MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
April 12, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 4:29 p.m., on Thursday, April 12, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
ElizaBeth Root, Committee Secretary
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Sandra J. Tiffany, District No. 21, Clark County
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Senate District No. 5, Clark County
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons
Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification/Planning, Department of Prisons
Judge Peter I. Breen, Second Judicial District, District Courts
R. Warren Lutzow, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioner, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender
Catherine Blake, Executive Director, Ridge House
Barbara Caskey, Director, Substance Abuse Program, Department of Prisons
Ronna Hubbard, Captain, Nevada Firefighters Association
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
SENATE BILL 224: Authorizes use of money from state distributive school account to support special counseling services for certain elementary school pupils. (BDR S-1047)
Chairman Raggio:
Today we have a number of bills on the agenda. At the request of Senator Porter, Senate Bill (S.B.) 224 will be held over. We will not hear that bill today. We will open the hearing on S. B. 519.
SENATE BILL 519: Provides for establishment of programs for reentry into community of certain prisoners and parolees. (BDR 16-1477)
Assemblywoman Sandra J. Tiffany, District No. 21, Clark County, Nevada State Legislature:
Senate Bill 519 is not an appropriation bill, and we are not asking for General Fund appropriation. When we initiated the bill, we were going to place some General Fund revenue in it, but since the bill drafting did not progress as fast as we wanted, and the General Funds were dwindling, we decided to take those provisions out of S.B. 519.
Chairman Raggio:
It is our understanding there might be potential federal grants attached to S.B. 519.
Ms. Tiffany:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We need this enabling legislation so we can apply for a federal grant. I wanted to give you some background on this bill. Ms. Crawford is going to talk more about the program. Mr. Whorton is going to inform you about the types of parolees we are talking about. Lastly, Judge Peter I. Breen is going to discuss the reentry court program.
Senator Jacobsen and I initiated this bill. When we were looking at it originally we were thinking about a community-based program for transitional programming. As it evolved, we ended up with a better bill. We were concerned that prisoners would get out of prison with only $28, prison blues on their back, and not much else. This situation creates recidivism. We wanted to craft a policy, which would ultimately save the state money that would include early release and the acceptable parameters around that issue. Additionally, we wanted to address how we could have supervision of the inmates for this early release. That is how we came up with the reentry court. We looked at the structured programs around the community for prisoners who were released. That includes jobs, housing, counseling, supervision, reporting, education programs, drug treatments, and life skills.
There are three levels of discretion in the approval process for early release. The process includes screening participants before an inmate can qualify for any reentry program. The flow goes like this: Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons, identifies the population and she and R. Warren Lutzow, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, jointly decide what the best program is for the early release of the individual. Next, the person is referred to the reentry court for supervision and, if approved, the individual is then referred to a community-based transitional program. If that person fails, the reentry court decides to augment the person back to a different level or, possibly, send that person back to prison. The same can happen after parole or as a condition of parole.
This policy and enabling legislation is to create a program that has safeguards for the community, which will also reduce recidivism. This bill will also provide for court supervision and will transition appropriate inmates out of “hard beds” into housing, jobs, and community programs.
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons:
I am pleased to be here to support S.B. 519 for the reentry of inmates. There are a number of our inmates who are going out into the community with minimal skills. More importantly, they do not have a lot of money, and the recidivism is relatively high in our department. Working collectively with each of the agencies, to include the Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, the Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and the courts, we believe we can reduce that recidivism rate. Also, we want to look at how we are able to do that. A number of states have entered into these types of programs, which have been very successful. We believe our program will be equally successful in light of the fact that we have a screening mechanism and are not just releasing people.
They would go into the prison system, and through that system we would create programs to provide them education, skills, and transition programming. At that point, releasing them two years before their probable release date would allow them to go into a more structured environment. We believe that will assist us in reducing the recidivism. What I am pleased about is that this enabling legislation will allow our department, through policy, to create a planning and implementation process. This is not something that can happen in the next six months, but it is going to allow us to methodically plan and develop a program with which the state of Nevada will be extremely pleased. Our main concern is the safety of the community. As we know, there have been a number of programs in the past that were “shot-gunned in” and they were not that successful.
Chairman Raggio:
We have had prerelease work programs in the past, certainly here in Carson City. Are there currently any such programs?
Ms. Crawford:
We have a restitution center in Reno.
Chairman Raggio:
I understand that, but at one time we had a prerelease work program. Mr. Whorton, do you know?
Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification/Planning, Department of Prisons:
We did have the prerelease programs. The largest one we had was in Las Vegas. To be frank, it was implemented at a time when we did not know a lot about classification and how to manage our populations. Inappropriate people were placed in that program. I actually worked in that program in Las Vegas. I spent most of my time down at the county jail, putting holds and detainers on inmates who had walked away from the program. We no longer have the prerelease work program. Basically, our restitution centers took the place of the prerelease work programs.
Ms. Crawford:
I would like to emphasize that, in this process, we will be happy to collectively put together a team that will look at the planning of this program and the stages in which it can be developed. Any program that is going to be successful must start out on a small basis, progressing gradually. With that in mind, not everyone will be eligible for this program. We are looking at persons not obviously eligible, such as sex offenders, inmates with crimes of violence within the last five years, inmates with a history of escape, and inmates with recent serious rule violations who have not made a good faith effort to participate in prison programs and education. These are all high-risk inmates. What I like about this component is that, when inmates come into our system, they immediately begin with a program, and there are goals they will have to achieve before they would become eligible for this program. We believe that we have the skill and the capability to work collectively with the Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, the Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and the courts. If we are granted an opportunity to implement or plan and develop this program, you will be pleased with the outcome. As I said, it will not be completed overnight. It is not going to be a six-month process, but there will be a methodical process in which we will be able to plan, develop, and implement this program.
Chairman Raggio:
How do you envision this actually working? Take for example an inmate who is within the two-year eligibility category, what will the program actually do? What will the inmate be doing?
Ms. Crawford:
That depends on the inmate. Hypothetically, if the inmate has completed education programs, he now has a vocation, which means he is prepared to go into the community. That inmate will be supervised to find a job equivalent to the skills learned in the facility. If the inmate has substance abuse problems, we would be looking at the reentry court with substance abuse follow up and counseling. So, what we are creating is a delivery of services, which creates a linkage from intake, through the prison, into parole and probation, and into the reentry courts. At that point, with that level of treatment, follow up, and supervision, some of these individuals will perhaps not be expiring their time and revoking their parole or probation.
Chairman Raggio:
Where will the inmate be housed during the prerelease?
Ms. Crawford:
If the inmate is in prerelease and is prepared to go into the community, by the time we have designed and developed this program, we hope to have transitional housing available. That can be accomplished through contractual services.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there someone here to speak specifically to the language of this bill?
Senator Rawson:
My question relates to the amendments to S.B. 519. It appears the sponsors are refining and defining regarding a prisoner being in some violent offenses against another within the last five years. You are assuming many people in this situation have had a violent history in the past, but if they have not in the last five years, you are willing to take a chance. My question is about the sexual offenders. I understand the concern about the sexual offender. They are the most difficult people to rehabilitate in our society. They have to be registered, and they have a harder time keeping jobs because of the nature of the offense. It seems to me this guarantees that the sexual offender is rejected by society. We are not going to give that person any chance through this bill. I wanted some discussion on that.
Mr. Whorton:
You are correct on that point, Senator Rawson. The language as it exists in this measure that relates to sex offenders is a copy of the language that exists in other policies and procedures for the Department of Prisons. There has generally been a philosophy that indicates this type of offender is too great a risk to place in the community. The consequences of the failure are too great.
Senator Rawson:
Consider now that you may have someone in prison for burglary who had a sexual offense thirty years prior. This bill says anyone who “has ever been convicted of a sexual offense” is barred from this program. There may be circumstances that are well justified to put a previous sexual offender out on the street early because it is a totally different offense that they have been involved in. For the pedophile, the repetitive offender, or anyone we consider a risk, we are right to deny such individuals from this program. But the way this measure is written, their sexual offense may have nothing to do with why they are in prison. That is my concern about S.B. 519.
Chairman Raggio:
But is not the concern that there have been so many cases in which someone who could have been held in custody has been released and commits that kind of an offense? Then who gets the blame? The prison, the courts, and whoever is involved in the process get the blame. I can understand the sponsors not wanting to get placed in that position. It is a question of public acceptance.
Senator Rawson:
This would exclude the handful of cases that you will run into where someone was convicted of some sexual offense as a teenager and is now age 50 and incarcerated for a totally different situation. You may feel it is not worth jeopardizing this program for the handful of people who will fall into that category.
Mr. Whorton:
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we have experience with that situation. We lost the conservation camps. There are those of you who may recall the Nevada Division of Forestry camp that was on Peavine Mountain.
Chairman Raggio:
I prosecuted that case.
Mr. Whorton:
As you do recall, Pierce Spillers, was the defendant whom you prosecuted. We also lost the restitution centers in Reno because of a similar incident to the case previously mentioned. Obviously, if we do our job right and classify and identify those individuals, and they go out and commit that offense, it becomes clear this is the responsibility of the inmate and we must protect the program from those who are not suitable for it.
Senator Rawson:
I support what you are doing. My sense is that, in all of the work and effort that we go through on this, there is almost nothing that will help the sex offender get out of the stigma for their future.
Mr. Whorton:
If you will look at the proposed amendments (Exhibit C) you will see we would like to amend the following:
1) Section 7 on page 2, by deleting lines 28 through 33 and inserting the following language:
“(c) The offender is within 2 years of his probable release from prison, as determined by the director.”
This deletes the language that limits individuals who have had their probation or parole revoked on or after July 1, 2000. By removing that language, we are expanding the population that can be considered for this program. Leaving that language in restricts those people who have been out on parole and probation from participating unless it is after that date. So, we are looking at expanding the candidate pool by adjusting the language here.
2) Section 7, page 3, by deleting lines 5 through 8 and inserting:
“(c) Has ever been convicted of a sexual offense, or has, within the previous 5 years, been convicted of any crime involving the use or threatened use of force or violence against a victim that is punishable as a felony.”
As Senator Rawson noted, this leaves in the exclusion for sex offenders, but it removes the exclusion for those individuals who have been convicted of crimes involving the use or threat of use of violence. The emphasis is to increase the size of the candidate pool.
3) Section 19, page 8, by deleting lines 8 through 19 to remove subsection 4.
This section relates to the parole board and setting standards for participation. We felt much of the bill’s language was unnecessary. In its best judgment, the parole board would have the ability to set a placement in this program as a condition on parole, and the program would be established otherwise. The parole board can make that decision in each individual case, rather than to set up a separate set of standards exclusive of what the director had already established.
Chairman Raggio:
Are you saying in that case that they would set the standards and that they would not be limited by this language?
Mr. Whorton:
Previously in the bill, the director set standards for participation. At this point the parole board would make a decision just as it would on whether to place a person in Ridge House or under house arrest. It would give them the flexibility without the necessity of burdening them with standards.
Chairman Raggio:
You would remove from this the limiting standards that would apply to the board?
Mr. Whorton:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We applied these requirements, as indicated in our handout (Exhibit D), to the entire population under the jurisdiction of the Department of Prisons and developed a sample of 10,187 inmates. We next selected individuals who are within 2 years of a release to the community. This resulted in a reduced sample of 6,789 inmates.
We then selected those individuals who do not have exclusion in our classification instrument for a sex offense, or sexual misconduct. This resulted in a sample of 5,576. Next, we selected individuals who had never escaped or attempted escape from the Nevada Department of Prisons, or any other correctional jurisdiction. This resulted in a sample of 5,130.
We next excluded those individuals who are identified as being in an offense group based on their violent crimes within the past five years. This resulted in a sample of 3,509 inmates. Next, we removed persons who have custody levels of close or maximum, or who are “unassigned awaiting initial classification.” These are people who are under special control and have some problem in the institutions. Obviously, if they are having problems under that supervision, they are not going to be suitable for supervision in the community. This left 3,015 inmates. We further selected out those individuals who are currently on residential confinement. This left us with a sample of 2,576. The sample was further modified to select individuals who were committed to the Department of Prisons prior to April 10,1999. This date was selected to ensure the inmates had sufficient time vested in their sentences to establish a reasonable probability of release and to provide sufficient time for the completion of expected programming. This resulted in 354 inmates.
Finally, the list was groomed to exclude offenders who are incarcerated for driving under the influence of alcohol offenses because they are required to participate in other programs under the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Of the 292-inmate sample, 25 are women and 267 are men. That is about what we expected to have. However, we looked again at the close-custody population, and determined there was a group of people in that population that where, perhaps, suitable to be considered. These are the people in protective segregation, but not necessarily in close custody for misconduct. They are there because they need to be protected. We thought we could increase this figure by 25, to just over 300 people as our initial candidate pool.
Because this is policy driven, it gives us an opportunity to look at this, adjust the potential candidate criteria and see how things occur so we can have an efficient operation, but an operation that is primarily designed to protect the community.
Chairman Raggio:
Are there any questions from the committee? Are there other people who wish to testify on S.B. 519?
Judge Peter I. Breen, Second Judicial District, District Courts:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am the reentry court judge. I am pleased to be here today to offer testimony in support of this bill. I recently had an opportunity to read the bill and to review it. I have also discussed the bill with Judge Jack Lehman, the reentry court judge in Clark County. Our reentry drug courts are in operation. Judge Lehman wished me to convey to you he has no objection to this bill.
The way reentry drug court works is the director finds a suitable population that might benefit from our drug court program, and then their names are submitted to a committee, which consists of law enforcement, district attorneys, drug court attorneys, care providers and myself. We look these people over and, if we approve them, we send them back. This process has proved to be cumbersome. We have been 8 months getting the reentry court started. What I like about this bill is that it is a smooth, simpler structure that allows the director or parole board to present these people to the reentry court judge for entry into whatever program is developed. The people who have the ability to decide whether these prisoners are suitable are the director and parole board. So, that is a good part of this bill. For myself, we have the structure in place. I would be interested in giving this program a try. It is part of what has loosely been recently described as “therapeutic justice.” This is where the defendants, whether preprison or postprison, are closely and regularly monitored by a court. It seems to work well before prison, and it would work well afterwards because there is such immediacy and finality to the consequences and to the examination of the parolee’s progress. This looks good to me.
R. Warren Lutzow, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
I would like to reiterate what Judge Breen has said here today. One of the issues in dealing with the parolee population is the bureaucratic process of returning them after a parole violation usually requires about a 10- to 15-day stay in the county jail before they are returned to the prison, where there remain another 30 days before they actually see the Parole Board for revocation proceedings. The efficiency of having them returned to a district court judge for a sanction, which could include returning them immediately back to prison, is an effectiveness that we do not currently have. To this population, it would soon become evident that if you commit some infraction of your parole conditions or release conditions, that you will be back before a district court judge, probably within 3 or 4 days, and you will be held to answer. It seems to work with this particular population. They need immediate sanctions for it to be successful. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners:
In my career as a parole and probation officer, and also now as Chairman of the Nevada parole board, I have seen this population we have been discussing today. I have seen them come out of prison ill prepared to make it on the street. Through no fault of the prison system or the Division of Parole and Probation (P&P), Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, they come out and essentially P&P does what their families should have done, which is teach them how to live in our community. They do not know how to fill out a job application. As a P&P officer, I have sat and done that as time permitted. They do not know how to look for a job, nor do they know how to interview for a job. Many of these individuals do not have the skills all of us take for granted. It was unfortunate that as a P&P officer, I very often had to take them back for revocation proceedings because they could not make it in the community. I have even had parolees give up their parole and say, “it is just too complicated out here. I cannot do it.”
That has a ripple effect in the community. Originally, when Director Crawford looked at this program she was trying to focus on women. I can understand that, because that has a huge ripple effect. When women are in prison, their children are in foster care. It was my sad job as a P&P officer to see their children come back and now they are parolees. While these people are sitting in prison, somebody is paying welfare and taking care of their children. The cycle is endless. Very often it is sad because you know a person is not dangerous to society, but is not prepared to make it in the community. We go ahead and parole them, but we know we are going to see them back again because they do not have the necessary life skills.
As a P&P officer I did not have the time to teach them everything their mothers and fathers should have taught them. The prison certainly does not have the money and was not prepared to teach them everything their parents should have taught them, but it is a vicious circle. Now, as the parole board sees them come back on revocation, it is an endless cycle.
Frankly, I am very excited to see this bill. I think there is a nationwide wave toward community corrections. Director Crawford and I have talked about this, as have the members of the parole board and we see this as the beginning of a new way of conducting business.
Senator Neal:
Is that already in the prison system as a restitution center that attends to this? How would this differ from that program?
Ms. Salling:
Yes, they do have a restitution center. How this differs is those people are living in one location. They are working in the community, but it is a small population. Again, this would be a bigger population. It would work with the reentry court that Judge Breen talked about. It envisions something more expansive.
Chairman Raggio:
I believe Mr. Whorton indicated the restitution centers are not working well. There have been problems with the program being successful. He spends most of his time in jail with people who had previously been assigned to the restitution centers. Mr. Whorton, would you like to enlarge on that perspective?
Mr. Whorton:
To qualify that, I was speaking of the restitution centers that were constituted back in the late 1970s, prior to objective classification. Our restitution centers do work now. We do have one in the northern Nevada area, which has 88 people. There are 25 people working in restitution centers in the south, which hold 113. The difference between this program and the restitution center program is that the individuals would be responsible for their own housing. They would have greater access to programs. They would have enhanced supervision from the reentry court and from the Division of Parole and Probation. This is a program to transition into the community. A lot of times with the restitution centers, participants work and come to us and that is all we are capable of managing at this point. The program in S.B. 519 is much broader.
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy. Washoe County Public Defender:
We fully support this concept and this bill. We work one-on-one with these offenders in many cases. It is my observation through many years of experience that the swift and sure intervention of a judge, particularly in the drug courts, has been very effective in keeping our clientele on the “straight and narrow.” There is certainly no reason to believe that expanding this to the reentry phase as has been discussed this afternoon would be any different. In having worked with parole violators, this gives the parole board an arrow in their quiver without dealing with these people, short of returning them to the institution to finish out a fairly lengthy sentence in many cases.
Catherine Blake, Executive Director, Ridge House:
I have been working with this population for over 20 years. I have seen quite a few things that would be helped immensely if we had a change. One of those changes is the life skills training. At the Ridge House, we look at time there as on‑the-job training for freedom because these people are missing these kinds of skills. Seriously, these people have no idea how to fill out a job application, how to speak to their bosses respectfully, or how to solve problems with coworkers.
If there is someone to debrief them and teach them the appropriate way to act, that helps a lot. In my work, I have looked at what other states have done and what has been successful. In the state of Oregon they are working with the courts, as Judge Breen described. If someone “used” or had a “dirty urinalysis intoxicants” (UI) and they had to appear before the judge, sometimes that would be enough of a wake up call to change their lives. Oregon’s recidivism rates dropped well over 45 percent just from the use of the courts with people coming out of prison. I am absolutely in support of this.
The second problem people have is that when they are released they often come to me with little or no money. Generally, they have no identification and no social security card. We work to get these people registered at the Sheriff’s office and encourage them to go out to find their first job after being released. A lot of these people have experienced risky behaviors to support their drug habits, making a lot of money. Now, they have to go to work for minimum wage. We say, “peace go with you, be happy, and it will be fine,” but the reality is it is not going to be fine.
People who can stay out of trouble and prove they want to come back as working members of society and are able to do that for five years could then have their records sealed so they have the possibility and hope of creating new lives. That is a great goal for them to focus on. It is the carrot at the end that may make a difference. This bill, and the way it is designed is going to reduce recidivism in this state. It is the right thing to do, not only for the clients and the prison system, but also for our community. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Chairman Raggio:
Does someone want to talk about Section 22, which is the sealing of the record on this bill and the necessity for that provision? Section 22 of S.B. 519 indicates the following:
Chapter 179 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a
new section to read as follows:
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, 5 years after an eligible person completes a program for reentry, the court may order sealed all documents, papers and exhibits in the eligible person’s record, minute book entries and entries on dockets, and other documents relating to the case in the custody of such other agencies and officers as are named in the court’s order. The court may order those records sealed without a hearing unless the division petitions the court, for good cause shown, not to seal the records and requests a hearing thereon.
2. If the court orders sealed the record of an eligible person, the court shall send a copy of the order to each agency or officer named in the order. Each such agency or officer shall notify the court in writing of its compliance with the order.
Barbara Caskey, Director, Substance Abuse Program, Department of Prisons:
Currently, we are in a position to be eligible to receive up to $1 million for 5 years for programs that work specifically with the nonviolent, first time offender if we have the capacity after 5 years of their release to seal their records. These are conditions that the U.S. Department of Justice, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) and other funding providers are asking states to look at as a result of being recipients of large amounts of funding. In order to be eligible to apply for this, Nevada must have the ability to seal a convicted person’s record. As I understand this, when we put this in the bill, we were not aware that capacity already exists under Chapter 179 of NRS.
Chairman Raggio:
Are you saying this authority already exists and that it is not necessary under this section?
Ms. Caskey:
I believe that authority exists and prior to coming here we were looking at part of the NRS. I am not exactly sure of the statute chapter for sealing of criminal records.
Chairman Raggio:
What does this mean? Does this mean that somebody who has been in prison, possibly two or three times may be eligible and that person’s complete record is going to be sealed? Is that what that means, just because he or she has completed this program?
Ms. Caskey:
The intent of that section is to have the first-time, nonviolent offense sealed.
Chairman Raggio:
Does this wipe out that conviction?
Ms. Caskey:
Yes, it seals the record. There are some people who are nonmotivated because they think “forever and ever, amen, they are going to be judged as this or that.” Often times, if we can give them the hope of sealing a record, that is sufficient for them to complete a program.
Chairman Raggio:
Does this mean that for other purposes that person is not considered an ex-felon? May they carry a gun or do all the things a person who has not been convicted can do?
Ms. Caskey:
No, I do not believe so, but that is something I would have to research.
Chairman Raggio:
Does anyone else want to comment on this aspect of S.B. 519.
Senator Rawson:
We have a provision where teachers cannot have their records opened for evaluation as a teacher if it has been sealed by the courts. I do not know that we want to change that. I am just saying that it does exist today.
Chairman Raggio:
This bill talks about someone who has been convicted, been to prison, and is now coming out of prison.
Senator Neal:
They cannot carry guns if they have had their rights restored. We had that scenario back in the 1970s when we had restoration of civil rights. A provision was added to that law that an ex-felon still cannot carry a weapon.
Judge Breen:
Because I have been working on a mental health court bill this year that is working its way through the Legislature, I know these federal funding agencies require a promise of reduction of sentence or some kind of sealing of the record before an agency may obtain funds. I do know that much.
Chairman Raggio:
We would like to have some specific information on that subject as a requirement for a grant or federal appropriation. Please see that is provided to committee staff.
Ms. Caskey:
I will get that information to you first thing tomorrow morning.
Chairman Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 519 and open the hearing on S.B. 391.
SENATE BILL 391: Revises provisions governing millennium scholarships. (BDR 34‑282)
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Senate District No. 5, Clark County:
Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me present this bill to you today.
The Governor instituted the Millennium Scholarship program in Nevada utilizing the Tobacco settlement money. However, the system does not allow a student that desires to go to another university in the country to receive any of the tobacco money.
There is a need for professionals in this state such as teachers, nurses, mental health professionals, and rural care physicians. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) program makes an attempt to solve some of these needs. There are a number of universities in the country to facilitate degrees in these disciplines. If we utilize a cooperative effort among the state, the students, and the parents to allow students to choose colleges of their choice, the state can actually save state money by not having to fund additional buildings and professors to accomplish this task. It would be very expensive to build a university for the express purpose of graduating students with a degree that is targeted as a need in this state.
We must allow some flexibility for scholarships to be given to students that desire to go to a university outside this state. The millennium scholarship program does not assist any student who does not go to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (UNLV) or the University of Nevada, Reno, (UNR). The tobacco money is not for the student that desires to go out of state, and that is not fair. We are a small state and our university system cannot be all things to all students. It is unfair to restrict these scholarships to students that have a 1600 Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) score and desire to go to Stanford University or Northwestern University to study medicine, only because they didn’t choose UNR or UNLV. This program will be called the GOALS program, short for the “Government Occupational Assistance Loan System.”
Parents have a desire to have their children follow in their footsteps. Some parents desire to have their students go to the same university they went to and this bill will allow that to happen.
Students that desire to go to Brigham Young University, University of Notre Dame, Georgetown University, San Diego State University, Stanford University, or Harvard University, do not get any assistance. Some of the brightest students that have SAT scores of 1450 to 1600 and that desire to go to these prestigious universities do not receive $1 of tobacco money. This money is reserved entirely for the Nevada university system. This tobacco money is not for the students; it is for the Nevada university system.
The Governor's staff has informed me they do not support this bill in its present form. Therefore, I will offer an amendment to use General Funds to accomplish this task, making this bill exempt.
The amendment would establish a pilot program to allow 10 slots in each of these disciplines, and others that would be determined by the WICHE program, and to provide up to $2,500 per year per student. This would allow students to go to the universities of their choice. The students in my district feel disenfranchised. I graduated from UNLV where I have a degree in economics. I am very proud of that university. My wife got her master’s degree from UNLV. She is proud of the university. However, there are other students that desire to take up different disciplines than what I undertook. The students would be required to return to this state after their education and serve in the discipline of their chosen profession.
As it stands right now, if your son or daughter decides to go to a university in another state, we have no help for you. However if your sons or daughters choose UNLV or UNR we will give them a full scholarship if they have a B average.
If this bill passes, we will open the door to higher education, solve some of the states needs, and provide an opportunity for some students to go to the universities of their choice.
Chairman Raggio:
Are the millennium scholarships for undergraduate schools, rather than professional schools?
Senator O’Donnell:
This bill would allow the WICHE system to administer this program.
Chairman Raggio:
The point is that the millennium scholarships are limited to universities or community colleges in this state. It does not have application to the professional schools.
Senator O’Donnell:
No, you do not need a professional school to get a teaching certificate or a degree in psychology.
Chairman Raggio:
You are suggesting this apply to students who are seeking to go to one of these professional schools. How would this apply?
Senator O’Donnell:
It would apply in the same manner that we give a millennium scholarship to a student graduating from a high school in Nevada and sending them to a four-year college within this state.
Chairman Raggio:
I thought you said this would apply to 10 slots each year for each of the WICHE disciplines.
Senator O’Donnell:
It would apply to the disciplines determined by WICHE as a state need in a four‑year undergraduate degree program. So, regarding a four-year undergraduate teaching program, this program money would allow 10 slots for 10 teachers to go out of state. Let me add this caveat. Currently, 3 percent of the students at UNLV and UNR are on scholarships from out of state. We give our money away to other students who will go to a four-year college, but we will not give any money away to our students to go to another state’s college.
Chairman Raggio:
You are saying this would require General Fund appropriation. What would the cost be?
Senator O’Donnell:
About $450,000.
Senator Rawson:
There is some confusion because of Senator O’Donnell’s earlier arguments regarding professional programs. However, Senator O’Donnell has qualified that this bill would be limited to the “at need” programs, such as nursing, teaching, and mental health.
Chairman Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 391. At this time we will open the hearing on S.B. 141.
SENATE BILL 141: Makes various changes concerning state fire marshal division of department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR 42-404)
Ronna Hubbard, Captain, Nevada Firefighters Association:
We do not understand S.B. 141. We are not sure what the State Fire Marshal Division was trying to do at this point, and it worries us.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Ghiggeri, was this bill requested by the former State Fire Marshal?
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. This bill was requested through the Department of Administration by a former State Fire Marshal. The Executive Budget does not reflect the funding recommendations included in this proposed legislation. So, the budget presented by the Governor is not consistent with this legislation.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Comeaux, can you enlighten us on this matter? Is this something we still need to look at?
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration:
I was not aware of this situation, but based on what Mr. Ghiggeri indicated, if the budget does not support this legislation and there is no one here from the State Fire Marshal’s office, I assume we do not need to look at it anymore.
Chairman Raggio:
Ms. Hubbard, what is your opinion?
Ms. Hubbard:
Our request was to take everything out of the bill and start from scratch. What we have been trying to do with fire service for the last 20 years is to review the State Fire Marshal’s office. We would like to put together a committee to study that office, have the fire service study it with the two boards that are appointed by the Governor and have the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety be responsible for supporting that study, administratively and financially.
Chairman Raggio:
Let me ask the position of the administration about that request. Ms. Hubbard is indicating the State Board of Fire Services and the Fire Service Standards and Training Committee should be mandated to study this issue. What do they want to study?
Ms. Hubbard:
Everything regarding the organization, including the financial situation in the State Fire Marshal Division, the responsibility of that office to respond to the fire service needs of the state, especially the rural counties, training, inspections, and hazardous materials.
Senator Rawson:
Some of these issues are flushed out in the Senate Committee on Human Resources. There has been a growing sense that we do not have the concerted and organized training that should be going on in the rural areas and that probably will not take place under the Health Division. There needs to be study and reorganization in this area. There is also a growing sense the State Fire Marshal probably does not need to be involved in plan checks in the larger counties, and yet that is necessary for the fees to support this office. So, there is a growing sense that it is time to look at this issue.
Chairman Raggio:
That being the case, the question is who should look at it?
Senator Rawson:
This could easily be turned into an interim study bill, which would give some relief to the rural agencies because they would know it would be looked at. There has been a mandate to the Health Division to look into these issues, but it has not been accomplished. The State Fire Marshal is in a difficult situation to recommend the cutting of his own agency. So, it is possible to have the budget director initiate it. Is this something that would fit within fundamental review? The issue is whether the agency is going to continue, or possibly the budget director will have an option.
Mr. Comeaux:
Mr. Chairman, fundamental review is going to continue, and yes this does look like an area that would fit into that.
Senator Rawson:
Ms. Hubbard, would you be satisfied if this matter were studied in fundamental review of base budgets?
Ms. Hubbard:
I would. I would like very much for the fire service to be involved in this review. We met here three or four weeks ago in this room and there were over 50 fire service representatives from all over the state. There was a great deal of criticism about this office. It is not about any person in this office, or any position. The issue is the needs are not being met and we are unable to get answers.
Senator Rawson:
The system is broken and it needs to be looked at. We can do that through an interim study if the budget director thinks that it is appropriate.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Comeaux, why don’t you get back to us on that issue and tell us what your position will be on this.
Senator Jacobsen:
This is a prudent way to go. Most of you will remember the State Fire Marshal Division has been the focus of restructure for many years. There are a number of areas the rural regions are concerned about. In the North, we have a lot of strong fire organizations and each county is strong in its own right. However, it must be tied together with unification and over the years we have floundered with this issue. The most important feature, for the rural regions, is training, especially training for the volunteers. They need to be pulled together because the need is there whenever there is any kind of a disaster. Then we all get together. So, we have to have similar training, policies, and procedures.
Chairman Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 141. As I indicated, Senator Porter asked us to hold S.B. 224 over to our next meeting. At this time we will open the hearing on S.B. 490.
SENATE BILL 490: Revises provisions governing school accountability and authorizes expenditures from state distributive school account. BDR 34‑1310)
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
Senate Bill 490 was initiated by a bill draft from the State Board of Education. It is a request to continue the support for remediation programs within the state. It also includes some revisions to close a loophole we believe exists for the schools designated as needing improvement.
Before I go on, I need to mention the Assembly Committee on Education heard Assembly Bill (A.B.) 221.
ASSEMBLY BILL 221: Authorizes expenditures from state distributive school account for certain remedial and tutoring programs. (BDR S-216)
Dr. Rheault:
Assembly Bill 221 was passed out of the committee yesterday. When that testimony was provided, I asked for some amendments in the event S.B. 490 did not get heard. The amendments that were requested and accepted include everything that is in S.B. 490. I have brought copies of my proposed amendments to A.B. 221 (Exhibit E).
Chairman Raggio:
What else is in A.B. 221?
Dr. Rheault:
Assembly Bill 221 includes funding. My amendment requests, in light of the projected shortfall in revenues, that the funding be amended to include just the revenues already included in the Governor’s recommended budget for remediation programs. That would exactly match the amount recommended in The Executive Budget of $7,075,629 in fiscal year (FY) 2002. These two bills are actually a duplication of one another. The only thing that was not in A.B. 221 was the request by the Department of Education to close a loophole in the designation process. That is in Section 1 of S.B. 490.
This is related to a situation in which a school that tested less than 90 percent of its students last year was designated as needing improvement. If a school tests less than 90 percent of the students, its test scores can be raised and we are prohibited from designating that school as a second year school needing improvement. So, the consequence for not testing 90 percent of the students is that the school writes a plan to make sure they test 90 percent of the students the following year. If they tested 90 percent three years in a row, then they would be designated again. However, we think it was used to an advantage by testing less than 90 percent. The provisions in S.B. 490 would clean that up. If the school is designated as a school needing improvement the previous year and tested less than 90 percent, we would put them on probation and require the academic panel to take a look at that school. But, it would only apply to schools that had previously been on the list of schools needing improvement. I submitted that in my amendments to A.B. 221, as well.
Chairman Raggio:
So, your suggestion is that we hold this bill?
Dr. Rheault:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. When A.B. 221 comes to the Senate Committee on Finance, we can discuss it in more detail at that time.
Chairman Raggio:
We did receive written testimony on S.B. 490 from Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative for the Washoe County School District (Exhibit F). It appears to be in support of this bill, although I do not believe they spoke to Section 1 and the loophole you discussed.
Dr. Rheault:
They may not have discussed that because they did not have any designated schools this year.
Chairman Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 490 with the understanding that this committee will determine whether S.B. 490 is necessary in the event A.B. 221 reaches this committee. Committee staff will monitor that situation. We will now open the hearing on S.B. 495.
SENATE BILL 495: Makes various changes to provisions governing achievement and proficiency examinations for administration in public and private schools. (BDR 34-1311)
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
Senate Bill 495 was another bill draft submitted on behalf of the State Board of Education. It accomplishes three things. It includes funding for the eighth grade national criterion-referenced test (CRT). It includes money for an alternative assessment for limited-English-proficient students and Senate Bill 459, which has already been heard by this committee, included both of those items.
SENATE BILL 459: Makes appropriation to Department of Education to update Nevada Report Card software and for development of new criterion‑referenced test for pupils in grade 8. (BDR S-1425)
Chairman Raggio:
So S.B. 495 is not necessary? We heard S.B. 459 on March 8, but we have not processed it yet.
Dr. Rheault:
The only difference between the two bills is Sections 2 and 3 of S.B. 495. Last year the private licensed schools within the state approached the State Board of Education for flexibility in hiring teachers at their schools. It was primarily at the secondary schools they wanted the ability to hire university professors that were having difficulty getting licensed, or private school administrators from other states. The State Board of Education granted them flexibility, similar to charter schools where 30 percent of their teachers could be unlicensed. As a trade off, the agreement with the State Board of Education said for accountability all licensed private school students would be tested. That was put forth by the old board and we now have six new members on the State Board of Education, so I do not know whether that remains a priority.
Just before coming here I pulled the private licensed school directory and this would affect only five schools in this state. It would then only have a minimal effect. Schools such as Bishop Gorman and the big Catholic schools are exempt or not licensed and still would not be required to fall under this category.
Chairman Raggio:
Can you furnish us a list of the schools that would be affected?
Dr. Rheault:
Yes, I have that list with me. Those schools are the Meadows, Trinity Christian, Faith Lutheran and two other small schools.
Chairman Raggio:
Would you provide us with a written list of those schools.
Dr. Rheault:
It would require students at these licensed private schools to take the test.
Chairman Raggio:
But that is not required by what you term as the nonlicensed schools?
Dr. Rheault:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The State Board of Education wanted to include all private licensed or unlicensed schools. However, we do not have authority, if a school is not licensed, to require that and that drastically reduces the number of students we would be testing.
Chairman Raggio:
Did you say that Bishop Gorman does not take the Nevada high school proficiency exam (HSPE)?
Dr. Rheault:
They are not required to take it, but they voluntarily have their students take the exam, particularly since the millennium scholarship came into being, because the test is a prerequisite. We have provided them copies, they attend the test training, and they have been paying us $10 for students that are included in our system. Many of these schools have asked that their students who want to go to school in Nevada be able to participate.
Manogue participates in our testing and has for many years, but they are not required to do so, and would not be under this bill. So, it is my opinion the request in this bill has been negated by the millennium scholarship, because we are testing many of these private school students. If this bill does not move forward, then we can rely on S.B. 459 to pick up the other two pieces.
Chairman Raggio:
We do have some written testimony on S.B. 495 (Exhibit F), again from Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative, Washoe County School District. She supports the language of Section 2, subsection 1, that would require licensed private schools to administer the HSPE. She states:
It is our view that this language will close one of the loopholes enjoyed by private school students who are now able to obtain a diploma without having demonstrated their academic capabilities by passing the high school proficiency examination.
Regarding Section 2, subsection 1(a) of S.B. 495, which stipulates that the HSPE must be administered, “at the same time as the high school proficiency examination is administered in each school district in this state,” Ms. Merrill states:
We have found that is it not possible for every school district to do this. It seems to us that what is important is language that would require the private school to administer the HSPE in the same window of time established by the Department of Education for public high schools.
Referring to Section 3, subsection 1(b) of S.B. 495, Ms. Merrill states, “This seems to indicate that a pupil cannot receive any other educational credential unless he/she passed the HSPE. That seems in conflict with existing statutory and Nevada Administrative Code language that provides for the issuance of the certificate of attendance.”
Ms. Merrill is wondering whether this would mean that private school students do not have access to that alternative. Would you like to comment on that Dr. Rheault?
Dr. Rheault:
I did not interpret that section in that manner. The diploma is issued by private schools either through a standard or non-standard test. To me that is saying, to get whatever diploma the private school is giving, a student must pass the high school proficiency examination. I might take a closer look at that.
Chairman Raggio:
Otherwise some students get a certificate of attendance, rather than a diploma?
Dr. Rheault:
That is correct, and that would be up to the private school since they do not fall under our regulations. They could issue one. I have had a couple of incidences where students have failed our high school proficiency examination but were accepted in private schools without the requirement of a test. I have only had a few of those incidences, but that is a loophole that may occur. If they are an unlicensed school, currently we cannot do anything about that and this bill would not change that.
Chairman Raggio:
What about Section 8 of S.B. 495 for $1.9 million, which focuses on the development or purchase of tests for students enrolled in eighth grade on the standards for English, mathematics, and science. Is that in The Executive Budget?
Dr. Rheault:
We had initially asked for $1.9 million and $1 million is in The Executive Budget. We have agreed due to the finances that, since A.B. 221 has $1 million, we did not have to amend that.
Chairman Raggio:
Now I am not sure what you are saying. This is the same as S.B. 459; that appropriation is not contained in that bill. So, where is this?
Dr. Rheault:
I am sorry. I am talking about two bills here.
Chairman Raggio:
I am talking about Section 8 of S.B. 495, which focuses on the development or purchase of tests for students enrolled in eighth grade on the standards in English, mathematics, and science.
Dr. Rheault:
Yes, that is in the Governor’s recommended budget. It is also in S.B. 459.
Chairman Raggio:
What about Section 8 of S.B. 495?
Dr. Rheault:
Section 8 is in the Governor’s recommended budget and is also in S.B. 459.
Chairman Raggio:
S.B. 459 is a total of $1.7 million. That is the CRT for eighth grade and the update of the Nevada report card. We need to make a note of that. Are you indicating that if we process S.B. 459, we do not need the provisions of S.B. 495, other than the reference to the private schools? Are you indicating that is probably not necessary?
Dr. Rheault
That is my personal indication.
Chairman Raggio:
Is there any specific language in S.B. 495, the proposed bill, that you believe will not be processed, that should be included in S.B. 459?
Dr. Rheault
In my review, you would not need to change anything.
Chairman Raggio:
Both of these bills come from the Department of Administration. Mr. Comeaux, would you please look at those two bills and see if that is agreeable? (Mr. Comeaux nodded agreement.) Thank you, Mr. Comeaux. We will close the hearing on S.B. 495.
Chairman Raggio adjourned the hearing at 5:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
ElizaBeth Root
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: