MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
April 9, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, April 9, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4412, Las Vegas, 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 Terry John Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
R. René Yeckley, Committee Counsel
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Jane A. Nichols, Chancellor, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada
Thomas Ray, General Counsel, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada
Richard Bjur, Assistant General Counsel, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada
James T. Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance
Michael E. Johnson, Member, Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence
Annie Rees, Member, Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Philip J. Gervasi, Lobbyist, Police Officers’ Association
Tamara Evans, Chief of Police, Washoe County School District
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
David Schefcik, Student
Elliott C. Phelps, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Brittni Ratigan, Student
Myeisha Slocum, Student
Denise Brodsky, School Board Trustee, Clark County School Board
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Steve Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Craig Butz, Odyssey Charter School
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Vee Wilson, Odyssey Charter School
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Kimberly Regan, Principal, Sierra Nevada Academy
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Sheila Moulton, School Board Trustee, Clark County School District
Carlos Garcia, Superintendent of Schools, Clark County School District
Theresa Malone, State Board of Education
Thomas B. Ciesynski, Chief Accountant, Washoe County School District
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Chairman Rawson:
We will begin the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 543.
SENATE BILL 543: Makes various changes concerning contracts that faculty members and employees of University and Community College System of Nevada may enter into or benefit from. (BDR 34-1172)
Dr. Jane A. Nichols, Chancellor, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada:
We bring to you today S.B. 543, a bill that has been approved by the Board of Regents. It is designed to enable us to continue the emphasis on getting our university system to support economic development in the state of Nevada. As you know, it is critical we attract the best researchers with the best minds who can translate their studies into potential products and inventions that may in some way, in the future, come back to benefit Nevada and the university system. We are trying to model ourselves after universities where the faculty has been the driving force behind the economic development in areas around those campuses in that state. We discovered a statutory change that needs to be made to assist the institutions within the system to commercialize intellectual properties that are developed by our faculty and our employees. Currently, our faculty and employees are able to consult and contract with outside companies as private individuals, but without this change, they cannot do so within the framework of the system. These proposed changes will encourage faculty to disclose their inventions to the appropriate institution, establish ownership within the system, and make it possible for faculty to participate with ongoing research. It places universities and community colleges in a better position to assist in the state economic efforts. Policies are in place that relate to the faculty’s and employees’ abilities to engage in a contract, particularly as it involves a product of their own intellectual work. We believe those policies are adequate, and the flexibility that would be given to us would enable us to better position ourselves to encourage our faculty to let the university benefit from their inventions.
Chairman Rawson:
Has the faculty been involved in the development of this policy?
Ms. Nichols:
This came to us because of situations that arose in which the faculty found themselves unable to take the work they are doing and let the university benefit. Yes, they are aware and supportive
Chairman Rawson:
I would like to disclose that I am an employee of the university system, and currently on leave of absence.
Thomas Ray, General Counsel, Systems Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada:
We are requesting a fine-tuning or amendment to an exemption that currently exists in the ethics policy. Currently, if I as an employee of the state had a separate business, these ethics laws would prohibit me from having my company enter into a contract with a state entity. That law recognizes there may be circumstances where it may be desirable to have certain contractual relationships with the state, provided the employee did not participate in the bid selection process. We are asking to amend the limitations by rewriting exemptions to allow a three-way partnership between faculty, the university, and a private corporation, along with an agreement to divide any profits if the idea is subsequently marketed.
Richard Bjur, Assistant General Counsel, Systems Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada:
The exemption we are requesting does not change any of the current limitations. When the public interest is best served, the president of that institution can allow an activity to take place that would otherwise not have been allowed. It is a fairly high standard and we would like to bring technologies back to the campus that faculty may have been developing elsewhere.
Chairman Rawson:
Are there any proposed changes?
Ms. Nichols:
On page 2, line 6, we would like the insertion of “or employee” after “faculty member.” This is consistent with page 2, line 45, and page 3, line 33.
James T. Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance:
The alliance is supportive of S.B. 543.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 543, and I ask the committee if they wish to take action on this.
Senator Washington:
The bill allows contracting with governmental agencies or private entities, so they are not actually competing with private contractors.
Chairman Rawson:
I do not see it as competition.
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 543.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on S.B. 289.
SENATE BILL 289: Makes various changes concerning responses to certain crises involving violence on school property, at school activities or on school buses. (BDR 34-200)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark county Senatorial District No. 3:
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record, I am Senator Valerie Wiener, representing Clark County District 3. Today I appear before you, as the chairperson of the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence, to urge your support for Senate Bill 289. This bill establishes procedures for promptly responding to incidents of school violence so that we may reduce the risk of further injury or harm caused by such incidents. This bill is one of the three bills the commission was authorized to propose. On April 20, 1999, the nation was shocked by the tragedy that occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. So many disturbing aspects of that tragedy caused us all great concern. We were shocked by the nature of the violence, the young age of the perpetrators, the weaponry used, the extent of the planning involved, the number of deaths that resulted and, certainly, the realization that such a terrible tragedy can occur at any school in any community. It is this wake-up call that forced many of us to ask the sobering question: “Are our schools and communities ready to respond to such a situation if it occurs?” The Nevada Legislature also asked this question and wanted to ensure that the answer was “yes” for each school in each community in our state. Thus, during the 1999 Legislative Session, we passed Assembly Bill (A.B.) 686 of the Seventieth Session, which created the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence.
ASSEMBLY BILL 686 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Creates Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence. (BDR S-1733)
The bill required the commission to develop a statewide emergency response plan for incidents of school violence. Specifically, A.B. 686 of the Seventieth Session required the commission to develop a plan that included: a description of the action that will be taken in response to an incident of school violence that warrants emergency action, including, without limitation, a designation of the persons and state agencies that are primarily responsible for each action; a method for determining the amount of money necessary to respond appropriately to an incident of school violence; a mechanism for approving requests for money and a limit on the amount of money, which may be granted; a strategy for state officers and employees to coordinate with the appropriate city, county and federal authorities; the type and duration of support services for pupils, teachers, parents and communities; the type and duration of support for law enforcement agencies; and other factors the commission determines necessary to respond to an incident of school violence that warrants emergency action.
Senator Wiener:
As you can see, we were charged with a daunting task. I am proud to say the commission fulfilled its duty and developed a statewide crisis response plan for incidents of school violence for our state. I think it is important to understand the process the commission utilized to develop this response plan, which, in essence, establishes statewide guidelines for emergency responses to violence. Before we drafted these guidelines, the commission heard extensive testimony on the issues and considerations of how best to develop such a statewide plan. We listened to many stakeholders: educators, administrators, youths, parents, social service agencies, law enforcement, school police, emergency responders, state agencies and others.
Many witnesses testified about the importance of maintaining local control over developing the details of the plan. They asserted the people at the local levels had a better understanding than anyone else what can work for their schools and communities. Further, crisis response experts testified that the type of response provided in the initial stages of a crisis, as early as the first 2 minutes, can make an enormous difference in reducing the amount of further injury or harm that might be suffered as a result of the crisis.
In addition to considering such testimony, the commission also gathered information to assess the current status of crisis response plans for schools in Nevada. The commission learned that not all of the schools in our state have a crisis response plan. Some schools had not updated their plans for many years, and many of the people expected to implement the plan were not aware of their roles and responsibilities. While this information was unsettling, it also confirmed what the Legislature suspected: The work of the commission would address an important need in our communities.
After considering this testimony, doing research, and pondering the response plans of certain other states, the commission began the process of drafting the crisis response plan (a master blueprint for schools in Nevada). We initially struggled with the definition of “violence” because it is difficult to define with any precision. However, the commission did reach a consensus that the term encompasses “acts that cause injury to persons or property and are committed with the intent to cause harm, with the awareness that harm may be caused, or with a reckless disregard for harm that is likely to occur.” Based on this definition, we did not include such incidents as natural disasters because these do not involve any awareness of harm by a particular actor.
Senator Wiener:
The commission also struggled with the definition of the term “crisis” used in the bill. We agreed the bill should address not only incidents of violence, such as the Columbine (High School) tragedy, but also other incidents of violence that require a prompt response. For example, one or multiple suicides committed at school would require immediate response from law enforcement and social service agencies.
Once we defined the basic terms, we understood we needed to consult and collaborate with representatives of certain state agencies that would help implement the plan. Therefore, during the drafting process, the commission also worked closely with Jim Walker, Division of Emergency Management, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and Michael Fitzgerald, Health and Safety, Department of Education.
The outcome of the commission’s hard work is the crisis response plan set forth in Senate Bill 289. Throughout the bill you will see the key principles that guided the commission in developing the plan. Let me explain three primary principles. The bill must define the term “crisis” so the scope of the response plans encompasses a myriad of scenarios involving school violence; the bill must provide the stakeholders at the local levels with a fair amount of discretion so each school district may have a crisis response plan that is tailored to meet its particular needs and circumstances, and the bill must provide a certain degree of oversight by state agencies and assistance from state agencies, to ensure each school is properly prepared, and supported during a crisis involving school violence.
First, the bill requires the board of trustees of each school district to establish a development committee to create a crisis response plan for the schools in its district. The governing body of each charter school and each private school is also required to establish a development committee to create a crisis response plan for its school. The development committees must review their plans at least once each year. Each school is required to establish a school committee to review the plan developed by the development committee. If necessary, the school committee may apply to the development committee for a deviation from the district plan at least once a year. This allows flexibility in developing a plan that meets the distinctive needs of each school. For example, a school with children who have special disabilities may need to deviate from the plan. Or, certain schools may have sophisticated equipment, such as an extensive intercom system or cellular phones, that may be used in responding to a crisis, while other schools may not have such resources.
Senator Wiener:
Senate Bill 289 also requires the board of trustees of each school district and the governing body of each charter school and private school to provide their employees with annual training on how to respond to crises that involve school violence. Further, the bill authorizes the board of trustees of each school district and the governing body of each charter school to accept gifts, grants or contributions from any public or private source to help pay for such training.
Each plan crafted by the development committee must be provided to certain entities including: the appropriate law enforcement agencies, the State Board of Education, and the Division of Emergency Management, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. In addition, each deviation is available, upon request, to certain social service agencies and employees of the schools.
Because of the sensitive nature of the information included in the response plans, the bill allows the development committees and school committees to meet in private to develop and review the plans. Further, the bill limits the persons and agencies that may have access to the plans.
Senate Bill 289 provides procedures for contacting the local agencies that should respond to a crisis involving school violence and for obtaining the assistance, under certain circumstances, from the Division of Emergency Management.
In addition to local crisis response plans, the bill requires the State Board of Education to develop a statewide crisis response plan to address incidents of school violence. In developing the state plan, the board shall consider the district plans. It will also coordinate the resources of local, state, and federal agencies, officers and employees. This includes provisions for funding response training and school violence crisis assistance through the disaster relief fund, which includes the Nevada Emergency Assistance Account.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have learned from the Columbine tragedy, and more recent incidents in California, that school violence can happen at any school in any community. We also know how we respond during the initial stages of incidents involving school violence is a critical factor in reducing the risk of further injury and loss caused by such a crisis.
Certainly, we all hope we will never need to use any of these crises response plans in our schools. However, we also know we would be irresponsible and reckless if we were to deny that we might one day need to respond to such a crisis. This denial could tragically impede our chances of reducing injury and harm to our children in the event of such a crisis. This is a risk we cannot afford to take. Therefore, as chairperson of the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence, I urge your support for S.B. 289.
Michael Johnson, Member, Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence:
What is included in the bill was put together in a painstaking manner, and we took testimony from a variety of resources. Many factors were taken into account, and we urge the committee to support the bill.
Annie Rees, Member, Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence:
As a member of the commission and a parent, I urge passage of S.B. 289.
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA):
The commission was very sensitive to the issue of local control. A plan must be adopted at the district level, and handed down to the schools. The NSEA is in favor of S.B. 289.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department:
We are in support of the bill as written. It covers many areas that have not been previously addressed.
Chairman Rawson:
Are there any problems concerning jurisdiction? Would the local police department be given the opportunity to respond first?
Mr. Olsen:
Yes sir, it would.
Chairman Rawson:
If there were no plan in place, it would involve the Division of Emergency Management. Is this appropriate?
Mr. Olsen:
Yes, and hopefully all agencies will work together in developing plans.
Philip J. Gervasi, Lobbyist, Police Officers’ Association (CCSD):
There is a problem in the bill. Nowhere is it mentioned that the school police are a part of this. In Clark County there are over 230 schools, which would involve 230 plans. There is no consistency here, and we oppose the bill because no mention of school police is included.
Chairman Rawson:
If you had a shooting today, what jurisdiction would come into play?
Mr. Gervasi:
We are the first to respond, and we set up the crime scene. If it were serious, we would call in the local jurisdiction that has forensic capabilities. We have done so in the past, via an interlocal agreement, and it has been successful.
Tamara Evans, Chief of Police, Washoe County School District:
We have several concerns about S.B. 289. We agree with Mr. Gervasi, and wonder why school police are not mentioned in the bill. If we currently have a plan, why should we have one at each school, rather than a countywide plan for all schools? Where would the money for the costs associated with the bill come from?
Chairman Rawson:
There is no fiscal note, although for Douglas County it shows a cost of $7100. Senator Wiener, do you have any comment on that?
Senator Wiener:
We addressed the cost of an emergency response, and it is difficult to determine. We did build in access to state funds through disaster relief.
Chairman Rawson:
Are you saying there is no cost to setting up the committees?
Senator Wiener:
Not that I am aware of.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officer Research Association of Nevada:
If the reference to local law enforcement in S.B. 289 means the school police, then we support the bill. If it does not, we are not in support.
David Schefcik, Student:
I am an active student participant at my high school, and have growing concerns about substance abuse and violence. Concerned students are troubled, but do not want to address the issue, or accept that a crisis can happen in their schools. Students do not believe it can happen to them. A plan must be in place, and we must be as prepared as possible to protect the youth and staff in a school. Each school needs a customized plan to unique requirements. I am in support of S.B. 289.
Elliott C. Phelps, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
We applaud the concept of this bill; however, we believe there are tremendous costs involved. We would be required to go through exercises, one school at a time, to assure the plan is workable in a district where there are 25,000 employees, and 230 schools.
Brittni Ratigan, Student:
Although there is not an obsession with school violence, there is definitely concern among students. I support the bill, and feel it would give students a sense of safety, which is needed.
Myeisha Slocum, Student:
There is paranoia in the schools, and students do feel safer when there is a plan in place to address violence.
Mr. Johnson:
I feel compelled to comment on testimony objecting to the bill. If the term “school police” was omitted, it was not intentional. The bill is to include all law enforcement officials. The commission took into consideration the idea of one plan for an entire school district. It was determined each school needed to be able to take responsibility for its own school site, and have some ownership in the plan to be pursued.
Chairman Rawson:
The fact is, the agency in jurisdiction will work its plan when it comes right down to it.
Mr. Johnson:
Correct, and in most cases it is the school police who arrive first.
Senator Mathews:
Can the term, “school police,” be put into the bill?
Chairman Rawson:
We will certainly talk about that.
Denise Brodsky, School Board Trustee, Clark County School District:
While we agree with the concept of the bill, there are two main issues of concern. We are facing financial concerns and we would like to be particularly conscious of what the cost could be. We have close to 250 schools, and with the composition of the committees as outlined in the bill, we are looking at four or five paid employees, and almost $500,000 for implementation. For consistency, we need to have a countywide plan rather than a school-by-school plan. Our teachers need to spend their training time on issues and subjects concerning education.
Ms. Rees:
Section 9 of the bill allows each principal of a public school to appoint any person whom the principal deems appropriate, and is there where the school police could be appointed.
Chairman Rawson:
Section 9 does say each school has to have membership that consists of a member of a board of trustees of the school district. There is a cost to it, and if we ignore it, the bill will be classified as an unfunded mandate.
Senator Washington:
If a district does develop a plan, where does the liability fall?
Chairman Rawson:
Liability is an interesting issue. We have a state limitation. I did not see anything in the bill that punishes any group if they do not develop a plan. The principle of liability is when you give someone responsibility and they do not perform. The real issue here would be whether or not it is done maliciously. In which case the state liability might be broken. Was there discussion about establishing a state plan and then allowing, rather than mandating, the local district or school to modify or adapt that plan?
Senator Wiener:
It actually is not done in that order. The state is to develop a plan and will look at all the development committees’ plans and take them into account. The order is not state, then county, and then local. It is district, with any deviation that may be necessary, then the state plan.
Chairman Rawson:
Is there additional discussion on S.B. 289?
Senator Wiener:
In section 9, regarding the board of trustees, the school committees are not mandatory; they are just something we came up with if the principal so chose to do so. The options are without limitation.
Chairman Rawson:
Section 9 reads, “The principal of each public school, including without limitation, each charter school, shall establish a school committee to review the plan developed for the school pursuant to section 7 of this act. The membership of a school committee must consist . . .” so there is no discretion there.
We will close the hearing on S.B. 289 and open the hearing on S.B. 399.
SENATE BILL 399: Revises provisions governing education. (BDR 34-859)
Senator Terry John Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7:
The statute to create charter schools was enacted in 1997. I have read there are seven charter schools in the state. Most are located in the north, with a total enrollment in excess of 800 pupils. We have different kinds of charter schools, for instance, the Odyssey School instructs primarily on the Internet. The Department of Education reported charter schools have a lower level of test scores compared to statewide average performances. This bill is intended to be a status check. The Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) asked for this bill to come forward, and it is not intended to put any charter school out of business.
Chairman Rawson:
Do you have an amendment you are proposing?
Senator Care:
I have not seen it. I know the Clark County School District and others have had discussions with NSEA.
Chairman Rawson:
Are there any particular charter schools you are interested in trying to close down?
Senator Care:
Not at all. We want to see all of the schools flourish.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA):
Charter schools were authorized in 1997. Last year we had five charter schools in operation with an enrollment of 843 students. Expenditures are approximately $4.6 million a year. Tech World School was the first charter school to fold. This year we have seven in operation, and ten more proposed to open for the upcoming school year. The point of this bill is to review the charter school movement. Originally, the intent of the law was to allow a framework for experimentation, and a mechanism by which charter schools would be measured and analyzed; a procedure by which positive results achieved in the schools would be replicated in public schools, and negative results identified and eliminated. It would also encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods, and create new professional opportunities for teachers and other educational personnel. Three years later we really have not had a comprehensive review to see if we have met the original goals. Two of the schools have been rated as needing improvement for the current year; another two have low student achievement in two out of four subject areas.
Section 1 of S.B. 399 is designed to address the efficient use of taxpayer money. We believe section 2 is important; it describes those who participate in the governing committees of charter schools must be residents of our state, and further defines what was meant originally by “teacher.” We thought the charter school movement would allow Nevada teachers to have the opportunity to work in a new environment, to experiment and to be innovative. What we have seen happen in our state seems to be circumventing the original intent of that law. We see substitute teachers being on the organizing committees, and that simply was not the intent. There should only be currently employed teachers in our state to serving on these committees.
Chairman Rawson:
Why not simply establish the same criteria for charter schools as you have for any other public school?
Mr. Bellister:
The difference is, if charter schools are going to be experimental, and we go back to the original purpose of charter school legislation, then we are willing to create an exception that currently employed teachers could serve on their own governing bodies of their own schools. That exception would be different than for the regular public schools.
Chairman Rawson:
The bill states a “teacher” means a person who has been employed for at least 3 years immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted. If an individual who had not worked the preceding 3 years were qualified, they could be hired by any school district. Why make an exception for charter schoolteachers?
Mr. Bellister:
They can certainly go to work for the charter schools. These proposals are addressing their service on the organizing committees and the governing of the charter school.
Senator Washington:
On that same issue, if teachers are going to serve on the governing board of the charter school, would that not make it a conflict of interest for them to vote on their own raises or benefit packages?
Chairman Rawson:
It raises the same issue to me. Why treat them any different in the charter school than any other public school?
Mr. Bellister:
One of our stated goals was to create new professional opportunities for teachers and other educational personnel. One of those opportunities was allowing the employees to serve on the governing committees of their own schools. Charter school legislation is not designed to provide services to distance education programs or children who are exempt from compulsory attendance. The issue is addressed on page 5 of S.B. 399. On page 9 we are revisiting the collective bargaining arrangement. We have had an unintended consequence with the law. The existing collective bargaining stays in effect for charter schools, but, unfortunately, we have had some situations where the employees of a charter school have assumed, by virtue of the fact they are covered by the collective bargaining agreement that they have become members of the recognized bargaining units. Thus, we are required to provide them services. We are saying that is not the case, and it was never intended to be the case. That could allow those folks access to the grievance machinery in the contract, and that was not our intent. Employees also assume they have transfer rights in the collective bargaining agreement, which is not the case. This section will clarify the relationship.
Page 10 clarifies reassignment rights are only for those employees on leave of absence from their school. We have had concerns about the governing bodies of the charter schools meeting irregularly with little continuity between the organizing committees and the governing bodies. We know of schools where there has been little oversight or enforcement of laws. We feel it is time to step back and impose the caps we looked at when we first passed this legislation in 1997.
Page 19 of S.B. 399 includes our proposed definition of what constitutes distance education. There has not been a lot of research showing that distance education works for K-12 (Kindergarten through twelfth grade), so we are concerned about proposals to open up distance education anytime, anywhere, to anyone. Rather we propose distance education be limited to pupils who: are participating in a program for pupils who: are enrolled in a public school that does not offer advanced courses; are participating in a program of independent study; have a physical or mental condition that would otherwise require an excuse from compulsory attendance; would otherwise be excused from compulsory attendance; are otherwise prohibited from attending public school.
Senator Mathews:
You are saying partial distance education, not full, and only for those persons who are having problems in school. What would be the difference between K-12 in a validated distance education course and homeschooling?
Mr. Bellister:
We are proposing an exception that it would not provide service at state expense. After all the state is paying for these services.
Senator Washington:
I understand, during the interim, distance education was studied, and there is an assembly bill addressing the subject. Would it be possible for the committee to look at the bill and review the provisions in it?
Chairman Rawson:
We will need to get on it as quickly as possible since we have to move these bills this week.
Mr. Bellister:
We testified on a senate bill that opened up distance education opportunities to anyone, anywhere. We had many reservations, and one of the examples we used is the White Pine County School District program called the Nevada Virtual High School. We reviewed the records of students who received diplomas, and what was happening was alarming. For example, in senior English, student records demonstrated that a student could take multiple pretests, which lasted 2 to 3 minutes, and then proceed through the curriculum within 1¼ hours. That is one of the concerns we have about unrestricted distance education and why we think it is appropriate to take a look at it. The funding recommendation is six-tenths of the basic support guarantee for distance education, because the programs are less expensive to run.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional Research, and evaluative Services, Department of Education:
The department has testified, from our standpoint, we like the limitations set in section 18. The definition of a teacher, along with the requirement members of the governing board be residents of Nevada are also to our liking.
Senator Wiener:
Would there be a limit on advanced courses?
Mr. Rheault:
I think there is a distinction between an independent study course and a distance education course. An independent study course has a written contract and a few different things than a distance education course, so it is hard to separate the two. We will probably have to develop regulations defining the differences between independent study, distance education and correspondence courses.
Senator Washington:
Section 18 defines who can take distance education, and it excludes home-schoolers. Would the department have a problem including home-schoolers in this provision?
Mr. Rheault:
I would have to look at that. There are already statutes allowing home-schoolers to take courses in a school district, and if it is allowed under those statutes, I do not see much difference.
Senator Washington:
As we deal with urban and rural areas, perhaps some home-schoolers, because of distance, would need some of these courses. Do we include them or exclude them?
Mr. Rheault:
My thinking is if a district were to offer distance education, I would think the home-schooler could probably sign up for the distance education portion.
Senator Washington:
Under section 18 of the bill, it actually excludes home-schoolers. I am wondering how we are going to work out that issue.
Mr. Rheault:
I have not had any discussion with the superintendent on that.
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
I would ask for consideration of four points. On page 6, lines 7 through 26, I request no new language be added. The position of the district is existing provisions are applicable to every student. A second suggestion is an amendment stating, for accountability purposes, the distance education program assumes responsibility for all data required as it relates to these students. We also recommend that teachers should be licensed in the area in which they provide instruction. Finally, with respect to eligibility to participate in distance education, in cases where no funding has been apportioned, it might be appropriate to allow those students to participate in a distance education program on a fee basis. I would point out the paperwork is complex and will require significant clerical and administrative oversight at the state, district, and school levels.
Steve Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
We also have concerns about the teachers sitting on the governing board. As far as the collective bargaining section, we would like to see that clarified by the addition of the word “district” following the word “applicable.” on page 10, line 3. We think section 21 might contain a loophole that would allow a pupil dual enrollment, that is, in the local school district where they reside and in a distance education program.
Senator Washington:
If a student in the distance education program resides in one district and receives instruction in another, how would the funding mechanism work?
Mr. Williams:
I believe this bill attempts to define that. I am referring to a student claiming full-time enrollment in both the local school district and a distance education program.
Craig Butz, Odyssey Charter School:
I spoke with Mr. Bellister about S.B. 399. There are some costs we incur out of our funding the public schools do not incur. We must pay lease costs for our buildings, whereas public schools are built with bond money. We provide travel allowances, American Automobile Association membership, and cellular telephones to our teachers so they may go to their assigned students home. We must purchase Internet programs, furnishings for our resource centers, and have independent audits. We would not be able to operate with funding of six-tenths of the basic support guarantee. We see ourselves as a charter school, not a homeschool, and the recommendation for funding at six-tenths seems to be directed at closing down Odyssey Charter School.
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators:
The association supports this legislation, and we would like to sit down with those who wish to consider amendments.
Vee Wilson, Odyssey Charter School:
We think section 18 restricts the enrollment in distance education. There may be a student who is credit-deficient, who would not be allowed to enroll under this section. If the intent of the charter school law was to create innovative teaching methods, then Internet teaching follows that intent. If enrollment is restricted, that cannot happen. The measure should be that which best meets the needs of the individual student.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
Senate Bill 399 gives us many concerns, and we believe it creates roadblocks to charter schools. Section 2 increases the number of individuals to form a charter school from three to seven, three of whom must be teachers who are currently employed by a school district in Nevada and have been employed for at least 3 years preceding the date of the application. The requirement for teachers is too limiting, and would omit consideration of retired teachers. We also question the prohibition on substitute teachers. There are some highly competent teachers who choose to be substitutes, and there is no reason for an absolute prohibition. Section 3 states the initial membership of the governing body must consist of all the members who formed the charter school, for at least 1 year. This is so prescriptive, if a member moved the governing body could not get a replacement.
Senator Washington:
I have worked with a number of charter schools, on that issue. I tend to agree the makeup of the board changes very quickly.
Ms. Lusk:
Additionally, after the initial membership of the governing board, the bill states each teacher who serves on the governing body must be employed to provide instruction at the charter school. It may be appropriate for some to teach at the charter school, but, in some cases, it might well be better to have a broader view on the governing board than to have each and every teacher be employed as a teacher at the charter school.
Limiting distance education to specific risk categories restricts the potential value of the technology we are developing, and it seems unwise to be this restrictive. The law in place, which prohibits school bodies from hiring relatives, has been extended to the governing body of a charter school. This does not apply to school districts when the teacher is not related to more than one member of the governing body and gets a unanimous vote for that appointment. That exception has not been extended to charter schools. Once again, there are more restrictions imposed on charter schools than public schools.
If a status check is needed for charter schools, they need to be compared to public schools and not judged in a vacuum. Some charter schools will not do as well as others, just as some public schools do not do as well as others. We urge you to consider very carefully to determine whether if there are any pieces of S.B. 399 that might be of value and to avoid passing legislation that sweeps out the good that has been accomplished with charter schools.
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association:
The Clark County School District has requested a requirement that distance education learning require certified teachers only. Many distance learning education courses are done on a national basis, and it is unlikely the instructors are certified in Nevada. I think there should be some caveats to allow credit for nationally recognized programs.
Kimberly Regan, Principal, Sierra Nevada Academy:
If S.B. 399 is intended to be a status check for charter schools, there are many other ways to accomplish this. I have extreme concern for charter schools regarding the governing structure. If three teachers employed by the district are required on the original application, and they must be on board for 1 year and employed by the charter school, this would mean we must recruit solely from the district. This requirement would create a major conflict of interest for charter schools. As currently written, the bill would result in some charter schools shutting down, and would not foster the growth of new charter schools.
Chairman Rawson:
I will close the hearing on S.B. 399 and open the hearing on S.B. 291.
SENATE BILL 291: Makes various changes concerning reporting and investigation of certain violent or sexual offenses committed on school property, on school buses or at school activities. (BDR 34-199)
Senator Wiener:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the record, I am Senator Valerie Wiener, representing Clark County District 3. Today I appear before you, as the chairperson of the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence, to urge your support for S.B. 291.
This bill is the second of three bills requested by the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence. Senate Bill 291 makes various changes concerning the reporting of certain violent or sexual offenses committed on school property, on school buses, or at school activities. The commission recognized the need for this bill after persuasive testimony from local law enforcement officials. They testified that certain schools were not reporting these crimes promptly to the appropriate local law enforcement agencies that have expertise in investigating such crimes. They asserted the lack of prompt reporting could hinder the investigation of the crimes. Such delays can also jeopardize the chances of apprehending the perpetrators, preventing them from repeating their crimes.
Section 6 of S.B. 291 requires a school police officer who knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, a violent or sexual offense has been committed on school property, on school buses, or at school activities to: report the offense to the appropriate local law enforcement agency and school administrator, and seek assistance from the appropriate law enforcement agency in the investigation of the offense. If a school does not have a school police officer, then a designated school administrator is required to report the offense to the appropriate local law enforcement agency. This reporting requirement applies equally to private schools.
Senate Bill 291 requires such reports include certain information and provides immunity from civil and criminal liability for persons who report such offenses in good faith.
Finally, S.B. 291 provides the procedures for handling such a report if the victim of the offense is a child and the offense constitutes child abuse, or if the victim is a person who is 60 years of age or older, and the offense constitutes elder abuse.
While research underscores schools continue to be one of the safest locations for our children, crises involving school violence do occur. Because they occur, it is imperative to implement effective measures to respond to such crises and reduce the risk of further injury or harm. We, as lawmakers, must take steps to reassure our children, their families, and the citizens of our state that we value our children’s safety at school and are serious about protecting it. Therefore, as chairperson of the Legislative Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence, I urge your support for this bill.
Ms. Rees:
I urge the support of the committee on S.B. 291.
Senator Wiener:
An extensive number of crimes would be involved and they are defined in section 4 of the bill.
Mr. Olsen:
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association support this bill, and worked with the commission to prepare it.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
We too support this legislation, and we also worked with the committee during the interim.
Mr. Gervasi:
As written, the Police Officers’ Association, Clark County School District, is opposed to S.B. 291. We have had an interlocal agreement with Boulder City, Henderson, Mesquite and North Las Vegas for years. Our response time on these calls is immediate, and we also make house calls. We make sure the child is out of the danger zone. The district attorney’s office has reported there were no instances where cases were lost because the school police mishandled them. We do not know where the funds will come from for this bill, and there will be a duplication of efforts if this bill passes. When there was a bomb threat at Silverado High School, we requested assistance from the METRO (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department). We had to go to the FBI because METRO did not have time for us. We know our limitations, but we are there to respond immediately.
Mr. Dreher:
We request your opposition to S.B. 291. I believe the school police have the professional peace officer capabilities to handle the crimes committed within their jurisdiction. I also believe they recognize their limitations and would request assistance from other agencies when the need arose.
This bill would require school police officers to seek assistance from the local law enforcement agency in the investigation of violent crimes or sexual offense. We question why this is needed. Interlocal agreements already exist with most law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
Senate Bill 291 would separate jurisdiction and investigation of crimes. We, as a profession, educate ourselves through training and mistakes. The violence at Columbine and San Diego is a constant reminder of what the future holds for law enforcement if we do not utilize all existing skills and knowledge and if we do not act as a team to prevent and resolve crime. The bill purports to have no fiscal impact on local government. We submit there would be a significant cost to the jurisdictions that would now have to handle and investigate all of the offenses listed under section 4 of the bill. This is unnecessary legislation, and on behalf of PORAN, we respectfully request that you do not pass this legislation.
Ms. Evans:
We are opposed to S.B. 291 because it is a duplication of services and a waste of valuable limited resources. Our school police department enjoys positive working relationships with other agencies in Washoe County. This bill would create a delayed police response for schools that request police assistance. Students and staff would be forced to wait while trained school police officers stand by. The municipal police do not have sufficient resources to commit officers to the school campuses.
Mr. Phelps:
It is obvious there are issues with school police. This is a situation to which I do not have an answer. We do not have the time to work through these issues during this legislative session. Assembly legislation proposes to remove the reporting of assaults and batteries from school police and transfer it to the local municipal police agency. I am not sure these various bills that are attempting to rewrite the status of a school police officer is the right way to address the these problems.
Mr. Olsen:
In 1999, Mr. Gervasi testified about how school police are not allowed to operate as police officers, and their dealings interfered with by school administrators. Part of that was to develop a law that would allow for a professional chief of police for the school district. Concerning comments regarding fiscal impact made earlier by Mr. Gervasi, if METRO did not feel strongly about this issue, they would not be willing to take on the fiscal impact. We are more concerned with the rights of victims than we are with that issue. There have been some problems between the school police and local law enforcement. What we propose is nothing more than we require of our own uniformed personnel, and that is, you can take any action deemed necessary to apprehend a suspect, and then turn it over to the specialized investigators who are trained in those areas.
Mr. Gervasi:
We are more concerned with the ability to perform and the rights of victims. When we need assistance we call for it. We do not always get it; thus, we proceed on our own. As was stated earlier, there has never been a problem where a case was sent back because we erred.
Ms. Rees:
This bill was never intended to say investigations must be turned over to local law enforcement, just to request assistance when necessary. The bill wanted to ensure there would always be cooperation between the entities.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 291 and open the hearing on S.B. 417.
SENATE BILL 417: Requires combined expenditure per pupil for public schools to equal or exceed national average. (BDR 32-968)
Senator Schneider:
This completes my education recommendations for this session. Senate Bill 417 requires the schools in this state be funded at the national average. I will tell you we have schools without books, adequate technology, and equipment. We have to look at what is good for Nevada and the business communities in the state. We are not creating a good enough student for the business community. The private schools in this state have tuitions of $10,000 or more, whereas we are funding at one-half of that for our public school students. In the past we have told the school districts to increase efficiency and do a better job, yet, we continue to cut funding. It is time to stop and say not funding education is not working, so maybe we ought to try funding it for a change. Let us just fund schools at the national average. The shortage of teachers in Clark County is no surprise, since the salaries for teachers are so low. We do not keep up with funding of our schools, and it starts with the basics, the teachers. This bill, if passed, would be referred to the finance committee, but this is a statement this committee needs to make. Of all the subjects we have discussed this session, this is the most important.
Chairman Rawson:
There is always a problem defining terms. If S.B. 417 were to pass, I assume you mean the Nevada plan of school funding, which is made up of two parts, local and state. It averages about $5500 per student. Are we talking in the same terms?
Senator Schneider:
Yes, we are talking in the same terms. I would go further and defer to a national study to compare Nevada to the national average.
Chairman Rawson:
How much are our teachers actually paid is the classic debate. There is a benefit package associated with the base pay, and it comes out to a higher figure than some studies show. It is not good to make a great policy statement if we are going to argue about the definition of the average. The state has a guarantee, which is probably the most reasonable figure to use. It includes all the costs, with the exception of the building of facilities.
Senator Schneider:
I am not sure we can wait another 2 years as the Governor has suggested. The Governor has also said if anybody wants to step forward with ideas he would be willing to listen.
Chairman Rawson:
Do we have an assumption somewhere of a fiscal note on this bill?
Senator Schneider:
The cost would be in the range of $1000 per student.
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
Per-pupil funding is probably the real key to the success of the district. It has been the focus of our legislative efforts this session. A comparison of per-pupil expenditures shows the average for the United States at $6585, and for Nevada, $5597. The district budget has been reduced approximately $50 million in response to the fiscal crisis we face. In a salary comparison of first-year teachers with a bachelor’s degree, Las Vegas ranks fifth from the bottom in a study of 34 cities.
Sheila Moulton, School Board Trustee, Clark County School District:
Superintendent Carlos Garcia was directed by the Clark County School Board to communicate clearly to the Legislature the educational needs of the district. Of specific concern was salary increases for teachers. We need to strengthen our teacher’s salary package. Greater needs in the technology field, English learning programs, student safety expenses, transportation costs, and special education areas have grown, and growth has not paid for itself. We have opened 14 schools this year alone, with another 15 scheduled. Our needs have risen to a crisis-alert stage. Clark County School District is looking at every one of its programs. Some have been cut and others will be cut or trimmed. We support this bill to fund schools at the national average, and would appreciate your support.
Senator Mathews:
When you compare salaries, are you taking into account the benefit package? Do the comparisons include the total, or just the base salary?
Mr. Bellister:
The comparisons are just the starting basic salaries, excluding the benefit package. It is difficult to compare what a benefit buys. A comparison of the benefit packages would put us further behind. We cannot compete with the perks that are being offered by other school districts.
Carlos Garcia, Superintendent of Schools, Clark County School District:
The list of the $50 million we have cut since I have become superintendent includes many outstanding programs. We have gone though an item-by-item analysis of our budget in order to arrive at these cuts. To open up next school year, we project cutting and additional $12 million to $15 million. When you look at the starting-salaries comparison, we called all the districts appearing on the list, and basic salaries, without benefits, are shown in the study. At the current pace, we could have a shortage of 500 teachers this fall. The number one response of those whom we have interviewed is the salaries are just too low and not competitive. Nevada ranks at approximately 37 to 40 on per-pupil allocation. Under current proposals, if anything else comes up in the next 2 years, there will be cuts in music, arts, and sports.
Senator Mathews:
How does turning over seven schools to Edison (Edison School Project, a private manager of public schools) fit into this plan. If we are crying for more money, it seems we should have been thinking of that when we handed over those schools.
Mr. Garcia:
They are actually putting $1.5 million into our district for each school they are taking over. The reality is they can provide some funding that we cannot provide.
Senator Mathews:
So they are putting in between $12 million and $15 million. If they can do that, what is keeping us from doing it? Are you saying they are not making a profit?
Mr. Garcia:
They go out and get philanthropic money. In 2 weeks they raised $10.5 million.
Senator Washington:
I am concerned about counties that do not have enough local resources. They have built-in guarantees under the Nevada plan. Under this proposal, how do you make up the deficit?
Mr. Garcia:
We have to be flexible. It would not do any good to give some of the rural counties just the national average. Because of their costs, some of them are already at that. We would have to do something to make it equitable.
Senator Washington:
I also know when the Nevada plan was being formulated the courts were involved. We stand on this slim balance of making sure there is equity in the counties and the districts. So, if we go with this flat national average, we can open ourselves once again to a legal suit. I understand the intent of the bill, but there must be caution.
Mr. Garcia:
There would be a formula that would provide for rural districts.
Theresa Malone, State Board of Education:
I represent 350,000 people. Every time I visit schools, what I hear most is, “We do not have enough money for education.” Senate Bill 417 will answer the problem. The national average per student is $6180. This bill is making an attempt to help and it also has dates in which we commit ourselves to make the determination and look at the facts and the future. For these reasons the State Board of Education supports an increase and more funding for children.
Mr. Bellister:
The National Education Association shows Nevada per-pupil spending as $5500. This is $950 below the national average, and our ranking is 39 out of the 50 states. We should look at this issue as what we can do for public education in Nevada. We know smaller class sizes lead to greater student achievement. We know smaller schools work; yet, we are building these huge schools. We know we need to address deferred maintenance and special education. We know districts spent more for textbooks, supplies and materials than they were allocated, and they still have a textbook shortage. We know we need to improve educational technology, and we cannot compete on teacher salaries. We do not need more studies; we need action. We may never be able to be competitive if we do not act now. We simply do not fund education programs, as we need to in order to support sustained education reform.
Senator Amodei:
What do you see as some of the pieces on the funding side of this issue? What are the components of the funding mechanism in your opinion?
Mr. Bellister:
The Nevada Supreme Court has reinforced the conclusion that determined a tax on business income was not unconstitutional. We believe a broad-based tax is needed for all businesses. The tax base in the state needs to be broadened. A franchise tax on businesses, an increase in the local schools support tax, and a gaming tax increase all need to be looked at.
Thomas B. Ciesynski, Chief Accountant, Washoe County School District:
Our challenge for the future is the expectation level for education is growing at an accelerated rate, and revenues are not keeping pace with the cost of these expectations. Based upon fall 2000 TerraNova scores, Washoe County School District has no schools “in need of improvement,” a decrease from seven schools needing improvement in 1997. The district is the largest school district in the United States to mandate all students enrolled in advanced placement courses take examinations for all of those programs.
Expenditures are increasing faster than revenues. The budget must be balanced by reorganizing and downsizing. The district has used existing funds efficiently by the funding of operational audits, $1.2 million of extraordinary maintenance, energy retrofits, and converting buses to compressed natural gas. We have had no inflationary increases in operating budgets; we have reduced health benefits; we have deferred purchases of technology infrastructure, including hardware and software; we have used lease-purchase financing to replace buses; and we have downsized the central office staff. We need a 3 percent cost of living increase each year of the biennium; funding for health insurance premium increases; funding for increased energy costs; and we need to fully fund school supplies, instructional equipment, library books, and textbooks.
Senator Washington:
How would you describe the funding for S.B. 417?
Mr. Ciesynski:
You need to take a look at every tax used to fund schools. Then prepare an analysis, with a scenario of how an increase in each source would impact the funding.
Senator Washington:
This committee deals with many funding issues. It is a fact 83 percent of the general funds are allocated to education or health care. We are stymied on how to fund this proposal.
Mr. Ciesynski:
We recognize the problems facing the Legislature concerning the costs, and we do not have any easy answers. We are just presenting the facts and hoping for a solution.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards:
We agree with all the testimony heard here today. The sales tax exemptions we allowed in the state could be reviewed. We interpret this bill as using the Nevada plan statewide average to determine how far we need to go. We have a long way to go in education. Something can and should be done this session. We are going backward in providing a quality education for the students. We cannot wait until next session; we need to provide at least a minimal solution this session.
Senator Washington:
Why are private institutions able to educate at one-half of the cost of public education and still produce quality students?
Mr. Robinson:
I question your use of one-half the cost. As you know, a public school body accepts all children, regardless of income or disability. That increases the cost of public education. We provide services private schools do not, such as transportation. There is a cost associated with each additional minute of instruction we provide. For every new subject area, there is an associated cost. We are caught between providing a quality education, as opposed to an education with several different qualities. A top-shelf education cannot be bought at a bargain-basement price.
Senator Mathews:
Private schools do not do it for less. The superintendent of Clark County School District just testified about the additional funds used for private institutions.
Senator Schneider:
The Dawson School and The Meadows School charge well over $10,000 per year and provide very limited curriculum. They do not provide the wide range of services public schools do, and none of the requirements of special needs children.
Mr. Bacon:
I believe you are dealing with one of the most important issues of this session. I do not see representatives of the business community or the school districts, except Washoe and Clark counties here. If you take a look at the entire issue, there is a substantial level of dissatisfaction among employers. Enhancement programs are great for high-achieving students, but too many students have limited mathematic and reading skills. We are just touching on the issue. At some point in time, this body must recognize a review of property taxes is in order. Growth does not pay for itself, and an ever-increasing factor would be if every time real property sells, the improvements were reevaluated at today’s values.
Senator Washington:
Was there not a similar bill introduced that was deemed unconstitutional?
Mr. Bacon:
That is possible, but I am not aware of it. Schools are an enhancement to property values. The business community had a major problem with the proposed business income tax. There were severe penalties for non-corporate businesses, and the tax added a whole level of complexity to the tax code the Department of Taxation could not possibly handle.
Where do you want to put the money? We consistently do too much earmarking. A couple of suggestions would be to have a recognized external source to provide data. To go to the national average skews the data because of so many different economic factors throughout the country. I would suggest using the 11 or 13 western states for comparison. A legislative response is needed to set forward guidance to the business community. Some items should be left out of the collective bargaining pool. Since 1970, Nevada has gone from 76 to 88 percent of the school budget for salary funding. This shift is bad, and other areas suffer.
An idea that has never been proposed to increase teacher pay is to take the teachers out of state retirement system and put them under Social Security. I would also put forth the idea of encouraging people to come in and out of the profession with regularity, to alleviate burnout. To do so would enhance the Social Security idea. Nobody in the business community opposes spending money on education; we just wish to get the best “bang for the buck.”
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 417, and open the work session.
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The suggested amendments for S.B. 127 are under tab A of the work session document (Exhibit C).
SENATE BILL 127: Authorizes certain school districts to carry out demonstration projects in lieu of complying with class-size reduction program. (BDR S-172)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 127.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
*****
Mr. Sturm:
The suggested amendments for S.B. 149 are under tab B of the work session document (Exhibit C).
SENATE BILL 149: Authorizes parents of certain pupils to choose which public school pupils will attend. (BDR 34-10)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B.149.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS MATHEWS, SCHNEIDER AND WIENER VOTED NO. SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Mr. Sturm:
The suggested amendments for S.B. 243 are under tab C of the work session document (Exhibit C).
SENATE BILL 243: Makes various changes concerning charter schools. (BDR 34-348)
SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 243.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI VOTED NO. SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Mr. Sturm:
These next bills were heard last Friday.
SENATE BILL 502: Eliminates state job training office. (BDR 33-1314)
No amendments were proposed, and no opposition was expressed.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 502.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
ASSEMBLY BILL 252: Revises provisions governing certain county fire protection districts. (BDR 42-995)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 252.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
I must inform you need to let you know we have a huge job ahead of us the rest of the week. I do not think we can walk out of the session without coming to some decisions about the police departments.
Senator Wiener:
I would be willing to meet to help reconcile some of the differences.
Chairman Rawson:
It may be we can put this into an interim study, and process it through the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. I am open to other suggestions. There is great deal of emotion regarding these bills.
Chairman Rawson:
With that we will stand adjourned at 3:54 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: