MINUTES OF THE

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities

Seventy-First Session

February 19, 2001

The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, February 19, 2001, in Room 2135 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 Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst

Wm. Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor

Paul V. Townsend, CPA, CIA, Audit Supervisor

S. Douglas Peterson, Information Systems Audit Supervisor

Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

Keith Primus, Political Action Chairman, Reno Police Protective Association

Deke DiMarzo, President, Washoe School Police Association

Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association

Philip J. Gervasi, Lobbyist, Police Officers’ Association (Clark County School District)

Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Elliott C. Phelps, Lobbyist, Chief of Police, Clark County School District

Stan Olson, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police

Steve Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District

Tamara Evans, Chief of Police, Washoe County School District

Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 103.

SENATE BILL 103: Revises provisions governing authority of school police officers. (BDR 34-908)

Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4, requested the committee to indefinitely postpone S.B. 103.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 103, and introduced five bill draft requests (BDRs).

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 38-227: Requires department of human resources to establish program for provision of medical assistance to certain working persons with disabilities who are ineligible for Medicaid. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 207.)

SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 38-227.

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TOWNSEND AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 38-265: Requires department of human resources to establish certain programs for respite services. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 206.)

SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 38-265.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-383: Authorizes consideration of certain criminal proceedings and sealed records for purpose of licensing, employment or discipline of school personnel. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 205.)

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 34-383.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-470: Revises definition of “manufacture” of substance. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 204.)

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-470.

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-738: Makes various changes to provisions concerning public dental health. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 208.)

SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-738.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman Rawson reopened the hearing on S.B. 103, and called for a motion from the committee.

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SENATE BILL 103.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on S.B. 86.

SENATE BILL 86: Extends area of jurisdiction of school police officers. (BDR 34-823)

Senator Mathews testified the Washoe County School Police requested S.B. 86. The bill is in keeping with national school safety initiatives to help protect children while they are off school grounds.

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, explained the purpose of S.B. 86 is to expand the jurisdiction of school police officers to premises adjacent to, or within a specified radius of a school campus. The bill would restrict jurisdiction to a perimeter within 1000 feet of the grounds of each public school in the school district. He said an amendment has been discussed to include areas more than 1000 feet away, where students are known to gather. Currently officers are restricted to the campus, unless a specific memorandum of understanding exists with other law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Dreher stated this legislation would prevent communication problems between local law enforcement and local school police, and it would utilize the school police officers on the scene at the time an incident occurs. The bill is needed because most schools have open campuses and students frequent businesses in the area.

Mr. Dreher explained if a situation occurs that needs immediate police attention, current law prohibits a response from the school police unless a memorandum of understanding exists with local law enforcement. When local law enforcement officers respond they often arrive after the fact. If the situation is ongoing, a large crowd may have assembled and the officers have a difficult time determining the source of the problem. School officers often know students by name and can determine a problem rapidly. Mr. Dreher pointed out S.B. 103 would provide a proactive rather than a reactive response to problems, and many local businesses and law enforcement officers are in favor of this bill.

Senator Townsend asked Mr. Dreher if a “sphere of influence,” an area within which the interests of one locale are held to be more or less dominant, could be utilized. Senator Townsend suggested perhaps local law enforcement could be granted authority to negotiate a memorandum of understanding including a sphere of influence that would provide flexibility to all parties, including businesses located near schools.

Chairman Rawson requested clarification on whether it is desirable to pursue the idea of separate police departments having to develop these jurisdictional understandings. He asked if a community police department could work out problems including funding and resources.

Mr. Dreher said police departments working together would be the ideal solution. In the interim, S.B. 86 is one way to resolve problems. The point of the bill is to utilize current officers, and provide expansion. He agreed with Senator Townsend’s comments that the sphere of influence should incorporate businesses. He pointed out that a memorandum of understanding could be unilaterally changed if one agency dislikes what another agency is doing.

Chairman Rawson stated he would appreciate some input from Mr. Dreher and his associates about what prevents all entities from working together.

Mr. Dreher responded the two biggest problems are money, and the general public, who like the small-town concept of policing. In a large environment, fewer people at the bottom receive immediate service, whereas in smaller entities citizens have closer contact to elected officials.

Chairman Rawson commented that he would request staff to provide a picture on what Nevada is spending on school policing.

Keith Primus, Political Action Chairman, Reno Police Protective Association, testified that he works with the gang unit of the City of Reno Police Department. The department is grateful the school police are able to respond quickly and handle situations that might worsen. School police often are able to recognize gang members more readily than police department officers.

Senator Washington asked how school police currently handle a dangerous situation. Mr. Primus answered the school police call the police department for help and the police department tries to respond within a certain amount of time. School police are not armed, and must rely on their training in a dangerous situation.

Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Primus if resources were available to have a member or members of the gang unit at every high school would that help the efforts of the unit. Mr. Primus said presently there is one officer who is supposed to be available to diffuse any situation.

Chairman Rawson clarified his question by asking if the school police were Reno Police Officers, and the schools were their beat, if that would help the gang unit. Mr. Primus stated such a plan would help the gang unit. Mr. Dreher added the right to carry a gun is not prohibited by law; it is a policy of the school board.

Senator Washington suggested a memorandum of understanding between the various police agencies to work in a cohesive manner and address response time in addition to other issues.

Deke DiMarzo, President, Washoe School Police Association, explained currently there is a legal opinion issued by the Washoe County School District General Counsel, that national school safety initiatives should be recognized as a memorandum of understanding to promote and coordinate efforts among all law enforcement agencies to reduce juvenile crime and to maximize public safety. He said the Washoe County School District Police would make every effort to notify all other law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction as to any infractions that are occurring in jointly controlled areas.

Mr. Dreher added there is a question whether the district attorney in Washoe County would honor the memorandum if school officers made an arrest. A memorandum of understanding that is agreed to by all parties, and cannot be unilaterally changed would be ideal.

Senator Washington said the district attorney and others involved need to be consulted on these issues, in order to develop agreeable language. Chairman Rawson commented the hearing today is an opportunity to clarify a number of issues.

Mr. DiMarzo added when incidents occur near schools, there is an expectation from citizens and business owners who are not familiar with the limitations the school police work under, for the school police to respond. Mr. DiMarzo provided written testimony to the committee (Exhibit C).

Chairman Rawson called for testimony in opposition to S.B. 86.

Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, indicated the association is not opposed to the concept of S.B. 86 but it is opposed to the 1000-foot limitation. There should not be an arbitrary restriction.

Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Anderson if the area were expanded, would the school officers then have any traffic enforcement responsibilities. Mr. Anderson said law enforcement officers have a duty to enforce any type of violation.

Philip J. Gervasi, Lobbyist, Police Officers’ Association, Clark County School District, stated he supported the position of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, and added limiting jurisdiction would be harmful to the public.

Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified it might be helpful for the committee to consider a geographical approach to look at these issues on a statewide basis, through a study.

Elliott C. Phelps, Lobbyist, Chief of Police, Clark County School District, stated he supports the concept of S.B. 86, but has problems with the limitations. Many issues including funding, school policing, and relationships with local agencies arise on a fairly routine basis. An interim study to determine where Nevada stands currently, and where the state wants to be in the future concerning school policing would be beneficial.

Stan Olson, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, affirmed his support of an interim study as suggested by Chief Phelps.

Chairman Rawson opined the more entities involved, the more potential for confusion, even with a memorandum of understanding. He asked Chief Phelps if he would like the study to include the feasibility of having the community police department handle situations, with special considerations.

Chief Phelps replied in the affirmative, and stated he would support such a concept.

Chairman Rawson stated it would be 2 years before decisions will be made if a study is conducted. He asked if, in the meantime, existing laws limit the school police from going into the community. Also, Chairman Rawson stated that he wanted to know if it is bad policy to establish a legislative intent that while the issue is being worked out jurisdiction extends beyond the school grounds.

Chief Phelps said from his prospective he would sustain such a concept. It appears in statutes that the superintendent, principals, and teachers have concurrent peace officer powers, and have a responsibility to resolve disciplinary or criminal issues. Chief Phelps continued the current statutes do not appear to limit to jurisdiction.

Mr. Olson interjected, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department would be concerned unless it was specifically outlined in what issues and what crimes the school district police would be involved.

Chairman Rawson said mentioning a specific distance is a problem.

Ms. McKinney-James said if a subcommittee were established to discuss how to deal with these concerns during the interim, something could be decided before the end of the current legislative session.

Chairman Rawson said there would not be a vote today on S.B. 86. The issue is one that needs careful assessment. He requested Senator Mathews and Senator Wiener to meet as a subcommittee and come to a workable solution. Chairman Rawson stated the committee is interested in a long-term solution, and does not wish to revisit the issue every session.

Steve Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, introduced Tamara Evans, Chief of Police, Washoe County School District. Ms. Evans stated the testimony given today covered all of her concerns. She suggested the sphere-of-influence concept could address subject as opposed to geographical boundaries.

Mr. Dreher urged a subcommittee review of the issue to “put it to bed once and for all.”

Chairman Rawson commented that his suggestion for a study is in order to resolve the issue, and said he would never suggest a study simply to divert an issue.

Wm. Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented the committee with copies of a report titled “Audit Report, Nevada School Districts, Analysis of Instructional Costs and Materials Available to Students, 2000” (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.).

Paul V. Townsend, CPA, CIA, Audit Supervisor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, read from pages 6 through 11 of the report, describing the background of Nevada’s 17 school districts, and the responsibilities of the State Board of Education, school district expenditures, student enrollment, and the scope of the audit.

Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Townsend if the report distinguishes the grade level of the findings.

Mr. Townsend replied the audit looked at 35 elementary schools, 5 high schools and 5 middle schools. He pointed out page 12 of the report explaining findings and recommendations, and stated local school districts control actual expenditures. Mr. Townsend explained instructional supplies defined on page 14 of the audit include paper and pencils, football helmets, athletic uniforms, band uniforms and decorations for graduation ceremonies.

Senator Mathews asked if instructional supplies included all athletic uniforms. Mr. Townsend said the cost of athletic uniforms is probably supplemented.

In answer to a query by Chairman Rawson, Mr. Townsend said current accounting policies make it easy to separate the costs within this category.

Senator Mathews commented that parents within her district have complained because they had to buy soccer uniforms. Chairman Rawson said this is governed by local priorities.

S. Douglas Peterson, Information Systems Audit Supervisor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, discussed textbook use and availability as reported on pages 19, 20 and 21 of the audit (Exhibit D). Many classes do not use textbooks, but do use a variety of other materials such as science kits, photocopies and other handouts.

Senator Wiener asked Mr. Peterson if the use of other materials is because textbooks are not available, or a choice by the instructors. Mr. Peterson responded that the reasons for the use of other materials is mixed. Some teachers prefer using other materials, while the shortage of textbooks is also a cause.

Senator Wiener said she wanted to know the percentage of those using other materials because of shortages.

Mr. Peterson explained he was not able to give an adequate answer. Page 22 of the report states that 5 percent of all classes in the sample experienced textbook shortages. When only those classes using textbooks are included, 8 percent had shortages. Chairman Rawson interjected that complaints expressed by parents indicate textbook shortages account for more than the 5 percent figure.

Mr. Crews told Chairman Rawson that the report more accurately reflects the true shortage of textbooks on page 25. The 5 percent figure does not include book sets, in which textbooks are available to students only while in class and are generally not to be taken home.

Senator Mathews asked if teachers are paying for the duplicated materials mentioned in the audit, and if they are copying the textbooks.

Mr. Peterson answered that the schools paid for science kits and photocopies. Many times teachers are copying things out of textbooks, and when books are not available photocopies of materials are provided to take home. Class time is used for students to access the classroom book sets.

Senator Mathews said photocopies of current pages would prohibit students from reading ahead. Chairman Rawson added students could not review previous chapters. He asked if the cost of duplication may not be more expensive than providing the textbooks. Mr. Peterson responded yes, although, he stated, the audit did not specifically address that point.

Senator Wiener opined that with the average life cycle of a textbook being 7 years, there could be a huge amount of copies over the years. Mr. Peterson pointed out that every page is not copied, only the important points.

Chairman Rawson said ideally there would be adequate textbooks in every classroom, and copy machines to be used for supplemental materials.

Mr. Peterson pointed out page 21 of the report (Exhibit D), which describes book sets. For example, one instructor teaching four periods of algebra to 25 students each period may have 30 textbooks available in the classroom. He said book sets are not available to take home without special arrangements.

Chairman Rawson said the methodology of letting every student use a textbook in the classroom can be defined as a shortage. Senator Mathews asked Mr. Peterson if the auditors spoke directly to students on this issue.

Mr. Peterson replied the auditors did not have the opportunity to speak to students, but they did interview many teachers and principals. Answering a query by Senator Mathews, Mr. Peterson added through classroom observations and conversations with teachers, auditors noted the use of book sets required classroom time to be used for homework, and teachers giving open book tests.

Chairman Rawson said the problem is larger than the audit suggests. For example, in a 2-hour block of class time, a student could spend 1 hour for homework. Since the student is receiving half of the instruction he or she would be getting otherwise, the implication is serious. Chairman Rawson noted the audit is more disturbing the further it continues. Page 19 of the audit indicates textbooks cost from $4 to $25 each, and he questioned whether textbooks could actually be purchased for $25.

Mr. Townsend answered page 19 refers to consumable textbooks, which are replaced yearly. The average cost of a textbook has not been isolated; however, it would be far greater than $25.

Chairman Rawson asked if an up-front deposit for textbooks is utilized. Mr. Peterson said several schools use this plan, but it is difficult in many cases to collect a deposit, due to the inability to pay by some families.

Senator Mathews stated the problem seems to be if a student cannot take a book home, for example algebra, and is only receiving half of the instruction time necessary, the chance of failing math tests is higher for these students.

Senator Washington asked Mr. Peterson if any discrepancy was noted in the geographic locations and type of students in the 45 public schools assessed throughout Nevada.

Mr. Peterson answered the sample was truly a random one, and there was no tracking done by geographic location. Appendix G of the report illustrates basic instruction materials broken out by secondary schools included in the sample, and readers can draw their own conclusions.

Mr. Peterson reviewed pages 21 and 22 of the audit (Exhibit D), which notes classrooms most often using book sets included health, language arts, and science. The school districts of Churchill, Clark and Douglas Counties are the only districts that have developed a policy for making textbooks available to students. He said there is a wide variety of the use of basic instruction materials throughout Nevada’s classrooms.

In answer to Senator Washington, Mr. Peterson explained textbook selection begins at the local level. Local school committees created for the specific purpose of reviewing textbooks, turn their recommendations over to the Department of Education. The recommendations then go to the State Board of Education for approval.

Senator Washington asked how two school districts in the report were able to purchase textbooks that were not approved by the State Board of Education. Mr. Peterson answered that one district indicated the vendor had represented that the State Board of Education approved the textbooks, and the other district obtained its local board of trustees’ approval of the books, but state approval had not been obtained. The audit recommends better monitoring by the Department of Education.

Chairman Rawson asked if the Department of Education has accepted the recommendations in the audit. Mr. Crews answered that when the report was issued, the Department of Education rejected all of the recommendations. Subsequently, there has been a change of administration, and a letter received from Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, indicates the rejections are being amended. There are still some qualifications put forth by the new superintendent because of the lack of funds.

Mr. Peterson reported the audit addresses the lack of procedures for approval of materials other than textbooks, and the textbook adoption list issued by the department is incomplete.

Senator Washington asked who is responsible for checking the accuracy of the textbooks. Mr. Peterson said the Department of Education would respond to that question.

Chairman Rawson asked if there is an incentive program for teachers to point out errors in textbooks. Senator Mathews reported the textbook companies often have paid readers for accuracy of information and grammar.

Mr. Peterson reported teachers request parents for money or supplies to supplement materials available at schools in some instances. The average value of supplies requested of parents was $18 for a school year.

Mr. Peterson directed the committee’s attention to the methodology used in the audit, as reported on pages 37 thru 58 (Exhibit D).

Senator Wiener commented, of the 1351 surveys returned by teachers as outlined on page 39, the report states 610 additional validations were required. Senator Wiener asked what additional information was requested. Mr. Townsend replied that if some of the responses appeared illogical, staff reviewed them with the teacher.

Chairman Rawson said if resources are not available for the Department of Education to fulfill the recommendations, the department may consider coming to the Legislature to request what it might take to comply.

Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, referred to Exhibit E, a letter to Mr. Crews to amend the response of the department. Mr. McLaughlin said proposed funding reflected in the Governor’s budget would enable the department to review the recommendations. Mr. McLaughlin stated Nevada should consider some form of compliance review. Although local control is important in the state, there exists a vulnerability to lawsuits citing the lack of textbooks as a reason for failing. He pointed out each district could be given directions for a self-study, and a compliance team could visit the districts to validate the study. This would give the state a better feel for the way the districts are using their funds.

Chairman Rawson asked Mr. McLaughlin if he is willing to submit a proposal for a compliance review. Mr. McLaughlin said he would be happy to do so.

Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cynthia Cook,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE: