Transcript Prepared
by the Clerk of the Legislature
TranscriberÕs Office
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 2
TAMMY
BARRY: Hi, my name is Tammy Barry
and IÕm the Legal Counsel for the Education Committee. IÕm here this morning to
introduce... or this afternoon, to
introduce LBs 345, 346, and 347 on behalf of Senator Bohlke. I will start with 345 ... or I shall start with a more general
overview of all three bills. They
were products of the recodification process that went on last year and the year
before. The major bill that came
out of the recodification process was LB 900 and it was passed and signed by
the Governor last year. These
three bills had touched on some substantive changes and were not included in
the main bill and ... but these
three bills all were introduced and advanced to General File last year. Legislative Bill 345 deals with
defining school lands, a Permanent School Fund, and a Temporary School
Fund. The Permanent School Fund is
the perpetual fund and the Temporary School Fund is the fund that is used for
holding income for distribution to school districts. And the other two major changes that are in that bill have
to do with defining Òlegal voterÓ and making the terminology for voters uniform
throughout Chapter 79. And then
also for school boards and boards of education, we tried to make those terms
unified throughout the bill.
ÒSchool boardÓ is the term that is used throughout the bill and Òboards
of educationÓ is defined in the same way that school boards is so that if
thereÕs a remnant board of education in another chapter it will still refer
back to the school board.
Legislative Bill 346 updates the terminology for handicapped children
and it replaces that term with Òchild with a disabilityÓ. The definitions in the classification
of disabilities are amended to define the condition and not the child. ThatÕs probably the most major
change. One difference between
this bill and the bill that was introduced last year is that this bill does not
include a change of the name for the School for the Visually Handicapped, but
otherwise itÕs pretty much the same.
And LB 347 is a lot more ...
a lot larger piece of legislation and it...the main thing that it does
is eliminate obsolete sections and provisions. It corrects statutory references, transfers language,
harmonizes provisions, and updates terminology and sentence structures. Larry Scherer will be following me and,
if you have any questions, held be happy
Committee on
Education
January 27,
1,997
Page 3
to answer to
them. IÕll answer any questions
that I can. Like I said, thereÕs a
lot of things that are included in LB 347 but itÕs mainly deleting obsolete
provisions.
SENATOR
McKENZIE: Okay, thank you,
Tammy. Any committee
questions? You got off easy,
Tammy. Larry, will you be
following? And for... let me also introduce two other
committee members who have joined us between Senator Bromm and Senator
Wickersham, Senator Beutler from Lincoln.
itÕs a Monday. And between
LaRue Wunderlich and Senator Stuhr, Senator Suttle from Omaha. Welcome, Larry.
LARRY
SCHERER: Good afternoon, Senator
McKenzie, members of the Education Committee. My name is Larry Scherer, S-c-h-e-r-e-r, and I was under
contract with the Legislative...Legislative Council to do a
recodification. It started in Ô95
and continued -last year with the introduction and passage of LB 900. And there were really three phases,
three parts to that. The first
ended up being LB 900 which was a reorganization of sections. The objective was primarily to get
apples and apples together, subjectwise; and also updated language in terms of
coming up with more modern language.
That was enacted last year and so this year everybody has to translate
new section numbers whenever they are looking for a school law. Hopefully, that was something that made
sense and made the statutes more easily accessible. The second part was to, basically, repeal obsolete language
and remove some inconsistencies in the statutes. There were three bills that were introduced, as Tammy said,
didnÕt pass primarily because of time.
Some issues that we really wanted to give people time to look at, so
they had a whole year to look at those issues, and really didnÕt hear much. And probably, if there are issues that
come up, youÕll still have time to hear from them this and may, indeed, hear
from some folks. And then the last
... the last component was the
red-flagging of some issues. I
think, Tammy, did you make copies of what was the salmon-colored document? Those are not... IÕm not going to discuss those
today. Issues, for example, what
exception should there be for Class IV and V school districts is one example,
there are not one answer to any of those questions. There are probably two or three sections that you could put
in a repealer clause if youÕd like with a fair amount of certainty, but there
are questions about all of them and, rather than put them in the bill that was
pretty assured to
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 4
be
noncontroversial, obsolete language, thought better to keep them separate. The bills themselves, there are three
bills this year, 345, 346, 347, and Tammy did a pretty good job of
characterizing those. The 345 is
basically the definitional changes and really all three of those go back to the
1881 Legislature which had this concept of a rural school and a city school;
and a lot of that from that first Education Act, there were things that were
treated differently depending on which category they fit into. A lot of those things do not make sense
anymore, you know, a 125 years later or a 116 years later, BO that is the
reason a lot of these things do not need to be as they were then. So the first...the first definition,
Òlegal votersÓ, and the definition has been around for a long time. ItÕs in 79-423, includes Òproperly
registered votersÓ. A registered
voter is defined in the Election Act, elector, somebody who is, for example, at
least 18 and not a felon and who is domiciled or lives in the precinct that is
part... in whole or in part, part
of the school district, and that is meant to say that the whole precinct does
not have to be in the school district.
But you act ... to be a legal
voter, you would have to live in a part of the precinct that was a part of the
school district. A lot of the bill
is to go into sections that use different terms, ÒelectorÓ, Òqualified voterÓ,
Òregistered voterÓ, and to use the terminology, Òlegal voterÓ, so that thatÕs
consistently used throughout the school laws. The next definitional change is the term Òschool
boardÓ. The definition has always
been Òschool boardÓ or Òboard of educationÓ and sometimes that was applied when
Òschool boardÓ was intended, sometimes when Òschool boardÓ and Òboard of
educationÓ was intended, and sometimes when only one was intended. Originally, and up until now, the
statutes do recognize the difference.
If youÕre a Class I or II school district, itÕs a school board; if itÕs
a Class III, IV, V, or VI, itÕs a board of education. Again, it goes back to 1881. That was the terminology used then and it was carried over to
this day. The idea in this bill is
to use just the term Òschool boardÓ.
ItÕs simple. Legally, it
would be the name of every school board in the state. School districts could still continue to call their school
boards a board of education in unofficial documents, but legally they would be
a school board. ThatÕs the second
change. The last one has to do
with the school funds and school lands.
This goes back to the enabling act that brought Nebraska into the
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 5
Union and the
grant of Section 16 and 36 from the federal government to the state when the
state was made a part of the Union.
The problem has been that the constitution used the terminology
Òperpetual fundsÓ, and the statutes didnÕt use that terminology. The statutes used ÒTemporary School
FundÓ, ÒPermanent School FundÓ.
Sometimes they used the term Òschool fund of the stateÓ or Ògeneral
school fundÓ inconsistently. But
thereÕs no doubt that the two terms ...
Permanent School Fund is meant to apply to the idea of a perpetual
school fund, something held in trust for the school children of the state to be
used only for that purpose.
Whereas, as Tammy noted, only the Temporary School Fund is a
flow-through fund through which the income and rentals flows. So those are not intended and should
not change any of the way the money is handled or distributed. ItÕs just the references to those funds
and terms. The last bill, LB 347,
has a number of items in it and I think, if itÕs your pleasure here, I can go
through those fairly quickly.
(Exhibits A and B) I put on your desk a summary of. the sections that relates back to the
subject matter and, Senator McKenzie, would you like to proceed that way, to go
through whatÕs included in the bill, or do you want...?
SENATOR
McKENZIE: That would be helpful.
LARRY
SCHERER: There are ... there are a couple of amendments.
SENATOR
McKENZIE: Since we have two new...
LARRY
SCHERER: There are a couple of
amendments.
SENATOR
McKENZIE: Larry, since we have two
new members, it might be helpful to go through those sections...
LARRY
SCHERER: Okay
SENATOR
McKENZIE: ... that are repealed or...
LARRY
SCHERER: The first group there, a
Definition of Gifted Students, there were two definitions of Ògifted studentsÓ
in the statutes, very similar in intents and purposes, just slightly different
language. This uses the newer one
which was Senator McKenzieÕs legislation from two or three years ago, and also
gets rid of a section that
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 6
would duplicate
the authority of the department to hire a gifted consultant. Literally, you could read it to be
authority for there to be two gifted consultants in the department. The second one is State Fire Day
Activities. ThereÕs language that
talks about celebration of State Fire Day and that language was transferred
from the school district sections to the fire department sections and thatÕs
all that does. Enrollment Options
Program: Originally aid was
categorical for enrollment options, was funded through the Enrollment Options
Act. That was changed two or three
or four years ago, I think. It all
flowed through the general aid formula now and so this old language that distributed
dollars is not needed. There also
was a requirement for a report to the Legislature on how the act was
implemented. ThatÕs been done and
there really doesnÕt need to continue.
On page 6 there, Superintendent of Public Instruction: I think in 1952 we went from a
ÒSuperintendent of Public InstructionÓ to a ÒCommissioner of EducationÓ and
thatÕs old language that really isnÕt needed anymore because itÕs all been
changed to ÒCommissioner of EducationÓ language. Changing Class VI grade structure: Class VIÕs used to be able to vote at a annual meeting of
the voters to go from a 7 to 12, to a 9 through 12, or vice versa. That authority to have an annual meeting
to make those kind of decisions was changed, was repealed a couple of years
ago. So, now they would have to go
through an election process and this just recognizes that change. Affiliation Deadlines: I think it was Ô91 the Legislature
said, Class I school districts, you shall be affiliated by... first, I think it was Ô92 and then it
was Ô93, and that has happened.
The penalty for that, if they were not affiliated, was that the county
committee and state committee was to come in and either affiliate them or merge
them or attach them to a Class VI.
So itÕs action thatÕs happened and doesnÕt need to be there
anymore. County Reorganization
Plans: There was a bill passed in
Ô88 that said, by Ô91, you will have ...
each county will have a reorganization plan. ThatÕs happened; that date is no longer needed. Freeholding: There are statutes that allow, on the surface anyway,
parents who have property A and kids B to move their property elsewhere. And, with the advent of choice and with
the advent of accreditation laws that require each school district to be
accredited, thereÕs no need for those statutes to exist. Primarily, there are no differences
in... legal differences in state
accreditation that have been
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 7
recognized by
the courts so those statutes are not being used. School Board Duties:
This is over on page 7, the middle of the page. Obsolete language regarding a
requirement that Class IÕs have a course of study, thatÕs laid out as
prescribed by the Department of Education. They donÕt do that.
The course of study is a local matter in this state and hasnÕt happened
for a number of years and recording grade advancements in a book is something
that doesnÕt happen anymore. ItÕs
mostly computerized information and you can imagine Omaha Public Schools trying
to record grade advancement in a book.
It would be a big book every year.
Voter Challenges: This is
something that could only apply in a Class I or Class II school district where
they still have annual meetings, so language is clarified that it only applies
to those particular classes of school districts and the other school districts
use the election process.
Publishing Claims: The
penalty is made the same for classes of ... oh, Class I and VI districts as it is for II and III, and
thatÕs failure to publish a claim.
Top of page 8, the Postsecondary Vocational Education Programs, these
are ... thereÕs language in the
statute that the State Board of Education, which also sits as the State Board
of Vocational Education, appears to have authority over postsecondary
vocational programs and, actually, the governing boards of the community
colleges, for example, or the state colleges, or the Coordinating Commission
which oversees new course offerings would be the entity that would approve new
postsecondary vocational programs.
School Restructuring Commission has done its work. ItÕs no longer needed, but the statutes
are in existence. Same is true of
the Schools Accountability Commission which has given its report. Teaching Certificates: There was originally language about
certification requirements for instructors at community colleges. Those entities are no longer in Chapter
79 at all and, generally, community college instructors are not required to
meet the certification requirements of K-12 school teachers. ThereÕs a holdover reference to
teachers teaching in Class I and Class II school districts who donÕt have a
baccalaureate degree. That
authority to grant those kind of licenses has actually been repealed. This is a reference to that which used
to exist but is no longer there.
Retirement Systems: These
are some suggestions by the Nebraska Retirement System eliminating a couple of
definitions that are not used in the act, clarifying that postsecondary
institutions are not
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 8
included in the
definition of public school and public school employees. There were a number of sections on
retirement in last yearÕs bill that were enacted in a clean-up bill that came
out of the Retirement Systems Committee so that shortened the bill up a little
bit this year. State Aid to
Schools: References to the
nonresident high school tuition funds, which were ... were the funds that were used to funnel nonresident tuition
payments from Class I districts and taxpayers to K-12 districts, those have not
existed since affiliation took over as the structure and the funding system for
Class I districts. Schools for the
Deaf and Visually Impaired: The
first set there changes the terminology from Òacoustically handicapped
studentsÓ to Òdeaf and hard of hearingÓ, the same definition used as the
Special Education Act. The same is
true for students with visual impairments, used the Special Education Act
definitions. Then thereÕs old
language that talks about the responsibility of transportation under state and
federal laws for special education transportation is not... cannot be the responsibility of the
parents so that language is repealed, is deleted. There was a section, a one-year window where school
districts could opt out of an educational service unit. I think it was about 1988-89 and that
is ... that section is
repealed. Unfunded Programs: In 994 in 1984, the Legislature passed
the Comprehensive Reform Act and some of you may remember thatÕs when Senator
Kerrey was then Governor.
Unfortunately, at the same time, the economy of the state went to the
dogs and there was no money to fund a lot of these programs so theyÕve been on
the books 12-13 years now and never funded and this bill would just outright
repeal those sections. The one
that was funded, the Educational Technology Consortium, and has made a
significant difference still has the language that it would be implemented when
funding was available. so it gets
rid of that language so that itÕs clear that the programÕs operational. Telecommunications Commission: I spent some time with Jack McBride who
had a number of updating language changes to the Telecommunications Act. And, basically, from the time that that
statute was created to last year, the technologies have changed so that was one
of the changes that allows different types of technologies to be used. It allows the designee of the
commissioner to attend commission meetings as opposed to the Commissioner of
Education who sits as a member of the commission. Implementation of statewide public radio ... LaRue, youÕll be happy to know
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 9
thatÕs pretty
much done and that language doesnÕt need to be there anymore. On top of page 11, regarding the
commissionÕs programs, thereÕs language that said they should be consistent
with the policies of the State Board of Education. That was extended for postsecondary related educational
courses through the Coordinating Commission. Last yearÕs hearing, there was a question about whether you
wanted the State Board of Education or the Coordinating Commission to have
approval authority over that or whether talking about more cooperative
arrangement. So the language
that... itÕs in the amendment I
think, IÕve given it to Tammy as a Possible committee amendment, would use the
language, Òin cooperation withÓ the state board and in cooperation with the
Postsecondary Coordinating Commission.
Eminent Domain: There had
been a number of specific projects for towers and facilities for ETV around the
state. Those have been done and
that language isnÕt needed anymore.
In its place is a general eminent domain authority. There were questions about whether the
commission should be able to go out and condemn just any piece of property it
wanted to. So the suggestion was
that the ... there would have to
be legislative approval, either by the full Legislature or the Executive
Board. So thatÕs another of the
amendments that is suggested.
LetÕs see. Elementary
Student Transfers: There are a
number of other sections that are just outright repealed. The elementary student transfers used
to allow students ... elementary
students a certain distance from a school to move from one district to another
and the ... and the interesting
part was that their taxes moved along with them while the students were in
school, and there may have been some legal questions about how that could work
but they havenÕt been used for a number of years, especially since the Choice
Law was passed, so those are repealed.
Student Exchange Act: There
was a student exchange program for a couple of years but has not been one for
four or five years and so thatÕs proposed for repeal here. On-site Outhouses: ThereÕs still a requirement that there
be at least two outhouses on the school site, as far from the school buildings
as possible. (laughter) It was
imminently good sense, IÕm sure, in 1881, but now all the health and safety
codes require indoor toilets so itÕs not needed anymore. Class V Reports: A special statute just for Class VÕs
that authorize them to file reports required by the Department of
Education. Well, the Department of
Education has general reporting statutes that apply instead of that particular
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 10
one. Federal Educational Finance Act: In the Nixon era there was proposals
for revenue sharing and one of the ideas was to provide more dollars to
... for education, public
education. That was never
funded. The act has been on
... to participate, states had to
pass their own version of that.
Never has been operational and the federal act has been repealed, so
those state statutes would also be repealed. Out-of-State Placements: There was a commission set up to look at ways to reduce
out-of-state placements for students with disabilities. That inter-agency group has met, has
done their plan, and its all completed their work since 1992, and so thatÕs
proposed for repeal. And the last
one is the Federation of School Districts Act which is something like
affiliation, itÕs something like nonresident tuition, and it was passed at a
time when people were looking for alternatives for reorganization, outright
consolidation, and there were never any reorganizations under this act be
... essentially because the
conditions were too difficult to meet and there were never any K-12 districts
that bought off on the concept and would take in the Class IÕs. So that is the bill. ThereÕs a number of repeals in there. I donÕt believe it would change any
... any actual practice of whatÕs
happening in school districts so...
so, with that, I will close.
Are there questions?
(Exhibit C) I think Dennis Pool is here from the Department of
Education. Some of these
suggestions came from the department and heÕs here if there are ... maybe he will answer some of your
questions if there are any.
SENATOR
McKENZIE: Thank you, Larry. Questions? Senator Bromm.
SENATOR
BROMM: Yeah, Larry, in LB 347,
Section 33, weÕre inserting the word Òfull-timeÓ in front of ÒconsultantÓ with
learners of high ability. What
... what...
LARRY
SCHERER: What page is that on?
SENATOR
BROMM: ThatÕs on... of the bill itÕs page 54. Section 33, about in the middle of the
page. weÕre inserting the word
ÒfulltimeÓ. What was the thinking
in needing to insert that language?
LARRY
SCHERER: ThereÕs another
section. This is the older section
that had been in existence for a number of years.
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 11
Senator
McKenzieÕs bill passed. It
authorized and I think appropriated dollars for a full-time consultant in the
gifted program so that already authorized a full-time consultant. This just moved the Òfull-timeÓ
language over from that section into this one. The one thatÕs repealed already authorizes the full-time
consultant.
SENATOR McKENZIE: Other questions? Senator Beutler.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: Larry, many ... much of this that weÕre going over
today was in 1014, 1015, and 1016 of last session?
LARRY
SCHERER: Right, it was all in
those pieces of legislation.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: So weÕre kind of going
over much of this the second time?
LARRY
SCHERER: Right. Right.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: And weÕre reprinting this
bill again the second time? These
bills?
LARRY
SCHERER: Yes.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: And what was the reason
we didnÕt get to these last year?
LARRY
SCHERER: Well, there were two
reasons. I think one was just the
time factor in passing three pieces of fairly large legislation in a short
session. The other one was, in
changing some of the definitional terms especially, if anybody had a question
about whether that had any impact at all, would actually have any legal
repercussions, giving them another year to look at it. And so, it was a conservative approach
to it, rather than introducing it and passing it the same year to allow it to
lay there for a year.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: I did have one more
specific question.
LARRY
SCHERER: Um-hum.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: Somewhere in the school
section is a
Committee on
Education
January 27, 1997
Page 12
statute that
relates to suing a school district which contained a rather ... which contained alternative definitions
so that a person was not precluded from a cause of action simply because they
happened to choose the wrong terminology.
What did you do with that statute?
LARRY
SCHERER: It still remains the
same.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: The same?
LARRY
SCHERER: YouÕre referring to
Zyburo situation where... ?
SENATOR
BEUTLER: Yes.
LARRY
SCHERER: Yeah.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: Nothing has changed on
that?
LARRY
SCHERER: No, nothing changed on
that.
SENATOR
BEUTLER: Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR
McKENZIE: Other questions? I donÕt see any more, Larry. Thank you.
LARRY
SCHERER: Thank you.
SENATOR
McKENZIE: Do we have anyone
wishing to testify in support of LB 345, 346, or 347? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to any of the three
bills? I guess I have to ask the
committee now if theyÕd like Dennis to come up in a neutral capacity to answer
any questions or... ? I donÕt even see that, Dennis. Tammy, would you like to close? ClosingÕs been waived. That will conclude the hearings on LB
345, 346, and 347. With that, we
will move on, if I can find my sheet, to Senator Bohlke, who has joined us,
opening on LB 132. Welcome to
Education Committee, Senator Bohlke.
(laughter)