MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-second Session
March 11, 2003
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Maurice E. Washington, at 3:39 p.m., on Tuesday, March 11, 2003, in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 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 Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
Senator Barbara Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William J. Raggio (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Assembly District No. 28
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Erickson, Research Director
Johnnie Lorraine Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Leslie K. Hamner, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Michael J. Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources
Mary Liveratti, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources
Thomas B. Pierce, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department Chairman, Department of Special Education, College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Developmental Disabilities Planning Council
Mary Evilsizer, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Center for Independent Living
Bob Hogan, Programs Director, Nevada Community Enrichment Center, and Nevada Community Enrichment Program
Marilou Woolm, President, Graduate Student Association, University of Nevada, Reno
Donny Loux, Chief, Office of Community-Based Services, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, and Developmental Disabilities Council
John Chambers, Chairman, Developmental Disabilities Planning Council
Paul Gowins, Rehabilitation Division, Independent Living Advisory Council, and Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living
Jeffrey Bursack
Karen Taycher, Executive Director, Nevada Parent Training and Information Center, Nevada P.E.P., and Governor’s Task Force on Disabilities
Reggie Bennett, Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, Nevada Community Enrichment Program, and Southern Nevada Independent Living Services Program
Gary Olsen, Director, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Advocacy Resource Center
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, WashoeLegal Services, and Governor’s Task Force on Disability
Jan M. Crandy, Director, Families for Effective Autism Treatment of Southern Nevada
M. Laura Mijanovich, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Chairman Washington opened the hearing on both Senate Bill (S.B.) 137 and Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 10. Chairman Washington informed the committee and guests all testimony would be limited in order to give everyone who wished to testify a chance to do so.
SENATE BILL 137: Establishes Legislative Committee on Persons With Disabilities. (BDR 17-700)
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 10: Urges Governor and agencies of State Executive Branch to take certain actions concerning persons with disabilities. (BDR R-699)
Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, explained during the last interim she was the chairperson for the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study State Program for Providing Services to Persons with Disabilities. She said the subcommittee held five public meetings with testimony from State agencies, local governments, members of the disabled communities, advocacy groups, field experts, and private organizations. She explained the subcommittee also worked in cooperation with the Department of Human Resource’s task force on disabilities. Senator Titus commented the Department of Human Resources had produced a Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.), and the committee members should have received a copy of it. She said the committee should also have a copy of the subcommittee’s recommendations, which was the “Study of State Programs for Providing Services to Persons with Disabilities,” and its appendix, “AB 513 Strategic Plan/Olmstead Plan Executive Budget Decision Units” (Exhibit D. Original on file in Research Library.).
Senator Titus explained during the proceedings two things emerged. She said the first was the subcommittee sought to make serving those with disabilities a priority for the State, as opposed to an afterthought. She commented the subcommittee believed when the disabled could lead productive, happy, normal, and creative lives, then all Nevada citizens would benefit from those contributions.
Senator Titus said the second thing the subcommittee noted was the continuing attempt to identify and consolidate existing services and programs for the disabled, so those services could be made more accessible, more effective, and more efficient. She said the subcommittee wanted to move the services along a path of a "one-stop-shopping“ unit or sometimes referred to as a "no‑wrong‑door” approach to issuing services.
Senator Titus said the conclusion the subcommittee reached mirrored those two ideas and converged in Exhibit D. She explained five bill drafts resulted from the subcommittee’s recommendations, S.C.R. 10 and S.B. 137, which were being heard, and S.B. 138, to create a single application process; S.B. 164, to reorganize the Executive Branch to create an office of disabilities services within the Department of Human Resources; and S.B. 239, which would establish a Statewide dialing system of 2‑1‑1 to call for assistance and for referral of services.
SENATE BILL 138: Requires Department of Human Resources to enter into agreement with Federal Government to determine eligibility for Medicaid at same time Federal Government determines eligibility for Supplemental Security Income Program. (BDR 38-703)
SENATE BILL 164: Creates the Office of Disability Services within Department of Human Resources to coordinate and administer certain services and program for person with disabilities. (BDR 38-701)
SENATE BILL 239: Requires Department of Human Resources to establish statewide information and referral system for health, welfare, human and social services. (BDR 40-702)
Senator Titus explained S.C.R. 10 outlines some facts about the disabled populations in Nevada. She said the first section had statistics most people did not know. She explained Nevada ranks first among all states in growth in the number of persons with disabilities over the past 10 years. She said there was an increase of 157 percent of disabled persons in the State. Senator Titus stated there were more than 375,000 persons with disabilities in Nevada. She explained in addition the bill refers to the Olmstead Decision, which forced states to reevaluate old policies that had resulted in desegregation and institutionalization of persons with disabilities.
Senator Titus said the bill describes the required cooperation between the proposed legislative committee and the Department of Human Resources. She said the final part of the bill outlines the use of the strategic plan, Exhibit C, which satisfies the need for an Olmstead plan. She said the implementation of the plan would identify and transfer persons with disabilities from the old institutional approach of services to more mainstream, normal lives within communities.
Senator Titus said S.B. 137 was a companion bill, which would change the interim study committee to a legislative standing committee on disabilities. She said the members of the interim committee felt the work needed to continue. She stated the issues affecting persons with disabilities needed to be kept active, services needed to be monitored and modified, and the State needed to monitor its progress toward compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Olmstead ruling. Senator Titus emphasized disabled persons need the standing committee as a voice to the Legislature. She said the disabilities standing committee could function much like the interim committees on education and health care. She pointed out the priorities of the committee were outlined in section 5 of the bill.
Leslie K. Hamner, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the Olmstead decision deals with the placement of persons with disabilities in community settings rather than institutions. She explained Olmstead was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1999, and involved Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ms. Hamner explained Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination in public services furnished by governmental entities. She said the respondents in the Olmstead decision were two mentally retarded women who filed suit against the state of Georgia. Ms. Hamner explained both women were admitted to a hospital in Georgia and confined for treatment in the psychiatric unit. She said after the women had been in the hospital for about a year, the professionals treating them concluded the women could be treated appropriately in a community‑based setting. However, after the determination was made, the women were not moved to a community‑based treatment program in a timely manner.
Ms. Hamner continued, in bringing the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the two women argued that the state’s failure to place them in a community-based program once their treating professionals determined that such placement was appropriate violated Title II of the ADA. She said the women had requested the state of Georgia place them in community care residential programs, and that they receive treatment with a goal of integrating them into mainstream society. The question in this case, asked by the U.S. Supreme Court, was whether the proscription of discrimination in Title II of the ADA might require the placement of persons with disabilities in community settings rather than institutions. She said the court answered the question with a qualified yes. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a person with a disability should be placed in a community setting rather than an institution based on three criteria. The first criterion was the state’s treatment professionals had to determine such placement was appropriate. The second criterion was the transfer must not be opposed by the person. The last or third criterion was the placement must be reasonable, which would take into account the resources available to the state in question and the needs of others with disabilities.
Ms. Hamner explained the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Olmstead was based solely on statutory grounds, the ADA, and adopted regulations pursuant to the ADA. She said in beginning its analysis, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the opening provisions of the ADA in which Congress stated society had tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and such forms of discrimination continued to be a serious and pervasive social problem. She added the U.S. Congress additionally noted in the ADA that discrimination against individuals with disabilities persisted in such critical areas as institutionalization. Ms. Hamner said the provision of Title II of the ADA specifically at issue in the Olmstead decision prohibits a public entity from discriminating against a person with a disability based on his or her disability. She explained in enacting the ADA, the U.S. Congress instructed the U.S. Attorney General to issue regulations implementing that provision.
Ms. Hamner pointed out the attorney general enacted two regulatory provisions relevant to the Olmstead decision. She said the first provision required a public entity to administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals. She added the second provision required a public entity to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when those modifications were necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disabilities. She explained that provision holds unless the public entity can demonstrate making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.
Ms. Hamner said the U.S. Supreme Court began its analysis by examining whether undue institutionalization constitutes discrimination by reason of disability. She added, the Court noted in its opinion that when it enacted the ADA, the U.S. Congress had a rather comprehensive view of the concept of discrimination. She said the Court recognized that institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions a person so isolated was incapable or unworthy of participating in community life. The Court further recognized confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of persons, such as family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment. Ms. Hamner said thus, the Court concluded unjustified isolation was properly regarded as discrimination based on disability. She said the Court’s analysis did not stop upon reaching this conclusion, the Court further concluded it would be inappropriate to remove a person from a more restrictive setting if such a move was not supported by the state’s treatment professionals. She said in addition, the court noted there was no federal requirement imposing community-based treatment on a person who did not desire such treatment.
Ms. Hamner said, finally, the Court addressed the issue of the state’s defense to a claim of discrimination based on institutionalization, and the Court concluded the state was required to provide community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities only when the placement could be reasonably accommodated by the state. She said the Court recognized the state’s need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities and the state’s obligation to administer services with an even hand.
Ms. Hamner continued, thus, a court could determine whether a placement could be reasonably accommodated by the state by considering certain factors. Such a court must consider the resources available to the state, not only the cost of providing the community-based care to the individual. It must consider the range of services the state provides to other persons with disabilities, and it must consider the obligation to the state to distribute those services equitably. She said, significantly, the Court indicated a state might satisfy the reasonable modification requirement of Title II of the ADA if it had a comprehensive, effective working plan for placing qualified person with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings and it had a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace. Ms. Hamner stressed, it meant stressed a waiting list that was not controlled by a state’s endeavor to keep its institutions fully populated.
Ms. Hamner said the Court emphasized its opinion on Olmstead did not impose a standard of care for whatever medical services the state provides, and further, the ADA did not require states to provide a certain level of benefits to individuals with disabilities. However, a state was required to adhere to the ADA’s nondiscrimination requirement with regard to the services it did provide. In summary, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Olmstead that Title II of the ADA required the state to provide community-based treatment for a person with disabilities when the state treatment professionals determined such placement was appropriate, when the affected person did not oppose such treatment, and when the placement could be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others with disabilities.
Ms. Hamner explained Olmstead only dealt with persons of mental disabilities, but because the case was based on the ADA, it applied to all persons with disabilities who were protected from discrimination by Title II of the ADA. Thus, she said, it was not limited to persons of mental disabilities, also the case was not limited to Medicaid. She explained Title II of the ADA prohibited discrimination in provision of services by any public entity, including a state or local government, or any department, agency, or other instrumentality of a state or local government. She said, therefore, areas such as transportation, housing, or education were also affected by the decision. She said as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Olmstead, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had issued various letters to state Medicaid directors to provide guidance and support to their staffs in efforts to enable persons with disabilities to live in the most integrated settings appropriate.
Ms. Hamner indicated her handout to the committee, Exhibit E, contained an overview of the contents of the letters. She said Exhibit E also included a summary of the executive order issued in June 2001 by President Bush concerning Olmstead. She said this executive order was part of the new freedom initiative that was the President’s broader effort to remove barriers to community living for person with disabilities. She said the executive order stated the U.S. Supreme Court’s position on Olmstead and provided the United States sought to insure the country’s community-based programs effectively fostered independence and participation in the community for persons with disabilities.
Ms. Hamner commented in conclusion, she wanted to point out a number of subsequent cases had been decided after Olmstead, which determined whether or not a state was in compliance with Title II of the ADA.
Senator Wiener asked what determined “fundamentally altering” a community‑based program. Ms. Hamner responded to determine what a fundamental alteration to a state program was, the court had to consider various issues such as the cost of providing the services in an integrated setting, the resources available to the state, and the needs of others. She said the resource issue had been separated into cost factors and equity factors. She said there was an element of fairness, an element of services needed throughout the state by all persons, and costs of providing specific services. This determination had to be on a case-by-case basis.
Chairman Washington asked whether the proposal for a new standing committee came from the subcommittee’s research into the issues involved in the Olmstead decision, and if the new committee would investigate Olmstead issues. Ms. Hamner replied, “Yes,” and explained there were other issues involving the ADA the committee would need to address.
Chairman Washington asked whether there were community‑based programs in Nevada that addressed the issues in Title II of the ADA. Ms. Hamner answered, “Yes, “ there were services available, and she believed there were people in the audience who would know more about those programs than she. She pointed out research indicated Nevada was moving forward in this area.
Michael J. Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources, said in S.B. 137 there was language requiring a study of individuals in institutional settings in order to make an assessment as to whether or not those individuals could be cared for in a community setting, in compliance with Olmstead. He said there was a fiscal note prepared by the Medicaid division saying the agency needed to assess all 3100 people in Nevada in institutional settings. He said those 3100 people times 2 hours, times the contractors’ rate of around $75 per hour would be about the $475,000 of the fiscal note. He said the agency did not necessarily need an appropriation to do this work. Mr. Willden explained the agency was working internally and had been meeting with a number of groups such as Medicaid, the Aging Services Division, the Office of Community-Based Services, and both Washoe and Clark County services and other groups. He added the Department of Human Resources believed it could put a team together to do much of the work by just reallocating resources. He said the department wanted the fiscal note to reflect the cost to the State, in case the department could not redirect its internal resources.
Mr. Willden explained in the two committees on money, the department had been asked question about a "pot of money" or "stream of money" the department called "revenue maximization." He said the department had a contract with a company called Maximus to review the various human resources budgets and maximize the federal dollars and help bring in money. He said the department believed this "rev max pot" would be the perfect funds to use for any of the evaluation work that could not be done in-house, using State staff. He explained the department was not actually requesting a General Fund appropriation, but it wanted the Legislature to know the cost of the project.
Mr. Willden said the Department of Human Resources wanted to go on the record in support of both S.B. 137 and S.C.R. 10.
Senator Wiener said Olmstead was a federal mandate, and her understanding of Mr. Willden’s testimony was the funds would be available to comply with the mandate, and human resources had developed a plan to implement the program. Mr. Willden replied Senator Wiener was fairly accurate, and said Olmstead was a large issue. He said the Olmstead plan was incorporated within the strategic plan in Exhibit C. He explained there was not a specific Olmstead budget, but there were about 55 budget modules involved in the plan reflecting the Olmstead issue. Mr. Willden explained those were things such as additional slots for Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) waivers, disabled waivers, mental retardation waivers, group care waivers, and many others that expanded community-based programs rather than institutional programs. He commented the idea was to add mental health services, slots to make the waiting lists for services move quicker, and new community-based programs. He said all these changes were listed in Exhibit C and the committee could review them in budgets such as aging, Medicaid, mental health, the Office of Community‑Based Services, and others.
Mr. Willden stated a plan had been created and a budget had been allocated to support the plan in order for the State to comply with the Olmstead decision. He explained the plan was a 10-year plan, however, the budget was a 2‑year budget. As a result, there was a lot more work to be completed.
Senator Mathews emphasized one of the things that came out of the all-state meeting she attended was the state had to have something on paper that said "Olmstead Plan," not a plan that was incorporated into something else. She said all the states had to have a plan which said Olmstead, and had to be very clear that it was to comply with the Olmstead decision. Senator Titus responded she believed that point had been taken care of in S.C.R. 10, section 1, line 39, which said “…The comprehensive long-term strategic plan for person with disabilities…will be recognized as an effective "Olmstead Plan" by the subcommittee…“
Chairman Washington inquired whether the $150,000 appropriated in the 2001 Legislative Session was used to come up with Exhibit C. Mr. Willden replied, "Yes, Chairman Washington." He said there was actually $800,000 appropriated for four plans, and $150,000 was earmarked to fund the study and completion of the disabilities strategic plan. He explained the department used the $150,000, some federal funds, and some other grants to accomplish the completion of the disabilities strategic plan.
Mary Liveratti, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources, said the department wanted to go on record in support of both S.B. 137 and S.C.R. 10, and she wanted to point out some of the sections of both of these pieces of legislation were already covered in the Executive Budget. She also said S.B. 137 covered section 2 of S.C.R. 10.
Ms. Liveratti said section 3 of S.C.R. 10 was to identify people in communities who may be at risk of being improperly institutionalized. She said a number of these people in the community had already been identified and were on waiting lists for services.
Ms. Liveratti said the Department of Human Resources wanted to go on record as being wholeheartedly in support of section 4 of S.C.R. 10.
Ms. Liveratti said S.B. 137 would require the Department of Human Resources to complete two reports. The first one would be a feasibility study. She said the other annual report would discuss the progress the department had made in the expansion of the program known as Health Insurance for Work Advancement (HIWA). She noted the funding for the HIWA program was included in Executive Budget Account 3243, enhancement item 425, which provided comprehensive health care coverage to persons with disabilities who had lost benefits due to employment. She said the report would include the impact of the assessment made of persons with disabilities determining whether those individuals were living in unnecessarily restrictive environments.
Mr. Willden explained A.B. No. 513 of the 71st Session was from last session, and the work of preparing the plans was finished in August and September 2002, published in October 2002, and had been distributed. He said now the department had an ongoing plan accountability check to perform.
Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Assembly District No. 28, said serving on the interim study committee for persons with disabilities was important for several reasons. The most important reason was the great need for services to persons with disabilities. She said the people asking to be represented were people asking to be served with dignity, not to be excluded, but to be included. She said these people want to be served as anyone else would be served. Assemblywoman Chowning explained "disabled" simply means without ability. She said all people ask is to be served and to be able to be a part of their communities to the best of their abilities. She said she wanted to point out a State worker named Maynard Yasmer. This gentleman worked for the State of Nevada for 40 years, and was a person with disabilities. She said he had advocated people with disabilities be able to serve, be able to have jobs, be able to have incomes, and be able to live and work with dignity. She said she wanted to honor him and to honor all of the people here who wanted to testify and she did so as a humble representative of this State.
Assemblywoman Chowning said she would like to thank all of the people who were involved in the completion of the plan and to say it was almost a piece of cake because the committee accomplished landmark activities. She said not only did it result in a huge document, but also she challenged each of the Legislators to not put it on a shelf.
Assemblywoman Chowning stated not only did the research come together, but also the budget dollars had been worked out and were following. She emphasized too many times Legislators served on committees where that did not happen, and so she wanted to urge support of S.B. 137 and S.C.R. 10 and the plan’s 2-year funding, with the 10-year funding to follow. She commented some of the current Legislators would still be here to see the completion of the 10-year plan and some would not.
Assemblywoman Chowning stated the help and cooperation of Mr. Willden and all of the hundreds of others who participated made the completion of this plan a historical event. She said she now challenged herself and the committee to continue to let persons with disabilities and all of the rest of Nevada’s citizens live in their declining years with dignity.
Thomas B. Pierce, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department Chairman, Department of Special Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said the passage of S.B. 137 would give the strategic plan an oversight committee, which could look to the future. He said he remembered when he first came to Nevada in 1990, a teacher came up to him and said welcome to 1968, which scared him and made him wonder what he had walked into. He said this plan really did, for the first time, look to the future for people with disabilities, and the future was very bright.
Dr. Pierce said the plan targets populations that have never been targeted before. He explained in the past, a disability group would come to the Legislature with a piece of legislation, and then another group would come in with another piece of legislation. This plan, however, was comprehensive for all people with disabilities, irrespective of what lobbying group was speaking on their behalf. He continued the plan no longer perpetuates old models. Dr. Pierce stated the comprehensive strategic plan looked at bringing people back into communities, instead of putting them in residential institutions that, at best, lacked any respect for a person's dignity.
Dr. Pierce pointed out this plan also suggested the State start collecting data on people with disabilities. There had been problems in past experiences with collecting data on people with disabilities, and S.B. 137 would allow data collection and supervision to occur. He said this plan officially recognized people with disabilities, and it was critically important these people’s needs were known.
Mary Evilsizer, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Center for Independent Living, said those who worked on the plan continually asked themselves what would be best for people with disabilities, and wanted to set a 10‑year plan. She said developing a 10-year plan was a little risky because one had to have the follow‑up to see the plan through. She said S.B. 137 and S.C.R. 10 were just the beginnings of this plan. She said this plan was one of the most comprehensive plans to be developed, and it covered all persons with disabilities. Ms. Evilsizer explained the plan was good and, like all plans, needed to be reviewed and updated as need dictated.
Bob Hogan, Programs Director, Nevada Community Enrichment Center, and Nevada Community Enrichment Program (NCEP), said more than one in every six Nevadans had a disability, which made the subcommittee members believe their time was well spent in developing the strategic plan. He said this plan was made possible by a forward‑thinking Governor, and several key Legislators from the 2001 Legislative Session. Quoting from Exhibit C, he said the plan provided the reader with a consumer‑validated perspective of how Nevada must ultimately build an integrated system of care. Mr. Hogan then read Exhibit F, his prepared testimony into the record.
Marilou Woolm, President, Graduate Student Association, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), said her constituents were in support of S.B. 137.
Ms. Woolm explained Steven Dickerson was in her classes, however, Mr. Dickerson had not had the same opportunities as the other students in the classes. She said Mr. Dickerson had to wait for his class reading materials because he was blind. She said Mr. Dickerson was a very bright man and the graduate students at UNR wanted to see the situation change. She said the Graduate Student Association wanted to see more services for the disabled.
Donny Loux, Chief, Office of Community-Based Services, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, and Developmental Disabilities Council, said of the 375,000 disabled Nevadans, only about 21,000 receive Medicaid benefits. She said that did not mean they could afford or were able to access health care and critical services like personal assistance. Ms. Loux continued reading her testimony, Exhibit G, into the record.
John Chambers, Chairman, Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, said the council supports S.C.R. 10 and S.B. 137. He said the number of people with disabilities in the State was growing rapidly. Mr. Chambers said the State needed to focus on the needs of people with disabilities. He explained over the past 20 years, Legislators had funded most of the available services to persons with disabilities. Mr. Chambers explained the strategic plan was everything the Legislators needed to know about persons with disabilities for the next 10 years.
Paul Gowins, Rehabilitation Division, Independent Living advisory Council, and Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living, said S.C.R. 10 was extremely important. He explained the members of the interim study had worked very hard with the Nevada attorney general’s office, the State’s disability advocates, and other experts when devising the strategic plan to be used as the Olmstead plan. He said anybody that looked at it in the future would accept the plan.
Mr. Gowins said throughout the process, it was found coordination across the board seem to be lacking. The coordination and available information for individuals, no matter which committee or meeting attended, was a problem. He said it was one of the first things identified as needing attention. He said he hoped the committee would consider moving forward with S.C.R. 10 and S.B. 137, which addressed a way of oversight to resolve these problems.
Mr. Gowins said last session, a lot of people lobbied very hard to get the interim study done. He said many of those individuals wanted the study performed outside of the State governmental agency system. He said these people wanted the Legislature to do the study, as they felt they could trust the Legislators, and felt that the Legislators' wisdom would be utilized. He said everyone involved was happy when the study came out with a first for Nevada.
Mr. Gowins explained it was good to see the Department of Human Resources had supported the effort wholeheartedly and had worked hard in ensuring the consumers’ input was added to the plan. He said in retrospect, it worked and he would not have said that was possible 2 years ago.
Mr. Gowins said the State was looking at a mechanism that would span 10 years of oversight and planning, and provide a way in the interims to prevent everyone from running around during the 120 days of session, trying to cram a bunch of information down the Legislators' throats. Mr. Gowins urged the committee to vote positively on S.C.R. 10 and S.B. 137.
Jeffrey Bursack said currently, he was a Personal Assistance Services Program (PASP) consumer. He said without that program, the odds were he would probably have been in an institution. He explained the cost of an institution was around $160 per day. He said to keep him active and independent it cost about 25 percent of the institutional cost. Mr. Bursack explained keeping an individual such as himself independent actually contributed to the community, as he was a consumer. He said he went to the movies, ate out in restaurants, and made purchases, all of which contributed to the economy of the community in which he lived. Mr. Bursack urged the committee to go forward with S.C.R. 10 and S.B. 137.
Karen Taycher, Executive Director, Parent Training and Information Center, Nevada P.E.P., and the Governor's Task Force on Disabilities, said she wanted to bring attention to the fact the strategic plan also covered issues of disabled infants, toddlers, and children and their families. She said part of the committee looked specifically at children and families' issues and that 10-year plan was added to the strategic plan.
Ms. Taycher commented the plan was a comprehensive document and urged the committee to support S.B. 137 and S.C.R. 10. She said S.C.R. 10 would encourage the State to support the principles of the strategic plan and Olmstead. She said she hoped the principles outlined in the plan would be used when planning any new or enhanced programs or projects for infants, toddlers, children, and adults with disabilities.
Ms. Taycher said it was very important to the strategic plan that S.B. 137 be used and not put on the shelf. She explained all of the disability advocates feared the plan would not be put into effect. She said the plan would ensure programs and services meet the needs of Nevadans, and would give oversight and compliance for Olmstead. Ms. Taycher commented, in closing, she hoped the committee would focus on data collection in order to better plan for the future needs of the disabled community.
Reggie Bennett, Developmental Disabilities Council, Nevada Community Enrichment Program, and Southern Nevada Independent Living Services Program, said his company provided home and vehicle modifications and other services that make it possible for Nevadans with disabilities to live independently in community settings. He continued with reading his presentation, Exhibit H.
Gary Olsen, Director, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Advocacy Resource Center, said he was in support of S.B. 137 and S.C.R. 10, provided the recommendations made in his written testimony, Exhibit I, would be incorporated.
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Washoe Legal Services, and Governor’s Task Force on Disabilities, said he served as part of the technical advisory group on Olmstead with the attorneys for the advocacy community, the attorney general’s office, and the Legislative Counsel Bureau, represented by Ms. Hamner. He said all of the entities were in agreement that the strategic plan was a good plan and should be put into effect. He said the plan would represent an effective Olmstead plan. He said if the State were sued, the strategic plan could be a necessary line of defense in court. Mr. Sasser explained, in light of that agreement, he would like to express his support for both S.C.R. 10 and S.B. 137.
Jan M. Crandy, Director, Families for Effective Autism Treatment of Southern Nevada (FEAT), said she saw individuals with autism not getting appropriate services in Nevada, and saw all citizens with disabilities in Nevada being underserved. She said she was pleased the strategic plan had included autism. Ms. Crandy explained the production of the strategic plan was only the first step and this issue had many miles to go, and without S.C.R. 10 and S.B. 137 she feared the road would dead-end. She said without this legislation, people with disabilities would once again fall through the cracks in Nevada.
Ms. Crandy urged the committee’s support of S.C.R. 10 and S.B. 137 and submitted her written testimony for the record, Exhibit J.
M. Laura Mijanovich, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU), said she was in support of S.B. 137 and S.C.R. 10. She said this legislation was a step in the right direction. She emphasized there was a great need to focus on the needs of persons with disabilities in Nevada. She explained this legislation would provide the opportunity to meet those needs by focusing on disability issues and monitoring the progress through data collection and investigative powers. She said in this way the Legislature would create a body that would be an advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities.
Chairman Washington noted anyone who wanted to have his or her written testimony entered into the record needed to submit that testimony to the committee secretary and the testimony would be entered in the record whether or not they actually spoke in front of the committee. Richard D. Rapp M.S., MFT, Marriage and Family Therapy, submitted Exhibit K. Edie Jones, submitted Exhibit L.
Senator Rawson said two sessions ago decisions were made that this issue needed to move forward and it needed to be done in a nonpartisan way. He said nonpartisan was the only way the plan could happen because the issues addressed were more important than the individual political conflicts.
Senator Rawson explained during the study, Republicans controlled the Senate. However, a Democrat, Senator Titus, who did a wonderful nonpartisan job, chaired the committee. He emphasized there was never a partisan issue brought to the study committee, and he believed everyone involved should be commended for his or her contributions to the completion of the plan.
Senator Rawson said the Legislature does not always know of the damage it does or the good it does. He said he believed this legislation was a turning point in Nevada, and the committee and all the other participants had started something that would fundamentally change the State.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 137.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R. 10.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington said in closing the committee hearing, he would like to commend Senator Titus, the other members of the interim study committee, and the members of the disabled community. He said these individuals had given the Legislature an opportunity to demonstrate, as elected officials, the Legislature could serve the best interests of the public without partisanship and hopefully do what was right for all Nevada citizens.
Chairman Washington adjourned the meeting at 5:07 p.m.
Johnnie Lorraine Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
DATE: