MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-second Session
March 26, 2003
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 8:17 a.m., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Terry Care
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jane Nichols, Ph.D., Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada
John Cummings, Community College of Southern Nevada
Treena Leonard
Carol Lucey, Ph.D., President, Western Nevada Community College
Catherine Ross, Western Nevada Community College
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Leonard Pugh, Department of Juvenile Services, Washoe County
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Glen Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, Northern Nevada, Department of Corrections
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Marta Hall, Education Consultant, Academic and Vocational Programs, Department of Corrections
Ernie McKenzie, Director of Adult Education, Carson City School District
Caroline McIntosh, Education Director, Ely State Prison, White Pine County School District
Carl L. Shaff, Education Consultant, Department of Education
Chairman Amodei opened the meeting announcing the committee would honor a request and hear testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 317 first.
SENATE BILL 317: Makes various changes relating to incarcerated persons. (BDR 34-594)
Jane Nichols, Ph.D., Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), testified higher education was added to S.B. 317 and it was therefore a pleasure for her to comment on a serious issue that had been important to UCCSN for years. She expressed her interest in the ability for the college system to offer certificates and degrees to incarcerated persons through the community colleges located throughout the State. Dr. Nichols announced education programs for incarcerated people were cost-saving measures for the State. She said a degree-earning student and those directly involved with the prison programs had also come to offer testimony.
Dr. Nichols said she had prepared some amendments to the bill adding, “not to change the intent but to clarify the intent.” Dr. Nichols submitted Exhibit C containing proposed amendments to S.B. 317 wherein some language changes served to clarify the intent of the bill. She said the focus of the proposed amendments was the financial portion of eligibility criteria. Dr. Nichols said it was valuable to the State to allow those who were not financially able to enroll in courses to have fees waived on a case-by-case evaluation. She said education programs correlated with the reduced rate of recidivism. She said, “All of the national data support the wisdom of these opportunities being available to incarcerated persons.”
John Cummings, Community College of Southern Nevada, a teacher of incarcerated people, said one does not often get to see the fruits of their labors but wanted the committee to hear the compelling story of Treena Leonard.
Treena Leonard said she was honored to be present to represent the Community College of Southern Nevada and the Department of Corrections (DOC). Ms. Leonard reported at the age of 21, she was sentenced to 4 to 20 years at the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility. She said she did not have a high school diploma at the time of sentencing and never thought she would have a college degree. Describing herself as responsible, Ms. Leonard said she accepted her punishment.
Ms. Leonard talked about rehabilitation and said it was a word that was often thrown around and asked, “Does it really work?” She announced she was living proof that rehabilitation was possible. In prison, she enrolled in high school and was graduated. A sign in the prison asked, “Would you like to go to college?” and she enrolled taking five classes her first semester. Ms. Leonard said it was her grandparents who paid her registration. She earned straight As her first semester; she described her initial college experience as the “foundation and building block” to her motivation to build her self-esteem. She holds an associate’s degree in general studies. In addition, Ms. Leonard said she learned computer skills and basics in management and leadership.
Ms. Leonard said other women in prison had also earned associate degrees from the UCCSN programs offered in prisons. Ms. Leonard praised the Board of Regents in Clark County for affording those who missed their chances to have the opportunity for an education while incarcerated. She said despite the diversity of the prison population, all inmates were offered an opportunity to go to school while incarcerated.
Ms. Leonard requested the funding for such programs be continued. She said she had been accepted at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where she intended to continue her studies toward a degree in communications. Ms. Leonard stated an interest in a career in broadcast journalism.
Carol Lucey, Ph.D., President, Western Nevada Community College (WNCC), said America’s community colleges had provided socio-economic mobility opportunities for people who otherwise would not have them. She said in western Nevada the community colleges served a diverse population across seven counties. Dr. Lucey said beside ethnic and language differences, many of the community college student population had been or currently were incarcerated. Of the four prisons in the area, there were students from WNCC confined in each of them. She named the prisons involved as Nevada State Prison, Northern Nevada Correctional Center, Warm Springs Correctional Center, and Lovelock Correctional Center.
Dr. Lucey said, “Unfortunately, few students in the incarcerated population have the resources to pay for their college credits.” She said Ms. Leonard was fortunate to have grandparents who assisted her by paying her fees to attend college and commented how unusual that scenario was in prison populations. Dr. Lucey said the federal program that assists college students was not available to those in prison as of 1993. She did say that prisoners who were able to pay for one of every three classes were offered assistance but cautioned any college funding was difficult to find. The criteria for this assistance she said was a prisoner/student had to furnish his own books, pay lab fees and maintain a good academic standing. Dr. Lucey said there was some funding for prisoners through the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Grant Program, local Indian tribes, and the Federal Youthful Offender Scholarship.
Dr. Lucey identified three current problems with the funding of education opportunities for prisoners. First, the college was stretched each semester for monies that can be appropriately used as scholarships for inmates; second, she said, the existing funds aforementioned are inadequate to meet the need; and third, many students struggle to pay for one credit hour of instruction. Dr. Lucey explained the search for funding was constantly ongoing. But, she said, though it might seem strange the colleges continued their commitment to assist those who owed a debt to society, Dr. Lucey said the reduction of recidivism through education was a good investment. She explained the $16,000 per year, per inmate could be spent on education. Dr. Lucey said unless there was some rehabilitation to help people reenter society, the recidivism rate would remain high. She concluded with a stabilized funding program in prisons for rehabilitation through education would provide a necessary tool for reentry into the community, with a serious vocational education program. She explained the current offerings of a general education were valuable but did not truly prepare prisoners to rejoin society as productive, self-supporting citizens. Dr. Lucey provided Exhibit D, a summary of statistics on the impact of education programs in prisons and the rate of inmate recidivism. She said the findings were very dramatic.
In closing, Dr. Lucey introduced her colleague, Kathryn Clark Ross, a former inmate who had a prison experience similar to Ms. Leonard’s.
Kathryn Clark Ross, Western Nevada Community College, said she was honored to speak before the committee and voiced support of S.B. 317. Ms. Ross said she had worked for 12 years at WNCC, during the day she worked in financial aid and taught classes at the prison in the evening.
Ms. Ross said the prison education program had changed her life dramatically. She explained she was incarcerated at the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility for 5 years for sale of cocaine. Ms. Ross said she was able to take college classes and became the first Nevada prisoner to earn a degree. She passed around newspaper articles about her graduation and community involvement (Exhibit E). Ms. Ross testified she had subsequently earned a master’s degree and currently was actively pursuing a doctorate degree. She said it was the opportunity for an education that turned her life around and urged the committee to give others that same chance. Ms. Ross said, “Look at me now! I am a better citizen and a productive member of society. … Education does make a difference.”
Chairman Amodei suspended further testimony on S.B. 317 temporarily and opened discussion on Senate Bill 265.
SENATE BILL 265: Requires certain correctional officers employed by Department of Corrections to be certified by Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission before performing certain responsibilities. (BDR 23-1279)
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN), testified in support of S.B. 265. He said if officers were doing the job of a peace officer, they should attend Peace Officer’s Standards and Training Commission training.
Chairman Amodei said the finance committee had asked to review this bill.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS, AND RE-REFER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE S.B. 265.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei opened discussion on S.B. 286. Senator McGinness announced he was a facilitator of this bill.
SENATE BILL 286: Provides for supervision of certain juvenile sex offenders placed in treatment programs in this state. (BDR 5-1086)
Leonard Pugh, Department of Juvenile Services, Washoe County, stated support for S.B. 286. He said he had recently attended a meeting with the Washoe County School District’s Student Services Committee where concerns were discussed about young people who were in Nevada from other states. These youth were in Nevada for sex-offender treatment programs. He explained when the treatment was complete some of these people decided to stay awhile and some enrolled in school. The problem, Mr. Pugh explained, was no supervision or authority by the local probation department for these sex offenders.
Mr. Pugh said he interviewed some who participated in the Northern Nevada Sex Offender Task Force and learned there was no requirement through the Interstate Compact on Juveniles for supervision of the sex offenders sent to participate in treatment programs from out of state. Mr. Pugh said he was aware that during the last 6 years a number of bills were passed to address local control and supervision of juvenile sex offenders. He said there was not much of a problem in residential lockdown facilities but when placed at group homes, these offenders were enrolled in schools without the notification about their offense.
Mr. Pugh said there were occasions when 18-year-old juveniles decided to leave the program but stay in Nevada. Since they were no longer considered minors, there was no legal way to track their activities through probation. Mr. Pugh added those youths who had left all returned and were not considered incorrigible or runaways. He said requiring the state that sent these juveniles to Nevada for treatment to request courtesy supervision, and have it in place prior to the young sex offender’s arrival, would give the local officials the ability to have more control.
In addition, this supervision would assist the treatment facility as well, he said, explaining if behavior problems occurred the probation department was a resource as well as a deterrent. Mr. Pugh said sometimes the treatment center requested the sending state to take back these juveniles because of behavior problems. If probation supervised these youngsters, problems would be reduced. He explained if juvenile sex offenders were sent to Nevada for treatment, and probation services through the Interstate Compact for Juveniles were requested at the same time, many problems would be avoided. Enacting this legislation, he said, would strengthen the ability to properly supervise these youths.
Senator Nolan asked for verification that crimes under the category of sexual offenses were the same in Nevada as the states sending juveniles offenders. He suggested the out-of-state juveniles should be required to abide by the laws that govern the State of Nevada. Mr. Pugh responded he was not familiar with the laws of other states but added the ability to provide courtesy supervision in Nevada was limited. He explained the juvenile had to be adjudicated in the state where the crime was committed. Mr. Pugh said he really did not see this as an issue.
Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 286 and asked for the committee’s input on it.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 286.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei asked Senator McGinness to present S.B. 286 on the Senate Floor. He reopened the hearing on S.B. 317.
Senator Valerie Wiener, Senatorial District No. 3, urged support of S.B. 317. She read testimony (Exhibit F) delineating the specifics of the bill and the results of an Interim Governor’s Study Committee on Corrections. She stated the desired goals: “We want to substantially reduce the high rate of recidivism in our state. We want to rehabilitate inmates so that they can be contributors to our communities.“
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), thanked Senator Wiener for including the NSEA in discussions. Ms. Cahill said she would limit her comments to section 7 of S.B. 317 and proposed amendments to that section.
Ms. Cahill said the NSEA had encountered problems representing employees who had been dismissed from prison property by the warden. She said though they were employees of the school district, once the warden had dismissed them, there were problems meeting with the warden to discuss the dismissal of these prison teachers who were employed by the school district and not the prison. Ms. Cahill described this as a due process problem, stating the teacher was usually given a different placement in the school district. She said the amendment addressed the due process problem (Exhibit G). Ms. Cahill said the core of the problem was the final nonnegotiable decision of the warden; she said there should be an appeal process.
Senator Nolan asked how often the wardens dismissed teachers and what the reasons were for such dismissals. Ms. Cahill said during the last year, a teacher who had been working at the prison for years had her security clearance pulled from the prison. Ms. Cahill reported the teacher and the warden had disagreed on something and attempts to discuss the problem with the warden were denied. This teacher was reassigned to another position with the school district but suffered the loss of the increased pay for teaching at a prison.
Senator Washington asked if the warden had complete control of all the staffing in a prison. Glenn Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, Northern Nevada Department of Corrections, answered affirmatively, the warden decided who was allowed into the prison.
Mr. Whorton said the DOC supported S.B. 317 wholeheartedly. He said, however, he was concerned about the proposed amendment because of the unique environment that existed in correctional facilities. Mr. Whorton explained the warden was personally and professionally responsible and liable for whatever happened in the prison. He said:
We are held accountable for that. In that regard we make decisions about who someone enters, not just in terms of teachers, but in terms of visitors. … It is established in case law that the Department of Corrections have wardens and administrators that do have that authority and responsibility.
Senator Washington asked if the amendment subrogated the prison’s ability to provide security and police. Mr. Whorton said federal case law recognized the unique environment of the prison and the need to control who comes in and who does not.
Mr. Whorton said the DOC had no difficulty with an individual, such as a teacher, being represented, or the processes established in S.B. 317 as written, nor did he say meeting with people was disagreeable or explaining the prison policy. But, he said, the wardens had the final say in decisions about who entered the prisons. Ms. Cahill said the proposed amendment applied only to academic employees. Ms. Cahill suggested eliminating the language in S.B. 317 that made the warden’s decision binding. She explained if a dismissed employee believed their rights had been violated, they could seek other means of redress.
Senator McGinness asked for an explanation of how the current system of educating inmates worked. Ms. Cahill said she was not aware of any interagency agreements or contracts, rather the arrangement was mutually agreed upon between the prison and the school district. She said part of S.B. 317 clarified and formalized what already was in existence.
Senator Care said he had three questions regarding the proposed amendment. One dealt with the “finding of fact” by a warden or manager, the interagency panel, or a district court and said he believed those were three separate entities. He directed his next concern to James Penrose, attorney for the NSEA, asking if a finding of fact would be admissible in an appeal or if it could be demonstrated the witness was not truthful. Finally, Senator Care asked if a decision was deemed “final,” could it be stipulated that decision could not be used in any subsequent action? Ms. Cahill said she understood the Senator’s question and said she thought eliminating the language would achieve that end. Senator Care said, “Let the discretion remain with the corrections department, but if you think it is a bad decision, it does not go anywhere else.”
Senator Washington asked about the treasury department funds allocated for educating prisoners and their use for collective bargaining. He said it was clearly included in the bill the funds were not to be used for any employee negotiations. Ms. Cahill assured the Senator the amendment was only for section 7 and the objective was “not to go after money with collective bargaining.”
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education (DOE), voiced full support of S.B. 317. He said the department had worked closely with both Senator Wiener and the DOC. Mr. Rheault responded to the concern voiced by Senator McGinness stating, “There are no layers here. … The funding proposed to carry out this prison education is the same money already in the Governor’s proposed budget.” Mr. Rheault said he had just completed the fiscal note on S.B. 317 and reported there was no new funding; the money was in the budget as a line item for adult high school diploma.
Mr. Rheault mirrored Ms. Cahill’s opinion that S.B. 317 formalized what already existed and allowed standards to be established throughout the State to allow inmates if transferred to be able to continue. He said the bill also gave prisons more flexibility in a selection of coursework but continuing with the General Educational Development certificate (GED) program.
Regarding the proposed amendment submitted by NSEA, Mr. Rheault said he agreed with Senator Wiener that the dismissed teacher should be able to have a say in what happened. He said the intention was not to overplay it out of proportion. He said he understood the warden’s complete control of the prison situation. A teacher was entitled to an explanation and he said that was the intent of the interagency panel.
Senator McGinness asked about financial aid for prisoners who cannot pay the college fees. Mr. Rheault said he had little knowledge of how that part of the prison education program worked. He believed the intent was that out-of-state students costs would be waived. Rather, he said, the State resident fees would apply and if the prisoner did not have them, he most likely could not enroll in a course. Senator Wiener said there was no additional fiscal impact and asked that be part of the record.
Dr. Lucey said, “The bill as currently written references out-of-state tuition. … However, the chancellor’s amendment refers also to permission to the Board of Regents to waive registration fees.” She said that amounts to approximately $40 per credit hour and said, “The students, quite frankly, don’t have that money.” If the regents agreed to waive tuition fees, there would be a small financial impact of under $100,000, Dr. Lucey estimated, for Western Nevada Community College.
Senator McGinness asked if there was a limit to the number of waivers allowed, for example, he said, “Are there $100,000 worth of tuition waivers for each biennium?” Dr. Lucey said she did not believe there was a limit and expressed regret the chancellor had left the meeting. Senator McGinness asked if prisoners were granted tuition waivers, did the regular students lose the opportunity to have their tuition waived? Dr. Lucey said, “No.” Senator McGinness requested information on tuition waivers and said he was aware of students who were not incarcerated who also did not have tuition money. Dr. Lucey said those students were eligible for Federal Pell Grant money, a federal grant not available to prisoners.
Mr. Whorton repeated his “unqualified” support to S.B. 317. “This is extremely important to the DOC. Director Crawford presents her apologies … very, very important to her.” Mr. Whorton said this bill coordinates the efforts throughout the State for educational activities to make them more effective and more efficient, provides for an opportunity of secondary education for inmates, and also encourages more broad-based educational/vocational participation by offenders. “Education is probably the second oldest program you will find in corrections, the religious activities being the first.“ He added, “Education is probably the most important thing that a culture can provide.“ He expressed profound gratitude for county and the community college partners in their presentations on S.B. 317. Mr. Whorton introduced Marta Hall who administered the academic and vocational programs in prisons.
Marta Hall, Education Consultant, Academic and Vocational Programs, Department of Corrections, said Senator Wiener had thoroughly presented the intent of S.B. 317. Ms. Hall said 60 teachers serviced the eight major prisons of Nevada. Ms. Hall asked support for their efforts to develop and implement a corrections’ education system and assist them in becoming not only adult educators, but also corrections’ educators. Ms. Hall said the average age of a Nevada prisoner was 36 years with an average sentencing of 2 to 5 years so it was imperative to focus on the special needs of these offenders by providing them with a secondary credential and a viable job skill prior to their release from prison. She agreed the ultimate goal was to reduce recidivism and mentioned the correlation between education and lowering recidivism rates.
Ms. Hall said sections 10 to 13 of S.B. 317 were controversial, which changed the meritorious time for GED and high school to be the same as 60 days’ credit. Ms. Hall said her purpose was not to discuss the differences or merits of a high school diploma or a GED equivalent, but for purposes of the DOC, 95 per cent of employers did not consider a GED an issue. She stated, “A GED is an acceptable substitute for a high school diploma.” The exception Ms. Hall said was consideration for the juveniles in prison. Presently there were nine people incarcerated in adult prisons who were under 17 years old. She explained the thrust of S.B. 317 allowed prisons to adjust programs according to the needs of their populations. In addition she said the formalized agreement between the Department of Education and the DOC was long overdue.
Senator McGinness asked if there was contemplation of changing what already existed or simply formalizing the programs with legislation. Ms. Hall said it was basically a formalization of the programs but the change envisioned was one of expansion of these existing programs.
Senator McGinness questioned Ms. Hall’s reference to a “correctional educational system” and asked if this was something new or being contemplated. Ms. Hall said, “It is not new in the sense that we are going to do different types of programs necessarily. It’s a change of philosophy … correctional education has special needs.” She explained, the goal was to focus more on those needs. Senator McGinness asked, “You are not going to set up a school system within the prison?” Ms. Hall said that was not the intention. Mr. Whorton added that one of the major issues of S.B. 317 was to coordinate educational activities between prisons to provide consistency in programs and in progress to keep the system moving toward competency.
Mr. Whorton said at one time there was an education system managed in the prison. Now that prisons were located throughout the State the programs had to be coordinated. Senator McGinness asked if they were planning to set up a “Mini-Department of Education” for prisoners. Ms. Hall said, “No, we are not. We want to coordinate with the Department of Education to offer an education to prisoners.”
Senator Wiener thanked Senator McGinness for inquiring about the issue of a prison department of education and stated the issue was thoroughly addressed between the two departments. Senator Wiener said, “That is what we don’t want.” She said S.B. 317 was carefully worded to place the education portion where it properly belonged and that was why the formalization assured that end. Senator Wiener explained this bill streamlined and made the programs consistent throughout the State. Senator Wiener said, “It’s a landmark effort and I want to thank everybody publicly who made a contribution to it.” Ms. Hall added the most successful education programs in correctional systems nationwide were those operated through departments of education with similar provisions as proposed in S.B. 317.
Ernie McKenzie, Director of Adult Education, Carson City School District, said he was testifying on behalf of other principals and prison program coordinators throughout the State of Nevada. He said, “By and large we are very supportive of the intent and the direction of S.B. 317.” However, he offered some amendments in language only for clarification that were believed to be beneficial to both the students and the programs (Exhibit H).
Mr. McKenzie referred to section 3, subsection 2, paragraphs (a) through (g) of S.B. 317 and said it stated what was to be included in the program: high school, literacy, GED, life skills, and occupational programs. He suggested amending language to read, “post secondary education.” Mr. McKenzie said the wording, “without limitations” was bothersome to the prison principals because it was ambiguous enough to be misinterpreted by inmates. He said the objective should be courses were available but not on an unlimited basis.
Mr. McKenzie next discussed page 2, line 35 of S.B. 317 and suggested a language change in the wording, replacing the word “may” to “shall” and said it was the consensus of the DOE program administrators and the DOC coordinator, Marta Hall. He explained the position was the department ”should do” rather than “could do.”
Another area of concern was found beginning on line 42 of page 2 of S.B. 317 wherein the reference to a GED as an acceptable substitute for a high school diploma. The prison program principals unanimously agreed, Mr. McKenzie said, a GED was not an equivalent or a substitute for a high school diploma. The language of the bill had been modified to specifically state a GED was not a general education diploma, rather it was a certificate of completion of general education development. Mr. McKenzie said the principals agreed a GED denoted competency in math, science, social studies, and English but not the equivalent of a high school diploma. He said the problem was exacerbated when the DOC requested the GED be treated as equal to a high school diploma in terms of merit, credits and days attended.
Senator Wiener asked Mr. McKenzie if he had prepared language to address this concern. Mr. McKenzie apologized because he was not familiar with the process. He said the principals had considered deleting the language, “acceptable substitute” and replace it with “denotes proficiency.”
Mr. McKenzie said regarding the differences between a high school diploma and a GED certificate, the GED was a competency instrument and certainly valuable. He explained if a student successfully passed the GED examination, 11 high school credits could be waived. Mr. McKenzie added the most expeditious students took the GED to position themselves into an over 50 percent completion of high school. To allow only the GED or a high school program, he said was counterproductive to the process. Currently, Mr. McKenzie said an inmate who passed the GED could enroll in any prison program. He said the GED on a national level, or in regard to military service who developed the GED examination, had a fluctuating value and compared it to the stock market. He continued depending on the need, the GED was used as a restrictive measure.
Mr. McKenzie said:
We took exception to having the GED be considered equal in a prison system. On the other hand we agree the intent of the prison is to get inmates into vocational programs as quickly as possible. But, as program people, we feel that the best way to do that is to have them finish their high school diplomas before they move on. … An inmate who passes the GED is not going to be as well prepared for college or a job as someone that gets a high school diploma. … The GED is an excellent indicator of intelligence and mental competency. But it is a very poor indicator of stick‑to‑it‑iveness and commitment.
Mr. McKenzie said both Ms. Hall and he had searched for statistics to compare those with GED certificates with those who earned high school diplomas and reported they were not successful in finding comparative studies. He said the GED earned an inmate 30 meritorious credits and the request was to increase those credits to 60 which was the credits applied to a high school diploma. The change Mr. McKenzie requested was if the GED was worth 60 meritorious credits, the high school diploma be increased in value to 90 meritorious credits. He said the associate of arts degree could then have an assigned value of 120 credits. He commented it was possible for an inmate to complete multiple associate degrees from college while incarcerated. Therefore, the GED versus the high school diploma dilemma seemed counterproductive to the prison principals. He maintained both should be offered in the prison system.
Mr. McKenzie discussed section 8 of S.B. 317 that addressed tuition free college. He said it might appear to students that courses were free, but said, “Nothing really is free.” He said money to pay instructors, buy books, and secure resource materials came from somewhere. He said he did not understand how there could be no financial impact.
Mr. McKenzie talked about the teacher dismissed by the prison. He said there was considerable communication with the teachers’ association, education administrators, and the DOC about that situation. He said negotiations conducted by a committee were not formally done. Senate Bill 317 would formalize future discussions between agencies and establish a secondary appeals process. He said the problem referenced during the meeting today dealt with one of his teachers who brought inappropriate materials into the prison and despite warnings and requests from the warden to stop, she did not. He said after several warnings her staff badge was taken and she was no longer allowed into the prison. He said this teacher was regarded as a threat to the institution, herself, and her peers and it was mutually decided she should no longer teach in the prison system. Mr. McKenzie said he agreed with the decision and the DOC handled the problem very diplomatically. He summarized stating the teacher was not satisfied with the outcome, but for the safety of the prison institution, it was the right decision.
Senator Nolan asked Mr. McKenzie how frequently there were problems with prison teachers. Mr. McKenzie said in the 6 years he had been the principal at three prisons, there had been two incidents. Mr. McKenzie said wardens cannot terminate teachers from school systems; they can, however, request that teacher not be allowed back into the prison. He said his teachers knew the warden had more power than he did over them. Mr. McKenzie said the wardens took their custody very seriously.
Chairman Amodei asked Mr. McKenzie to prepare amendment language and submit it to Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel. Mr. McKenzie agreed to provide such language.
Caroline McIntosh, Education Director, Ely State Prison, said Ely State Prison was the only maximum-security facility in the State of Nevada. She offered support of S.B. 317 because it provided some tools that had been needed, especially the flexibility provision. She said the DOE and particularly Mr. Shaff had been extremely flexible and explained in maximum security, most of the inmates were locked down. Ms. McIntosh explained a lockdown situation required the delivery of instruction was totally different that what other prisons do.
Ms. McIntosh said S.B. 317 offered more opportunity for programming. She said in her 2 years at Ely State Prison she learned the limitation of the opportunities for a limited vocational education. She explained inmates had to be successfully cleared to enroll and this bill allowed more options. Ms. McIntosh said currently the prison offered anger management courses and other courses that suited the needs of the Ely prison population. She said she was pleased to see the formalization of what already existed in the prison system.
Ms. McIntosh said she also worked with the Ely Conservation Camp, a minimum-security facility that allowed her to work with the traditional vocational programs.
Ms. McIntosh extended an invitation to the committee to visit the prison at Ely. She explained there were over 1000 inmates in maximum security there and most were in lockdown. She said the warden at Ely was very careful with the security and care stating anyone who visited had to pass a background check.
Ms. McIntosh said after nearly 2 years on the job at Ely, she had a new respect and has a very strong belief in early childhood education. She said of the 1000 inmates many had very low reading levels. Her position was if money were spent on educating children early in their lives, there would not be such dire situations when they became adults.
Ms. McIntosh asked to be included in any further studies on prison education programs and offered the actual teachers at the prisons could probably offer some valuable input and suggested they also be included. She said, “We were not aware of the existence of the study committee or were able to give input. … It would have been helpful to be in ground floor of this bill.”
Carl L. Shaff, Education Consultant, Department of Education, said he was a consultant for the DOE and had been working for 2 years on the prison high school diploma programs. He thanked Senator Wiener for bringing the issue to the forefront. Mr. Shaff said he had been involved in education in Nevada for 30 years and these discussions represented the first time he remembered agencies coming to the table and agreeing on approximately 99 percent of the provisions.
He suggested one change to section 4, line 33, of S.B. 317 for clarification to change the language to the “State Board of Education.” He said to formalize the corrections curriculum, transferability of credit, and occupational education programs were the most vital objectives proposed in S.B. 317 to help the incarcerated person. He said if the recidivism rate could be reduced by even 5 to 10 percent, the State would save millions of dollars over the next few years.
Mr. Shaff asked to comment on section 7 and stated the DOE did not need another layer of bureaucracy. He said he believed due process was addressed and repeated the problems with prison teachers happened very infrequently.
Mr. Wilkinson said he wanted to clarify that “State board” was a defined term for Title 34 of Nevada Revised Statutes; he stated it was defined as the State Board of Education.
Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 317. He asked those who offered amendments to the bill to provide them to Mr. Wilkinson within a week.
Chairman Amodei adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann Bednarski,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
DATE: