MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
April 25, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:25 p.m., on Wednesday, April 25, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance lllllllRoster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9
Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 214.
ASSEMBLY BILL 214: Establishes certain requirements pertaining to certain examinations administered in public schools and reporting of alleged irregularities concerning such examinations. (BDR 34-836)
H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
During the 1999-2000 interim period, the joint Legislative Committee on Education received several reports concerning test security problems. At its November 13, 2000, meeting the committee received an update by the (Nevada) Department of Education concerning state-level test security matters. These incidents included six reports of compromise in reference to the combined testing programs of the High School Proficiency Examination and TerraNova, and one complaint regarding the eighth grade writing test. Nevada’s school districts take the issue of test security very seriously since it deals with the honesty and integrity of staff members. Additionally, the purpose of the assessment program is to provide schools and students with a true picture of academic achievement and, ultimately, to improve the quality of learning. The only way to accomplish that goal is through reliable data. Not only might breaches of test security affect a school’s test results, but also individual students and parents believe the scores are a true representation of ability when, in fact, they may not be. A student that needs remediation may not receive help because his test scores did not indicate the need.
Assembly Bill 214 consists of three separate issues all relating to testing. The first portion of the bill requires the state and school districts to establish specific plans for testing irregularities, the second issue contained in the bill concerns the application of penalty clauses for late reports from test vendors, and the third major component provides for “whistle-blower” protection for personnel reporting testing irregularities.
Mr. Sturm:
On November 10, 1999, committee staff polled all 17 school districts with respect to test administration and test security policies and procedures that were in place within their districts. Such protocols could either be formal school board policies, or procedures set forth by district central administration. Eleven districts responded to the poll. Of those responding, four districts responded they had no policies or procedures in place regarding test administration or test security. These four include Esmeralda, Lander, Mineral, and Nye County school districts. Additional districts among those not responding to the poll may also lack such policies and procedures.
Sections 2, 4, and 7, of the bill require the Nevada Department of Education and school district boards of trustees to establish and enforce a plan containing test security procedures to be followed for all statewide and district-wide student achievement tests. Such plans must include procedures for reporting possible testing security and administration irregularities; procedures to ensure the security of test materials; and, for secondary schools, the method by which the school district verifies the identity of students taking statewide proficiency examinations. Under sections 2, 4, and 25, of the bill, copies of these plans and procedures shall be submitted to the State Board of Education and theLegislative Committee on Education annually. Further, A.B. 214 provides that school districts and the (Nevada) Department of Education may compel witnesses to provide information while investigating such matters. These provisions may be found in sections 3 and 5 of the bill. The measure also provides in sections 23 and 24 of the bill, that the willful neglect or failure to observe and carry out the requirements of a test security plan is grounds for disciplinary action for teachers and other licensed employees.
Mr. Sturm:
A second component of the bill, penalty clauses for late reports, arose from concerns expressed by principals and other staff from the Clark County School District about the long turnaround time between the date tests are sent to the vendor for scoring and the time individual student scores are received by the districts. It was argued that for high-stakes testing, time is of the essence in providing needed remedial assistance to students prior to the next test administration. Committee members noted that current contracts with test vendors typically contain penalty clauses for late deliveries, and the Nevada Department of Education should enforce these provisions.
Therefore, the committee included a recommendation in section 6 of A.B. 214 that requires the Nevada Department of Education to enforce any pertinent penalties and sanctions set forth in contracts for late delivery of test results to school districts by national test vendors administering statewide proficiency tests.
Mr. Sturm:
The third portion of the bill deals with “whistle-blower” protections. The members of the Committee heard testimony alleging significant school-wide incidents of test cheating and workplace pressures from school administrators to “teach the test.” Those persons testifying also argued many school employees, students, and others were reluctant to come forward with their allegations without some sort of statutory “whistle-blower” protections, such as those that apply to state employees. School districts and the Nevada Department of Education testified concerning difficulties in compelling potential witnesses to provide information about alleged incidents.
The committee agreed test security breaches are harmful to students, parents, schools, and to the integrity of the accountability system. Members agreed there should be clear protections for school district employees if these protections are balanced with disincentives for providing untruthful information. The committee agreed to use the key provisions of the state employee whistle-blower law and apply it to district employees making reports concerning test security breaches or testing irregularities.
Based on these concerns, the committee recommended A.B 214, sections 10 through 22, provide whistle-blower protections for school district employees for disclosing test security or testing irregularities patterned after those, which are currently provided to state employees. Such provisions include a declaration of public policy encouraging disclosures and protecting the rights of the employee (section 16); prohibiting district employees from influencing or interfering with the disclosure (section 17); providing for a hearing process to be conducted by the State Board of Education concerning appeals filed alleging reprisal or retaliation occurring within 2 years of a disclosure (section 18); prohibiting the use of the disclosure statutes to harass another employee (section 20); providing that disciplinary action against an employee for untruthful information about an alleged improper governmental action is not prohibited (also section 20); providing each employee, annually, with a summary of the disclosure law (section 21); and defining the effect upon criminal law (section 22).
Mr. Sturm:
At its January 9, 2001, meeting, the Legislative Committee on Education asked legislative staff to provide the Legislature with the following proposed amendments to A.B. 214. These were, in turn, adopted by the Assembly Committee on Education and are contained within the bill.
Require school districts and the department to establish policies and procedures delineating specific duties, responsibilities, and steps to be taken during the investigative process for a potential irregularity in testing administration and testing security; and identifying which administrator, department, or agency is responsible for a specific procedure in the process.
Require school districts to inform students and personnel involved in the testing process concerning the full spectrum of consequences to employees and students for irregularities in testing administration and testing security in a readable format, such as that used by the State of Wisconsin.
Mr. Sturm:
Require districts to pay the costs of retesting students in schools for which the Nevada Department of Education finds a consistent pattern of irregularities in testing security or testing administration. Such a provision should be similar to that required under current statutes, at schools that consistently test less than 90 percent of their eligible students.
Require the Nevada Department of Education to develop objective criteria to determine the conditions under which schools or districts must file corrective action plans for irregularities in testing security and testing administration. Further, upon notice by the department that such plans are required, specify that the districts must file the correction plans with the department. The (Nevada) Department of Education shall establish a reporting process to document the implementation and outcomes of corrective action plans for schools and districts in which such plans were required.
Require the (Nevada) Department of Education to establish a uniform system of documenting and monitoring the status of reports of irregularities in testing security and testing administration. Such a system could include: for example; a case (incident) numbering system for irregularities in testing security and testing administration; and a cover sheet form for each case that summarizes the incident, the investigation, the corrective actions to be taken, and follow-up showing that the corrective actions were completed. Such a system would enable staff to track key decisions to ensure certain steps were followed, and to allow for easier determination of the current status of a case. Records of investigations should be professionally prepared and maintained.
Mr. Sturm:
Require the Nevada Department of Education to review and approve a statewide test preparation program so all test preparation materials will be consistent among the districts, and to ensure the actual tests are not inadvertently incorporated into test preparation materials. In addition, the department shall establish a uniform policy regarding the amount of time spent on state proficiency test preparation.
The Nevada Department of Education shall establish a training program for test administration and test security for the statewide proficiency testing program. School districts shall ensure all school personnel involved in state testing receive the training annually and that training is available for teachers of non-tested grades and for other personnel.
Mr. Sturm:
Require the Nevada Department of Education to create an end‑of‑school‑year report indicating the number and type of irregularities in testing administration and testing security, by examination, as well as corrective actions taken. The report should also include the status of actions from incidents first reported in previous school years. The department shall submit the report to the State Board of Education and the Legislative Committee on Education by January 1 of each year.
Certain of the remaining findings might best be included within a letter of intent from the Assembly and Senate committees processing this measure. These additional findings for such a letter include the following:
Mr. Sturm:
Certain procedures listed as “recommended” for school sites on page 7 of the department’s 1999 publication, “Test Security Procedures for Nevada ProficiencyExaminations,”shouldbe made mandatory. Additionally, the Department of Education should review the entire publication and consider “requiring” districts to take certain actions versus making suggestions or recommendations. Since reporting of irregularities to the department is often late, the department should also clarify reporting requirements and time lines and provide the information to district staff.
The (Nevada) Department of Education should establish a mechanism for soliciting suggestions from school personnel responsible for testing in order to improve the test administration process, for example, district personnel in the past have suggested color‑coding of test booklets with associated answer sheets.
The Nevada Department of Education should also take steps to ensure that any test shipments from the department are properly packaged and counted.
Mr. Sturm:
The last item for a potential letter of intent would be, The Nevada Department of Education shall, in consultation with the school districts, examine whether there are intermediate disciplinary actions for personnel concerning irregularities involving testing security. Currently, the two most common actions are, an admonition or letter of reprimand in the personnel file and suspension. An evaluation of intermediate actions should include a review of such actions taken by other states. Some intermediate actions, such as fines, may need legislative authority; for example, statutes from the State of Mississippi specifically provide for a fine of up to $1000 and up to 90 days in jail for persons violating test security provisions. The review may also consider creating specific criminal penalties for stealing tests, and should work with district attorneys’ offices to identify existing criminal penalties for test theft. The department shall report its recommendations to the State Board of Education and the Legislative Committee on Education prior to November 1, 2002.
This constitutes the major provisions of the bill. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have with regard to the measure.
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6:
Mr. Chairman, I know you and two members of the committee served on the Legislative Committee on Education, and heard testimony about testing and the possible breaching of test security. From those hearings, an information packet was put together which indicated we should move in the direction of this bill. This system is designed so most people understand how it works, and to assure the public that testing will be done in a secure manner and bring about the accountability we expect from Nevada schools.
Senator Mathews:
Have we been testing all of these years without security?
Assemblyman Williams:
There has been security in some cases. This will bring uniformity to it. Even in the investigations of alleged testing security breaches, once we got that information, it was somewhat surprising that a lot of the investigations followed no parameters to provide the type of guarantees required.
Senator Mathews:
Is there a fiscal note on this bill?
Assemblyman Williams:
I am not aware of it. Mr. Rheault is here to speak of the Department of Education fiscal note.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 214 and open the hearing on A.B. 660.
ASSEMBLY BILL 660: Prohibits boards of trustees of school districts from requiring certain licensed employees to submit fingerprints. BDR 34-1457)
Assemblwoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9:
Assembly Bill 660 was brought to you to clarify the current law. There has been an ongoing misunderstanding for about 12 years. This is to make it very clear in statute what I believe the districts already know, which is, the department of education is responsible for obtaining fingerprints for the purpose of hiring. Since 1987 teachers have been charged twice for their fingerprinting even though we were funding the central repository (the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History). In 1997, I was able to convince individuals this was inappropriate, as the repository had been funded. If the districts needed to get information from the repository all they needed to do was request it, but not charge twice. In addition, what is happening, and it appears to only be Clark County, is when people return from leave of absence, they are required to be fingerprinted once more. I have refused twice, once under protest. If the district desires a report from the repository, they can do that free of charge.
Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11:
Section 1, subsection 3, clearly outlines each applicant for employment, except a teacher, must submit a full set of fingerprints to the district, which means the district only has control of the fingerprinting of non-licensed personnel, and not teachers, administrators and school counselors. They are strictly responsible to the state Department of Education. We could have gone to court on this issue, but we decided this might be a better avenue to take. I believe it is a revenue source for Clark County.
Chairman Rawson:
Who receives the money?
Assemblyman Bache:
The school police. The cost is $20.
Chairman Rawson:
Would this bill stop the flow of information that might come from a criminal report?
Assemblyman Bache:
No, because they can take the existing prints of any employee and receive a report.
Chairman Rawson:
What happens to the fingerprints when they are taken?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We have been told they are destroyed after they have been taken.
Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
When this bill was in the Assembly education committee, Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District, provided testimony, and many of the issues discussed there have been brought out here. The school district has concerns with this bill because there are no assurances an employee who has been on a leave has not been arrested during the leave. We believe the fingerprints are one way to check for security. We feel, while there are inconveniences and expenses, the potential benefits to the school district outweighs the inconvenience to the teachers.
Chairman Rawson:
You do not have to take fingerprints on someone to check on their criminal history.
Ms. Tittle:
The problem is, if an employee goes out of state and an event occurs, then the check must be done through the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation).
Chairman Rawson:
Could that not be checked by name? What do you gain by having a fingerprint?
Ms. Tittle:
It seems the larger problem is if the repositories and the FBI are not retaining the file of fingerprints so regular checks could be done. A bigger issue is it should not just be a select group who are going on leave of absence, but probably for safety and security, every employee ought to have a random check against the fingerprints that are on file.
Chairman Rawson:
Again, can you not check that through their name or their social security number?
Ms. Tittle:
I am really not certain. I do not believe it is a financial issue; the fee just pays for expenses.
Chairman Rawson:
Some of the money goes to the FBI.
Senator Wiener:
Current law states each applicant must submit a full set of fingerprints as a condition of employment. The new language on page 2 says “if the employee is in good standing.” I am seeing this person is already on record with fingerprints, and do not understand why they have to continually provide more prints.
Senator Mathews:
Since you have the initial fingerprints, why not just keep a set there and check on it yourself.
Ms. Tittle:
Copies of the prints go to the FBI and the repository. It is my understand the FBI does not maintain that set of fingerprints, so if the fingerprints were submitted several years ago, and a person goes on a leave of absence, they would need to a new set of fingerprints.
Senator Mathews:
What if a person never goes on leave of absence? How do you check on them then?
Chairman Rawson:
The point is we are not verifying fingerprints. We do not care if they kept a copy of the prints. It is the criminal history we are interested in, and you can get that without fingerprints. I think we will look at the mechanism, but, it seems to me, you do not need fingerprints to check and see if a teacher has been in trouble. Just to clarify, you are expressing some concern about the bill because it stops you from doing something you have been doing. We will close the hearing on A.B. 660 and reopen the hearing on A.B. 214.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Service, Department of Education:
When this bill was first heard in the assembly, we fully supported it because we feel test security issues can be improved. However, since reading some of the amendments we do have some concerns. Page 6, section 5.1 of the bill stipulates if an irregularity is found at a school in one year, and then another in the succeeding school year, it would require the school to re-administer the test, which was found to have an irregularity during the second year. We believe this is overkill. For example, there was an irregularity in Washoe County in an elementary school, which involved one teacher in one class. As I read the bill there is no waiver or provision for extenuating circumstances and it would require the whole grade to retake the test. That would add expense and take away time from instruction.
In Clark County, a counselor helped write examinations for some English-as-a-second-language students. The way I read this, the whole class would be required to retake the writing test. My suggestion for this area is there be some consideration either by the department or the district as to whether the entire class would be required to be retested. Another inconsistency in the bill is there is no requirement to retake the examination if there is an irregularity during the first year. Currently we require districts to reissue the examination to the appropriate class if we have found irregularities. If this is to be punitive, at least allow some review as to whether the irregularity requires the whole class to retake it or not.
Page 8, section 5.5 states, the department is to establish a statewide program for use by schools in preparation for examinations, and a school cannot use any materials or information other than what the department prescribes. This seems very limited and would stop any creativity at the local level. I do not know how we would enforce that; if a teacher wants to provide additional materials I do not know how we would find out.
Chairman Rawson:
If you are just talking about the mechanics of how to take the test, I can understand why you would have a specific format they could follow.
Mr. Rheault:
We agree additional materials need to be provided, which are consistent statewide.
Chairman Rawson:
What the bill is trying to get at is we do not want people using actual test questions or anything else close to them.
Mr. Rheault
If that happened, then we would, hopefully, find an irregularity.
The last piece I have is on page 9, section 5.9, which would require us in our report to provide a comparison of the results of the pupils. What it is asking us to do is to make note of an irregularity in the first year, and retest the entire class the second year if there is an irregularity. For example, if a student were in third grade for the first irregularity, they would be in fourth grade when retested. The comparisons of the results could be between two different tests, like a criterion reference test (a test to determine whether or not a child meets certain criteria without reference to a norm group) administered to third grade students, and the TerraNova test administered to fourth grade students. Additionally, the comparison would not be of much use if we had them retest the TerraNova, which we give in October. By the time we settle the irregularity in 30 or 40 days, and the retest is scheduled, the students are further into instruction. The comparison would be equating one score in October to one in December, and under those circumstances, I am not sure how valuable that comparison summary would be.
Chairman Rawson:
What are they trying to get at with the comparison?
Mr. Rheault:
I think to compare whether there has been cheating, but I do not think this will determine that. If the results of the first examination were compared during the school year with the results of the reexamination, then, that would be valid. Which is not how I read the bill. I read it as the irregularity of the first school year compared to the second school year, and to me, this does not make sense.
The fiscal note was submitted before the amendments were prepared, but as I recall, it was primarily prepared to account for additional staffing, contract work, and training.
Chairman Rawson:
There is nothing in the budget presentation this year?
Mr. Rheault:
In the Governor’s budget there is an additional assessment consultant who would oversee the criterion referenced examination, which will help. There may be ways to interpret areas where they have us prescribe and regulate, but if monitoring requires on-site visits, then we need additional staff and support.
Senator Wiener:
There is a reference in the bill, which says the additional administration must occur in the same school year in which the second irregularity in the immediately succeeding school year occurred. Would there be circumstances where, because of timing of tests, that would not be possible?
Mr. Rheault:
One of the reasons we have a concern is the state board has passed regulations, which require school districts to use the criterion reference tests in the third and fifth grades to be given 1 week before or 1 week after the one hundred sixty-fifth day of school. Calculated for the normal 9-month school year, it is somewhere about the first week of May. It was done because there was a lot of strong testimony from districts to make sure we could test as late as possible, to ensure the students taking the tests could demonstrate everything they learned during that school year. If this stayed as required and the law required they be given the same test, and retake it during the same school year, I do not believe it would be possible.
Dottie Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
I appear today in two capacities on behalf of the Washoe County School District (WCSD): first, in my capacity as government affairs representative, and second, in my capacity as director of Student Testing and Assessment. We are appreciative of the work done by the Legislative Committee on Education during the interim, hearing testimony about various testing issues. We are also appreciative of the assistance from Legislative Counsel Bureau staff to school districts as reflected in the language of A.B. 214.
The district supports many of the provisions of the bill. For several years we have been out in front of other Nevada school districts by requiring all administrators, teachers, counselors, and other staff members to review and be responsible for the testing requirements contained in our WCSD publication, “A Primer for Testing: Policies and Professional Expectations 2000-200l” (Exhibit C). We update this document annually. All WCSD employees, having any role in test administration, are expected to behave in accordance with all of the assessment responsibilities detailed therein and to signal their acceptance by completion of the tear-away portion on page 8 of the document.
Assembly Bill 214, section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (c) contains language which adds to school district responsibilities the verification of the identity of pupils taking an examination. Although that requirement is not currently in use in all of our schools, we can see the need for this requirement and can certainly add it to what we are currently doing.
Ms. Merrill:
Likewise, sections 10 through 22 contain language which will effectively add the “state whistle-blower law” and section 17 will encourage school officials to disclose irregularities in testing administration and security. Although this language is not currently in our primer, we can certainly add it to what we are currently doing and urge all school staff to report irregularities without fear of retaliation.
Section 5 contains language, which will be extremely useful to school districts in pursuing incidents of alleged irregularities or breaches of test security. The single greatest problem we have encountered in WCSD in the investigation of past alleged breaches of test security has been getting those allegedly involved to answer questions during the course of the investigation. Those allegedly involved sometimes thwart the process of investigation by refusing to be interviewed. Having the authority to issue a subpoena and pursue legal remedies to compel a witness to testify will greatly assist us in the investigation of alleged violations of test administration requirements.
We agree with Mr. Rheault about the language in section 5.1. The real crux of our concerns appear on page 8, sections 5.5 and 5.7. The language states the department shall establish a statewide program for use by schools and school districts in their preparation for the examinations that are administered, and prescribe a maximum amount of time during the school year that may be used for the preparation of the examinations. One way we make use of test results in our district is, after the fourth grade TerraNova achievement tests are compiled, to work with each school with what is known as the “item statistic analysis,” and look to see where fourth-grade students are scoring the lowest. We then look at materials and isolate specific skills represented by those low scores and advise teachers to refocus instruction. This seems to me a kind of “post” use of the test, and I would not want to see it eliminated.
Chairman Rawson:
Presumably, this is one of the reasons you have tests. It is not just to know, it is be able to use it.
Ms. Merrill:
That is right. Another thing, at some of our schools we have children who are not as “test savvy” as other students. Bubbling (the skill of selecting and darkening the correct answer) an answer sheet, in October of the fourth grade, can be a challenge for some children. Are we going to say we should not provide our children with some experience in learning that most basic of skills so they can show us, as they are selecting an answer on a test, they have an understanding of that item and can answer correctly? Sometimes the preparation needs to be different from one school to another.
If we are doing our jobs and teaching the content standards, we are appropriately preparing students over the long haul to take examinations, so we strongly oppose language stating the department shall prescribe a maximum amount of time during the school year which may be used for the preparation of the examinations. We certainly agree there is a problem with language on page 8, line 34, which states, “Such a school or school district shall not use materials or information in addition to those prescribed by the department. In our district we have some copyrighted item banks for mathematics and English language arts, which we cannot share with others, but we certainly can pick out items, which are aligned to the standards and provide those or replications to teachers for remediation purposes. We would not want to loose the opportunity to do that.
Our last point is language stating all of the teachers who provide instruction to pupils enrolled in a grade level required to be tested receive, on an annual basis, the education and training established by the department. We already are beyond that, and we do not want to loose the opportunity to have a higher standard than the department might wish. We also want to include some of the things we consider important, which might not be what the department would provide. Just as a district can exceed the standards for content, we would like to be able to have permissive language, which would allow us to exceed the standards for test security.
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
The district did take part in the interim committee meetings, and has been extensively reviewed by our testing director (Dr. Judy Costa, Director of Testing and Evaluative Services, Clark County School District). I am here to offer our support for this bill.
Senator Wiener:
Is that support for the bill prior to the suggestions for change, or would it include the amendments we have heard today?
Mr. Kablub:
Both, actually. Dr. Costa offered supporting testimony for the bill prior to the amendments, and subsequently she has indicated her support. That is not to say I do not fully respect the comments made by Mr. Rheault and Ms. Merrill. I think they have presented some legitimate concerns.
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association:
Douglas County was one of the first to step up to this whole issue of testing. They do achievement-level testing, and part of the entire structured program is to do the item analysis, which is built into the program so you can see where your weaknesses are. So I would totally agree with Ms. Merrill’s comments.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 214, and adjourn the meeting at 3:24 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: