MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 5, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:54 p.m., on Wednesday, March 5, 2003.  Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Richard Perkins, Assembly District No. 23

Assemblyman David Goldwater, Assembly District No. 10

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst

Paul Townsend, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada

Linda C. Howard, Board of Regents, North Las Vegas

Jim Richardson, representative for the Nevada Faculty Alliance

Ken Lange, Executive Director of the Nevada State Education Association

 

 

Assembly Bill 203:  Creates Committee to Evaluate Higher Education Programs. (BDR S-809)

 

 

Roll was called; Mr. Atkinson was testifying in another Committee, but would be coming when he was finished. 

 

Chairman Williams reported that there were two bills on the agenda for today.  He began with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 203, which created a committee to evaluate higher education programs and would be presented by Speaker Perkins.

 

Speaker Perkins, representing Assembly District No. 23, revealed his pleasure in presenting A.B. 203.  He felt that A.B. 203 concerned the kind of future that was desired for Nevada and its youth.  He expounded that the choices made today would determine the future, and he wished to give some idea of the consequences of those choices by providing background information on the bill.

 

Speaker Perkins suggested that the Committee look at Nevada’s educational attainment.  In 2000, 82.8 percent of adults in Nevada over the age of 25 had attained a high school diploma, according to the National Center of Education Statistics and the U.S. Department of Education.  The national average in 2000 was 84.1 percent.  In 2000, 19.3 percent of Nevada adults over the age of 25 had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, but the national average was 25.6 percent.  He was dismayed that residents of Nevada had not completed college at the same rate as the rest of the nation; he related that in California, the rate was 27.5 percent; in Arizona, the rate was 22.5 percent; in Utah it was 26.9 percent, and in Oregon the rate was 25.6 percent.  In 1970, 65 percent of the population of Nevada had completed high school, compared to only 55 percent nationally.  Further, 10.8 percent held bachelor’s degrees while the national average was 11 percent.  He reiterated that those percentages showed that, in the last 30 years, Nevada had not kept pace with the national trend.

 

Speaker Perkins queried as to why this was important, and illustrated his second point, which was that the marketplace had changed fundamentally and was driven by a knowledge-based service sector.  He mused that although we did not have a large manufacturing base that would be lost to emerging third world countries, we did have a service economy built largely on low-skilled jobs in tourism and gaming.  For the economy to become diversified, Speaker Perkins suggested that we pay attention to the fact that our country, and the industrialized world, participated in an international economy fueled by jobs that required skills and learning obtained through post-secondary education.

 

Speaker Perkins stressed that this kind of economy was not without pressures; it was subject to rapid change, and technology had eliminated the barriers of time and distance.  The new “human capital,” the Speaker believed, was competence of the population.  He asked what future was envisioned for Nevada’s population and the state, and how it would be achieved.  He remarked that the University of Nevada Board of Regents had brought higher learning in Nevada from a tiny campus in Elko to a system enrolling more than 93,000 students in fiscal year 2002.  To serve those students, the Board had requested $1.284 billion for the next biennium.  He said the Board was not alone in their interest in enrollment, funding, and programs offered to Nevadans; the Legislature also had an interest for the reasons he mentioned previously.

 

Speaker Perkins went on to assert that the future of Nevada was contingent on what was offered to its citizens, and the Legislature was asked to fund a major portion.  He proposed in Assembly Bill 203 a committee to evaluate higher education programs, and explained that the bill was written to include three members of the Senate, three members of the Assembly, three members of the Board of Regents, and three members appointed by the Governor.  He trusted that any change by the Education Committee in the makeup of the new committee would be based upon experience and would be completed within the next few weeks.  He requested that the Education Committee examine and evaluate existing and planned programs, and determine the level of need for those programs; that they identify high priority needs that were not currently being met to determine the feasibility of reallocating existing resources to meet critical needs; and that they determine whether appropriations in student fee revenues were efficiently distributed internally among the campuses. 

 

Speaker Perkins also reported that the bill included an appropriation of $250,000 for an outside consultant and for meeting with experts who would be able to advise the Committee and the Legislature on developing a system to meet all needs.  He decided to forego his prepared testimony and speak extemporaneously on why he requested this bill, and informed the Committee that the Chancellor and a member of the Board of Regents would be here to discuss a proposed amendment by the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).

 

Speaker Perkins disclosed that more than $1 billion would be spent in higher education in the next biennium, and he thought that efficiency was important to maintain frugality in the difficult fiscal time Nevada was having.  He mentioned that there was a request for a performance audit in the Ways and Means Committee, but it was contracted with the Rand Corporation for assistance in the creation of UCCSN’s Master Plan, and not intended to duplicate the audits detailed in the bill presented today.  In going through the budgets for higher education, he revealed that when a need was identified, there was also a request for funds to meet that need.  He felt that, for the sake of efficiency, all higher education programs offered should be scrutinized to determine whether or not those were still appropriate for 2003 and beyond.

 

Speaker Perkins commented that we had changed as a state and as a society.  The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), had been in existence for a long time, and had done an extraordinary job, but they might have existing classes that were originally offered years ago, for reasons that were no longer applicable.  He felt it was important that an outside entity analyze the situation, as the shortages in the teaching and nursing fields produced proposals for increased funding in those areas; if there were classes being offered that were no longer needed, those funds could be reallocated toward more critical needs such as teaching and nursing.  He asserted that taxpayers expected those actions.

 

Speaker Perkins restated that he brought up the bill because he felt it went “hand in glove” with the discussion over budgets and taxes, and would strengthen Nevada’s higher education system.  He expressed his displeasure with some of the language in the bill, and while he supported the amendment presented by Dr. Nichols, he was also concerned about language it contained.  He promised to work with the Chancellor and UCCSN to arrive at the best product, and agreed to answer questions.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning concurred that it was a very good idea to have an outside group take a fresh look at the higher education system from top to bottom, due to the wide variety of classes offered.  She said some classes which she had taken at Nevada Southern University, now the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), were no longer offered, and asked if a study like this one had been done before on the university system.

 

Speaker Perkins told Mrs. Chowning that he believed it was an ongoing process that the system went through when they performed their internal analyses, although he said the Chancellor would give the specifics. 

 

Mrs. Chowning also applauded the “sunset” portion in Section 8, because the job would be completed and then the act would expire.

 

Speaker Perkins agreed that it was not intended to be ongoing.  He acknowledged contentious relations between the Legislature and the Board of Regents in the past, but felt there was much more cooperation, more of a partnership than before.  He declared that it was not an attempt to go around the Board of Regents, but since the Legislature appropriated the funds and created some of the policy, the bill was intended to be a collaboration rather than an adversarial situation.

 

Assemblyman Andonov requested that the Speaker comment on the “planning horizon,” asking if it was a short-term approach or a longer plan such as a master plan for the university system.

 

Speaker Perkins reported that UCCSN had completed a master plan internally, and he believed it encompassed the next decade.  He reiterated that he would leave the specifics to the Chancellor and Regent Howard, and affirmed that it was important to take the advice of the outside consultants regarding analysis and on the length of the study.  He did wish to make the point that Nevada had higher education for over 100 years and was much different today than when it began; his concern was that programs currently offered be applicable for 2003.

 

Assemblyman Mabey remarked that he thought the bill was a great idea, but wondered if the Speaker had considered having University students, or possibly a high school counselor, sit on the panel to offer a different perspective.

 

Speaker Perkins answered that he wished he was smart enough to have thought about that and would welcome the unique perspective that students and youth would stimulate.

 

Assemblyman Horne expressed concern that the bill would duplicate the performance audit in the Ways and Means Committee.

 

Speaker Perkins explained that the performance audit was intended to go through the different policy decisions that were affected by legislative appropriations and would be performed by the Legislative Auditor to ensure that funds were spent appropriately, as designated by this Legislature and by the Board of Regents.  His vision was to have the outside consultants go through each and every program offered; if a course was not viable, the funding for that course could be spent on a priority such as teachers or nurses.

 

Chairman Williams solicited questions; there were no questions, and he thanked the Speaker for his efforts.  The Speaker indicated his pleasure in attending the meeting and departed.

 

Chairman Williams expressed his pleasure to have Chancellor Nichols and Regent Howard at the meeting.  Regent Howard would not be testifying, so Dr. Nichols introduced herself as the Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada.  She revealed that Regent Howard had accompanied the Chancellor to the meeting in case she was needed, and the Chancellor was delighted, not only with Regent Howard’s presence, but also with her support of the bill.

 

Dr. Nichols clarified that her remarks were her own perspective and recommendation, and did not reflect the position of the Board of Regents, as they had not yet reviewed the bill.  She began with some history which she hoped would answer some of the questions.  She informed the Committee that the Board of Regents, working with the Lt. Governor of Nevada, Lorraine Hunt, authorized a study termed the “Battelle Study” for the Battelle Company, who performed the study.  It was a study of the research and manpower capacity of the institutions in relation to the technology transfer needs of the state, and the needs of the state for building new industry, particularly high-tech industry.  Following this, the Rand Corporation completed a study for the Board of Regents on what was needed to meet the need of the State of Nevada regarding higher education.  These studies led to the development of the Master Plan for Higher Education, which emphasized program review and approval, as well as the elimination of duplication, the promotion of collaboration and ensuring that only essential courses and programs were offered.  The Board imposed a 14-month moratorium on program approval over the last 2 years to better define the criteria under which new programs could be brought forward.

 

Dr. Nichols verified that she was not suggesting the bill was not necessary; to the contrary, she felt it was a great opportunity for collaboration among the Board of Regents, the Legislature, and the Governor, and would fill in the “missing piece” in their planning, which was to provide a clear definition of the needs and common goals of the state.

 

While Dr. Nichols was excited about the possibilities, there was one issue she was concerned about, which was the basis for her proposed amendments (Exhibit C).  The issue concerned the constitutional authority of the Board of Regents to govern the University and Community College System of Nevada.  She related that the Board of Regents would be supportive if it was made clear that the unquestioned right of the Legislature to appropriate the required funds for maintaining UCCSN did not indicate that the constitution did not vest exclusive and plenary control in the regions, because the right to provide and limit funds was entirely different from the administration and control of the UCCSN.  She also thought that Speaker Perkins’ comments on a partnership, a common endeavor, would help the bill move forward.

 

Dr. Nichols briefly described the amendments she suggested, beginning with the elimination of the word “program” from the name of the committee.  She explained that, in higher education, the word “program” was used very specifically, and the use of the word “program” could be problematic.  She said her next suggested for rewording Section 2 tempered the language so that UCCSN would know what they were doing and what the Committee felt UCCSN should do, and would erase any appearance that the Committee would attempt to do the work of the Board of Regents.

 

Dr. Nichols, therefore, suggested that the language in Section 2 read as proposed in her amendments.

 

Dr. Nichols expressed optimism that the possibility of a partnership between the Board of Regents and the Legislature provided a wonderful opportunity, and she was pleased with the recommendation to hire an outside consultant, as there were many firms who specialized in this.  She promised to take the information to the March meeting of the Board of Regents to give them the opportunity to support the bill.

 

Chairman Williams questioned the last recommendation on Dr. Nichols’ amendment, asking if she had changed it to provide time for submission before the Legislature convened.

 

Dr. Nichols explained that the change was intended to add the Board of Regents to the list of those who received the report and recommendations.  Both groups would have to look at the recommendations and act on them: the Legislature through legislation and financing, and the Board of Regents through internal action that they would need to take as a result of the recommendations.

 

Chairman Williams queried if Dr. Nichols would have any problem adding notification to the Legislative Committee on Education to the bill.

 

Dr. Nichols replied that she would love to add the Legislative Committee on Education, and she inquired if Chairman Williams would again be the chair of that committee.

 

Chairman Williams was not sure but he admitted that it was a probability.  It was his opinion that the Commission would look at the financial aspects, and the Legislative Committee would scrutinize the policy aspects. 

 

Dr. Nichols asserted that it was a wonderful suggestion.

 

Assemblyman Geddes posed a question on the proposed amendment concerning student fee revenues; Section 2, subsection 4, of the bill dealt with efficient distribution of student fee revenues; Dr. Nichols’ amendment changed that to “appropriate” efficient distribution, which Mr. Geddes felt changed the intent, implying that student fees should not be a part of the budget.

 

Dr. Nichols countered that the original language also concerned appropriations from the state of Nevada; the wording “State of Nevada” was deleted in her amendment so that the utilization of student fee revenues became the focus.  She felt that the audit bill in the Ways and Means Committee addressed the efficient allocation of the state of Nevada fees.  She articulated that a portion of student fees entered the state General Fund and were redistributed to campuses as part of their budget, with a portion kept at the campus for student activities, financial aid, and other such concerns.

 

Mr. Geddes asked if the ongoing financial audit included where student fees and revenues were being allocated.

 

Dr. Nichols replied that it was not specifically addressed.

 

Mr. Geddes ascertained that the audit bill of higher education funding was not scrutinizing how any of the money going into the General Fund came back out, or how it was spent on the campus.

 

Dr. Nichols concurred.

 

Assemblyman Geddes inquired if there were other revenue sources that were not part of the audit bill of the University.

 

Dr. Nichols admitted that there were a few that were not.

 

Mr. Geddes asked what they were.

 

Dr. Nichols remarked that the head of the State Audit Division, who was also attending the meeting, could answer better than she could.  She then explained that there were many areas including athletics, post accounts, administrative costs, and policies and procedures for the distribution of investment income.  She articulated that, in general, the audit would look at the state’s and the Board of Regents’ policies, beginning at that point to see if they were being followed and whether they were sufficient and correct.

 

Chairman Williams asked if there were other questions and acknowledged Assemblywoman Angle.

 

Mrs. Angle expressed concern over the makeup of the bill’s committee, noting that she saw no representation specifically from northern or southern Nevada and feared it could contain only representatives from southern Nevada.  She was also concerned over the reallocation of resources, and asked Dr. Nichols if she could address the concerns.

 

Dr. Nichols related that she shared Mrs. Angle’s concern over the issue of reallocation.  She assumed the reallocation would be internal at each institution.  She illustrated a funding formula maintained by the state of Nevada, and did not see the bill as making any attempt to change the funding formula for higher education in Nevada.  She felt that by changing the wording from “reallocating” to be “allocated strategically,” it would address the issue of providing the funds to the appropriate program areas.

 

Chairman Williams remarked that he did not think the Majority Leader of the Assembly would overlook the north, and recognized Mrs. Angle.

 

Mrs. Angle admitted that her concern was that leadership would change, and she was looking toward the future.

 

Dr. Nichols added that she had one more comment in response.  It was her understanding that the results of the Committee meeting today would be provided as an advisory to the Legislature and to the Board of Regents.  It was within that context that they would have tremendous power, but if they recommended that the funding formula for higher education be changed, that would be an entirely different, major issue that would go beyond the scope of this Committee.

 

Chairman Williams solicited other questions from the Committee and expressed pleasure that Assemblyman Atkinson had arrived.  Mr. Atkinson said he was acknowledged as late, so he felt the need to explain himself, stating that he was testifying in the Commerce and Labor Committee meeting.  Chairman Williams replied that they wanted to give Mr. Atkinson the opportunity to be brought up to date.

 

Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance chapters around the state, spoke next.  He said he was happy for the opportunity to testify on the bill, and admitted that when he first read the bill, he saw a lot of red flags due to the constitutional autonomy issues that were mentioned, but with Dr. Nichols’ input he had come to see the bill as a wonderful opportunity and was here to support the bill.

 

Mr. Richardson expounded that there was a quandary in Nevada, and spoke on an interim study on funding formulas.  That formula study committee, of which he and the Speaker were a part, conducted seven or eight meetings and delved into how higher education systems throughout the country financed themselves.  They developed a number of formulas based on methods and research through consultants around the country.

 

Mr. Richardson reported that the Governor was recommending 86 percent funding levels for those new formulas; 100 percent of the funding levels for those formulas would put Nevada at an average level for similar higher education institutions.  He noted they were currently operating under 79 percent funding levels.

 

Mr. Richardson stressed that his desire to explain where the committee structure came from was to show that it would impartially represent both northern and southern Nevada.  He imparted that when he and the Speaker served on the committee, they looked at financial methods around the country, but did not research programs offered at other institutions, as they did not have the time or resources.  He envisioned the bill as an opportunity to focus on programs, as was done before with the funding formulas, and at the same time develop a closer partnership with the Legislature.  He urged the Education Committee to pass this bill with the Chancellor’s amendments.

 

Chairman Williams inquired if there were questions from the Committee.  Assemblywoman Chowning asked Mr. Richardson if, in view of his comments on programs, did he support the Chancellor’s first amendment to delete the word “program” from the name of the committee.

 

Mr. Richardson remarked that he thought it would be advantageous to broaden the purview of the study committee, and also to look at Nevada’s needs and how Nevada compared nationally in the realm of higher education.  He felt the word “program” narrowed the scope.  He said that was not Speaker Perkins’ intention, but rather to look at the big picture to see what was being done, and how it could be done better.  He confirmed that he favored the elimination of the word “program.”

 

Chairman Williams asked if there were anyone else in favor of, or opposed to, the bill.  There was no response, and he suggested that he would accept a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 203.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams then solicited discussion.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto stated that before she voted, she would have to disclose that she was employed by one of the higher education institutions in Nevada; however, her employment would not affect her vote on this legislation, so she would vote.

 

Assemblyman Horne opined that he still had concerns, particularly over the amendment that Assemblyman Geddes pointed out, deleting “State of Nevada.”  He also expressed unease that Speaker Perkins might not concur with the amendments presented, even though the Speaker said he would work with everyone concerned.

 

Chairman Williams remarked that he heard the Speaker say he did not see the amendments as unfriendly, but other members might have perceived this differently.

 

Assemblyman Mabey requested the vote be postponed, as there were still concerns, and he suggested adding students to the committee proposed in the bill.

 

Chairman Williams pointed out that there was a motion on the floor and a second.  He explained that they could either move forward and vote, or the maker of the motion and the second could withdraw their motions to allow the concerns to be addressed.

 

Assemblyman Manendo commented that he thought they should vote, articulating that it would take several days before an amendment was drafted, as amendments had taken second priority to bills in the Legal Division.  He felt this would give members ample time to address their concerns.

 

Chairman Williams asked if there were other remarks.

 

Assemblyman Hardy observed that he needed some education, asking if there was an option in a legislative committee to make a request for an ex-officio member, such as a student, high school counselor, or someone similar.  He was unsure of the rules in that situation.

 

Chairman Williams disclosed that the Speaker had indicated he was open to adding others to the committee, which would mean amending the bill further.  He detailed several options, with the motion on the floor:  take a break and bring Speaker Perkins back to see how he felt about the amendments; vote and see if the motion passed, and if it didn’t pass, put another motion on the floor; or the maker of the motion and the maker of the second could amend their motions to add another member, as Mr. Hardy mentioned.  It was agreed to recess for five minutes so Speaker Perkins could be summoned.

 

The meeting was called back to order by Chairman Williams, who informed Speaker Perkins that there was a motion on the floor in reference to A.B. 203, which was to amend and do pass with amendments presented by Dr. Nichols.  Under discussion, the issue came up about adding students from UCCSN, which was something the Speaker had indicated he would not oppose, and there were questions on whether the Speaker was amenable to the amendments altogether.  He indicated he would appreciate the Speaker’s viewpoint.

 

Speaker Perkins again identified himself for the record, and he expressed his appreciation for the opportunity for further discussion.  He admitted his discomfort with some of the language in the bill and also in the amendment.  He felt Mr. Mabey’s suggestion was a good one and asked the Committee’s indulgence for a few days in which the Speaker could sit down with the Chancellor and work out different wording.

 

Chairman Williams stated that if it pleased the maker of the motion and the second, it pleased him, and he asked Mr. Manendo what he wished to do.

 

Mr. Manendo agreed to withdraw his motion to give Speaker Perkins time to work out the wording.  Mr. Atkinson withdrew his second.

 

Chairman Williams affirmed that the motion was formally withdrawn.  He confirmed that the Committee would allow several days to give the Chancellor and the Speaker a chance to work on the proposed amendments.  He suggested that any members of the Committee who wished to give their input contact Speaker Perkins or the Chancellor.

 

Speaker Perkins thanked the Committee and exited.

 

Chairman Williams stated that the hearing on Assembly Bill 203 was now closed, and indicated that there was one more bill to consider, Assembly Bill 162.

 

 

Assembly Bill 162:  Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct performance audits of Clark and Washoe County School Districts. (BDR S-995)

 

 

Chairman Williams explained that the bill was being presented by Assemblyman Goldwater. 

 

Mr. Goldwater thanked the Chairman and introduced himself as the representative for Assembly District No. 10 in Clark County.  He detailed that A.B. 162 required a performance audit of the Clark County and Washoe County school districts, and he had the bill drafted for one important reason.  He noted that new revenue was sought to improve education at a time when the state was facing a huge budget shortfall, and it was not enough to improve per-pupil spending; unnecessary spending had to be stopped to ensure that every dollar spent produced the expected results.  He perceived that a performance audit went further than a financial audit, as it examined the effectiveness of funded programs and provided information that would show if the dollars appropriated for education were truly going toward improving the learning environment for Nevada’s children.  He articulated that the audits would include the issues identified in the preliminary performance audit survey, which were:

 

·        Financial management

·        Facilities management

·        Personnel management

·        District organization

·        Employee health plans

·        Transportation 

 

Mr. Goldwater reported that there could be other areas included as they were suggested, and he stated that for the purposes of the audit, both school districts would be deemed agencies of the state.  Officials and employees in both school districts would make their books, accounts, claims reports, vouchers, and other records of information available to the Legislative Auditor.

 

The only portion that Mr. Goldwater mentioned he did not entirely support was the concept of personnel records being subjected to the performance audit.  Other than that, all records that the Legislative Auditor felt were necessary in order to conduct the audit would be made available, and the auditor would prepare a final written report for each of the audits conducted, presenting the reports to the Audit Subcommittee of the Legislative Commission on Education, which Mr. Goldwater chaired, no later than February 7, 2005.

 

Chairman Williams informed Mr. Goldwater that, like the bill which was just reviewed, he would be interested in having those reports submitted to the Legislative Commission on Education, which Chairman Williams would chair.

 

Mr. Goldwater replied that it would be his honor and his pleasure.

 

Chairman Williams thanked Mr. Goldwater and inquired what his feelings were on having the report submitted a little earlier before the session started, in case the Legislative Committee on Education wished to draft bills to address items found in the audit.

 

Mr. Goldwater responded that it was something they could work on with the Legislative Auditor, Paul Townsend; Mr. Townsend indicated to Mr. Goldwater that he could accomplish the audit in a reasonable amount of time, actually much before February 7, 2005.  Mr. Goldwater also asserted that representatives of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) desired that the district run efficiently, and would bring amendments and suggestions that he supported, including expanding the scope of geographic areas subject to the audit.  He requested, on the record, to thank them and expressed his wish that the Committee be supportive of their suggestions.

 

Chairman Williams remarked that they were lucky to have Mr. Goldwater as an ally, and Mr. Goldwater responded that he was honored by that comment.

 

Assemblyman Horne asked Mr. Goldwater why “employee health plans” were omitted on Page 2, under paragraph 2, which dealt with the audit of Washoe County.

 

Mr. Goldwater replied that the listing was put together from specific areas of concern in a bill draft last summer.  As concerns had changed, things could be added or deleted as the Committee saw fit.

 

Chairman Williams asked for any other questions from the Committee.

 

Assemblyman Hardy asked for clarification that the intent was limited to administrative concerns.

 

Assemblyman Goldwater asserted that Mr. Hardy was correct, and explained that if certain provisions of class-size reduction were funded, but were not being accomplished, it would show in the audit.  The audit would not show whether or not class-size reduction was effective in increasing third-grade scores, for example.

 

Chairman Williams thanked Mr. Goldwater and sought questions from the Committee or others.

 

Ken Lange introduced himself as the Executive Director of the Nevada State Education Association and announced that he was speaking on behalf of the Association in favor of A.B. 162.  He read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D) and related that, as a representative of school employees, he frequently heard about school district practices that gave the appearance that the school districts wasted time and money.  He admitted that some of it was probably true, and said some was probably not true, but what he did know was that every superintendent and school board in Nevada did what they felt was their best to stretch tax dollars provided by the public to get a very tough job done.  He believed that the public had a right to expect that their tax dollars were spent wisely, and public school educators had the responsibility to inspire confidence that they were working toward that end.  Performance audits would work as a tool to show the public the work being done, as well as the results of that work. 

 

Mr. Lange strongly felt that a performance audit would help identify the best practices from other school districts and the private sector, and he mentioned that Arizona, Utah, Texas, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, and Oregon used performance audits for local governments and, in some cases, their school districts.  He divulged that in the year 2000, the Auditor General of Pennsylvania reported improvements in district operations for the school district of the city of Harrisburg that redirected more than $3.3 million back to the classroom over a 3-year period; in 2001, he reported a similar savings of $690,000 over a 3-year period in the Donegal school district after a performance audit.

 

Mr. Lange went on to detail that both the Washoe County and Clark County School Districts engaged in a variety of different performance audits over recent years.  Performance audits could be used to review support services as related to expenditures; however, the term was also used to describe a way to measure student performance, and he felt that there could be a time in the future when all audits could be integrated.  Dealing with administrative issues and efficiencies, he felt, was enough to contend with at the present time, and he said that NSEA would continue to work for increased academic achievement, and eventually, a comprehensive system.  He felt that it was owed to the public, students, and school employees to review school district practices that might yield savings or provide the efficient redirection of funds, and he wished to close the gap between the public’s lack of confidence in the school districts and the districts’ pride in their belief that they did a good job managing large enterprises.  He also disclosed that the districts’ work with the business community over the past two years had revealed a “significant disconnect” between the language of schools and the language of business, a gap which he felt which should be bridged.

 

Mr. Lange admitted that, as educators, they had a responsibility to the community; he also felt that business should share the responsibility, as well as their expertise.  He therefore proposed as an amendment the establishment of a Business Advisory Council to help guide the audit process, as well as expanding the number of districts to be audited, further defining the scope of the audit, and recommending to the extent possible that the audits were uniform from district to district.  He also was concerned about the confidentiality of personnel records and did not see a reason to open those.

 

Mr. Lange provided a copy of the proposed amendments for the Committee’s review (Exhibit E), and declared that NSEA saw the Business Advisory Council as an absolutely critical partner in the process.  He said the language in the amendments could be worked out with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), and detailed that, under Section 2, subsection 1, they were looking for a review of the alignment of the organization with the needs and expectations of the public, and whether those expectations were being met or exceeded, why, and what could be done.  Under subsection 2, he believed that training and development of management staff was a critical issue across the state; under subsection 3, they would look for the establishment and articulation of benchmarks for productivity and performance; and under subsection 4, research unusual or dramatic changes in specific line items.

 

Mr. Lange described the bill as a valuable process, and he also felt the smaller districts might benefit from the process.  He recommended that all districts with over 5000 students be included, which would involve Carson, Douglas, Elko, Lyon, and Nye counties.  He did not list, but wished to include, a provision to keep personnel records confidential.  He emphasized that there was a commitment to always doing better to inspire confidence.

 

At this point, Chairman Williams turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Horne, who recognized Assemblywoman Chowning.

 

Mrs. Chowning asserted that amended language was needed regarding the personnel records.  She also wondered that there was no fiscal note to the bill, asking that, if the other districts were added, would the audit still be able to be completed within the budget that the LCB gave the Audit Division.

 

Paul Townsend, Legislative Auditor for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, replied to Mrs. Chowning that last session they were directed by the Legislature to do a preliminary survey of the Washoe and Clark County School Districts to identify areas for future audits (Exhibit F).  He gave some background and noted that they found two states, Florida and Texas, who took an aggressive approach in the auditing or oversight of school districts.  He described the Office of Program Policy and Analysis and Government Accountability, whose acronym was OPPAGA, as a policy evaluation arm of the Florida Legislature, revealing that they implemented an aggressive audit program entitled “Florida Sharpening the Pencil” which was used as criteria for Nevada to identify areas under scrutiny.  The Texas Performance Review was also studied, as they had over 100 school district reviews that served 1.5 million students and focused mainly on operational accountability as opposed to educational accountability.

 

Mr. Townsend reported that the auditors looked at the key areas these states had identified, and then went to Washoe and Clark Counties to look at those areas.  Adding the other counties would be quite an expansion in scope, as well as the other items that had been mentioned here, and they would have to revisit the fiscal note.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if he would provide the information for the Education Committee.

 

Mr. Townsend replied that he certainly would.

 

Assemblyman Geddes disclosed that he had two questions.  The first was if there were any trend reports compiled by the district based on personnel records.  He did not believe that individual personnel records should be available, but that there could be information in those records that could provide better information to the performance audit. 

 

Mr. Lange said there were representatives from the district here who could probably report on that more accurately, but he could see where aggregation of data might be necessary; however, it would not require opening up the file.

 

Mr. Geddes then detailed that the bill implied a “sunset” statement similar to the previous bill presented, because it gave the date under Section 1, subsection 3, of “February 7, 2005.”  However, he said, the Business Advisory Council received new appointments every two years, and he asked if the audit would be done once, and then the Business Advisory Council would continue to monitor progress in meeting the recommendations, or if it was anticipated that the audit would go on.

 

Mr. Lange reflected that they anticipated that the follow-up would take longer than just closing down the audit, and in his research he found that the focus on the follow-up was significant.

 

Assemblyman Andonov noted that in the proposed amendment, the Business Advisory Council was selected by the local school boards based on the nomination process, and he asked if there were any criteria, such as being a business person, that was required.

 

Mr. Lange advised that they anticipated the members would come from the business community, and it was constructed rather loosely to give the school districts a chance to review the applicants, to select those who would provide the greatest amount of interaction and a broad spectrum of the business experience.

 

Mr. Andonov asked if it was at the discretion of the local school district.

 

Mr. Lange replied that it was at their discretion.

 

Mrs. Angle then queried Mr. Townsend as to how his performance standards were different than those in the original bill.

 

Mr. Lange explained that his standards were a little more specific in terms of “drilling down for the data.”

 

Mr. Townsend reported that he had not had an opportunity to review the amendments, so he could not comment.

 

Mrs. Angle requested that Mr. Townsend review the amendment to see how it would affect the audit process.

 

Vice Chairman Horne inquired if there were any other questions or any other testimony in support of or in opposition to A.B. 162, and he thanked Mr. Lange and Mr. Townsend.  He acknowledged that, from the nature of the questions, the Committee was not ready to vote on the bill and he closed the hearing on A.B. 162.

 

Chairman Williams then regained control of the meeting and spoke on the meeting coming up on Friday in Las Vegas, stating that Dr. Mabey would be seeing patients that day so he could not attend, and about half the members would attend in Las Vegas, with the other half watching the videoconference in Carson City.  He revealed that only one bill was scheduled to be heard, as that bill might have considerable testimony and the Chairman did not want the meeting to run late, since the members had already adjusted their schedules to meet on Friday, which was not a normal meeting day.  He also informed the Committee that the Speaker had indicated another possible trip to Las Vegas, but as it had not been scheduled yet, the Chairman would give all the members more notice than was given for Friday’s meeting.  He asked if there was any other business to come before the Committee.

 

Mr. Atkinson’s concern was if they could have the Speaker move along the Floor session on Friday, so the members could reach the airport in time for the 1 p.m. flight.

 

Chairman Williams promised to remind the Speaker.  He then announced that there would be a subcommittee meeting on A.B. 138 directly after this meeting was over.  He welcomed anyone in the audience to stay and adjourned the meeting at 5:21 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Victoria Thompson

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: