MINUTES OF THE
Seventy-second Session
April 29, 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, April 29, 2003, in Room 2144 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 K. Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No. 10
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director
Michael J. Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Johnnie Lorraine Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Robin Williamson, Board of Supervisors, Carson City
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City
Cinda Dillahunt
Cathy Rosenfield
Allan Schottmann, Professor of Economics and Director, Research, Lied Institute of Real Estate Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Curtis Jordan, Superintendent, Esmeralda County School District
Craig Kadlub, Ed.D., Lobbyist, Clark County School District
N. Lorrell Bleak, Superintendent, Lincoln County School District
Dorothy L. (Dotty) Merrill, Ed.D., Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards/Reno
Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Commission
Buffy Gail Martin, Lobbyist, American Cancer Society/Reno
Debra Jacobson, Lobbyist, American Heart Association
Keith Rheault, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Chairman Washington opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 9.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 9: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to authorize Legislature to convene at places other than seat of government and clarifies time by which Legislature must adjourn each regular session sine die. (BDR C-757)
Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No. 10, stated it was time for S.J.R. 9 to be enacted. This was the third session he introduced legislation that would allow the Legislature to convene in locations outside of Carson City.
Senator Coffin said he had previously testified about the other branches of government and the precedents set by them. He said 25 years ago the Nevada Supreme Court received approval from the citizens of Nevada to meet outside of Carson City. The Nevada Supreme Court could meet outside Carson City, even though it is located in Carson City. The Nevada Supreme Court traveled throughout Nevada, bringing the court to the people while maintaining offices in the heart of State government, Carson City.
Senator Coffin said the Legislature should continue to be housed and maintain offices in Carson City. However, there were occasions when the Legislature could best serve the people by convening in locations other than Carson City. As an example, Senator Coffin cited the special Legislative Session for medical malpractice. The special session impacted southern Nevada more than northern Nevada, and should have been held in Las Vegas.
Senator Coffin said since the 18th Special Session adjourned in August 2002, Nevada and the rest of the country had experienced the disruption of government by terrorism and bio-terrorism. Senator Coffin said with the proof terrorism can disrupt government, the Nevada Legislature should have an option to meet in cities other than Carson City.
Senator Coffin stressed the bill would not willy-nilly change Nevada’s seat of government. The bill allowed the Legislature to meet outside of Carson City, in times of need, after consultation with the appropriate parties. Senator Coffin said the outbreak of disease could mandate the two Houses of the Legislature meet in different locations. Senator Coffin cited Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) which is affecting European governments and Canada. The spread of SARS in this country could affect government. Senator Coffin said S.J.R. 9 differed considerably from earlier versions of bills he had previously submitted. The bill allowed the Legislature flexibility during times of emergency. Senator Coffin reiterated the need for S.J.R. 9.
Senator Coffin said the measure is a constitutional amendment requiring voter approval as well as approval by two consecutive legislative sessions. The bill’s language, especially section 2, is based on the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations’ recommendations.
Senator Raggio requested the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Research Division contact the other 49 states to determine whether those states had legislation in place with provisions similar to S.J.R. 9.
Senator Wiener asked the means by which a legislative session would be convened under the provisions of S.J.R. 9. Senator Wiener noted the integrity of the gathering of the names had to be preserved. Senator Coffin replied the process of convening a special session was informal and initiated when the Governor telephoned the appropriate legislative leaders. However, any form of communication was acceptable when initiating a special session. Once the Governor initiated a special session, legislative leadership would take over and convene the special session, notifying the legislators as needed.
Senator Wiener asked who would determine a meeting location other than the seat of government. Senator Coffin said he thought the bill did not specify who would make that determination. He stated he would have to double check the bill’s language.
Senator Coffin asked Chairman Washington whether he read the bill differently than Senator Coffin. Chairman Washington replied, “No, I don’t, Senator Coffin.”
Senator Coffin told Senator Wiener it appeared need would determine a meeting location other than Carson City. Senator Coffin said the Governor would probably determine the meeting location based on advice of legal counsel. The meeting location might be the subject of negotiation.
Senator Rawson said during interim discussions on the Emergency Health Powers Act, the issue of terrorist activities and how government could be affected by such activities had been raised. Specifically, what would happen to Nevada should the constitutional officers be adversely affected and not able to carry out their designated duties.
During those discussions, former Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa showed legislators statutory language granting the Legislature a number of duties including convening a special session of the Legislature.
Senator Rawson said he was unclear on the language provided by Ms. Del Papa and requested the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division clarify the issue for him. Senator Rawson said he thought legislative leadership would make all decisions relating to a special session. Senator Coffin said he would defer to the Legal Division’s opinion on the subject of the Legislature’s duties and responsibilities as they pertained to special sessions. Senator Coffin stated custom sometimes prevailed when legal precedent did not exist.
Senator Rawson said it was better to define an issue before it happened than to develop the needed mechanisms as events unfolded.
Senator Coffin thanked Senator Rawson for his comments. Senator Coffin said previous incarnations of the bill had been seen as a method to move the State capital and he felt the same argument would be raised again. Senator Coffin said the members of the Legislature had to be modern in their thinking and recognize there would be occasions when the rest of Nevada needed to see the Legislature in action.
Senator Coffin reminded the committee members that 70 percent of Nevada’s population is based in southern Nevada. When an issue affecting Clark County is raised, it is important for the citizens in southern Nevada to be able to participate in legislative hearings.
Senator Coffin said staff would be able to provide the committee members with the estimated costs and requirements of conducting legislative hearings outside of Carson City. Senator Coffin said he did not think it would be very expensive or require many amenities to conduct legislative hearings outside of Carson City. Senator Coffin noted that on April 28, 2003, the Nevada Assembly convened outside of the Legislative Building when it met in the old Assembly Chambers in the State Capitol Building. The old Assembly Chambers did not have meeting rooms. The Legislature operated for 100-plus years without meeting rooms and could do so again. Senator Coffin said he thought the Legislature would require only two rooms when meeting outside of Carson City.
Senator Coffin thanked the committee members for their time and said he was open to suggestions.
Chairman Washington directed the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division to draft an opinion on the constitutionality of the Legislature meeting outside the seat of government.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, said she had testified against S.J.R. 9 in its previous incarnations. There had been a significant change to the bill which she wanted to address. Ms. Hansen said Article 4, section 37 of the Nevada Constitution talked about the continuity of government in case of enemy attack, succession to public office, and legislative quorums. Ms. Hansen read from that section:
… to adopt such other measures as may be necessary and proper for insuring the continuity of governmental operations, including changes in quorum requirements in the legislature and the relocation of the seat of government.
Ms. Hansen referred to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 441 that contained provisions for ensuring the continuity of government in case of disaster or enemy attack.
ASSEMBLY BILL 441 (1st Reprint): Enacts provisions relating to ensuring security of State of Nevada and its residents with respect to acts of terrorism and related emergencies. (BDR 19-1139)
Ms. Hansen said she supported those provisions of A.B. 441. However, the bill did not refer to possible meeting locations for the Legislature. Ms. Hansen said for the continuity of government, the Legislature required a vehicle by which alternate meeting locations could be utilized in case of disaster. Ms. Hansen urged the committee members to look at S.J.R. 9. Ms. Hansen reiterated her previous testimony concerning Article 4, section 37 of the Nevada Constitution.
Robin Williamson, Board of Supervisors, Carson City, read from prepared text Exhibit C. At the conclusion of her testimony, Ms. Williamson stated Carson City was looking forward to working with the State of Nevada in the years to come.
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, said she was concerned S.J.R. 9 took a step towards establishing a new capital for Nevada. The bill allowed all or part of a regular session to be held outside of Carson City. The bill did not provide for emergencies.
Ms. Walker provided the committee members with an overview of Carson City’s history. Before Nevada became a territory, land was set aside in the center of Carson City by Abraham Curry. The land was designated as the future location of the State Capitol. Senator William Stewart, another Nevada pioneer, was emphatic in his promotion of Carson City as Nevada’s territorial capital.
Ms. Walker read from Russell R. Elliott’s book, Servant of Power, a Political Biography of William M. Stewart:
Stewart entered into the activities of the territorial legislature with his usual vigor and played an important role in the proceedings of that body. On November 7, 1861, Stewart proposed the location of the territorial capital at Carson City. He won support for his proposal by astute political maneuvering guaranteeing potential rivals the prestige of being named county seats in return for the support of Carson City being the capital. In effect, the representatives of the surrounding towns were assured that their towns would be the county seat of their counties if Carson City were the capital. Carson City was made State capital by the Constitutional Convention in 1964 and 1864. The Constitutional Convention made one stipulation of Carson City being the capital, that there would be no construction of the capitol building for 3 years to make sure that they wanted the capital in Carson. In 1869, the Legislature appropriated the money to the capitol building and in 1871 the building was opened. The decision had been made to make Carson City the capital after many years of thoughtful discussion and negotiations.
Ms. Walker said the City of Carson City thought the right decision had been made when it was designated as Nevada’s capital. She stated being the capital city of Nevada was Carson City’s main identity. The community had such reverence for being the State capital that early building codes required all front doors in Carson City to face the State capitol building.
Ms. Walker distributed a paper written by Guy Louis Rocha, Assistant Administrator, Archives and Records, Division of State Library and Archives, Department of Cultural Affairs, Exhibit D. Mr. Rocha updated the paper in October 2002. The paper discussed the reasoning used to determine the location of a state’s capital city. Traditionally, state capitals were located in smaller cities away from the larger cities in the state. The reason for this being a central location within a state was desirable for a state capital.
Ms. Walker said Carson City had always been Nevada’s capital and was one of the few capital cities which had remained geographically constant since gaining statehood. A state’s capital city generally changed location a few years after statehood was achieved. Additionally, the location of a capital city had to be changed before major employers moved to the city and the infrastructures necessary for state government were erected.
During the 1920s, discussions had been held to determine whether or not Nevada’s capital should be moved. Those discussions were the last serious attempts to relocate the State capital from Carson City. Mr. Rocha noted the cost of duplicating the legislative infrastructure outside of Carson City would be substantial.
Ms. Walker said she had reviewed the records of the Carson City Assessor’s Office. Those records indicated the taxable value of state-owned buildings in Carson City to be $375 million.
Ms. Walker said Carson City officials wanted to know what would happen to the employees of the Legislative Counsel Bureau should the legislative sessions be moved away from Carson City. Ms. Walker said she thought relocating the employees would be very expensive. Mr. Rocha’s article pointed out modern technology allowed all Nevadans to participate in the legislative process via videoconferencing and through the use of the Legislature’s satellite office in Las Vegas. Ms. Walker added she knew of no state whose Legislature convened in a location other than in the state capital.
Ms. Walker concluded her testimony by saying S.J.R. 9 would effectively move the State capital from Carson City to Las Vegas. She said once the Legislature relocated, the Governor would move, then other State offices and officials would follow the Governor. Ms. Walker stated Carson City was selected as Nevada’s capital 142 years ago after many years of negotiations, discussions, and thought. Carson City was selected because of its central location, not because it was the biggest or wealthiest community in Nevada. Ms. Walker said on a national level, states generally had their capital cities located in smaller cities and it was the American tradition to locate a state capital in a smaller city.
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District:
I just want to provide a couple of perspectives on my colleague’s proposal before you, and then go be a couple other places at once and return a little bit later on another item on your agenda. You know, as someone who grew up here, and I don’t want to get on too much with the history, but having watched the seat of government for the State evolve over my nearly 40 years of memory, of watching it function, I would just indicate to the committee that the Legislature has done what it’s seen as appropriate in terms of where the Legislature convenes and how we do outreach and make ourselves available and accessible to our constituents and the citizens of this state. And, we have in the past, when we felt it was appropriate, held sessions in those portions of the state where the issues were most important.
We have held blocks of weeks of sessions in Clark County. We have held hearings in the interim and regular session context in other portions of the state, in northeastern Nevada, in western Nevada, in central Nevada, whereever the facts were seen to be the most appropriate. I would suggest to you that when we decide what we’re going to do in terms of where the seat of government for this state actually functions, that the members of the Legislature, over the years, have been sensitive to those issues and have responded responsibly to the needs of their constituents regardless of where they are in the state. But, I would also indicate to you that I think that, as a venue for the state’s capital, this venue has evolved as the state’s needs have evolved and that it has been, on reflection, a successful endeavor in terms of where we actually conduct the state’s business in a legislative context. Especially when we are in this time, when we are looking at evolving as our growth needs continue, that the ability to, as many other states do, retire to a location which is accessible, but not located in one of several population centers of the state, is not inappropriate as it is something that is done in many other states in the nation.
As I look at the wording of the bill, which talks about petitions in the interim of a majority, and think about the political and editorial pressures that we are all subjected to, from time to time, on various and sundry subjects, I would hate to think that we are influenced in terms of what the ultimate and operable and appropriate facts are on which to decide, based upon an editorial department or some political pressures which may ebb and flow. I would submit to you that the history of conducting the state’s business in the location that it has historically been done has been a successful one. I would also submit to you that it’s not broke and we don’t need to fix it. Now, when you talk about the petitions by a majority of people to serve in the next session, out of necessity, in the Assembly, that would mean that sometime after the November elections in one year, if this measure were to pass, that there would be petitions, potentially, circulating which could change the location of the Legislature to convene in the ensuing 60 or 90 days, depending on whenever you decide to meet. That is not something I suggest lends itself to stable operation, especially in what is now a constitutional 120-day context.
If there are needs to once again bring the legislative process to appropriate forums in the state for those who need to participate, by all means, let’s do it. Let’s continue to do what we have been doing. But, to ignore the investment in the tradition and the success and the infrastructure that we have enjoyed by having Carson City function as the state’s seat of government, I think is something that is unwarranted by the facts, the circumstances or the evolution of history. However, I want to make clear that looking at how we can most appropriately function and serve the needs of all the citizens of the state is something that I applaud my colleague for bringing forward, to have us examine that. If there are functions, of course, in the Executive Branch, that need to be looked at, for how we bring the day‑to‑day operations of the State to the appropriate population centers, we should continue to do that also. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will stand for any questions if anybody has any. If not, I will cease taking up space on your record, and let you move on to the next person.
Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.J.R. 9 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 21.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 21: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning reconfiguration of school districts in this state. (BDR R-56)
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, read from prepared text, Exhibit E. Senator Tiffany said she had drawn her information from a study conducted by Management Analysis and Planning, Incorporated (MAP) in 1995 on behalf of the Legislature. She presented portions of the MAP study for review by the committee members, Exhibit F. Senator Tiffany said information contained in the MAP study was still valid even though it was 8 years old. Senator Tiffany stated S.C.R. 21 had originally been drafted to review the possible deconsolidation of the Clark County School District (CCSD). Senator Tiffany said Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked whether another school district consolidation measure could be incorporated into S.C.R. 21. Senator Tiffany said she had no objections to combining the two measures.
Senator Tiffany said school districts followed county boundaries which were decided 50 years ago. At that time, the State had a population of 240,000. The CCSD currently has 256,000 registered students. Over two‑thirds of Nevada’s school districts have less than 1000 registered students.
Senator Tiffany said the MAP study contained the history of Nevada’s school district sizes since 1860. The CCSD had grown over 60 percent in the last 8 years. The last study of Nevada school districts was conducted at that time. During that same time, the Washoe County School District experienced a 40 percent increase in growth, while the Esmeralda County School District (ECSD) experienced a 70 percent reduction.
Senator Tiffany said the 1995 MAP study involved every school district in Nevada. Five criteria were examined at each school district: (1) educational effectiveness; (2) racial and ethnic composition; (3) organizational scale; (4) governmental responsiveness to community interest and (5) financing. Senator Tiffany said she thought the MAP study’s recommendations were still valid. The MAP recommendations included the deconsolidation of the CCSD into 8 smaller districts; the consolidation of the Carson City School District and the Douglas County School District (DCSD); the deconsolidation of the DCSD and creation of the Lake Zephyr School District; and the consolidation of the Elko and Esmeralda Counties School Districts. Senator Tiffany stated only a couple of the study’s recommendations had been implemented and reiterated the validity of the study’s recommendations.
Senator Tiffany said she wanted to take the MAP study to the next step by determining the boundaries of any proposed school districts. She stated S.C.R. 21 outlined the appropriate schools for school districts, addressed bond indebtedness for a school district, asset transfers, and other measures required when consolidating or deconsolidating school districts.
Senator Tiffany noted the MAP study did not indicate the consolidation and/or deconsolidation of Nevada’s school districts could not be accomplished. The study indicated there were issues requiring further study. Senator Tiffany said she wanted those issues studied before the Legislature made a decision on the consolidation or deconsolidation of the school districts in Nevada. Additionally, a new study would refresh the data in the MAP study.
Cinda Dillahunt read from prepared text, Exhibit G, and said she supported S.C.R. 21. Ms. Dillahunt urged the committee members to pass S.C.R. 21.
Chairman Washington instructed the witnesses to limit their testimony to the germane points of the legislation under discussion. The chairman did not want to hear repetitive testimony and instructed witnesses with prepared text to submit it to the committee secretary.
Cathy Rosenfield said she believed in public education as the cornerstone of American society. Ms. Rosenfield stated she believed the CCSD was broken beyond repair. The latest test results for CCSD pupils in grades 6 through 10 indicated student performance did not reach the national average in any subject area. The CCSD’s last report card showed a B minus in standards and accountability; a C minus in improving teacher quality; a D plus in school climate; a C minus in adequacy of resources, and a B in equity of resources.
Ms. Rosenfield told the committee members her children did not have textbooks to bring home at night. Due to the lack of textbooks the CCSD teachers risked copyright infringements by duplicating textbooks in order to provide all the students with the required educational materials. Ms. Rosenfield stated her children did not have reference materials in their classrooms.
Ms. Rosenfield said the CCSD conducted public hearings with a high percentage of parents in attendance at those meetings as the parents truly cared about their childrens’ educations. She noted the parents were frustrated and felt that nobody in a position of authority listened to their concerns.
Ms. Rosenfield said 2 years ago, 60,000 registered voters in Clark County signed a petition for the right to vote on the issue of smaller schools in Clark County. The matter should have been placed on the ballot, but was not due to the petition being signed by two dozen Mineral County residents. The Mineral County signatures invalidated the petition. Ms. Rosenfield noted Mineral County had no involvement with the CCSD.
Ms. Rosenfield said if the government truly represented the people, the matter of smaller schools would have been placed on the ballot. Instead, regions within the CCSD had been developed by Dr. Carlos A. Garcia, Superintendent, CCSD. She said Dr. Garcia felt regions would make the school administrators more accessible to the parents. Ms. Rosenfield said she did not find the administrators more accessible under the region plan and that parent input was not welcome by the administrators. Ms. Rosenfield stated the closest contact she had with her region’s administrators had been her conversations with the office secretary. Ms. Rosenfield said the regions in the CCSD held parent advisory meetings where a parent could take his or her concerns or voice his or her opinions. However, the parent advisory meetings for Ms. Rosenfield’s region were invitation-only and parents were discouraged from attending those meetings.
Ms. Rosenfield said Nevadans needed to stop failing their children, businesses, communities, and the State. Students were being taught remedial reading in the University and Community College System of Nevada because they had not been taught to read in elementary school.
Ms. Rosenfield said she felt Nevadans were fiddling while Rome burned. The officials of the CCSD stressed parental involvement as being key to a child’s educational success, however, Ms. Rosenfield felt her opinion as a parent was not sought or welcomed by the CCSD officials.
Ms. Rosenfield stated she felt Nevada’s education system failed a generation of children and it was possible the next generation of children would be failed as well. Ms. Rosenfield said she did not think legislators wanted that failure to be their legacy to the citizens, businesses, and children of Nevada. She urged the committee members to support S.C.R. 21.
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, stated he represented all or part of seven Nevada counties. Senator McGinness commended Senator Tiffany for her work on S.C.R. 21. He said he thought restructuring Nevada’s school districts was possible, but was not sure it was something that should be done. He directed the committee members’ attention to the long distances between towns in rural Nevada.
Senator McGinness said he could only imagine the complexities reconfiguring the CCSD would entail. He noted Clark County was the starting point for the MAP study. Senator McGinness said the CCSD should be reconfigured and the other school districts left alone. He talked about the proposed merger of the ECSD and Nye County school district. The residents of Esmeralda County were adamant in wanting to keep control of their schools. The schools were the identity of the community in the smaller communities. Senator McGinness stated he thought the smaller communities should be allowed to keep those identities. Senator McGinness said the Legislature should do everything possible to allow school districts to consolidate services and bus systems, and share psychologists, counselors, and superintendents. Legal impediments needed to be removed so the school districts would be able to undertake such innovations on their own.
Senator Amodei said:
I appear before you on this measure just in terms of making your record complete regarding some of the other potential sweep of the proposed legislation. I was gratified to hear some of the previous speakers avoid top-heavy things and redistribution at the grassroots level. I would submit to you that many of the proposed study areas in this are already success stories for doing those very same things. Study is a healthy thing. I don’t want to appear before you to say we shouldn’t look at and try to do the most comprehensive job we can in providing for one of the major things that this State does, which is public education at the K-12 level. However, the facts at present, in terms of the portion of western Nevada that I represent, are about school districts that have successfully evolved, are financially solvent, and are in, luckily, all growth areas, even including one of the smaller ones, Storey County.
We are at a point where the testing information is, by and large, positive. The financial information is, by and large, positive. People are, by and large, happy to have things continue the way they are, in terms of perpetuating the county school district mechanisms that you find throughout the State as far as the rural areas and even some of the urban areas. Now, I won’t come before you and presume to tell you what ought to be done with the sixth largest school district in the nation, because, quite frankly, I’m not qualified to do that. But, I will tell you that in terms of your record, for purposes of this legislation that the statewide sweep which aims at getting things to the grassroots level ought to not ruin things where they already are at the grassroots level and things are functioning appropriately in a financial and achievement sense. With that, I’ll stand for any questions.
Senator Cegavske said she reviewed Senator Tiffany’s prepared testimony. The prepared testimony contained recommendations for the consolidation or deconsolidation of certain school districts within Nevada.
Senator Cegavske stated concerns had been raised about the White Pine County School District (WPCSD). There had been talk about the State taking over the administration of the WPCSD or combining it with another school district. Senator Cegavske said other school districts within the state were experiencing problems similar to the WPCSD’s. She stated those school districts were dependent on the mining industry. As the mines were depleted, the support for the school districts was not there.
Senator Cegavske asked Senator Tiffany for her comments on that situation. She asked Senator McGinness whether or not he preferred placing a cap on the larger school districts and not consolidating the smaller school districts.
Senator McGinness said that would be his preference. He stated representatives of the smaller school districts could provide the committee members with specific information concerning their school districts. Senator McGinness said Senator Rhoads represented White Pine County. Senator McGinness explained the State operated the WPCSD when the district was in bad shape. The WPCSD was now operating on an even keel. He said he did not think the WPCSD was one of the school districts that might be reconfigured. However, there had been talk about consolidating the schools in the Duckwater region of Nye County into the Eureka County School District. Senator McGinness said Gabbs in Nye County is closer to Fallon in Churchill County than it is to Tonopah in Nye County.
Senator Amodei said:
What we have traditionally judged school districts by are, are you financially solvent and is your work product acceptable to us in terms of what we measure accountability by, test scores and measures such as that. When we talk about consolidation, that’s a fair thing to talk about if those two major things are in play. My problem when I look at this statewide sweep is you go school district to school district, especially in the areas that I represent. Now, that wasn’t the case 10 years ago. But, all these school districts are functioning very well, whether it’s financially or in an accountability sense. I don’t mean to say that you don’t look at areas where something like this can be discussed and talked about if it is something that needs to be discussed. But, I would hope that before you do that, you at least look at the symptomatology in those districts that we have traditionally looked at.
I am suggesting to you that in many of the districts that are within the sweep of this proposal, that this symptomatology is not present. Now, that doesn’t mean we go away and don’t do our job as many members of this committee who’ve served longer than I have indicated. One of the primary functions of the Legislature is education. We should always be involved in and always be looking at education. But, for purposes of your record, in terms of this proposal, unless we’re going to do a major shift from what we traditionally look at in terms of financially and performance wise, many of the districts in here, when you look at them, you will find that. Scrutiny is a healthy thing I believe and in a public context is a good thing also. But, let’s not send the message that we are looking seriously, even in those areas where there is not a need by our traditional standards, at redrawing school district lines. Now, you heard Senator McGinness indicate if there are services that can be consolidated that make sense, that’s something that ought to be looked at in the study. I’m just here to tell you that study’s a healthy thing, but by all the criteria that we have traditionally judged how our districts perform, the districts that I’m most familiar with, I would submit to you, for your record, are performing very well within the envelope that we established for that.
Senator Cegavske asked Senator Amodei whether he would be opposed to receiving a recommendation on the consolidation of certain school districts within Nevada if the study proceeded. Senator Cegavske said the study would be reviewing all school districts within Nevada. The study’s focus would be to determine where it would be prudent to reconfigure Nevada’s school districts. She noted the concern was with the larger school districts. Senator Cegavske said, other than revenue sharing, she had not reviewed the status of the smaller school districts in the State. Senator Cegavske said the huge population affected the CCSD. Due to various levels of administration, it was difficult for the parents to interact with school officials.
Senator Cegavske said she thought a study would look at all the school districts within the State and enhance the performance of each school district.
Senator Amodei stated:
If I’ve left you with that impression, I have done a bad job of expressing myself. What I am saying is, study is a healthy thing. If you want to study that’s fine. But, when I hear about getting through layers of administration and getting to the top, I can tell you that in the districts I represent, the person, whether it’s a guy or a girl at the top, is one phone call away, if not on the street away. So, that responsiveness in the areas that I am most familiar with is not an issue. I’m not saying don’t study. But, I am saying, if you study and come back with recommendations to consolidate existing county school districts in areas that have not been identified as substandard financially or academically, then I would submit to you that you have changed the rules by which we judge our school districts in this State without bothering to tell anybody.
Senator Cegavske said she understood Senator Amodei’s point and thanked him for clarifying his testimony.
Senator Titus said she recalled the MAP study concluded class and school size, not district size, made the difference. She asked, after the MAP study, what elements had been changed which mandated another study. Senator Titus said she understood the testimony indicated the larger school districts needed to be broken down into smaller school districts while the smaller school districts needed to be consolidated into larger school districts.
Senator Titus asked how the test scores in the rural counties compared to the test scores in the larger school districts. She specifically wanted to know if the test scores in the rural counties were better than in the large school districts. If the test scores were not better in the rural areas, then why should the argument be raised that the larger districts, such as the CCSD, were not working well. Senator Amodei stated he was not the person to answer Senator Titus’ questions, while Senator McGinness said there were some rural school superintendents who might be able to answer Senator Titus’ questions.
Senator Titus said she wanted a representative from the Department of Education to provide her with a comparison of the test scores between the larger and rural school districts.
Chairman Washington told Senator Titus that a witness who could answer her questions would be testifying shortly.
Senator Tiffany said Senator Titus was correct in that the MAP study concluded smaller classrooms and smaller schools had a function. The MAP study clearly recommended deconsolidating some school districts while consolidating other school districts in the State. Senator Tiffany did not want anybody to be left with the impression that the MAP study said, “Don’t do that.” Senator Tiffany recommended people read the MAP study as it was interesting.
Senator Titus asked Senator Tiffany to show her where the deconsolidation and consolidation recommendations were located in the MAP study. Senator Tiffany said the recommendations were listed on page 17.
Allan Schottmann, Professor of Economics and Director, Research, Lied Institute of Real Estate Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said he supported S.C.R. 21. Mr. Schottman said the drive towards large school districts started in the 1950s, when it was thought bigger was better.
Mr. Schottman said at the time of the 1995 MAP study, the literature used for the study had focused on class size and school size. Currently, literature addressed the impact of school district sizes on the core issues in schooling. Mr. Schottman explained the core issues were: (a) student achievement, (b) school improvement, and (c) the influence of the community on the educational attainment of children. Since 1995, 100 studies had been conducted. Literature based on those studies indicated mega-school districts were too big.
Mr. Schottman said not proceeding with the study was wrong and urged the committee members to pass S.C.R. 21. The benefits of smaller school districts have been supported by recent studies. School district size mattered and larger school districts negatively affected student achievement, school improvement and community influence. The proposed study was not inconsistent with small rural school districts.
Senator Mathews asked Mr. Schottmann for clarification on the study he quoted. Mr. Schottman said he was employed at the Lied Institute of Real Estate Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, as the director of research. Senator Mathews asked whether finding homes for people determined how school districts should be configured. Mr. Schottman replied “no,” adding he suggested people focus on the influence of school district size on student achievement. This trend to focus on school district size developed after the 1995 MAP study and indicated larger school districts were not beneficial to the students.
Senator Mathews said she was concerned about the underserved children who might be left behind when larger school districts were divided. Senator Mathews was particularly concerned with how the CCSD would be affected should it be divided. Senator Mathews stated the CCSD would be divided into districts for Summerlin, West Las Vegas, and Green Valley. The newly created districts would not be equal. Senator Mathews commented that during times of financial hardship, the poorer school districts were shortchanged.
Mr. Schottman said Senator Mathews’ concerns were legitimate and he shared those concerns. Mr. Schottmann said he looked at assessed property values in Clark County. In his professional opinion, he did not think Senator Mathews’ concerns would be a stumbling block to studying the issue of deconsolidation.
Senator Mathews said her family settled in Las Vegas in 1939 and she considered her concerns to be an issue.
Senator Titus said page 18 of the MAP study addressed the subject of alternative boundary configuration. The study said it was not possible to form school districts of optimum enrollment size while equalizing financing. The consultant assigned to the study concluded that without some mechanism to equalize school district wealth for school construction purposes, any proposed change to district boundaries would result in similar demographic or fiscal inequities. Senator Mathews agreed with Senator Titus’s presentation.
Senator Tiffany asked whether Senator Titus had reviewed the eight smaller school districts proposed for Clark County by the MAP study. Senator Titus replied, “I don’t think I need to.”
Senator Tiffany said a school’s operational budget was based on a per-pupil basis. As the MAP study reviewed school construction, one option raised was leaving the CCSD intact for budget purposes. By doing so, equalization for construction purposes would be present. The rest would be left on a per-pupil basis under the Nevada Plan. Senator Tiffany said the Nevada Plan was the most equitable funding mechanism for education in the United States.
Chairman Washington recessed the hearing on S.C.R. 21 and opened the hearing on S.C.R. 20.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 20: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of feasibility and desirability of changing state boundary line along border with Utah. (BDR R-786)
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, said S.C.R. 20 called for the merger of West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah. All gaming activities took place on the Nevada side of the border. Additionally, the better school district and infrastructure were located in Nevada. Many of the people who worked in Nevada lived in Utah. For years, there had been discussions to merge the two towns.
Senator Rhoads said a year ago, U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons, Nevada, and U.S. Congressman Jim Hansen, Utah, introduced a bill calling for the merger of the two towns. A congressional hearing was held in Wendover to discuss the merger.
Senator Rhoads said he was confused by the mechanism by which the two towns could be merged. When he first received S.C.R. 20, he thought both Nevada and Utah had to pass annexation bills which would then be approved by Congress. Senator Rhoads thought perhaps the bills should first go to Congress and then be returned to their respective states. Senator Rhoads asked for clarification on the annexation process from the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division.
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, said her research indicated a compact, or agreement, between Nevada and Utah had to be drafted. The compact would provide for the boundary change between the two states. Once the Nevada and Utah Legislatures agreed to the compact, it would be sent to Congress for approval. The compact would become effective once Congress approved it.
Senator Rhoads said Nevada would acquire approximately 10,000 acres from Utah from the merger. A consulting firm, Applied Development Economics (ADE) of Berkley, California, had been hired to study the merger and its effects on both towns. A federal grant paid ADE to conduct a limited study concerning the merger of the two towns. The study indicated the merger would benefit both municipalities. Both cities unanimously voted to merge.
Senator Rhoads stated S.C.R. 20 provided for the Legislative Commission to appoint a special committee. Senator Rhoads suggested alternative membership for the special committee by having the members of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands serve on the special committee along with four additional members: two members appointed from the Senate and two members appointed from the Assembly. Resources would be saved should Senator Rhoads’ suggestion implemented.
Senator Rhoads said the special committee members would need to meet with representatives of the Utah Legislature. There had been a breakdown in communications between Nevada and Utah. The State and Elko County needed to look at the costs of the merger versus the benefits. The citizens of both Wendovers should be given an opportunity to participate in public hearings on the proposed merger.
Chairman Washington asked whether it had been Senator Rhoads’ suggestion that the members of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands, and four additional appointees, serve on the committee proposed by S.C.R. 20. A new interim committee would not be appointed. Senator Rhoads replied, “yes,” adding he would provide the committee members with language detailing his suggestion before a work session was conducted on S.C.R. 20.
Chairman Washington agreed with Senator Rhoads that having members of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands serve as the S.C.R. 20 committee would work better than appointing another interim committee.
Senator Rhoads said one of the advantages of the merger would be Nevada’s acquisition of the Wendover, Utah, airport. The airport had one of the longest runways in Utah and would benefit Nevada should the merger be approved.
Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.C.R. 20 and reconvened the hearing on S.C.R. 21.
Curtis Jordan, Superintendent, Esmeralda County School District, said he opposed S.C.R. 21. The ECSD trustees as well as many Esmeralda County residents were opposed to any study and/or bill that would consolidate the ECSD into another school district.
Mr. Jordan said he believed the consolidation of the smaller school districts into larger school districts would result in the loss of a number of schools. The loss of schools would create a strain on the economy of Esmeralda County and its towns. The ECSD employed 39 employees. It would be financially devastating for Esmeralda County should any jobs be lost through consolidation. The ECSD worked hard to improve itself. Mr. Jordan stated when the children of Esmeralda County were retested in the spring, he believed their test scores dramatically improved.
Mr. Jordan said the ECSD used the Southern Regional and Professional Development Consortium as a basis for professional development. Funds were available for professional development, staff was reorganized and the ECSD was doing the job that needed to be done in order to best serve the student population of Esmeralda County.
Mr. Jordan said it appeared the committee members were talking about two separate problems. The first problem was the CCSD, and the second problem was the rural school districts. He did not see how the rural school districts could be compared to the CCSD. Solutions for the CCSD could not be applied to the rural school districts.
Mr. Jordan said he approved of the sharing of services between school districts. The ECSD was investigating sharing services as long as it was not prohibited by union regulations and negotiated agreements. Mr. Jordan said he especially opposed the designation and membership makeup of the interim committee proposed by S.C.R. 21. Mr. Jordan said he felt the committee should include educators and parents from each affected school district. Mr. Jordan stated he had a hard time with the concept that the ECSD’s future could depend on individuals with little or no experience operating a school district.
Mr. Jordan said he felt having a bond counsel and two financial officers oversee the study would result in recommendations based on financial matters instead of sound educational principles. The interim committee’s recommendations should be based on sound and proven educational concepts with a successful track record.
Mr. Jordan urged the committee members to amend the bill by changing the membership of the proposed interim committee. The interim committee’s membership should reflect the educational communities affected by the study’s recommendations. Mr. Jordan also urged the committee members to amend S.C.R. 21 by providing separately for the bigger school districts and the smaller school districts. Mr. Jordan concluded his testimony by urging the committee members to vote against S.C.R. 21.
Craig Kadlub, Ed.D., Lobbyist, Clark County School District, said complaints regarding the CCSD had been received earlier in the hearing. Those complaints were class and school specific. He did not think it proper to generalize experiences from one school to an entire district.
Dr. Kadlub said he agreed with the witness who said the issues were class and school size. He stated the CCSD believed the best place to effect change is at the point of service delivery, i.e., the school and classrooms.
Dr. Kadlub discussed Ms. Rosenfield’s testimony concerning grades issued to the CCSD. Dr. Kadlub said those grades had been issued to the State, not the CCSD. Dr. Kadlub said earlier witnesses had been correct in their testimony regarding Nevada’s per-pupil funding and the fact that the CCSD funding level was below the statewide average. He stated Clark County schools would still have 250,000 pupils whether there was one school district or multiple school districts. The Clark County students were funded 20 percent below the national average. Dr. Kadlub said he did not oppose or support S.C.R. 21.
Senator Titus asked Dr. Kadlub how the CCSD students compared to the students in other Nevada school districts based on test scores. Dr. Kadlub said his knowledge was general and did not know how useful Senator Titus would find that information. He stated the test scores of the CCSD students were comparable to the test scores of students in other Nevada school districts. The scores in rural communities were slightly higher. However, as 65 to 70 percent of all students lived in Clark County, the CCSD drove the statewide average. Dr. Kadlub said the Department of Education, testing division, would be the best source for the county-by-county comparison figures requested by Senator Titus.
Dr. Kadlub raised several issues for the committee members to consider. First, S.C.R. 21 called for an interim committee and an advisory committee. The membership of the interim committee would be comprised of certain professionals. Dr. Kadlub said the interim committee members would have to spend time researching and analyzing the data presented to them. Dr. Kadlub referred to A.B. No. 224 of the 69th Legislative Session which funded the MAP study. Dr. Kadlub stated he was not aware of a funding mechanism for S.C.R. 21. Dr. Kadlub said without proper funding, it might not be possible to provide the research required by S.C.R. 21. Dr. Kadlub said he hoped the resources required to conduct the study could be provided without having a negative fiscal impact on Nevada’s school districts.
Second, should S.C.R. 21 be implemented, Dr. Kadlub said he wondered whether the operation of the reconfigured school districts would result in greater or lesser long-term costs to taxpayers. Both the public and legislators needed to know the ongoing expenses associated with reconfiguring Nevada’s school districts.
Third, the school districts appeared to be equally established. However, a mechanism for projecting the future employment needs of a school district should be devised. The long-term effect of a school district’s employment needs had to be considered.
Dr. Kadlub commended the sponsors of S.C.R. 21 for proposing the study focus on the issues left unresolved by the MAP study. He said while the mechanics of reconfiguration were critical, he appreciated the attention given to matters of educational effectiveness and equity among the districts. Dr. Kadlub said those were the most important considerations of reconfiguring Nevada’s school districts. He asked whether (1) the reconfiguration of Nevada’s school districts would improve student achievement; (2) could configuration be accomplished without creating economic or ethnic divisions among the school districts, and (3) would the benefits of reconfiguration be worth the cost. Dr. Kadlub said if his questions could not be answered in the affirmative, then he saw no value in reconfiguring the school districts.
Senator Cegavske asked Mr. Jordan how he felt about adding to the membership of the interim study. She also asked for clarification on the type of study that should be conducted to determine the possible benefits of reconfiguring Nevada’s school districts.
Mr. Jordan said he thought the study could be separated into two components: the larger school districts in one area of study and the rural school districts in another area of study. Such a study would be equitable and better address the needs of Nevada’s schools districts. Mr. Jordan stated he would not object to enlarging the interim committee’s membership, as that would accomplish the same goals.
N. Lorell Bleak, Superintendent, Lincoln County School District (LCSD), spoke about grades and test scores. He said the test scores Lincoln County, one of Nevada’s smaller school districts, were continually above the rest of the State. Mr. Bleak referred to the scores of the recently conducted Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores. In that test, Eureka and Lincoln Counties received the top two scores in all areas.
Mr. Bleak said he was in Nevada when the MAP study was conducted. He knew the MAP study brought confusion and frustration to Lincoln County. The MAP study discussed consolidating the LCSD with another school district. Should the LCSD be consolidated with another school district, it would lose sovereignty for both Lincoln County and the LCSD. Mr. Bleak stated he was glad to see the recommendations of the MAP study were not implemented.
Mr. Bleak said recent legislation upset the residents of Lincoln County who did not see how people outside the county could decide what was best for Lincoln County. Mr. Bleak stated the student enrollment in Lincoln County was under 1000. It was an optimum-sized enrollment. The teachers were good and the LCSD had discovered different and unique ways to finance school buildings. Presently, two new school buildings had been constructed by the LCSD using the new financing methods.
Mr. Bleak said the MAP study made some good recommendations. He thought those recommendations were in place. The MAP study said Nevada’s school districts faced many challenges when dealing with the extremes in population, scarcity of resources, density, and the rate of growth. Mr. Bleak agreed with those points.
Mr. Bleak said he did not feel the whole system was broken. He stated he did not think the school districts in the State should be stirred up by consolidation. He noted the MAP study stated the Nevada Plan was successful and that the Nevada Plan was the best plan in the nation for school funding. However, the MAP study indicated Nevada experienced problems with facility construction.
Mr. Bleak said the study proposed by S.C.R. 21 should concentrate on the larger school districts in the State and leave the rural school districts alone. Mr. Bleak said he met with the parents in the LCSD daily. A number of subjects were discussed during those meetings. Mr. Bleak stated Lincoln County took great pride in having the lowest dropout rate in the State. Mr. Bleak said the low dropout rate was due to the teachers knowing the children and parents in the school district. The parents were periodically visited by telephone. Mr. Bleak said he did not think the personal touches would be possible should the LCSD be consolidated into another school district.
Mr. Bleak stated he was opposed to school district consolidation and asked that the LCSD be left alone. However, if consolidation occurred, Mr. Bleak said he thought the superintendents of the school districts should be important members of the interim committee. He stated those individuals would be the ones dealing with the effects of consolidation.
Mr. Bleak said he was opposed to S.C.R. 21. He reiterated his testimony regarding the involvement of school superintendents on the interim committee.
Chairman Washington asked Dr. Kadlub for a status report on A.B. 162 which provided for an audit of the Washoe County and Clark County school districts. Dr. Kadlub said he did not know the bill’s status.
ASSEMBLY BILL 162 (1st Reprint): Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct performance audits of certain school districts and provides for formation of Business Advisory Councils. (BDR S-995)
Chairman Washington said the items raised during the discussion on S.C.R. 21 could be added to the audits listed in A.B. 162.
Dorothy L. Merrill, Ed.D, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, said she believed the bill to be alive, but was unsure which committee would be hearing it.
Senator Cegavske asked staff whether any other states with large school districts had experienced consolidation or reconfiguration of those school districts. She stated the best source for the information would be the Education Commission of the States (ECS). Senator Cegavske directed staff to ask ECS for the information she requested. Chairman Washington said staff would contact ECS on behalf of Senator Cegavske. Chairman Washington also directed Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, to determine the number and status of the bill which provided for an audit of the Washoe County and Clark County School Districts.
Dr. Merrill said she did not oppose or support S.C.R. 21. She said she wanted to clarify some issues and referred to page 2, line 13 of the bill which said Washoe County had 60,388 students. Dr. Merrill said she was not sure where that number had come from. She explained that it was not the correct number for student enrollment on count day for the Washoe County School District (WCSD). Dr. Merrill stated since the student enrollment figure for the WCSD was incorrect, it was possible the other student enrollment figures were also incorrect. Dr. Merrill stated the WCSD student enrollment did not exceed 60,388. She thought 50,908 would be the correct number of students enrolled in the WCSD.
Dr. Merrill addressed Senator Cegavske’s questions regarding student achievement. The WCSD had 86 schools with 12 of those schools being rated as exemplary or high-achievement schools. Only 13 Nevada schools had been rated as exemplary or high-achievement schools. Statewide, there were 38 schools needing improvement. The WCSD had 4 schools in the needs improvement category, 2 public schools and 2 charter schools. The WCSD experienced the following rates in the 2002 high school proficiency tests: 99.9 percent for reading, 99.9 percent for writing, and 98.5 percent for math.
Mr. Bleak referred to page 23 of the MAP study which discussed attempts to make school districts smaller. A school in New York City had been used for comparison purposes. Mr. Bleak said he did not know how an out-of-state school district compared to a Nevada school district.
Ms. Hansen said she supported S.C.R. 21. She stated parental involvement was important and distributed a handout for the committee members’ review, Exhibit H. Ms. Hansen quoted from the handout:
Research by the Manhattan Institute and by Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby shows that areas with smaller school districts produce significantly better student outcomes, with lower per-pupil expenditures. Smaller city-based school districts can unite local residents with their neighborhood schools, providing benefits to both parties.
Ms. Hansen said she remembered discussing the Sparks School District (SSD) with her father. When the SSD was consolidated into the WCSD, people felt they had lost both their schools and control. As school districts grew, parents became alienated and it became harder for them to move through the bureaucracy. Ms. Hansen distributed a handout from Education World which discussed reforming public education, Exhibit I.
Ms. Hansen stated she was opposed to redistricting Nevada’s smaller school districts. Ms. Hansen referred to A.B. 264 and said she believed the bill had been amended by deleting a provision calling for the consolidation of the LCSD with the CCSD, the Storey County School District with the WCSD and the ECSD with the Nye County School District.
ASSEMBLY BILL 264 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes governing education. (BDR 34‑62)
Ms. Hansen said she did not support the portion of S.C.R. 21 which sought to consolidate the smaller school districts. However, she said she supported the portion of the resolution dividing the larger school districts into smaller school districts. She said parents were not given a say in the larger school districts.
Ms. Hansen discussed two recent studies which indicated smaller schools might be the remedy for society’s ills. Small schools can reduce the negative effects of poverty and violence, while increasing parental involvement and student accountability. Both studies credited smaller schools with reducing negative effects on students, while increasing student achievement.
Ms. Hansen discussed the studies mentioned in Exhibit I. Those studies found poor children do better scholastically when they attend a small school. The studies also determined that the correlation between poverty and achievement was 10 times stronger in larger schools than in smaller schools. Smaller schools were generally found in smaller school districts. Ms. Hansen reviewed Exhibit I, concentrating on the benefits provided by smaller schools and smaller school districts. Ms. Hansen encouraged the committee members to make Nevada’s school districts more responsive to parents.
Senator Mathews thanked Ms. Hansen for the information she provided. Senator Mathews noted Ms. Hansen’s information and testimony supported the Senator’s earlier statements that smaller schools produce better students regardless of the student’s socioeconomic status.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards/Reno, said the test scores for students in the rural school districts compared favorably with the test scores of students in the urban school districts. Mr. Robison said Dr. Kadlub raised a valid point when he said the CCSD’s test scores drove the test scores for the entire state.
Mr. Robison said he agreed that the deconsolidation of school districts could be characterized as a smaller school environment issue. The research on the benefits of smaller schools had been available for decades, but had not been used. Mr. Robison said he assisted in the studies which focused on the size of school districts. Mr. Robison noted a variety of factors influenced student achievement and it would be inaccurate to say the smaller school districts produced positive student achievement.
Mr. Robison said in terms of the S.C.R. 21 study, student achievement should not be the only factor considered.
Dr. Kadlub said A.B. 162 provided for an audit of the Washoe County and Clark County school districts. The bill was in the Senate Committee on Finance.
Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Commission, said she would be testifying on S.C.R. 21 in a personal, not professional capacity. Her clients were not represented by her testimony.
Ms. Licht said she had a secondary teaching credential with specialization in vocational agriculture. She had lived in a number of Nevada’s rural communities. Ms. Licht said the purpose of S.C.R. 21 was to reconfigure the State’s school districts.
Ms. Licht said she was a substitute teacher in the rural schools. She cited the great distances between the schools in rural Nevada and families served by those schools. Ms. Licht said some families lived away from town on ranches and the children had a long commute to school. The great distances made parental involvement difficult especially in the wintertime.
Ms. Licht asked the committee members to remember the distances in rural Nevada and the accessibility to education the smaller schools in Nevada provided. She stated the fiscal impact on the state should not be the driving force behind S.C.R. 21. Ms. Licht said she understood the reasons for consolidation, but believed consolidation of the smaller school districts would not be beneficial to the students and their families.
Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.C.R. 21 and opened the hearing on S.C.R. 13.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning economic, medical and societal costs and impacts of obesity in Nevada. (BDR R-25)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, urged the committee members to support S.C.R. 13. Senator Wiener spoke from prepared text, Exhibit J. She distributed letters detailing the dangers of obesity she had received from various health organizations and officials, Exhibit K. A proposed amendment to S.C.R. 13 was distributed by Senator Wiener, Exhibit L.
Senator Cegavske thanked Senator Weiner for her testimony. She commended Senator Wiener’s efforts to fight obesity in Nevada. Senator Cegavske said she had received telephone calls from pediatricians and had been horrified by the number of obese children in Nevada. Senator Cegavske stated obese children suffered from a number of health problems.
Senator Cegavske requested staff compile information on the efforts by other states to fight obesity. Senator Cegavske said the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), is conducting research on human colon cancer and the effects of a fatty diet on people. Senator Cegavske asked whether the Legislature could request UNR to conduct obesity studies in connection with the research being conducted on human colon cancer. Senator Cegavske said if UNR could modify the provisions of the human colon cancer research to include obesity, there might not be a need for the study proposed by S.C.R. 13.
Senator Wiener thought it important for the Legislature to conduct its own study on the effects of obesity on Nevadans. She said additional information on the subject from a variety of sources would be beneficial. Senator Wiener stressed obesity was the number one preventable cause of death in America. She added she wanted to include UNR to participate in any obesity-related study conducted by the Legislature.
Senator Cegavske said her research indicated many universities were studying the effects of obesity on certain diseases. Senator Cegavske asked whether the federal government or national organizations were compiling the information generated by the various studies into one report. Senator Cegavske stated she did not want to reinvent the wheel. She asked whether there was sufficient information and personnel to provide Nevada with detailed information on obesity.
Senator Wiener said the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had money available to study obesity. However, Senator Weiner said she did not know whether it would be possible to coordinate those agencies and their funds into the comprehensive approach she was seeking. She emphasized the availability of federal funding to implement any recommendations made by the S.C.R. 13 study. Federal funding is available through grants and study dollars.
Senator Wiener said a legislative study would encompass all aspects of obesity in Nevada including the 24-hour life style, the transient population, community issues, and other components. Senator Cegavske asked whether Senator Wiener was looking for a study exclusive to Nevada due to the uniqueness of Nevada’s lifestyle. Senator Wiener said some of the study issues have not been addressed by other states as the states had not encountered those issues.
Senator Mathews said she was concerned with the number of interim studies required by legislative measures. She stated UNR was conducting a number of weight-related issues, including the 24-hour lifestyle in Nevada. Including the obesity study with a UNR study would reduce the number of interim studies conducted by the Legislature.
Senator Mathews requested Mr. Erickson provide the committee members with a status report on all of UNR’s weight-related studies.
Chairman Washington said there was a limit on the number of interim studies which could be authorized by the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations. Chairman Washington asked Senator Wiener whether she would have any objections to the Legislative Committee on Health Care conducting the S.C.R. 13 study. Senator Wiener said she had no objections and added the Health Division might be able to assist with the study.
Senator Wiener stated she had no authorship issues, she was concerned about the negative effects obesity had on Nevadans. Senator Wiener said she was in favor of maximizing the State’s commitment to solving the State’s obesity‑related health issues. She said she was willing to provide alternative means of conducting the study and additional information to the committee members before they voted on S.C.R. 13. Chairman Washington said he wanted Senator Wiener to share the alternative means with him. Chairman Washington said the committee members would work with Senator Rawson and the Legislative Committee on Health Care to determine the best method of conducting the S.C.R. 13 study.
Senator Mathews stated Mr. Erickson agreed to provide her with the information she requested. The information might not conform to the study requirements, but would provide the committee members with a better idea of obesity in Nevada.
Buffy Gail Martin, Lobbyist, American Cancer Society/Reno, spoke from prepared text, Exhibit M. Ms. Martin urged the committee members to support S.C.R. 13.
Debra Jacobson, Lobbyist, American Heart Association, urged the committee members to support S.C.R. 13.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education, said the State Board of Education voted in support of S.C.R. 13 at its April 12, 2003 meeting. Dr. Rheault said the Department of Education’s staff was willing to coordinate the efforts needed to accomplish the goals listed in S.C.R. 13.
Senator Cegavske asked Dr. Rheault to comment on the food being fed to Nevada’s school children through Nevada’s School Lunch Program. She said the schools’ breakfast and lunch programs fed the children salty, fatty foods. Dr. Rheault said those meals were the reason the Department of Education wanted to participate in the S.C.R. 13 study. He added the meals were prepared following guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.C.R. 13 and directed Senator Wiener to provide the committee with additional information and resources for the S.C.R. 13 study. Senator Wiener said with additional information and resources, she might be able to provide the Legislative Committee on Health Care with the data it required to address the issue of obesity in Nevada.
Chairman Washington reopened the hearing on S.C.R. 20. Senator Rawson said the bill needed to be considered by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.C.R. 20 BY ALLOWING THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS TO CONSIDER THE MEASURE.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington called for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 1215.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 1215: Directs the Legislative Commission to appoint an interim committee to study judicial operations in rural counties. (Later introduced as Senate Concurrent Resolution 32.)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 1215.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 406.
SENATE BILL 406: Directs Legislative Commission to consider creating document to be used by governmental agencies in determining whether to procure goods and services from public or private sources. (BDR 17‑412)
Michael J. Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, stressed he was a nonpartisan staff member and he was not advocating the passage or defeat of S.B. 406.
Mr. Stewart said he was appearing on behalf of Senator Michael (Mike) A., Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 11, who chaired the interim study on the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study Competition Between Local Governments and Private Enterprises. Mr. Stewart served as staff for that interim study. Mr. Stewart referred to the final report produced by the subcommittee (Exhibit N. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Mr. Stewart said the subcommittee discussed numerous topics and examined potential competition in services generally provided to the public by state and local government agencies, which might also be supplied by the private sector. Representatives of the private sector related concerns about the possible advantages governmental agencies might have in providing those services, particularly with regard to taxation and regulation. Representatives of local government service providers noted that they were responsible for meeting carefully defined public needs that were not generally met by the private sector.
Competition was one of the issues addressed by S.B. 406. The first portion of the bill contained a legislative declaration encouraging state and local government entities to procure goods and services from privately owned businesses to the extent that it was practicable and in the best interests of the State, Mr. Stewart said. The declaration also noted that should private procurement not be available or not suitable, a government agency would make all reasonable efforts to provide the goods or services through public, rather than private, channels of procurement.
Additionally, S.B. 406 provided that the Legislative Commission would consider and study, if necessary, the creation of a guidebook to be used by state or local governmental agencies when making purchasing decisions, Mr. Stewart stated. The guidebook would determine whether the interests of Nevada’s residents would be best served by a governmental agency procuring goods or services from privately owned businesses or through public procurement. If created, the guidebook would include the legislative intent in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a), of the bill. The guidebook would be disseminated to each local governmental agency in the State and may be published or made available in any format the Legislative Commission selected, he said.
Mr. Stewart said several other states offered similar guidebooks and evaluation tools for use by state and/or local governments when deciding whether or not to outsource or privatize a public service. Mr. Stewart provided the committee members with examples of guidebooks from the states of Colorado, Texas, and Virginia (Exhibit O. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Mr. Stewart said the state of Colorado set criteria based on market strength, political resistance, quality of service, employee impacts, legal issues, level of risk, impact on resources, and quality-control issues.
The subcommittee spent time evaluating the impact of competition on the provision of public services. Mr. Stewart said S.B. 406 set forth a method by which state and local government could evaluate the services to determine the best means to deliver those services to the public.
Chairman Washington said the bill authorized the Legislative Commission to consider creating a guidebook. He asked whether S.B. 406 authorized the Legislative Commission to use the services of the Purchasing Division when compiling the manual. Mr. Stewart said the Legislative Commission had the authority to publish the guidebook using the resources it felt appropriate. Mr. Stewart suggested an amendment might be required if the committee members wanted to directly involve the Purchasing Division in the publication of the guidebook.
Ms. Erdoes said if the bill was not amended, it would be up to the Legislative Commission to decide what resources would be used in the publication of the guidebook. The bill would have to be amended if the committee members wanted the Purchasing Division to participate in the publication of the guidebook. The amendment would direct the Purchasing Division to assist the Legislative Commission in the publication of the guidebook.
Mr. Stewart said the guidebooks published by other states were not the result of legislation. Those guidebooks were created by audit offices or competition counsels. Chairman Washington said the committee members would not tie the hands of the Legislative Commission. Instead, that body would be permitted to seek and use the resources it deemed necessary.
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, said she followed the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study Competition Between Local Governments and Private Enterprises. Some of the recommendations were the result of the Legislative Commission’s subcommittee to study the effects of privatization in 1992. Ms. Vilardo said the privatization talks raised concerns about displacing employees.
Ms. Vilardo said the states of Colorado and Texas established guidelines which allowed state agencies to bid on providing services. The bottom line was that there was not sufficient money to fund all projects, programs, and interim studies. Taxes could not be raised to a level that would support those projects and programs. Ms. Vilardo said efficiencies could be achieved. However, the incentives needed to achieve the efficiencies were not always available.
Ms. Vilardo stated by publishing the guidelines outlining the logical areas for privatization or outsourcing, state agencies have been forced to take an introspective review of their activities. The review concentrated on what cost‑effective steps an agency could take to maximize tax dollars. Ms. Vilardo said that was the reason she supported S.B. 406.
Ms. Vilardo quoted Linda Ritter, City Manager, City of Elko:
What we do in the City of Elko, is when we’re looking at expanding a service or providing a new service, because of a need that has arisen that was not there before, we do the “Yellow Pages” test. If a service is listed in the Yellow Pages, we explore using those vendors before we bring it in-house.
Ms. Vilardo stated S.B. 406 was the perfect first step towards maximizing tax dollars. She said she liked the idea of the Legislative Commission reviewing the possible privatization of services before an Executive Branch agency privatized. Criteria could be developed in conjunction with legislative oversight. Ms. Vilardo said she wished the bill’s language was not so permissive and referred to the phrase, “… the Legislative Commission may …” as the phrase which concerned her.
Ms. Vilardo said she believed the Legislative Commission could take the expertise of the various state agencies and develop logical criteria for privatization. Ms. Vilardo reiterated her testimony regarding S.B. 406 being the perfect first step towards the maximization of tax dollars. Ms. Vilardo urged the committee members to pass S.B. 406.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 406.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
There being no further business, Chairman Washington adjourned the meeting at 6:08 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lee-Ann Keever,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
DATE: