MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLy Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
March 7, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:36 a.m. on Wednesday, March 7, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry announced the first order of business for the committee review would be A.B. 233.
Assembly Bill 233: Makes supplemental appropriation to Department of Administration for estimated shortfall in Integrated Financial System resulting from required accounting changes. (BDR S-1254)
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, introduced Ed Perry, Project Manager, Integrated Financial System (IFS), and explained that A.B. 233, if approved, would provide a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $295,000 for the IFS, Phase II. In October 1997, the state of Nevada began the IFS project to replace its financial and human resources administrative system. According to Mr. Comeaux, in order to manage the scope and project risks effectively, the state planned to complete the overall implementation of the IFS in multiple phases. Phase I included the replacement of the financial and human resources systems that were not year 2000 (Y2K) compliant; in addition, a customized contract management system was developed for the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Mr. Comeaux went on to explain that subsequent phases included implementation of additional subsystems, and the rollout of the IFS to state agencies. Since the production implementation of the IFS, the project team had focused on completing the activities deferred from Phase I, along with completion of Phase II activities. Mr. Comeaux stated those activities included the implementation of additional subsystems, as well as an upgrade of the software. Mr. Comeaux reported the Department of Personnel had completed an initial rollout of the IFS to 85 agencies, with inquiry-only access and time sheet entry.
Per Mr. Comeaux, in addition to the activities defined in Phase II of the project, the state had identified two additional unplanned activities:
Continuing, Mr. Comeaux indicated development of the Controller’s Office procedures would meet recommendations submitted by the legislative auditor. A supplemental budget request in the amount of $295,000 would be necessary to implement the two unplanned activities. Mr. Comeaux explained that the total cost of the two activities was $795,000, however, due to project savings in the equipment area, the IFS project was able to absorb $470,000 of those unanticipated costs.
Mr. Beers asked why the AMS was not absorbing the Y2K compliance requirements for the project, since it was three years old. Mr. Comeaux explained that the state systems, which were not Y2K compliant, had been scheduled during Phase I, and the systems purchased from AMS met Y2K compliance requirements. Mr. Beers requested further clarification regarding the Y2K compliance costs relative to the human resources piece within the system. Mr. Comeaux replied that was included in Phase 1 of the project, and consisted of replacement of the old personnel piece, which was not Y2K compliant with the AMS system, which was compliant. Mr. Beers commented that the committee had heard previous testimony that the state did not really have a human resources system, and did not have the evaluation piece in place, and he again questioned why there was an unanticipated expense because of Y2K compliance regarding the system. Mr. Comeaux emphasized that the unanticipated expense had nothing to do with the Y2K problems, but rather would address the changes needed in the financial system because of the requirements of GASB “Statement 34,” mainly in the area of required accounting for fixed assets. The second expense arose because state employees could not assist in the development of the procedures for the Controller’s Office, because of the workload, and AMS was engaged to assist in that endeavor. Mr. Comeaux further explained that the state did have a personnel payroll system in place.
Continuing, Mr. Comeaux explained that the change required for the state’s financial accounting system came about because of adoption of the GASB “Statement 34,” which required a fairly elaborate accounting system in the area of infrastructure or fixed assets. Mr. Beers indicated the accounting of fixed assets would require a relatively simple accounting system, however, noted the data gathering process would be somewhat complicated. Mr. Comeaux concurred, and stated the software piece was related to the accumulation of the information necessary to present the financial statements in accordance with the GASB “Statement 34.”
Mr. Beers inquired whether new tables had been developed in the asset master file, and asked whether there had been a prior fixed asset piece in the system. Electing to respond was Mr. Perry, who explained he was on contract with the Department of Administration, and held the position of project manager for the IFS. Mr. Perry remarked that the greatest change brought about by the GASB “Statement 34” was that assets purchased via governmental funds would not be depreciated, which had never been done before. According to Mr. Perry, that caused a change in the tables where information regarding those assets was stored, in order to account for the lack of depreciation, along with other features. An update or new release of the software had been developed, and the implementation of that new release would require the additional allocation, and Mr. Perry explained the new release included the increased fixed asset accounting functionality. Mr. Perry also noted there were other minor changes in accounting for governmentally-funded inventory, which was included, and implementing the new release would require a substantial amount of system testing. Mr. Perry stated the software release was free, however, there was a maintenance fee, and a cost to implement the program; he reported it was an extremely substantive software release. Mr. Beers inquired whether the state was purchasing training via the AMS. Mr. Perry replied the AMS would assist in the configuration of the tables and also in data conversion efforts.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was any additional testimony to come before the committee regarding A.B. 233, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed, and explained the committee would hear partial testimony regarding A.B. 139.
Assembly Bill 139: Makes appropriation to Clark County for support of Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth. (BDR S-981)
Dario Herrera, Chairman, Clark County Commission, voiced support for A.B. 139 on behalf of the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth. Mr. Herrera reported that through the street outreach undertaken by the partnership, approximately 200 teens had been identified as homeless, many of whom were well aware of how the system worked, and had chosen to live on the streets. According to Mr. Herrera, nine out of ten teens reported either physical or sexual abuse as the reason for leaving home. The Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth had facilitated, through the Street Teens Program, a part-time drop-in center, which was open three days a week. Mr. Herrera noted that the drop-in center needed funding in order to relocate its facility closer to the area where homeless teens resided. Mr. Herrera explained available hours also needed to be extended to make the center a full-time, permanent facility.
Mr. Herrera stated the target area encompassed the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) campus, where homeless teens remained virtually invisible. In most metropolitan areas, homeless youth congregated around community college and university campuses because of the resources available at those institutions. Mr. Herrera stated he would like to present some statistics to the committee, in order to put the magnitude of the problem into perspective.
Mr. Herrera reported that there were approximately 500 runaway and homeless youths living in the area around the UNLV campus. From June 2000 to December 2000, the drop-in center distributed over 1,000 McDonald’s gift certificates in increments of $5 to homeless youth. Per Mr. Herrera, during that time frame, for youths seen more than once, 30 were working full-time, 7 were back in school on a regular basis, and 12 had been unified with their families. Over 200 hygiene kits were distributed, along with 76 bus passes, 615 snacks, and 252 calling cards. Mr. Herrera explained that eight out of ten homeless teens accessing the drop-in center admitted to having been sexually and/or physically abused by a household member. At least 50 percent of homeless teens in the UNLV area were from Las Vegas, and Mr. Herrera stated that 75 percent of the teens seen at the drop-in center had admitted to engaging in “survival sex,” i.e., prostitution.
Mr. Herrera stated he did not feel he had to tell the committee how important it was to save the current generation of children, and provide a safe environment for them to access essential services, which would also provide the support necessary for school attendance, and/or employment. As Chairman of the Clark County Commission, Mr. Herrera stated he was committed to providing whatever resources were available from the county, in an effort to make the endeavor successful. Mr. Herrera believed the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth was a program that deserved support, and one that would make a drastic difference in the way homeless children in southern Nevada were treated.
Mrs. Chowning asked how the state either was, or was not, currently assisting the county in the area of homeless youth. Mr. Herrera replied that the partnership received very little state assistance at the current time, and had been organized to provide needed support to homeless youth. A.B. 139 represented the first request for state funding for that endeavor. Mrs. Chowning asked whether the county had attempted to work with the Department of Human Resources (DHR); Mr. Herrera replied in the affirmative, and stated the county would continue to work with the DHR, to ensure that all available resources were being utilized. Mrs. Chowning inquired how the requested allocation would be used, i.e., would it provide assistance to homeless youths for snacks, calling cards, and outreach programs. Mr. Herrera replied in the affirmative, and stated emergency services would also be provided. It was hoped that the center could be relocated to a site closer to the area where homeless teens resided, as that population did not have access to transportation. Mrs. Chowning inquired where the current outreach program was located. Mr. Herrera stated the center was located at Sahara Avenue and Maryland Parkway in Las Vegas, and the county hoped to move the location closer to the UNLV campus, to provide direct access to emergency and other services for homeless youth.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there were further questions, and hearing none, closed the hearing on A.B. 139, and opened the hearing on A.B. 57.
Assembly Bill 57: Makes appropriation to Department of Education to provide grants for certain programs that promote parental involvement. (BDR S-326)
Richard Perkins, Assembly District 23, Speaker of the Assembly, stated he would provide testimony on behalf of A.B. 57, which would appropriate $2 million to the Department of Education for public, private, and non-profit programs that promoted the involvement of parents in the education of their children. Mr. Perkins stated the legislature had reviewed many reappearing reforms, and had spent enormous amounts on education, however, all would be for naught if children attending school had no support at home through involvement of parents or guardians. Under the proposed legislation, in order to qualify, the program would be required to contain at least one of the following:
Mr. Perkins noted that those qualifications reflected the need to provide programs in the schools that truly helped parents with communication skills, and identified what students needed in order to become successful. Many times, Mr. Perkins stated, teachers saw parents that wanted to help their child succeed, however, did not know how to reach out for assistance. Funding programs that would help such parents and teachers work together to decide the best method of providing support for the child was important. Mr. Perkins noted that programs which encouraged parents to become more proficient in language skills, both spoken and written, along with programs that would help parents understand what was needed from their children at school, would benefit the schools. Programs that were responsive to A.B. 57 would help strengthen the bond between child and parent, to the benefit of all. Mr. Perkins felt parents needed to be uplifted to provide support to their children to become better students, and A.B. 57 would be a tool which would help both the parents and the schools.
According to Mr. Perkins, there was a growing diverse population in Nevada, and a number of parents were experiencing difficulty with language skills, either because they had not had an opportunity to learn the language, or because the English language spoken in Nevada was their second language. Those parents had children coming home from school with homework they were unable to comprehend or understand because of the lack of language skills. Mr. Perkins testified that many parents were chastised because they were not helping their children, however, it was not because the parents refused to help, but because they did not possess the necessary skills. A.B. 57 would attempt to create a program for parents who needed the skills to help their children.
Mrs. de Braga inquired how the funds would be allotted, i.e., would schools create programs and then apply for the funds. Mr. Perkins replied that, as the bill was written, the appropriation would be allocated to the Department of Education and dispersed to the various school programs via a grant application process. Mrs. de Braga stated it was her understanding that individual schools would create programs and apply to the Department of Education for grant funds. Mr. Perkins concurred.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt it would be a very worthwhile program, and noted that the language barrier often became a problem for parents. The program should be quite successful for middle-school students, and Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated there were many potential programs. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired whether the Department of Education or the various school districts would match the allocation requested in the bill. Mr. Perkins explained A.B. 57 was simply a granting program, however, should the committee want to include language pertaining to matching funds, he felt that would remain within the spirit of the bill. Many parents were embarrassed and did not want to suffer humiliation by not being able to converse, and Mr. Perkins reiterated that the possibility of matching funds would actually strengthen the concept of the bill. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that many businesses had undertaken such programs.
Mr. Beers stated he would like to see an additional piece to A.B. 57, one that would facilitate culling the various ideas and/or programs generated by the bill, and selecting a compilation of the best programs for distribution to all schools. Each school would present different ideas, with some more meritorious than others, and Mr. Beers felt if a mechanism were built into the bill that would promote sharing the best ideas amongst all schools, it would be a relatively inexpensive adjunct activity to the proposed legislation. Mr. Perkins stated that would be a good idea, however, pointed out that via the granting process, one program could be granted an appropriation over another program, which would then promote emulation of the approved programs.
Testifying next before the committee was Elaine Lancaster, who explained she was a first grade teacher on a leave of absence, serving as the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) president, and would speak in favor of A.B. 57. Ms. Lancaster indicated the committee should be familiar with NSEA’s Quality Schools Plan that created a structure to increase student achievement and guaranteed every student in Nevada the very best education possible. The plan addressed the importance of enhancing student learning by providing essential programs, reasonable class sizes, and the most current textbooks and technology. Ms. Lancaster stated NSEA’s plan called for a top quality teacher for every classroom, and also required that all students be given the best opportunity to succeed in school and then, that they be accountable for their own learning.
In reality, Ms. Lancaster stated, the most significant efforts undertaken for students would not be enough to guarantee their success unless more was done in support of meaningful parental involvement in their learning and within Nevada’s schools. According to Ms. Lancaster, parental involvement in education was crucial to student success, and that was why it was one of the pillars of NSEA’s plan.
Continuing, Ms. Lancaster reported that substantial research and good common sense showed that when parents were involved in their children’s education, student achievement increased. Regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnic racial background, or the parent’s education level, students were more successful when parents were involved in the learning process. Ms. Lancaster felt that when parents were involved, students exhibited more positive attitudes and behavior, and such behaviors as alcohol use, violence, and antisocial behavior, decreased as parental involvement increased. Ms. Lancaster noted that students whose parents participated enjoyed higher graduation rates and greater enrollment rates in post-secondary education.
Ms. Lancaster stated that schools which supported and promoted parental involvement would do a better job of educating Nevada’s children. When schools created effective opportunities for greater parental involvement, teacher morale and the overall reputation of the school within the community improved. The action taken by schools within inner-city, at-risk neighborhoods to inform and involve parents would have more influence on whether those parents would become involved in their children’s education than any other factor, including the level of parent education, family size, and marital status.
Continuing, Ms. Lancaster testified that effective parental involvement was not just about parents, and was not just about schools and students. It was about creating meaningful partnerships between parents and educators to support student success. A.B. 57 would provide the structure and resources to make those partnerships a reality.
Ms. Lancaster noted that the bill would appropriate funding to support parental involvement in programs which:
Ms. Lancaster felt those were vital components to a successful strategy for increasing parental involvement in Nevada’s schools. What made the bill particularly appealing, however, was the fact that it would provide the support necessary for parental involvement programs already in place around the state which were accomplishing those very objectives.
Ms. Lancaster provided the following examples:
Ms. Lancaster stated that Nevada’s Family Resource Centers (FRCs) offered another community-based approach to involvement of parents in education. Established by the 1995 Nevada Legislature, the FRCs were housed in communities, so that services could be targeted to the unique needs of local children and their families. The FRCs provided a wide variety of services and referrals. Ms. Lancaster reported that in regard to parental involvement, the FRCs helped bridge the gap between parents and schools, by focusing on issues such as truancy reduction and dropout prevention.
According to Ms. Lancaster, the NSEA’s local affiliate, the Clark County Education Association had developed the Family-Schools-Community Partnership, which helped build cooperation and communication between the various “partners” in education in Clark County. Ms. Lancaster stated the partnership brought together parents, businesses, human services providers, policymakers, and other community leaders, in an effort to discover the best way to meet the needs of local students.
Ms. Lancaster noted the programs shared important similarities, in that they all focused on the well-being of children and their families, by creating partnerships between parents, students, schools, and the community, while targeting the skills and knowledge essential for student success in school. Ms. Lancaster stated the programs also helped parents feel welcome in Nevada’s schools and other public institutions. Local school districts often did not have the resources necessary to support meaningful parental involvement programs, and those who undertook those projects often did so on their own time, and at their own expense. The aforementioned teacher at Robert Lunt Elementary School, Georgia Smith, spent an average of $2,000 per year from her own pocket to support her parental involvement program. Jonathan Gibson, from Lowry High School, used his summers to organize and conduct local parent orientation sessions.
Continuing, Ms. Lancaster pointed out that parental involvement in children’s education was not an option or a luxury, but was essential, and she urged the committee to consider that as people became busier, and lives became more complicated and more stressful, children needed the support and involvement of their parents in their lives more than ever.
Ms. Lancaster introduced Jan Thomas and Mindy Herskovic, teachers at Elaine Wynn Elementary School in Las Vegas, who would share an example of the type of high quality parental involvement programs A.B. 57 would help support.
Ms. Thomas explained she was the reading specialist at Elaine Wynn Elementary School, and in that capacity she also acted as the test coordinator, trained and coordinated tutors, and was responsible for the writing of grants. Ms. Thomas indicated she would provide some background about the school, and referenced Exhibit C, “Promoting Parent Involvement – Elaine Wynn Accelerated School, Las Vegas, NV,” which depicted student population over the past ten years. According to Ms. Thomas, when the school opened in 1990-91, it was located in a very stable neighborhood that consisted of: custom homes with original owners, very few apartment complexes, parents with a relatively high level of educational background, homes where education was stressed, high socioeconomic level, and parents who were active as volunteers at the school.
Over the next several years, Ms. Thomas reported that the neighborhood underwent a drastic change, and the children of those original homeowners from the custom homes all grew up and went on to higher education. Many apartment complexes were built, some of which were government-subsidized housing, and the people who moved into smaller homes around the school, as well as the apartment complexes, were from diverse ethnic backgrounds, with many languages represented. Ms. Thomas commented that many of the parents from those diverse ethnic backgrounds had completed little, if any, formal education, and the school experienced a very high turnover; the transient rate at the school was approximately 60 percent.
Ms. Thomas noted it was much the same in 1996 when the administration of the school changed and a new principal took over, and brought a new government structure to the school called “Accelerated School,” along with a vision of how she felt the school should function; one item addressed was the need for parents to play a more active part in the school.
Referencing Exhibit C, Ms. Thomas noted the ethnic makeup of the student body had changed over the years. One project instituted by the new principal in 1996 was the parent newsletter, printed in both English and Spanish. A review of the needs of the school was also conducted. As an Accelerated School, Ms. Thomas remarked that students attending the school were reviewed in order to take stock of their needs. Through parental surveys, it was discovered that parents did not feel comfortable or welcome at Elaine Wynn Accelerated School, and also did not feel competent to help their children with homework. The parents’ personal needs were not being addressed, and it was at that time that Ms. Thomas and Ms. Herskovic joined the teaching staff.
Ms. Herskovic advised she was the ELL Facilitator at Elaine Wynn Accelerated School, and also the Co-Chairwoman of the Home School Communication Cadre. When the school underwent the aforementioned change of administration and the principal decided to undergo a new government structure for the school, the faculty focused on the needs of both students and parents. A Parent Needs survey was sent to the students’ families, and Ms. Herskovic reported that was only the beginning step. The school went one step further, and initiated the Parent Institute, which consisted of a series of semi-monthly meetings that focused on family and parental needs. Ms. Herskovic called the committee’s attention to Exhibit C, which contained a sample of the aforementioned Parent Needs survey. Ms. Herskovic noted that parents indicated a number of problem areas, i.e., inconvenient meeting times, and topics they felt should be discussed.
According to Ms. Herskovic, the school began holding Parent Institute meetings at the Boys and Girls Club across the street from the school, because parents did not feel comfortable coming to the school. The school used the Boys and Girls Club facility for approximately one year, at which time, the parents were comfortable with attending meetings on campus. Ms. Herskovic explained that other topics presented to parents included how to become a partner in their child’s school and building parent’s literacy skills. The school had received a Nevada 2000 grant in the past which focused on literacy development, and Ms. Herskovic noted that Ms. Thomas actually conducted four training groups for parents, which included: (1) books distributed for home study; (2) activity packs provided to parents so they could work with their children; and, (3) information regarding how to read a book at home to their children. Those grant funds had been utilized, and no other funding source was available. Ms. Herskovic noted that the school district had not been able to provide matching funds.
Continuing, Ms. Herskovic indicated that the school held positive parenting workshops, which included Neighborhood Justice, and Conflict Resolution training. Ms. Herskovic commented that the proposed funding from the bill would allow the school to provide parents with more resources to use at home with their children. Another major concern was the translation issue, and Ms. Herskovic stated more and more families included Spanish-speaking parents, and the school had to address that need. In order to do that, another grant was written, and the school received funding to purchase a translation system for simultaneous translation (Exhibit C). When the grant funding was received, the school purchased 30 translators, and Ms. Herskovic explained that the 30 receivers were no longer sufficient. The average attendance at the Parent Institute program was in the neighborhood of 60 to 65 parents.
Ms. Herskovic also reported that if the school failed to provide child care, the parents could not come to the meetings and would not receive the necessary information. In the past, the school had used paraprofessionals, however, found that was not an ideal solution, because it pulled the paraprofessionals out of classroom situations where they were needed. The school had reorganized and assigned part of the responsibility for child care to the parents, however, Ms. Herskovic remarked that was not ideal either, because those parents missed important information.
Per Ms. Herskovic, the school had been fortunate to have two sessions of adult ESL offered to parents during the past year via a Nevada 2000 grant, and at present the school had a waiting list of approximately 45 parents who were interested in continuing adult ESL sessions. Ms. Herskovic stated the school simply needed additional funding to continue the programs.
Ms. Leslie requested whether any of the funding from A.B. 57 would be available to help those parents on the ESL waiting list; she felt those parents definitely needed the ESL sessions, because removal of the language barrier would make those parents more comfortable. Ms. Herskovic replied in the affirmative, and explained that in the past, the courses had been taught by teachers at the school, and several different program models had been reviewed, with material amassed from programs already in place. Ms. Leslie reiterated that ESL classes needed to be available on demand. Ms. Herskovic stated two sessions of ESL had already been implemented. Ms. Leslie inquired whether the entry-level parents were also being helped; Ms. Herskovic replied in the affirmative. Ms. Leslie asked whether the community college could provide assistance. Ms. Herskovic stated she had reviewed that possibility, however, assistance with programs had not materialized. Ms. Herskovic noted that one issue was transportation, as most parents who came to the school for programs and/or classes did not have transportation. Ms. Leslie felt the community colleges should bring the instruction to the neighborhood.
Mrs. Cegavske indicated that the Elaine Wynn Accelerated School had encouraged parental involvement since its opening days, and she congratulated Ms. Thomas and Ms. Herskovic on the work done. Mrs. Cegavske inquired whether paraprofessionals were being pulled during school sessions, or in the evening for child care. Ms. Herskovic noted that at one time, the school was using paraprofessionals for child care, however, approximately two months ago, the school instituted parent involvement in child care. Mrs. Cegavske also inquired about possible programs through the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), and indicated that was a partnership which needed further investigation.
Ms. Herskovic explained that a private corporate grant had been written which would implement a Family Learning Center to address the societal needs of the family, along with the academic needs. The center would house materials for parents to check out, and would be a place where parents could come with younger children and read to them, et cetera. Ultimately, the grant funding was not awarded to the Elaine Wynn Accelerated School, and Ms. Herskovic explained that was a dream for the school, should funding become available.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Lancaster whether a portion of the $2 million allocation in A.B. 57 would be granted to various schools. Ms. Lancaster replied in the affirmative. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani then asked whether part of the allocation would be used to compensate teachers for after-school activities. Ms. Lancaster indicated she would assume that compensation would be written into the grant requests. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt that part of the problem was that, while many teachers would volunteer their time, at some point, compensation would be appropriate.
Debbie Smith, Assemblywoman, Assembly District 30, voiced her support for A.B. 57, and explained she had been working on the issue of parent involvement for quite some time. Ms. Smith remarked that there was no magic connected to parent involvement, and often when she conducted parent involvement workshops, it was found that people were looking for some magic or instant gratification, without the work and planning. Ms. Smith emphasized that parent involvement required a great deal of focus and planning, and she would commend the teachers from the Elaine Wynn Accelerated School because they had done exactly that, i.e., focused, planned, and put forth a great deal of effort. The program at the school which allowed teachers to remain on-site and receive their Teachers of English as a Second Language (TESL) endorsement, had inspired Ms. Smith to draft legislation endorsing a similar program throughout the state.
Ms. Smith explained that in May 2000 she was invited to participate in a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., where the panel had been asked to review the various programs being used in schools for remediation and to increase student achievement. Those were the type of programs on the state list for Nevada, i.e., Success For All, which was a pre-designed, constructive program that was adopted in schools to help increase student achievement. Ms. Smith stated the panel was charged with the task of reviewing the programs and using the national standards for parent and family involvement, in order to determine what parent involvement component each program contained. The panel reviewed approximately 25 programs, and found there was not one program that included a strong parent involvement component. Ms. Smith explained that one program standard was student learning, which many programs contained, while other programs included a strong communication component. It was surprising that the programs would not encourage the schools to involve parents in the decision-making, when the school was deciding what type of programs to use in an attempt to increase student achievement. According to Ms. Smith, that was a major decision, and usually a substantial amount of money was expended on that type of program. She reiterated that there was no parental decision-making involved in any of the programs, very little volunteer involvement, and very little parent education, which was also disappointing.
Ms. Smith commented that Nevada was currently involved in a great deal of reform, and had been working on the academic standards for four years. She felt there was an absolute correlation between implementation of academic standards, increasing student achievement, and assisting in the area of parent involvement. One study conducted several years ago researched successful high school students, in an attempt to find the common thread between those students; that study involved students who went to school on a daily basis, were good citizens, and performed well in school. Ms. Smith remarked that the study discovered one thread common to all students, and that was the fact their families ate dinner together most evenings. That was a very strong statement about what effect family involvement had on a student’s education.
According to Ms. Smith, in review of the academic standards, it was noted that quality teaching was the key to success for student achievement, and in the Academic Standards Council meetings, professional development was continually addressed, supported, and programs were funded at the state level. Hand-in-hand with the professional development for teachers was the parent involvement component, which would ensure student achievement. Ms. Smith stated that in order to see the level of student achievement to which the state aspired, it was time to focus, plan, and fund those programs. She encouraged the committee to support A.B. 57.
Barbara Clark, representing the Nevada Parent-Teachers Association (PTA), voiced support for A.B. 57, and commented that parent involvement was also an issue within the Nevada PTA. There were many wonderful programs within the various schools, however, she would present a different view, and explain what the PTA encountered on a day-to-day basis. Ms. Clark stated the PTA fielded thousands of phone calls throughout the year, and provided training regarding how to empower parents.
Ms. Clark explained she had conducted a workshop at a NSEA conference in Reno on parent involvement, and one of the participants from a large Hispanic- population school in Clark County was desperate to secure help in convincing the principal of the school to allow the formation of a PTA or parent organization. The participant stated the faculty were not allowed to send letters to the parents to ascertain who would be interested, and the small group of parents and teachers who wanted to start a PTA were afraid of retribution if they pushed too hard. Ms. Clark noted that quite often a principal would indicate that the school had parent involvement, because they invited parents to the school once a week and provided a speaker on some aspect of parenting. According to Ms. Clark, parents and teachers wanted more; they wanted a voice.
Ms. Clark commented that a principal at a Washoe County school went to the PTA president at the end of the school year and presented a list of the programs supported by the PTA, and that list stipulated which programs could or could not be initiated at the school. The receipt of the list was the extent of the participation allowed the PTA regarding that decision, and they wanted a voice.
In a certain rural county, after the PTA learned that other PTAs received their school board meeting agendas, the PTA contacted the school board and requested receipt of agendas via mail. The PTA was informed that mailing agendas would cost too much money, particularly since it was more than likely PTA members would not attend the school board meetings. What those parents wanted was a voice at their school board meetings.
Ms. Clark stated that she and Ms. Smith had conducted a workshop approximately two years ago for the School Board Trustee Association, which addressed the issue of making school board meetings more accessible for parent participation. At that workshop, it was pointed out that school board meeting agendas were the first point of communication, and that communication needed to be understandable and easily read, so that parents receiving it could understand what topics would be discussed, and decide whether they wanted to participate. According to Ms. Clark, she currently received a rural school board meeting agenda, which she was unable to comprehend or understand, even though she had been involved in advocacy training for about nine years.
Per Ms. Clark, the PTA leadership heard, on a regular basis, from parents who related that their children’s teacher encouraged parents in the classroom only at set times, or parents at the high school level who only heard from half of their children’s teachers.
Ms. Clark remarked that A.B. 57 would provide for the ability to develop programs as delineated by research-based standards, which would assist in the education of educators regarding how to create an environment for true parent involvement. What constituted parent involvement was the partnership with educators, which created opportunities for all parents, and provided the opportunity for involvement in every aspect of their child’s education. Ms. Clark felt the schools needed programs that would develop such an environment and create those partnerships. Programs were also needed that would: (1) promote meaningful two-way communication; (2) give parents the tools necessary to help their children; (3) empower parents to be part of the decision-making at inception rather than a tag-on at the end; (4) bring the community and community resources together, to help sustain families so that they would have the ability and the time to help their children achieve academic success.
Ms. Clark stated there were many good programs available, but they were needed in every school district and at every school. Indeed, if Nevada concurred with 30 years of research that parent involvement was the key, then the state needed to support that belief with funding and research-based programs, and to model what true parent involvement included. Ms. Clark felt the goal was to reach the level where every school was on the same page, looking at communication, empowerment, tools, and the community. Ms. Clark urged committee support of A.B. 57.
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada Department of Education, echoed the comments of those who testified before him, and commented that the partnership element was a key to student achievement, and the partner at home, i.e., the parent, guardian, or responsible adult, was as valuable as the outstanding teachers. Dr. McLaughlin felt the bill went a long way in dealing with that issue, and bringing that missing partner to the table. Dr. McLaughlin advised that the department strongly supported the bill, and concurred with previous comments about using exemplary program models on a statewide basis. The department had worked closely with parent organizations, teachers, administrators, and community-based organizations in compilation of the bill, and Dr. McLaughlin urged committee support.
Steve Mulvenon, Director of Communications and Community Outreach, Washoe County School District, stated both the district and the Board of Trustees strongly supported A.B. 57. Mr. Mulvenon indicated that several weeks ago, the board had voted unanimously to lend its support to A.B. 57, and quite frankly, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the board to have taken any other position on the bill, given its long-standing support of the concept of parent involvement. Mr. Mulvenon referenced Exhibit D, which consisted of: (1) a resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Washoe County School District; (2) a brochure entitled, “Family & School Partnerships for Student Success”; (3) a brochure entitled, “Fast Facts 2001”; and, (4) a copy of the “Washoe County School District – Parents,” newsletter. Mr. Mulvenon felt the resolution demonstrated the board’s commitment to the concept of parent involvement. Mr. Mulvenon stated he was particularly pleased that, should the bill be adopted, the legislature would encourage parental involvement, and also would provide funding to assist schools around the state with the resources needed to not only improve existing programs, but to solicit new program ideas, for which grant applications could be submitted. Mr. Mulvenon particularly liked Mr. Beers’ earlier suggestion that perhaps the “best of the best,” or the top 100 programs could be listed on the Internet so that the school districts would know what comprised those ideas.
One example of the type of program Mr. Mulvenon believed would be initiated by Washoe County, should the funds be available, would be programs such as the Kinder Fair Program, currently in its fifth year of operation. The school district was aware that successful entry into school was absolutely critical, and wanted to make kindergarten the most positive experience for both parents and students. The Kinder Fair Program invited parents and students to attend evening programs, where the kindergarten curriculum was explained, and classrooms were viewed. Mr. Mulvenon explained the program also provided materials that the parents and children could work on together at home, which dealt with readiness skills, reading, and mathematics. That provided tools for parents and children over the summer months, and would help make kindergarten successful for the children. According to Mr. Mulvenon, the program probably only reached about one out of every four parents in the district, but with additional resources, the district could offer accessible locations, and could provide additional materials to parents. Mr. Mulvenon reiterated that the Washoe County School District and Board of Trustees were completely in support of A.B. 57.
Mr. Beers referenced the 1:4 ratio of parents who participated in the Kinder Fair Program, and asked whether that was the default rate of parental involvement, and was there a way to measure whether those parents who participated in that program would continue participation in subsequent programs as their children advanced in grade level. Mr. Mulvenon reported that the district had not done any real systematic follow-up work in an attempt to ascertain whether parents who participated in such programs as Kinder Fair continued to be involved, however, common sense would point to an affirmative answer. When parents put forth the effort to avail themselves of a program offered for kindergarten children, they would continue involvement in subsequent programs. Mr. Mulvenon stated he was more optimistic than to report only one in four parents wanted to be involved. He felt it was the school district’s problem, because it did not provide enough information to parents regarding available programs. He felt the school district could conduct better outreach and marketing programs if additional funds were available.
Mr. Beers inquired how the school district was reaching the parents of kindergarten-age children. Mr. Mulvenon stated the program was advertised in a newsletter that went to the parents of children already enrolled in school. The parents who had older children enrolled in school would have access to the newsletter. In addition, the school district placed fliers and brochures advertising the Kinder Fair Program in areas such as churches, FRCs, pediatricians’ offices, the Health Department, day-care centers, and any other location that would reach the pre-school audience.
Ms. Leslie stated in Washoe County, most FRCs were located in the schools, and asked whether the school district would anticipate using the funds generated by A.B. 57 to enhance parent involvement in the neighborhood via the FRCs. Mr. Mulvenon replied in the affirmative, and felt that was a tremendous idea. Ms. Leslie noted that would be a major issue in Washoe County because the FRCs were located at the schools, and inquired whether the school district saw that as a key component to parental involvement. Very few other school districts had FRCs located at schools, and Ms. Leslie wondered about the link between parental involvement and the FRCs. Mr. Mulvenon felt one of the real advantages of locating FRCs on school campuses was the fact that the centers helped break down the barrier caused by distrust, suspicion, and low-income or non-English speaking parents who felt uncomfortable with the whole concept of school. When the district got the parents to utilize the RFCs, they realized that the school was a friendly environment where assistance was offered, and they become accustomed to the environment, which helped break down the barriers.
Testifying next was Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District, who voiced the district’s support of A.B. 57. Ms. McKinney‑James noted that the school district had developed collateral materials, which included the components the district felt were important in terms of improving the overall quality of education. One of the leading components was parental involvement, and was referenced in all of the brochures provided by the district, and also outlined as a significant part of the district’s legislative platform. Ms. McKinney-James indicated that, with respect to exploring the idea of matching funds, she would discuss that with the school district and provide a response to the committee. She noted that the Clark County School District had Area Service Centers in place within its schools.
Regarding Mr. Beers’ proposal regarding the best programs, Ms. McKinney‑James indicated the district would be willing to work with the committee if that was what it would desire in terms of identification and compilation of programs and/or practices which could be submitted to the Department of Education. Ms. McKinney-James reported that the Clark County School District was particularly pleased with Section 1, 2(g) of the bill, because it would offer some support for training of personnel.
On a personal note, Ms. McKinney-James stated as a parent of a student in the system, she felt it was extremely critical that the district had the opportunity to train the personnel within the schools, in order to encourage parents who wanted to participate. Ms. McKinney-James noted she had spent some time in training personnel in the front office of her child’s school, in order to provide a friendly response to parental inquiries.
Ms. McKinney-James once again voiced the support of the Clark County School District for passage of A.B. 57.
Mrs. Cegavske stated she had enjoyed watching her children progress through the school system, and had been an active PTA parent in elementary school, and participated in the Parent Advisory Council when her children attended middle and high school. According to Mrs. Cegavske, she was a parent who did not have to work during the day, and was able to rearrange her schedule in order to participate in her children’s education. There were many families where both parents worked, which was crucial, because attending evening meetings often proved difficult. Mrs. Cegavske referenced newsletters sent out by various school districts, and noted that was but one avenue that should be continued; she also addressed the possibility of using the Public Broadcasting System to reach parents. Mrs. Cegavske highly recommended the Bonanza High School as a role model for parent participation, as parent involvement there was quite impressive.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated parent involvement was one tier of what the NSEA recommended for its Quality School Plan, which was initially intended for funding via the Tax Initiative. She felt the legislature should deal with the financing, since there appeared to be a great need in the area of parent involvement.
Mrs. Chowning commented that the legislature had been very supportive over the past three sessions in funding a kindergarten literacy program in Clark County, which mirrored many of the components of A.B. 57. That program brought books in English into student’s homes, and brought parents to the school so that they, along with their children, could learn English. Mrs. Chowning noted the program enjoyed marvelous success in making the parents feel comfortable in the school setting. The program was ultimately discontinued, mainly because of funding issues. Mrs. Chowning noted that, ultimately, teachers had to be paid, and could not always volunteer their time after-school. The kindergarten children who participated in the program were tracked, and it was found that those children achieved more in subsequent grades. Mrs. Chowning stated it was a program which had worked, and books were still available in some school libraries. Mrs. Chowning noted that it was a proven program that simply needed additional funding.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested that, should funding be made available, the kindergarten literacy program might be a worthwhile recipient of grant funds.
Randy Robison, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, advised the committee that the association would stand in support of A.B. 57. Mr. Robison stated the association was particularly pleased with Section 1, 2(g), of the bill, which might provide for the training of teachers.
Mr. Robison noted that the Harvard Family Research Project, part of Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, published a report based on its research in 1997 entitled, “New Skills for New Schools, Preparing Teachers inFamily Involvement.”That report stressed the need for teacher training in skills specific to building relationships with families and community members. Mr. Robison stated the report found that current efforts to prepare teachers for that task were almost nonexistent. Later research conducted by the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University found that deans, or chairs, of 161 colleges, or schools of education, believed teacher training in that area to be important. However, few reported their programs were achieving that goal, and some talked about adding course work on the subject.
Mr. Robison stated that the recent educational reform by the U.S. Department of Education stressed parental participation in children’s schooling as a primary goal. However, school efforts to promote family involvement in children’s education would succeed only if teachers were adequately prepared to support those efforts. According to Mr. Robison, teacher preparation in family involvement lagged far behind school efforts in that area. The educational reform identified the additional knowledge and skills that teachers would need in order to work effectively with families, which ranged from a basic understanding of the benefits of, and barriers to, family involvement, to more specialized skills related to enhancing parent participation. Mr. Robison reported that several recommendations had emerged from that research, which included:
Mr. Robison indicated that, while efforts should be made to encourage family involvement training for teachers at all grade levels, it was also important to address the need for in-service training for teachers, to increase the likelihood that they would employ their newly acquired skills in working with families on a widespread basis.
Mrs. Cegavske indicated that the intent of Section 1, 2(g), of A.B. 57, “Training for school personnel in methods to communicate and work effectively with parents and pupils,” would include administration personnel. She noted that not only teachers, but also those involved in administration needed to embrace the idea and acquire the proper communication skills necessary to relate to parents.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition to A.B. 57.
Sheila Ward, representing the Nevada Republican Assembly, stated she and her husband had raised five children in the Carson City School District. Ms. Ward indicated she would speak in opposition of A.B. 57, however, would commend Mr. Perkins for his concern regarding parent participation in education. Ms. Ward believed the $2 million allocation requested by the bill would be better served as an appropriation for start-up costs, and a reduction of the restrictions placed on charter schools, magnet schools, or other school choices.
Ms. Ward referenced Section 1, 2(c), of the bill, “Recognition that parents play an integral role in assisting their children to learn,” and noted that when parents had the opportunity to choose a school option for their children, they would become involved because of research compiled regarding the various options. Ms. Ward felt those parents would be more interested in how their child was behaving in school and would communicate with the teacher.
Continuing, Ms. Ward felt that “one size does not fit all” when applied to schools and the diverse population of children. Schools could be established to address the needs of immigrants who lacked language skills. Section 1, 2(e), “Inclusion of parents as full partners in decisions affecting their children and families,” would be satisfied by school choice expressed by the parents. Ms. Ward then referenced Section 1, 2(f), “Availability of community resources to strengthen school programs, family practices and pupil achievement,” and noted that the language seemed somewhat vague; she questioned the source of the referenced community resources.
Ms. Ward remarked that there were some organizations that called themselves private, but in reality were not, i.e., Planned Parenthood, which often selected clinic sites close to schools. That organization received millions of taxpayer dollars while it purported responsible parenting, which was one requirement to qualify for receipt of federal grant monies. According to Ms. Ward, that was not her idea of teaching responsible parenting. She noted that truly private organizations that accepted government funding might also be accepting undesirable restrictions. The Nevada Republican Assembly believed the state could use the $2 million for better purposes, i.e., to strengthen the choices regarding schools, and to open the doors for additional choices.
Penny Brock advised the committee she would testify in opposition to A.B. 57, as a concerned citizen, and noted that all entities were in favor of family involvement in education. Ms. Brock felt since the founding of schools in America, even before public education, parents ensured that their children were educated and had always been very involved. There had been a shift in public schools, and those schools now found themselves in a real quandary because many parents wanted to be heard, but were being ignored and their concerns were not being addressed. Ms. Brock noted that was one reason there was a growing home-schooled and private school movement. Another reason had come about because of what was occurring at the national level in the government’s attempt to nationalize education.
Ms. Brock indicated the report, “Goals 2000,” included the national education goals, which meant that the representative form of government would no longer be allowed, and the federal government would dictate to the citizens what would be done at both state and local levels. Ms. Brock felt the bill could be answered via local control. She noted if Clark, Washoe or the rural counties wanted to implement action expressed by the bill, it should be done at the local level, rather than being mandated by the state or federal government. Per Ms. Brock, Nevada schools were being allocated sufficient money at the local level to accomplish necessary programs.
According to Ms. Brock, the bill also addressed a philosophy issue, and the purpose of public education. Goal 8 of “Goals 2000” was parental participation, and Ms. Brock asked how far the state would go with the concept of public schools pulling in parents. She also wondered what action would be mandated by the school districts regarding parents who did not participate. Ms. Brock noted that S.B. 73 had recently been introduced, and would create a “report card” for parents regarding parental participation.
Ms. Brock announced that she was State Director for the National Right to Read Foundation, which was greatly concerned that children were not being taught to read. Ms. Brock indicated she also tutored children and adults, and advised that 50 percent of all adults could not read. The National Assessment of Education Process (NAEP) results released in 1999 indicated that 21 percent of students in the 4th grade could read, which meant that 79 percent of 4th grade students could not read. Ms. Brock remarked that Nevada had a desperate literacy problem, and the $2 million allocation requested by the bill would go a long way toward implementing programs that would allow intensive systematic phonics to be piloted in public schools throughout the state of Nevada.
Ms. Brock expressed concern regarding how the bill would mitigate bureaucracy within the public school system. Nevada citizens had historically valued independence, and Ms. Brock felt parents should be allowed to continue that independence without government-mandated involvement in public schools. That aspect should be left to the discretion of parents.
Testifying next before the committee was John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly, who testified in opposition to A.B. 57, and explained the situation his daughter had experienced with the public school system’s failure to contact her regarding her son. Mr. Wagner felt the $2 million allocation could be spent elsewhere, and noted that education of parents was not the intent of the bill. The intent was to involve parents, rather than blame parents when a child did not perform well in school.
Mr. Hettrick clarified that the Nevada Republican Assembly did not represent the Republican Assembly Caucus.
Mr. Arberry inquired whether there were other speakers in opposition to A.B. 57, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed. The next order of business to come before the committee was A.B. 71
Assembly Bill 71: Makes appropriation to Clark County for new facilities at Spring Mountain Youth Camp. (BDR S-66)
Kirby Burgess, Director, Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services, introduced Dan Prince, Manager, Spring Mountain Youth Camp (SMYC). Mr. Burgess voiced support for A.B. 71, which proposed a one-shot appropriation for Phase II construction at the SMYC. He thanked the legislature and the state for the previous support in completion of Phase I at the SMYC, which covered the construction of new dormitories. The Phase I construction expanded the SMYC from 80 to 100 beds, which were open and operational at the current time. Mr. Burgess presented a packet of material to the committee, Exhibit E, entitled, “Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services, Spring Mountain Youth Camp,” which contained basic information regarding the SMYC, including facts regarding the number of youths, success ratio, and a cost estimate from the architects in Clark County regarding the proposed additions to the SMYC. Mr. Burgess noted that A.B. 71 omitted the request for an appropriation to upgrade the kitchen, and he asked that the appropriation be included in the bill as an amendment. Referencing the exhibit, Mr. Burgess explained that the pictures included therein provided a detailed outline of the new construction and the existing facility, which was built in 1952, and had been occupied by the SMYC since 1971. He noted that the program was alive and well, serving many youths in Clark County.
Continuing, Mr. Burgess explained that the exhibit also contained basic information related to costs, and noted the SMYC had availability for 36,500 “bed days,” i.e., 100 beds available 365 days per year. The average cost to house a youth in a state facility, including Elko, Caliente, and the new Summit View facility, was approximately $98.67. Mr. Burgess noted that the exhibit contained information regarding the allocation received by the SMYC on a yearly basis from the state’s General Fund in the amount of $351,849. Mr. Burgess indicated that he believed the SMYC saved the state of Nevada over $3.2 million annually.
Mr. Burgess pointed out that Exhibit E contained charts which depicted the percentage of the state’s contribution to Clark County for the operation of the SMYC, and the percentage of county funding received. Lastly, Mr. Burgess explained, the exhibit included charts that revealed the reasons youths were sent to the SMYC, i.e., violation of parole or probation status, or direct commitment of “chronic and serious offenders.” Also included was a breakdown of the predominant offenses which caused youths to be sentenced to the SMYC. Mr. Burgess explained that 28 percent were referred on either alcohol or drug charges, with 80 percent of the youths incarcerated at the facility acknowledging prior experimentation with drugs. The exhibit also contained a demographic breakdown of the population of the SMYC, which showed that a disproportionate number of African-American and Hispanic youths were committed to the SMYC. Mr. Burgess urged committee support of the bill, and felt the SMYC was a good program that allowed youths to remain in the community. According to Mr. Burgess, the SMYC provided a myriad of programming options, and most notable was the forestry program, which had been in existence for 30 years.
Mr. Burgess reported that approximately 18 months ago, the SMYC entered into a partnership with the Boys and Girls Club, because it was found that many youths released from the SMYC were “disconnected” when they returned to their neighborhoods. The youths entered the Boys and Girls Club program at the SMYC, which helped “connect” those youths to the neighborhood facility.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt it was a good program, however, voiced concern regarding the percentage of youths sentenced for drug and/or alcohol abuse, rather than being placed in diversion programs for rehabilitation; she felt that would require further review. The legislature had awarded an allocation of $6.5 million to the SMYC in 1997, and Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that some cuts would be required in the upcoming biennium, in both budget and one-shot allocations. She asked whether the intent of the bill was for a one‑shot allocation. Mr. Burgess replied in the affirmative. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated the language of the bill could be amended to reflect the one-shot status of the appropriation.
Mr. Prince stated that the SMYC handled and treated in excess of 200 youths per year, which for all intents and purposes, if not for the county facility, would have been sent to a state facility. Mr. Prince noted that many legislators had visited the youth camp over the past two years, and had seen the stark difference between the new and old facilities, currently used for the school and other programs. Included in Exhibit E was a listing of all the programs available at the SMYC.
Mrs. Cegavske applauded the efforts of the SMYC, and stated she had made several trips through the facility. During those visits, she was given the opportunity to talk with youths sentenced to the SMYC, and felt that treatment programs for substance abuse would be very essential in the recovery process. Mrs. Cegavske stated that after review of the facility, she felt the state’s money was very well spent, and the one comment she heard over and over was the need for a location for physical activity.
Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Burgess whether youths from other counties could be sent to the SMYC. Mr. Burgess stated that occasionally, the SMYC had received youths from other counties, however, the majority of the youths were from Clark County. Mr. Marvel noted that Mr. Burgess had referenced an appropriation for a kitchen, and asked whether the kitchen “core” area could be remodeled with further expansion of the facility in mind. Mr. Prince explained that the kitchen currently in existence at the camp was part of the original military facility constructed approximately 50 years ago. The addition of 20 youths seriously taxed the SMYC’s kitchen in accommodating the population for the various meals. Mr. Prince stated the previous allocation awarded by the legislature addressed the costs associated with residential dormitories, and he noted that demolition of the older buildings had presented a challenge.
Ms. Tiffany asked whether the county had appropriated funds for renovation of the SMYC. Mr. Burgess replied that a portion of the county’s bonding fund had been used at the SMYC, along with an additional allocation from the federal government. The construction of 100 beds, a central plant, and purchase of a fire suppression pump had incurred a cost of $9.6 million. At the current time, Mr. Burgess felt, in all probability, there would not be additional funding forthcoming from the county. Ms. Tiffany asked whether the county had been approached for an allocation; Mr. Burgess replied in the affirmative. Ms. Tiffany inquired about the possibility of alternatives to confinement at the SMYC for substance abuse cases, i.e., community-based programs. Mr. Burgess reiterated that the SMYC had a myriad of other programs within the Family Youth Services environment where youths could be sent. The SMYC was part of what was termed a “graduated sanction,” which meant it was the last step in the system for youths. Those youths ultimately sent to the SMYC would have a serious record of offenses, and would have first been involved in other programs, i.e., the Drug Court Program. Ms. Tiffany inquired whether there was a community-based program that would house youths at different levels of case management and drug counseling. Mr. Burgess replied in the affirmative, and explained there were contract providers in the community for such services. Mr. Burgess explained the various programs available for the youths, and noted they were funded via county allocations, federal funding from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), and funding from the Nevada Juvenile Justice Commission. According to Mr. Burgess, approximately 66 percent of the youths were diverted at the intake level into other programs.
Mr. Dini referenced the annual cost of housing per youth, as referenced in Exhibit D, and asked whether that amount was in line with the costs at other youth facilities throughout the state. Mr. Burgess explained that the cost to maintain the SMYC in Clark County was slightly higher. The figures included in the exhibit were an average, however, it would cost approximately $3,000 per month to house a youth at the SMYC. Mr. Dini indicated the state provided $350,000 per year to the SMYC, and asked whether that was in line with subsidy provided to other facilities. Mr. Burgess stated that the China Springs facility was subsidized at a much higher level. The China Springs facility was a 40-bed facility while the SMYC was a 100-bed facility, however, China Springs received at least double the subsidy provided to the SMYC.
Mr. Marvel asked how many youths were sent to state facilities at Elko and Caliente from the SMYC. Mr. Burgess reported that, proportionately, the SMYC sent approximately 50 percent of the youths who were eligible for commitment to state institutions. Mr. Prince reported that the total commitment from Clark County to state facilities was approximately 250 to 300 youths per year. Mr. Prince noted that one of the distinctions at the SMYC in terms of frontline staff, was the fact that they were all probation officers. Some of the additional costs were created because actual caseworkers were hired as frontline supervisors, along with the development of treatment plans to address drug and alcohol abuse.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired whether the SMYC had approached the Clark County School District regarding funding for construction of the school facility. Mr. Burgess replied in the affirmative, and the district’s philosophy was that the SMYC would provide the facility and the district would provide the instruction and supplies.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired whether any further questions were forthcoming regarding A.B. 71, and hearing none, so advised the Chair. Chairman Arberry indicated the next order of business would be A.B. 216.
Assembly Bill 216: Makes appropriation for costs relating to coordination of efforts to attract biotechnological companies to this state. (BDR S-661)
Merle Berman, Assemblywoman, Assembly District 2, indicated that A.B. 216 was submitted to support the biotech industry in the state of Nevada. States such as North Carolina and Georgia had developed an extensive biotechnological industry and had diversified their economies via the growth of that business. Ms. Berman explained that in those states, development of the infrastructure to support the industry initially came from the governor’s office and the legislature. Biotechnology was one of the many high technology industries that should be attracted to Nevada. Ms. Berman commented that via the economic development agencies, more realistic impressions of Nevada’s attractive features, such as quality of life, cost of living, and other amenities should begin to be recognized by the biotech industry in other states. However, prior to making such dynamic decisions, the needs of the high technology industry would have to be met. Ms. Berman noted that Las Vegas was just hours from San Diego and Reno was about the same distance from San Francisco, and Nevada’s two biggest cities were prime locations for biotech expansion from those two California-based biotech centers. Nevada stood to gain tremendously by supporting the development and relocation of biotech companies. Presently, many Nevadans left the state in order to obtain employment in biotechnology research and development or manufacturing. According to Ms. Berman, bringing that industry into Nevada would prevent the “brain-drain” that was seen from the state’s University and Community College System. Ms. Berman noted that Nevada should keep its highly educated and highly paid citizens within the state.
Just as an aside, Ms. Berman explained that, today, biotechnology was not what most people thought, as it had become extremely diversified and now encompassed industrial biotechnology. Industrial biotechnology was now the key to producing new forms of energy, chemicals, and materials, and Ms. Berman explained there was a critical need at the current time to provide leadership in those new energy technologies. A.B. 216 proposed the development of the position of Coordinator for Biotechnology, and that person would work with state, regional, and national companies which needed resources, to begin work in Nevada. The coordinator would serve as the contact point for all inquiries and activities related to biotech industry needs and resources. The coordinator would also prepare grant proposals to fund biotech activities and develop links to current biotech companies in the region. Ms. Berman noted that the position would also coordinate with development organizations within the state to promote relocation and/or development of the biotech industry in Nevada. The coordinator would also be working with the media, community groups, and economic development associations to further educate the public regarding the benefits of biotechnology, and would match technological needs with technological resources within Nevada.
A.B. 216 would provide the salary and the office expenses with a requested allocation of $100,000 per fiscal year of the biennium, after which, Ms. Berman explained the coordinator position would be self-supporting through grant funds and contributions. Per Ms. Berman, that level of funding was necessary in order to hire a person who was experienced with the biotechnology industry, along with the funding agencies, the programs, and proposal writing. The infusion of state funding to support a coordinator early in the process of biotechnology development would ensure that significant and planned growth of the new, clean, high-paying industry could develop in Nevada. Ms. Berman commented that the state funding would also ensure the economic incentive so evident in the state of Nevada, and the resources of the state’s higher education system to provide a work force for the industry, would be coordinated and encouraged. Ms. Berman informed the committee that she had talked to the Governor’s Office regarding the allocation proposed in A.B. 216, and would work with that office regarding the funding of that important piece of legislation.
Testifying next before the committee was Darlene McCord, Ph.D., Co-CEO, Chief Scientific Officer, LifeMatrix Technologies Group, who related the group was located in the Carson Valley, and was in the process of building a 90,000 square-foot facility in Minden to expand from pure research into research and manufacturing. Dr. McCord testified that it was very important for the state of Nevada to provide opportunities for its young people to remain in the state, opportunities that went beyond the minimum wage, via technology companies that paid higher wages to workers. Those opportunities were needed in the state of Nevada, and Dr. McCord voiced her support of A.B. 216.
Dr. McCord related that LifeMatrix Technologies Group was licensed as a medical device and an Over-the-Counter (OTC) drug facility. The group possessed the highest quality standards and certifications issued in the world, and were the technology contractor for 3M, Hollister, and DeRoyal with their topical OTC drug and medical device products. According to Dr. McCord, products used in Nevada hospitals were more than likely made in the LifeMatrix facility in Minden. Those products were shipped around the world and bore the logos of the aforementioned companies. Dr. McCord stated the company moved to the state of Nevada from California six years ago, because of the pro‑business environment, and the quality of life. What had been discovered was that the quality of life in the state of Nevada was excellent; Nevada had also maintained a very favorable business environment. Dr. McCord related that the Nevada Manufacturer’s Association was extremely active and helpful, and there was an excellent labor pool within the state. Dr. McCord stated it was her understanding that some companies had experienced difficulty in hiring, however, the LifeMatrix Technologies Group had had wonderful and very well‑qualified persons responding to its ads, and had experienced no difficulty in finding employees.
Dr. McCord stated, on the other side of the coin, the company had found it extremely difficult to align with the state’s universities, which was very difficult for biotechnology companies. There did not appear to be a coordinated effort in the state to bring biotechnology people together, i.e., scientists working with other scientists. Dr. McCord related that simply waiting for the hearing to begin today, had allowed her and her colleagues to meet and form new relationships. The term biotechnology should be kept to a limited scope, and Dr. McCord explained it referred to applied biological science. There was no reason to link with computer scientists or dot-com companies as biotechnology was a different field, and one that was important to bring to the state.
Dr. McCord voiced support of A.B. 216 as it would provide companies currently in the state, as well as companies considering relocation to Nevada, with an opportunity to gain access to other biotechnology companies and make relocation decisions based upon the location of similar companies. When the LifeMatrix Technologies Group relocated to Nevada, it was for the opportunities and quality of life offered in the state, but Dr. McCord noted there were not many other companies it could coordinate with, or companies it could form strategic alliances with. Dr. McCord felt the success of the bill would depend upon biotech companies making a major commitment in volunteering top executives to support the state’s efforts and the efforts of the LifeMatrix Technologies Group to bring other high paying jobs to the state of Nevada. According to Dr. McCord, the biotech industry would gladly provide the necessary free help the state could not afford, on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis, just for the state funding one coordinated office from which all companies could work and support. Relocating biotechnology companies to the state of Nevada was important because Nevada was seen as a business-friendly state, but Dr. McCord asked whether the state was biotechnology-friendly. She indicated not to just those companies bringing warehouse operations to the state, but to the companies involved in research and paid the high dollars to employees.
Dr. McCord noted that the biotech industry was in need of a clearinghouse for scientists looking for work in the state of Nevada; those in the biotech industry wanted to be around people of similar interests in order to collaborate with other scientists. While there might be other researchers in the vicinity, Dr. McCord stated she did not have a resource that would assist her in locating those colleagues. The former site for the company in San Diego provided access to a program that reached out to the existing businesses and used the LifeMatrix Technologies Group to attract major biotechnological companies into the area. Dr. McCord stated the company took the benefits offered in California for granted, and hoped when it relocated to a business-friendly state, the company would have those same opportunities, however, found those opportunities were not available. The allocation proposed in A.B. 216 of $100,000 per fiscal year, along with the free commitment from the entire biotech group within the state, would be one of the most economical, beneficial programs the state of Nevada could consider in building its labor force. Dr. McCord urged the committee to support A.B. 216.
Mr. Dini noted the bill provided for the allocation to be appropriated to the Commission on Economic Development, and asked what the cooperation level had been between the industry and the commission. Electing to respond was Bob Goff, who stated his experience in working with the Commission on Economic Development was that the commission was, indeed, helpful within the limits of available resources. The commission was spread diversely throughout various economic elements, and did not provide as technology-specific assistance as the position proposed by the bill would provide.
Mr. Goldwater asked about the effectiveness of the Nevada Development Authority, Economic Development, and sales and use tax abatement programs. Ms. Berman reported that she and the biotech industry had been working with the Nevada Development Authority and, unfortunately, had worked with five different people because of staff turnover. According to Ms. Berman, when a person helped an industry establish in Nevada, quite often they were offered a higher paying job with that company. There had been no continuity, and that was the reason Ms. Berman had sponsored A.B. 216. Mr. Goldwater inquired whether there would be assurance that the coordinator position would remain stable should the allocation be approved.
Dr. McCord indicated that the various development agencies had funded the proposal for equipment and tax abatement, and worked with the LifeMatrix Technologies Group regarding training issues. Dr. McCord emphasized that the state of Nevada had reached out to businesses, and worked with her company to pave the way for an easy transition. The state was willing to fund training efforts, however, even though those agencies were doing a very good job, Dr. McCord explained that biotechnology was a unique area of very high-paying jobs that was serviced by positions such as lab technicians. For every worker at a higher scientific level, there would be four or five positions available that were considered good paying jobs, i.e., $25,000 to $40,000 per year, in fields such as lab technician. Dr. McCord noted that those people needed to be brought to the area to utilize the excellent training programs already established.
Bob Goff, resident of Nevada, stated he was the president of the Sierra Angels, a venture capital group for technology companies headquartered in Incline Village, and also served on the board of three colleges in Nevada, served on the Nevada Technology Council, and participated in a number of other technology-related activities in Nevada. According to Mr. Goff, most of his career had been spent in commercializing technology for companies within the Silicon Valley in California, and more recently had been active in both the funding and building of infrastructure to support technology expansion in Nevada. Having been involved in the funding for several technology companies in Nevada, including biotechnology, Mr. Goff believed that some of his experiences caused him to have appreciation of the intent behind A.B. 216, and he was pleased to have the opportunity to support the bill.
Mr. Goff stated it was his strong belief that it was critically important for the economy of Nevada to significantly increase its technology focus in the high technology areas, especially in large growth areas such as biotechnology and information technology. It was in those two broad areas that the market dynamics and the market demands provided the greatest opportunity for high quality job creation, along with high quality business expansion throughout the state. Mr. Goff testified that Nevada needed more companies like LifeMatrix Technologies Group. There were competitive pressures being brought to bear within portions of the gaming industry, and the economic implications of those pressures were being felt, especially in northern Nevada. According to Mr. Goff, economic diversification was quickly becoming a strategic imperative in Nevada, if it wanted to compete successfully with its neighboring states, as their economies grew and became increasingly technology-driven.
Mr. Goff noted that Nevada currently had very respectful research and education positions in earthquake engineering, water engineering, environmental sciences, and alternative energy. Through increased collaboration and progressiveness between research and educational institutions throughout the state, in conjunction with the public sector, Nevada could and should further increase its participation in both federal and industrial grants, in order to significantly magnify the scientific and economic impact of those core technology strengths in Nevada. Mr. Goff advised there were two major reasons to include biotechnology and information technology as strategic priorities when discussing methods for further strengthening Nevada’s economic future:
Mr. Goff remarked that according to recent surveys, jobs in those technologies paid 60 to 70 percent more than the average for skilled workers, thus creating an extremely strong motivation for Nevada’s K-12 students, along with enormous job opportunities for Nevada’s university graduates. Per Mr. Goff, both the federal government and private industry were funding research and development in that area at very substantial and accelerating levels, thus providing the opportunity for Nevada to increase its participation in that funding via the increased use of focus, collaboration, and clustering capabilities. Mr. Goff felt that A.B. 216 spoke to that focus and coordination.
Continuing, Mr. Goff reported that the Sierra Angels had reviewed hundreds of company business plans, and funded dozens of high technology companies in northern Nevada. Additionally, the Sierra Angels had held substantive discussions with dozens of company presidents that were considering, or had already decided, to expand their businesses in Nevada. According to Mr. Goff, the most frequent challenges expressed, which inhibited a company’s ability to successfully move or grow a business in Nevada were: (1) an inadequate supply of skilled workers; and (2) a perception of inadequate critical mass of relevant research and development, and technology business infrastructure. Mr. Goff testified that those concerns had been voiced by companies in the health science, biotechnology, and information technology areas. Mr. Goff indicated there were a number of proposals underway to help alleviate those concerns and impediments. Perhaps the most significant proposal was the proposed Information Technology Initiative, which originated with the Advisory Board of the College of Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), but was intended to be inclusive of all Nevada’s educational and relevant research institutions.
Mr. Goff stated that utilization of the collaborative efforts of those institutions in conjunction with funding support by both the private sector, and state and federal governments, the information technology graduates could be increased by a factor of ten within the next five to seven years. In the area of research development, focus and collaboration, the Sierra Angels had met with Senator Harry Reid, along with the engineering deans and the vice presidents of research for both the UNR and the UNLV, and the president and vice president of research for the Desert Research Institute (DRI), along with industry executives, to explore means of increasing Nevada’s participation in research grants in the high technology areas. Mr. Goff noted that the Nevada Technology Council, the Tech Alliance, and the Sierra Angels were collaborating on activities that would expand Nevada’s technology business infrastructure, and facilitate the success of the technology business group throughout Nevada.
Continuing, Mr. Goff stated that as Nevada committed to expanding the base of skilled technological workers, relevant research activities, and business infrastructure, there would be an increasing need to communicate, coordinate and market Nevada’s capabilities and competitive advantages to both private and public institutions. As evidenced in successful competing states such as Utah, it would be important for the Governor and his office to proactively articulate the vision and competitive advantages of technology expansion in Nevada. Mr. Goff indicated that state organizations, including the Commission on Economic Development, the Office of Science, Engineering, and Technology, and the proposed coordinator for biotechnology as contemplated in A.B. 216, would be important in communication of the state’s enhanced capabilities, especially to the private sector, which in turn would create the majority of the jobs and fuel the economy.
In summary, Mr. Goff believed there was an urgent need for Nevada to increase its focus on certain areas of technology, including both biotechnology and information technology. Implementation of the aforementioned programs would be necessary for Nevada to successfully realize the enormous economic and social benefits those opportunities provided. Mr. Goff commented that if Nevada did not quickly seize the opportunity, its neighboring states certainly would.
Mr. Goldwater asked why free market economics was not working in Nevada, and why the state should become involved to a greater degree than the already operational tax abatement program. Mr. Goff replied that he shared those views in general, however, there was more capability within the state than anyone realized, which would be solved by a coordination and communication effort. Mr. Goff indicated that a certain portion of the solution had been undertaken by the private sector, but a central body which operated under the executive branch and focused on coordination and expansion of the state’s capabilities for the biotech industry, would accelerate the process. Mr. Goff stated that Nevada’s neighboring states were accelerating their efforts in the technology field much faster than the state of Nevada. Mr. Goldwater asked whether that acceleration was because other states had some inherent advantage over Nevada in the biotechnology area because of better recruiting methods. Mr. Goff did not feel Nevada’s neighboring states had any inherent advantages. He stated he had recently participated in a National Governor’s Association conference in southern California, and had an opportunity to interface with a number of the economic development agencies of the surrounding states, which acted as coordinators and communicators in the biotech field.
Dr. McCord stated LifeMatrix Technologies Group was committed to free enterprise, and since moving to Nevada, she and her husband had put up $10 million of their own funds to build a plant, using the free enterprise system. Dr. McCord felt that $100,000 per fiscal year was a small amount for a position which would help attract other industries that would become part of the free enterprise system in Nevada and contribute additional funds. The aforementioned $10 million was just for the capital improvements to the plant, and did not include the payroll and other benefits offered by LifeMatrix Technologies Group. The people who were at the hearing to present testimony were very committed to free enterprise, and Dr. McCord felt that $100,000 per fiscal year to assist in finding other companies and/or people in the field was a good value. Mr. Goldwater stated that he meant no criticism by his question regarding free enterprise. Dr. McCord indicated that she did believe in free enterprise, but felt the LifeMatrix Technologies Group had to put the majority of the money up front, and made an effort to show the state of Nevada how serious and committed it was to bringing further biotech industry into the state. Dr. McCord indicated that it was a function of government to provide funding to expand such a broad resource.
Mr. Goldwater reported that Nevada already provided a great deal of promotion, and the legislature attempted not to duplicate those efforts. People were sometimes critical of government programs and appropriations that they felt were not necessary. Mr. Goldwater noted that the legislature was not against the state being involved in the recruitment of businesses or approving appropriations for that purpose. According to Mr. Goldwater, there was a very large budget account within the Lieutenant Governor’s Office for that purpose, which was allocated to such agencies as the Nevada Development Authority, and various chambers of commerce; there was a good deal of money that flowed to various organizations for that purpose. Mr. Goldwater hoped that many businesses would be interested in relocating to Nevada via the efforts of those aforementioned agencies.
The Chair recognized Chandrasekaran (Chandra) Nataraj, resident of Las Vegas, who presented testimony on behalf of A.B. 216 via teleconference. Mr. Nataraj explained he came to the United States from India in 1988 with a degree in Veterinary Medicine, to attend graduate school. He subsequently earned a Ph.D. in Medical Sciences from the University of Nebraska, with emphasis in the area of immunology, i.e., the study of the body’s defense mechanism. Mr. Nataraj indicated that after graduation he had worked at Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina, where he conducted research and obtained experience in the areas of infectious disease, transplant rejection, and molecular mechanisms underlying inflammation, utilizing state-of-the-art biotechnologies. Mr. Nataraj reported that his association with the field of biotechnology over the past 10 years had resulted in over 25 presentations at national and international meetings, nearly 20 publications in peer review journals, and he had received several awards and memberships in scientific societies and organizations.
Mr. Nataraj explained that he had come to Las Vegas in September 2000, as his wife, a physician, had obtained her first employment offer in the area. The move caused Mr. Nataraj to relinquish his research position at Duke University in order to be with his wife and five-year-old daughter.
Mr. Nataraj stated he came forward to testify on behalf of A.B. 216 for two reasons. First, Mr. Nataraj had the opportunity to experience first hand the enormous impact conferred by the presence of biotech companies to both education and the economy of a community. The presence of established biotechnology companies, like Glaxo Wellcome, not only fostered the ascent of Duke and North Carolina State Universities as competitive research institutions, but also enabled the emergence of several smaller biotech companies in the area, where Mr. Nataraj stated he had spent the greater part of his life. Mr. Nataraj felt those companies served as valuable employment sources for the local community, and to the thousands of biology and biomedical students graduating from universities every year, while encouraging many quality citizens to relocate to the area.
On a more personal note, stated Mr. Nataraj, the second reason was that he and his family were quite excited about moving to Las Vegas in light of its rapid growth and its status, achieved in the last decade, as the “most livable city.” In spite of his credentials, Mr. Nataraj testified that he found himself at an impasse with regard to his career, as he had been unable to locate a single biotech/pharmaceutical enterprise that could utilize his expertise. Mr. Nataraj indicated that, while he and his wife were extremely impressed with the quality of life, they most certainly had to rethink their decision about settling in Nevada on a long-term basis, if the void in biotechnology persisted. According to Mr. Nataraj, it would be immensely disappointing if they were forced to relocate simply because he could not find an appropriate career choice, in spite of possessing skills demanded by the industry today.
In conclusion, Mr. Nataraj implored the committee to respond favorably to A.B. 216. The presence of biotechnology companies would be a positive influence to the community in the areas of education and economy. More importantly, the arrival of competitive biotechnology would enable Mr. Nataraj and his family to call Nevada their home in the years to come.
Dr. McLaughlin informed the committee he had not intended to testify on the bill, however, he had worked very closely with a biotech advisory group in the San Francisco area over the past approximately six years, with a focus on training at the high school level. The group developed a comprehensive biotech academy which produced workers for the summer job market. Dr. McLaughlin voiced support of A.B. 216, and stated he would be pleased to cooperate with the coordinator, because he saw the business as the future of the twenty-first century work force in Nevada. The K-12 schools could definitely play a role and provide a work force such as the biotech companies would be looking for. From a personal perspective, along with the Department of Education, Dr. McLaughlin voiced support for the bill.
Testifying next was Daniel Fylstra, President, Sierra Sciences, Incorporated, which was an 18-month-old biotechnology company located in the Reno area. Mr. Fylstra indicated his company was the type Ms. Berman hoped to attract to Nevada with A.B. 216. According to Mr. Fylstra, Sierra Sciences was entirely privately financed, and had attracted several million dollars in private capital. The Sierra Angels were investors, and Mr. Fylstra explained he was a member of that organization, along with the single largest investor in Sierra Sciences, Incorporated.
Mr. Fylstra reported that he had been asked whether biotech companies would really bring new, high-paying jobs to Nevada and, while Sierra Sciences was an early stage company, the number of employees had continually grown over the past year. The average employee’s salary, including the administrative and support positions, but without his salary, was approximately $58,000 annually. Mr. Fylstra noted that was approximately $29 per hour and just about twice the average wage in Nevada. He pointed out that even though Sierra Sciences was a very early stage company, it was a Nevada corporate taxpayer, and paid approximately $20,000 in sales and use tax, primarily on the purchases of lab supplies for the company’s scientific work. The company had also paid the business activity tax, Nevada unemployment taxes, and workers’ compensation premiums, et cetera.
According to Mr. Fylstra, as long as the company continued to be successful, he felt sure it would generate additional tax dollars. Sierra Sciences had worked with UNR, through the Applied Research Initiative, and in the course of that program, the company had paid approximately $130,000 into UNR’s coffers, and had hired several UNR students, from undergraduates to new Ph.D.s.
Mr. Fylstra provided some background on the biotech industry, and explained that there were approximately 1,500 companies employing approximately 150,000 people, with $20 billion in revenues and spending over $10 billion a year just on research and development. The biotech industry generated about 10,000 new patents every year, and had produced almost 100 drugs that had already benefited hundreds of millions of people. Continuing, Mr. Fylstra stated there were over 350 new biotechnology drug products currently in human clinical trials. The industry had attracted more than $100 billion of investment capital, but very little of that money was currently flowing into Nevada.
Mr. Fylstra stated the question was why. He felt a fair statement was that biotechnology companies were attractive to Nevada, but was Nevada attractive to biotechnology companies? Quite frankly, stated Mr. Fylstra, there were many things that were attractive, however, compared to some areas of California, Nevada was short of many resources that a biotechnology company needed. It was especially difficult to find senior level employees, but as Dr. McCord pointed out earlier in her testimony, hiring lab technicians had been successful. Mr. Fylstra pointed out that it was hard to find firms with experience in building lab space, or lawyers, accountants, recruiters, and other professionals who had experience in the biotech industry. There was a shortage in venture capital and sophisticated investors, compared to the San Francisco area.
Per Mr. Fylstra, in many ways, Sierra Sciences was the exception to the rule, and the example of how things were beginning to change, along with the potential for growth in Nevada. The company had found a handful of good scientists and lab technicians and was able to begin working with UNR through the Applied Research Initiative. Mr. Fylstra stated the reason he was testifying on behalf of A.B. 216 was because the main interface he had with the state was with the Washoe County Regional Economic Development agency, which received approximately one-third of their funding from the state’s Commission on Economic Development. The Sierra Sciences’ experience with the development agency had been quite positive, and helpful in the areas of information, advice, and coordination.
Ignacio Leycegui testified next via teleconference from Las Vegas. Mr. Leycegui informed the committee that he was a student and had resided in Las Vegas for 23 years. He stated he had graduated from UNLV in May of 2000 with a B.S. degree in biology, with a concentration of cell and molecular biology, along with a 3.58 GPA, cum laude designation, and with university honors. Mr. Leycegui indicated he was also a member of several national honor societies, including Pi Kappa Phi, and was currently enrolled in a class entitled Methods in Biotechnology, taking that class to increase his knowledge of techniques used in biotech companies, with the hope that in the near future he would employ those skills at a job in the biotech field. Mr. Leycegui explained he was in the process of applying to several graduate programs at schools in California, which offered degrees in biology, along with programs in biotechnology. Those programs had a successful history of grooming graduate students for positions in the local biotechnology industry. According to Mr. Leycegui, he had made the decision to continue his education in California based on the great opportunities for careers offered at biotech companies in that state. He stated he was excited about the potential the biotech industry had to offer in the future, and wished to be a part of it.
On the other hand, remarked Mr. Leycegui, it was a difficult decision to leave Las Vegas, because he and his family had lived there so long. The prospect of being required to pay non-resident tuition and relocating was also a drawback. Mr. Leycegui indicated he would like to remain in Las Vegas and earn his M.S. degree while working for a biotech company, however, that opportunity was not available at the current time. Mr. Leycegui felt Nevada had much to gain by establishment of a local biotech industry, which would diversify the economy and give local students the opportunity to pursue careers in biotechnology. The industry would also attract intellectuals to the community, and give the state the reputation of being a leader in the scientific community. Mr. Leycegui felt the state was losing a valuable resource and that resource was local students trained in the sciences at local academic institutions seeking careers elsewhere because of the lack of opportunity in Nevada. Mr. Leycegui believed that by establishment of a local biotechnology industry in Nevada, those students would choose to remain in Nevada, and some students who strayed might be attracted back to the state.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was anyone else to speak on behalf of, or in opposition to, A.B. 216, and hearing none, closed the hearing. The next order of business would be A.B. 116 and A.B. 215, which would be combined due to the time factor. Chairman Arberry disclosed that he was employed by the City of Las Vegas, and would not chair the hearing on A.B. 116 and A.B. 215, formally relinquishing the chairmanship to Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated the committee would first hear testimony on A.B. 116.
Assembly Bill 116: Makes appropriation to City of Las Vegas for grants to support educational and recreational programs for children after regularly scheduled school days and on weekends. (BDR S-903)
Janelle Kraft, representing the City of Las Vegas, introduced Lisa Morris, Senior Management Analyst, City of Las Vegas, and J. Franklin Simpson III, Community Liaison Officer, City of Las Vegas, and informed the committee that she would turn the presentation regarding the merits of the legislation, and the very valuable after-school programs it would provide, over to Ms. Morris.
Ms. Morris stated that after-school programs kept youth of all ages safe and out of trouble. According to Ms. Morris, 46 percent of youth crime took place between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., when most parents and guardians were working. While most parents would like to spend more time with their children, they were oftentimes unable to do so. Ms. Morris explained that the importance of providing multifaceted structure for after-school programs for youth was often understated, and with the 203,000 children in the Clark County School District, which was still growing, she felt it was important to address that issue.
Ms. Morris testified that the City of Las Vegas created the After School Education and Development Initiative (Exhibit F) to meet the diverse needs of its youth. The initiative provided four services to youth: (1) technology; (2) community service learning; (3) tutoring; and, (4) recreation. Ms. Morris then provided a brief video presentation for the committee regarding the programs. At the completion of the video, Ms. Morris referenced Exhibit F and explained it contained a detailed overview of the programs for the committee’s perusal, and indicated that the allocation requested in A.B. 116 would be used to leverage additional grant monies. It would be a collaborative effort in partnership with the Clark County School District, the UNR Cooperative Extension, and federal agencies such as the Department of Justice, coming together for the benefit of youth in Clark County.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out that there were approximately 230,000 children in the Clark County School District, and concurred with the aforementioned youth crime time frame. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated she had attempted over the years to convince the Clark County School District to change its starting times, because it would be educationally correct to have high school and middle school students start later, with elementary students starting earlier. While the school district agreed with that, it would not force transportation to make that change, which Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt was unfortunate.
Ms. Morris explained that the programs depicted by the video presentation were in at-risk communities, designated by the federal government, however, felt that all youth were at-risk, and the requested allocation would allow Clark County School District to expand into areas that were not considered low income, but experienced the same needs.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she felt it was a good program, and inquired whether there was anyone else who wished to testify in favor of, or in opposition to, A.B. 116.
Penny Brock informed the committee she was testifying as a taxpayer in opposition to A.B. 116. While she was very supportive of providing after‑school and weekend care for children, she had concerns about governmental funding of that endeavor. Ms. Brock felt that the government should leave after-school and weekend arrangements to parents in the private sector. According to Ms. Brock, the Cato Institute, which was a public policy research foundation in Washington, D.C., released a report on June 7, 2000, entitled, “12 Hour School Days?” That study brought to light some myths that were being purported in the media today, as follows:
Ms. Brock noted that the answer for after-school care needs were as follows:
1. Private providers and entrepreneurs could and did respond to parents’ demands. The “National Study of Before and After-School Programs”found that the private programs, whether non-profit or for-profit, were more geared to market demands. Lower income families were not shut out because they could not afford to pay. The generosity and business sense of American entrepreneurs were providing for low-income children. Fees were often adjusted on the basis of family income. In addition, providers often offered scholarships and tuition grants. Employers were also making after-school arrangements easier for parents. Some employers helped parents by offering flextime, job sharing, part-time arrangements, or telecommuting. Many churches, friends, neighbors, and family members, such as grandparents, were part of the after-school care solution for children.
2. There was a stunning body of evidence that families were perfectly able to manage after-school arrangements without state assistance.
Ms. Brock encouraged the committee to oppose A.B. 116, and allow families and the private sector to continue to provide after-school and weekend care for their children.
Mrs. Chowning stated that never, in her experience as a parent, teacher, or youth counselor, had she found private programs that were free to everyone. If children were able to attend private programs without incurring costs to their parents, those programs should be applauded. Mrs. Chowning felt if the legislature opened the gates and stipulated that every child would be able to attend private programs, those programs would be burgeoning at the seams. Mrs. Chowning indicated it had been her experience that if families did not have sufficient monies to pay the fees, those children would not be allowed to attend private programs.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 116, and opened the hearing on A.B. 215.
Assembly Bill 215: Makes appropriation to City of Las Vegas for continued support of Child Care Improvement Grant Program. (BDR S-991)
Janelle Kraft once again informed the committee that Ms. Morris would present the merits of A.B. 215. Ms. Morris informed the committee that in 1999, the City of Las Vegas received an appropriation from the legislature in the amount of $300,000, and presented a packet entitled, “Child Care Improvement Grant Presentation,” Exhibit G. Ms. Morris stated the exhibit would provide an overview of how that funding had been spent, and further depicted by the video presentation to the committee.
Ms. Morris explained that the Child Care Improvement Grant focused on improvement in the quality of child care through education, training, and facility improvement. The exhibit contained information regarding the standards of child care facilities, with each being licensed by the City of Las Vegas; however, licensing did not necessarily equate to quality. Ms. Morris stated the program was a collaborative effort, and the city worked with various state agencies. Approximately 80 persons had been placed in the community colleges to take at least 6 credits in Early Childhood Development, with 37 persons receiving a national credential entitled, “Child Development Associate Degree.” Ms. Morris indicated the city felt it was a program that benefited a great number of persons.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated the legislature did appreciate knowing how the one-shot allocations from the 1999 sessions had been spent. With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 215, the hearing was closed, and the hearing on A.B. 139 was reopened so the committee could receive further testimony.
Assembly Bill 139: Makes appropriation to Clark County for support of Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth. (BDR S-981)
Richard Perkins, Assembly District 23, Speaker of the Assembly, indicated that the bill would appropriate a sum of $100,000 to Clark County for the support of the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth. The partnership would be required to establish and maintain records concerning the use of that money, and Mr. Perkins felt that accountability was an important component, in order to report how the money was used. Mr. Perkins noted the partnership had a recent history, borne out of the need to provide services to the homeless youth in the Las Vegas area. The Partnership for Homeless Youth had been facilitating via the Street Teens Program, a part-time drop-in center open three days a week, and Mr. Perkins stated that center needed funding to relocate to the area where homeless youths congregated, as noted by Commissioner Herrera in his earlier testimony. According to Mr. Perkins, the partnership was a volunteer organization with over 110 statewide members.
Mr. Parks commented that he was very familiar with the program, and explained the proposed location for the center near the UNLV campus was within his assembly district. Mr. Parks advised that he was a member of the board for the partnership, and there was a very definite need for the services. The number of homeless youths blended with the population, because of the university environment nearby, and Mr. Parks indicated there were several hundred youths at any given time who were actually living on the street.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what age group was prevalent within the homeless population. Mr. Parks indicated that it had been his experience that most tended to be in the later teen years, approximately 16- to 18-years-old, although there were younger children among that population. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated that she could understand the relocation effort because of the age of the homeless youths. Mr. Perkins indicated the UNLV campus was where most of the homeless youth population of several hundred resided. As mentioned in previous testimony, Mr. Perkins reemphasized that nine out of ten youths reported either sexual or physical abuse, or both, in the home, and that was the reason the partnership was so important.
Mr. Burgess added his support to A.B. 139, and felt that any worthwhile cause to keep children out of the juvenile system was certainly deserving of funding. Mr. Burgess informed the committee that he was also representing the Clark County Office of the District Attorney, Juvenile Division, in support of the bill, and submitted the prepared statement of Robert W. Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney (Exhibit H), for the perusal of members.
Kathleen Boutin, Chairperson, Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth, testified via videoconference from Las Vegas, and stated should A.B. 139 be approved, the allocation would be used as start-up money to facilitate street outreach and drop-in center services in both southern and northern Nevada. The funds would consist of one-time, start-up expenses, and Ms. Boutin noted that all expenditures would be recorded and tracked with the highest level of judiciary responsibility in mind.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired whether there were any other speakers on behalf of, or opposed to A.B. 139, and opened the hearing on A.B. 237.
Assembly Bill 237: Makes supplemental appropriation to District Judges’ Salaries and Judicial Pensions Fund for shortfall in money budgeted for retirement benefits and pensions for District Judges and widows. (BDR S-1256)
Judy Holt, Manager, Budgets and Finance, Administrative Office of the Courts, explained that A.B. 237 requested a supplement appropriation from the General Fund to the District Judges’ Salaries and Judicial Pensions Fund in the amount of $125,918. The shortfall in the Pensions Fund was due to the unanticipated retirement of two district court judges during FY2000-01, as well as the death of one district court judge in FY2001, with subsequent benefit payments being awarded to the surviving spouse.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether the shortfall was caused because the fund was a “pay as you go” plan, rather than being funded on an actuarial reserve basis. Ms. Holt replied in the affirmative, and explained the funds were budgeted each session based on current pensioners, and additional retirees created an unfunded mandate. There might also be possible unforeseen expenses in survivor benefits. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated that the legislature would like to fund the system on an actuarial reserve basis, in order to eliminate the request for supplemental appropriations each session.
Mrs. Chowning questioned lines three and four of A.B. 237, and inquired whether the bill should read, “. . . money budgeted for retirement benefits for District Judges, widows, and widowers,” because of the increasing number of female judges.
Chairman Arberry resumed Chairmanship of the committee, and inquired whether there was any further testimony on A.B. 237, and hearing none, closed the hearing. Chairman Arberry indicated the next order of business for the committee would be consideration of A.B. 9 and A.B. 183 for possible action.
Assembly Bill 9: Authorizes use of arbitration for adjustment of certain grievances of state employees. (BDR 23-439)
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), explained that A.B. 9 was sponsored by Bonnie Parnell, Assemblywoman, District 40, and had been discussed at the hearing on February 26, 2001. The bill would allow for an arbitrator to settle certain grievances involving state employees. The cost associated with the bill was approximately $13,000 in the first year of the biennium, with an ongoing cost of $18,000 per year. Mr. Stevens noted the bill provided that arbitration costs would be assessed to the losing party, and costs to the Department of Personnel could be absorbed from that department’s reserve if, in fact, the bill was ultimately passed by the legislature.
Assembly Bill 183: Makes appropriation to legislative fund for reproduction of older volumes of Nevada Reports and Statutes of Nevada. (BDR S-731)
Mr. Stevens indicated the bill was a traditional one-shot appropriation, used to reproduce older volumes of the Nevada Reports. Funding for the appropriation had been included in The Executive Budget.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 183.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Beers wondered whether a Letter of Intent would be appropriate, with instructions to the LCB to explore the possibility of making the report available electronically in the future, which would cut the costs and increase the accessibility to members of the public. Mr. Hettrick felt that was a good idea, however, the reprint was funded in order to sell the Nevada Reports, and electronic availability would depend on whether there was a way to charge for the reports over the Internet. Mr. Beers suggested the possibility of selling the report on compact discs.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (Mr. Goldwater and Ms. Tiffany were not present for the vote.)
********
Chairman Arberry requested committee introduction of BDR 34-1003.
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 34‑1003.
VICE CHAIRWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
********
Chairman Arberry called for a motion regarding A.B. 9.
MR. PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 9.
VICE CHAIRWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH FOUR OPPOSING VOTES: MR. HETTRICK, MR. MARVEL, MR. BEERS, AND MRS. CEGAVSKE. (Mr. Goldwater and Ms. Tiffany were not present for the vote.)
********
With no further business to come before the committee, the hearing was adjourned at 10:58 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carol Thomsen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: