MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
March 9, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 11:00 a.m., on Friday, March 9, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah D. Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
David Perlman, Administrator, Commission on Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional Research and Evaluative Service, Department of Education
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Chairman Rawson:
There are some special people who wish to testify for Senate Bill (S.B.) 236. Since they were unable to be here, we will reschedule the bill.
SENATE BILL 236: Requires certain entities that employ children in entertainment industry to pay for tutoring. (BDR 34-1035)
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on S.B. 237.
SENATE BILL 237: Removes commission on postsecondary education from department of education. (BDR 34-1145)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3:
I ask for your support for Senate Bill (S.B.) 237, which seeks to remove the Commission on Postsecondary Education from the Department of Education.
From 1992 to 1996, I served as a commissioner and vice chairman of the commission, which is the sole authority for licensing private postsecondary educational institutions and those who operate them.
The commission was created in 1975 as the regulatory overseer of the private postsecondary educational industry. It has provided consumer protection to more that 250,000 Nevadans who have attended or are attending schools licensed by the commission. The protections include: resolution of student complaints, providing academic records from closed schools, relocating students to operating facilities when a school closes, and more.
Legislative changes in 1993 moved the commission to the newly formed Department of Business and Industry. In 1995, the Legislature moved it to the Department of Education.
Operating costs have increased without additional benefits or services to the public. Because of their strong commitment to the goals of the commission and the needs of the public, the Commission on Postsecondary Education is asking for support of S.B. 237, which returns it to the self-standing independent commission that successfully served Nevadans for the first 18 years of operation.
I brought this bill at the request of the administrator of the Commission on Postsecondary Education.
David Perlman, Administrator, Commission on Postsecondary Education, Department of Education:
There is not too much I can add about this bill. I have heard the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), might have a problem with it. I would remind the committee the commission oversees private institutions only, and has nothing to do with public secondary education. The bill is a cost-saving measure, a means to establish more sensible lines of supervision, and restore fiduciary control. When the commission was moved to the Department of Education, the results have been less than expected. Indirect costs have increased, the lines of supervision have been blurred and fiduciary responsibilities have been impeded. Senate Bill 237 separates the commission from the Department of Education. Indirect costs would be eliminated, saving about $40,000 a year. The commission is responsible for developing and implementing its budget, which includes an annual contract with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The process is often delayed or made more confusing when important information is routed through the Department of Education.
Senator Wiener:
Can you explain what prompted the commission to be under the Department of Business and Industry, when it was independent for so long?
Mr. Perlman:
I have distributed a report titled “The Nevada Commission on Postsecondary Education’s Position Paper on Structural Changes to Commission Governance” (Exhibit C). On page 10 you will see a summary of legislative testimony in 1993. I believe there was just some miscommunication back then.
Chairman Rawson:
How long have you been with the agency?
Mr. Perlman:
Since 1990.
Chairman Rawson:
We have not always had the capable leadership you have presented, and there have been some financial concerns. I believe it is a different entity today than in the past.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Service, Department of Education:
Mr. Perlman brought this idea to us earlier, and we think it makes sense. Most of you know if we receive federal funding, we have to deduct administrative costs. The department would still have ties with the commission, since there is a requirement a state board member remains on the commission. We are here to support S.B. 237.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 237, and I would ask what is the pleasure of the committee on this bill.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE S.B. 237 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the work session on S.B. 191.
SENATE BILL 191: Makes various changes regarding possession, care, custody and disposition of and liability for certain newborn infants. (BDR 38-736)
Chairman Rawson:
The work session document here (Exhibit D) is presented clearly by staff. The amendments proposed are shown in green. Page 4 of the document has an amendment that was proposed by the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association. It requires the parent of the child be provided with the information that by allowing the provider to take possession of the child, the parent is presumed to have abandoned the child. Also, no notice will be provided to the parent of the mandatory hearing, which will take place in 72 hours. Unless the parent contacts child protective services, action will be taken to terminate parental rights.
Senator Wiener:
Is this the way this was intended? Is this the actual language that will be used?
Marsheilah D. Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst:
The language that is presented here is what was given to staff from the organizations. As you all look at it, it will give you the intent.
Senator Townsend:
Line 11 of the document states, by allowing “this provider to take possession of your child.” What if it is not your child and you are dropping it off for someone else? Does that mean the parent is not abandoning that child? There will not be a presumption they are abandoning their child?
Chairman Rawson:
That is a good question, and it probably needs to be spelled out more clearly by staff. We will note that to the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Senator Townsend:
I believe all parents are presumed to have abandoned their child, and the language could be, “by allowing this provider to take possession of this child.”
Chairman Rawson:
By the same token, if a child were abducted and dropped off, the parent would not be presumed to having abandoned the child. This does not change the law in that regard.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
If the officer, or the fireman, or the health care facility does not happen to have the information available does it create future legal issues?
Chairman Rawson:
Let us make sure the law is clear that when a child is dropped off under these circumstances that the presumption of abandonment exists, and where possible a person’s rights should be given to them or explained to them. But failure to do so does not invalidate any of the actions that have taken place. Let us clarify it so it is not an issue, because you are correct and I do not want a challenge because there was not the right number of words said.
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO S.B. 191 PROPOSED BY THE NEVADA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson:
The firefighters association proposed the second amendment. It states when the provider of emergency services is not a medical facility and is the recipient of a delivered child, the provider shall cause the child to be delivered immediately to a care facility.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO S.B. 191 PROPOSED BY THE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson:
Washoe County proposed the third amendment. It states a parent who delivers a child to a provider of emergency services waives the right to notice of the 72-hour hearing unless an address is provided.
Senator Wiener:
Was it also Washoe County who wanted “person” changed to “parent”?
Chairman Rawson:
Yes, they are.
Senator Washington:
The presumption is the child is abandoned?
Chairman Rawson:
There is a presumption the child is abandoned, and that the parents waive any requirement for a hearing notice if they do not leave their address.
On page 11, Washoe County has inserted “parent has failed to enter an appearance” meaning if the parents fail to be there, it completes the presumption of abandonment. We have asked legal on this definition of parent versus person because of concern expressed by St. Mary’s Hospital. Our counsel bureau is firm we ought to keep it all in one sense, and so they put it all in the form of parent. The liability for the hospital then is just a matter of caring for the baby to a standard of care, and that liability was already in place.
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO S.B. 191 PROPOSED BY WASHOE COUNTY.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson:
Washoe County added to the new section on page 15 of the work session document (Exhibit D), if the child was delivered to a provider of emergency services, and the parent was provided notice through publication and fails to enter an appearance, any further notice is not required. Additionally, if a parent voluntarily delivers a child to a provider of emergency services, the parent is presumed to have abandoned the child.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO S.B. 191 PROPOSED BY WASHOE COUNTY.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Ms. Lusk:
The amendment suggested by Washoe County on page seven of the work session document (Exhibit D) states if the child is delivered to a provider of emergency services and the location of the parent is unknown, notice of the 72-hour hearing is waived. Would the law be served better if it said if the parent has not provided an address? There is the possibility that a child could be delivered to an emergency-service provider who knows who that parent is. Location is therefore known, but notification is not desired.
Chairman Rawson:
The basic premise of this law is if a person wants to leave a child and not leave their name, they will have the right to do that. I do not think there is anything that prevents a last chance.
Ms. Lusk:
My feeling is if they deliver the child to someone, and they wanted notice, they would leave their address. If they did not give their address I think it should be presumed to be abandonment.
Senator Washington:
If we gave legal intent and had the language redrafted, it could indicate instead of being unknown, there is not a known address, or the parent did not leave an address.
Chairman Rawson:
Rather than putting the cognitive known or unknown in there, it is whether the address is left or not.
We had one other proposed amendment. A person (parent) who delivers a child to a provider of emergency services in accordance with S.B. 191 must deliver the child to a person employed at the site or call 911 to inform the provider of emergency services that a child has been delivered. In the event a person (parent) does not inform the provider of the delivery, their actions would constitute abuse or neglect. This raises the issue of a baby being left at a place where there are no personnel. This says you must deliver a baby to a person, not just leave it on a doorstep.
Senator Townsend:
Many people are going to be so traumatized by having to drop the child off, they may not want to see a person. They may want to walk into an emergency facility and place the baby down and just leave. If we put in a requirement there must be a person there, I do not know whether that will change their feeling. The goal is to save the child.
Chairman Rawson:
Is there any comment or discussion about the idea of being able to call 911 to have someone pick up a baby? There is not anything in the law to preclude that from happening.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 191.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Rawson:
The meeting is adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: