MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-Second Session
May 6, 2003
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:57 p.m., on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
Mr. Marcus Conklin, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Grady
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District No. 7, Clark County
Assemblyman David Parks, District No. 41, Clark County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Kelly Fisher, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Antonio Guitierrez, Intern to Senator Dina Titus
Stacy Jennings, Executive Director, Nevada Commission on Ethics
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy, Office of the Secretary of State
Mary Liveratti, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources
Gary Olson, Director/Advocate, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Advocacy Resource Center
Kelley Deriemer, Interpreter
Todd Butterworth, Acting Chief, Office of Community-Based Services, Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation
Robert Desruisseaux, representing the Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living
Daniel Lee, Citizen
John Sasser, representing Washoe Legal Services
Robert Foster, Citizen
Larry Struve, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs
Bonnie Parnell, representing the League of Women Voters
Maria Urbina, Student Body President, Carson High School
Andrew Heilman, Nevada YES Ambassador, Point of Light Foundation
Deborah Loesch-Griffin, representing Turning Point, Inc., Virginia City, Nevada
Craig Rock, Social Studies Teacher, Virginia City Middle School
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
[Roll called] Good evening and welcome, everybody. We have one Committee introduction. It urges Congress to provide a comprehensive plan for coverage of prescription drugs within the Medicare program. It was requested by Thelma Clark. I need a Committee introduction.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R‑1330 TO THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers and Mr. McCleary were not present for the vote.)
In addition to that, you should have your list regarding your interim studies for us to review. We will open the hearing on Senate Bill 123. This mirrors Assemblyman Parks’ bill that we passed out of the session already. I think it’s probably done as insurance, or they both had different ideas.
Senate Bill 123 (1st Reprint): Prohibits public officers and employees from requesting or otherwise causing state and local governments to, under certain circumstances, make expenditures to support or oppose ballot questions or candidates. (BDR 23-214)
Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District No. 7, Clark County:
We have amended Assemblyman Parks’ name onto this [bill]. Senate Bill 123 is a bill that was inspired by an article I saw in Time magazine. Here is the copy of the article (Exhibit C). During the last campaign, a number of public officials in Nevada suddenly popped up in television spots and on newsletters promoting the activities of their office. Not only is this an inappropriate exploitation of public dollars, but it also creates an unfair advantage for incumbents going into reelection. It gives them a free vehicle for getting their names and faces out to the electorate that their opponent does not have at their disposal. Senate Bill 123 simply prohibits a government agency from spending money on a pamphlet, brochure, or advertisement that prominently features the activities of current public officers of an entity who is a candidate for office during the campaign cycle.
The Ethics Commission amended this bill on our side to say that it’s not just an official, but would also refer to an agency. We supported that amendment. Before Antonio Guitierrez, who is my intern, gives you some background information, I do want the record to show that Assemblyman Parks was working on a similar BDR (bill draft request). I’m certainly supportive of that and we’ve amended this [bill] to include his name. Finally, it’s interesting to note that the Clark County manager, Thom Reilly, recognized this problem at the county level and the negative public perception that accompanied it. As a result, he instituted a policy regarding the use of the public TV channels there in Clark County, so that you cannot appear as a commissioner during the campaign cycle when you’re up for reelection, which is getting at the exact same problem that we’re addressing. So, if you’d allow Mr. Guitierrez to give you a little background, thank you.
Antonio Guitierrez, Intern to Senator Dina Titus:
[Mr. Guitierrez spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D).] It is absolutely critical that the Legislature take this bill into consideration and assist in enacting it. The federal government in recent years has taken bold steps to curb and circumscribe the actions of publicly elected officials in federal elections when the use of public funds is concerned. The federal government did the right thing by choosing to defend and protect the interests of the people above and beyond those of elected government officials. As Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “The interests, well-being, and wishes of the people must supersede those of the government in all circumstances if democracy is to ever blossom.”
In Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the use of public funds in Congressional campaigns unconstitutional unless the people who deposited funds into the accounts were notified first. The Court said, “When a spending program, especially one that deals with the use of public funds by an elected officer of government without the approval of the people, is not universal but limited, which is the case here since some elected officers are privy to it while others are not, it provides benefits to a restricted number of recipients: such selective spending is unconstitutionally coercive because it encroaches on the people’s First Amendment right to express where their money can go and how it can be spent.” The Court further explained that federal elected officials who utilize public funds to finance ads in their favor “distort an existing medium of expression” because they impose their ideas upon the people without allowing them the freedom to seek other potential candidates. The Court essentially found the use of public funds to finance ads unconstitutional because it favored some elected officials and disadvantaged others, thereby making elections “one-sided.”
If elected officials are permitted to use public funds to finance ads and commercials that feature them, then they are essentially granted a loophole to circumvent and evade campaign finance limitations and campaign contribution reporting requirements. To avoid this dilemma in federal elections, Congress has enacted several laws intended to protect public funds from being used as campaign contributions as well. The Campaign Reform Act of 2001 prohibits any elected official from using public funds to pay for ads that feature them unless individual citizens deposit funds into an account specifically established to finance such ads. The Campaign Communication Reform Act and the Campaign Expenses Publicity Act further prohibit publicly elected officials from using public funds to finance ads or commercials that feature them by requiring federal elected officials to report any and all funding used to pay for ads in which they are prominently featured and who funded them.
There are currently 11 states across the nation that have already enacted a provision prohibiting the appearance of publicly elected officials in any ads or commercials paid by state of public funds. That’s part of the package that I have disseminated for you (Exhibit E). Note that states such as Maryland, New York, and especially Vermont severely restrict the use of public funds by elected officials altogether. As you can very clearly see, Senator Titus’ bill, if enacted, would be in line but not excessive, when compared with what other states have done.
And in those states where extensive data is available, statistics demonstrate that the prohibition of elected officials from using public funds to pay for ads that feature them has significantly increased the confidence and trust of the people in the government, the elections system, and in public officials in general. States that have adopted this provision have also demonstrated less corruption among public officials, higher voter participation, and fewer complaints by voters of ethical violations against public officials. It is obvious that many positive and desirable results have risen from enacting such a crucial piece of legislation. It is now time for Nevada to act.
There are no current regulations in Nevada to address the use of public funds that feature political officials up for election. Nevada must now follow the example heralded by the federal government and other states and tighten its laws via the enactment of S.B. 123 as amended.
The use of state funds by publicly elected officials to finance their own political ads bolsters their probability to win reelection, which grants them an automatic advantage and places new candidates seeking public office at a clear disadvantage. Allowing publicly elected officials who are near reelection to use public funds to finance any ad or commercial severely undermines and circumscribes the effectiveness of elections.
If the actions of publicly elected officials, namely utilizing public funds to further their own political goals, stifle the people’s freedom of expression by willfully preventing the election of other potential candidates, then elections themselves cease to serve their intended purpose. The Legislature must level the playing field for all candidates and prevent unfair expenditures of taxpayer dollars.
By enacting S.B. 123 as amended, this Legislature will have delivered an effective message to all those elected officials who wish to utilize public funds for their own political goals that it will not tolerate such misuse of taxpayer dollars.
Members of the Committee, I urge you to enact S.B. 123 as amended. It will successfully prevent public funds from being misspent on implicit reelection campaigns and it will also guarantee the maintenance of free, competitive, fair, and clean elections. You as legislators can assure that the taxes the people of the state of Nevada pay into a public fund are not utilized as extra campaign contributions by publicly elected officials.
I am most grateful to you all today. Thank you for permitting me the opportunity to speak on this very crucial matter.
Assemblyman Anderson:
What happens where there’s a department that has a brochure that comes out? I think there’s one for aging services and for regional transportation. Members of the legislative body receive other kinds of questions during the time period we’re serving, which also happens to be campaign time. We provide those answers to constituents as part of our constituent service program. Does this hamper the ability to provide that kind of material?
Senator Titus:
We were concerned about that so we tried to tighten the language through amendment on the Senate side to be sure that it wouldn’t affect that. If there’s a brochure that’s been printed, like our legislative handbook, or a regular newsletter that goes out, I think that would not be included in this. This would apply to extra printing or something additional that doesn’t already go out. Page 2, Section 4, line 19, “The provisions of this section do not prohibit the creation or dissemination of, or the appearance of a candidate in or on, as applicable…” for an advertisement that “is made available to the public on a regular basis and describes the functions of the public office held by the public officer” or “the governmental entity by which the public officer…” is employed.
Assemblyman Anderson:
A couple of sessions ago, there was a major flood and the Department of Transportation put out a news photo of people who were out in that flood. It included several elected officials, including Assemblywoman Evans and myself, who were out looking at the damage in the roads in the north. So, that wouldn’t preclude that kind of activity.
Senator Titus:
My understanding is that would be protected under Section 4.
Assemblyman Anderson:
We currently have the legislator and the classroom program that we’re doing, which usually coincides with the time period when we’re right in the middle of campaigning and that is not precluded by this action, either?
Senator Titus:
No, it’s not. We had an example of the Governor’s face at the airport welcoming you to Nevada. That wouldn’t be included. I think the County Commission puts out a regular newsletter with the pictures of the members. That wouldn’t be included. We’re talking about something additional put out, not something that’s regularly distributed or is in the normal course of your duties as an elected official.
Stacy Jennings, Executive Director, Nevada Commission on Ethics:
I just wanted to say that we support the concepts that are contained in Senate Bill 123, as well as Assemblyman Parks’ bill, which we weren’t able to be here to testify on. We did have a complaint filed last summer during the election cycle against a public officer for something of this nature. The way the ethics and government laws are currently drafted, we were not able to find a violation under state law. I think this would give us the opportunity to be able to pursue those particular instances when the public officer, and especially putting the emphasis, I believe, on the public officer, for causing that to happen. I think that gives them some personal responsibility in the issue. I would just echo what Senator Titus just said that as the investigative agency for this particular [issue] we would be looking at whether this publication regularly available to the public, and if it is in the regular course of one’s duties. If that were the case, I don’t think we would find a violation.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
There have been ads over the last year of state officers promoting, for example, the Nevada Tuition Fund. This is not about them, it’s about the state, and yet we have those individuals marketing it as if it were for the State Treasurer, for example. Would this bill affect that and restrict that?
Senator Titus:
Yes, that did occur during the campaign, and that was one of the concerns. I think if it’s an ad featuring that elected official, especially at a campaign time, when you haven’t seen it on a regular basis, and it’s not part of a regular brochure, or something like that, it would be affected by this.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I still have a concern that it doesn’t go far enough, because the programs are not about the individual running the office. The programs are about state programs. I think that needs to be reviewed if that’s the case. We may want to tighten that up more.
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
We support this bill. We also supported Assemblyman Parks’ bill. We think it increases the public trust. It’s an important concept and I’m very happy, also, that not only candidates are included, but ballot issues. I have had experiences where the government seems to be promoting particular ballot issues with public funds, and the public is left to find their own financing for that. I think it ought to be on an equal basis. I support this bill.
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy, Office of the Secretary of State:
We, too, support the bill. We actually have some of your questions. Our office has pamphlets that we put out in our office: “Top Ten Reasons One Vote Does Count.” We take them to the schools, and it’s my understanding, as Senator Titus referred to, we spoke with her prior to the introduction of the bill, it’s not intended to capture that unless you’re going so far as to describe the duties of the public official when it’s otherwise not necessary. When we do disseminate those pamphlets to schools, we would leave them out there, but not disseminate those particular pamphlets during this time period. We’re perfectly satisfied with that. As you know, the statute was previously in Title 24. It was very broad. It didn’t get into the specifics of what you couldn’t do and what you could do. We receive about 10 to 20 complaints on this issue every election cycle. They’re very difficult to deal with because there weren’t definitions. With the definitions that Senator Titus has provided, I think it will make it much easier for the Ethics Commission to follow up. We fully support the bill.
Assemblyman David Parks, District No. 41, Clark County:
I would just simply like to go on record as saying, “Yes, I fully support this and hope that you will support it.”
Assemblyman Anderson:
Are we then to assume your bill has met a negative fate in the other chamber?
Assemblyman Parks:
I don’t believe that’s the case. I was testifying on a different bill moments ago, so at this point, I am not aware if my bill has bit the dust.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Okay, we needed to find out that your bill has a little different language but you paralleled everything else so there wouldn’t be a conflict amendment. [Assemblyman Parks indicated that was correct.] So, both bills are necessary and your bill has not met its demise to the best of our knowledge? [Assemblyman Parks indicated that was also correct.] We will close the hearing on Senate Bill 123 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 137.
Senate Bill 137 (1st Reprint): Establishes Legislative Committee on Persons With Disabilities. (BDR 17-700)
Senator Titus:
During the last legislative interim, I had the privilege of chairing the interim committee for the Study of State Programs for Providing Services to Persons with Disabilities. Senator Raymond Rawson served as vice chair and contributed greatly because he has a long record as being an advocate in this area. Other members included Senator Randolph Townsend and Assemblypersons Vonne Chowning, Jerry Claborn, and Sharron Angle. Staff for the study was just excellent. The team was lead by Bob Guernsey, and consisted of Jim Rodriguez, Leslie Hamner, and Jo Rasey. Over the course the year, we held five public meetings. We heard from state agencies, local governments, and members of the disabled community, advocacy groups, private organizations, and experts in the field. We also worked in cooperation with the Department of Human Resources Task Force on Disability that was created as a result of A.B. 513 of the 71st Legislative Session. I can’t emphasize enough how great it was to work with Michael Willden, who is the Director of the Department of Human Resources. Tackling an almost impossible task in a very short time, he was able to overcome formidable obstacles to bring all parties to the table to work together on this important issue in a collaborative way rather than an adversarial one. We’re also indebted to a number of other people who participated in that hearing including Donny Loux, who’s just recently retired, Dr. Tom Pierce from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Jon Sasser, who is here to speak to you today, and a number of others.
I believe you’ve all received copies of the report of the Task Force; if you don’t have it today, you should have gotten it at some time, or at least an executive summary of the Task Force’s report. You also have the Legislative Commission’s report from our interim committee (Exhibit F). Throughout the proceedings, two themes emerged. First, we sought to make serving those with disabilities a priority for the state, not an afterthought, because we believe that when the disabled can lead productive, happy, normal lives, we all benefit from their contributions to society.
Second, we attempted to identify and consolidate existing services and programs so they would be more accessible to the disabled and therefore more effective and more efficient. In other words, we were looking for one-stop shopping or “no wrong door,” and we wanted to make it easier to go to one place to get what you need. The bill before you today is one of several bill draft requests that came as recommendations from that interim committee. It is to establish a legislative committee on persons with disabilities. We thought that once this work had started, we shouldn’t just put it on the shelf. This is an ongoing area of concern. The Task Force recommendations are for ten years. Our own recommendations had some short-term goals that we could afford now and some long-term goals that we want to work toward in the future. We thought that having this established committee shows that this is a priority for the state and also provides some oversight as we move toward the next decade of trying to reach those goals.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I have to tell this story. It has no purpose other than for me to relieve my conscience, I guess. Last session in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, we had a lady who was signing, just as this lovely lady is signing in front of us. I didn’t realize why she had her back to the Committee, and I admonished her that she had her back to the Committee and that wouldn’t be tolerated because it was disrespectful. Of all people in the world, I should be very cognizant of that since I have students who have hearing impairment, and I have a niece who signs, has been signing for a long time, and has a master’s degree in it for education, so I’m very cognizant of that. So, it only reminds me that we need to make ourselves aware, always, even those of us who think we know a little bit about what it’s like. We don’t know enough to make ourselves truly accessible for those people who have different kind of problems or to make society truly open for everybody. So, I hope that we’re successful with this piece of legislation. Senator, I surely want to thank you. I hope that this is the same teacher, and if it is, I want her to know how deeply apologetic I am.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
You’re right. We all have to be sensitive. As a special education teacher of 23 years, even with my sensitivity, I forget sometimes. I need to ask, this is a result of the interim study and the reason for the request is to create a standing committee to make sure that certain recommendations may not be able to be dealt with in the short term would not be forgotten? [Senator Titus indicated that was correct.] This Committee has been pretty sensitive about not creating more standing committees. I’d be happy to get rid of some as we put new ones in and maybe we’ll do a trade on that part of it. It looks more like it’s written as an interim committee, but it doesn’t appear on our list. Do you know if the Senate intended it to be one of their interims?
Senator Titus:
I do not think so. This was supported by Senator Rawson. It came out of the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations, but usually we wait until the very end and look at all of them. That’s why I was under the impression that this was one to create as a standing committee, rather than just an interim study. We don’t need to study just this issue in the interim. It was to oversee all goals and the priorities for the next decade.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We don’t have a lot of interim studies that are worthwhile, in my opinion, so we may want to talk about that. Maybe we could make it similar to what we’ve done with other interims, and that’s give it a life cycle of maybe six, eight, or ten years. That way it goes away. I’m just exploring options before we have to make any decisions on that.
Senator Titus:
One time we thought about making it a subcommittee of some other standing committee, but I’m not sure which one would be appropriate.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I just looked at the list. I didn’t see any place it would logically fall.
Senator Titus:
Another one of the recommendations moving forward was to create in the Executive Office a division for the disabled, which would consolidate a lot of the different programs that have been in various agencies under one roof. I think that would parallel the actions of the Legislature. That’s moving forward and I think that’s a great improvement in terms of state agency reorganization.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
What’s the status of the Governor’s committee on the disabled? Has that been meeting? I used to be fairly active with it, but I haven’t [been lately].
Senator Titus:
Once they came with this Task Force Report, I don’t know.
Mary Liveratti, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources:
Are you talking about the Governor’s committee on employment for persons with disability? [Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated she was.] Yes, that does still function.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
And that does have a budgetary place already, does it not?
Mary Liveratti:
Yes, I believe that it was under business and industry and it’s moving over to DETR (Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation).
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I’m just looking at ways where we can network rather than duplicate it because I think that’s been part of the problem: if we’ve fractionalized the disabled community to some extent, nobody gets the benefits that they need. Maybe we could take a look at combining that or looking at the talents that are there and see if we can merge some things.
Senator Titus:
I think that’s fine. That is keeping with one of our themes to move towards one‑stop shopping, no wrong door, and better coordination.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I know that we’ve had in the budgets Medicaid issues that we’re trying to deal with, the Olmsted Act, and all of those pieces that need to go into play.
Gary Olson, Director/Advocate, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Advocacy Resource Center, speaking through Kelley Deriemer, Interpreter:
[Spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit G).] I’d like to thank you for excellent work during this financially difficult crunch time. I understand that it’s a difficult thing to have to deal with. We’re very fortunate to be here, to be able to give testimony to this, and to have an interpreter here, as well. Without one it would be very difficult for me to communicate with you.
My name is Gary Olson. I am a deaf person and I’m also the Director/Advocate of the new center called the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Advocacy and Resource Center located here in Carson City. I represent the deaf and hard of hearing population in Nevada.
I would like to go on record in support of S.B. 137, as it would create many great opportunities for better and appropriate services through research, new findings, and approaches on issues that deaf and hard of hearing taxpayers of Nevada face on a daily basis.
Senate Bill 137, to us, is very important because it will no doubt enable greater meaning for communication, especially between the state legislators and the deaf and hard of hearing population, and the disability population in general. Subtly, it will [allow] deaf and hard of hearing citizens to be heard. Hopefully, our legislators will listen to what our concerns are and become more truly representative of our needs.
Too often specific issues related to our communication with the disability community, such as, education, employment, and general welfare, are overlooked, or ignored or in the auditory world. This bill can complement several other bills currently in the Legislature, [and will] no doubt change this in a quick time.
Senate Bill 137 will provide better ways for collaboration with others within the disability community and the deaf and hard of hearing specifically. We are confident that you will make a difference in all people’s lives here in Nevada. We wholeheartedly support and hope that you will vote for it.
Mary Liveratti:
[Spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit H).] I am here to provide information on S.B. 137, which creates the Legislative Committee on Persons with Disabilities. On behalf of the Department of Human Resources, we would like to commend the interim study committee for the Study of State Programs for Providing Services to Persons with Disabilities for their work during the interim. It was a pleasure working with chairperson Dina Titus and the Committee. We especially appreciate the collaboration between the Committee’s work and our efforts in the strategic planning process authorized by A.B. 513 of the 71st Legislative Session.
Senate Bill 137 would require the Department of Human Resources to examine the feasibility of amending the Medicaid state plan to authorize Medicaid benefits for community based services for a person who relocates from a skilled or intermediate nursing facility to a community-based setting. To be eligible for these services, a person would have to meet three conditions. First, the person must be assessed and determined to be living in an unnecessarily restrictive residential environment. Second, the person must relocate from a nursing facility to a community-based care facility. Lastly, Medicaid benefits must have been used to pay for the cost of care for that person while in the nursing facility.
The Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities recommended that existing policy be amended to allow money to follow the person for individuals assessed to be in unnecessarily restrictive residential environments. This bill would require the Department of Human Resources to submit a report by July 1, 2004, to the Legislative Committee on the results of the feasibility study to amend the state plan for Medicaid.
In addition, S.B. 137 would require the Department of Human Resources to submit a report annually to the Legislative Committee on Persons with Disabilities, which would include information on three items:
We believe these reports will contribute to the continuing oversight and accountability of the strategic plan. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Todd Butterworth, Acting Chief, Office of Community-Based Services, Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation:
I just wanted to add one remark to what Mary shared with you. It’s important to note that while the most prominent part of this bill is the creation of the Legislative Committee on People with Disabilities, Section 9 asks Medicaid to implement a money-follows-the-person model to ensure the people receive Medicaid services in the least restrictive environment. This means that this bill, coupled with the Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities, which is covered in Senate Concurrent Resolution 10, these two bills, together, give the state of Nevada a defensible position with regard to [the] Olmstead [Act], so if any lawsuits are brought against Medicaid, these two bills cover that issue and ensure that we’re moving in the right direction.
Robert Desruisseaux, representing the Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living:
I am here today in support of Senate Bill 137. I went last because I know that my colleagues speak very well and they covered the points that I was hoping to cover.
Daniel Lee, Citizen:
How are you all doing? I’m here supporting [S.B. 137]. My memory is not that great, but that bill [is] for disabled people. I’d like to support the bill. My disability is I have separated my left from my right hemisphere of my brain. I’m not supposed to be smart or something, but there’s a lot of people like me. We need more services for disabled people. Let us help make our own decisions and please get us more help. As far as decision making, now I remember right after I got hurt, I could not make decisions well at all. Now, I’ve got a very good mind for making decisions on important stuff. I just wanted to say that us disabled people, brain injured, such as myself, we’re not all stupid as many people think. We’re a little bit slower. Could you please help us out with that?
Personally, myself and many other people are looking for work. They have me working [at] OARC (Ormsby Association of Retarded Citizens), with retarded people. I can’t even interact with these people, because seeing how my brain sort of got messed up, I don’t need anyone bringing me down or dragging me back. Please help us to get real work. I’m thinking of finding out how to get into doing something such as this and speaking for the people. I don’t have any notes or anything, just these that my care-taking lady wrote down for me in the last three minutes. If I get into something, I really get a lot of information on the subject. There are many people such as myself out there. Just, could you help us? We’ve come a long way, but we’ve got a very long way to go. Thank you for hearing me.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Thank you, Mr. Lee. Your comment about decision-making is exemplified in your willingness to come here and testify upon an issue that you obviously feel very passionate about. Many of us up here share your passion and obviously many in the audience do as well. We appreciate your courage to come here and share your story with us. We look forward to having you here again and hopefully this will have safe passage forward.
John Sasser, representing the Washoe Legal Service:
I had the honor of serving on the Task Force that put together the strategic plan. One of the things that really made an impact on me was the people with disabilities saying nothing about us without us. I think this ongoing legislative committee to oversee the programs that came out of the plan is an excellent method for involving the people with disabilities in the process on an ongoing basis, and I urge your support.
Robert Foster, Citizen:
The gentleman just before me for the record was Dan Lee. Dan lives in the same building I do and he’s been an inspiration to me since he moved in there. When he first moved in, he was in a wheelchair and he was bound and determined he wasn’t going to stay there. As of today, he’s worked up to a walker, a cane, and I see him strolling down the hallway by himself a lot, as I oftentimes do. I just want to say that I’m very much in support of this bill. It’s going to help us an awful lot.
Assemblywoman Weber:
I just wanted to make a comment as a point of personal privilege. This area that we’re about ready to vote has a very special meaning to me. I’m severely hearing impaired. When I grew up, I was in an impaired hearing [class], learned lip reading, and I may over the next course of several years need a constant hearing aid. When I was growing up in first, second, and third grade, I got on one of those special busses to go to a special classroom to be with children who had hooks and were in wheelchairs, with double hearing aids, and severe hearing loss. I was probably the best out of those kids, as far as outlook of their disability. I just want to applaud everybody who came today to testify, because it’s a point of personal strength to do that. I think this should be a one-stop type of approach. Also, when my mother was sick and dying from cancer, she was in a wheelchair, as well. You suddenly discover your world all over again when learning what it’s like to live with a disability. I just applaud Senator Titus for bringing this forward. I think it’s more than overdue. We have made a lot of headway since the 1960s when I was in grammar school, but I have those memories, I know what those memories are like, and I believe we will have a great future to pull all of these services together.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We all echo Ms. Weber’s concerns. I think we want to look at assimilation. The disabled community has tended to be ostracized. In education for many years, they used to place hearing-impaired students in self-contained classrooms. Many times, they were totally above average intelligence, had no other disability, and could function with all of the other regular kids. So, you have to find that balance. We’ve done a better job in education over the years, but I think sensitivity is still something that’s needed there. That’s not just with the deaf community; that’s with any of the disabled areas. I’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 137 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 309.
Senate Bill 309 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning support for participatory democracy. (BDR 18-1167)
Senator Titus:
As many of you will recall, in 1997, the Legislature authorized creation of an Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy charged with advising the Director of Cultural Affairs on several things:
· First, the coordination of public agencies involved in various programs designed to increase participation.
I was a member of that original committee and that’s why I’m here today. I worked with Mr. Larry Struve, who’s also here. The committee subsequently conducted a study of Nevada to look at how well we do when it comes to participating in the democratic process. I am sad to report to you that our overall grade was a C. That’s passing, but it’s not anything to brag about. Since then, the committee has continued to meet and has come up with some recommendations on how we can improve that grade and increase participation in Nevada. The bill before you today is aimed at doing that and incorporates some of those recommendations.
Those recommendations came out of this report (Exhibit I) called “Participatory Democracy in Nevada.” Basically, the contents of the bill first make the committee a permanent body under the auspices of the Office of the Secretary of State, which is an appropriate place for it because that’s where all the elections procedures are housed. Second, it gives that committee the authority to seek and receive grants for funds that can be used in programs for increasing participation. Third, it authorizes a gene for democracy award for individuals or groups who do outstanding work in the area of increasing participation. I’ll leave it to Mr. Struve to give you more details, but I would encourage your support because the only way that this country can stand strong is if we all participate in it. Whether you agree or not, it’s the fact that you make your voice heard that’s really important.
Larry Struve, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy:
With me is Scott Sisco, who is the Acting Interim Director of the Department of Cultural Affairs. He will be speaking shortly. I wanted to make sure you have received the four handouts that I’ve prepared for your Committee. Senator Titus has already indicated the 2003 report. There’s also a duplication of the 2001 report card that Senator Titus referred to, my letter dated May 6, 2003 (Exhibit J); and a letter dated May 6, 2003 from the State Bar of Nevada (Exhibit K), which is speaking in support of this bill.
As Senator Titus indicated, Senate Bill 309 is the culmination of a long process that began in 1997. That 1997 bill authorized the creation of an Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy. Basically, its mission was to examine how well our democratic institutions were functioning and to make recommendations both to the Director of the then-Department of Museum, Library and Arts and also to the Legislature on how to improve our democratic institutions. As indicated in our 2003 report, our Committee was never able to launch independent studies primarily because we were not the recipients of any appropriated funds. We had to do this strictly as volunteers. Fortunately, there were some very dedicated people who served with me on the Advisory Committee during this six-year period that resulted in our first report. For those of you who are new this session, this was the 2001 report to the Nevada Legislature. There is an executive summary. I believe it is in exhibit 1 in the 2003 report (Exhibit I), which gave our initial recommendations. As a result of our 2001 report, the 2001 Legislature passed A.C.R. 38 of the 71st Legislative Session, which is in Appendix 2 of the 2003 report.
[Larry Struve continued.] I think what the Legislature was asking us to do after they received our 2001 report was to take a look at this report card that we had prepared and to look at the 16 recommendations that we made on how the state of Nevada, involving both the Legislature and the Executive Branch, could try to address some of the problem areas on this report card. Just to refresh your memory, the only area where we gave the grade of A, is that our current constitutional structure, when judged against the standards used by the United Nations to determine whether a democratic form of government is in place, meets all the criteria.
The good news is we don’t have to tinker with the organizational structure that sets up our government and our local governments in Nevada. Unfortunately, setting up a structure, like in a constitution, and implementing laws, doesn’t mean much unless the people are participating to make the life of society come alive in making appropriate public policy decisions.
We gave the state of Nevada a D– for voter participation. It was primarily based on two or three factors. For about the last 10 or 15 years, there’s been a steady decline in the percentage of eligible citizens in Nevada participating in Nevada elections. It reached the low point in 1996, when Nevada had the lowest participation of all the 50 states in that presidential election year. I think we improved a bit in the 2000 election, but I would point out to the Committee that of all the eligible voters in Nevada, based upon the research done by one of the Committee members, Donald Klasic, who used to advise the Office of the Secretary of State, only 39.9 percent of eligible Nevada voters participated in that hotly contested presidential election.
[Larry Struve continued.] In the most recent 2003 general election, which you would expect in an off year, the percentage dropped to 31.5 percent. It was also noted in some news reports, both in 1996 and in 2000, that in one area particularly Nevada was falling behind. That was in the area of voting by the persons of the ages between 18 and 26. Here, we have a very significant problem, because in response to polls as to why young people are not participating in the electoral process, they made the astounding statement to the pollsters that in their opinion, voting was a matter of choice, and it didn’t matter whether they participated or not. Somehow there’s been a disconnect of what our whole government system is based upon, namely consent of the government, and what we have currently evolved into. Therefore the grade D– has not improved since the 2001 Legislative Session.
In education in civics, we gave a grade of C–. We do have some rather notable and outstanding programs that are currently going on in our school system. Senator Ann O’Connell actually participated as a judge in one of them. It’s called “We the People.” Civics classes that study our constitutional history prepare for a competition in which there is a mock hearing in front of a legislative committee. The members of the class are divided into six teams that are asked some very specific questions about contemporary public policy issues, how they would resolve them, and how they recommend the Committee resolve them, which obviously requires a great deal of preparation. Winners of the state competition go back to Washington D.C. Nevada has done very well in this national competition.
Unfortunately, programs like this are reaching only a fraction of the students in our school system. Judy Simpson, who serves on our committee and who has been a very strong advocate for civics education, has pointed out that Nevada is just now finalizing the standards that are used in social studies and the teaching of civics education in the values of citizenship. They have not been implemented. There may be some delay in implementation of the standards for fiscal reasons. Nevertheless, the fact remains that what we are teaching our children and what they are learning when they get out of school, in terms of being good citizens, is just not cutting the mustard, as is revealed in the low participation rates in elections.
The fourth category was called civic involvement. This is a harder one for us to grade because this involves volunteers who serve on various civic boards at various levels of government. It involves the choices that voters have by citizens who offer their services and their talents to the people. In that regard, it was not evident from the material that we have access to that Nevada had done a very good job in encouraging broad-based and deep civic involvement in the area of forming public policy.
[Larry Struve continued.] There was one bright spot. That was in the 2000 census. Nevada improved its record in response to the census, over the 1990 census, by about 5 percentage points. That was the result of using ads that were paid for by the Interim Finance Committee that explained to the citizens of Nevada that if they didn’t participate in the census and didn’t get counted, then the number of dollars they got from the federal government based on census figures would be less. In that regard, Nevada made improvement. Our overall response rate is still only in about the 35 or 36 range among the 50 states, so there clearly is room for improvement.
It was the decision of our Committee that, having wrestled with this as volunteers, if we were going to continue this initiative to make participatory democracy a serious matter in this state, it had to have higher visibility. We knew it was not feasible to ask for money from the Legislature to do our programs. That was the reason we felt that the best solution was to put this program in an office whose job it is to improve citizen participation, particularly in elections. That is the Office of the Secretary of State.
In our 2003 report (Exhibit I), you will find on pages A through H a matrix in which we have taken each of the 16 recommendations that were in our 2001 report. That is in the first column. In the second column, we have tried to concisely state what happened in the interim from 2001 to 2003. Then, in the third column, we have included the recommendations that we are making to you and other public officers in the state of Nevada. Rather than belaboring the point, I would simply say that Senate Bill 309 takes each one of the recommendations that require some kind of legislative response and have rolled it into this omnibus bill.
It has received the endorsement of not only our committee, I believe you will be hearing from the Office of the Secretary of State that they support it, and we received a strong endorsement from the Nevada League of Cities, which in August of 2002 passed a resolution, a copy of which is in the appendix (Exhibit I) of our 2003 report, strongly endorsing this effort.
Finally, we have the letter from the State Bar of Nevada (Exhibit K), which indicated that this thoughtful approach is a good next step. We hope that with the support of the Secretary of State we can find those outside grants that would give us the resources to move even more aggressively in some of these other areas to tackle this problem. The bottom line is stated in my letter to you (Exhibit J) on page 4. I will read it into the record:
The Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy reaffirms its belief that low citizen participation and our national, state, and local government processes is a serious public policy issue. In a democratic system such as ours, citizen participation is not a matter of choice. It is a solemn obligation tied to preservation of the democratic institutions, which have been established through the blood, treasure, and effort of previous generations. Protecting and encouraging its exercise deserves the attention of all levels of government. Passage of S.B. 309 would be an important step in underscoring the importance of keeping our system of participatory democracy alive. The Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy urges favorable action by the Committee.
I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
I have a question for you regarding the makeup of the current committee versus the makeup of the committee as proposed in the bill. This bill has ten people to be on the committee. What is the current committee?
Larry Struve:
Sadly, I have to report that the current committee is not at its fully authorized number set forth in the regulation adopted by the Director of the Department of Cultural Affairs. We have been in a state of transition. Some of our former members included people like Mayor Masayko, Mayor of Carson City, who said that he simply had too much business that he had to attend to. Once we got the 2001 report, he could no longer serve. Another one who had to leave was Cynthia Dunn, who was from Las Vegas. I think she worked in the Las Vegas mayor’s office. I understand she has relocated out of state. We’ve lost a representative from the City of Reno, Mary Henderson. She was on our Committee and represented the League. These vacancies have occurred within this past year.
Because we were processing this bill that contemplated putting it in to the Office of the Secretary of State, we are basically left with about six to seven working members. The ex-officio member is Scott Sisco. David Byerman is the Chair of the Citizens Advisory Board for the Sparks City Council. Donald Klasic, a former Deputy Attorney General and also legal counsel to the University of Nevada system, has been a long-term member. Judy Simpson is an educator who retired from active teaching but who now works in citizenship education for the Center for Civic Education. She’s been an extremely valuable resource in developing our recommendations on civics education.
I’m missing some, but the entire list is contained in the Appendix 8. It lists the seven members that are currently serving. Senator Dina Titus and Senator Michael McGinness, the two co-sponsors of S.B. 309, have been members of the Committee in an advisory and ad hoc capacity for the last five years. We also have a resource panel. Their names are also listed. These are individuals who are not voting members of the Committee but who have a very strong interest because of their other affiliations in the subject matter of participatory democracy. I believe that what will happen is, if you process the bill, the current members will continue to serve until the Secretary of State makes his appointments, as provided in Section 13 of the bill. There will be staggered terms. I believe the Secretary of State will be looking at geographical balance, balance between the private and public sectors, and other considerations. So, I’ll have to really defer to him in terms of the future makeup and what I’ve testified to on the current makeup. That’s the best I can do.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
In administrative code, what is the maximum number on the Committee?
Larry Struve:
I believe it’s ten.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
That’s all I needed.
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs:
Again, when this legislation originally created a repository in the Nevada State Library, it allowed the Director of the Department of Cultural Affairs to create an Advisory Committee for Participatory Democracy. I’m pleased to report that as the Committee got going, they branched out beyond just overseeing the items going in the repository. The State Library will continue to maintain the repository, the public records of things that are done across or throughout the state by citizens participating in the democratic process. We will continue that. For the Committee to continue to expand and flourish the way it has, it will better fit in the Office of the Secretary of State. I’m just here to say the Department of Cultural Affairs strongly supports this and we’re pleased to have started this whole process, see it grow, and move it to the Office of the Secretary of State.
Bonnie Parnell, representing the League of Women Voters:
As a retired long-time social studies teacher, I couldn’t be happier to be speaking in support of S.B. 309, in both capacities. The League, if you read the mission statement for the League of Women Voters, even from the national level down, it seems to all be written in S.B. 309. Their goal was to increase participation in the democratic process and be involved with the community level, the state level, and the national level. On behalf of the League, I support this. Also, as a schoolteacher who taught sixth-grade social studies and eighth-grade government, who every four years, from 1972 to 2000, did a mock presidential election in my classroom, [I support this bill]. If there’s just one thing I think we need to spend more time and energy, devotion, and passion [on], it is making sure that our young people, who you are going to hear from, understand the importance of voting and involvement, and whenever I have a chance to speak, I share that with them and hope that they will one day want to go on to an elected office or helping this country out as best they can.
Maria Urbina, Student Body President, Carson High School:
I’m here to share my experiences in how I’ve become active in our government and in my community. I feel that it’s not only important to excel academically, but it’s also important to understand our democratic system to understand why it is important to serve in our community, and to become educated in our system. For example, I’ve testified on two other bills and I really didn’t know how the bills worked and how one went from one house to the other. It’s really being here and being active and using service learning and hands-on experience to understand our democratic system and how you guys work and what you do, which is wonderful.
I’ve been very active in our schools and communities; I served as the state board president for student councils in the state of Nevada. I also served on the State Juvenile Justice Commission. I think it’s important that this bill is passed because not only is it important for citizens, meaning over 18, to become involved, to understand, to vote, and to participate, but I also feel that it’s important to educate and to prepare our young people, such as myself, in to become involved in our government and our system.
Andrew Heilman, Nevada YES Ambassador, Points of Light Foundation:
YES is an acronym for Youth Engaged in Service. I am here today to offer testimony in support of the goals and intentions of S.B. 309 and voice my overall support for the bill. In the Advisory Committee for Participatory Democracy’s (ACPD) reports to the 2003 Legislature, the efforts of service learning, “Practitioners Throughout Nevada,” was not included, unfortunately. This is most likely due to the fact that, we, the service learning community, were previously unaware of the ACPD’s efforts regarding the gathering of information related to programs aimed at increasing civic participation in Nevada. I stand before you now to offer information about the service learning in Nevada and its efforts to research civic participation among Nevada’s youth.
[Andrew Heilman continued.] You have a variety of resources in front of you from my office and myself. The first one is a white paper (Exhibit L) on service and learning nationally. Service learning can be defined as an educational process in which students’ academic learning, personal growth, and civic development are intentionally connected to service activities that meet genuine community needs. Research shows that students who engage in service learning develop a greater sense of civic responsibility and efficacy, increase their understanding of how government works, increase their political attentiveness, knowledge, and desire to become politically active feel that they have made a positive contribution to their community, and therefore feel connected to their community. Service learning is a nationally recognized teaching method that, to quote the National Council for Social Studies:
“Increases students awareness of the community and world around them, the unmet needs in our society, the agencies and institutions involved in attempting to meet those needs, and a variety of strategies that they can use to create a better world. Through direct experiences working with others in the community, students learn that our American society is unfinished and that they can play a key role in narrowing the disparity between our democratic ideals and the realities of our daily life.”
Locally, here in Nevada, service learning is already recognized as a method for engaging our students in civic responsibility while educating them within the standards already created by the Nevada Department of Education and those standards that are being created today.
Service learning efforts in Nevada began back in 1991. In 1999, the Nevada Service Learning Partnership (NSLP) was established to create a statewide support structure for service learning advocates and practitioners. Today the NSLP continues to offer support through collaboration and shared resources related to service learning in Nevada. Through the efforts of the NSLP and its affiliates, service learning is being used by over 300 K-through-12 teachers, more than 30 higher education faculty, and over 45 community-based organizations to build civic skills, develop social capital, address community problems, and strengthen academic learning. The Nevada Department of Education, through three regional service-learning centers, offers teachers in-service training on service learning, as well as curriculum support stipends, and mini grants for funds for curriculum based service-learning projects. These services have been offered since 1999 through the Department’s service-learning regional centers.
[Andrew Heilman continued.] You will see a paper (Exhibit M) titled, “Suggested language improvements to S.B. 309.” These are areas we find concerns and we’d like to see the bill strengthened. We would like to see an addition to Section 7 requiring the creation of a youth-led subcommittee with an appointed liaison to the ACPD to advise the ACPD on how principles of participatory democracy may be better taught in our schools and universities. It is our strong assertion that in order to increase civic involvement among youth, it is the duty of the ACPD to model and promote youth involvement at the highest level.
You will also see in addition, in Section 12.1(a), which is on page 5, line 8, we would like to include the language “including co-curricular activities as they seek to promote civics in the skills and values of citizenship.” We certainly believe that efforts in the classroom should be considered, but we also believe that efforts outside of the classroom greatly contribute to civic education of students.
In Section 12, subsection 2, line 24, page 5, we would like to specifically include the process of service learning to the language to the effort of,
The State Board of Education and the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada shall consider and develop recommendations including the process of service learning to the 73rd Session of the Legislature concerning how principles of participatory democracy can be better taught and practiced in the schools, colleges, and Universities of Nevada.
I would like to add that both the NSLP and myself fully support the goals and intentions of S.B. 309.
It has been our belief, it has also been our strong practice that through service learning, we have and will continue to work to increase the civic engagement of Nevada’s youth. It has been our mission and will continue to be our mission. The NSLP serves as a great resource. I myself through the Points of Light Foundation can serve as a great resource for service learning. It is essentially my job as the YES ambassador to promote more opportunities for youth to get involved in their communities, get involved in civics, and become involved at a great level through service that they feel a belonging to their community.
I’m just going to cover a few of the additional resources I handed out. In a large white envelope (Exhibit N) there is the students and service to America Guide Book. If it isn’t interactive enough, the whole thing is on the CD-ROM in the back. This was issued through the Corporation for National Service, the President of the United States, and the Points of Light Foundation in Washington, D.C. It is essentially a guidebook on how to establish service-learning programs in schools. It was sent to every school across the country, and certainly more of them are readily available. There are also a variety of other resources we handed out to you, generally on service learning, the impact it attempts to have in civic engagement of our youth, and the benefits we feel it brings when youth are engaged in service learning.
Assemblyman Grady:
First Mr. Heilman, I thank you for your e-mail today, I’m sure most of us received that and I recommended in my answer to you that you get a hold of Larry Struve. I’m glad to see you were way ahead of me on that.
Deborah Loesch-Griffin, representing Turning Point Inc., Virginia City, Nevada:
I’m also an Associate Director with the Center for Program Evaluation and Partnership Development at the University. I have been a standing member of the Nevada Service Lending Partnership since its inception and associated with service learning for over the past decade. I was thrilled to see S.B. 309 and support that very strongly, but I would also like to reinforce some of the comments made to you by Ms. Urbina and Mr. Heilman regarding service lending and the power it has to really connect young people with our communities and also build them as active citizens.
I have provided you some materials (Exhibit O) that I think give you some opportunity to look at some of the national efforts going around on studies of civic engagement and our young people, particularly as this bill does speak to the K-12 system, the universities, and how they are preparing young people for active roles as citizens. Those three things come from the circle. You will see that. That will give you some information on civic indicators. Also included is additional information on service learning, what it is and what it’s not, then a short excerpt out of the civic mission of schools report.
I attended a conference two weeks ago, the National Service Learning Conference. I attended a workshop that was presenting three national studies on civic engagement and its relationship to service learning. I think service learning, in addition to some of the other stellar programs that have been previously, provides opportunities for authentic engagement in community in and addressing, through meaningful service, real social issues and problems facing young people as well as the communities in which they live. I think it’s that differentiation in terms of getting young people engaged in real issues and actually giving voice to real problems and seeing the difference their involvement can make that was tied most strongly in the three studies I had the opportunity to listen to.
The interaction plus the actual meaningful service in reflection, and being able to work on real issues with adults who are also engaged in demonstrating and modeling what it means to be an active citizen, showed the strongest results in terms of developing civic engagement and the knowledge, attitudes, and skills for being active citizens. So, I really urge you to listen to and adopt some of the language that Mr. Heilman has suggested in terms of service learning being included on the list as one of those opportunities that could be initiated through the schools. I strongly endorse and support Senate Bill 309.
Craig Rock, Social Studies Teacher, Virginia City Middle School:
I have been [a social studies teacher] for the last ten years. In the last two years, my school district allowed me the opportunity to take half my school time and coordinate a part of the Nevada Service Learning Partnership Grant for Storey and Lyon Counties. Since you have a lot of information already about service learning, I just wanted to give you some ideas, or some examples of some of the work that we’ve done that young people can do if given the chance if they have the support of such bills as Senate Bill 309.
At our middle school, we supported a candidate’s night in a mock election in November. Our high school shop class created a park kiosk and we submitted that to the State Park Trails Grant Program and we received a $26,000 grant to build an interpretive kiosk and trail in Virginia City. In Dayton, we had kids and adults work together on a renovation program to rebuild an underused area of Dayton State Park. We’re also financially supporting an Explorers program in Yerington to train older youth to assist in disaster relief.
We’re supporting a mentoring project at Fernley High School. We’re assisting in financing and creating a TMCC (Truckee Meadows Community College) course, Environmental 100, using service learning as a teaching strategy. It’s a lot of work to get kids involved in their communities and in their schools. It’s an impossible task to just lay it on a social studies teacher and say, “Go ahead and do it.” All of us have to be involved, from you on down, from the Governor, from all of the different branches of the government, from members of the community, from higher education, and from schools, and the school boards. I think especially Section 12, mandating that school districts submit an annual report on their efforts in civic education and on civic participatory skills, would go a long way in bringing this to happen. I think we all know as educated people we’re going to have a lot of challenges ahead of us in the years to come, whether they are political or economical. I think if we start now, we can be better ready to address those issues when they bring themselves forward.
Renee Parker:
We fully support this bill. We also think that Mr. Heilman’s suggestions would certainly add value to the bill. I guess my only concern would be in ensuring we could get the Senate to concur on any amendments at this time and not jeopardize the bill. It would be our intent, in looking at this bill and the appointment of the Advisory Committee, that we could appoint a student or a representative of a student group to the Advisory Committee. As you know, Secretary Heller is in favor of anything that helps increase voter participation, anything that will help America vote. We do fully support the bill and are willing to take on the responsibility for ensuring the Advisory Committee is representative entirely of the state and will hopefully gain some funding. I think we do have some resources in our office to look at, maybe some grants that we haven’t otherwise been able to obtain, that could help with some of the funding and ensuring better resources for this effort.
[Vice Chairman Conklin asked if there were any other questions or testimony. There were none and he adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Corey Fox
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: