MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-second Session
May 7, 2003
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Vice Chairman Cegavske, at 12:05 p.m., on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4406, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Belinda Yealy
Cynthia Knew
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Sherrie Morton
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Clark County Association of School Administrators
Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Kenneth B. Lange, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
James W. Penrose, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B. 234).
ASSEMBLY BILL 234 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing school bus transportation. (BDR 34-811)
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
Previous legislation gave teachers the authority, after progressing through the discipline procedures required by district policy, to invoke a referral of a student out of the classroom and into due process. Assembly Bill 234 applies to school bus drivers. Section 1 of the bill addresses students with disabilities. Section 2 says school bus drivers shall comply with the applicable policies and regulations of the school district. This is not an attempt to subvert the existing policies in any district. If a bus driver believes the safety of other students on the bus is compromised, and the administration has not dealt with the situation, they can invoke this provision to begin due process. This is not an indictment of administrators or school districts. It is simply a cry for help from bus drivers who have dealt with situations, and thought they did not receive appropriate support. The rest of the bill describes the required actions by the driver, including delivery of the pupil to the regular bus stop, an explanation for the removal of the student, and written documentation to the principal.
Senator Washington:
Do local school districts handle this with their rules and regulations?
Ms. Cahill:
Section 2 has language intended to clarify bus drivers follow all current practices and policies. In many districts there are forms of progressive discipline. We believe many situations are resolved, and in general, the districts are doing a pretty good job. The witness in Las Vegas will describe situations where the driver can issue many citations for the same student. Once the driver citation is issued, it is out of the driver’s hands. We think the driver needs the authority to say the situation needs attention. If the administration handled all citations appropriately, this bill would not be necessary.
Senator Washington:
Are there several incidents that have taken place?
Ms. Cahill:
We have heard compelling testimony during the Assembly hearings. We think in most cases the system is working well. When the system occasionally breaks down, the drivers feel helpless to deal with the situation.
Senator Washington:
Concerning the situations you are referring to, did the drivers take their complaints to the local trustees in order to seek a remedy?
Ms. Cahill:
Not to my knowledge. However, I would like to defer to the witness in Las Vegas.
Senator Neal:
Have the students been issued specific rules about bus conduct?
Ms. Cahill:
To my knowledge, students have been issued specific rules concerning bus conduct.
Belinda Yealy:
I have been a substitute driver, a regular status driver, and a route driver since 1981. I have experienced things that threatened my life and safety and that of the students. The smallest complaint can become life threatening if not dealt with appropriately.
In Clark County, we have Clark County School District Regulation 3533, to help transportation employees with problems on buses. However, the administration does not always seem to be aware of the regulation. When administrators are given copies of the regulation, some will not honor it. I know of a driver who gave testimony for this bill and was suspended pending termination. This driver could have been spared the problem if the provisions of A.B. 234 were in force.
Cameras on every bus will not always help. A law is needed that is more than a promise by the administration to do the right thing. The bill will not require additional funding. The Clark County School District currently funds training programs for drivers. A coworker who drives students from Burkholder Middle School has had profanity and threats of bodily harm directed at him by a student. The administrator “is not sure what to do.”
Senator Cegavske:
We will have copies of Clark County School District Regulation 3353 distributed to the committee members.
Senator Washington:
I will ask the same question I asked Ms. Cahill. Were problems addressed to the local school board, and did they take time to review them?
Ms. Yealy:
When we went to the school board, they promised to act upon the problem. Last year they came up with the regulation. I have spoken with board members, in particular Mary Beth Scow, and I have attended parent meetings. I discovered the regulation on the Internet. My supervisor was not aware of the regulation. As an employee, I attended conferences, and passed out copies of the regulation to everybody I knew. A driver who testified before the Assembly had 18 citations for one elementary student. The administrators convened a couple of conferences with the parents, but the student continued to ride the bus. Finally, an electronic game was given to the student. Three days later the driver wrote an additional citation.
Cynthia Knew:
I have been a bus driver since 1975, and I concur with testimony of a student not being removed from a bus. Last year a special needs student bit and kicked his teacher and me when we tried to put him in his seat. I wrote a citation and the teacher delivered it to the principal. The principal said nothing could be done because the child was disabled. After about the tenth citation, the principal told the teacher and me not to write any more citations. She would deal with the problem. I went to the training department and showed an instructor my bite and scratch marks. The child was still on the bus. He could not be seated with other students because he would hit them. The buses for these children are small, and our attention had to be directed to this child and not the other children. If this law had been in effect, we would have been able to remove the child and make the mother aware of the problem. We fear for the safety of the students.
Senator Neal:
This bill requires the driver to exercise a judgment call, possibly leading the student to be expelled from the bus until a hearing. I am worried about that discretion. Are we talking about many incidents?
Ms. Knew:
We are talking about quite a few incidents. Five years ago the drivers in one yard contacted Ms. Yealy and me. Nearly every driver at Woodbury School had turned in citations and the principal was not responding. We spoke to the administrator and he said he had taken care of the problem. On average, at least one driver in every yard has trouble every day with a student.
Senator Neal:
What training are you given in terms of dealing with children?
Ms. Knew:
We receive limited training in how to deal with children. The department does not have the funds necessary for extensive training. Driving instructors and trainers try to cover the subject, but there are so many new regulations and laws pertaining to driving it limits time to teach student discipline. There were 300 citations including “campfires” issued in 3 months from 22 drivers at Woodbury School.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
May we ask what is a campfire?
Ms. Knew:
Students will cut out the back of the seat and light a fire.
Senator Washington:
A fire on the bus is a safety threat to the lives of students and bus property. By the time you get through the procedure to expel the student from the bus there could be a lot of damage done. I would suspect in an incident like that a child could be automatically removed. It is more than a discipline problem, it is actually arson.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Under a life-threatening circumstance such as you related, can you dispatch a message on the radio in order to have the police informed?
Ms. Knew:
Yes, we have a procedure called “break-break.” Once we implement it, the radio is supposed to clear and give the driver sole use. Unfortunately, there are too many drivers and not enough channels for us to have individual channels. Many times the dispatcher or supervisors may not hear the “break-break.”
Senator Washington:
If we are dealing with a delinquent child who started a fire, instead of going through the citation process, that child should be put off the bus until it is deemed his or her conduct has changed.
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
Safety on school buses is a critical issue. I am sure there have been problems where drivers did not feel adequate support. In reference to the example of 18 citations issued and a lack of administrative support, I agree that is ridiculous. Under the present policy students can be immediately removed from a bus. I will begin my formal comments (Exhibit C) by stating this legislation mirrors A. B. No. 319 of the 71st Session.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
What does the district provide in the way of training for the bus drivers?
Mr. Kadlub:
I believe our driver training instructor in Las Vegas will be able to answer questions concerning training.
Senator Nolan:
The fiscal note causes concern. If it is determined A.B. 234 would have this kind of financial impact on the district as a result of holding a number of hearings, we are admitting there would be a number of students who would fall under the provisions and have their bus privileges suspended. The fiscal note lends credibility to the fact there is a big problem and we need this bill.
Mr. Kadlub:
I believe the first point to make is that issues we are talking about are resolved in most cases. There are not a host of citations being ignored by school administrators. The legislation requires the bus driver be present at a conference, which would necessitate providing a substitute to cover the driver’s run. Currently, the principal or the dean determines the legitimacy of the citation, and there is no reason to have a driver come in for a conference. Rather than provide a substitute for a driver to attend a conference, the dean revokes the bus-riding privilege of the student. Students are currently being taken off the bus quite regularly. This bill is trying to address the infrequent exceptions to the rule. We do not believe this bill is the most efficient way to resolve the problem.
Senator Neal:
You raised the point about diffusion of authority, and I agree with you. The drivers, under this bill, could determine the conduct of a student and trigger this whole process. There would be nothing in the middle that could be immediately addressed. Once the judgment is made by a driver, is there some other method that could be acquired to perfect this process and make this bill unnecessary?
Mr. Kadlub:
I think that is a good question and fundamental to the issue. During testimony heard in the Assembly and here today, I do not believe one person said the policy and procedures in place are inadequate. I believe all testimony has been about the breakdown if the policies and procedures are not followed. In essence, my counter testimony has been about why are we waiting every 2 years to hear about the problems? We are prepared to deal with the problems, but we cannot do so if it is not brought to our attention.
Senator Neal:
Buses have a designated drop-off place for students. Is there anybody in authority to meet the buses?
Mr. Kadlub:
Yes, at the secondary level typically a hall monitor helps to supervise the students getting on and off the bus. The deans and other administrators are also in attendance. The dean would receive citations written by a bus driver.
Senator Neal:
What is wrong with immediately taking the student off the bus and to the principal’s office?
Mr. Kadlub:
I do not think there is anything wrong, depending on the nature of the infraction. If somebody has started a fire or a fight, they should be immediately taken off the bus. Some infractions, as outlined in Exhibit C, do not warrant immediate removal from the bus. After a succession of citations has been issued, it is incumbent upon the administration to act upon those citations. The rules are posted on the bus. Each student was given a copy to take home at the beginning of the school year.
Senator Neal:
Are they just given the rules to read or have their parents read? Is there a point where the students are not getting the information about the consequences of misbehavior?
Mr. Kadlub:
I do not believe the problem is the inability of the children to understand the rules. The drivers do an excellent job of enforcing and reminding the students of the rules. I believe the driver’s greatest concern is when violations are reported, all principals and deans do not follow policy. At the beginning of the school year, when there is an orientation, all students are provided a student handbook. Typically the deans review the handbook, the rules, and the consequences with the students.
Senator Neal:
May I suggest students who ride the bus be given a special orientation at the beginning of the school year so administrators feel assured the students understand the rules.
Mr. Kadlub:
Out of 277 schools that probably happens to varying degrees. I can tell you all children are provided with the rules and made aware of them. The schools have general assemblies for the purpose of introducing students to rules at the beginning of the school year.
Sherrie Morton:
I have been a driver-training instructor for Clark County School District for 4 years. My responsibilities revolve around all aspects of driver training, including student control and discipline. We assist drivers in any problem situations. Our doors are open to drivers concerning student control, and we find we are seldom approached.
Our first priority is transportation to and from school in the safest possible manner. Our training department currently provides a minimum of 47 hours behind the wheel training and 40 hours classroom training for new drivers. During the training, student control and discipline comes up in nearly every class we teach. We provide in-service training, which could be classified as staff development, each year. It consists of 2 days during the month of July. We focus on defensive driving, student control, first aid, and other issues.
I support the opposition by the district of A.B. 234. Our district regulations are in place and are effective. Our county statistics reveal that of over 2 million students transported monthly, 500 are cited. Of those, 161 are given to special needs students, which can be discounted because they are protected by federal law. From the remaining citations 66 are given to kindergarten students who have to be educated on the rules of safety and behavior. The remaining citations represent a percentage of less than 1 percent of our riders. It is possible a few of those citations are not properly handled. This may be due in part to the massive growth in Clark County. Our tasks can overlap and promotions are made continuously as new schools open. Some administrators may not be aware of procedures.
Senator Neal:
Have you asked the children if they understand the regulation?
Ms. Morton:
I believe the majority of the children would not know what Regulation 3533 means, but they do know about the bus safety rules. I failed to mention we have a specific class, which focuses primarily on student control and human relations. The classroom time is 4 hours, in addition to another 4 hours throughout the 87 hours of initial training. We provide yearly in-service training of 2 days per school year regarding all of the issues.
Senator Neal:
Does most of the training have an emphasis on defensive driving?
Ms. Morton:
I would estimate the emphasis is half on defensive driving and half on student control. Student control is a nationwide issue, not just in Clark County. We do research to bring the latest information to our drivers. Not every driver takes away from the training program what he or she should retain. We present the drivers with instructions on how to not lose their temper, how to address students, and how to sustain a position of authority while following procedure.
Senator Neal:
Could you give a scenario you might present to bus drivers during training?
Ms. Morton:
A student boards carrying a basketball, and begins to toss it around the bus. The driver tells the student to bring the basketball to the front and the student refuses. If the student uses profanity, the driver is not to address the profanity, but is to focus on the issue. We see a power play with the student and inform the driver to tell the student: “This is your choice. Bring the ball to the front of the bus. If you do not, you are going to be cited, and you may be required to sit in the front of the bus. You have a choice to make.” This is the type of example we use so drivers learn to maintain their focus and not lose their temper.
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Clark County Association of School Administrators:
The association is opposed to A.B. 234. There are policies and regulations in place to deal with this problem.
Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators:
We are opposed to this bill. There are processes in place to take care of these problems. I have a letter I would like entered into the record submitted by Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association (Exhibit D).
Senator Nolan:
Do any of the school districts have cameras on the buses?
Mr. Kadlub:
I believe we do in Clark County.
Ms. Morton:
There are some buses in the Clark County School District with video cameras. They are shared as necessary.
Senator Nolan:
Is the recording continuous, or while an incident is occurring? Also, how many of the buses have cameras? Finally, when there is an incident recorded, has it been used as a part of an investigation?
Ms. Morton:
The camera is recording while the engine is on. I would say between 5 and 10 percent of the buses are equipped with cameras. The tapes have been used when there has been an ongoing behavior problem, and played for parents and administrators.
Senator Nolan:
Have behavioral incidents decreased as a result of having cameras on the buses?
Ms. Morton:
Not necessarily. From my own experience the red light will blink when the engine is on. Students will ask if the camera is on and I will say yes. I do know there are some students who absolutely do not care if the camera is recording their behavior.
Ms. Yealy:
A video camera is an excellent tool. I wish I could say the supervisor or the administrator allows a camera to be placed when there is a problem, but that is not the case. I had an occasion to ride with a driver in order to observe a group of students. When we returned to the yard and viewed the videotape, a different group of students were passing a long stainless steel knife. We did not see that during the ride. There were only 10 students on the bus. I took the tape to the high school administrator. He informed me he would act immediately. The administrator took all the students involved with the knife incident off the bus. Then 2 weeks later I substituted for the regular driver and discovered the students were back on the bus.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 234. I request a motion for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-742.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-742: Expresses support of the Nevada Legislature for four long-term strategic plans developed by Department of Human Resources concerning health care needs of residents of Nevada. (Later introduced as Senate Concurrent Resolution 36.)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-742.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAWSON AND WIENER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 512.
ASSEMBLY BILL 512 (1st Reprint): Prescribes requirements for privatization agreements between school districts and contractors for certain educational services. (BDR 34-840)
Kenneth B. Lange, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
The central question about the privatization of government services is basically how we get the work done. The first consideration is about getting work done for less money. There are other considerations for privatization including control of when, where, and how the work gets done, quality issues, and the safety of students. Other important issues include the commitment of the current workforce.
We believe the decisions to contract out services is a significant undertaking often affecting hundreds of employees and thousands of students. Privatization delegates work to a third party and can diminish a school district’s authority to assure a quality outcome.
This bill will help to preserve the public’s interest in the expenditure of funds since it is fundamentally accountability legislation for school districts. A sequence of information is presented to the public. We believe all these steps are important and legitimate, and it is germane for the public to hear the answers in a public forum.
The Legislature has conferred significant autonomy to school districts to carry out their mission. In 2001, the Clark County School District went too far in delegating their managerial authority and the outcome was a $35 million per year program to Edison Schools. Consequently the case was litigated in district court, and the district was found to have the authority to delegate the responsibility. The unions representing teachers and school support staff appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, but the case was settled before it was heard. While the Edison Schools’ issue was the genesis of a significant part of this bill, other opportunities to contract services on the support side have been considered. We believe the decision to give away managerial authority to a third party is one that should be done with full consideration and full transparency. We need to be able to ask school employees what is going on, why decisions are being made, and to know if there is any benefit. The employees we represent are committed to the public interest and the children they serve. Assembly Bill 512 levels the playing field and allows us to build a public record for what is sure to be an ongoing debate.
James W. Penrose, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
Basically the bill sets up a process of consideration and notification to the public and the employees who are potentially involved by a contract.
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
Assembly Bill 512 is a compromise measure. Originally the district was opposed to the bill. One reason I am here with the union representatives is we believe this is a measure we can support. It is the trustees of the school district who have the primary responsibility with respect to the best interest of the district. The district has felt the need to “think outside the box” from time to time.
Senator Neal:
Please give an example of a type of privatization agreement which would be entered into under this measure.
Mr. Lange:
Some examples are an agreement for the provision of instructional services, custodial services, food services, transportation services, and special education.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Could testing services also be included in a privatization agreement?
Mr. Penrose:
If a district employee would otherwise do the testing, it could be privatized. The development of the test is contracted currently since it is work not done by a district employee.
Senator Neal:
Assembly Bill 512 defines a privatization agreement as any agreement between the board of trustees of a district and a person or entity other than an employee of the district for the performance of instructional services and any other services related to education that would, but for the agreement, be performed by the district. Are trustees employees of the district?
Ms. McKinney-Jones:
The trustees of a school district are elected officials who have the responsibility for directing and managing the district.
Senator Neal:
The superintendent down to the janitor would be considered employees of the district.
Ms. McKinney-Jones:
Teachers have contracts with the districts. An example is when we have substantial issues regarding heating and cooling. In a crisis we may need to contract beyond the school employees. As long as the activity is related to education and instructional services the district feels the need for the flexibility to hire outside contractors for purposes of efficiency.
Senator Neal;
Can teachers be hired under this proposal?
Mr. Lange:
The bill does not prevent the district from hiring teachers. The proposal calls for an explanation as to why the hiring is going to be done. Are these people really that much better than our own? Is it going to save money, or is it going to provide a better result? We can dispute that, because we will know what is out in front of us. In the past we did not know what was going on.
Senator Neal:
When your contract is up on June 30, 2003, could you be put out of business?
Mr. Penrose:
They can hire teachers under this proposal, but the collective bargaining agreement does not disappear when the contract expires. It remains until the new agreement is negotiated or until there is an impasse that cannot be resolved through the arbitration process.
Senator Neal:
You are asking this committee to pass a law allowing the privatization of education services.
Mr. Penrose:
The district has the ability to do so today under current law.
Senator Neal:
Yes, but if we put it into statute, it will more clearly define the ability of the school district to hire outside teachers. I can foresee a situation where you lose all of your bargaining rights.
Mr. Penrose:
There is language in the bill to deal with collective bargaining issue. Section 14 requires if a privatization agreement is entered into, and the board of trustees is a party to a collective bargaining agreement governing the performance of any of the services to be provided under the agreement, the agreement must require the contractor comply with the collective bargaining agreement.
Senator Neal:
The Legislature allowed Edison Schools to come in under a restricted contract. There does not seem to be any restriction at all in this bill.
Mr. Penrose:
This bill formalizes and regulates a process that already exists.
Senator Neal:
Was it the lawsuit concerning Edison Schools that brought this proposal about?
Mr. Penrose:
Yes, that is correct. The lawsuit went before a district court judge. A motion was granted in favor of the Clark County School District and Edison Schools. The unions appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the contract was amended by the district and Edison Schools to meet some of the objections the unions raised. Ultimately the unions were able to reach a settlement agreement with the district and Edison Schools to meet the fundamental concerns. Part of the results of the lawsuit made clear there are problems not governed by statute.
Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association:
The association opposes A.B. 512. As defined in section 4, the districts could literally not hire outside contractors of any type without going through this entire process. The timeframes described in section 6, subsection 3 do not permit a contract to be completed before 6 months. The only good portion of the bill is in section 13, which states the privatization of instructional services must set forth measurable standards of academic achievement for pupils receiving the services.
Senator Washington:
Are you saying currently the principle to measure academic standards and achievement do not apply across the board for the entire public education system?
Mr. Bacon:
The criteria for achievement as defined in No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 closes the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice. This bill specifically states it applies to contracts. We would like to have supplemental services contracted out when there is a nonachieving school. I think you would lose some potential contractors for supplemental services under this bill because of the timeframes in A.B. 512.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
I will recommend to the chairman a subcommittee be appointed to study some of the concerns raised here. We will work with all the parties.
Senator Mathews:
Were any of these issues discussed in the Assembly during the hearings?
Ms. McKinney-Jones:
The questions raised by Senator Neal were not discussed during the Assembly committee hearings.
Senator Neal:
Did the Nevada Supreme Court accept the Edison Schools case for hearing?
Mr. Penrose:
Yes, a hearing date was set but the case was resolved before the hearing. We provided the Nevada Supreme Court with periodic status reports, but I do not believe we ever provided the detailed settlement.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 512, and open the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 29.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 29: Promotes importance of early reading in raising academic achievement. (BDR R-902)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R. 29.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Mathews:
Did we hear this same resolution in the last session?
Senator Cegavske:
No, there are similarities between this and a science-based measure, which was passed during the 71st Legislative Session.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAWSON AND WIENER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst:
I have summarized the two suggested amendments to A.B. 132 in Exhibit E.
ASSEMBLY BILL 132 (1st Reprint): Provides that certain proceedings concerning abuse or neglect of children are presumptively open to public. (BDR 38‑689)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 132 WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
Senator Nolan:
By opening proceedings and making family information public I feel we will further upset children who have already been traumatized.
Senator Mathews:
I share Senator Nolan’s concerns. If there are problems with child protective service agencies, we need to deal with those problems, and not open every case for public scrutiny.
Senator Neal:
We have had many meetings on the subject and this was the result. Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District No. 8, was agreeable to a pilot program instead of the full program during this session.
Senator Mathews:
Assemblywoman Buckley did not discuss this bill with me.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS CEGAVSKE, WASHINGTON, NOLAN AND MATHEWS VOTED NO. SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 132 WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. ONE.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Neal:
We are voting on the full bill with the stipulation all hearings covered by the measure are presumed closed.
Senator Washington:
I spoke with the Honorable Gerald W. Hardcastle, Family Division, Eighth Judicial District who testified in favor of this measure. He agreed the proposed language to specify all hearings are presumed closed gives him an opportunity to open a hearing at his discretion. This compromise is also agreeable with the Honorable Deborah E. Schumacher, Family Division, Second Judicial District.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Mr. Sturm:
I have summarized the two suggested amendments to A.B. 218 on Exhibit F.
ASSEMBLY BILL 218 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing temporary alternative placement of disruptive pupils. (BDR 34-1276)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 218.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO, SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Mr. Sturm:
There are two proposed amendments to A.B. 315 (Exhibit G).
ASSEMBLY BILL 315 (1st Reprint): Requires State Health Officer or person designated by Administrator of Health Division of Department of Human Resources to analyze information reported by health facilities concerning cancer to determine trends in incidence of cancer. (BDR 40-75)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 315.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Rawson:
Would it speed up the process if we did all of this with a letter of intent rather than in the bill?
Senator Nolan:
I questioned some physicians who are treating patients with cancer and do not know of the registry. We were confident, based upon the testimony, the hospitals were aware of the registry. I believe a letter of intent includes dissemination of information to those medical organizations that represent all physicians.
Senator Rawson:
I will withdraw my motion.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 315 AND INCLUDE A LETTER OF INTENT.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Mr. Sturm:
There were no proposed amendments to A.B. 510.
Senator Rawson:
This is mandating a specific course for the high school proficiency examination. Let us make it permissive.
Mr. Sturm:
The bill is permissive. The board must develop the course of study; the district may adopt the program.
ASSEMBLY BILL 510 (1st Reprint): Requires State Board of Education to prescribe course of study to prepare pupils for high school proficiency examination. (BDR 34-1239)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 510.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
There being no further business at this time, we will adjourn this meeting at 2:32 p.m.
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske, Vice Chairman
DATE: