Floor Transcripts

LB 348 (1993)

Select File

June 3, 1993


CLERK:  Mr. President, LB 348 is on Select File.  First, the E & R amendments were adopted last evening.  Senators Withem, Baack, and Bernard-Stevens have the first amendment, AM1541.  Senator Withem, I have a note you wish to withdraw and substitute AM2852 for that particular amendment.


SENATOR WITHEM:  That is correct.


SPEAKER BAACK:  No objection, so ordered.  Senator Withem.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Let me begin the discussion.  I know a lot of people want to get on to other legislation.  LB 348 is a bill that right now has 13 amendments filed to it.  It is the annual education clean-up bill.  It would be my desire to expedite




things as well as we could.  The first thing I have done to hopefully expedite things was to bundle six different amendments to the bill together that I thought were relatively noncontroversial.  That explanation of those has been passed out to you, AM2582 is on the desk.  I do understand that there may be some controversy with the item number five on my list, and there may be a request to divide that out, is that correct, Senator Wickersham?  Senator Wickersham, will be requesting that, so let me initiate that action and ask that pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, I believe it is Sections 19 and 22 of AM2582 be divided out and be considered separately.


SPEAKER BAACK:  Senator Withem, would you respond to a question from the Clerk please.


CLERK:  Senator, does that include all the way through, look on page 9, does that include, I am trying to figure out where it ends, Senator


SENATOR WITHEM:  It ends on the end of line 5 on page 9.


CLERK:  Gotcha, thank you very much.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Lines 46 and 47 would stay in this amendment under what I'm proposing.


SPEAKER BAACK:  I will rule that it is clearly divisible on those lines.  Which part do you want to take up first?


SENATOR WITHEM:  Let me take up the remainder of the amendment, and deal with Sections 22 or Section 19 and 22 separately. 


SPEAKER BAACK:  Okay, we will take up all of the amendment except for Sections 19 and 22, is that correct?


SENATOR WITHEM:  That would be my desire, yes.


SPEAKER BAACK:  You may start on those.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Okay.  This should be a relatively uncomplicated amendment.  It is clean-up language to a lot of...  a lot of other things, plus a couple of fairly minor items that have been brought to our attention.  This amendment would, first of all, if you remember we passed LB 452, which was a bill dealing with Educational Service Units serving as the rooters




for the Internet project.  That bill passed, did not have the emergency clause included.  We have a lot of Educational Service Units who have gotten very excited and very interested in doing this.  They would like to have had the emergency clause in place.  We don't have the emergency clause in place.  Some of these areas will be a year down the road getting access to this technology.  Secondly, LB 348 contains a provision moving the Fire Marshal's, excuse me, the Fire Training Division from the, Department of Education to the Fire Marshal's Office.  Funds in the Fire Marshal's...  funds in the Fire Safety Training Division will transfer also.  This amendment is needed to make sure that it is only the unobligated monies.  If monies have already been obligated in that Cash Fund, they ought.  not to transfer over to the new department.  Number three, the caucus system we've talked about, we've found that there is nothing in the statutes that allows school districts to choose their school board members via the caucus system, and that one ...  the only school district that does that currently is District 66 in Omaha.  There is nothing in it that allows them ...  gives them a process of filling vacancies.  Every other school board a vacancy is filled by a majority vote of the school board.  This adds that provision too with the caucus system so that vacancies can be filled via the vote of the local school board.  We passed LB 838 or LB 838 is on Final Reading, the changes to transportation options as it relates to the choice program.  There are other provisions of the statute that LB 838 did not pick up.  This amendment would add those to it.  And, finally, there is a provision in LB 348 affecting the operations of the Professional Practices Commission.  We inadvertently in that amendment changed the manner of election of officers.  This amendment would require...would allow the Professional Practices Commission to continue to elect its officers according to its current working rules.  I believe those are fairly noncontroversial, would ask that this provision of Ar02582 be adopted.  I would respond to any questions that anyone might have.


SPEAKER BAACK:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  Discussion on this portion of the amendment?  Seeing none, do you wish to close, Senator Withem?


SENATOR WITHEM:  I would urge this portion of the amendment be adopted.


SPEAKER BAACK:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  We will now vote on




this portion of the amendment.  All those in favor vote aye, opposed vote no.  Have you all voted?  Have you all voted on this portion of the amendment?  Record, Mr. Clerk.


CLERK:  26 ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on adoption of the first portion of Senator Withem's amendment.


SPEAKER BAACK:  The first portion is adopted.  Senator Withem, on the remaining portion of the amendment.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yes, let me open on this, and then give the rest of my time to Senator Schellpeper, who had originally filed this as a concept.  We talked a lot yesterday about a common levy.  Somebody, I think it might have been Senator Jones, raised the issue about if one school district wanted to build a building could cause everybody in an affiliated system to help pay for that.  I responded no because the common levy applies only to ...  only to the General Fund.  This amendment would make it apply to asbestos abatement and Americans With Disability Act, the improvements.  If you recall, we have a special levy for Aid to Dependent...  somebody.  ADA is Americans Disabilities Act and asbestos abatement, there is a special levy for those projects.  The Schellpener amendment would make that apply to the...to the entire affiliated system.  So that's what this would do.  I'll let Senator Schellpeper respond with the rationale for doing that.


SPEAKER BAACK:  Senator Schellpeper.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members, and thank you, Senator Withem.  This amendment came to me from the Stanton School District.  They are in the process right now of trying to do something for ADA and they also have had several affiliated districts that have affiliated with the Stanton District.  Actually, this amendment has two parts.  The first part amends the statutes relating to the environmental hazards and the accessibility barriers.  It makes no change in the manner which a levy is assessed or in the levy limits but it does impact all of the affiliated districts.  And, like I said, this came about from the Stanton District because I think we have ten districts now that are affiliating with the Stanton Public Schools.  For the affiliated school districts, the levy that will be used for the environmental hazards or the accessibility barriers, they will be assessed upon.  .  they may be assessed upon the taxable property of the school system, sending




its ninth through twelfth grade students to the district with which it is affiliated and that's because if you're going to send your students there, then you will also have to pay for this accessibility, the cost.  It will be...will be proportioned on to the benefit received by the affiliated district and the grade through nine-twelve students that participate in the affiliation.  The second part of this amendment or this that's in the Withem amendment now, it pertains to a special fund that a board of education may establish for purposes of acquiring sites for school buildings or for acquiring existing building!:, for the erection, alteration, equipping and furnishing of the school buildings.  And this levy would include the affiliated school districts and would be assessed in proportion to the benefit derived by students of grade nine through twelve participating in the affiliation.  Once again, this came about because if the affiliated districts are going to attend this high school then they should also have to, I think, pay for the cost of the facility that they are attending.  It shouldn't be borne by just the school that they affiliate with.  If you're going to try to treat everyone equal, I think that's the only way you can do it, and by affiliating and sending your high school kids to this high school, then you should also be willing to pay to have that building accessible not only for ADA but if you have to expand in order to send your children to this school, then you should be willing to also pay the levy, whatever it would be, to either acquire land or to bring the school district into compliance in order to handle those extra students.  So although it sounds like we are treating Class Is unfairly with this amendment, we're really not because it's ...  once you affiliated, then what you had to do, now- you're coming back and we're saying that if you're going to affiliate, you should also be willing to pay for the cost that it's going to cost to send your students there and to bring the current buildings up to ADA specifications.  And that's the case in my local school district.  We have to spend about a half million dollars in order to bring it up to ADA and the affiliated districts then will be helping pay for that.  Be glad to answer any questions.  Thank you.


SPEAKER BAACK:  Thank you, Senator Schellpeper.  Senator Wickersham.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  If Senator Schellpeper would yield to a question.






SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Now I thought I heard Senator Withem say something about the common levy in connection with this but, as I read it, it really doesn't have anything to do with the common levy because if you're a Class I, part of a Class VI, these proposals wouldn't affect that at all.  These...  this deals only with affiliated schools.




SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Okay.  The other...  and I'm not sure whether I am going to be opposed to this or not, it appears to be drafted in a way so that the nine through twelve portion of it is separated out and I understand your rationale for doing that.  I do have a couple of questions about the portion of it that deals with the construction of a new building or acquisition of land, that's Section 22.  And I see what you're doing is simply extending provisions of existing statutes so that the affiliated systems would fall in the same position.  But isn't there another mechanism for funding the acquisition of lands and buildings through bonds?  And do you know, do the affiliated schools, the member..  or the patrons of affiliated schools, are -'%--hey eligible to vote on a bond issue, for example, if you're going to build a new school?


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  I don't think they are at the present time.  I can't answer that, Senator, I really don't know on that issue.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Okay, the root of my concern really is that you have a board setting capital construction costs for' someone else to pay and they have no opportunity to participate in the discussion or even the voting for the people who are conducting the discussion about those capital construction costs.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  I don't, and the reason that I don't think they do is because Stanton is going to have a vote, I think September 22nd, or something like that, and they're going to vote on their ...  how they're going to pay for this ADA compliance.  And 1 don't believe that the affiliated districts are going to be able to vote.  I think it's just the Stanton School District, because I haven't heard of where they are talking, now they are...  they are going around to the other schools and discussing it with them but I don't believe they're




going to be able to actually vote.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  All right.  Well, Senator, what I'm going to suggest to you is that I think maybe the provisions of Section 19 represent a different case than the provisions of Section 22, and if there isn't any provision for those affiliated schools to participate in decision making about capital expenditures about which there is a choice, i.e., a new building a new parking lot, whatever, capital construction, I think they ought to be able to participate in that discussion if they're going to be able to pay for it.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  I think that's...


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  ADA compliance, arguably different, they don't have any choice.




SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Environmental hazard, arguably different because there's no choice.




SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  But I think the provisions in Section 22 are different and I would oppose the provisions of Section 22.  I think we ought to have an opportunity to explore that area.  If those people are not able to participate in those decisions, I think they ought to be able to.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  I agree with you that probably they should be able to vote on those issues also.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  So would you...  well, it's Senator Withem's amendment but I guess what I would propose is a further division that we take Section 22 spearately and 1 would oppose Section 22, 1 would not oppose Section 19.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  1 have no problem with that.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Mr. President, I would re ...  is it in order to request a further division along the lines that we have been discussing?






SENATOR HALL:  If you could give us just a minute, Senator Wickersham.  Would you please come up to the dais so we know just what we're talking about.  Thank you.  Senator Wickersham, it's my understanding then, and Senator Schellpeper, that we would be ...  we would continue with the portion of the amendment, the divided amendment that we have in front of us at present and then we would separate out Section 22 which begins at the top of, page 8 and runs through approximately the first quarter of page 9.  Is that correct?


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  That is correct, through line 5, on page 9.




SENATOR HALL:  Senator Withem, is that your understanding as well?


SENATOR WITHEM:  It is my understanding, yes, that that's what's being done, not necessarily my preference but it's my understanding.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you.  It's clearly divisible.  We'll allow for the division.  We are still presently on though the first division that I mentioned that begins or ends, rather, with Section 22.  Senator Wickersham, you have approximately one minute left on your time.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Mr. President, if 1 might clarify, we're on Section 22?


SENATOR HALL:  No, Section 19 ...




SENATOR HALL:  ...  the first half.




SENATOR HALL:  ...  that ends with Section 22 which begins on page 8.  (The second portion of the Withem amendment, FA297, appears on pages 2717-19 of the Legislative Journal.)


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Okay, thank you, Mr. President.  I ...  after that division, I would not oppose the provisions in Section 19.




As I stated briefly before, I believe you can make a distinction between those provisions and the following provisions in 22.  it seems to me that Section 19 deals with nondiscretionary items or at least in large part nondiscretionary items on the part of a school, and I understand what's being attempted in that regard.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Wickersham.  Senator- Bromm, your light is next.


SENATOR BROMM:  I would call the question on this part of the amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Bromm, I would rule that that motion would be out of order.


SENATOR BROMM:  Okay.  May I use my time to speak?


SENATOR HALL:  No.  You can put your light on though.  There aren't very many lights and you can speak subsequent, but once the motion to call the question, it's not debatable by the individual who makes it.  Senator Withem, your light is next.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, sir, whatever you're referred to as, the more I bear the debate on this issue the more I think this is probably not a good thing for us to be, doing at this time.  As it was brought to me and explained to me, I thought it was a simple nontechnical, uncomplicated, noncontroversial amendment.  It does, in fact., cause some people.  to pay taxes that they weren't paying before.  This is unlike what we did yesterday with other measures dealing with retirement and common levy and other things.  This was not a bill introduced.  It did not have a public hearing.  My prin...and also conscious of the time that every year the 88th day things become very complicated as far astime is concerned, I know I cannot do so at this particular point because one part of the divided amendment has been dealt with and I think the rules do not allow a withdrawal of the undivided portion.  My preference would be to withdraw the last division, have this amendment brought to a vote fairly quickly and vote it down and get on with the rest of the business.  This is a much more complicated matter than I think we should be dealing with at this particular point.  I know it's Senator Schellpeper's amendment originally.  He has it filed independently later on, and if he has a desire to bring it up at a later time, he ought to be able to do so.  I'm trying to extricate ourselves from a




relatively complicated process here and, at this point, what I would like to see is simply vote this down and if Senator Schellpeper wants it brought tip on his own later on, he can do SO.  But it's a part of a divided amendment that has my name on it, I am no longer in support and would think procedurally we ought to just vote no on either the two parts of the nondivided amendment or withdraw the provision to have it divided and vote no on the whole thing.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  Senator Schellpeper, your light in next.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members, Senator Withem, if I could ask you a question.


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Withem, if you would respond.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  Would you be supportive if we just took this first part and then withdrew the second part?


SE14ATOR WITHEM:  I don't think I would, Senator Schellpeper.  I'm just not comfortable with a matter that people have...that we've not had the record of a public hearing on.  I'm convinced now it's somewhat more complicated than I thought it was before so, no, I'm not comfortable voting yes on any of it.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  Okay.  This ...  the first part of the amendment that has to do with the accessibility and the environmental hazard, I don't believe there is any really opposition to that part of it, Senator.  The other part I think we should withdraw the last part, but this first part I think it could be taken care of because it is not ...  it isn't that not only complicated but it's...I think it's not that...  there isn't that much opposition to that either That would be my preference that we approve the first part of this divided question and then withdraw the last _Dart of the amendment that is the part that there is some opposition to.  And I would prefer that we do that and I would recommend that we do that, that we vote for the first part and then vote the other part down.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Schellpeper.  Senator Bromm, your light is next.


SENATOR BROMM:  I was simply rising to support the first part of




the amendment.  I did have some comments on the second part which we may not get to.  Just want:  to make the point though, if I understand the second part correctly, Senator Wickersham, I don't think we ever vote on...  on the sinking fund.  I understand that people in the affiliated districts don't vote on a building project, as such, but on the sinking fund itself the residents of the district don't either, although they do vote on the board members that establish the sinking fund, which is maybe another point.  On this first part of the amendment, however, on the barrier elimination and asbestos removal, those are projects that are mandated.  I think it may be important for some districts to be able to get started with some of those projects.  It's a logical thing that all those who will benefit from complying with those mandates help pay for those costs of complying with the mandates and so I really don't see, there ray be something I'm missing here, and if there is, I welcome ...  I would welcome Senator Withem's views on why this is controversial to the point that we should abandon it.  I do support the first part of the amendment at this point in time.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Bromm.  There are no further lights that are on, Senator Withem, would you care to close on this portion of the amendment?


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yeah, I would.  My recommendation would be because we're moving into an area here where I doubt if very many members of the body fully understand, I do not.  I thought it was represented to me as kind of a simple clarification item.  As we get into it, this is, in fact, recommending or it is, in fact, imposing taxes on people who heretofore had.  not been taxed.  I think it's the sort of thing we ought to at least have the benefit of a public hearing for those individuals to come forward.  I'm in an awkward position here because this is my amendment and I am...  I am closing on it.  At this point, I'm recommending that people do not support this particular portion of the amendment, either this one or the next one.  I would yield part of my time to Senator Schellpeper in fairness so that the last word you hear is at least from a supporter.  But I am not recommending a yes vote on this provision.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  Senator Schellpeper, you have four minutes to close.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  I think...  thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I think at this time I would recommend that we vote these both




down and I will bring the first part back as my own amendment later on that deal's with %the ADA.  I think that way We'll clear up the Withem amendment and I don't.  want to put him in a bad position here so I would recommend at this time that we vote both of them down.  Thank you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Schellpeper.  The question is the adoption of this portion of the Withem amendment.  All in favor vote aye, opposed nay.  Have you all voted?  Record Mr. Clerk.


CLERK:  1 aye, 22 nays on the amendment, Mr. President.


SENATOR HALL:  The amendment is defeated.  The next portion of the Withem amendment, Mr. Clerk.


CLERK:  Section 22.


SENATOR HALL:  Section 22.  Senator Withem, to open on this portion of your amendment.  (The third Withem amendment, FA298, appears on pages 2719-20 of the Legislative Journal.)


SENATOR WITHEM:  Again, this is the contro...certainly is the controversial portion of it.  I understand Senator Schellpeper will be bringing back the other provision in a few moments.  I think everybody agrees at this point, seems to, that this ought not to be adopted.  So I would urge a no vote.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you very much, Senator Withem.  There are no lights.  We'll take that as your opening and your close.  The question is the adoption of this portion of the Withem amendment.  All in favor vote aye., opposed nay.  Have you all voted?  Record, Mr. Clerk.


CLERK:  0 ayes, 19 nays, Mr. President, on the amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  The amendment is defeated.  Other items?


CLERK:  The next amendment is by Senator Schimek.


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Schimek, to open on your amendment.


SENATOR SCHIMEK:  Yes, Mr. President, members of the body, you will find this amendment on page 1787 in your Journal.  And I brought this as a bill.  It was heard by the Education Committee




who did change it and...  and what I have proposed here today as an amendment to this bill is actually the amendment that the Education Committee...  the bill- as the Education Committee amended it.  I brought the bill on behalf of the Lincoln Public School System because they had some parents in the district who came to them and said to them, would you consider...  could we consider having year-round school at our elementary school?  And the reason that they were interested in doing this is because of the overcrowding situation in their school they were afraid that their children were going to have to be taken out of the school and bussed to a different elementary school.  So the parents, themselves, initiated this idea.  Lincoln Public Schools then felt that there needed to be some kind of enabling leg ...  enabling language in statute so they came to the Legislature.  What this bill would do or what this amendment would do would provide that if a school chose to use their facilities year round, and I want to make that very clear, we're talking about year-round use of facilities, not year-round school, not having children, the same child in school all year round.  It's the facilities we're talking about.  They could do that with an affirmative vote of 75 percent of the school board.  The vote would be taken at a public meeting after a public hearing, a special public hearing, as a matter of fact, called for that purpose to receive testimony.  The school board would have to give adequate notice, at least seven calendar days, about the time, place and purpose of the hearing, and publish it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the district.  The intent is that this would be optional.  The intent that we would preserve local control, it would be up to the school board, it would take 75 percent of the board to approve it and it would be not increasing hours, it would simply shuffling use of the teachers and using the facilities year round.  With that, a I would be happy to try to answer any questions and I would urge adoption of this amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Schimek.  is there any discussion of the amendment as offered by Senator Schimek?  Senator Wehrbein, on the Schimek amendment.


SENATOR WEHRBEIN:  Mr. Speaker and members, Senator Schimek, did this have any opposition at the hearing?  Was there any discussion?  I missed what bill number it was too.


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Schimek.




SENATOR SCHIMEK:  I'll try to find out for you, Senator Wehrbein.  The bill number was LB 186, and I have to go back and look because it was heard, of course, by the Education Committee.  And, remember, the bill is changed...




SENATOR SCHIMEK:  ...  from what it was.


SENATOR WEHRBEIN:  I would like...I was going to study it.  I have no particular opposition to this.  I ...  I was just kind of interested if there was any opposition expressed because, it if obviously, this is a may", it's not a "shall , evidently, if there was a need to have a statute change in order to do this which I would not have been aware of.  But to use facilities year round I think is something that needs to be looked at and so I'm perfectly acceptable to moving ahead on this.  I just simply wondered if there was any comments or opposition made to this while it was in the hearing and if there's something we should know about.


SENATOR SCHIMEK:  Staff tells me that there was no formal opposition.


SENATOR WEHRBEIN:  Okay.  Thank you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Wehrbein.  Senator Withem, your light is next.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yeah, I'm sitting back here debating whether I should get into this or not.  I think there is a key point, 'Senator Wehrbein, that does need to be clarified here that I don't know that Senator Schimek touched on, at least to any great extent in her opening remarks.  Currently, local school districts can go to year-round school if they choose to do so.  They can do so %through going to a vote of the people.  What the Lincoln Public Schools wanted, and they didn't want it just for Lincoln schools, they wanted it ...  the option for any school district in the state.  They wanted the ability to designate a pilot program, an individual school building as a...as a year-round school project without having to have a vote in the entire district.  And they brought in a bill to do that.  And they had a number of different problems solving techniques trying to find a way to get the vote of the constituents that, attended a given school district and they talked about a poll




and they talked about an election of that...  of those schools and other methods to sample the public opinion around that given school.  And they were just too cumbersome.  The committee just felt that that wouldn't work.  And we had a discussion inside the committee and it went along the lines of if we believe in local control, if we believe the 'Local school boards are empowered to make decisions about the operation of their schools, should this not be a decision that local school boards have?  And so to simplify the process, what we said in our committee amendment- was rather than dealing with how they vote and who votes and what part of the area votes, why don't we just simply empower with a supermajority of the school board after adequate public notice in A public hearing that they have...  the school board would have the right to make this determination about the use of their facilities year round.  So that is what thought process the committee went through.  The original bill did not contain the ability of the school board to make this decision, but this amendment that we set forward does and that's what Senator Schimek has in front of you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  is there any other discussion on the Schimek amendment as we have it before us?  Seeing none, Senator Schimek, would you care to close?  She waives closing.  The question is the adoption of the Schimek amendment.  All in favor vote aye, opposed nay.  Have you all voted?  Have you all voted?  We're voting on the adoption of the Schimek amendment to LB 343.  Record, Mr. Clerk.


CLERK:  26 ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on adoption of Senator Schimek's amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  The Schimek amendment is adopted.  Is there other items on the bill?


CLERK:  Yes, sir.  Senator Wickersham would move to amend with AM1739.


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Wickersham, to open on your amendment.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  I would withdraw this amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  It's withdrawn.  Mr. Clerk, other items?


CLERK:  Senator Schellpeper has the next amendment, AM1757.




SENATOR HALL:  Senator Schellpeper, to open on your amendment.  Senator Schellpeper.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Would it be possible, I've got the other amendment coming down from the bill drafters to take it up later on the bill, to Just pass over it for now and take it up later?


SENATOR HALL:  We'll.  pass over it at this time.  Thank you very much.






CLERK:  The next amendment, Mr. President, is by Senator Baack, AM1738.


SENATOR HALL:  Mr. Speaker, on your amendment.


SPEAKER BAACK:  Yes, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this is ...  this should not take long This is just some cleanup that we're doing on the open enrollment bill that we passed a number of years ago on the option bill.  As this...as we have gotten into the open enrollment process and as schools have seen how the process works, they have asked us to make a number of changes in the way that we file applications and the way that we...  and they're asking for some elimination of some dates in the law.  We do that.  One of things that this does is it eliminates the step that a person who is applying for option, we, in the original bill, we said you had to apply to the resident district immediately and then you...  and then you also applied to the option district.  Now you apply to the.  option district and the option district then informs the resident district that that person has applied.  This does not apply to OPS because they have special provisions because of their desegregation plan so this does not apply for OPS.  One of the other changes in this is, oh, dealing with the amendment that we adopted of Senator Bernard-Stevens yesterday on LB 838, 1 believe it was, we adopted an amendment on that dealing with a person who went to a private school for a while and then wanted to opt back to their original option district.  This just creates a paper trail for it to make sure that when they do go back to that district, which we did allow yesterday, that they have to reapply and it creates a paper trail for that.  One other change of any




substance is the ...  there have been some schools that have been having some questions as to whether or not open enrollment applies to preschool.  It was...  I'm not sure where those questions are coming from but it was not intended to apply to preschool so we do put into the statute that open enrollment applies to K through 12 only, it does not apply to preschools also.  So we do put that into the...  into the statute to clarify that.  And, with that, I would urge the adoption of the amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  is there any discussion of the amendment as offered by Senator Baack?  Seeing none, Senator Baack, would you care to close?  He waives.  The question is the adoption of the amendment as offered by the Speaker.  Those in favor vote aye, opposed nay.  Have you all voted?  Record, Mr. Clerk.


CLERK:  26 ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on adoption of Senator Baack's amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  The Baack amendment is adopted.  Further items.


CLERK:  The next amendment, Senator Withem has AM1869 with a note to withdraw, Senator.




SENATOR HALL:  It is withdrawn.


CLERK:  The next amendment is by Senator Baack, AM20 ...  withdraw.


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Baack requests it to be withdrawn.  It is.


CLERK:  Senator Withem, 1985, again, a note to withdraw.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yeah, if I could just very briefly indicate.  This was the amendment that would impose the ...  would place the in lieu of taxation provision in LB 348.  We chose yesterday to put that provision and the-common levy provision on a different bill, the desire being to make changes here to 348 noncontroversial and nontechnical.  I see no reason to do this.  I make this point at this time because I know Senator Wickersham has indicated he will try to do ---his.  I think it will be a colossal waste of legislative time to do so.  If he wants to




waste legislative tine, that is certainly his prerogative; but I would see no need to add the in lieu of taxation issue on this so I would withdraw it.


SENATOR HALL:  It is withdrawn.


CLERK:  Senator Withem, 1989, Senator.




SENATOR HALL:  It is -withdrawn.


CLERK:  Senator Withem, 1988.




SENATOR HALL:  It is withdrawn.


CLERK:  Senator Withem 2263.




SENATOR HALL:  It is withdrawn.


CLERK:  Senator Wickersham, AM2539.


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Wickersham, to open on your amendment.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  I will withdraw that amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  it is withdrawn.


CLERK:  Senator Wickersham, AM2540.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  I will withdrew that amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  It is withdrawn.


CLERK:  Senator Wickersham, AM2579.  (See page 2721 of the Legislative Journal.)


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Wickersham to open on his amendment.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Okay, thank you, Mr. President.  This is the one that Senator Withem indicated was going to be a colossal




waste of time.  I hope it isn't that at all.  The amendment, it was filed this morning, and I have not bothered to pass it out because you've had the language in front of you for quite some time in a variety of forms.  What it would do is amend LB 348 to include the in lieu of tax distributions that Senator Withem has been promoting and became a part of another bill yesterday.  The reason I am offering the amendment is because the E & R amend...as the bill now stands, 348 with the E & R amendments, has a provision in it which says that the ...  or at least I believe the status of the bill is that the in lieu of tax would be distributed at 100 percent of the last appraised value of school lands, and this appraised value is by the Board of Educational Lands and Funds.  LB 839 says 80 percent.  I think unless we do something, and maybe I can be corrected on this, unless we do something, 348 and LB 839 will be in conflict.  I would just as soon that LB 839 and 343 were in concert and that's what the amendment would do.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Wickersham.  Senator Withem, your light is next.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yes, Senator Hall, I see absolutely no need to do this.  Senator Wickersham talked about a conflict.  That had not been pointed out to me.  If there is one, there may be another way of resolving it, but I see no need to add the in lieu of tax issue to this provision at this time.  We did it yesterday in many ways that my guess is that, and it is an appropriate use of the procedure, I am not going to stand and chastise Senator Wickersham for his use of Cie procedure here by any stretch of the imagination, but I would...  I think it is the next volley in trying to undo what was obviously the will of the body yesterday, and that is to deal with the common levy, to put the in lieu of taxation in this issue, and you know I see absolutely no reason to do that.  Whenever varying versions of legislation pass, the E & R office looks toward legislative intent.  The legislative intent is clear.  We chose yesterday co do what we chose to do.  I see no need whatsoever of doing this at this time.  Senator Wickersham, is AM2579 distributed?


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Wickersham.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  No, it was not, Senator.  I can make you a copy.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Well, I would like more than a copy I think.




If you are indicating that there is a conflict with what was done yesterday with what's here today, I would have appreciated at least having that information in front of me.  You did indicate to me earlier that you were going to do this.  I would be interested, though, in knowing what it is you are doing.  I would urge people not to support this particular amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  Senator Wickersham, your light is next.


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  All right.  Thank you, Mr. President, and I apologize for not distributing it.  I can simply read it.  it affects the E & R AM5471.  It inserts language on page 37.  And, in fact, it does so appropriately where the AM5471 has an error in it.  It is the same error we pointed out yesterday in connection with LB 839.  It strikes too many words.  The amendment puts the proper words back in place.  It simply says that, for purposes of the in lieu of tax, the same percentage of the appraised value as the percentage of the assessed value is of market value in section 77-1360.01 will be used, and on page 38, 1 line 8, inserts language that says the value calculation in this subsection shall be used by the Commissioner of Education for making distributions in the 92-93 school year and every year thereafter.  That's exactly the same language that is in LB 839.  1 will reiterate, unless we put exactly the same language into 348 and we pass 348 as it is now, we have a conflict because 348 as it stands now says that what you use is the last appraised value of such school land, period, which is 100 percent.  It isn't the percentage stated in 771360.01.  it is 100 percent.  We could literally pass two bills in the same session that had conflicting provisions.  And I think with any amount of caution, we ought to take care of that.  I see no reason to confront bill drafters or anyone else with that kind of conflict.  How are they supposed to know what our intent is.  We passed both of them, and that's the purpose of the amendment.  It is not a volley at the common levy.  If I wanted to offer amendments about the common levy, I would have done it.  I withdrew two of those amendments.  Those were the two...  those were the two amendments that I withdrew prior to this one.  if I wanted to battle about the common levy, I would have done it.  This is a corrective amendment.  Thank you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Wickersham.  Mr. Clerk, an amendment to the amendment on the desk.




CLERK:  Mr. President, Senator Withem would move to amend Senator Wickersham's amendment.  (See FA299 on page 2721 of the Legislative Journal.)


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Withem on your amendment.


SENATOR WITHEM:  At this point, I am.  checking to see if this is drafted properly.  What I want to do, if Senator Wickersham is sincere in his statement that he doesn't want to see two conflicting versions of the measure passed, what I would like to do is simply strike out of LB 348 any reference to the issue of in lieu of taxes.  We are checking to see if it has been drafted properly.  That would be the proper way of handling the conflict in the two bills would be to simply strike from LB 348 any reference to common...  to in lieu of taxation.  What I am suggesting we do is strike Section 36 because I had not seen the amendment prior to this.  I don't know as we have it drafted right.  That is my intent.  I am going to ask committee counsel, if she would, please, to give me some room with the microphone and maybe check and make sure we get this drafted properly.  Let me talk on the purpose of doing this.  Again, this would be the proper way of resolving the conflict between the two bills.  It would be to remove any reference to in lieu of taxation from LB 348, and let LB 839, which the body took a great deal of time on yesterday, let that be the statement that the Legislature makes on in lieu of taxes.  So my purpose in this amendment is to strike from this bill, LB 348, the reference to the section that deals with in lieu of taxation.  I may not have the proper section, but at least to understand my intent, and we will get it drafted properly here in a moment or two if it is not drafted properly now.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  Senator Bromm, on the amendment to the amendment as offered by Senator Withem.


SENATOR BROMM:  Well, I had my light on with regard to the Wickersham amendment, which I would support.  I I ...  and I understand, I understand maybe what's going on here just a little bit, although I'm not sure.  I think, I think it's a good measure to go ahead and adopt the Wickersham amendment for insurance.  I think it's important that we get the 20 million dollars distributed in accordance with the court decision and the Attorney General's Opinion and what's right and that's the thing we need to be sure that we do for the school districts.  Now the thing that happened here, as you well recall, is that it




got tied in with the very controversial measure pertaining to the common levy and Senator Withem very well understands that.  Now, that's a rather controversial bill and if something would happen to that bill that it did not get signed then we don't have the distribution of 20 million dollars.  Let's ...  let's be realistic about it.  So if we leave the language in here, I think we have a better chance and we are assured of getting that 20 million dollars distributed.  If by some chance the LB 839 does not become law, we aren't -in a problem with the distribution of those funds and I think ...  I ...  I ...  I see nothing wrong with that.  I think that's...  that's only right.  If it were not stuck in with such a controversial measure, then I'd see no reason for this backup measure, but I view this as a backup measure and I think we should vote down what I understand will be the Withem amendment to the amendment and I do support the Wickersham amendment.  Thank you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Bromm.  Senator Baack, your light is next.


SENATOR BAACK:  Yes, Senator Hall and members, I think that Senator Withem has the right idea.  The way we ought to deal with this is we ought to strike all reference to the in lieu of taxes in LB 348 and not deal with that at all in LB 348.  It seems to me that it's...  that it doesn't make much sense to pass two sets of laws, one in 348 and one in LB 839, that deal with the same provisions.  We don't need to do that.  We don't need two sets out there.  We've got LB 839 with the provisions have been ...  have been put into for the ...  for the distribution of those dollars and LB 839 is on Final Reading and will be up before the body probably Monday or Tuesday.  It seems to me that that's the vehicle we use for the in lieu of taxes now.  We don't need another bill out there with that and I think that Senator Withem is going to have the proper language drafted to simply eliminate the..  all references to the in lieu of taxes and that's exactly how we handle ...  ought to handle this issue and then we don't have any conflict.  The issue will be handled with LB 839.  Thank you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Senator Bernard-Stevens, your light is next.


SENATOR BERNARD-STEVENS:  Simply to add my concurrences to what Speaker Baack mentioned and, again, at a time in this part of -:he session, some time this evening, and might even be late




afternoon, but sometime this evening, we are going to have to call it quits on all bills that would be amended that are on Select File simply because E & R won't be able to get them back before us to be reported in order to have them on Final Reading.  So we only have a few hours, really, left to attack some of the other issues that many of us want to get to.  I don't really see any ...  I don't see any benefit whatsoever to rehash an.  issue that we've already, number one, voted on and is sitting on Final Reading and we can vote yes and no on at that point, but simply to have another duplication of what we've already got.  I mean if Senator Wickersham wants to do that, spend the time on these things, that's fine.  I, personally, think we have an obligation to say, number one, we've decided the issue, at least at Select File.  It is on Final Reading.  We can vote no or yes, just like on the pop tax, just like on the beverage tax.  That's what Final Reading is all about.  It is a one-time, one-vote shot.  We don't need to have a duplication at this level as well.  It makes no sense to do so and I urge the adoption of the Withem amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Bernard-Stevens.  Senator Withem, your light is next.


SENATOR WITHEM:  The amendment, LB...  the amendment simply strikes Section 37 from the bill at this point.  This is the amendment to the Wickersham amendment.  It will take care of what Senator Wickersham said was his concern.  There will not be conflicting language.  We will have the appropriate language in LB 839.  There will not be the section in 348.  This will handle the problem.  It is Section 37 of the bill, green copy of the bill, starting on page 36, moving over to page 38.  There is no need, whatsoever, in my opinion to have this language in the bill, to refight the same fight.  If Senator Wickersham wishes to do so, he is certainly welcome to, but I don't think there is a need to.  I would urge you to adopt the Withem amendment and then adopt the amended Wickersham amendment, or vote down the Withem amendment and then vote down the Wickersham amendment.  I don't care which way you go.  I just don't see a lot of point in continuation of the in lieu of debate.  It was handled yesterday.  It was handled properly.  1 11-1 was handled in a consensus fashion.  It will be voted on.  There should not be a problem.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  Senator Wickersham, your light is next.




SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I really cannot support Senator Withem's amendment.  I am anxious that the in lieu of tax issue be dealt with, and I understand that we have a bill before tin that may take care of that, LB 839.  1 have not made up my mind whether I am going to vote for LB 839 because of other provisions in that bill.  I think Senator Bromm raised a valid consideration, and that is that perhaps we should have a vehicle which is noncontroversial to deal with in lieu of tax because that provision is noncontroversial.  And so I think it is appropriate to reject the Withem amendment to my amendment, adopt my amendment so we have no conflict between 348 and LB 839 and maybe one of them will pass an deal with the in lieu of tax.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Wickersham.  Senator Withem, there are no other lights on.  Would you care to close on your amendment?


SENATOR WITHEM:  Simply, this is the proper way of handling what Senator Wickersham sees as a problem.  I would urge you to support it.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  You've heard the close on the Withem amendment to the Wickersham amendment.  All those in favor vote aye, opposed nay.  We are voting on the Withem amendment to the amendment, have you all voted?  Have you all voted?  Record, Mr. Clerk.  Senator Withem.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yeah, we need a call of the house please and...


SENATOR HALL:  You've heard the motion for the house to go under call.  Those in favor vote aye, opposed.  Record, Mr. Clerk.


CLERK:  19 ayes, 0 nays to go under call.


SENATOR HALL:  The house is under call.  All members return to the Chamber, record your presence, the house is tinder call.  All unauthorized personnel please leave the floor.  Senator Beutler, if you could check in please.  Senator Elmer, if you could check in please.  We are looking for Senators Pirsch, Chambers, Haberman and Wesely.  If you would return to the Chamber, the house is under call.  Senator Withem, are you authorizing call-in votes.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Call-in votes.




SENATOR HALL:  Call-in votes will be accepted.


CLERK:  Senator Ashford voting yes.  Senator Abboud voting yes.  Senator Fisher voting no.  Senator Elmer voting no.  Senator Avery voting no.


SENATOR HALL:  We are still looking for Senators Haberman, Pirsch, and Chambers.  If you would return to the Chamber, the house is under call.


CLERK:  Senator Witek voting no.  Senator Wesely voting yes.  Senator McKenzie voting no.  Senator Beutler voting yes.


SENATOR HALL:  We are looking for Senator Haberman and Senator Chambers.


CLERK:  Senator Haberman voting no.


SENATOR HALL:  We are still looking for Senator Chambers.  The house is under call.  Senator Withem, we are not able to locate Senator Chambers at this time.  What is your preference?


SENATOR WITHEM:  My preference is to attempt to locate Senator Chambers.


SENATOR HALL:  We will proceed to do that.  Mr. Speaker, possibly if you would consider changing the agenda so we could take up LB 365, Senator Chambers might materialize.  Senator Withem, Senator Chambers' office thinks that he may have stepped out of the building.  They are unable to locate him at present.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Proceed with the roll call then.


SENATOR HALL:  Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.


CLERK:  (Roll call vote taken.  See pages 2721-22 of the Legislative Journal.) 18 ayes, 17 nays.


SENATOR HALL:  The amendment to the amendment is not adopted.  We are back on the Wickersham amendment.  There are no other lights to speak to the ...  Senator Withem, on the Wickersham amendment.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yes, I would urge that the Wickersham amendment




not be adopted.  Yeah, I apologize for-the time this has taken, but we took a lot of time yesterday to resolve an issue.  The same thing is going on here that I was accused of doing yesterday and that's fine.  I'm not one that criticizes people using the rules and the system that's available- to them.  I think that is appropriate, but the ...  there are a lot of important things in LB 348 that need to happen.  There are a lot of important things that need to be discussed on 345.  There are a lot of important things on, you know, other issues before us this session, but if we want to relive yesterday and relive a decision that this body made yesterday we can continue to do that and that really is what this is all about.  I gave Senator Wickersham a way of dealing with what he said he wanted.  He wanted a bill that did...  two bills that did not pass in conflict.  That was done with the Withem amendment.  That was rejected.  It is not...  it is not a good faith amendment.  It was not offered in good faith.  I don't think it was stated in good...  it was argued in good faith terms.  There was an attempt to deal with it in a good faith manner.  That amendment was rejected.  I see no reason whatsoever to adopt this amendment unless it is a wholesale assault on LB 839 that was passed yesterday.  We made a tough decision yesterday.  The body came together.  Once again.  and I'm going to talk a little bit about my frustrations in dealing with the Class VIs, the Class Is, rural education in general, we made a concession.  yesterday.  We made a concession saying that the Class VIs will not have to live with the common levy as quickly as everybody else in the state will.  Seemed to make some sense yesterday.  We adopted that.  As a body, we grabbed a hold of one of those very tough issues that the body only grabs a hold of in the area of education once in a very, very rare while.  What we're doing here today is reliving that.  If you adopt the Wickersham amendment you're falling into a strategy of just simply reliving that.  If the good faith attempt was to remove language from this bill that would be in conflict with LB 839, Senator Wickersham had the opportunity to do that.  He rejected it.  I do not see a need for adoption of the Wickersham amendment.  I would urge you to vote no.,


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  I would remind the body that we still are under call.  Senator Bernard-Stevens, your light is the last one.


SENATOR BERNARD-STEVENS:  Just briefly, Mr. President, members of the body, I can't speak for Senator Withem, I haven't talked




to him about this, but it does bring to mind another bill that we had not too long ago.  An amendment was put on.  Senator Withem opposed the amendment.  There was a motion to indefinitely postpone and the bill was laid over, which Senator Withem can do.  I don't know if he would do that on this.  I suspect the issue is important enough on the in lieu of taxes and the common levy that I suspect he would.  I would.  And if we want to do that game, that's fine.  A bluff was called once.  The bluff is called and the bill's laid over.  These are games that are being played now, that's all it is.  Senator Wickersham came up on the floor, checked a transcript and said all he wanted to do was to have consistency.  The Withem amendment took away all the in lieu of within this bill so there was no inconsistency at all, but Senator Wickersham and all of the others who opposed the position that the Legislature took yesterday said...  Senator Wickersham and others voted no on that saying that we don't want that kind of consistency; we want another kind of consistency which is simply to undo what was done yesterday.  I would encourage Senator Withem that if the Wickersham amendment was agreed to I will file the motion to indefinitely postpone and I will urge Senator Withem to lay it over because I think the battle that was fought yesterday is such a momentous movement on tax policy in this state that I am not going to go back another step and fight it all over again year, after year, after year.  I will file the motion.  I hope Senator Withem lays it over.  This bill would then be done and what we have done in trying to refight an issue that is on Final Reading, that will be fought there anyway, is jeopardize some good things in the Department of Education and elsewhere and 348 that truly needs to be done on a game.  I'm not willing to...  I wish we wouldn't be in that position.  I'm willing to do that because of the importance of what was decided yesterday.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Bernard-Stevens.  Senator Moore, your light is on.


SENATOR MOORE:  I rise to support Senator Wickersham's amendment and not for the reason Senator Wickersham stated.  I don't...  it wasn't technical reasons.  I rise to support Senator Wickersham's amendment because I was opposed to the amendment that got adopted yesterday.  And Senator Bernard-Stevens is accurate, but not entirely true when he says you can debate the issue on Final Reading.  You can't really do it.  Today's the last Jay you can amend anything.  By amending that bill on Final Reading yesterday, you lost all opportunity to really discuss it




and have anybody have an attempt to take it out.  And the...and, unlike Senator Withem when he got an unfriendly amendment attached to his bill by Senator Wickersham, in this manner I certainly don't think I'm at the liberty to do that with an Appropriations Committee bill.  I don't think it should be done.  I'm going to vote Senator Wickersham's amendment because the in lieu of tax thing should have been debated on this bill today.  If we're worried about ...  we weren't worried about time yesterday.  We are today.  I'm going to vote for Senator Wickersham's -amendment and then I'm going to vote no on the advancement of LB 839 because I don't think the common levy should have went in that and I urge the body to do the same.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Moore.  Senator Bromm, your light is the last.


SENATOR BROMM:  Senator Moore basically said about what I was going to say so I'll be very, very brief, but I think the in lieu of tax payment should not be held hostage to...  to the common levy question and...  and there is no game here as far as I'm concerned.  I think the strategy that was applied yesterday was a game and it was successful.  Was a very, very close vote, but it was successful and I think...  I think the body needs to understand that if LB 839 does not pass, we're going to have that 20 million dollars not distributed, and we're going to have constituents to answer to as to what kind of games we did play down here and why we attached a very controversial measure to that very noncontroversial measure that needed to be done--that is distribute the 20 million dollars.  Now, I ask...  I asked Senator Bernard- Stevens, I asked Senator Withem, what is the harm in putting that provision in this bill as a backup measure?  If you want to get the 20 million dollars out there to those folks, what is the harm, unless you're trying- to hold ...  unless you're trying to hold this hostage to the passage of the uniform levy amendment?  So I urge the body to adopt this amendment.  gives us a backup measure.  It's the right thing to do to be sure that we get that money out there and it's as simple as that.  I thank you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Bromm.  Senator Bernard....  Senator Wickersham, would you care to close on your amendment?


SENATOR WICKERSHAM:  I'll just be very brief.  I believe that the amendment has valid purposes.  You may each vote for it or against it, depending on your own assessment of what those




purposes are.  I think it should be adopted.  Thank you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Wickersham.  You've heard the close on the Wickersham amendment to LB 348.  The question is ...


SENATOR WITHEM:  Roll call vote, please.


SENATOR HALL:  ..shall the amendment be adopted.  We've had a request for a roll call vote.  Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.  The house is under call.  Would the members please check in?  There's been a request for members to please check in.  If we would do that, it'd expedite the roll call vote.  Senator Ashford.  Senator Robak.  Senator Robinson.  All members are present that are in the building.  Mr. Clerk, call the roll.


CLERK:  (Roll call vote taken.  See pages 2722-23 of the Legislative Journal.) 20 ayes, 17 nays on the amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  The amendment is not adopted.  Further items on the bill, Mr. Clerk?


CLERK:  Next amendment I have, Senator Schellpeper, AM1757, with a note you want to withdraw that one, Senator.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  Yes, Mr. Chairman ...


SENATOR HALL:  Withdrawn.


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  ..and members, I'd like to substitute AM2589 and that amendment is the amendment that we talked about earlier and this amendment only deals with the ADA and the asbestos.  This would apply to the noncontroversial part of the amendment that I had earlier and this part would affect affiliated school districts.  Be glad to answer any questions.


SENATOR HALL:  Thanks, Senator Schellpeper.  The call is raised.  You heard the introduction by Senator Schellpeper.  Senator Withem followed by Senator Wesely.


SENATOR WITHEM:  Yes.  Just in the interest (laughter), and they will not stand in front of my microphone again I promise you, just in the interest of expediting things, I think what Senator Schellpeper has probably done here is remove the most onerous part of the bill.  I still have concerns about doing this without public hearing but I think probably the policy argument




is on his side so I will be supporting this amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Withem.  Senator Wesely, your light is the last.


SENATOR WESELY:  Thank you.  Senator Schellpeper, can you describe what the amendment does?


SENATOR SCHELLPEPER:  Okay, this amendment, Senator Wesely, if you affiliate and if you send your ninth through twelfth grade students to a school and if that school has to do some work for ADA compliance or asbestos removal, then it will be prorated on a per student basis to that school chat attends this high school.  This amendment came about from the City of Stanton schools.  They are in the process of having to do some ADA work.  They had ten districts that affiliated with Stanton and now they are...the affiliated district will also help pay for the ADA work for the students on a prorated basis -that attend that school.


SENATOR WESELY:  Okay, thank you.


SENATOR HALL:  Thank you, Senator Wesely.  There are no other lights.  Senator Schellpeper, would you care to close?  He waives closing.  The question is the adoption of the Schellpeper amendment to LB 348.  All in favor vote aye, opposed nay.  Have you all voted?  Record, Mr. Clerk.


CLERK:  34 ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on the adoption of Senator Schellpeper's amendment.


SENATOR HALL:  The Schellpeper amendment is adopted.  Any further items on the bill?


CLERK:  Nothing further on the bill, Mr. President.


SENATOR HALL:  Senator Hohenstein.


SENATOR HOHENSTEIN:  Move that LB 348 be advanced to E & R for engrossment.


SENATOR HALL:  You've heard the motion.  All in favor say aye.  Opposed.  The bill is advanced.  Mr. Clerk, the A bill.


CLERK:  LB 348A, Senator, I have no amendments to the bill at