MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
February 24, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:59 p.m., on Monday, February 24, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
Mr. William Horne, Vice Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. Bob McCleary
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David Goldwater, District No. 10
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Judith Simpson, Center for Civic Education
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Nancy Hollinger, Board of Trustees, Washoe County School District
Frank Brusa, Representative, National Association of School Administrators
Traci Kannon, Teacher, Becker Middle School
Kaila Miller, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Tia Breeler, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Lindsay Johnson, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Rhonda Mittenzwei, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Haley Lucas, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Jake Lysgaard, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Melissa Myers, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Lauren M. Bonnani, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Sandy Kim, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Brittany Breeler, Student, Mrs. Kannon’s class
Assembly Bill 138: Repeals prohibition against pupils carrying or possessing any electronic device used for paging or communication while on school grounds. (BDR 34-385)
After roll was called, Chairman Williams asked that members be marked present as they arrived. He then announced that the Education Committee had one bill on the agenda today, Assembly Bill 138. He presented Assemblyman David Goldwater, who introduced A.B. 138. Chairman Williams also welcomed those who were participating from Las Vegas.
Assemblyman Goldwater thanked the Chairman, and introduced himself as representing Assembly District 10 in Las Vegas. He announced that he had brought A.B. 138 to the Committee by request. He explained that the reason he stated by request, for purposes of background was because, through the “Project Citizen” group and through relationships he had with teachers in the Clark County School District, he had spoken before junior high school classes. In an attempt to get the students involved in the legislative process, he had them pick a subject that they thought might be worthy of legislative change; A.B. 138 accurately and appropriately reflected their wishes.
Mr. Goldwater also disclosed that his wife was a business sales manager for Sprint PCS, and sold business wireless services. He jokingly remarked that he hoped he would not go to prison for introducing this bill, but added that he seriously felt his wife’s employment added another element to this bill that the students could learn from.
Mr. Goldwater stated that, before he introduced the students, he would like to present the bill under review. He acknowledged that it repealed Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 392.930, which he pointed out made illegal the possession of a cellular phone on school grounds. He suggested that, regardless of the issues that the students would bring up and the proponents or opponents of the bill would show, he was not sure it was appropriate to make it illegal to possess a cellular phone on school grounds. He then introduced Traci Kannon from Becker Middle School, the teacher of the students who would be testifying.
Chairman Williams asked that the teacher and students proceed.
Ms. Kannon introduced herself and thanked the Committee for hearing from both herself and her students. She explained that the students had prepared some notes on why they thought this bill had merit. She expressed gratitude to Mr. Goldwater for giving background information on “Project Citizen” (Exhibit C) and how “Project Citizen” was the tool which got the kids involved in the democratic process. Ms. Kannon expressed her view that, whatever the outcome of the bill, she was excited that she had these kids after school to testify in front of the Committee. She then stated that, without further ado, she would let the students speak.
Chairman Williams requested that the students state their names for the record before they spoke.
The first speaker, Melissa Myers, explained that the reason they requested the law be repealed was that most students today had cell phones and brought them to school. She asserted that the students would like this to be legal. She volunteered that the students did not object to controls; the law the students approved of would be for students to possess cell phones, but not be allowed to use them during school hours.
The next speaker, Haley Lucas, stated she believed the law should be repealed because students felt it was wrong for them to be committing an illegal act by possessing cell phones on school grounds, when none of the teachers seemed to care that the students had cell phones.
The next person to speak was Rhonda Mittenzwei, and she observed that this law was not consistent. She informed the Committee that some states had already repealed this law, and she expressed her support for having it repealed in Nevada. She articulated that students were trying to revolutionize the technological superhighway in their state and school, and while cell phones were a convenience, the phones were most important for parents to reach their kids to inform them of after school plans.
Chairman Williams thanked the last speaker and addressed Mr. Goldwater. Chairman Williams observed that the first student spoke of having cell phones at certain times and detailed that the bill passed in 1993 made allowances for emergency situations and students with medical conditions who needed the phones. He was unsure if the intent was to repeal possession of cell phones at all times. He mentioned the students’ comments on prohibition at a national level and instructed that staff research had indicated there were 14 states that prohibited cell phones on campuses; there were 8 states that repealed legislation and gave authority to the local school boards; and several states repealed the cell phone laws and reinstated them in the same year. He noted that there was no continuity throughout the nation on this, nor any information on allowances for health reasons or emergencies. He then related that Mrs. Chowning had concerns about emergencies that she wished to mention.
Mr. Goldwater affirmed that the chair had correctly identified the two ends of the continuum. One end was complete illegality and prohibition; the other end was the student’s complete discretion. He then volunteered to act as intermediary between the students and the Chairman of this Committee to find a solution between the two ends of this continuum.
Chairman Williams reflected that this sounded appropriate and asked Assemblywoman Chowning for her comments.
Mrs. Chowning thanked the Chairman and revealed that she was a member of the Committee when this law was passed. She asserted that when the law was passed, beepers were causing a problem. She empathized with the teachers, as Mrs. Chowning was once a high school teacher, and explained how difficult it was to conduct class while beepers were making noise. She disclosed that in 1993, cell phones were not commonplace, whereas now cell phones were prevalent and beepers were not commonplace. Another problem perceived at that time, according to Mrs. Chowning, was the perception that students who used beepers were engaged in an illegal activity, and that banning beepers on school campuses would curtail such criminal activities.
Mrs. Chowning articulated that with beepers, the noise was also a problem. Vibrating signals on cell phones put an end to the noise problem. She observed that teachers should be able to control those distractions. Teachers could send students to the dean, or they could ban cell phones or other distracting activities from the classroom. She then spoke about the Columbine incident, and how the use of cell phones by students and teachers saved lives. Her concern was that the safety of students on campus always be addressed. She reported that it was not common for telephones to be in classrooms on school campuses, and spoke about a law she believed was proposed in California that would require all classrooms to have a telephone for safety reasons.
Chairman Williams asked for questions from Committee members; as there were none, he recognized the students from Las Vegas, who had further testimony. He asked that they identify themselves for the record and proceed with their testimony.
The next student to speak, Lauren Bonnani, stated that she was a high school student. She reminded the Committee that many high school students were 18 years old or older; they could vote or be drafted into the military, but could not have access to their own phone. She articulated that many high school students went from campus to work. She explained that cell phones were actually an after-school communication device, as students had no means of communication from campus to work without their cell phones. She emphasized it would be better if cell phones were allowed, with consequences enforced if they were used during school hours.
Jake Lysgaard then introduced himself. He stated students would like to have cell phones on campus, but wanted them turned off during school hours; they could then be used after school.
Chairman Williams asked Jake if he had any problems with students placing their cell phones in their lockers during school hours, taking them out of the locker only after school.
Jake responded that most students in his school did not have lockers, for safety reasons. He suggested that the students keep them in their backpacks, in the off position. He admitted that most students already carried cell phones.
Chairman Williams asked what Jake thought would be an appropriate consequence if the student had his cell phone on during school hours, if this bill was passed.
Jake replied that students felt an appropriate consequence would be to send the student to the dean, or have the phone taken away and returned only to the student’s parents. He noted that his school had this rule in place if a cell phone rang during class.
The next speaker, Lindsay Johnson, agreed that if a cell phone was on during school, it should be taken away and parents called to claim it. She strongly believed that cell phones were needed to contact parents after school, especially in the case of an accident or emergency.
Chairman Williams inquired if anyone else in Las Vegas wished to testify.
Lauren Bonnani indicated she wished to speak again. She pointed out that her school had payphones available, but students were required to be off campus within 15 to 20 minutes after the end of the school day. She reasoned that this left students with no means of communication if they were unable to get home, or if there were an emergency.
Mr. Goldwater then requested that the students from Las Vegas highlight their safety concerns regarding incidents on school campuses, such as those which Mrs. Chowning brought up earlier.
Kaila Miller identified herself and asserted that having cell phones on campus was a safety issue. She used Columbine as an example, relating that a student called the police on his cell phone. As the nation was on high terrorist alert, she was afraid that if something happened at her school, a teacher might not have access to a phone. In that case, if a student had a cell phone, he could contact security.
The next speaker introduced herself as Tia Breeler. She reported being on a zone variance, which made it sometimes difficult to get a ride or take the bus and necessitated calling her mom on her cell phone. Also, if her mom was in a car accident, had broken down, or had to work late, her mom could call Tia’s cell phone and an instructional message could be left.
Sandy Kim, the next speaker, verified that a problem at her school was that school administration would not allow messages to be delivered from the parents to the students. She reasoned that this problem showed why students should be allowed to have cell phones.
The meeting was then turned over to Vice Chair Horne, who asked if there were any other students testifying from Las Vegas.
Lauren Bonnani explained her desire to speak on the safety issue, due to an incident that occurred on her last day of school last year. She detailed how her school was evacuated due to a bomb threat in the girls’ bathroom, and all students were moved to the gym at the middle school down the street. The students were first told to stay there; fifteen minutes later, the students were told if they had a cell phone and could contact someone to pick them up, or if they had their car keys, they could leave. She pointed out that, as a safety issue, teachers and deans told the students to use their cell phones.
Vice Chair Horne inquired if any other students needed to testify.
Melissa Myers introduced herself again and specified that one of the states that lifted the cell phone ban was Kentucky (Exhibit D). She advised that when they lifted their ban they were afraid of cell phones disrupting classes, but this did not happen, according to a quote from Maurice Risner, Jefferson County’s executive director of student relations, who said “We took the stance that beepers and cell phones are how families keep up with each other these days. At first, we were all kind of skeptical that phones would be ringing off the hook in classrooms, and kids would be talking in the hall, and all types of things, but that didn’t happen.”
Vice Chair Horne asked Ms. Myers if she was citing a code from Kentucky law.
Ms. Myers replied she was citing Kentucky policy after they repealed their cell phone ban.
Vice Chair Horne asked if Ms. Myers could give this information to the secretary in Las Vegas so it could be faxed here.
Ms. Myers replied in the affirmative, and added that there were other examples listed also. It was faxed and a copy was given to all Committee members.
The next speaker gave her name as Brittany Breeler, student. She detailed another reason for having cell phones at school by explaining that during after-school activities, the coach would have to leave early. Without a cell phone, there was no way for the student to contact parents or others for transportation home. She related that the school did not allow use of their phones unless it was an extreme emergency.
Vice Chair Horne asked for questions from Committee members and recognized Assemblyman Atkinson.
Mr. Atkinson said he did have a question and believed that Mrs. Chowning touched on it with her comments on security to the students in Las Vegas. He established that the question dealt with the ability to contact parents in an emergency. He commented that he had not been out of school that long, and when he was in school, a student’s parent or guardian could call the school to give the student a message. He asked if this had changed.
Mrs. Kannon responded to Mr. Atkinson’s questions and disclosed that this issue was a matter of whose name was on the 703 form, information that gave the name of the parent or guardian who could be contacted in an emergency. The office had to verify the information on the 703 before they could deliver a message to the student, due to security considerations. The school policy was that, if there was an extreme emergency, the parent or guardian could come to the school and show their identification; the 703 would then be checked to be sure that person’s name was listed, and then the message could be given to the student.
Vice Chair Horne commented that it appeared to him that provision should be changed. He recognized Mr. Atkinson, and then Assemblyman Mabey, to speak.
Mr. Atkinson remarked that the issue should be cleared up with the school district. He revealed that he had no problems giving messages to his seven-year-old daughter, who attended school in North Las Vegas. He suggested examining the differing school policies if the decision was that cell phones were to be turned off while on school property.
Mr. Mabey posed a question to Lauren Bonnani, asking for her personal experience on how often she heard cell phones or beepers sound while in school.
Lauren reported that she had possibly heard a cell phone ring in the last month, but her school’s policy was for the teacher to confiscate the phone and give it to the dean until the parent retrieved it. Her belief was that students would rather wait until after school to use their phones, as most of their friends went to the same school, and messages could be sent via voice mail while the phones were turned off.
Vice Chair Horne remarked that, for as long as there had been schools, students had found ways to message each other. With phones that rang silently and provided text messages and even pictures, he asked Mrs. Kannon if she felt the new technology was a distraction in any of her classes.
Mrs. Kannon replied in the negative, commenting that she might be “scarier” than the average teacher, but her students did not even pass notes. She illustrated that, when the students were working on “Project Citizen,” they had to decide on what issue to work. When the students suggested cell phones as the issue, Mrs. Kannon was surprised to learn that many students had cell phones provided by their parents for after-school communication. She reported that in the nine years she had been teaching, she had never heard a cell phone ring in her class.
Vice Chair Horne thanked Mrs. Kannon and recognized Assemblyman Geddes.
Mr. Geddes inquired if the local administration or school board had reviewed the bill, if they had comments on it, and if their concerns had been addressed.
Mr. Goldwater informed the Committee that while local control was desired, due to the fact that it was illegal to possess cell phones on campus, the local school district had no jurisdiction in that matter.
Mr. Geddes inquired if the local administration or school board supported the repeal of that measure.
Mr. Goldwater responded that his former principal, Mr. Frank Brusa of the Nevada Association of School Administrators, would be speaking in response to that question.
Vice Chair Horne requested questions from Committee members or students and recognized Barbara Clark from the Nevada Parent Teachers Association (PTA), who was in the audience.
Assemblyman Williams then asked Mr. Goldwater if he had understood correctly that Mr. Goldwater was amendable to the Committee working with the students to reach a consensus.
Mr. Goldwater volunteered his services as a legislator to act as an intermediary between the Committee and the students.
Mr. Williams promised Mr. Goldwater that there were members of this Committee who would look forward to heading a subcommittee to gather all necessary information.
Mr. Goldwater responded that he looked forward to the challenge.
Barbara Clark, Nevada PTA President, then spoke and indicated that she represented the Nevada PTA in support of the bill. She also revealed that there would be an amendment from one of the school districts, and that the PTA would also support the bill with the amendment (Exhibit E). She stated that the PTA felt there were valid issues in allowing students to possess cell phones on campus, including allowing their use during the lunch period. She trusted that the schools would make clear the appropriate and inappropriate use of cell phones.
Ms. Clark emphasized that the main issue was safety, as was indicated by the students. She asserted that a cell phone could save a life in a matter of seconds, whereas it was a lengthy process for the school to be called, student information looked up, and the correct phone number accessed. She reported that in Washoe County where she lived, some of the high schools had only one phone line into the school, and she felt that it was necessary to advance with today’s technology. She also related different safety issues between the rural areas versus the urban areas, as in the rural areas students walked farther after departing the bus. Another issue was that parents believed they should have access to their children and should know their location. She directed a comment to those who complained of parents not being involved in their children’s education, stating that access to their children should be allowed rather than discouraged. She believed that the local community should be allowed to make decisions on issues like cell phone usage based on demographics, and she reiterated that students should be able to use cell phones under certain guidelines.
Vice Chair Horne invited questions for Ms. Clark from the Committee members, but there were none.
Judith Simpson from the Center for Civic Education was the next speaker. She promised to provide background on the students’ activities, and presented the brochure from “Project Citizen” which was prepared by her group. She described the program as one that was sponsored by the National Council of State Legislators to teach students how to address a public policy issue. She related that she worked with Mrs. Kannon’s class in Las Vegas and observed that the issue for the students was doing something illegal that was requested by their parents. She also wished to thank Assemblyman Horne and Assemblyman Hardy for their support of the “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution” program, which was another program developed by the Center for Civic Education.
Vice Chair Horne asked for questions, and inquired if any school district representatives would like to offer their comments. He requested that they state their names, what group they represented, and whether they were for or against the bill under consideration.
Nancy Hollinger addressed the Committee, verifying that she was a member of the Washoe County School Board of Trustees and that the Board could support that bill. She suggested a better alternative to replacing previous legislation might be to amend Section 2 of NRS 392.930 to read “…or if he uses the beeper, portable telephone, or other similar device in full accordance with the published rules for such devices as adopted by the school district he attends” (Exhibit E). That way, the school district could make the policy.
Vice Chair Horne asked Ms. Hollinger if she had a copy of that amendment; it was faxed to the Committee Secretary and distributed to all Committee members.
Karyn Wright, who represented the Clark County School District, identified herself and asserted that the Clark County School District could support the bill if language in Section 2 was amended. She then detailed the concerns that school administrators from the District voiced:
Ms. Wright stated that the District believed the proposed amended language would offer school district officials the opportunity to create an enforceable policy that would be appropriate regarding acceptable use of electronic devices by students while on school grounds. She also noted that, after hearing the students’ testimony, students appeared to be in agreement with proper use of cell phones and other electronic devices on the school campus.
Vice Chair Horne again inquired if there were any questions. Mr. Frank Brusa rose to speak.
Mr. Brusa introduced himself as the representative for the Nevada Association of School Administrators and the Clark County School Administrators, and presented his colleagues Douglas Byington and Lonnie Shields of the Washoe County Administrators. He affirmed that they wished to express their concern about Assembly Bill 138 as written, but they could support the bill with the amendments Ms. Hollinger had suggested.
Vice Chair Horne queried if there was anyone else present who wished to testify in opposition or for A.B. 138. He reminded Assemblyman Williams that the Chairman had suggested a subcommittee, and asked if he would like to appoint one.
Assemblyman Williams thanked the Vice Chair and advised that the hearing would now be closed on A.B. 138. He then requested volunteers to head the subcommittee and work with the students. Assemblywoman Angle indicated she would serve on the subcommittee, as did Assemblyman Geddes, Assemblyman Mabey and Assemblyman McCleary. Mr. Williams appointed Mr. Mabey as chair of the subcommittee, clarifying that he would be responsible for contacting members, scheduling a time to meet, and reporting back to the Committee when an agreement was reached.
Mr. Williams then asked for any other business to be presented to the Committee. As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: