people of the 690 counselors, would be eligible for the proposed pay increase.
The Vice Chair confirmed that there was already a national standard, and inquired if the proposed increase would only be available to those people who were trained as school counselors. Ms. McQuirk responded that the state’s endorsement for school counselors included a master’s in education, science or arts, with an emphasis in school counseling. The state of Nevada also recognized the National Certified Counseling credential.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Nancy Kuhles, school speech pathologist and secretary of the Nevada Speech and Hearing Association. Ms. Kuhles stated that speech pathologists worked with children that had difficulty speaking, following directions, and remembering directions. The ages of children that speech pathologists worked with were between 3 and 21. When the younger, non-school age children worked with speech pathologists there was a larger chance of closing the gap between their abilities and the abilities of other children their age. She then explained that speech-language pathologists worked on the state standards for education, and their goals and objectives were taken from this work. Speech-language pathologists were located in the classroom and worked with teachers as a team teacher with children who have learning disabilities.
Ms. Kuhles referenced tab three of the National Board Certification for Speech-Language Pathologists (Exhibit M). This listed the National Board Certification process for teachers and speech-language pathologists. She then noted that there was currently a process for national certification for speech-language pathologist, which was called the Certificate of Clinical Competence. In order to obtain the certificate a person must have begun at the master’s level. Nevada did not require the certification for speech therapists, only for speech-language pathologists. Ms. Kuhles then noted that she had provided the National Board Certification for Speech-Language Pathologists’ requirements (Exhibit N). Ms. Kuhles returned to the comparison between teachers and speech-language pathologists, tab 3 (Exhibit M), and noted that the certification process for speech-language pathologists must be repeated annually. In order to benefit from A.B. 58 a speech-language pathologist would have to go through a second stage of certification, which included a master’s degree, certification, Nevada State teaching license, and a Nevada license distributed by the State Board of Examiners, which required 15 continuing education units annually and a three-unit independent study through the Nevada universities that would focus on the specific needs of speech-language pathologists.
Ms. Kuhles discussed the fiscal impact. There were currently 300 school-based speech-language pathologists, and of those, 137 had the Certificate of Clinical Competence. Those 137 were not projected to be eligible for the proposed benefits under A.B. 58 until the fall of 2002. To be eligible those 137 professionals would need to complete three requirements, receive a Nevada license, complete the independent study and present at a professional conference in Nevada or mentor a novice speech-language pathologist.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there was currently a national exam. Ms. Kuhles answered that there was a national exam offered by the American Speech and Hearing Association, and it provided the Certificate of Clinical Competence. A.B. 58 would require a speech-language pathologist to have a master’s degree, the certificate, a state teaching license, three years of teaching experience in a Nevada school with satisfactory performance evaluations, the Board of Examiners license, the completion of an independent study, and a presentation or mentoring of a novice speech-language pathologist. The Vice Chair noted that she had received an e-mail from a speech-language pathologist that stated that the concept was currently there, but there were some other items that needed to be added to the program.
Ms. Kuhles noted that it was predicted that approximately 5 percent of the eligible 137 speech-language pathologists, approximately 7 people, would be able to apply in the fall of 2002.
Ms. Alicia Smalley, Legislative Chair, Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers and former Chair of the School Social Work Credential Committee of the National Board of the National Association of Social Workers, was recognized by the Vice Chair. Ms. Smalley spoke on the national level requirements for the School Social Work credential. In order to receive credentialing a person needed a master’s degree from a school accredited by the Council on Social Work Education and needed to complete a two-year internship with someone who had a credential. Currently in Nevada there were 12 school social workers, and Ms. Smalley believed most of the 12 had the credential. She also noted that currently in Las Vegas there was one social worker hired by Clark County School District to supervise the 22 students at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), who were currently in the master’s program. Ms. Smalley was currently the field coordinator for the School of Social Work at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and had developed a program that hired a supervisor for the School of Social Workers.
Ms. Parnell gave her closing remarks, and noted that it had been delightful working with all of the different groups that presented here today. She noted that there was a short time period between notification of the hearing and the date of the hearing and commended the assorted groups on the quickly and completely prepared presentations. Ms. Parnell noted that the professionals wanted to set the standards higher than they had already been set. She asked the committee to consider the merits of each of the presentations. Ms. Parnell acknowledged that this was a tough issue, but the professionals and Ms. Parnell wanted to inform the committee about their jobs and certification process and be considered for the proposed pay increases if there were monies available at the end of the session.
The Vice Chair thanked Ms. Parnell for her testimony, and noted that the proposed legislation appeared to be a good start, and noted that the legislation passed in the previous session was also a good start. She expressed that not everyone had the time and money to obtain national certification, but if a person did achieve national certification there should be some recognition.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if anyone else in the audience would like to testify.
The Vice Chair recognized Debbie Cahill, lobbyist for the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA). Ms. Cahill stated that the NSEA was in support of A.B. 58. She noted that the NSEA recommended the amendment that Ms. Parnell referenced earlier in the meeting, and would like to see an amendment to clarify that it would be the Commission on Professional Standards that would be determining the requisite standards for certification. Ms. Cahill expressed that the NSEA would be happy to work with Ms. Parnell and any other interested parties on the amendment language.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani expressed her thanks to Ms. Cahill and noted that Ms. Parnell did not seem opposed to the amendment because it would defeat the intent of A.B. 58 if all non-teaching professionals could qualify for the benefits.
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske inquired as to whether a person from Clark County School District was in attendance and could state the number of special education teachers, who were out of the classroom, providing quasi-administrative duties. The Vice Chair recognized Craig Kadlub, representative from Clark County School District, to answer the question. Mr. Kadlub noted that he had statistics regarding the professions cited in the legislation, but would have to return to the committee with information specific to special education teachers. He stated that there were a total of 820 professionals in the areas specific to the legislation. Mrs. Cegavske stated that in 1995 the NSEA had been opposed to a pay increase for special education teachers and school counselors, and had been opposed to asking the special education teachers to take three units of special education training.
Mrs. Cegavske then asked what the expense was for the non-teaching professional to take the three-unit independent study. Ms. Williams and Ms. Kuhles responded from the audience, that the speech-language pathologists and school nurses would be required to take the three-unit independent study at the graduate level for certification. Mrs. Cegavske inquired as to whether the study would be available in all Nevada colleges and universities. Ms. Williams responded that she had spoken with UNR and UNLV and the universities were excited about providing this opportunity for the nurses. While both schools currently had a School of Nursing, this independent study would be specifically geared toward school nurses. She noted that speech-language pathologists were receiving the same response from the universities.
Mrs. Cegavske questioned if the fiscal note submitted for A.B. 58 was different from the school district’s understanding. Mr. Kadlub stated that the previously presented number was the total of all professionals affected by the proposed legislation, and currently, not all professionals would be eligible for the certification. Mrs. Cegavske confirmed that Mr. Kadlub did not have an exact fiscal note for the committee at the present time. Mr. Kadlub agreed, and noted that part of the fiscal note would be dependant on the standards set by the commission. He stated his belief that Clark County’s endorsement was contingent on standards being comparable to those that teachers must achieve for their national certification and it was contingent on resources. If those two conditions were met, then Clark County would be in support of A.B. 58. Mrs. Cegavske confirmed that if the monies were available then Clark County would support A.B. 58.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani confirmed that in Clark County there were approximately 820 speech-language pathologists, school counselors, psychologists, school social workers, and school nurses. Mr. Kadlub agreed and stated that he had notes if the committee wished to see them. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that with the numbers Mr. Kadlub had provided she felt a reasonable fiscal note for the state could be provided. She then stated that special education teachers would remain under the standard teaching license because there was not a separate certification process.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani expressed her belief that special education teachers did not deserve to have a higher salary than other teachers, to which Ms. Cegavske stated her disagreement. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani then noted that if there was a higher certification process for special education teachers that that would provide a different standard. A higher standard would provide the association the criteria to ascertain whether or not people were rewarded and how that reward was perceived. She noted that the proposed legislation was a step in the right direction.
Ms. Parnell expressed her gratitude again. She restated that she had talked to the groups that had presented about the difficulties encountered, and the fact that these groups might end up competing with one another. Ms. Parnell noted that she informed the groups that they needed to show that as high a standard as what was looked at during conversations concerning S.B. 46 of the Seventieth Session was being proposed. Most of the groups had developed a standard that was higher than the existing standard, which indicated their desire to be the best professional possible.
No action was taken on A.B. 58.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 5:09 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Andrea Carothers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
DATE: