►
From YouTube: 4/9/2021 - Senate Committee on Education
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon
and
welcome
to
the
senate
committee
on
education.
Welcome
to
those
online
and
present
on
phone
will,
the
secretary
please
call
the
roll.
C
D
E
A
Here,
thank
you
very
much.
I
believe
everybody's
here
we
have
quorum
for
those
on
media
video.
Please
keep
yourself
muted
when
not
speaking.
A
Also,
if
you
need
any
of
the
committee
information
it's
available
on
nellis,
so
any
of
the
documents
for
the
work
session.
Everything
are
all
on
nellis
and
you
can
also
watch
it
on
ellis
or
youtube
which
you
probably
have
figured
out
by
now
and
if
you,
when
you're
testifying,
please
register
to
participate
through
nellis
and
you'll
receive
an
email
confirmation
with
the
call-in
information.
A
Also,
I
will
take
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
and
you're
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person.
A
We
do
have
one
bill
that
we'll
hear
today
so
we'll
also
hear
test
of
money
in
those
and-
and
we
are
going
to
limit
that
to
two
minutes
also,
and
I
will
limit
a
public
comment
also
that
the
full
amount
just
so
that
we
can
make
sure
we
can
get
done
with
this
with
our
meeting
today
on
this
deadline
day,
make
sure
that
everybody
can
get
to
the
other
meetings
that
they
need
to.
You
can
also
submit
written
comments
by
emailing
or
faxing
them
to
committee
manager.
A
A
Revises
provisions
relating
to
large
school
districts
and
senator
harris
is
going
to
present
that
bill.
So
let's
go.
Let's
have
you
go
and
I
know
you
have
some
other
folks,
perhaps
here
with
you
to
help
you
with
that.
So
senator
harris.
C
Thank
you
so
much
chair
dennis
vice
chair
don
darrell
lube
good
afternoon
committee.
My
name
is
dallas
harris
representing
senate
district
11
in
the
southwest
part
of
clark
county,
and
it
is
my
pleasure
to
present
senate
bill
to
24
today
I'll
keep
it
short
and
brief
for
all
of
you.
As
I
know,
we
are
on
a
deadline
day.
This
bill
relates
to
collective
bargaining
agreements
and
the
ability
for
administrators
to
surplus
a
certain
subgroup
of
employees.
C
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
chris
daly
to
speak
more
about
the
bill
in
detail,
and
I
believe
he
also
has
miss
matsuka
matuska.
C
Hopefully
I
got
that
right
awesome
who
will
be
available
to
answer
questions
as
well.
Mr
daly.
F
F
Now
in
nrs,
388
g
transferred
the
authority
of
the
superintendent's
select
staff
who
work
under
the
direct
supervision
of
the
principal
to
the
local
school
precinct.
This
language
has
caused
confusion
for
both
the
district
and
esea.
The
education
support
employees,
association
representing
education,
support
professionals
or
esps
in
the
clark
county
school
district.
F
F
The
reassignment
process
related
to
surplus
situations
or
a
reduction
in
force
allows
the
district
to
determine
appropriate
staffing
levels
and
adjust
these
levels
at
any
time,
while
providing
a
fair
process
for
impacted
employees
esps
with
the
lowest
seniority
in
their
position,
go
through
the
surplus
process,
when
schools
can
no
longer
afford
or
no
longer
need
their
position.
This
process
has
nothing
to
do
with
job
performance.
F
Last
fall.
Acting
on
that
2017
opinion,
ccsd
began,
requiring
education
support
professionals
to
interview
with
the
school
principal
as
a
part
of
the
surplus
process
impacting
over
50
esps.
Several
esps
were
rejected
for
a
lateral
position
through
no
fault
of
their
own,
had
an
individual
principle's
discretion.
F
F
F
After
going
through
the
process,
I
was
required
to
interview,
which
was
extremely
uncomfortable.
I
felt
like
the
principal
and
the
team
were
discriminating
based
on
my
race
and
dreadlocks.
They
did
not
tell
me.
I
had
the
lateral
position
when
I
left
I've
already
passed.
Probation
have
proved
myself
in
the
district,
yet
because
my
current
site
can't
afford
me,
I
have
to
interview
all
over
again.
I
got
rejected
twice.
F
Why
should
I
stay
a
special
education
aid?
If
this
is
how
I
will
be
treated
end
quote,
so
if
it
is
okay
with
the
chair
and
the
bill
sponsor,
I
would
like
to
now
turn
the
presentation
over
to
sue
matasca,
the
law
firm,
dire
alarms.
Thank
you.
G
G
As
mr
daley
was
saying,
the
impetus
for
this
bill
is
a
disagreement.
That's
developed
between
esca
and
the
other
unions
that
represent
employees
of
the
clark
county
school
district,
as
well
as
with
the
district
itself
on
the
meaning
of
subsection
2
in
nrs
388
g
0.610,
which
is
the
section
amended
in
this
bill.
G
This
section
was
created
as
part
of
the
reorganization
bill
in
2017
and
that
bill
designated
every
school
district
school
in
the
district
as
a
local
school
precinct
and
gave
them
more
authority
over
their
budgets
and
choosing
their
staff
with
their
budgets.
But
the
district
remained
the
employer
in
that
bill
and,
of
course,
remains
the
employer.
Today.
G
G
There
has
also
been
a
matter
filed
in
district
court
in
clark
county,
a
writ
petition
seeking
specific
actions
be
taken
by
the
district
or
that
specific
actions
be
prohibited,
so
that
is
also
out
there
and
clearly
there's
still
a
disagreement.
This
matter
hasn't
resolved
itself,
nsca
and
esca
believe
that
this
bill
will
clarify
the
original
intent,
particularly
for
support
staff.
G
You
need
to
have
the
district
up
here
responsible
for
these
arrangements
and
we
believe
again
that
that
was
the
original
intent,
so
the
bill-
and
the
amendment
that's
been,
I
believe,
sent
to
all
of
you-
adds
a
new
subsection
three
just
to
clarify
that
regarding
the
transfer
of
authority
to
select
staff,
it's
not
intended
to
apply
to
matters
that
have
been
negotiated
in
collective
bargaining
agreements
for
support
staff
or
the
the
responsibility
to
comply
with
those
arrangements,
those
terms
of
the
collective
bargaining
agreement
and
then
the
other
thing.
G
That's
in
the
bill
and
the
amendment
is
a
definition
of
what
is
a
surplus
situation
and
that
would
be
anytime.
The
services
of
an
employee
are
no
longer
needed
at
a
particular
location
because
of
changes
in
pupil
enrollment
changes
in
peoples,
staff
allocation
formulas,
reductions
in
force
or
layoff
situations,
or
just
overall
changes
in
academic
needs
that
require
these
kind
of
adjustments.
G
A
Okay,
so
let's
anybody
have
any
questions,
yes
senator
lang
and
then
senator
buck.
G
Sue
this
is
senator
lang
for
the
record.
I
I
wasn't
tracking,
maybe
because
I'm
not
feeling
good,
but
did
you
say
what
was
the
background
information
on
having
to
reapply
all
the
time
with
that
part
of
the
reorg,
and
are
you
looking
to
get
rid
of
that
language
or.
G
A
Excuse
me
when
you,
when
you,
whenever
you
respond,
you
need
to
put
your
name.
So,
on
the
record,
it's
clear
who
says
who
said
what.
F
So
sue
you
want
me
to
to
try
on
this
one.
Yes,
if
I
could
chris
daley
nevada
state
education
association
through
chair,
dennis
to
senator
lang,
so
in
a
surplus
process,
I
referenced
pages
of
of
language
in
the
negotiated
agreement
between
esea
and
the
clark
county
school
district.
You
know
it's
a
relatively
involved
process,
a
lot
of
notice.
There's
a
surplus
meeting.
F
F
What
the
clark
county
school
district
added
to
this
pretty
involved
process
per
that
2017
attorney
general's
opinion
when
they
did
the
surplus
process
last
fall,
was
the
requirement
that,
after
you
go
through
all
of
this,
you
then
also
have
to
interview
with
a
local
school
precinct,
typically
a
principal
at
one
of
those
local
schools.
Who
then
has
the
individual
discretion
to
either
higher
or
not
higher,
and
what
we
found
was
that
a
number
of
esps
who
went
through
this
process
were
unable
to
get
hired,
even
though
they
had.
F
You
know
stellar
work
records,
you
know
nothing
in
their
files.
Just
you
know
an
individual
principal
decides
not
to
hire
that
person.
We
had
a
number
of
folks
last
december
who
were
in
the
position
where
their
their
employees
of
the
clark
county
school
district,
but
they
did
not
have
a
position
kind
of
you
know
orphaned
within
the
system
because
of
that
requirement.
F
The
emrb
decision
remedied
that,
but,
as
miss
mataska
stated,
it's
not
it's
not
a
settled
issue,
and
so
we
wanted
to
bring
this
bill.
Appreciate,
senator
harris
for
bringing
it
to
bring
clarity
to
the
situation,
and
you
know
to
say
that
the
contract
with
regard
to
employee
reassignments
in
a
surplus
situation
or
reduction
in
force
that
the
language
from
the
cba
speaks.
E
Thank
you,
chair
dennis,
so
sb
120,
you
know,
holds
principals
accountable
and
I'm
a
little
worried
about,
because
I
know
I
sat
in
the
principal
seat
for
some
15
years
and
not
being
in
the
clark
county,
school
district
and
I've
had
people
dropped
into
my
lap
that
weren't
aligned
to
the
vision-
and
this
was
not
based
on
race
and
I'm
actually
disgusted
at
the
allegation
of
that.
When
there's
no
data
to
support
that.
G
For
the
record,
this
is
suma
tusca
attorney
for
nsea
and
esca,
so
there
is
an
there's
briefing
still
going
on
in
the
district
court
action
and
there's
a
hearing
on
it
scheduled
for,
I
believe
it's
april.
22Nd
parties
are
moving
to
dismiss
that
and
the
board
has
stated
proceedings
for
now.
That's
the
employee
management
relations
board
has
stayed
its
proceedings
for
now
and
that's
the
current
status.
E
Thank
you
dennis,
so
I
guess
that's.
My
greatest
concern
is
that
there's
pending
litigation
for
this
and
there's
little
to
no
data
that
it's
based
on
certain
aspects
that
are
allegations
that
you're
stating
and
so
I'm
I
just
I
don't
see
how
we
can
hold
no
no
school
or
business
or
anyone
in
their
right
mind
would
just
place
people
in
in
buildings,
laps
and
just
hope
for
the
best
you
have
to
have
a
mutual
agreement
to
it,
and
so
that's
my
two
cents.
Thank
you.
F
If
I
could
senator
dennis
chris
daley
nevada
education
association
through
chair
dennis
to
senator
bach,
I
I
think
it's
fair
to
have
a
concern
about
principals,
who
have
you
know,
responsibility
and
are
being
held
accountable
for
the
performance
of
their
school.
At
the
same
time,
I
think
that
also
needs
to
be
balanced
with
you
know,
15-year
employees
who
have
you
know
no
bad
marks
on
on
their
record
through
no
fault
of
their
own.
F
You
know
working
oftentimes
at
the
you
know
the
same
school
site
for
years
and
years,
but
the
district
has
the
ability
to
you
know
change.
F
I
would
say
that
the
amendment
which
more
narrowly
tailors
the
application
of
this
to
education
support
professionals,
so
you
know,
potentially
you
know,
custodial
staff,
potentially
food
service
staff.
Potentially
you
know
classroom
aides
that
that
this
is
that
this
is
fair
legislation
to
move
forward
and
to
rely
on.
F
You
know
the
negotiated
agreement
between
the
district
and
the
employees
association.
I
would
also
point
out
again
that
we
believe
that
it
was
the
intent
of
the
authors
of
ab469
for
this
to
be
the
case
and
for
there
not
to
be
that
discretion
on
employee
transfers
or
reassignments.
A
F
So,
no,
I
would
think
that
they
would
not
become
eligible
for
unemployment
until
they
are
until
their
employment
is
terminated
formally,
so
I
mean
that
potentially
could
happen
further
down
the
road.
F
You
know
my
reading
of
the
sue
might
have
a
better
reading
of
the
contract,
or
maybe
the
district,
but
since
the
mrb
opinion
remedied
our
situation
december,
we
didn't
have
to
go
down
that
road,
but
I
imagine
if
someone
was
not
picked
up
for
the
surplus
process,
they
would
go
to
the
rif
reduction
in
force
process,
and
then
I
mean
eventually
they
could
end
up
just
out
of
work
or
severed
from
the
district.
At
that
point
they
may
be
eligible
for
unemployment,
but
but
not
while
they
are
employees.
E
Thank
you
chair
dennis,
so
we
always
tell
that
we
are
about
children,
about
children
first
and
we're
short
what
10
000
teachers.
I
know
at
least
2
000
teachers
in
our
state,
and
so
it's
really
hard
for
me
to
believe
that,
with
all
of
the
different
openings
that
somebody
is
not
picked
up
and
if
they're
not,
are
they
bad
for
children,
because
we
need
to
put
kids
first,
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
what
you
know.
E
F
Through
chair
dennis
to
senator
buck,
chris
daley
nevada,
state
education,
association,
nsea
has
advocated
for
professional
development
programs
for
education
support
professionals.
We
do
provide
some
professional
development
in
this
situation,
though,
I
would
just
like
to
point
out
again
that
a
surplus
process
or
a
reduction
in
force
process
happens
when
the
district
is
basically
moving
positions.
F
It
does
not
have
to
do
with
the
performance
of
the
employees
who
end
up
in
the
surplus
or
rif
process.
They
tend
to
end
up
there
based
on
seniority
and
just
happenstance.
In
terms
of
you
know,
a
new
school
opens,
or
you
know,
there's
student
enrollment
shifts,
or
there
are
budget
cuts
or
that
sort
of
thing.
So
you
know
we
believe
that
our
members
do
work
in
the
best
interest
of
students
we
senator
bach,
are
also
student
focused
most
of
our
members
work
in
education.
F
You
know
a
lot
of
our
education
support.
Professionals
aren't
at
the
higher
end
of
the
wage
scale,
so
most
of
our
members
work
in
public
education
because
they
care
about
kids,
and
so
you
know
we
are
student-centered
in
this
case.
It
is.
This
is
a
more
technical
issue
and
one
that
involves
some
bureaucracy,
but
in
the
process
that
happened
last
fall.
A
Okay,
let's
go
then
to
testimony
we're
gonna,
hear
we're
gonna
go
to
testimony
in
support.
A
Actually,
before
I
do
that
real
quick
senator
harris
any
additional
testimonial
others
that
you
want
to
to
present
before
we
go
to
that.
A
Great
all
right,
thank
you
yeah!
So,
let's
go
to.
Let's
go
to
those
wishing
to
give
testimony
and
support.
We
remind
her
two
minutes
and
I'll
give
I'll
give
a
warning
right
before
the
end
there,
so
that
we
can
stick
to
our
time
frame,
and
I
I
I
want
to
go.
A
Let's
say:
let's
do
15
minutes
for
each
one,
no
more
than
15
minutes.
So
if,
if
you
are
giving
testimony
and
the
person
before
you
just
gave
testimony
it's
okay
to
say,
ditto
and
and
also
you
can
submit
your
right,
your
your
your
testimonial
writing.
So
with
that,
let's
go
to
those
support.
H
H
I
My
name
is
jason
gately,
j-a-s-o-n
g-a-t-e-l-e-y,
vice
president
of
teachers,
local
1414,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
in
support
of
sb
224
and
the
education
support
professionals
with
the
clark
kennedy
school
district.
When
the
legislature
created
nrs
388,
it
did
not
make
nevada's
collective
bargaining
law,
nrs
288,
secondary
to
the
unilateral
actions
of
school
principles.
I
There
is
very
clear
language
in
the
contract
between
ccsd
and
the
esea,
which
supplies
which
provides
a
surplus
process
and
placement
for
unassigned
staff.
Sb
224
reinforces
the
requirement
within
the
text
of
nrs
388
through
unilateral
actions
by
administrators.
Support
professionals
now
find
themselves
exposed
to
potential
age,
age,
gender
and
racial
discrimination.
With
staffing
decisions
are
being
made
at
local
schools.
We
ask
for
your
support
to
ensure
contractually
agreed
surplus
processes
followed.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
H
J
J
J
If
you
had
seniority,
then
you
could
take
the
position
that
was
lateral
to
the
position
that
you
were
being
surplus
from
without
seniority.
Surplus
of
esps
would
have
to
choose
or
be
placed
into
positions
that
were
lower,
and
nobody
else
wanted
when
ap
469
came
to
be
seniority
was
replaced
with
administrators
who
were
interviewing
and
hiring
employees
who
they
wanted
in
their
school.
This
ended
up
with
higher
seniority,
employees
ending
up
with
lower
paying
positions.
J
After
an
emrb
after
our
emrb
held
a
hearing,
they
rejected
the
idea
of
principles
holding
interviews.
What
I
am
asking
you
to
do
today
is
pass
fb
224
into
law,
so
that
those
support
professionals
who
have
seniority
those
who
could
have
spent
those
who
have
spent
the
most
time
dedicating
their
time
and
talents
inside
ccsd
will
be
able
to
use
their
seniority
to
get
the
better
positions.
H
J
J
I
am
the
president
of
the
education
support
employees,
association,
otherwise
known
as
the
fda
esda
represents
education,
support
professionals,
otherwise
known
as
dsps
throughout
clark.
County
esda
is
speaking
in
support
of
senate
bill
224
in
2017
assembly
bill
469
recognized.
Excuse
me,
reorganize
the
clark
county
school
district,
transferring
much
decision-making
authority
to
individual
school
precinct.
J
The
language
stated
each
local
school
precinct
should
have
the
authority
to
select
staff
who
worked
under
the
direct
supervision
of
the
principal
for
the
past
several
years.
The
language
has
caused
a
lot
of
confusion
for
both
the
district
and
the
education
support
professionals
with
conflicting
language
on
transfers
and
reassignments,
and
existing
contract
language
esea
has
maintained
that
it
never
that
esea
has
maintained.
It
was
never
the
intent
of
ab-469
to
override
contract
language
on
this
issue.
J
Unfortunately,
in
2017,
an
opinion
issued
by
attorney
general
laxalt
disagreed
previously
the
surprise
process
and
ccsd
allowed
the
district
to
balance
staffing
needs
with
decreased
student.
Enrollment
esps
were
with
the
lowest
seniority
in
their
position.
Went
through
a
surplus
process
with
the
schools
could
no
longer
afford
their
position.
This
process
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
job
performance,
while
the
surplus
process
was
successful
for
the
employees,
nearly
everyone
was
placed
in
a
new
position.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
last
fall
relying
on
the
2017
opinion.
J
Ccsd
began,
requiring
esp's
to
interview
for
a
school
position
as
part
of
the
surplus
process.
Over
50
esds
went
through
this
new
process
and
several
esps
were
rejected
for
a
lateral
position,
no
fault
of
their
own.
At
the
principal's
discretion.
Serious
questions
of
racial
bias
have
been
raised
in
this
process,
setting
ccsd
back
on
its
goal
of
diversity
and
equality.
J
J
Okay,
thank
you,
so
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
we
urge
you
to
pass
sb224.
Thank
you.
H
H
I
I
I
would
like
to
express
our
opposition
to
sb224s,
specifically
I'd
like
to
inform
the
committee
that
this
bill
is
directly
involved
in
an
ongoing
lawsuit.
In
fact,
the
issue
is
scheduled
to
be
heard
in
district
court
in
las
vegas
on
april
22nd,
because
this
bill
will
decide
the
winner
of
that
ongoing
law,
so
the
bill
should
be
set
aside
until
the
judge
has
ruled
in
that
case.
I
Historically,
the
legislature
has
avoided
issues
that
are
actively
before
the
court,
not
just
because
the
separation
of
powers
amongst
the
three
branches
of
government,
but
because
the
precedent
that
you
would
be
establishing
once
you
start
settling
active
lawsuits,
then
everyone
will
come
to
you
and
expect
you
to
settle
their
issues
before
the
court.
I
understand
the
legislature
has
broad
powers
when
it
comes
to
writing
the
law.
I
So,
for
example,
if
a
senator
has
taken
a
campaign
contribution
from
either
side
of
the
issue,
you
should
declare
conflict
on
the
bill
and
abstain
from
voting
on
the
issue.
Otherwise,
you
are
putting
yourself
in
a
position
to
be
challenged
with
an
ethics
complaint
after
the
court
has
exhausted
its
processes.
The
issue
can
be
taken
up
by
the
legislature
and
changed
the
way
you
see
fit.
For
these
reasons,
we
ask
you
to
set
this
bill
aside
until
the
court
is
ruled,
and
if
not,
then
we
ask
you
to
vote
no
on
sb224.
I
H
I
Cheer
dennis
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
stephen
augsburger
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
clark
county
association
of
school
administrators
and
am
speaking
in
opposition
to
sb
224
in
the
2017
in
2017,
the
nevada
legislature,
decentralized,
the
clark
county
school
district
and
transferred
critical
decision
making
to
local
school
precincts
in
the
areas
of
budget
purchasing
and
staffing.
In
other
words,
the
2017
law
requires
that
important
decisions
that
impact
the
school
are
to
be
made
at
the
school
site
by
the
principal
and
school
organizational
team.
I
Contrary
to
current
law
senate
bill,
224
seeks
to
greatly
restrict
the
local
school
precincts
power
to
select
their
own
staff
by
making
that
power
subordinate
to
various
collective
bargaining
agreements.
Clearly,
sb
224
undoes.
What
the
legislature
accomplished
in
2017
local
school
precincts
only
want
to
hire
the
very
best
employees
senate
bill
224,
takes
that
authority
away
and
gives
it
back
to
the
clark
county,
school
district
and
its
teacher
and
support
staff
unions
senate
bill
24
will
perpetuate
the
dance
of
the
lemons
and
ensure
that
poor
employees
are
forced
placed
into
schools.
I
I
I
Principals
also
ask
that,
because
this
matter
is
currently
being
litigated,
the
legislature
honor
its
long-standing
practice
of
not
interfering
in
pending
litigation
and,
finally,
because
the
reorganization
legislation
has
the
ability
to
greatly
improve
achievement
for
children
in
ccsd
principals.
Ask
that
this
school
improvement
legislation
remain
unchanged
and
be
given
the
opportunity
to
achieve
its
intended
results.
H
J
On
behalf
of
the
nevada
association
of
school
administrators,
we
are
opposed
to
sb224
this
bill
prioritizes
the
needs
of
employees
over
the
needs
of
nevada
children.
Our
children
deserve
more.
They
deserve
to
have
a
great
teacher.
If
passed,
this
legislation
will
place
poorly
performing
employees
without
the
consent
of
the
school
principal,
as
this
legislature
has
decided,
is
the
best
policy
for
students.
The
clark
county
school
district
has
taken
the
position
that
union
contracts
must
be
followed.
In
spite
of
the
staffing
autonomy
provided
to
principals
and
schools
in
nrs
388-g.
J
Because
of
this
because
of
ccsd
actions,
school
administrators
have
filed
a
lawsuit
in
district
court
to
resolve
this
matter.
The
district
court
judge
has
scheduled
the
hearing
in
this
matter
for
april
22nd.
Nevada
legislature
has
a
long
history
of
not
getting
involved
in
lawsuits.
The
content
of
sb
224
is
at
the
heart
of
the
lawsuit
hearing.
This
legislation
could
cause
the
district
court
to
once
again
delay
the
court
proceedings.
J
A
H
H
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
dennis
and
members
of
the
senate
committee
on
education,
my
name
is
bruce
snyder.
I'm
the
commissioner
of
a
state
agency
called
the
government,
employee
management
relations
board,
more
commonly
known
as
emrb,
which
regulates
labor
relations
between
nevada's
governments
and
the
employee
organizations
that
represent
their
employees.
H
C
G
Yes,
I
was
just
wondering
if
legal
could
respond
to
the
legal
questions
that
have
gone
back
and
forth
about.
Rather
the
legislature
could
do
anything
until
the
legal
thing
is
resolved.
I
just
would
be
interested
in
hearing
what
legal
has
to
say.
B
A
All
right,
thank
you
all
right
with
that.
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
sb224.
A
K
A
All
right
all
right
we're
going
to
have
a
work
session
now,
so
we're
going
to
begin.
I
know
that
we've,
you
know,
with
the
way
that
the
session
is
gone.
There's
been
a
lot
of.
We
had
a
lot
of
had
to
make
a
lot
of
change
to
different
bills,
so
we're
going
to
be
hearing
some
bills
today
and
they've
got
amendments
on
them
and
it's
our
opportunity
to
ask
questions
see
where
we're
at
and
how
we
feel.
L
Mr
chair,
jim
sturm
committee
policy,
analyst
again
as
a
non-partisan
lcd
staff.
We
do
not
advocate
for
or
against
any
legislation,
so
the
work
session
documents
may
be
found
on
nellis
for
those
who
want
to
follow
along,
and
I
will
now
walk
through
the
eight
bills
currently
on
work
session,
beginning
with
sb
senate
bill
102,
which
is
sponsored
by
senator
hammond
and
heard
on
march
15th.
L
The
bill
changes
from
september
30th
to
august
1st
the
dates
by
which
a
child
must
be
a
certain
age
at
the
beginning
of
a
school
year.
In
order
to
be
admitted
to
certain
grades,
senator
hammond
proposed
two
amendments
to
this
bill.
The
first
is
to
change
the
effective
date
to
upon
passage
and
approval
for
purposes
of
adopting
regulations
and
then
on
july,
1st
2022
for
all
other
purposes,
and
the
second
amendment
proposed
to
change
the
cutoff
date
from
august
1st
to
august
7th
mr
chair.
A
Okay,
senator
hammond.
Do
you
want
to
address.
A
M
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair
yeah.
The
the
two
overarching
concerns
so
there's
three,
but
then
one
of
them
we
could
not
address
fully
with
discussions
with
the
district,
but
one
of
them
was
the
implementation.
The
worry
was
implementing
it.
This
year
would
cause
the
heartaches,
especially
since
they
do
a
lot
of
registration
before
that
time.
So
we've
changed
the
effective
date
until
next
year,
so
they
can
wrap
up
and
get
ready
move
personnel
as
they
need.
The
second
one
was
a
suggestion
from
senator
dunder
loop.
M
Instead
of
being
august
1st
moving
it
to
august
7th,
which
still
would
be
right
before
school
begins.
I
thought
it
was
a
good
suggestion,
so
we're
right
that
was.
I
found
that
a
happy
and
friendly
amendment
and
then
the
third
one
that
we
tried
to
work
on
was
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
for
those
who
are
fourth
graders.
How
do
you
you
know?
M
How
do
you
get
them
in
if
they
are
ready
and
the
school
districts
just
did
you
know
we
had
a
hard
time
trying
to
wrap
ourselves
around
language
that
would
accommodate
that
and
just
couldn't
come
to
that.
But
you
know
we'll
keep
we'll
keep
thinking
about
that
later
on
as
well.
But
those
are
the
two
amendments
that
we
put
in
there
into
the
bill
that
changed
it.
N
A
A
N
Thank
you
chair.
I'm
just
need
to
clarify
something
I
never
suggested
august
7th.
My
suggestion
is,
we
don't
do
this
at
all
as
a
30-year
teacher
as
a
kindergarten
teacher
for
10
years
as
a
person
who
has
watched
kids
come
and
go,
there's
always
going
to
be
a
younger
child.
There's
always
going
to
be
an
older
child
and
we
have
a
lot
of
parents
who
seek
daycare,
for
example.
So
this
will
put
that
off
of
here
we
have
children
who
are
older,
who
are
very
immature.
N
We
have
children
that
are
very
young
that
are
very
mature.
Some
of
that
is
family
structure.
Some
of
that
is
where
you're
placed
in
the
family,
but
I
I
can.
N
I
just
cannot
support
this
bill
in
good
conscience
because
I
think
that
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
are
going
to
change
the
date
and
then
the
date
on
school
is
going
to
change
again
and
then
we're
going
to
change
it
again
and
we're
just
going
to
keep
changing
we're
just
going
to
keep
drawing
the
lines
in
the
sand
and
if
we're
going
to
vote
for
this,
are
we
going
to
vote
for
mandatory
kindergarten
and
pre-k
and
where
are
we
going
to
fund
it?
N
M
Mr
chair,
if
I
could
yeah
go
ahead,
no
in
my
apologies
that
was,
I
was
led
to
believe
that
that
was
a
suggestion
that
came
from
you
in
my
discussion
with
the
chair
when
he
said
that
there
were
three
possible
amendments
that
he
had
heard
about.
So
perhaps
we
were
just
misled
there,
but
I'd
love
to
have
a
discussion
on
other
stuff
later
on.
But
you
know
the
bill
at
hand.
Is
this
one
right
here?
If
you
want
to
vote?
No,
I
fully
understand.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
so
much
chair
dennis
senator
hammond.
Do
you
happen
to
know
how
many
children
may
be
impacted
by
this
change
and
date?
So,
for
instance,
this
is
a
number
of
students
that
qualified
this
time,
but
because
we're
changing
the
moving
back
a
day.
This
is
the
number
that
we
have
right
now
that
we
think
maybe
may
be
impacted
and
we'll
have
to
wait
until
the
following
year.
M
Thank
you.
That's
senator
hammond
for
the
record
through
the
chair
to
you
senator
donate.
I
don't
know
exactly
how
many
when
I
talked
to
clark
county
their
estimate
was
around
three
thousand.
That
was
before
the
change
from
august
first
august.
Seventh,
I
would
imagine
that
the
person
I
heard
from
he
probably
would
know
all
the
you
know
with
the
change
it
would
go
into
august
7th.
M
They
probably
have
the
numbers,
but
it
would
probably
be
less
than
that
now
then
washoe
county,
I
do
not
know.
I
would
imagine
that
miss
anderson
would
have
that
number
at
some
point,
and
I
can
get
that
to
you
I'll
just
ask
those
two
counties
and
then
I'm
not
sure
how
it
affected
the
smaller
counties.
A
Senator
hammond,
can
you
just
remind
us
what
what
the
main
premise
of
this
bill
was,
that
we've
got
kids
that
are
in
class,
for
I
guess
two
months
since
school
starts,
I
mean
how.
Why
is
that
such
an
important
thing.
M
Sure
so,
when
this
was
this
brought
to
my
attention,
it
was
a
couple
of
principles
and
then
I've
spoken
to
kindergarten
teachers
since
and
what
they
said
was
that,
with
the
change
in
the
when
we
start
school,
we
we
have
four-year-olds
in
school
for
about
two
months
up
to
two
months,
and
a
lot
of
them
are
just
simply
not
ready
for
school,
which
means
when
they,
you
know
they
they
evaluate,
and
they
try
to
figure
out
where
the
student
is.
M
Many
of
them
are
placed
on
that
read
by
three
program.
Where
now
they
are,
you
know
they
need
extra
help,
for
you
know
those
over
many
years
until
they
get
third
grade,
which
then
puts
a
burden
on
the
school
system
itself,
and
so
just
by
moving
it
up
and
making
sure
that
everybody's
at
five
years-
and
I
I
get
the
you
know,
the
someone's
gonna
be
older,
someone's
gonna
be
younger,
and
that's
absolutely
true.
It's
not
that
we're
trying
to
change
that
that
we
can't
change
that.
M
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
making
sure
that
no
matter
who
is
younger,
who
is
older,
that
they're
all
ready
to
as
many
as
possible
can
be
ready
for
school
when
they
get
into
school.
And
that's
that's
the
issue.
We're
trying
to
solve.
A
All
right:
well,
I
you
know
I
all
right
because
we're
where
we
are,
I
think,
there's
still
probably
some
issues
and
some
questions,
I'm
willing
to
vote
for
it
today,
but
I
still
have
some
reservations
and
maybe
that's
something
that
you
can
work
on
and
as
we
as
we
move
forward,
but
I
still
have
questions
other
other
discussion
from
members.
A
B
Thank
you
so
much
chair
dennis
yeah.
The
only
thing
that
I
wanted
to
mention.
I
asked
that
question
specifically
as
to
how
many
students
were
going
to
be
impacted,
because
you
know,
as
I
heard
the
bill
hearing
and
you
know
within
the
past
few
days,
I
reread
the
bill
and
you
know
at
first
glance.
I
didn't
really
jump
out
as
me
as
concerning
up
until
probably
the
last
few
hours
when
I
realized
you
know
every
time
we
make
a
decision
that
impacts
kids
education,
especially
at
that
early
age.
B
That
means
that
we
start
to
have
the
conversation
of
students
that
might
be
left
behind
and
when
we
start
to
change
cut-off
dates,
that
can
have
ramifications
for
especially
working-class
parents
who
might
not
have
access
to
pay
for
early
education,
and
when
I
hear
the
talking
point
not
ready
for
school,
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
conversation
of
immaturity
or
if
it's
what
I
think
principally
lack
of
access
to
early
education,
which
is
what
senator
donderol
luke
vice
chair,
dunder
loop
was
getting
at,
which
is
we
really
need
to
focus
on
funding
early
child
care
access
to
pre-kindergarten,
because
that
is
what
I
think
of
when
we
use
the
term
not
ready
for
school.
B
So
I'd
like
to
have
that.
As
a
conversation,
I
will
be
voting
yes
for
this,
but
I
will
reserve
my
right
and
I
might
change
my
my
floor
vote.
But
that's
what
I
hope
that
we
can
get
out
of
this
and
that
we
can
support
working-class
families
who
might
not
be
able
to
afford
child
care
because
we're
changing
a
policy
as
to
when
students
can
be
enrolled.
A
N
H
A
Yes,
and
as
I
mentioned
before,
I
I
also
reserve
my
right-
I
just
to
be
able
to
resolve
some
of
those
issues.
Okay,
the
motion
passes:
let's
go
to
the
next
bill
senate
bill
120.
L
You,
mr
chair
john
sturm
committee
policy,
analyst.
The
next
bill
is
senate
bill
120,
which
is
sponsored
by
senator,
dennis
and
heard
on
april.
7Th
the
bill
makes
principles
at
will
for
the
first
three
years
of
employment.
After
those
three
years,
a
principal
may
be
placed
back
on
at
will
status
in
certain
circumstances.
L
The
first
one
is
to
remove
the
school
rating
factor
in
subsection
2a
of
section
2.,
two
amend
subsection,
two
b
of
section
two,
to
clarify
that
fifty
percent
of
teachers
must
transfer,
rather
than
request
a
transfer
to
trigger
the
at
will
status
of
a
principal
and
similarly
amends
section.
Three
number
four
require
confirmation
by
a
supervisory
investigation
that
school
conditions
are
a
factor.
If
the
survey
indicates
school.
Climate
was
an
issue
in
which
case
professional
development
would
be
required
of
the
principal.
L
The
next
proposed
amendment
is
to
require
confirmation
by
a
supervisory
investigation
that
40
of
teachers
transferred
due
to
school
climate
school
climate
issues,
and
then
the
next
amendment
would
be
to
provide
an
exception
from
the
post-probationary
at-will
employment
status
and
teacher
survey
provisions
for
certain
principals
who
have
been
placed
at
underperforming
schools.
L
L
The
next
amendment
would
be
to
include
administrators
in
the
list
of
personnel
in
which
certain
nevada
revised
statute
provisions
in
the
concerning
evaluations,
probationary
and
post-probationary
employment
and
disciplinary
action
do
not
apply
next.
It
would
provide
that
every
year
each
school
district
must
develop
a
plan
for
professional
development
of
administrators
to
include
non-binding
principle
to
supervisor
ratios
and
finally,
items
11
and
12
speak
to
the
submission
and
reporting
requirements
related
to
professional
development.
Mr
chair.
A
We
had
a
few
people
that
asked
about
the
issue
of
administrator
had
been
crossed
out
so
in
this
amendment,
you'll
see
that
that's
put
back
in
that
gives
the
ability
for
the
administrators
to
negotiate
the
discipline.
A
In
addition,
the
other
changes
that
were
made.
A
Was
where
it
talked
about
teachers
instead
of
just
submit
submitting
to
transfer,
they
have
to
actually
transfer.
I
think
that's
something
that
somebody
had
brought
out.
So
we
we
worked
on
these.
I
think
that
in
fact
it
was
they
worked
with
the
administrators
because
of
some
of
their
concerns,
and
these
were
some
of
the
things
that
they
brought
back,
that
they
had
mentioned
that
they
would
be
that
they
would
be
able
to
be
in
support
if
those
things
were
fixed.
A
I
think
what
we
have
today
is
a
much
better
build
than
what
we
started
out
with.
I
think
it
helps
administrators.
A
A
A
So
with
that
questions,
okay,
I
know
you
didn't
see
all
of
these
amendments
the
other
day,
because
there's
some
new
ones.
It's
asked
centered
on
derelict.
N
Yes,
I
yeah
I'm
a
little
concerned
because
I
haven't
seen
these
amendments
before
and
so
we're
sort
of
you
know
voting
on
the
fly
who
was
involved
again
in
constructing
these
amendments?
Was
it
just
you
or
was
there
somebody
else.
A
So
these
were
the
the
most
recent
ones.
I
worked
with
danny
thompson
and
the
association
that
he
represents
the
administrators,
and
I
know
that
they
voted
on
these
amendments,
both
from
washoe,
county
and
clark,
county
associations,
so
so
the
most
recent
ones
that
you're
just
seeing
today
for
the
first
time
those
are
coming
from
them.
N
A
But
what
I
would
say
is
if
you
have
questions
you
know,
we've
been
doing
this
for
the
last
couple
days
in
all
the
committees.
You
know,
there's
changes
because
of
the
way
that
things
are
working
out
right
now.
Sometimes
it's
hard
to
get
everything
all
put
together,
but
the
I
know
that
we
can
get
that
if
we
need
that
we
just
we
don't
have
we
don't
currently
have
them
online,
so
senator
buck.
E
You
know
you're
the
very
people
that
wonder
why
charter
schools
have
more
autonomy
and
build,
and
we
actually,
in
this
legislation,
are
building
less
autonomy
into
a
system.
That's
really
overburdened
and
really
at
our
mercy
with
this.
And
so
do
you
not
trust
the
process
of
the
system
in
which
you
know,
supervisor,
coaches
teach
or
train
leadership?
A
So
I'm
this
bill
came
forward
because
there
are
issues.
When
I
ask
about
training
and
other
things
you
know
there.
There
is
some
issues
when
it
comes
to
some
of
the
training
for
principal.
That's
you
know,
and
this
bill
will
address
that
to
ensure
that
the
principles
are
being
trained.
One
of
the
results.
You
know
we
in
clark
county
school
district.
We
have
a
1
to
31
ratio
of
superintendents
the
principles
as
a
result
of
this
bill.
A
The
school
district
is
going
to
be
adding
some
more
some
supervisors
because
they
realize
that
that
needs
to
happen.
So
I
think,
there's
some
good
things
that
have
happened
just
because
of
this.
I
think
that
we've
put
in
place
now
by
working
with
administrators
and
teachers,
there's
a
there's
some
good
pieces
in
here
that
will
actually
help
them
and
they
have.
They
still
have
the
ability.
A
If,
if
they've
got
several
abilities
here,
one
is
you
can
have
an
agreement
with
the
school
district
when
it
comes
to,
if
you're
going
into
an
at-risk
school
which
would
bypass
these
things.
Also,
the
the
administrators
have
the
ability
to
negotiate
that
discipline.
A
G
A
Thank
you,
I
don't
do.
We
have
the
ability
to
to
connect
them,
connect
him
in.
A
H
K
I
Yes,
thank
you.
I
yep,
mr
chairman,
through
the
questions
we
did
meet
with
you
and
agreed
to
all
the
changes
that
have
been
outlined
in
the
amendment.
I
And
that
was
that
was
not
just
clark,
county
and
washoe
county
that
was
statewide
administrators.
A
N
I
I
I
just
feel
like
I
haven't
had
enough
time
to
process
all
this,
so
I
probably
will
be
a
known
reserve.
My
right
just
so
I
can,
you
know,
have
some
time
to
study
this.
G
K
J
L
126.,
thank
you,
mr
chair
jen,
sturm
committee
policy.
Analyst.
The
next
bill
is
senate
bill
126,
which
is
sponsored
by
senator
donder
loop
and
was
heard
on
april
5th.
The
bill
relates
to
school
libraries.
The
measure
requires
each
public
school
in
certain
counties
to
have
a
library
that
provides
services
to
students
and
staff
and
to
employ
a
teacher
librarian.
L
These
requirements
also
apply
to
certain
large
charter
schools.
The
bill
creates
an
exception
to
the
requirement
to
hire
a
librarian
under
certain
circumstances
and
allow
school
library
assistants
to
meet
the
requirement.
Until
july,
1st
of
2027,
the
minimum
requirements
of
a
school
library
will
be
established
by
the
state
board
of
education
through
regulation,
and
there
are
a
couple
amendments
listed
here
for
the
committee's
consideration
and
the
first
and
those
are
attached,
of
course,
to
this
work
session
document.
L
And
the
third
amendment
would
amend
section
10
to
reflect
the
certification
process
for
teacher
librarians
through
the
department
of
education
by
deleting
the
certification
issued
by
the
national
board
for
professional
teaching
standards
and
replacing
that
with
the
certification
issued
by
the
department
of
education.
Mr
chair.
N
I'm
I'm
here
with.
If
you
need
additional
questions,
this
bill
was
in
a
partnership
with
not
only
the
librarians
but
the
clark
county
education
association,
and
I
urge
your
support.
The
amendments
that
are
here
were
submitted
by
the
librarian
association.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
chair
dennis,
so
we
kill
funding
to
rebuy
three
that
showed
results
for
once
in
the
past
two
decades,
with
now
mandating
an
archaic
system
of
librarian
and
library,
and
so
what
I'm
wondering
is
how
does
this
transcend
this?
To
I
mean
because
we've
done
this
in
the
past
and
it
never
changed
student
achievement.
So
how
is
this
going
to
transcend
to
ensuring
that
kids
can
read.
N
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
buck
marilyn
donderold
for
the
record.
First
of
all,
I
would
you
know,
I
would
argue.
Archaic
is
a
little
bit
interesting
word
only
because
libraries
are
still
happening
in
communities.
N
People
need
access
to
computers,
people
read
online
all
the
time
and
they
go
there
for
assistance
with
research
and
that's
what
librarians
teach
along
with
a
host
of
other
things.
We
could
suggest
that
schools
don't
need
principles.
We
could
suggest
a
lot
of
things
and
we
didn't
kill
funding
for
read
by
grade
three,
we
last
session
with
modern,
senator
dennis
and
senator
woodhouse
and
others
created
a
a
new
funding
formula.
N
Every
teacher
isn't
equipped
to
learn
those
skills,
especially
in
a
high
school
and
middle
school
settings.
So
with
that,
I
that's
that's
the
answer
that
I
would
give
you,
and
even
as
a
librarian
10
years
ago,
I
was
teaching
more
than
just
how
to
check
out
a
book
and
all
students
learn
differently
and
many
students
need
a
book.
That's
why
we
still
have
paper
newspapers,
people
like
them.
A
A
Okay,
what's
the
pleasure
of
the
committee.
B
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
mention
you
really
quickly.
You
know,
I
think,
the
senators
that
brought
this
provision
forward.
I
think
that
sometimes
we
lose
the
site
of
how
important
school
libraries
can
be
to
us.
You
know
I
think,
back
to
my
childhood
and
you
know
when
we
were
in
our
classrooms
in
elementary
school.
B
You
know
they
would
pass
around
this
pamphlet
provided
by
scholastic
and
you
would
be
able
to
purchase
books,
and
you
know
I
remember
saving
you
know
the
dollar
bill
that
I
would
find
in
the
laundry
so
that
I
could
afford
the
dollar
book
deal
that
we
had
in
these
scholastic
books,
and
you
know
my
parents
couldn't
always
afford
a
printer
at
our
house.
I
would
always
have
to
go
to
the
school
library,
so
libraries
are
helpful
for
a
lot
of
people,
so
I'm
supporting
this
so.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
I
for
one
have
not
forgotten
how
important
libraries
are.
I
think
they're
they're,
great
and
we've
had
them
every
school
that
I've
tried
to
be
a
part
of.
M
I
think
what
we're
worried
about
here
is
that
having
language
prescribing
certain
areas
in
which
the
library
needs
to
be
in
or
prescribing
too
many
rigid
details
when
you're
talking
about
you
know:
schools
of
choice,
you're
talking
about
different
kind
of
schools,
trying
to
get
through
things
that
that
that
just
kind
of
inhibits
the
ability
of
administrators
to
make
decisions
on
how
to
still
deliver
the
goods,
but
do
it
in
a
different
way,
and
that's
that's
my
concern.
M
I
think
I
had
the
same
concern
two
years
ago
I
mean
you
look
at
something
like
the
unlv
medical
school.
They
even
recognize
that
you
know
the
need
for
a
huge
library.
Isn't
there
anymore,
because
many
other
students
are,
you
know
they're
they're
doing
it
some
other
place,
they
have
access
and
that's
what
matters
so
that
it's
just
the
flexibility
that
concerned
me
and
that's
why
I'm
still
having
a
hard
time
with
this
one.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
I'd
and
I'll
on
the
motion.
I
will,
I
know
the
value
of
librarians
and
in
this
committee
we're
talking
about
the
policy
and
I
I
firmly
feel
that
we
need
to
have
you
know
the
librarians
they're
trained
to
do
they're,
not
just
in
a
room
full
of
books,
they're
trained
to
teach
and
they're
they're
a
resource
for
teachers,
and
you
know-
and
I'm
in
that
respect.
A
I
I
support
that,
and
you
know
I'm
sure
finance
will
look
at
the
the
issues
of
money,
but
you
know
with
the
new
funding
centered
pupil
plan
funding
plan.
A
Yet
you
know
somebody
mentioned
earlier
that
that
we
took
away
the
money
for
read
by
three,
but
that's
not
true
the
money
for
you
by
three
is
there
and
it's
still
in
statute
and
schools
will
be
able
to
do
it
and
it
just
happens
to
be
inside
the
funding
formula,
and
so
these
libraries
and
things
as
we
move
forward
they're
going
to
be
able
to
do
that
within
their
budget.
So
I
I
support
the
the
the
the
bill
and
we'll
be
voting
for
it.
N
N
Senator
if
I
could
just
add
one
other
thing,
just
as
a
side
note,
you
know
every
major
university,
every
community
college,
every
institution
of
higher
ed,
has
a
library
and
a
research
center
and
there's
a
reason,
and
I
think
we,
those
the
important
pieces,
is
that
we
educate
kids
and
we
raise
them
with
those
skills
so
that
when
they
get
into
higher
institutions
of
education,
they
have
those
skills
ready
with
them.
So
I
I
appreciate
the
thought.
I
appreciate
the
questions
and
I
urge
your
support.
Thank
you
very
much.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Librarians,
now
are
a
different
breed.
They
actually
go
to
school,
to
be
a
librarian.
One
of
the
things
that
this
bill
is
doing
is
perpetuating
the
feeling
that
it's
only
a
teacher
that
can
become
a
teacher,
librarian
or
a
school
librarian,
and
I
think,
that's
probably
a
fallacy
there.
K
N
And
and
senator
hardy
marilyn
dondero
loop
for
the
record,
I
actually
did
go
to
school
and
had
to
have
a
master's
degree
in
order
to
be
a
public
school
librarian
in
clark,
county
nevada,
so
everywhere
in
the
state.
It's
not
like
that,
but
in
clark
county
in
order
to
be
a
librarian,
you
have
to
be
a
certificate
teacher
and
have
a
librarian
credential.
A
Okay,
any
further
discussion,
all
right:
let's
go
to
the
boat.
If
we
could
do
a
roll
call
vote.
N
J
E
A
Yes,
motion
passes
or
three
okay,
let's
go
to
the
next
one,
which
is
senate
bill;
172.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair
john
sturm.
For
the
record.
The
next
bill
on
work
session
is
senate.
Bill
172,
which
is
presented
by
senator,
dennis
and
heard
on
march.
8Th
seneca
172
removes
the
enrollment
application
process
and
prerequisite
requirements
for
student
to
participate
in
a
dual
credit
course.
The
bill
also
removes
provisions
relating
to
cooperative
agreements
to
offer
dual
credit
courses
and
instead
requires
each
school
district
and
charter
school
to
establish
a
dual
credit
program.
L
Senator
buck
proposed
an
amendment
to
include
provisions
regarding
a
uniform
grading
scale
for
dual
credit
and
international
baccalaureate
courses
and
requiring
the
scale
to
assign
the
same
weight
to
such
courses
as
those
assigned
to
advanced
placement
courses.
In
certain
circumstances,
senator
dennis
proposed
an
amendment
which
is
attached
to
this
work
session
document
to
make
the
following
changes.
The
first
would
allow
school
districts
and
charter
schools
to
partner
with
other
school
districts
that
have
an
existing
dual
credit
program
and
two
revised
generally
revises
the
reporting
and
data
collection
requirements.
Mr
chair.
K
So
I'm
on
nellis,
I
don't
see
senator
buck's
amendment,
but
obviously
I
would
support
it
and
even
say.
Maybe
she
would
like
to
be.
I
don't
know
if
she
would
or
not,
but
maybe
she'd
like
to
be
on
your
bill
as
a
sponsor
understanding
that
I
don't
see
the
amendment,
but
I
think
it
should
be
there.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
I
I
believe
that
the
the
amendment,
the
amendment
was
a
verbal
amendment
when
she
was
giving
her
testimony
during
the
hearing,
and
I
think
that's
where
we
got
that
from
it.
Wasn't
she
didn't
submit
it
officially,
but
we
had
a
discussion,
and
so
I
included
that
and
I
wanted
it.
I
gave
her
credit
for
the
for
having
done
that.
So
that's
why
we
don't
have
a
physical
piece
of
paper.
E
A
A
Questions
I
will
entertain
a
motion.
N
K
G
O
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair
john
sturm
committee
policy.
Analyst.
The
next
bill
before
you
today
is
senate
bill
210,
which
is
sponsored
by
senator
donder
loop
and
was
heard
on
april
5th.
The
bill
relates
to
the
education
of
a
child
with
an
emotional
disturbance.
The
bill
requires
a
psychiatric
hospital
or
residential
mental
health
treatment
facility
to
which
to
which
such
a
child
is
offended
to
develop
a
plan
for
continuing
the
child's
education
in
consultation
with
certain
stakeholders.
L
The
bill
also
outlines
requirements
for
the
development
and
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
bill,
and
there
were
a
couple
or
a
few
amendments
here
proposed
by
senator
dondero
loop
and
those
are
also
attached
to
the
work
session
document.
The
first
would
distinguish
admittance
processes
between
an
acute
psychiatric
treatment
center
and
a
residential
treatment
center.
L
L
L
The
next
proposed
amendment
would
clarify
that
a
meeting
will
be
convened
prior
to
the
admission
of
a
student
to
a
residential
treatment
center
and
further
clarify
the
different
processes
depending
upon
whether
a
student
is
identified
as
having
special
education
needs
or
not.
And
finally,
it
would
allow
the
department
of
education
to
develop
regulations
related
to
the
discharge
of
students
from
such
facilities
and
their
re-entry
to
school.
Mr
chair.
N
Thank
you
chair.
I
have
ms
bailey
bortlin
on
the
line.
If
we
have
questions,
I
would
just
only
say
that
these
are
some
of
our
very
most
vulnerable
students
that
we
are
trying
to
make
sure
that
their
schooling
is
not
disrupted.
So
if
there
are
questions
mrs
bortland
and
I
believe,
miss
reed
from
the
nevada
department
of
education
is
also
on
the
line.
A
I'm
not
hearing
any.
I
will.
A
N
K
L
A
Let's
go
to
senate
bill
287.
L
Mr
jen
chairman
committee
policy,
analyst,
the
next
bill
today
is
senate
bill
287,
which
is
sponsored
by
senator
harris
and
heard
on
march
31st
senate
bill
287
relates
to
the
land
grant
status
of
the
university
of
nevada.
The
measure
designates
certain
entities
as
the
state
land
grant
institutions
and
the
board
of
regents
as
the
governing
authority
of
the
university
of
nevada.
L
We
do
have
a
couple
of
amendments
proposed
for
this
bill
as
well.
The
first
set
proposed
by
senator
harris
would
be
to
delete
the
language
of
the
bill
as
originally
drafted
and
replace
it
with
the
following
one
designate,
dr
the
dri
unlv
and
unr
as
the
state
land
grant.
Institutions
require
the
chancellor
of
nc
to
develop
a
plan
to
manage
the
assets
and
resources
of
the
state
land
grant
institutions
and
require
the
board
of
regents
to
approve
such
a
plan.
C
No
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have
prior
to
accepting
a
motion.
If
you'd
like.
M
Thank
you
very
much.
Senator
chair
yeah
I've
got.
I
do
have
a
few
questions
in
2017.
I
was
a
co-sponsor
with
then
assemblywoman
olivia
diaz.
Looking
at
this
very
same
issue
and
my
my
major
concern
when
I,
when
I
got
involved,
was
the
fact
there
was
money
left
on
the
table
in
different
jurisdictions,
especially
down
south
in
clark
county,
where
we
generate
money
down
there,
the
money
has
to
be
spent
down
there
and
nothing
was
happening
since
2017.
M
A
lot
of
effort
has
been
expended
to
try
and
get
the
right
personnel
in
the
right
places
and
then
and
then
develop
these
programs.
It's
been
working
wonderfully.
I
haven't
had
a
lot
a
chance
to
digest
the
new
language,
the
technical
language
that
we
just
heard.
If
you
could
break
it
down
for
me,
what
I'm
looking
for
is
this
you
know.
I
think
I
heard
at
the
very
end.
M
Basically
this
the
agreement
you
have
now
and
what's
going
to
be
in
the
language,
is
that
you
and
I
will
continue
to
basically
work
the
cooperative
extension
they'll
get
they'll
receive
the
funding
from
the
federal
government.
The
two
point:
something
million
dollars-
make
sure
the
programs
that
have
been
established
continue
to
go
because
I
do
not
want
to
see
an
interruption
in
that.
That's
that's.
M
One
of
the
things
I
don't
want
to
see
is
an
interruption,
and
if
this,
the
language
of
this
bill,
does
that
I'd
be
a
no,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
they
know
that
doesn't
happen,
and
then
I'd
also
like
to
know
and
get
a
little
bit
more
clarity,
maybe
from
you
or
somebody
else.
The
assertions
that
were
made
during
the
hearing
is
that
if,
if
dri
and
unlv
are
given
land
grant
status,
that
they
would
actually
be
able
to
receive
more
money,
more
money
would
be
coming
into
the
state.
M
M
I
I
want
to
know.
Is
there
you
know?
What
can
somebody
explain
to
me?
What
increases
we're
talking
about?
Maybe
there's
not
an
increase
in
the
amount
of
money
coming
from
the
land
grant.
You
know
for
cooperative
extension,
maybe
that
doesn't
increase,
but
as
long
as
it
all
goes
to
one
entity
and
they're
working
that
and
still
keep
the
programs
and
yet
more
money
is
coming
in
from
something
else.
I'd
be.
Okay
with
that.
Can
you
I'm
sorry?
I
hope
I'm
very
clear
on
where
I'm
at.
C
No,
that's
perfectly
fine.
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
hammond
to
you
through
you,
chair,
dennis
I'm
gonna
try
and
take
an
initial
crack
at
that
and
then
I'll
invite
mr
hardy
or
miss
schaefer
to
supplement
my
answer
as
necessary
as
to
your
first
part
about
unr
operating
the
co-extensions
and
a
trying
to
avoid
a
disruption
in
that
program.
C
C
But
I
can
tell
you
right
now
senator
that
there
are
grants
that
exist,
that
unlv
currently
doesn't
apply
for
in
order
to
to
receive,
because
they
are
are
only
grants
that
land
land-grant
institutions
can
compete
for,
and
so
I
see
this
as
an
opportunity
to
allow
the
two
non-uh
clear,
land-grant
institutions,
unlv
and
dri,
to
to
make
sure
they're
eligible
for
those
grants
and
to
put
themselves
forward
for
funding
that
they
feel
they
currently
don't
qualify
for
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you,
mr
hardy
or
ms
schaefer,
for
further
explanation.
D
D
The
nego
document
represents
the
agreement
you
that
senator
hammond
referenced
in
his
comments.
So
the
intent
of
this
we
agree.
I
agree
with
senator
hammond
in
terms
of
pre-2017.
D
Southern
nevada
didn't
have
a
much
of
a
voice
in
in
or
or
enough
of
a
voice
and
how
those
dollars
in
southern
nevada
were
spent,
and
so
I
know
that
to
give
credit,
I
I
know
I'm
not
supposed
to
mention
individuals,
but
commissioner,
maryland
kirkpatrick
has
done
a
marvelous
job.
Maureen
schaefer
who's
on
the
call
is
also
a
member
of
that
board
has
done
a
marvelous
job
in
making
sure
that
southern
nevada
has
gotten
their
fair
share.
With
regard
to
the
cooperative
extension.
D
That's
the
reason
we
were
a
hundred
percent
comfortable
in
this
legislation
adopting
the
naco
amendment
at
naco's
request
to
hold
harmless
all
matters
related
to
the
related
to
the
cooperative
extension
and
direct
the
chancellor
to
develop
to
develop
cooperative
agreements
between
the
universe.
The
two
universities
on
that
with
regard
and
and
section
three
of
the
amendment
speaks
to
the
fact
that
those
dollars
would
be
held
harmless.
D
Those
dollars
will
continue
to
flow
to
the
current
source
until
such
time
as
the
two
institutions,
through
the
the
work
of
the
chancellor,
agrees
on
a
different
method.
So
the
answer
your
question
is
senator
hammond
that
all
those
things
all
those
those
things
are
accounted
for.
I
would
also
point
out
that
the
chancellor
has
seen
and
and
spoken
in
favor
of
the
of
the
naco
amendment.
With
regard
to
your
final
question,
I
just
want
to
expand
on
what
senator
harris
said
a
little
bit,
because
that's
the
crux
of
this.
D
For
us,
we
have
taken
every
effort
to
to
remove
the
cooperative
extension
language
to
allow
that
to
function
as
it's
currently
functioning
at
functioning
until
the
the
the
universities
agree
that
it
should
be
done
in
a
different
way,
and
that
will
be
done
through
the
chancellor,
which
is
appropriate.
The
the
reason
for
this
legislation
and
the
reason
for
what
I'm
going
to
call
a
clarification
in
land-grant
status,
because
that's
all
this
is
the
chancellor.
D
If
you
may,
you
may
recall
the
hearing
that
general
counsel
for
nc,
opined
that
the
land-grant
universities
in
nevada
currently
are
unlv,
unr
and
dri.
So
this
is
a
clarification,
but
the
reason
for
that
clarification
is
that
there's
confusion
on
the
national
level
because
of
of
because
of
culture
as
to
whether
unlv
and
dri
are
both
land-grant
institutions.
Why
is
that
important?
D
As
senator
harris
said,
there
are
some
land
grant
grants
that
we're
not
able
to
apply
for,
but
in
most
cases-
and
this
is
the
most
important
thing
being
a
land
grant
institute-
gives
you
a
step
up.
It
gives
you
the
ability
to.
This
is
not
act.
This
is
not
entirely
accurate,
but
for
lack
of
a
better
term-
and
maybe
it
is-
I
don't
know,
move
to
the
head
of
the
line
and,
more
importantly,
it
also
receives
us
to
act-
gives
us
the
opportunity
to
receive
federal
grants
that
do
not
require
matching
state
funds.
D
That's
the
disadvantage
that
unlv
is
currently
under.
That
is
the
disadvantage.
That
is
a
competitive
disadvantage
we
have
we
are.
We
are
not
looking
for
that
pot
of
money,
and
that's
where
the
confusion
is.
The
pot
of
money
is
the
just
over
2.2
million
dollars
that
currently
flows
to
the
system.
Our
amendment,
we're
not
touching
that
we
don't
want
anything,
that's
fine,
we're!
D
N
I
appreciate
that
discussion
and
appreciate
the
amendments
that
have
been
proposed,
especially
the
neco
one
that
is
listed
on
our
book.
But
if
there
are
no
more
questions,
I
would
move
to
amend
and
do
pass
if
there
are
no
more
questions.
Chair.
K
K
And
so
then
you
start
looking
at
other
evidence,
and
you
look
at
the
fiscal
note
on
this
bill,
for
instance,
and
it
actually
takes
money
from
unr
and
and
unless
I'm
meeting
it
wrong
after
review
of
the
proposed
bill
university
of
nevada,
reno
has
determined
that
there
will
be
a
fiscal
impact
to
unr
college
of
agriculture,
etc,
etc.
K
So
I
think
we're
ahead
of
our
skis
and
I
don't
think
we've
fully
vetted
what
the
impact
is
going
to
be
and
the
shift
of
demonstrated
representation
is
going
to
come
from
this
area,
and
I
worry
that
the
small
person
in
the
north
that's
already
done
a
good
job
and
continues
to
do
a
good
job
with
the
extension
program
will
will
not
be
able
to
keep
up
with
what
they're
supposed
to
be
doing.
K
D
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
the
fiscal
note
that
senator
hardy
is
referring
to
was
on
the
original
original
bill
and
in
fact
again
I
need
to
make
the
distinction.
You've
got
a
pot
of
money
that
comes
to
nevada,
just
by
just
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
we
have
a
land
grant
that
currently
goes
to
unr
to
be
distributed
through
the
cooperative
extension
under
the
original
bill.
That
would
have
been
divided
into
three
parts,
whereas
which
is
where
the
fiscal
note
comes
from
under
the
amended
bill.
D
That
money
continues
to
flow
to
where
it's
currently
being
spent,
which
is
unr
for
the
cooperative
extension.
So
that's
where
that
fiscal
note
comes
and
and
and
so
the
answer
to
senator
hardy's
question
is
both
both
parties
are
right.
There
is
a
pot
of
money
that
would,
under
the
original
bill,
be
divided
in
three
parts
and
take
away
from
unr
that
is
amended
out.
The
bigger
concern,
the
real
money,
if
you
will
is
on
the
other
side,
and
that
pot
becomes
immeasurably
larger
for
unlv
and
dri
unr
already
has
access
to
it.
D
But
this
opens
it
up
to
where
unlv
and
dri
can
also
pursue
those
those
grants
without
federal
matches
or
excuse
me
without
without
other
limitations
that
occur
for
non-grant
land
grant
university.
So
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
clear
on
the
record.
A
B
K
Yes,
obviously,
there's
a
statement
of
fact
that
unr
and
unlv
are
land-grant
institutions.
K
D
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
warren
hardy
for
the
record,
and
I
should
indicate
I'm
representing
the
council
for
a
better
nevada
today.
I
think
I
neglected
to
do
that
so
senator
hardy.
I
believe-
and
she
now
and
she
believes
the
attorney
last
attorney.
General
opinion
on
this
from
1969
believes
that
unlv,
unr
and
dri
are
the
land
grant
institutions
for
nevada.
D
There
is
a
narrative
that
comes
out
of
unr
that
they
are
the
only
land
grant
institution
in
the
state
that
narrative
and,
as
far
as
I
know,
they're
the
only
ones
that
believe
that
and
as
and
so
there's
a
narrative
that
comes
out
of
unr
that
has
pervaded
the
country.
If
you
will
that
they
are
the
only
language
and
it
is
it
has
has
has
acted
to.
D
D
The
statute
currently
as
it
exists
today
is
somewhat
confusing
on
the
matter,
which
is
what
we're
trying
to
clarify
today
that
these
are
the
institutions,
so
I
I
I
hope
that
answers
your
question
senator,
but
we
feel
like
we
need
clarification
in
the
statute
once
and
for
all.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
I
apologize.
It's
just
a
you
know
something
that
keeps
coming
back
to
me
because
in
2017
this
also
happened,
and
there
was
discussion
and
again
I
think
it
happened.
In
the
hearing
we
had
the
other
day
where
unlv
did
state.
I
believe
that
they
have
received,
grant
money
and
an
application
in
which
they
were
designated
at
land
grant
college
has
it
happened
that
you
have
applied
for
grant
money
as
a
land
grant
and
been
denied,
because
the
grantee
said
that
you
were
not
a
land
grant
college.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
warren
hardy,
for
the
record.
I
don't
have
specific
examples
of
that.
I
know
there.
There
are
instances
and
there
have
been
instances
in
the
past
where
we
have
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
Had
the
chancellor
indicate
that
yes,
unlv
is
a
land-grant
status
for
purpose
of
this
grant,
and
so
that
has
happened
in
the
past.
Often
we
don't
pursue
grants
because
of
the
of
the
state
matching
fund
requirement
that
and
so
we're
not
able
to
access
that
without
the
state
matching
funds.
D
D
Unlv
is
part
of
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education,
and
it
should
be
clear
in
the
law
that
unlv
has
the
right
and
the
ability
to
pursue
all
of
these
grants.
Just
like
unr,
just
like
dri.
There
is
nothing
in
this
legislation
that
harms
unr
in
any
way
shape
or
form.
Once
you
remove
the
first
pot
of
money
which
we
have
done
in
the
amendment.
A
Thank
you.
I'm
schaefer
go
ahead.
N
Yes,
thank
you.
I
would
only
add
that,
as
a
former
employee
of
unlv,
when
I
was
helping
to
found
the
medical
school,
it
was
clearly
dictated
to
us
and
many
of
our
colleagues
throughout
the
campus
that
we
were
not
a
land
grant
and
if
we
or
any
of
our
colleagues
at
any
of
the
other
schools
throughout
campus
were
seeking
to
pursue
any
applications
through
the
federal
government.
N
We
needed
to
seek
permission
through
the
chancellor's
office,
and
so
our
former
head
of
research
at
unlv
expressly
said
to
us
on
many
occasions
that
we
were
not
a
land-grant
institution
through
messages
from
the
chancellor
at
the
time.
So
I
only
say
that
as
information
as
a
former
employee
at
unlv
from
just
direct
information,
while
this
may
be
on
statute-
and
I
respect
senator
hardy's,
clear
understanding-
this
was
and
continues
to
be
urban
legend
passed
through
down
to
the
campuses
and
practiced
on
a
a
daily
basis.
N
And
this
clarification,
this
reaffirmation
that
unlv
and
dri
are
in
fact
land-grant
institutions
is
critical,
it's
invaluable
and
it
will
translate
into
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
back
to
these
campuses
and
into
the
hands
of
faculty,
and
it's
extraordinarily
important
that
we
reaffirm
and
we
clarify
the
status
because
it's
not
happening.
It's
not
happening
today.
To
this
day,.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair
usher,
killian
committee
council.
So
our
office's
position
is
consistent
with
that
expressed
by
mr
reynolds,
the
chief
general
counsel
for
inshee
at
our
previous
meeting,
as
well
as
the
attorney
general
in
attorney
general's
opinion.
B
1969-556
article
11,
section
4
of
the
nevada
constitution,
empowers
the
legislature
to
establish
a
single
state
university
and
article
11,
section
8
reserves
land
grant
funds
for
the
support
of
that
state
university.
B
The
legislature
has
chosen
to
establish
that
state
single
state
university,
as
the
university
of
nevada
and
the
university
of
nevada,
happens
to
have
campus
campuses
at
multiple
locations,
including
reno
and
las
vegas,
so
consistent
with
inches
opinion
and
with
the
attorney
general's
opinion.
It's
your
legal
division's
opinion
that
there
is
a
single
university
of
nevada
with
campuses
of
multiple
locations
and
that
single
university
of
nevada
is
the
state
university,
which
is
a
land-grant
institution.
N
A
Yeah
senator
donderly.
N
When
you're,
when
you're
ready
for
a
motion,
I'll
restate
it,
but
I
just
I
just
think
I
just
need
to
put
on
the
record
that
the
whole
the
whole
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
state
that
unlv
is
a
land-grant
institution.
N
So
if
someone-
whoever
we
are
on,
this
committee
does
not
have
an
issue
with
that,
then
I
would
think
you
would
be
voting
yes,
because
you'd
just
be
confirming
that
unlv
is
a
land
grant
institution,
and
I
can
tell
you
100
percent,
because
I
asked
the
question:
unlv
has
not
received
grants
solely
because
they
were
a
land
because
they
were
designated
land
grant.
So
you
know
if
if
unlv
is
a
land
grant
institution,
then
or
is
not
a
land-grant
institution,
then
why
are
we
having
this
discussion?
D
Thank
you
warren
hardy
again
for
your
record
that
that
is
correct,
senator
buck.
As
drafted
this
clarifies
the
the
nrs
statute
to
match
the
constitutional
opinion
of
your
legal
counsel
of
the
event
she
and
of
the
attorney
general
in
1969
that
those
are
the
three
land
grants
it
holds
harmless.
It
makes
no
changes
whatsoever
relative
to
to
the
current
first
pot
of
money,
the
two
million
dollars
that
flows
in
and
to
the
the
way
that
the
cooperative
extension
is
operated.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
is
that,
where
is
that
dr
hardy
yeah
senator
hardy
and
then
we'll
go
to
senator
lang.
K
I
appreciate
the
clarity
and
the
admission
that
unr
unlv
are
one
university
system,
the
chancellor's
over
that
system.
The
regions
are
over
that
system.
So,
as
I
look
at
this
particular
bill
with
that
admission,
that
happened
originally
in
in
the
hearing
that
we're
okay
and,
quite
frankly,
we
don't
need
this
bill,
because
it's
already
a
fact-
and
it
didn't
take
the
attorney
general
in
1969
to
say
it's
a
fact,
because
it.
K
G
C
And
so
that,
if
that's
senator
dennis
and
then
again,
please
mr
hardy,
if
I
miss
anything
jump
in,
thank
you
for
the
question
sandra
lange
to
you
through
chair
dennis
with
this
amendment.
The
funding
sources
will
not
change.
They
will
continue
to
be
funded
as
as
they
are
with
unlv
or
I'm
sorry,
unr
still
running
the
cooperative
extension
program
at
both
locations.
N
L
G
A
G
So
assemblywoman
bill
bae,
real
great
axelrod,
sent
me
a
note
this
morning
and
because
she
knew
that
we'd
be
voting
on
this
and
she
said
that
her
dad
has
been
working
on
this
for
years.
So
this
isn't
something
that's
new,
it's
something
that
I
think
people
in
the
south
have
been
working
to
get
happen
for
a
really
long
time,
and
so
I'm
really
happy
that
it's
gonna
finally
be
in
law.
Thank
you.
N
M
I'll
be
a
yes
with
my
right
to
reserve
to
change
my
mind
if
I
looked
at
the
nation
later
on
and.
G
H
A
All
right
now
we're
going
to
go
to
senate
bill
347.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairage
and
sturm
committee
policy
analyst.
The
next
bill
is
senate
bill
347,
which
is
sponsored
by
senator
scheible
and
heard
on
april.
2Nd.
The
bill
relates
to
sexual
misconduct
at
higher
education
institutions.
The
measure
creates
the
task
force
on
sexual
misconduct
and
institutions
of
higher
education
and
prescribes
the
membership
and
duties
of
the
task
force.
L
Further
sb
347
authorizes
the
board
of
regents
to
require
an
institution
to
examine
and
address
certain
matters
related
to
sexual
misconduct.
As
outlined
there
on
the
work
session
document,
the
bill
allows
the
board
of
regents
to
impose
a
fine
against
an
institution
that
does
not
comply
with
the
requirements.
L
Finally,
sb
347
requires
the
board
of
regents
to
compile
reports
from
institutions
and
forward
them
to
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
and
to
the
legislature,
and
then
we
did
receive
proposed
amendments
from
senator
scheible
which
are
attached,
and
I
summarized
a
lot
of
the
the
main
points
here
and
I'll
go
over
those,
but
I
understand
that
senator
scheible
may
be
on
to
answer
questions
as
well.
So
the
first
proposed
amendment
defines
several
just
defined
several
items
as
identified
there
in
in
number
one
number:
two.
L
Five
clarifies
the
investigative,
disciplinary
and
non-disciplinary
processes
as
specified
in
the
bill,
as
written
six
clarifies
how
the
sexual
misconduct
policy
may
be
provided,
and
the
contents
of
such
a
policy
number
eight
provides
for
the
development
and
adoption
of
a
memorandum
of
understanding
with
regard
to
sexual
misconduct.
Incidents
skipping
down
to
10
the
proposed
amendment
provides
for
and
defines
the
duties
of
a
confidential
resource
advisor
11
further
provides
for
the
response
to
reports
of
an
alleged
incident.
L
Number
12
authorizes
the
board
of
regents
to
provide
investigative,
disciplinary
and
non-disciplinary
training
to
certain
employees
and
allows
the
board
to
require
institutions
to
cover
certain
topics
and
training.
Number
14
provides
for
the
annual
reporting
of
sexual
misconduct.
Incidents
15
provides
for
the
institutional
disciplinary
process
and
related
reporting,
as
well
as
an
institution's
response
processes
to
incidents,
including
hearings
and
investigations
includes
a
waiver
from
requirements
of
school-sponsored
programs
and
activities,
including
scholarships
for
those
who
have
experienced
sexual
misconduct
and
finally,
number
17
ensures
compliance
with
federal
law.
Mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
senator
schaible,
I
think
she's
on.
O
This
is
lilly
james
for
the
record.
I
am
the
co-executive
director
of
the
air
voice
coalition.
Senator
scheibel,
unfortunately,
is
caught
up
in
judiciary
committees.
Yes,
so
he's
not
able
to
join
us,
but
myself
and
sage
carson
here
manager
at
know.
Your
nine
are
here
to
answer
any
questions
from
the
committee
today.
O
Absolutely
thank
you
so
much,
sir
dennis.
This
is
lily
james
for
the
record.
So
this
is.
We
submitted
an
amendment
prior
to
our
committee
hearing
last
week
and
then
this
is
a
sort
of
slightly
revised
amendment
to
that.
O
We
worked
closely
with
some
representatives
of
enshi
to
get
to
a
place
where
we
all
felt
really
confident
in
this
bill,
and
so
this
sort
of
second
version
of
that
amendment
is
one
where
we've
worked
really
hard
to
get
to
a
you
know
place
where
everybody
feels
really
good
and
that's
sort
of
what
accounts
for
the
differences
in
the
two.
But
it
is.
A
I
believe
the
amendment
is
out
on
in
in
the
actually
ms
sturm
is:
is
the
amendment
the
amendment's
out.
M
I
think
if
you
joe
and
senator
hardy,
if
you
just
go
to
today's,
you
just
go
to
today's
meeting
and
then
all
the
whole
meeting
it's
on
blue.
It
just
says
senate
me,
education
committee.
If
you
click
on
that,
then
a
bunch
of
stuff
comes
up
and
one
of
the
things
that
comes
up
is
it
says
that
I
think
exhibit
and
then
you
hit
that
and
it'll
say,
work,
work
document
or
work
session
document
and
the
work
session
document.
M
It
has
all
of
the
different
amendment
bills
and
then
this
is
the
senate
bill.
You
can
click
on
this
senate
bill
and
all
the
amendments
come
up.
M
A
So
let
me
let
me
let
me
it
says:
bdr34-237
sb347
conceptual
amendment
at
the
top
starts
with
section
one
and
it's
got.
K
A
I
I
we've
got
so
senator
hardy.
I
don't
know
if
it's
just
not
printing
out
for
you,
but
it's
out
on
nellis
with
this
bill,
and
we
could
maybe
try
to
get
somebody
to
staff
to
run
one
down
to
you.
K
So
I
go
to
melanie
scheibel's
conceptual
amendment
and
mine
goes
bdr
34-237
and
then
it
starts
blue
green
red
and
then
it
starts
section.
Eight,
okay,.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair
john
sturm,
the
the
proposed
amendment
I
believe
you're
looking
at
senator
hardy,
may
be
the
one
that
was
originally
submitted
for
the
bill
hearing.
Since
then,
there
was
an
amendment
submitted,
replacing
that
one
which
is
attached
to
the
work
session
document
and
it's
the
the
amendment
proposed
amendment
itself
is,
I
believe,
24
pages,
not
the
the
14.
K
K
A
A
A
A
K
K
Yeah,
I
got
it
from
asher
senate
bill
347
and
I'm
looking
for
the
amendment
now
on
asher's
email.
A
B
A
O
Or
lily
james
for
the
record,
so
I
think
what
I
was
saying
is
that
this
sort
of
second
version
of
the
amendment
that
we
had
last
week
is
very
similar
to
that
one.
Just
some
sort
of
tweaks
and
changes
that
came
from
some
great
discussions
with
some
folks
at
fenshi,
again
just
getting
to
a
place
that
we
all
felt
really
confident
with
the
bill
and
sage.
And
I
are
here
to
answer
any
questions
from
the
committee.
K
C
Sorry
stage
carson
for
the
record,
I'm
happy
to
answer
this
question,
so
this
is,
is
not
to
provide
additional
money
to
those
students
or
to
provide
them
tuition.
Instead.
This
is
to
recognize
that
folks,
that
experience,
sexual
violence
and
education
experience
large
educational
impacts
because
of
that
violence,
for
example,
we
surveyed
about
110
student
survivors
and
found
that
all
of
them
experienced
negative
impacts
on
their
gpa
and
one
third
of
students.
Friends
were
asked
to
either
take
time
out
of
school
completely
or
to
go
down
to
partial
or
half
time.
C
A
lot
of
student
survivors
who
experience
these
academic
impacts
and
penalties
lose
access
to
scholarships
and
educational
opportunities
because
of
the
negative
impact
that
sexual
violence
has
on
their
education.
This
is
not
to
provide
them
with
tuition
entirely.
This
is
to
make
sure
that
if
a
student
has
experienced
sexual
violence
and
their
gpa
drops
because
of
it
or
if
they
need
to
go
down
to
part-time,
so
that
they
can
focus
on
their
educational
success,
that
they
don't
lose
access
to
educational
opportunities
because
of
that
violence.
K
C
The
person
for
the
record
sexual
misconduct
and
sexual
violence
I'm
using
hand
in
hand
as
terms
but
I'm
happy
to
continue
using
sexual
misconduct.
If
that
is
what
you
would
like,.
C
Apologies,
thank
you
sage,
carson,
for
the
record
sexual
misconduct
is
typically
a
way
that
institutions
respond
to
or
describe
sexual
violence.
Sexual
misconduct
includes
sexual
harassment,
sexual
assault,
stalking,
intimate
partner,
violence
and
domestic
violence,
and
we
use
the
term
sexual
violence
to
include
all
of
those
pieces
as
well,
but
moving
forward,
I
will
be
sure
to
use
sexual
misconduct
after
the
hearing.
K
O
Lily
james
from
the
record
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
senator
hardy,
so
in
the
bill
as
defined
sexual
misconduct,
is
the
umbrella
term
that
encompasses
a
wide
range
of
other
sexual
violence,
sexual
assault,
sexual
harassment,
type
of
behaviors.
O
So
in
the
bill
we
do
refer
to
sexual
misconduct,
but
colloquially
we
do
sort
of
say
sexual
misconduct
or
sexual
violence,
and
I
will
just
to
what
you're
saying
to
what
you're
speaking
to
this
bill
does
not
really
speak
to
nor
address.
O
You
know
any
sort
of
criminalizing
of
these
pieces,
it's
more
flipping
it
from
you,
know
the
perpetrators
and
anybody
who's
doing
any
of
the
violence
to
instead
focusing
on
how
can
we
support
survivors
of
these
incidents,
who,
as
sage
spoke
to
previously
often
experience
long-term
and
severe
impacts
on
their
education?
And
then
you
know,
continue
life
opportunities,
and
so
we're
focused
primarily
on
those
supportive
measures
for
survivors
as
well
as
then
prevention.
So
you
know
we
in
the
bill
do
not
address
anything
as
it
relates
to.
O
You
know,
criminalizing
sexual
misconduct
or
sexual
violence,
but
using
the
terminology,
but
we
use
the
terminology.
Sexual
misconduct
to
refer
to
all
of
the
behaviors
that
we're
working
you
know
actively
to
prevent
and
then
support
survivors
of.
K
So
if
I
may,
if
we
had
10
rapes
and
eight
rapes
and
six
rapes
successively
in
unlv,
let's
put
it
that
way.
Age
group
and
we
had
40
percent
of
people
who've
had
sexual
misconduct
there.
I
do
not
want
nevada
to
become
tarred
with
the
reputation
that
we
have
had
more
than
other
people.
K
Yes,
we
I
mean
those
are
arrested,
those
are
prosecuted
and
we
can
track
those
but
trying
to
track
and
say
that
we
have
this
many
sexual
misconduct
and
left
that
lump
that
together.
I
think
that
is
a
disservice
to
what
we're
trying
to
do
in
the
state
of
nevada.
O
Senator
lily
james
for
the
record
senator
hardy.
Thank
you
so
much
for
speaking
to
this
by
all
means
we're
not
trying
to
lump
these
behaviors
in
together.
It's
more
of
making
sure
that
this
is
a
inclusive
definition,
so
that
survivors,
who
have
experienced
some
sort
of
violence,
whether
it's
domestic
violence
or
sexual
harassment,
which
do
co,
you
know,
look
different
and
come
in
different
forms.
O
We
are,
you
know,
looking
to
just
ensure
that
no
student
who
has
experienced
this
type
of
behavior
feels
like
they
are
not
able
to
access,
support
or
access
accommodations
or
receive
the
sort
of
supports
post
incident.
You
know
that
maybe
their
what
happened
to
them
doesn't
sort
of
fall
under
the
purview
of
some
other
sort
of
definition,
so
by
making
it
as
broad
as
possible,
we're
really
ensuring
that
you
know
across
the
board.
Anybody
who
has
experienced
this
violence
or
misconduct.
O
Misconduct
excuse
me
or
harassment
is
able
to
receive
the
sort
of
supports
that
they
deserve
and
need.
So
it's
sort
of
you
know
I
would
again
say
it's
really
about
flipping
this,
to
making
sure
it's
as
inclusive
of
different
survivors
experiences,
so
that
there's
no
one
who
is
you
know,
left
out
and
therefore
not
able
to
you
know
when
it's
hurting
and
it's
experiencing,
you
know,
ramifications
or
deteriorating
gpa
or
other
sort
of
educational
experiences.
O
Because
of
this,
but
because
what
happened
to
them
doesn't
sort
of
you
know,
qualify
or
you
know,
fall
under
the
definition.
They're,
not
able,
then
to
you
know,
receive
supports.
So
it's
really
just
making
sure
that
across
the
board,
we
are
able
to
support
everyone,
and
you
know
that
was
the
intention
by
making
it
a
broad
definition.
But
again
I
will
say
to
your
excellent
point:
we're
not
interested
in
you
know,
lumping
them
in
together
or
making
them
synonymous
by
any
means.
That
is
not
the
intention
of
the
bill.
O
It's
more
just
to
be
inclusive
of
you
know
as
much
behavior,
and
you
know
as
inclusive
as
as
many
survivors
who
have
experienced
different
forms
of
you
know.
Misconduct.
Thank
you.
K
I
I
appreciate
your
clarification.
I
think
you
need
to
rewrite
some
of
this,
so
that
it
makes
it
clear
to
other
people.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
M
I
don't
know
if
I
have
so
much
as
a
question
is
just
I
appreciate
my
colleagues
line
of
questioning
and
it's
sort
of
the
same
thing
I
have.
I
know
that
there's
a
problem
on
campuses
across
the
united
states
and
I
think
that
it's
important
to
get
after
that
particular
issue,
but
I
think
with
the
language
being
as
broad
as
you
have
it.
M
I
think
that
you're
inviting
a
lot
of
a
host
of
other
problems,
I
think
most
of
most
of
which
is
you
know,
freedom
of
speech,
because
I
think,
once
you
send
out
the
the
survey,
the
climate
survey,
and
then
you
have
these
groups
that
are
part
of
this
council
being
talking
about
what
what's
acceptable.
What's
not,
I
think
what
you're,
what
you're
doing
then
is
is
sort
of
a
chilling
effect
on
who's
going
to
be
able
to
say
what
in
in
certain
areas,
crowds
at
the
student
union.
M
Even
a
conversation,
that's
overheard,
maybe
somebody
feels
that
they
may
have
been
harassed
in
some
way.
Now,
all
of
a
sudden,
you
have
an
incident
where
you're
reporting
more
and
more
as
the
senator
hardy
had
mentioned
now.
Listen.
It
looks
like
our
campuses
are
rife
with
all
kinds
of
misconduct
and-
and
that's
kind
of
the
worry
that
I
have
it's
really
just
it's
just
too
broad
of
language.
M
For
me,
when
you're
defining
a
lot
of
stuff,
I
think
it
was
another
section,
two
or
three
that
was
that
was
housed
in
that
the
definitions
were
housed
in.
So
that's
that's,
I
guess
just
a
statement,
but
if
you
want
to
address
it
feel
free,
but
that's
kind
of
where
I
I
have
a
hard
time
with
the
with
the
bill,
because
I
just
think
it's
asking
for
too
much
with
so
many
moving
parts
and
not
enough
time
to
work
on
it.
O
Lily
james
for
the
record,
thank
you
so
much
senator
hammond
for
that
follow-up
question.
You
know.
I
totally
hear
what
you're
saying
again.
That's
not
you
know
really
what
the
scope
of
this
bill
is.
I
will
say
right
now:
there
just
is
really
no
adequate
way
to
know
what
is
happening
on
our
campus.
O
You
know:
there's
no
wide,
widespread,
reliable,
consistent
amount
of
data
that
we
have
on
this
issue,
but
you
know
some
of
the
some
of
the
some
of
what
we
do
know
is
that,
right
now,
only
five
percent
of
survivors
on
college
campuses
are
making
any
sort
of
formal
report,
and
that
means
you
know
that
their
cases
are
accounted
for
by
their
school
are
in
official.
You
know
cleric
law,
er
cleary
act
logs
or
something
of
that
sort.
O
So
that
means
that
only
five
percent
of
survivors
are,
you
know
able
to
you
know,
get
any
sort
of
accommodations
or
support.
That
is
you
know
contingent
on
reporting
usually
and
what
we
know
you
know
from
other
data.
Is
that
close
to
2.3
million
current
college
students
across
the
country?
O
Just
is
no
reliable
way
to
actually
give
survivors
a
way
to
have
their
stories
accounted
for
that
then,
from
that
data,
schools
are
able
to
better
know
how
to
prevent
it
right.
So
from
that
collection
of
data
they
can
say.
Okay,
here
are
some
sticky
areas
here
are
areas
that
are
particularly
dangerous
for
students.
You
know:
where
do
we
need
to
be
preventing
more?
Where
do
we
need
to
be
funneling
in
resources?
O
So
it's
more
about
collecting
this
adequate
data
that
then
goes
into
that
prevention.
Piece
that
you
speak
to
that
to
us
is
exactly
what
we're
interested
in
doing.
Ultimately,
we
know
that
this
is
just
a
first
step.
We
need
to
be
focused
more
on
prevention,
but
we
can't
do
that
until
we
have
this
sort
of
data.
So
again
I
would
say
that
it's
not
about
you
know.
You
know
racking
up
the
numbers
and
racking
up
their
reports
by
any
means.
O
It's
making
sure
that
it's
not
just
being
stopped
on
the
under
the
rug
that
there
is.
You
know
really
a
you
know
official
record
of
what's
happening
so
that
we
better
know
how
to
prevent,
and
it's
not
just
being
silenced.
M
Thank
you
miss
james.
I
appreciate
that.
But
again
it
goes
back
to
that
little
piece
that
you
said
that
violence
you
kept
using
the
word
violence
to
2.3
million
cases
of
violence.
During
your
hearing
you
actually
mentioned
that
you
actually
gave
us
a
number
12
000
12
000
cases,
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure.
Could
you
could
you
go
through
that
one
just
real
brief?
I
know
that
there
are
some
other
members
who
have
questions.
This
will
be
the
last
thing.
I
ask
you
because
you
said
12
000.
M
was
that
12
000
cases
of
violence,
as
defined
by
senator
hardy,
we're
talking
about
violence
or
harassment
and
violence
and
all
the
other
ones
included
in
that,
and
is
that
in
one
university
or
throughout
the
state
of
nevada
and
over
how
many
years
is
it
one
year
or
several
years.
O
Lily
james
for
the
record,
thank
you
senator
hammond.
I
appreciate
it.
I
appreciate
your
careful
note
taking
on
our
on
our
previous
testament.
That's
really
awesome!
So
when
I
was
giving
testimony
last
week
and
when
you
know
my
fellow
colleague
geneva
who's,
a
student
at
unr
was
giving
testimony
with
me.
O
We
were
citing
the
nevada
students,
the
current
nevada
students,
which
is
something
like
12
000
from
sort
of
estimates
that
we
know
that
2.3
million
is
a
national
statistic
and
that
2.3
million
national
statistic
and
then
that
12
000
are
current
students.
So
anybody
who
is
currently
enrolled,
I
myself,
am
a
senior
in
college.
So
that's
you
know
my
son,
like
you
know
my
peers
and
my
other.
O
You
know,
fellow
current
college
students,
so
you
know
just
thinking
about
the
scope
of
that
and
the
you
know
the
real
sort
of
sense
of
that
that
that
is
current
and
that
does
not
account
for
any
sort
of
you
know,
former
generations,
by
any
means
and
to
speak
to
your
question
that
does,
you
know,
take
into
account
some
sort
of
a
broader
definition
of
sexual
violence
which
again
you
know
again.
O
Right
and
like
you
know,
I
think
what
you're
pointing
to
is
really
great,
and
it's
really
what
we're
aiming
to
get
to
with
this
bill
is
more
specificity,
more
knowledge
of
what's
happening
on
these
college
campuses
that
right
now,
we
just
don't
have
a
good
sense
of
this
other
than
these
sort
of
you
know
estimates
from
any
sort
of
data
collection.
That's
currently
been
happening.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you
very
much
chair
dennis
I,
as
a
mother
of
three
daughters
and
three
granddaughters
and
in
our
family
we've
got
lots
of
girls.
N
So
a
comment,
and
I
believe
that
if
broadcasting
can
pull
up,
there's
somebody
with
the
last
three
numbers
of
269
that
is
willing
to
jump
in
here
from
enchi,
but
I
believe
that
we
need
to
be
cognizant
of
of
the
data
of
where
it's
at
so
that
we
can
fix
and
help
and
assist
to
what's
going
on.
A
Okay,
thank
you
we'll
we're
we'll
we'll
try
to
patch
somebody.
In
case
you
have
any
questions
for
nca.
I
think
we
have
somebody
from
nc
that
that
we
could
ask
questions
of
while
we're
doing
that,
senator
buck.
E
Thank
you
so
much
chair
dennis
so
I
know
assemblywoman
taurus
has
been
working
closely
with
inchi
this
past
year
on
on
issues.
Just
what
you're
talking
about
and
so
have.
You
actually
spoke
to
canvas
college
leaders
to
inchi
leaders,
because
it's
one
thing
to
do
it
with
them
and
then
to
do
it
to
them
to
have
buy-in
so
will
and
she
be
on
board
with
your
bill.
O
O
The
answer
is
yes,
so
we
had
several
meetings
recently
with
and
she
folks
to
really
solidify
our
language
on
this,
and
you
know,
got
to
a
place
where
they
gave
us
some
a
bunch
of
suggestions
and
we
took
the
majority
of
them
and
you
know
felt
like
we
had
really
productive
conversations
and
so
by
all
means,
we've
been
working
closely
with
them
to
make
sure
that
this
is
a
bill
that
represents
all
interests.
O
I
will
also
say
that
you
know
where
this
bill
is
coming
from,
and
you
know
the
language
and
the
pieces
of
it
are
from.
You
know,
conversations
with
dozens.
Tens
of
you
know
of
students
and
survivors
across
nevada
who
have,
you
know,
really
made
it
clear
what
they
need
and
what
is
currently
missing,
and
so
you
know
I'll
say.
O
Yes,
we
have
talked
to
you
know,
and
she
folks
and
those
people-
and
you
know-
we've
talked
you
know
in
great
length,
with
students
and
survivors
who
have
expressed
how
much
you
know
is
lacking
and
how
much
they
need,
and
you
know
we
feel
really
confident-
and
you
know
good
about
this
bill
being
really.
You
know
again
those
first
steps
to
addressing
this
epidemic
and
yeah
happy
to
answer
any
further
questions
on
that.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
I
think
we
have.
We
have
entry
on
the
line
either.
I
think
it's
audio,
maybe
is
that
right,
bps.
H
J
J
Our
position
is
that
we
are
neutral
in
our
support
of
this
bill,
so
we
are
without
a
system
of
higher
education.
We've
been
engaged
in
conversation
with
the
senator.
Since
last
friday,
we
submitted
amendments
to
senator
schaible
in
her
office.
However,
without
a
full
friendly
amendment,
we're
not
comfortable
with
the
language
as
it
is,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
any
audi
or
any
amendment
comply
with
federal
law.
J
A
K
K
A
I
will
say
that
I
know
that
there
are
issues
and
I
know
that
they
are
working
on
them.
You
know
obviously
trying
to
get
all
the
stuff
done
in,
especially
in
this
particular
year
has
been
difficult
for
for
folks.
I
still,
I
think,
there's
some
merit
in
what
what
is
trying
to
be
accomplished
here
in
the
bill.
A
I
think
I
heard
dr
hardy
earlier
in
commercial
labor
say
it's
not
soup
yet,
and
I,
but
I
think
that
there
are
some
things
there
that
that
we
could
do
and
want
to
have
that
opportunity
to
to
to
give
you
to
be
able
to
work.
I
know
that
somebody
mentioned
the
one
over
in
the
assembly
they're
working
on
some
things.
I
think,
as
as
you
guys
communicate,
I
think
you're
gonna
find
some
things
that
that
that
can
work,
and
we
can
get
some
of
these
issues
and
it's
a
it's
a
complex
issue.
A
It's
you
know
there
there's
a
lot
of
concerns
right
and
we
we
have.
We
have
victims,
we
have
persons
that
are
accused.
We
have
all
these
different
issues
right
and
and
trying
to
figure
out
how
what
the
best
solution
is.
So
I
I
am,
I
am
comfortable
in
in
being
able
to
give
it
an
opportunity
to
to
continue
on
so
we
can
try
to
work
some
of
those
issues
out.
I
I
it
probably
has
a
fiscal
note
on
it.
A
I
can't
remember,
but
I'm
sure
it's
going
to
probably
get
and
some
of
that
have
to
be
figured
out,
but
so
so
I'm
I'm
comfortable
in
that
respect.
Other
other
questions
senator.
B
Donate
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
A
We
have
a
second
from
senator
lange.
Senator
do
you
have
a
comment?
So
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
comment:
senator
donate.
B
Thank
you
so
much
chair
dennis.
The
only
comment
that
I
wanted
to
mention
really
quick
is
that
I
commend
senator
scheible
for
bringing
this
forward
from
the
conversations
that
I
had
with
the
aclu
and
a
few
other
organizations.
I
know
that
there
are
still
some
kinks
that
need
to
be
figured
out
to
ensure
due
process
and
justice,
and
you
know
along
the
conversation
on
prevention
we
can.
I
think
we
can
accomplish
a
lot
of
this
by
supporting
comprehensive
sex
education
reform.
N
G
G
A
Yes
and
look,
and
I
look
forward
to
seeing
what
can
come
so
thank
you
for
for
that.
The
motion
passes.
I
believe
it
was
four
three.
Let's
go
to
the
next
item.
I
think
we
have
senate
bill
347.
H
L
A
L
And
senate
bill
354
is
was
presented
by
senator
dennis
on
april
5th.
The
bill
relates
to
school
discipline
and
restorative
justice
practices.
The
measure
requires
the
department
of
education
to
develop
a
statewide
framework
for
restorative
justice.
Restorative
justice
plans
developed
by
school
districts,
must
align
with
the
statewide
framework.
These
plans
must
also
include
input
from
students
the
measure
modifies
procedures
relating
to
suspension
or
removal
from
school.
L
Additionally,
the
bill
requires
a
school
to
offer
certain
services
to
a
student
who
is
temporarily
removed
from
school
senate
bill.
354
makes
various
changes
to
statutes
relating
to
suspension,
expulsion
and
removal
from
school
to
recognize
students
who
are
homeless
or
unaccompanied,
and
provides
that
a
student
may
not
be
expelled
or
suspended
from
school.
In
certain
circumstances,
the
bill
requires
the
department
of
education
to
include
a
related
indicator
in
the
statewide
system
of
accountability,
and,
finally,
the
bill
provides
for
the
disciplined
data
collected
by
public
schools.
L
We
did
receive
several
amendments
here
which
are
also
attached
to
the
work
session
document.
The
first
is
from
nevada's
department
of
education
and
my
brother's
keeper
to
replace
the
term
indicator
with
data,
and
then
the
second
set
of
amendments
from
my
brother's
keeper
includes
one
amend
provisions
in
section
six
concerning
services
and
considerations
for
students
temporarily
removed
from
school,
two
amend
provisions
in
section
seven
concerning
a
removed
student's
return
to
include
those
in
foster
care.
L
Three
amend
section
eight
regarding
students
who
are
habitually
disciplined
to
include
the
consideration
of
a
determination
made
by
a
local
representative,
four
amend
sections,
10
and
11
regarding
the
suspension
or
explosion
of
students
who
are
at
least
11
years
old,
to
include
considerations
for
foster
youth
and
to
include
certain
school
representatives
or
other
liaisons
in
determining
behaviors.
L
Next,
the
proposal
would
amend
section
14
to
change
the
effective
date
for
purposes
other
than
preparatory
administrative
tasks,
including
training
requirements
from
july
1,
2021
to
july
1,
2022
and
finally,
a
proposed
amendment
would
move
the
requirement
for
the
department
of
ed
to
develop
a
statewide
framework
for
restorative
justice,
from
chapter
392
of
nevada,
revised
statutes
to
chapter
388.
Mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
questions.
I
know
we
do
have
some
folks
on
here.
I
think
we
still
have
yep
sarah
nick
from
entry
or
from
that
department
and
some
other
books
senator
buck.
E
Thank
you,
chair
dennis,
so
my
question
is
a
lot
of
our
underserved
communities
end
up
with
you
know
more
discipline
issues
just
because
kids
come
with
trauma
and
different
things,
and
so
the
last
thing
that
I
would
want
to
do
is
publicly.
E
I
guess,
mark
them
as
a
bad
school,
because
you
know
students
are
coming
and-
and
maybe
we
just
need
more
training
for
those
schools
to
you
know,
implement
positive
behavior
systems
and,
and
that
sort
of
thing,
so
I
I'm
gonna,
be
a
no
on
this,
just
because
I
think
that
it
really
does
mark
our
most
underserved
communities
in
a
negative
light.
A
G
Motion
well
make
a
motion
to
amend
you.
A
Senator
danate
further
discussion
on
the
motion.
N
K
J
H
A
Yes,
thank
you.
The
motion
passes.
A
Okay
before
I
forget
for
the
floor.
Statements
for
102
hammond
you'd
do
that
126
centered
on
dondero
loop.
I
will
do
172.
A
All
right,
that's
the
only
items
that
we
have
on
our
agenda
today,
except
that
we
need
to
go
to
public
comment.
So
if
the,
if
we
could
have
bps
put
on
anyone,
anyone
wishing
to
give
public
comment,
you're
limited
to.
H
H
A
That's
all
we
have
before
us
today.
We
got
to
the
to
the
deadline
day
today
and
we
have
no
further
items
to
come
before
us.
I
want
to
thank
staff.
A
I
know
it's
been
difficult,
trying
to
get
all
this
stuff
and
all
these
amendments
and
trying
to
get
so
that
we
can
be
able
to
have
a
discussion
and
vote
on
some
bills
and
appreciate
all
that
that
great
work,
that
staff
has
put
forward,
appreciate
members
being
here
today
and
the
discussions
that
we've
had
as
we
can
tell
there's,
there's
a
lot
of
passion
when
it
comes
to
education
and
we're
all
trying
to
do
what's
best
for
kids
and
as
we
move
forward.
So
I
appreciate
that
so
with
that.
A
The
we
don't,
I
think
that
that's
all
we
have
for
now,
so
we're
I
don't
I
don't.
We
are
we're
done
with
the
work
that
we
need
to
do
so
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you,
pender
dennis,
yes,.
A
I
am
not
planning
to
meet
monday
at
this
point.
Okay,
that
could
change
so
just
keep
an
eye
on
the
thing,
but
I'm
not
planning
to
at
this
point.