MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-second Session
May 29, 2003
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Maurice E. Washington, at 3:45 p.m., on Thursday, May 29, 2003, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator 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)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel
Johnnie Lorraine Willis, Committee Secretary
Chairman Washington conveyed the Assembly amended Senate Bill (S.B.) 137 by adding a sunset clause. He advised the committee should not concur on the amendment, go to conference committee, and offer a counter amendment which would include Senator Cegavske's Bill Draft Request (BDR) 1359. He said the BDR suggests studying the transition to work programs for disabled pupils, the American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and service animals. He said staff had instructions to draft the amendment, which makes these points of study mandatory.
SENATE BILL 137 (2nd Reprint): Establishes Legislative Committee on Persons With Disabilities. (BDR 17‑700)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST - 1359: Requires interim study of school to work transition for disabled students, ADA and service animals.
Chairman Washington informed the committee it needed to review and take action on Amendment No. 927 to S.B. 292. He said the amendment included the language the insurance commissioner's office requested for the study to look at casualty insurance as it pertains to medical professional liability coverage.
SENATE BILL 292 (1st Reprint): Directs Legislative Commission to appoint subcommittee to study impact of privatization of insurance program. (BDR S-784)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 292.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington directed the committee's attention to Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 21. He said the bill was about the reconfiguration of the school districts.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 21: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning reconfiguration of school districts in this state. (BDR R-56)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT S.C.R. 21.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Titus asked whether the amendment mandated the study. Chairman Washington replied, "No." Senator Titus said the amendment says if the commission believed it was appropriate it could do the study. Chairman Washington responded the amendment says the Legislative Committee on Education was authorized to conduct the study on reconfiguration of the school districts.
Senator Rawson said he was troubled about studying the rural counties.
Senator Cegavske asked whether the education committee had the choice to decide whether or not it was going to include the rural school districts in the study.
Senator Rawson stated he would rather not include the rural counties in the study.
Chairman Washington asked legislative counsel whether the study only included the two large counties in the State. Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, replied the language in the current amendment included the rural counties, but only mandated the reconfiguration plan for the larger school districts. She said if the Legislative Committee on Education decided to do the study, then it would be required to produce a plan to reconfigure the larger school districts and if they deemed it appropriate, they were authorized to reconfigure the rural districts.
Senator Cegavske asked whether it was up to the education committee. Ms. Erdoes responded, "Yes."
Senator Rawson asked what was absolutely required by the amendment. He said the amendment says if the education committee chooses to perform the study, then it is required to produce a plan to split the districts. Ms. Erdoes replied the education committee was required to study whether the districts should be split, if it chooses to perform the study. She said there were other mandates in the amendment the committee would be required to follow if it chose to perform the study, except for the rural counties, which the amendment says the committee "may" perform. Ms. Erdoes pointed out the bill was only to study whether the education committee believed the districts should be split. She advised the education committee would then have to submit its findings to the Legislature next session.
Chairman Washington said the bill stated if the Legislative Committee on Education decided to study the reconfiguration of the school districts, it would have the authorization from the Legislature to do so and the amendment listed the elements the committee must study.
Ms. Erdoes explained the "must" clauses came into effect only after the education committee decided whether it wanted to perform the study. She reiterated the amendment authorized the Legislative Committee on Education to perform the study if it wanted to.
Senator Titus asserted she would be happier if the "musts" in the amendment were "mays."
Senator Mathews asked whether it would be appropriate to reconsider the bill altogether. She said she did not like the idea of dividing districts because poor children were the ones hurt by such actions. She said often one hears these children get specialized care and other such things, but that was not the case in reality. Senator Mathews explained what would happen was the poorer children would end up going to schools with only other poor children, which continues the cycle and those schools traditionally do not receive the same level of funding as more affluent schools. She asserted if the members of the committee thought about what would really happen, they would understand why she objected to splitting the districts. She said she did not believe it was anyone's intention to harm these children, but she would like the committee to reconsider voting on the study.
Chairman Washington said Senator Tiffany requested the bill and staff tried to work out a compromise. He reiterated the amendment only authorizes the Legislative Committee on Education to perform the study, it did not mandate the study had to be done.
Senator Mathews clarified the vote on the table was on the amendment, and the committee would still have to address the bill, whether it adopted the amendment or not.
Chairman Washington said the committee could choose to take no action, and the amendment was a compromise with Senator Tiffany.
Senator Wiener pointed out the amendment gave the Legislative Committee on Education the option to either perform the study or not, but once it chose to do the study all the areas of study were mandated by the amendment. She said at that point, the bill mandated the study would develop a plan to reconfigure the school districts. She said she was uncomfortable with the "musts" in the bill, and believed it would lead the education committee to believe it was required to reconfigure the schools.
Chairman Washington pointed out whether or not the committee on education came up with a plan, it would still have to be presented to the Legislature during the next session. He said the legislative body as a whole would then decide whether action needed to be taken. He indicated he did not believe the Legislature had to adopt any plan the education committee came up with.
Senator Wiener reiterated the only discretion allowed by the amendment was whether or not a study would be performed, and from that point everything was mandated. She explained the way the amendment was written it would predetermine the reconfiguration of the school districts.
Chairman Washington said he did not read the amendment that way.
Senator Cegavske said in her interpretation the amendment would give the choice of whether or not to do the study to the Legislative Committee on Education. She also said the clauses in the amendment came from the recommendation Senator Tiffany quoted in her previous testimony. She explained she thought those clauses were added as a guide for the study. Senator Cegavske stated she was not opposed to looking at the problems and then deciding whether something needed to be done. She said some of the districts in the rural areas were bankrupt and the State would have to take them over or assign those children to other districts. She pointed out mining was not doing well in some of the smaller communities, which meant the income from taxes was not funding the school districts and these problems needed to be addressed.
Senator Titus said she did not believe the mandates were intended as guides; she believed they were intended to direct the development of a plan. She stated Senator Tiffany had led an initiative to deconsolidate the school districts in Clark County and believed this was what the bill was designed to do. She asserted if the bill was not to develop a plan for splitting the school districts in Clark County, the amendment would have "may" in the clauses instead of "must." She said the amendment said "may" for the rural areas, but said "must" for Clark County. Also, there were no time constraints on when the study would be performed. It might not be completed during this interim and would fold over into other interims, she pointed out.
Senator Mathews stated she wanted it on record she had nothing against Senator Tiffany and would have opposed the bill no matter whose name was on it. She declared she was opposed to the concept of splitting the school districts.
Chairman Washington asked legislative counsel what would happen to the study if the "musts" were changed to "mays." Ms. Erdoes replied the committee could draft the bill any way it wanted to; however, if there were no directives in the bill, what would be the point. She said the Legislative Committee on Education could study any of the areas of education it needed to without directives from a bill.
Senator Rawson said the rural school district representatives were very concerned about having their school districts reconfigured when they testified on this bill. He said it was hard for these people to travel to the hearings and caused them to go through the angst of having to defend their districts. He asked how the committee felt about removing all reference to the rural school districts.
Chairman Washington said the motion could be withdrawn and then change the amendment to read "must" for the two larger counties and delete the rural counties.
SENATOR RAWSON WITHDREW HIS SECOND.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
*****
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND S.C.R. 21.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Mathews said her concerns were the same even if the study was only for Clark County. She said this bill was a step back to the same conditions that were detrimental when she was a young girl. She stated this bill would create the same conditions that were in force when the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)] happened. Senator Mathews asserted all educational experiments were performed on children of color, or children in poor economic conditions. She stated the members of the Legislature should give these children what they give to their own children.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS TITUS, MATHEWS, AND WIENER VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington said the last item to consider was S.C.R. 31, which was about studying magnetic levitation trains and whether it was feasible to connect rural and urban communities in the State. He said he believed Senator Neal's idea was to connect Las Vegas to Elko on the east side of the State and then to Reno and Carson City on the west side of the State returning to Las Vegas.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 31: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of feasibility of magnetic levitation train connecting various urban and rural communities in Nevada. (BDR R-1136)
Senator Titus asked whether there was a way to broaden the study's parameters. Chairman Washington said there had been a discussion about including the super train, but the rights-of-way for that had already been purchased.
Senator Titus suggested adding light-rail trains and mass transit systems in urban areas.
Senator Rawson said it makes sense to try to connect the rural areas to the urban areas and study other mass transit forms of travel besides just magnetic levitation.
Senator Titus said the committee could look at light-rail trains within urban areas, learn how the development of the super speed train was coming along, and learn about the monorail trains. Senator Titus said maybe the study could include all rail transportation systems.
Senator Mathews said the study should include a fast train from San Francisco, because fast, efficient, transportation had become even more crucial to the economy with Indian gaming casinos curtailing business in Reno.
Chairman Washington said the study could include the super train from Reno to San Francisco, and mass transit systems throughout the State.
Senator Cegavske said she was concerned the committee was reaching to come up with an interim study. She asked whether the Senate had to have three studies per interim and whether this study was really needed.
Senator Rawson said he felt this study could be of long-term beneficial help to Nevada. He said the committee should authorize this study as a feasibility study of linking the State's communities, and then the interim committee could better define the needs of the State.
Senator Wiener said the study should also include safety issues. She asserted there had been issues of unsafe transportation infrastructure, including lanes of highways and badly repaired rail beds. She said the Legislature has never taken a look at the State's transportation safety issues.
Chairman Washington suggested amending the bill to say "mass transit needs" as well as "infrastructure and safety needs."
Senator Rawson said mass transit was a big issue and contained all of the items the committee had been discussing. He said a study result might indicate Nevada needed to depend on highways for the next 50 years, or it might suggest the State develop bus transportation, or some other types of transit in parts of the State.
Senator Mathews said she liked the idea of the study saying mass transit, which would cover everything. She said she wanted to know if Nevada needed this or needed to continue using the highways and railways it already has in place.
Senator Wiener said there was a substantial tie between this study and the issues of funding and revenue sources. She said the Legislature has to look to the future to ascertain how to best spend available funding to develop a system that was not thrown together as a way to catch up with the rest of the world, which could end up causing the system to be built poorly. Senator Wiener said the study needed to look at the most efficient transportation system as well as the most environmentally sound transportation system. She said this study would look to the future and not just be responding to the past.
Senator Rawson said the committee needed to establish an interim study of transportation issues within and between the State's various communities.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT AS AMENDED S.C.R. 31.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Rawson said he wanted staff to include the magnetic levitation highways in the language of the amendment.
Senator Cegavske said she did not believe the study was warranted and would vote against it.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CEGAVSKE VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington said the committee had been requested to sponsor a resolution concerning the reference of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in order to make sure that reference was not stricken.
Senator Titus said she did not believe the resolution was just about keeping the reference "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because no one had stopped using the reference when saying the Pledge of Allegiance. She said the proposal for the resolution asks Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal court. She said this issue was a major step and the last time someone tried this it was about busing issues and did not get very far. She said if the committee opened this can of worms it would be a big mistake and she was opposed to it. She said if the Pledge of Allegiance was threatened or anyone was hauling small children off for saying "one Nation under God," then maybe the Legislature should address the issue. However, she stated, she did not believe that was happening.
Senator Rawson said he agreed with Senator Titus. He said he believed the issue would be divisive.
Chairman Washington explained he was asked to bring it up and he agreed the Pledge of Allegiance did not seem to be under attack in Nevada.
Chairman Washington adjourned the meeting at 4:32 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie Lorraine Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
DATE: