Law School Hearings and Subcommittee on Education Hearings: minutes

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING

FUNDING PUBLIC EDUCATION

(RURAL COUNTIES)

February 21st, 1973

J

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION — HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST/ 1973

FUNDING PUBLIC EDUCATION

(Rural Counties)

MEMBERS PRESENT;

GUESTS PRESENT:

& Small Counties

Acting Supt.

Jack Schofield

Randy Capurro

Hal Smith

Bill Bible - Budget Office

Ron Sparks - Budget Office

Frank Stott - ECCTA

Lynn VJhite - Elko County Classroom Teacher's

Assn.

Valaree Newcombe — Lyon Co, Assn. Classroom

Teachers

Ethel Miller - Lyon County Board Cl\ab.

Brookie Swallow - Lincoln Co. School Boards -

Pres.

Robert A. Beatty - Lincoln Co.

Teachers

Leo Prestevich - Lincoln Co.,

G. L. Craft - NSSBA

Bob Best - Nevada State School Board Assn.

Carl Shaff - Eureka Co. Supt.

Tod Carlini - Lyon Co. Supt.

Richard Morgan - NSEA

Richard Wilson - NSEA

Anderson ~ Lyon Co. School Board

J. W. Denser - Mineral County School Board

Bob Scott - Humboldt County School District

ShirleeWedow - Nevada P.T.A.

Marvin Killfoil - Pershing County School Dist..

Supt.

Joaquin Johnson - Nye County School Dist. - Supt.

Craig Blackham - Lyon Co. School Dist. Asst. Supt.

Frank Langlinais - Lander Co. Schools — Supt.

Arlo W. Funk - Mineral Co. School Dist. - Supt.

John Sullivan - Carson City Classroom Teacher's

Jack Norris - Churchill Co. Classroom Teacher Assn,

Don Perry - N.S.E.A.

John Hawkins - Carson City, Supt.

E. DeRicco - Churchill Co. Supt.

Kenneth H. Hansen - State Supt.

Lincoln Liston - State Department of Education

Chairman Schofield opened the meeting at 8:00 A.M. He said that

would proceed would be to hear the Rural County School

w U Nevada State School Board Association next

the Washoe and Clark Counties Teacher Association and then the '

Rural Counties Teacher Association. Chairman asked those who

resented^ please state their names clearly and who they rep-

1.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST, 1973

Bob Sanders said he represented the Small Counties School Superintendents

and the School Trustee's Association. He said that in

the rural areas they had problems the same as those of the large

counties and that they could come up with facts and figures the

same as Kenny Guinn had presented for Clark County and those represented

for Washoe County but that there was no use of duplicating

this as it would be the same only on a smaller scale. He said they

basically agreed with the Formula although they didn't agree with

all of the ingredients and the manner in which some of these

things are carried out but that it was well thought out and

generally good. He stated that there were some areas they wanted

vociferously to call to the attention of the Conmittee because

they felt that nothing would be done through the State Department

level unless it was done through the Legislature.

Specifically, he was calling their attention to the following items:

one that was touched on yesterday in the retirement area and this

was some sort of reconciliation for retirement at the end of the

fourth quarter of each year and could be handled similar to the

adjustment they did on ADA. He said they had to dip into the

local budgets to meet the state requirement on retirement obligations

and it amounted to a total of $102,000. This should have

been provided for through the formula, he said. Now he said

he had been told that this v^7as a small percentage of their budget.

But he said this could mean a change in base salary of $50.00

per teacher or it could buy buses. He urged the legislators to

make this adjustment that they were not asking for any more money

other than to help them meet these state mandates. Another area

he mentioned was in the area of transportation and here again

although the formula did take care of transportation they were

living with out dated figures. He said the formula was lagging

years behind the actual transportation costs.

The third area v^hich he thought should be given some attention by

members of the Legislature is those monies received by various

districts through Public Law 874 which Kenny mentioned yesterday.

874 is the Federal law where school districts which have federally

connected schools within the districts, the FederaJ. government

is giving a paym.ent in lieu of taxes. Of course, this doesn't

come out at the same rate as the taxable level of the property

he added. He told them that if they would like to check this

if they would take the matter if they would take the document that

Mr. Listen provided the Legislators on February 5th, this Federal

impaction is placed into the formula under the fiscal neutralitv

area of the formula and this is refered to in this docviment on

page 6, and page 16 .and then Roman Numeral VI which is the last

page which is the meat of this programming. He said that there

were only four counties that were not receiving this 874 funds,

and they were Storey, Douglas and Eureka (only three). Our

concern for this money he said is the manner in which the Federal

Government is now curtailing some of the funding and 874 is a part

of this. He said that all of them were going to lose their 3B

students whose parents worked for the Fed. and lived off the

property or lived on the Federal and worked in some other area.

- 2 -

SUBCOMI^ITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST, 1973

They would Mr. Sanders said continue to receive the 3A money which

was for students whose parents work for and live on Federal property.

One County he mentioned and he said Mineral County the 874 funds

is a major portion of their total budget and that if they lose this

money somewhere there would have to be an adjustment made in these

funds and would ask that some means be devised so that these adjustments

can be made.

Another area by which they were affected, he said, was the net

proceeds of mines. He said that legislation would be or had been

introduced giving means of handling this. He suggested that they

give serious consideration to this legislation. In Lyon County

for instance, a good portion of their advolorum tax is tied into

the net proceeds of mines and that for the current year the tax

commission took it upon themselves to make and adjustment because

they had extreme losses in their total operation down in South

America they were able to write off some of those -losses- as -far

as mining operation in Lyon County. So, he said the proceeds from

mines took a tremendous drop.

Chairman asked if that was AB 315? Mr. Sanders said it was.

He asked that in some areas where the tax base was very small

some provision be made from the State funding for construction.

It might be an actual grant on the part of the State or the

State could buy their bonds at an extremely low rate.

The last thing he wanted to bring up was to raise the limit for

remodeling or construction from $5,000 to $25,000,and their had

been a bill introduced as they regarded $25,000 as the more realistic

figure in light of construction costs today. What this

meant, he said that any construction under $25,000 V70uld not have

to go through a planning board and they would not have to hire the

services of an architect. At one time, he said, the flat figure

for an architect was right around 6% but not now.

He said to sum it up they v/ere not all being treated equally as

fax, as this 8% is concerned.

Assemblyijnan Hal Smith said that there was some strong feeling that

States should under the Natural Resources Exclusion Act probably

incur some bonding capacity to help small areas in those projects

either mandated by the State or Federal governments and this help

might free some money for you to use.

said

Mr. Sanders it might help some. He thanked the Corrimittee for hearing

and said some others could add to this better than he could.

Assemblyman Capurro saked what the percentage of the A's and the

B's were as explained by Mr. Sanders in Mineral County.

- 3 -

GOKJvlITTBE ON EDUCATION - HKAHING FEBRUARY 21ST. 1973

Mr, Capurro asked in Mineral County what was the percentage of

the A's and B's. Mr. Sanders told hira that about 40^ were A

and 40^ were B and EO^ nothing.

Mr. Capurro said the B's then were the ones they were concerned

about in Federal cutbacks etc. Mr. Sanders said yes.

Mr. Capurro went on to say that after hearing from all of the

counties, both large and small it looked like the formula was

not adequate as they all had similar problems.

Mr. Sanders said that he was not suggesting that they take away

from the large and give to the small but that the finance formula

as presently designed and if it goes into effect this next biennium

would increase one county's ADA figure by $54.00. In like terms

most of them came up with little or no increase and in Elko

County's case where they were up to $737.00 they would drop to

$715.00. Now, he said there were many other ramifications, the

handicapped program entered into this.

Mr. Capurro said he would like to talk about the handicapped

program a bito He said that the attitude had changed on this to

a program basis and he felt this would help them in the long run

and provide a better education for the handicapped children is

what the Intended 2,^ is. He said that he didn't feel it was a

loss of funding by not giving it to them directly as they would

be getting it back on a direct program basis.

Mr. Sanders said he did not feel it would be a loss of funds but

it would be on a catagorical basis and that no money could be

diverted from it.

Chairman said he would like to make a comment. He said he was

Ijntroducing a bill to pick up tfre~differeiiGe in the PL 874 funds

that the Federal is taking away and he didn't know how far it

was going to get and secondly. Randy and Hal, we do need to

raise that $5,000 to $25,000. 7/e have that problem in Clark

County, he stated, we use up those funds in architect's fees.

I am introducing that also, he said.

Chairman next recognized Mr. Morgan who said in substance that

he would lik^to show what had happened in school expenditure

increases approved by the Legislature in the years between 1967

and 1971. He didn't think that anyone could complain about the

Legislature's attentiveness to the school needs during that period.

He asked them to look at Table.13> page 13 (Addendum 1) the comparison

of outlay expenditures. He said he thought it made the

point of 117^ increase in capital outlay out of their operating

budgets. He said another thing he thought that couldn't be neglected

is the State School Study approved by the last Legislative

Session one of the important things to note was the citizens'

attitudes and that they by over 60^ believe that a very good

educational opportunity exists in Nevada and that they were not

- 4 -

SUBCOl^.!ITTEli: ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY glST, 1975

at all disinclined to spend even more money on their schools.

Hr. Morgan then read from the Survey where the citizens felt that

more State and Federal funds could be used for particularly special

programs. Chairman said that they stressed State and Federal and

not local did they not. Mr. Morgan answered yes.

Chairman then said he wanted to interject a comment here that he

wanted everyone to be heard who wished to even if they had to continue

a little longer after the Session started.

Mr. Capurro said that his name was on the Advisory Board of that

Survey and the meetings were sparsely attended.

Mr. Morgan Said he thought the Committee might like to know, based

on the numbers available three or four months ago, what the various

counties would receive under the budget as it exists today.

See Addendum 5.

After he concluded giving these figures he was asked if this included

Special Education. He ansvjered this included only the

units they currently had in Special Education. Mr. Morgan said

that he felt the Special Ijducation funding was a very important

issue for the Legislature to^oo'nsTder because" the StatTe Is being

sued for its fai.Uire to offer opporlTunrty and because it is right

for those children to have equal opportunity also.

Ih*. Morgan went on to say that in a group of this size their purpose

was not how the formula might be changed to add additional

money to it but he would like merely to say that as a participant

in the development of the State Board's proposal this bienniura;

there vjere about five of them, plus members of the State Board

of Education who sat down last July and tried to come up with

what they believed to be a reasonable increase for the schools

and what they could see as anticipated increases in State Revenues.

At that time they said anS'l/6^grov^th was a reasonable approach to

take. He said he would like co say again as he had said before

that the estimate based on numbers available last IvTay, June and

July are erroneous based on the current data. He said he did not

think Mr. Liston who was primarily responsible for developing the

figures was remiss in any way, but that the fact remains that the

budget presented by the State Board to the Governor and from the

Governor to the Legislature is §1,200,000 short of being capable

of generating a 8 1/6^ increase over the next tvio years.

Mr, Capurro asked if this figure would provide the 6fo increase

in eddcation, all the requirements needed Including salary increase

etc? Mr. Morgan answered in the negative that it would

merely insure - - - Mr. Capurro'. interrupted that this then

would still not be enough for Ec ucation and asked if that was

right.

SUBCO}.'l'iITTE:i; ON EDUCATTON - REARING FEBRUARY glST. 1973

I/iT. Capurro said in other words Mr. Morgan those figures would

only provide the increases the teachers are going to get.

Mr. Morgan said he only said 31,200.000 more was necessary to have

an 8 1/5^ increase in basic support. He said he didn't know v/hat

this would produce in teachers' salaries. He said he clearly

was not going to say that teachers would not need a salary increase

under inflationary conditions or even less than what State Employees

are going to receive,

I^Ir. Capurro said he didn't either and that he didn't see where

these people could go back and attack the problem they are going

to have to do with the kind of budget the educational leaders have

put together.

Mr. Morgan said he could not respond to the Question ^•.'hat was

necessary to insure salary increase that he could only respond to

the 8 1/6 basic support at this point.

Mr. Morgan went on to say that the Legislature was going to have

to address itself to the question of whether the children across

this State are getting equal opportunity and does the Question

of the current organization of school districts (seventeen) enter

dramatically into that picture. He said there were some districts

where a student could only get chemistry once every three years,

for instance. He said all counties at the present time are utilizing

the 70% and 80% local taxes but Douglas does not use th's

to the full extent as it is short 15of of the $1.50 raised and'this

could generate from $100,000 to $150,000 and yet the school

formula allows the same amount to Douglas County when they are

not using their full local tax as other counties.

He said that Senator Dodge had introduced a bill which would be

a Constitutional Aunendment to authorize capital outlay expenditures

which are up to their bondedness limit. He would tend to support

that bill because V;Q do have places in small counties that desperately

need new construction. He said he was not sure it was

equitable, in terms of the formula, for local school districts

which have the opportunity to bond to use their money for capital

outlay, ^

He said he would leave it at that unless there were Questions.

discussion followed between Mr. Capurro and Mr. I/organ in

which Mr. Capurro questioned on Table 13 refered to by 'l^. Morgan

^ was shov/n the total amount of capital outlay expenditures

if this was the total amount of capital outlay expenditures from

State support or from all areas. Mr. Liston said" they were from

the General Fund Budget that part of it was from the State and

some from local taxes. Mr. Capurro asked if they didn't feel that

capital outlay was a legitimate cost and Mr. Morgan answered that

when it got to be 7% of a budget and there was an ability to do

^acy of It^ through a bonding capacity he would question the legit-

- 6 -

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST, 1973

Mr. Capurro asked if the local elected school officials had to

answer to that on the accounting of the operation of their school

district? If we provide them the money to run the school district

if they use the money for capital outlay or whether they use the

money to bus kindergarten kids as long as they are staying within

their budget is alright with us or otherwise we will run the thing

from the State level he commented.

Mr. Morgan said he thought it was a legitimate question to the

legislature in view of the fact a great deal of the money comes

from this level-also.

Mr. Capurro said he agreed with that there should be accountability

in Education and he thought that perhaps we had not had proper

accountability. He said the size of the classrooms throughout

the state were Legislative problems but he was not so sure the

outlay of moneys was, as far as exactly how they spent it.

Mr. Sanders said in reference to Lander County there was quite

a bit transfered into capital outlay and that they were in the

same position as the net proceeds of mines whatever they had

extra they put it into capital outlay to improve the school district

and not put it into teachers's salaries. What v/ould happen

to their salaries if the net proceed of mines go down he asked.

John Hawkins, Superintendent of Carson City said he would like to

make two comments that they had put their money into capital outlay

because they felt it necessary to do so but that as Mr.

Capurro had pointed out in order to meet the rapid growth in

population and because they were already bonded to the limit of

14% they had to do this from the State money and also special

fringe benefits for teachers had to come out of this which was

quite an amount. This, he said, left very little for increase

in teachers salaries etc.

Mr. John Orr, Supt. of White Pine School District spoke and said

that they were limited to $1.50 of what they spent and if they

used what was allocated in the formula and the money isn't there

they had to go to the people and raise it to above $1.50 and

bond themselves.

Mr. Don Perry, NSEA Consultant said that the last Session of the

Legislature went from 50% to 75% in the cost of transportation,

with the idea that this was a factor which would help the rural

counties however that Table 8 Addendum. 1, should disprove this

idea very effectively as those counties that set up their transportation

to 1968 the percentage of increase from that date waso

shown as smaller. This matter of transportation is a very serious

problem, it is not necessarily one of rural areas, he said and

that the contingency was to go to areas of greater increases in

population and to the urban areas.and that these factors can

throw these transportation budget all out of kilter as he had

explained to the Senate Finance Committee earlier, especially

when this taken off the top. When it is taken off the top, he said

the tendency is to give it to the urban areas where there is a

greater growth in population.

- 7-

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST, 1973

Mr, Grant Anderson from Lyon County School Board arose and said

he didn't believe that they had yet heard from the School Board

today.

Chairman called a recess at this point and said that Mr. Anderson

could be the first to speak after resuming the meeting if he wished.

Brookie Swallow spoke and said she was President of the Lincoln

County School Board. She said that they appreciated Mr. Schofield's

bill and hope it passed. She went on to say that capital improvement

was a real problemi in Lincoln County and had been for years and

that if they hadn't spent more of their general fund on this it

was because they hadn't it to spend and speaking for Lincoln County

they were not going to be flush under the formula but they would

survive and continue to run their schools and get along. She

mentioned that the tables which had been presented were not very

accurate for the simple reason that you buy a bus one year and

this sort of thing can make a real difference in why they are up

or down because they were operating on such a small percentage and

this was not quite the whole picture of the situation. She said

that the Legislature and State should work towards getting the

formula as fair and equitable as possible to begin with and once

this is done she would be distressed if they started putting controls

on how this was to be spent. She said they had School Boards

to deal and check on this, they had budget hearings, the teachers

had rights to negotiate and local control had been taken away

enough already and that she didn't think the Legislature would want

to get involved in these local problems.

Chairman Schofield said that he would like to make an observation

here. He commented that he strongly supported this home rule

concept and that secondly if the local people desired to improve

their educational programs then they should also be willing to

fund it to the limit, to equal all of us and that if som.e of us

are up to $1.5D let's all go up to $1.50.

Mr. J. W. Denser introduced himself and said he was Chairman of the

Mineral County School Board. He said he wished to speak on this

matter of funding the Federal Government collects $2.20 for each

dollar it distributes in the form of service, the State $1.10, the

County $1.25, the cities don't seem to be involved but they can give

you a dollar worth of service for $1.10 and anyone who is going to

welcome with open arms the P'ederal or the State for support should

consider what is happening to the hospitals who are now held at

5% increase, the Federal Government seems to have wanted to take

their pay over and yet tlrey. are liable for 20% increase for supplies

and yet their are liable for proper services. So, he said,if you

want to spend your money efficiently, you had better to the extent

you can, spend it through the county rather than through some higher

formula.

Chairman Schofield said on the Governor's study Dr. Davis informed

Senator Foley and himself that for transportation the recommendation

- 8 -

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST, 1973

was that the State go 100% and that he would like to hear some

comments from them some time on this.

Mrs. Elizabeth Lenz was next and she said that she was an"urban

cow" that she had been there yesterday and that she was second

vice president of the Nevada State School Trustees Association

and that the title was almost longer than the job. She said

that they all gathered here seemed to agree that they all needed

more money and how it was distributed, of course, is a different

matter. She said she wanted to speak on something that had not been

touched on that was authority and about 85% of our operating budget

does go to salaries and we no longer control that since Senator

Dodge's bill was passed is arbitrarily controlled from other states.

Therefore, she said, we work with 15% of the budget and tried to

do their best and last year they were able to patch up things

that needed it for a long long time and to benefit all the children.

She added she would request and felt evervone would back her on

this, if there are extra funds that theybe put into a fund that

is not going to be negotiated away and they needed help in many

of these areas.

Chairman Schofield asked her it is brought out that there will be

a 5% increase for State em.ployees and if from the testimony you

have just heard we will be lucky to have even a 2% million shortage

made up then they were not talking about any increase in salaries

are we?

Mrs. Lenz answered that this was very true and that she gathered

the increments that were built into salary schedules were not

considered an increase. Her plea was that if there were extra

funds that the school trustees be given an opportunity to use them

in other areas, she said and since they would be hearing a great

deal from the teabhers about salaries she was speaking for this

area.

Mr. Capurro said he felt the areas of negotiation were going to be

extremely limited as the amount of money to be proveded from them

was not going to be that much and as he said before he didn't think

they had been given the straight dope on regards to the amount of

available for a general increase in education indicated from the

Governor that they would have and he didn't feel the people were

sympathetic to any tax increases and therefore they would work within

this.

Mrs. Lenz said for too many years they had paid an awful lot of

attention to salaries and every four years the people elect the

school trustees and if they don't like what they have done they

very quickly let them know in the election and in the last election

the teachers voted for their opponents thereby showing they did not

have too good a working relationship. She went on to say that the

trustees had no ax to grind they were simply interested in the education

of the children, so that when they asked for things they were asking

truly.

- 9 -

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST, 1973

Chairman said that they would have to hear the rest of those who

wished to speak quickly as it was almost time to go into Session.

Mr, Grant Anderson introduced himself and said he was a Lyon County

School Board member and he was not going to try and give a bunch

of figures and he wondered if they had addressed themselves to the

Educational opportunities that they deserved in the small counties.

He said because of the Statewide concept of thirty in a class what

were they going to do where they had maybe six in a class and ten

in another class. He said they needed help as they couldr't offer

any home economics classes, for instance, because they might have

fifteen kids in a Indian History Class that uses one classroom unit

and they didn't have anything left over. He commented that they

just count't give their kids equal opportunities under the present

system they had been talking about today and his kids deserved it

and especially when he looked at the wonderful facility they had

in Clark County for vocational training and they take it for granted

and we can't do these things.

Chairman Schofield asked how many of you School Supts. or people

in this room were part of the Nevada School plan we are presently

on?

Two said they were on it.

Mr. Frank Langlinais said he represented Lyon County as School

Superintendent and that they had because they were affluent from

the net proceeds of ^ines at the present time implem.ented some

extra programs for their students but at any time this could go

down and that he would like extra CTu's provided for.

Mr. Craft, President of the National School Board Association

addressed himself to the Committee next. He wanted to speak on the

ADA versus enrollment. They favored enrollment over ADA, he said.

He said they were not in favor of 100% in transportation because

you then get somebody else to run your business for you.

Chairman asked Mr. Craft for completely funding transportation was

taking it out of local control. Mr. Craft answered in the affirmative.

Chairman then asked if they could live with 75% and he

answered yes. Chairman asked him if this was consensus Statewide

of the counties and Mr. Craft said he thought it was.

Mr. Liston said from what he had heard today he thought there was

some misunderstanding about the transportation reimbursement. He

said they looked at the last two years expenditures and determined

the expenditure rate per pupil. That rate of transportation resource

is paid as a resource towards meeting the next two years transportation

costs.

Mr. Schofield said he assured them this Subcommittee will be looking

into this.

Robert Best of the State School Board Association said he wanted to

think the Committee for hearing all of them.

- 10 -

SUBCOWIITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST, 1973

Lynn White, President of the Elko County Classroom Teachers Assn.,

and said he was speaking in behalf of the small county classroom

teachers. They felt that this formula was probably a good formula

but being a new instrument there were probably areas where it

would be wise to take a look at it a little more closely such as

the area of teacher allotments. He said that in measurably small

areas where they had one classroom units it required that one

teacher teach a multi group of lessons. This did not allow according

to him a student to get the benefits of a music teacher, or a school

nurse. He said that it had even been reported to him when a teacher

was ill in small areas they couldn't even get a replacement, and

specifically where this is an isolated school situation. If we do

supply this sort of service, he said, then this is going to have

to come by taking away teaching units in larger areas where we

have twelve grades.

Jack Norris spoke next and said he was presently President of the

Nevada Assn. of Classroom Teachers and a teacher in Churchill

County, Fallon to be exact, and he was saying that there were

inequities in the ways the needs of the urban areas are taken

care of the funding and especially in the Nevada Plan where

actually the Nevada Plan provides for only a small segment of

the students in the fifteen small counties. They did make provision

in the Nevada plan for CTU units, a provision for an urban

factor and that factor amounted to $39.70 per student in VJashoe

and Clark and they did not receive it in the large attendance

areas of the small counties, he said. The urban factor itself_

actually provides for the urban areas of onlv two counties and

it has special provisions on Chart 6 titled Urban Element that

provides for $28.00 per student to Clark County and $17.00 per

student for Washoe County, he said. Under the Nevada plan in

the large attendance areas from 235 to 4800 in the elem.entary

or for from 243 to 3200 in the secondary these students have not

been provided for in any rural factor but you do under CTU units

make provision for an urban factor and that factor amounts to

$39.70 in Washoe and Clark and they did not receive it in the

large attendance areas of the small counties, the areas that would

fall between the 235 and4800 elementary or the 243 to the 3200

secondary, he comn^ented. In fact, they were penalized for being

in a no man's land and the urban factor helps only Washoe and

Clark. He went into detail on inequities in transportation costs

also. He m>entioned that construction costs in small counties v/ere

considerably higher in a sm.all county in VJashoe and Clark and that

is why they spent considerable on capital outlay or capital improvement.

In short, he said he was trying to say that the Nevada Plan

did not take care of the needs of the small counties. He said

to put a rural factor in of about $40.00 per student if they

wanted to be fair. Also, he said, change the student allotment

requirement for CTU units.

Chairman Schofield mentioned that they had Union problems in Clark

County that made constructions costs higher than in rural areas

and he would have to question that.

- 11 -

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - HEARING FEBRUARY 21ST, 1973

As the rural counties were represented as being more expensive on

many items they had to purchase the Chairman wondered if they couldn't

get together and purchase these things so that it would cost the

same for everybody. It was discussed that vendors didn't like this:

Chairman said being as the State was picking up the tab they would

probably comply. The rural countie representatives said that you

would have transportation costs anyhow.

Chairman then adjourned the meeting after making a statement that

he was really concerned with the Indians and that he would like

them to take their problems into serious consideration.

He thanked all of them for coming up and that the Committee would

consider very seriously all the things they had brought up and

hopefully make some attempt to equalize the problems we have. He

said as Mr. Capurro had told them, that it was a big job to make

everybody happy but that they would sure try.

Respectfully submitted.

Geraldine Smith

Secretary

Page 12.

ADDENDUM 1

COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES OF NEVADA SCHOOL DISTRICTS

1967-68 With 1971-72

Information necessary for this study was taken from Tables 10 and 18 of the Supsrintendent.

cf Public Instruction's biennial reports covering the years 1967-58 and 1971-72.

TABLES I, II and III.

Tables I, II and III are comparisons involving expenditi^es per pupil, average salaries

of classroom teachers and average salaries of non-teaching personnel. In the four year

period the statewide expenditure,:per pupil in A.D.A. increased by 36,92%; the average

salary of teaching personnel by 28.77%; and non teaching personnel by 30.04%. Within

individual districts the variation between the percentage increases to teaching and nonteaching

personnel are in considerable contrast to the fairly close statewide figure.

Percentage variations favoring non teaching personnel range ^om around 3% to 13%. Two

exceptions are noted. These are in Eureka'- and Washoe Counties. Eureka s figures are

a3_l probablility badly skewed due to the instability of both the teaching and .nonteaching

personnel during the years covered.. In Washoe, the percentage increase is

exactly equal for both teaching and non teaching personnel.

TABLES IV through XIV

Tables IV through XIV consist of comparisons of each of the expenditure categories, (100

through 900) plus comparisons of expenditures for teachers salaries (213 through 219) a:,

and comparisons of total expenditures for the years 1967-68 and 1971-72.

The following data from these tables is significant:

1. Total expenditures increased statewide by 61.81% and ranged from a low of

-3.*+9% to a high of 184.69% (Table XIV).

. 2. Administrative expenditures increased statewide at a rate higher than total

expenditures, 62.29% t o 51.81%, and -ranged from 40% t o 129.88% (Table I V ) .

3. Instructional expenditures increased by 50.26% but at rate approximately

12% lower than either the total expenditures or administrative ejqsenditures,

4. Teachers salaries expenditures increased statewide by 46.35%. The range was

from 88.36% to 18.85%. The rate of increase is approximately 16% less^than

the increase in administrative expenditures and 15-1/2% less than the increasei

n t o t a l e x p e f ' . d i t u r e s (Table V I ) .

5. Expenditures for auxiliary services increased at a rate 3,13% greater than the

rate of increase for teacher salaries. The range was from a low of -20.00% to

a high o f 147.46% (Table V I I ) .

6. Transportation expenditures increased by 49.89% and ranged from a low of -21,78%

to a high of 98.17%. Clearly indicated is that-transportation expenditures are

not increasing as rapidly in rural counties as in urban and rapidly growing

counties. Counties with long established transportation systems necessary to

get scattered pupil populations to central educational locations are at or

near t h e bottom i n percentage increases f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n expenses.Table VIXI),

7. Expenditures for operation increased by 53.91% statewide - an increase 3.65%

-1-

greater than instruction and 7.56% greater than teachers salaries. The range

was from 3.56% t o 89.83% (Table I X ) .

8. Maintenance expenditures increased by 65.70% statewide. Three counties showed

percentage decreases ranging from -3.36% to -5.52%, while three counties showed

increase o f more than 100% ranging from 106.63% t o 213.51% (Table X ) .

9. Expenditures for fixed charges increased statewide by 430.29%. Primarily, this

increase was caused by the transfer of retirement contribution payments from

the state to the school districts in the interim between 1967-68 and 1971-72.

10. Transfers increased 308.90% between 1967-68 and 1971-72. In 1967-68 transfers

were primarily made for tuition payments for pupils attending school in other

states or other counties. In 1971-72, it appears that transfers have been

made within the district for a variety of other purposes. These can be traced

r: out by consulting the audit reports of the districts concerned for 1971-72

(Table XII).

11. Capital Outlay expenditures increased 117.59% statewide despite the fact that

five districts decreased their outlay by percentages ranging from 6.11% to

105.97%. Particularly striking is that one district increased its capital

outlay by 2,236.66% or by an amount only $668.77 less than its entire expendi

t u r e i n 1967-68 (Table X I I I ) .

TABLES XV and XVI

Tables XV and XVI are comparisons of percentages going to Instruction and to teacher

salaries. In Instruction three counties increased their percentages while fourteen

counties decreased for a statewide percentage decrease of 5.17%. In teachers salaries

the percentage decreased 5.63% and increased in only two counties.

- 2 -

TABLE I

COMPARISON EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL IN A.D.A.

1967-68 with 1971-72

1967-68 1971-72

% of

Change

Carson City

Churchill

Clark

Douglas

Elko

Esmeralda

Eureka

Humboldt

Lander

Lincoln

Lyon

Mineral

Nye

Pershing

Storey

V?ashoe

White Pine

600.27 818.17 +36.30

696.24 883.38 +26.88

623.02 838.20 +34.54

731.71 940.41 +28.52

728.94 1,004.70 +37.83

1,282.41 3,164.45 +146.76'

1,900.36 1,810.25 - 4.74

668.13 1,037.87 +55.34

772.49 1,137.06 +47.19

885.66 1,239.73 +39.98

721.00 1,014.19 +40.66

649.38 1,042.19 +60.49

742.26 1,172.57 +57.97

819.29 1,155.43 +41.03

1,077.93 1,491.53 +38.37

617.34 878.62 +42.32

706.20 947.66 +34.19

State 640.83 877.41 +35.92

- 1 -

TABLE II

COMPARISON AVERAGE CLASS ROOM TEACHER SALARY

1967-68 v;ith 1971-72

1967-68

Carson City 7,631

Churchill 7,132

Clark 8,420

Douglas 7,503

Elko 7,480

Esmeralda 5,950

Eureka 7,377

Humboldt 7,033

Lander 7,057

Lincoln 7,139

Lyon 7,607

Mineral 7,567

Nye 7,665

Pershing 7,669

Storey 6,636

Washoe 8,115

White Pine 7,556

State 8,107

1971-72

% of

Change

9,626

10,l'+8

10,668

10,449

10,383

8,806

8,897

9,329

9,778

9,350

10,208

10,042

9,911

9,563

9,914

10,392

10,189

10,439

+26.14

+42.28

+26.69

+39.26

+38.81

+48.00

+20.60

+32.65

+38,56

+30.97

+34.19

+32.70

+29.30

+24.70

+49.40

+28.06

+34.85

+28.77

- 2 -

TABLE III

COMPARISON AVERAGE SALARY NON TEACHING PERSONNEL

1967-68 with 1971-72

% of

1967-68 1971-72 Change

Carson City 10^007

Churchill 9,868

Clark 11,769

Douglas 9,459

Elko 10,751

Esmeralda

Eureka 14,000

Humboldt 10,325

Lander 9,685

Lincoln 10,513

Lyon 10,961

Mineral 10,049

Nye 11,058

Pershing 12,110

Storey 10,600

Washoe 11,788

White Pine 10,149

State 11,457

14,326 +31.35

14,505 +46.99

15,029 +29.70

13,765 +45.52

15,101 +40.46

12,383 -11.55

13,894 +34.57

14,066 +45.23

14,985 +42.54

14,183 +29.40

14,599 +45.28

13,842 +25.17

14,074 +16.21

16,500 +55.66

15,096 +28.06

14,525 +43.12

14,899 +30.04

- 3 -

TABLE IV

COMPARISON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES (100)

1967-68 with 1971-72

1967-68 1971-72 Change

Carson City 53,104.44 115,721.42 117.91

Churchill 51,102.53 86,630.67 69.52

Clark 684,439.51 1,065,072.57 62.48

Douglas 25,067.19 57,626.61 129.88

Elko 49,060.11 100,987.30 105.84

Esmeralda 7,662.95 19,304.69 151.92

Eureka 14,300.47 25,317.03 77.04

Humboldt 49,943.98 58,618.22 17.38

Lander 21,162.78 32,442.97 21.39

Lincoln 26,725.58 37,422.40 40.02

Lyon 47,806.95 99,954.53 109.08

Mineral 47,529.39 85,047.57 78.94

Nye 35,733.10 51,350.70 43.70

Pershing 23,483.86 33,666.56 43.36

Storey 6,961.58 13 ,005.91 86.82

Washoe 267,224.85 414,314.13 55.04

White Pine 35,854.07 52,064.73 45.21

State 1,447,163.34 2,348,568.01 62.29

- U -

TABLE V

COMPARISON INSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES (200)

1967-68 with 1971-72

% of

1967-68 1971-72 : Change

Carson City 1,528,564.88 2,473,211.02 +45.90

Churchill 1,126,685.80 1,675,997.31 +48.75

Clark 28,507,030.62 42,238,439.51 +48.17

Douglas 641,263.42 1,175,225.53 +83.26

Elko 1,901,686.97 2,634,864.67 +38.55

Esmeralda 27,934.09 60,130.87 +115.26

Eureka 126,046.32 154,063.09 +22.23

Humboldt 748,677.83 1,078,661.75 +44.07

Lander 314,790.66 491,808.46 +56.23

Lincoln 420,401.77 573,055.76 +36.31

Lyon 1,051,110.73 1,665,833.66 +58.48

Mineral 813,260.13 1,114,756.78 +37.07

Nye 552,496.92 754,585.02 +36.58

Pershing 355,814.13 447,218.62 +25.69

Storey 56,260.81 93,168.97 +68.60

Washoe 10,920,089.49 17,262,959.33 +58.08

White Pine 1,225,564.60 1,713,856.75 +39.84

State 50,317,679.12 75,607,837.10 +50.26

TABLE VI

COMPARISON EXPENDITURES FOR TEACHER SALARIES (213-219)

1967-68 with 1971-72

1 % of

1967-68 1971-72 ^ : Change

Carson City 1,272,193.06. 1,981,889-.12 +55.78

Churchill 958,819.19 1,908,956.15 +96.99

Clark 22,857,870.92 32,891,779.56 +93.68

Douglas 519,525.90 969,183.09 +88.36

Elko 1,690,977.33 2,225,988.59 +35.65

Esmeralda 25,159.60 99,192.92 +75.65

Eureka 97,326.00 115,679.88 +18.85

Humboldt 611,599.77 883,970.13 +99.96

Lander 259,618.98 399,509.87 +59.99

Lincoln 359,918.88 959,212.39 +27.59

Lyon 871,999.58 1,367,793.99 +56.86

Mineral 676,283.96 905,273.85 +33.99

Nye 962,685.73 638,702.19 +38.09

Pershing 298,981.95 375,779.93 +25.58

Storey 51,528.11 82,516.18 +60.19

Washoe 9,091,538.07 19,006,052.37 +59.05

White Pine 1,031,188.18 1,909,899.99 +36.29

State 91,077,109.21 60,116,759.52 +96.35

- 6 -

TABLE VII

COMPARISON AUXILIARY SERVICE EXPENDITURES (300)

1967-68 with 1971-72

% of

1967-68 1971-72 Change

Carson City 69,015.85 109,765.91 +59.04

Churchill 3^,248.40 43,712.88 +27.63

Clark 686,057.11 1,084,245.59 +58.04

Douglas 14,777.18 27,833.49 +88.35

Elko 24,358.40 30,462.17 +25.06

Esmeralda 635.30 1,105.66 +74.04

Eureka 5,300.91 4,367.36 -17.61

Humboldt 12,280.01 18,596.97 +51.44

Lander 8,342.89 13,059.40 +56.53

Lincoln 14,633.56 25,565.11 +74.70

Lyon 21,931.92 45,592.37 +107.88

Mineral 17,812.48 44,078.30 +147.46

Nye 10,761.84 10,779.19 + .16

Pershing 9,495.84 18,777.01 +97.74

Storey 1,348.07 2,549.67 +89.13

Washoe 437,378.59 598,600.03 +36.86

White Pine 48,390.22 38,708.91 -20.00

State 1,416,768.57 2,117,800.02 49.48

- 7 -

TABLE VIII

COMPARISON TR/vNSPORTATION EXPENDITURES (400)

1967-68 with 1971-72

% of

1967-68 1971-72 Change

Carson City 53,660.60 106,339.19 +98.17

Churchill 116,811.11 146,024.05 +25.00

Clark 874,224.31 1,480.715.21 +69.37

Douglas 53,317.16 88,490.57 +65.97

Elko 120,094.31 153,553.60 +27.86

Esmeralda 16,575.87 18,424.05 +11.15

Eureka 35,250.96 39 ,897.33 +13.18

Humboldt 72,518.32 95,889.17 +32.23

Lander 26,147.35 28,189.61 + 7.81

Lincoln 55,078.23 43,083,41 -21.78

Lyon 90,861.26 145 ,635.59 +60.28

Mineral 49,704.C4 85 ,683.54 +74.40

Nye 73,113.74 108 ,457.09 +48.35

Pershing 35,171.94 41,550.81 +18.14

Storey 3,222.86 4,137.79 +28.39

Washoe 396,093.24 546,820.33 +38.05

White Pine 78,203.33 88,835.67 +13.60

State 2,150,054.63 3,222,737.11 +49.89

8

TABLE IX

COMPARISON OPERATION EXPENDITURES (500)

1967-68 with 1971-72

% of

1967-68 1971-72 Change

Carson City 166,633.80 306,190.47 83.75

Churchill 122,821.10 177,062.47 44.16

Clark 3,280,195.95 5,169,272.13 57.59

Douglas 87,179.17 165,496.57 89.83

Elko 193,875.07 282,469.58 45.70

Esmeralda 5,801.47 8,025.72 38.34

Eureka 18,622.24 35,261.69 89.35

Humboldt 109,555.88 151,145.49 37.96

Lander 54,493.10 56,434.10 3.56

Lincoln 58,235.22 77,918.85 33.80

Lyon 130,900.52 208,030.77 58.92

Mineral 92,090.59 145,956.19 58.49

Nye 85,946.92 133,319.74 55.12

Pershing 52,014.56 64,755.95 24.50

Storey 10,088.79 13,791.85 36.70

Washoe 1,455,192.03 2,160,609.24 48.47

White Pine 134,041.86 167,376.16 24.87

State 6,057688.27 9,323,296.97 53.91

TABLE X

COMPARISON MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES (500)

1967-68 with 1971-72

% of

1967-68 1971-72 Change

Carson City 57,120.60 85,262.65 +49.27

Churchill 70,347.16 97,673.74 +38.85

Clark 1,110,027.69 1,964,210.77 +76.95

Douglas 25,381.87 43,539.36 +71.54

Elko 117,934.45 138,182.11 +17.17

Esmeralda 2,970.85 9,313.83 +213.51

Eureka 13,108.24 8,619.36 -34.24

Humboldt 38,806.14 85,932.61 =121.44

Lander 8,652.11 17,898.35 +105.63

Lincoln 35 ,909.65 35,668.34 - 3.36

Lyon 43,508.69 70.974.33 +63.13

Mineral 70,138.80 109 ,073.28 +55.51

Nye 14,529.40 20 ,420.29 +40.54

Pershing 19,879.23 24,479.27 +23.14

Storey 4,943.76 8,743.62 +76.86

Washoe 475,063.75 817,427.74 +72.07

White Pine 58,970.84 55,599.86 - 5.72

State 2,168,303.23 3,593,019.52 +65.70

- 10 -

TABLE XI

COMPARISON FIXED CHARGES EXPENDITURES (700)

1967-58 with 1971-72

% of

1967-68 1971-72 Change

Carson City 46,952.60 257,669.81 +448.78

Churchill 48,060.77 171,250.22 +256.32

Clark 782,991.41 4,308 ,154.47 +450.21

Douglas 10,829.84 115,334.73 +964.95

Elko 48,546.67 238,442.75 +391.16

Esmeralda 1,464.00 7,622.50 +420.66

Eureka 4,731.91 19,137.23 +304.43

Humboldt 31,455.76 122,641.65 +289.89

Lander 10,267.68 42,016.71 +309.21

Lincoln 15,915.97 61,707.54 +287.71

Lyon 30,468.72 155,154.22 +409.26

Mineral 24,074.75 106,509.37 +342.41

Nye 11,969.31 72,454.13 +505.33

Pershing 11,536.72 45,309.42 +292.74

Storey 2,420.35 10,338.17 +327.14

Washoe 306,729.53 1,674,411.30 +445.89

White Pine 40,220.94 167,810.62 +317.82

State 1,428,636.93 7,575,974.85 +430.29

- 11 -

TABLE XII

COMPARISON TRANSFERS OUT (800)

1967-68 with 1971-72

1957-68 ; " i- 1971-72 Change

0 1,601.75

. 1,470.28 363.85 - 75.25

458,072.00

13,856,27 15,737.38 + 13.58

32,889.82 77,361.99 +135.22

8,057.17 13,955.43 + 73.33

4,608.62 11,314.49 +145.51

8,665.18 4,089.63 - 52.81

2,579.43 23,182.00 +798.43

12,511.94 24,915.29 + 99.13

12,063.00 20,189.28 + 67.37

14,440.72 25,921.59 + 79.50

36,343.54 158 ,829.48 +337.02

10,815.76 8,256.54 - 23.62

8,232.60 2,120.05 - 74.25

32,132.19 4,843.50 - 84.93

20,510.71 45,722.08 +122.92

219,178.23 896,216.33 +308.90

Carson City

Churchill

Clark

Douglas

Elko

Esmeralda

Eureka

Humboldt

Lander

Lincoln

Lyon

Mineral

Nye

Pershing

Storey

Washoe

White Pine

State

- 12 -

TABLE XIII

COMPARISON CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENDITURES (900)

1957-58 v;ith 1971-72

% of

1957-68 1971-72 Change

Carson City 75

Churchill 63

Clark 82

Douglas 110

Elko 32

Esmeralda 3

Eureka 95

Humboldt 26

Lander 19

Lincoln 39

Lyon 26

Mineral 3U

Nye 16

Pershing 7

Storey

Washoe 82

White Pine 12

State 732

,528.49 182,716.86 +141.92

,166.41 59,308.85 - 6.11

,754.96 661,070.65 +698.83

,359.44 53,579.20 -105.97

,810.88 33,317.89 + 1.55

,149.44 73,582.32 ^2236.36

,579.00 8,497.87 - 91.11

,502.26 24,775.87 - 6.51

,353.90 48,611.92 +151.17

,156.38 49 ,342.79 + 26.01

,181.22 34,052.00 + 30.06

,035.17 43,073.37 + 26.56

,223.75 18,203.53 + 12.20

,936.87 39,630.36 +399.32

,181.61 10,992.13 +162.87

,604.36 245,365.93 +197.04

,517.60 6,767.60 - 45.94

,041.74 1,592,890.34 +117.59

- 13 -

TABLE XIV

COMPARISON ALL EXPENDITURES (100 through 900)

1967-68 with 1971-72

1967-68 1971-72

% of

Change

Carson City-

Churchill

Clark

Douglas

Elko

Esmeralda

Eureka

Humboldt

Lander

Lincoln

Lyon

Mineral

Nye

Pershing

Storey

Washoe

White Pine

State

2,050,581.26 3,638,479.08 + 77.43

1,634,713.56 2,458 ,024.04 + 50.36

36,007,721.56 58,429,272.90 + 62.27

982,031.54 1,742,863.44 + 77.47

2,521,256.68 3,689 ,642.06 + 46.34

74,251.09 211,385.07 +184.69

317,548.67 306,475.45 - 3.49

1,098,406.36 1,640,351.37 + 49.33

465,799.90 753,643.53 + 61.80

679,568.30 928,679.49 + 36.66

1,454,833.01 2 ,445,426.95 + 68.08

1,163,086.07 1,761,100.09 + 51.41

837,118.52 1,328,409.17 + 58.68

526,148.91 723,644.54 + 37.54

97,660.43 158,848.16 + 62.05

14,372,514.03 23,725,352.53 + 65.07

1,654,274.17 2,336,742.38 + 41.25

65,937,514.06 106,278,340.25 + 61.81

- 14 -

TABLE XV

COMPARISON % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR INSTRUCTION (200)

1967-68 with 1971-72

1967-68 1971-72 Difference

Carson City

Chuixihill

Clark

Douglas

Elko

Esmeralda

Eureka

Humboldt

Lander

Lincoln

Lyon

Mineral

Nye

Pershing

Storey

Washoe

White Pine

State

74.5H 67.97 - 6.57%

68.92 68,18 - .74

79.17 72.29 - 6.88

65.30 67.43 + 2.13

75.43 71,41 - 4.02

37.62 28.45 - 9.17

39.69 50.27 +10.58

68.16 65.76 - 2.49

67.58 65.26 - 2.32

61.86 61.71 - .15

72.25 68.12 - 4.13

69.92 63.13 - 6.79

66.00 56.80 — 9.20

ga.63 61.80 - 5,83

57^61 58.65 + 1.04

75.98 72.76 - 3.72

74.08 73.34 - ,74

76.31 71.14 - 5.17%

- 15 -

TABLE XVI

COMPARISON % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR TEACHER SALARIES (213-219)

1967-68 with 1971-72

1967-68 1971-72 Difference

Carson City

Churchill

Clark

Douglas

Elko

Esmeralda

Eureka

Humboldt

Lander

Lincoln

Lyon

Mineral

Nye

Pershing

Storey

VJashoe

White Pine

62.01+

58.65

63.48

52.39

65.08

33.88

30.65

55.68

54.66

52.96

59.93

58.15

55.27

56,82

52.76

63.25

62.33

54.47

57.32

56.21

55.61

60.33

20.80

37.75

53.86

52.35

49.44

55.93

51.46

48.08

51.93

51.95

59.03

60.12

- 7.57%

- 1.33

- 7.27

+ 3.22

- 4.75

-12.98

+ 7.10

- 1 . 8 2

- 2.31

- 3.52

- 4.00

- 6.69

- 7.19

- 4.89

- .81

- 4.22

- 2 . 2 1

State 62.30 56.67 - 5.63

- 16 -

JOINT MEETING OF

SENATE AND ASSEViBLY COMMITTEES ON EDUCATION

c

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1973 v

S.C.R. 4

JOINT SENATE AND ASSEMBLY COMiMITTEES ON EDUCATION

MINUTES OF HEARING

Tuesday, February 14th, 1973

PRESENT FROM SENATE:

Senator Foley

Senator Neal

Senator Bryan

Senator Ilecht

Senator Wilson (guest)

Senator Blakemore (guest)

ABSENT: Senator Young

Senator Raggio

Senator Walker

PRESENT FROM ASSEMBLY:

GUESTS:

Assemblyman

Assemblyman

Assemblyman

Assemblyman

Assemblyman

Assemblyman

Schofield

McNeel

Vergiels

Barengo

Foote

Broadbent

ABSENT: Assemblyman Lowman

Mr. Cal Kinsley - Incline Village

Pete Hooper - Reno

Dottie Hooper - Reno

Doug Ferrari - Reno

G. Miller - Reno

Dean Heidrich - Reno

Mark A. Denton - Reno

Gail Ball - Reno

Ann Ehrenburg - Las Vegas

Gary Gray - Las Vegas

June Hansen - Reno

Marilyn Skender - Reno

James R. Brooke - Reno

Harold J. Jacobsen - Carson City

•N«Humphrey - University of Nevada System

N, Edd Miller - President - University of Nevada

Reno

R, J. Zorn - University of Nevada Las Vegas

Additional Guests;

Richard Morgan - N.S.E.A.

David Zenoff - Judge Supreme Court

Larry Hyde - University of Nevada, Reno

Joe Nishicick - Independent observer

Dave Gott - Reno Nevada - University

Charles Fay - Reno, Nevada

James E. Smalley - Assemiblyman

Gene Echols - Senator

Brent Begley - Reno

J. R. Skelton - Reno

Michael VJheat - Las Vegas, U. of N.

Lloyd Gangner - Las Vegas, U. of N.

Patrick Murphy - Reno, U, of N.

Blaine Sullivan - Reno

Gene O'Brien - Reno

Richard Daille - Reno

Tom Lorentsen - Reno

Chairman Foley convened the m.eeting at 2:40 P.M. for the purpose

of discussing S.C.R. 4 which directs Senate and Assembly

Education committees to study establishment of a law school

as part of University of Nevada Systemi. The Senator mentioned

that several members of both committees were absent due to

other meetings and would be present as soon as possible.

Senator Foley then presented the Chairm.an of the Assembly

Committee on Education, Jack Schofield.

Assemblyman Schofield: During the last campaign three years

ago students spoke to m.e of their problems of being accepted

in law schools in neighboring states and wanted me to do som.e

probing into the possibility of establishing a law school in

the Nevada university system. After the conclusion of the

last Session of the Legislature, I did start gathering data

on this and formed a committee consisting of Jan Gould,

secretary treasurer. Dr. Roske, Dean at the University of Nevada,

Las Vegas and myself as president. From the data and

information that was gathered from our study came the compil-'

ation of facts and figures making up the following report on

Law School potentialities:

*See Exhibit 1 for content of Mr. Schofield;s report.

Judge David Zenoff of the Supreme Court was asked by the

Chairman to address the Hearing.

Judge Zenoff said that from the career choices selected from

a large percentage of junior and hi.gh school students who

were polled in Nevada a substantial number of them chose law.

This would indicate a continuing and growing need for a law

school curriculum in the Universities of Nevada.

Zudge Zenoff: Now, we have two questions (1) is a law school

feasible or needed in the State of Nevada and then we have a

second question, an explosive issue of where will it be located.

Unless question number two is answered, then we can-

- 2

not have a law school under any circumstances. However, I

wish to emphasize now that we do not have an explosive issue

of location of the law school. There is no north south consideration.

The need for a law school is particularly acute

because in my experience and the experience of all my associates

on the Bench and that of every lawyer whom I know in

Nevada and that of every prominent citizen in the State of

Nevada, we can no longer, by letters of recommendation or

personal contact or personal affiliation of any kind get our

Nevada students into a law school. You have already heard

how in the State of Montana they have already started to

train outside of its law school. 150,000 students took a

test tlie LSAT test last year in Amierica. The Law School Aptitude

test of which 50,000 qualified under their test to become

lawyers. 4,000 were rejected at Stanford Law School, 2,400

were rejected at Santa Clara Law School, 2,300 were rejected

at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Of the many, many

letters that I wrote let alone those which my associates wrote

on the Supreme Court, my com>padres on the Judiciary, and my

friends on the District Courts around the country and other

friends of whom I am aware none got accepted to the University

of Mississippi. I v/rote nine letters to nine different law

schools for a dear friend whose son was an honor student. He

was rejected at all. On his own he was admitted to the University

of Miami law school where he paid $2,400.00 a semester

and he was glad to have the opportunity. If our Nevada students

cannot get a law education it, therefore, becomes inevitable

that the lawyers of Nevada will be made up of people

from outside Nevada. Our native sons will not have the opportunity

to serve their own people. Now we have some factors,

law graduates are divided into three parts. Those who practice

lav;, those who are associated with law, government v;ork,

local, state or national and a third catagory and those who

need it in the long run. In their ov;n business endeavors,

in their father's business endeavors and their uncles business

endeavors. Women who study law becom.e better wives, comipanions

to their husbands. The field of law in the work of governm.ental

agenties alone in the words of retired Judge Tom Clark that he

could use all the lawyers we could produce. Incidentally,

Justice Clark urgently urges me to help establish a law school

and promises that he can staff a law school overnight sufficiently

that we can become accredited. Now what he means is that we

need an accredited law school, accredited by the American Bar

Association so that our graduates can practice in any State in

the Union. We have no explosive issue about location simiply because

the Nevada Legislature placed a nodical school in the

norther area. The norterners readily acknowledge without any

rancor, envy or jealousy that the law school should go to

Southern Nevada.

Of course, it takes money and there is where the action lies.

The cost of a law school has adequately been laid out for you

by Mr. Schofield. Roughly you need (1) an accredited law library.

According to the bible I have here in my position from

the academy of new law schools the law library should be worth

from $300,000 to $350,000 to have approval by the American Bar

Association. In addition to that it will cost $50,000 annually

to maintain it in the manner in which it should be maintained.

Then of course, we must have component number two, the housing

or home. Thirdly, we have operational expenses. Mr. Schofield's

estimates are reasonably accurate much as mine could be reasonably

accurate. He is on the button, so to speak, on the operation

of a law school.

In Southern Nevada we have a very prominent and wealthy citizen

who has offered as follows: toward a law library, a cash donation

of $150,000 provided that he have two years in order to

pay this sum^-and that the building in which the library is to

be housed be named after his father. He further commits himself

to raising additional funds up to $350,000. Knov.'ing him as I

do and members of the southern delegation do, Jerome Mack, we

know that that commitment is good. Therefore, we can have a

law library in Southern Nevada. But what about the rest - we

need a place to call our home and what about operating expenses.

So far nobody has come up with operating funds. But here in

Northern Nevada by reason of an association I had through the

National Council of Juvenile Court Judges I was requested six

and one-half years ago to start working for a law school in Nevada.

I cannot mention, at this tim^e, the name of the organizational

group or persons part of the group, for the reason that

the money cannot be used for political activity. For that

reason nam.es cannot be m.entioned at this time, but for the

reason of saving grace, if the Legislature will enact somiething

or at least soon for the State of Nevada to participate in establishing

a lav; school this group will then feel free to be

recognized and will m.ake its offer firm.. In rough terms, the

group offers $1,000,000 to the construction of a law building.

iVheufurther use of this law library already on the cam.pus at

the campus at the University of Nevada North and further to

participate financially in the operating costs. Now that is

why I say there is no North South issue. If the Legislature

will but legislate the necessary funds to start our law school,

of course, it should be in the South.- Regardless of the fact

that we have the Trial College and the National Council of

Juvenile Court Judges. Those are important organizations, im.-

portant to the operation of a law school but not so essential

to cause a serious rift within our own state when we have this

crying need of several hundred students in Nevada who want law

education and are being denied the opportunity to have one.

I will turn over to you, Senator Foley, this host of letters,

telegrams of these young people who want to go to law school.

See Exhibit 2.*

They say we don't care if somebody wants to point to sticks

and stones in the form of a new building. We want to go to law

school. We will go in Tonapah if that is where you place it.

There is some merit parenthetically to having a law school in

Tonapah where I can see an environment quiet enough where you

live, eat and breath law and you will have a better lawyer, al-

-thoughche won't have as much fun.

Now, my urgency today, sim.ply is this - that the Legislature act

now. The Board of Regents has enacted a resolution recommending

to the Legislature that they be funded to make a feasibility

study returnable two year hence. What will that feasibility

- 4 -

study tell us? It v/ill tell us that Nevada rates a law school.

Out of all the states of the Union, Nevada is one of seven

who does not have a law school. That seven is already reduced

to six because Hawaii is presently establishing one and Alaska

has recognized that it has to, too.

The Clark County Bar Association, Senator Foley, last week

voted 72 to 13, 85 members being present, to go on record

that they desire the Legislature to take steps to establish

a law school in the State of Nevada regardless of location.

The Washoe Bar Association is undergoing, a survey, and that

survey will resolve that it is necessary for this Legislature

to embark this state on a law school, v/herever located.

So, therefore, I am asking not on behalf of the Nevada Supreme

Court, not even on the citizenry of Nevada but for the students

who want to go to a law school to give them that opportunity.

Thank you.

5

( Senate and Assembly Joint Education Hearing

February 13, 1973

Chancellor Neil Humphrey, University of Nevada - Reno,

testified next on the lav/ school issue. (See Exhibit 3

for the contents of Chancellor Humphrey's testim.ony.)

At the conclusion of Chancellor Humphrey's testimony.

Chairman Foley asked if there is a need for outside

consultation; and if so, what would be the requirements

and background of this consultant. Chancellor Humphrey

replied that he feels this person should be the Dean

of a law school or faculty member of a law school that

has been recently faced with the problem of a feasibility

study. Chancellor Humphrey further stated that there is

talent in this State to gather this study but would also

like an outside point of view.

Senator Neal commented in reference to Judge Zenoff's

testimony regarding the supporting petitions.

f

Chancellor Humphrey stated that one part of a feasibility

study is to consider the need v/ithin the State, and remarked

"IVhat v/ill a law school do for Nevada?".

Senator Hecht asked what the cost was for the last building

constructed in Las Vegas. Chancellor Humphrey replied that

the one that will soon be under construction is the P.E.

facility -

Chairman Schofield asked what the cost would be per

square foot. Chancellor Humphrey replied that for the

last building is was $35.00 per square foot.

Assebmlyman Broadbent queried as to what was the feasibility

study for the medical school. Chancellor Humphrey commented

that there was two parts to this feasibility study. Number

one being that the initial Board of Regents action was taken

within the feasibility study. Numbier tv/o being that the study

was extended over a period of time. The cost cannot be

separated from curriculum development. The actual cost for

opening the school v/as $219,900.00.

Next to testify was F. J. Zorn, President, University of

Nevada - Las Vegas. Dr. Zorn commented that we are just in

the beginning of this discussion. The decision cannot bemade

on the spur of the moment. They have received many

petitions and should not consider this in dollars, but rather

what would best serve the students in the State...Such a

feasibility study would examine the role of a professional

school within the Unive.rsity concept. A law school will do

more than serve the students - it will have a role in that

a law library will serve lawyers and other State resources.

- 6 -

Senate and Assembly Joint Education Hearing

February 13, 1973

(Continuation of Dr. Zorn's testimony)

Dr. Zorn commented that this needs a careful and systematic

study. We should have the opportunity to develoo information

systematically so that we can all accept the final decision.

Chairman Foley commented that, from previous testimony, there

is a desire for the law school, but will this demand for a

la\:7 school continue.

Dr. Zorn stated that he believes it is clear that in recent

ysars there has been an upsurge in legal education. The

point is - need for awareness and information. Dr. Zorn

further stated that he does not conceive that we will

abandon due process; this is no short-term trend. Dr. Zorn

suggested that v/e could learn from the University of Utah

and Arizona State, by finding out what they did or what they

would do differently.

Folsy asked if Dr. Zorn felt the number of students

would be increasing. Dr. Zorn replied that where the population

is growing, there will be nev; young people.

Chairman Schofield commented that one of the basic factors

that V7e would like to determine would be hov/ many students

really want a law education in the State of Nevada.

Dr. Zorn commented that many students are in legal studies

which v/ill continue on into lav/ school.

Senator Neal commented that in 1965 the law school was

initially introduced, and queried as to what the University

has been doing. Dr. Zorn stated the need for legal education

had been noted

Dr. N. Edd Miller, President, University of Nevada - Reno

was next to testify. Dr. Miller stated that there should

be careful, total planning about the needs of young people,

and must think of the people in the State.

Judge Laurence M. Hyde, Jr., National College of Trial Judges,

University of Nevada - Reno, follov/ed v>7ith testimony. Judge

Hyde stated that the National College would work closely v/ith

the law school no matter where it was located. Judge Hyde

f^^ther stated that a law school would be of great assistance

to the National College of the State Judiciary. The potential

for becoming a national center for the improvement of justice;

a law school would be a tremendous asset in accomplishing this.

Also the National College would be of substantial help to the

law school. The National College does conduct year round

programs, bringing in legal experts of all kinds. The total

(

Senate and Assembly Joint Education Hearing

February 13^ 1973

they expect to bring in from all over the country during

the coming year is about 1,200 people for programs lasting

from one to four weeks in duration. This v/ould provide an

opportunity for professors and students to learn more about

Court Judges. Any law school, v/hether in the North or South,

would provide state-wide services to the Bar, therefore the

quality of legal services vrauld be benefited. There should

be a first class law school rather than a third class law

school in order to benefit the Bench, the Bar the Legislature.

Judge Hyde commented that he believes that we do need the

objectivity of outside consultants. Nevada does not have any

legal education experts. The study would indicate that the

State does need a law school.

Next to testify v/as Pat Murphy, University of Nevada - Reno.

Mr. Murphy stated that he was speaking on behalf of the

students of the University of Nevada - Reno, not the student

government, but the students that have indicated concern

for a lav/ school in the State. Their concern is not

the location but the quality of the school> the school

should bo accredited. Mr. Murphy submitted telegrams

received from law students attending out of state lav/

schools; these telegrams were made part of the record (see

Exhibit 4). Perhaps what he could best express is the

student perspective - there most definitely is a. need for

a lav/ school. Mr. Murphy further stated that there are 83

declared pre-law majors at the University of Nevada campus.

Mr. Murphy spoke of newer law schools that require second

and third year law students to work in the field - actually

handling cases. This practice would not in any way take

away from the existing law practices, but rather give law

services to those who have not been able to affort it.

Next to testify was Mary Batcher / Senior, Carson High

School, representing the Governor's Youth Advisory Council.

Miss Batcher stated that they do not Speak for the Governor,

but are an advisory commission to him. The GYAC is made up

of high school students throughout the State of Nevada. At

their last meeting on November 3, 4 and 5, over 100 GYAC

delegates moved to approve resolutions urging establishment

of a law school in the State of Nevada.

Mike Wheat, University of Nevada - Las Vegas, was next to

testify. Mr. Wheat focused attention on a petition

containing names of 139 students who are in the pre-law

association. Realistically, approximately 90 of these

would go to law school. Mr. Wheat stated that he would make

this petition a part of the record subsequent to the hearing

to be held in Las Vegas. Mr. Wheat then referred to a booklet

he had obtained from the University of Hawaii, "Programs

- 8 -

Senate and Assembly Joint Education Hearing

February 13, 1973

(Continuation of Mike Wheat's testimony)

in Legal Education at the University of Hav/aii". This

booklet includes a proposal for the" establishment of a school

of lav;. The booklet lists four objectives and problems that

the University of Hawaii were concerned with. Mr. tfheat

^^oted these objectives as follows: "1. The orovision of

professional educational opportunity for citizens of Hav/aii

given, especially, the mounting difficulty for Hawaii's

students to obtain admission to mainland law schools;

2. The necessity for increasing the number of law—trained

persons in Hawaii to cope v;ith the increase in lav; activitv

created by judicial decisions and assuring right to counsel in

most criminal cases, greater complexity in economic develooments

caused by changing technology, the grov/ing need of

State governmental agencies for legally trained personnel, and

the provision of legal services to the poor; 3. The stimulation

of legal study, research and publication concerning

xmportant problems especially those peculiar to Hawaii or

which have a special character in Hawaii; 4. The provision

of an independent source of critical analysis of the work

of legas institutions in Hav;aii — and the addition of

historical, and social and natural scientific oerspective

to legal research and study."

Being no further testimonies to be heard. Chairman Foley

adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.

/9T7D<IHE:

I- • Westwood Drivs, Las Vegas, Nt

LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION: LAW SCHOOL POTENTIALITIES

Law schools are osual components of a state university. For instance,

this is true of all Big Ten Universities—with the single exception of Purdue

University, which began as an agricultural and technical school. The state

universities of the Pacific coast also have established law schools, and in

the Rocky Mountain area the Universities of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Idaho,

Montana and Wyoming all include them. In Arizona both the University of

Arizona and Arizona State University each have a law school.

Role and Importance

In most mature universities, the law school is a major unit in professional

education. Not only does the law school provide access to professional

careers for young adults, but it also is an important aid to practitioners in

the field as it brings them seminars and short courses to up-date them concerning

new developments in the field of law.

Moreover, it is important to all members of the community who engage

the services of an attorney. The University law library as a nearby resource

center for attorneys can allow them more efficiently and cheaply to research

difficult or unusual points of law for their clients. Since knowingly or

unknowingly all who engage the services of attorneys must pay their counsels'

research expenses, many members of the general community directly benefit

from the presence of a law school.

Furthermore, a law school is useful to the total campus and community.

A modern law school like that of the University of Utah does not exclusively

^t^each lawLCpurse^^ to .^w students ,. .. Ijis tead" its'professors,; as; part, of. their . ' i*

regular teaching assignments, teach the business law, environmental or con-

• •>

sumer law, and some law enforcement classes to students of various colleges

2

of the University.

I

General Statement of Need

3.re two factors of outstanding importance causing the current

unprecedented awakening of interest in legal training throughout the United

States. First, despite the recently falling birth rate, the rapid growth

of population into the university student category (age 18-22) will continue

into the twenty-first century. Second, there is a great rise in the demand

for legal services because of the growing complexity of governmental,

business, and particularly social affairs, and a mounting concern that

Americans of all elements of the population should have opportunity to

obtain needed legal assistance.

The 149 law schools approved by the American Bar Association have

recently increased their total enrollment, but have cut the size of their

freshmen classes by 2.9 percent, that is from 36,171 students last year to

35,129 this year. This decrease in freshmen occurred because most law

schools have overadmitted new students in the recent past, and their enrollment

had swelled beyond their capacity. In addition, flunkouts and dropouts

have declined. This situation reflects full capacity at existing law schools

and inability to accommodate increasing volume of applicants.

There is now an unmet need for opportunity to attend law school for

Nevada students. In 1972, a committee of interested citizens made inquiries

with the purpose of determining the need in the state for such a facility.

They sent letters from a P.O. Box (for anonymity) to each high school in

Nevada inquiring about the number in each class that indicated to counselors

-1 •Nighet" Education and National Affairs," January 19^1973 ' '

3

an interest in law school.

The total response was: • «

Sophomores — 100

Juniors - 113

Seniors - 118

331

Distribution by areas polled:

Clark County 47.43%

Reno 25.37%

Remainder of state - 27.20% ^

A Department of Education study of data concerning 9th to 11th graders in

Nevada reported that 447 listed law as their first career choice and 315

indicated law as their second choice.^ The number of pre—law students at

UNLV who can be identified as such totals 100 at present. UNR may have

approximately as many. Therefore, the need for a law school to serve the

aspirations of Nevada's youth is clearly demonstrated.

Difficulties of Access

Formerly if a Nevada college graduate had the financial means he could

gain admission to some accredited law school. Now many schools have 8 to 10

#

applicants for each opening and 20 or more applicants for each opening may

soon become the norm. At present a B or B+ grade average and an L.S.A.T.

(pre-law) score in the top 20% is required. Unless law school capacities

are expanded, eligibility standards may soon demand a straight A or A- average,

coupled with an L.S.A.T. score in the top fifth or tenth percentile.^ The

present outlook for prospective law students is hopeful for only a relative

* * * • • » • . . . • •

( • ••• •. . ••

2 Citizens Ad Hoc Law School for Nevada Committee study

3 Department of Education Study • . •>

4 59 American Bar Association journal 62, January 1973

5 Ibid

few; only those at the top of their college classes can qualify. Meanwhile,

other good applicants are being denied access.

Added to these conditions Nevada residents must bear an additional and

almost insurmountable burden. Typically, state schools give admission

preference to their own residents. For example, the University of Montana

Law School now admits no non-Montana residents. A state statute enacted in

1971 does not allow admission of a non-resident when his admittance would

. . . 6

exclude a qualified resident student. Other western law schools have not

gone so far as to codify their non-resident exclusion policies, but a study

of their enrollments reveals few Nevadans. The University of Oregon has one

Nevadan, a third-year student.^ No Nevadans have been admitted during the

g

last two years. The University of Idaho has no Nevadans enrolled, and the

q

University of New Mexico has no Nevada law students. The University of

Arizona at Tucson has one second-year and one third-year Nevada student

enrolled,and no Nevadan has been admitted since 1971. U.C.L.A. admitted

Its last Nevadan in 1970.^^ Until last year Utah recruited Nevadans. The

University of Utah does have 14 Nevadans but there is no breakdown by year.^^

If their admissions follow the same pattern as the other schools surveyed,

in all probability only one or two or perhaps none was admitted in 1972.

In view of this bleak situation, last year four desperate Nevadans applied

to the University of Mississippi Law School but none was admitted.

6 Revised Codes of Montana 75-8601 (2)

^ Letter of 18 December, 1972. Admissions Officer

8 Letter of 5 December, 1972. Dean

9 Letter of 6 December, 1972. Assistant Dean

10 Letter of 1 December, 1972. Admissions Officer

^^^2, apd_personal .inquiry. Admissions Officer 11 January

* • . " i . •':> * • ; • • . •

12 Letter of 28 November, 1972, Academic Secretary; and Letter of 11 December 197

Assistant Dean »

13 Letter of 20 September, 1972. Dean • ^

In brief, the foregoing indicates that even the best Nevada students are

being precluded from obtaining a legal education. Those students are being

denied the opportunity to become members of the legal profession. This has

serious consequences to them and their parents. Additionally, Nevada as a

state will suffer for in the future the Bar will be composed of virtually all

non-Nevadans. Many citizens feel that the present Bar is even now too remote

from the people. If no law school is opened Nevada's legal system will be dom

inated by non-natives only vaguely in touch with the needs of Nevadans.

Costs

In general, of all types of professional schools a law school is the

least costly—much less than medical or dental schools, and only modestly

more than most doctoral programs in the arts and letters.

First, in reference to physical plant, a building to house classrooms,

faculty offices and a law library would probably cost a million dollars in

terms of 1973 construction.^^ However, since law schools do not require

laboratories and special equipment, already existing campus buildings could

temporarily house law school operations. During biennium 1975-77, the UNLV

campus plans replacement of its overcrowded library, enabling reassignment of

a modern structure needing only minor adaptation as a law school facility.

Second, the only specialized instructional resource' that a law school

needs is a library having an initial collection of 40,000 volumes costing

approximately $500,000 in 1966-67 prices. Probably ten per cent should be

added to this figure for inflation of prices to date.^^ Library acquisitions

would be phased over a three year term.

.l4.V:?|Q.ui^eUri«. Statement;, oh the EstabUshmenf of.. New'"Law. Schoo-ls'l ".(Assecia'tiipn'^

•'Of Aftierican Law Schools, Washington, D ^ C; 1972) 'pp 15-16 • " ' *" '

15 "Guideline Statement on the Establishment of New Law Schools." p. 18

Third, operating costs for the first year can be realistically estimated

Probably the smallest practical basis for the opening class would be 40

I students.

Based on this first year enrollment, the initial year's operating cost

would be;

6 faculty salaries (inc. a Dean)

3 classified employees

Equipment, supplies, and travel

First 1/3 of basic library

Scholarships

$150,000

18,000

20,000

150,000

5,000

$343,000

By the third year, with 110 students as a result of attrition in the

first two classes, operating costs would be:

11 faculty (inc. Dean)

5 classified employees

Equipment, supplies and travel

Last 1/3 of basic Library

Scholarships

The fourth year (at full scale) and thereafter;

11 faculty (inc. Dean)

5 classified employees

Equipment, supplies and travel

Annual increment for Library

Scholarships

$275,000

30,000

40,000

150,000

10,000

$505,000

$285,000

31,000

40,000

60,000

• 10,000

$426,000

If i t were desired to enlarge the student body, the faculty to students

ratio of 1:15 would be the best guide to expanded costs.^

* * * * * * * * * *

Thus from the standpoint of both need and cost i t appears to the Citizens

Ad Hoc Committee to obtain a Law School for Nevada that the establishment of

this facility in the near future is a wise investment of state resources.

A law school deserves the serious consideration and study of all state

officials.

V 16 Above figures are given or derived from information in "Guideline'Statement

on the Establishment of New Law Schools."

•i' r.. . .. -." • - JI

y y" f i \y ^ •

ii (

• .% il Z4 i C-i a i ?• z

--R£:A1a9C1W)(1f.^2955AC52>P0 (S/01/75 1505 ' n:i IC: 03

xes ipjfiEsA aris . JEyHiBil—

2020 Oleics (ZC2C7^552t?U) 7DRN LAS VL?AS NEV 1^ 01-^1 lOaSplsT

R$5 SUPF.tpE CGUBT OF fCVADA DAVID ZSf-cOFF ^L'STleL " '' jTl .

coijtT mmE ^ ! •'^

.CAE§or^ cm Ff;v g^oi_ _ ^ ^

I AH A STl?0£f7r^r ti$ GfUVERSiTY Qf f^FVADA THS"

xrimoouet^oN LrcistAiror^ TO OSTABLXSH a LA^ SCHOOL'IN m^R "" ^

I^STIT!JTIOf^ CAN ASStmE YOU THAT Tl^L Is OAEAT SUPI^HT FOR sAl^'

THE FOif^iS LITH UHICH t QGmm IN FAVOH OF SUCH LOSxSLaTION ARE

A-^ LCr^BJ SuOATIOf#!, EXPEf'iSES FOR rcVAOA RESXOENTS |

B- HjRZ FAVCRA3„£ COMSIDERAUCH THAM IS 0rrtrSc2 TO

STUDENT WHO ARE OlTT OF STATE APaiCANTS BY OTl^ STAixlcHi^LH

0- smmm mm traimed m a ?£vada sci-^ocl i^hs Qm states UEms . ' •>

robebt J sdrfare •

3;

Sr

:'•

I

-•: -

t

f VLAW

SCHOOLS. WITH THE CURRENT INCREASED DEMANDS ON LAU SOHOOLS Ef^O

-LLI-ENT PREFERENCE IS NOU GIVEN TO RESIDENTS OF THOSE STATES.

THIRDLY INCREASE IN TUITON, ROOM AND BOARD MAKE IT DIFFICULT

FOR MANY STUDENTS TO GO OUT OF STATE IF THEY DO GAIN ENTRANCE.

FOURTH, NEVADA OFFERS NO PROGRAM AS EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE AS CAL

-IFORNIAS CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE EAR. SUCH A PROGRAM COULD EE

IMPLIMENTED IN A LAU SCHOOL ENVIROI'ENT. THEREFORE YOU WOULD BENEFIT

BOTH ATTORNEYS CURRENTLY PRACTICING IN NEVADA AS WELL AS THOSE UNDER

-GRADUATE NEVADA STUDENTS WHO DESIRE TO EECOiE ATTORNEYS

LOUIS S TEST Um I'ARK S MICHAEL UNLV

SF-1201 (R5-69)

MICHAEL. L . HINES

ATTORNEY AT LAW

SUITE 1 1 1 - l i a FRIEDMAN 3UILDING

300 FREMONT STREET

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101

TELEPHONES

3 e A ' 5 9 5 4

3 0 4 - 6 9 S O

February 8, 1973

The Honorable David Zenoff

Justice of the Supreme Court of Nevada

Carson City, Nevada

My dear Judge Zenoff:

It was a pleasure to have you attend our last meeting over which

I presided as President of the Clark County Bar Association. All

of the members enjoyed your address on the proposed law school

for Nevada.

I wish to advise that as a result of a vote taken, seventy four (74)

members of the Clark County Bar present at the meeting voted

for the school with only thirteen voting against it.

You are doing a wonderful job for the future students and residents

of the State of Nevada by encouraging and forming a law school.

I am sure that your efforts will not go unrewarded and that before

too much time passes we will have a law school here in our State.

With kindest regards.

/lynCHAEL L. HINES i/'

' PO rr-eo csji1 d H oeTn- 4tf, Clna rk County

Bar Association.

MLH/s

c

February 8, 1973

Justice David Zenoff

Nevada Supreme Court

Carson City, Nevada

Dear Justice Zenoff:

There was a meeting of the Clark County Bai

Association on February 8, 1973, at which you were

present.

Among other business that came up, George M,

Dickerson, on behalf of the Board of Bar Governors for

the State of Nevada, indicated that the Board of Bar

Governors wanted a consensus from the Clark County Bar

Association as to whether the Association is in favor

of establishing a law school in the State of Nevada,

A motion was made that the members of the Clark County

Bar Association in attendance at said luncheon go on

record as favoring establishing a law school in the State

of Nevada, without regard to the location of the law

school, and that the State Bar Association lobbyist

advocate the passage of such legislation. This motion

was duly seconded, and after due discussion, upon vote

thereon, of the 85 members present at the meeting, 14

opposed the motion. As a consequence, the motion was ruled

to have carried by a vote of 71 in favor and 14 opposed,

I hope this provides you with the information

that you need.

Warmest regards,

CLARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

JFP:11

The Best

VALLEY B.AINK OF NEVADA

E.vec :t; H t.' (.) r / ict: <

1 3 SOUTH FOURTH STREET • LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 8 9 1 0 I

The Honorable David Zenoff

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of the State of Nevada

Supreme Court Building

Carson City, Nevada 89701

Dear Dave:

Pursuant to our recent conversations, it is most desireable to have

a law school and law library at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.

This will acknowledge my desire to endow the University of Nevada at Las

Vegas with a law school library subject to the following:

a. That the total contribution to the law library from myself and

others will total $350,000 of which I personally will give $150,000 and

that I have two years from the date of acceptance hereof to deposit that

sum to the appropriate authority designated by you.

b. That the building in which the law library be held will be

named The Nate Mack Law Library.

I have had discussions with Dr. Zorn, President of UNLV and he

acknowledges the fact that the existing library is inadequate and he is

working toward building a new library which would maintain the name

Dickens Library.

This would leave the old library building available which could be

named after my father and it would be most appropriate for a law school

and social science graduate school.

As you know, one of the great prerequisites of a good law school is

to have a good law library and develop it in the manner of a library with

classrooms adjoining.

The old library would be most favorable and in building a new building

for the old school and social science department, one could not develop

it any better.

In repetition, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having

the law school here in Las Vegas, Nevada.

If there are any questions regarding this letter, please call me.

With kindest personal regards, I remain

( MIKE O'CALLAGHAN

GOVERNOR

THE STATE OF NEVADA

EXECUTIVE CHAMQER

CARSON CITY. NEVADA 89701

i;ov^.ir>»er 14, 1972

A, Gavin

3 5''4 T./iniv^.

Laa vado.. 3/3111

Daa.r Mrs. Gavin:

Thia t/iil r-t/V-ly to your roccrxi: lat.tur

dasarib.ing youx* ailorta do ca'.-\on3trada hho ueoi

for Ci in.,/ scbiool. in t'la Stato oO riovaia-

Whothor n iar? sndool vrill be Gstablishsu

in Mnvada, nyon fcno decision:: nada by Gno

Wnvada Layisinturo as vrcil as the Bc-ard of Msyenia.

Ji3 you iuxov, boLlx of ifios": Boards aro '•Icoto;: by tiio

yeoplG, suid I a:-.i sum fhey s'ill car's; fully rcnsidor

any staai;;:3 shavixAp a noad for a lau school a'C if'xo

University oi; Mevaua, Las Vegas.

yhank you for your e^orecaion c:c iutore.ot .Lu

the esta/olishiTent of a IcV/j scixooi in ilevada.

Sincerely,

Mike O'Callay.ian

Governor of Nevada

£!0CiJf5Q/bi

be. Chief Justice David Zenoff^^

Supreme Court Bldg. .

Carson City

Februo.rj'" 6, 1973 (

The Honorable Justice David Zcnoff

Suprerie Court T3uildinf^

Carson City, iovada 39701

Honorable Justice Zenoff,

I would very nuch like to see a Scho-^l of Lav; become

part of the University of Hevada system. If T School of Law

\.ere createo. v/itnin the state I would have a. lauch better

chance to attend the scho 1 than to attempt to transfer to

an out of state L.chool of Law, I'm currently* attendinr:

the University of Hevada at Reno and I'm in my second

j^'ear of pro-lav; studies.

Even thourh I'H attendin/r school in Reno the location of the

proposed School of Law makes no difference.

I personally appreciate your errorts in makinm this Law

School a reality.

Sincerly,

Steven L. Brov.n

(.

January 31, 1973

Dear Judge Zenoff:

This letter is in reference to Nevada law school bill, I

find it cxtreniely distasteful that there is even any

question as to whether or not the bill will be passed.

Nevada is a rapidly developing state v/ith unlimited oppottunities,

and it •nGeds_peopie. It needs educated people

that wapt to settle here so that it may further its development,

One way to attract people here is to offer them

something worthwhile; the universities do Just that, the

med school was a giant step foward ana a lav; school will

be an immense asset. This also will insure more residents

to remain residents.

Stop the lav; school - stop progress in Nevada, It is as

simple as that.

4386 S, Escondido Rd,

apt. #9

Las Vegas, Nevada

V

i i i l p h Deptort

5? V.'r-st ! ' ! l r . t h Stre«

Rf>n2, Mf'Vnrl.i ^95 03

l^rbruary , 19?3

The Honorable J u s t i c e Davici Zenoff

S'.^prewe Court Building

Csrson C i t y , Nevada

Dear J u s t i c e Zenoff,

F i e c - n t l y , I learned t h a t you a r e involved i n an a t t e r e n t t o

demonstrate t o Nevada's s ' a t n i ^ ~ i s l a t o r s "he d e s l r a c l l i t y " ~nc

f e a s i b i l i t y o f "he c r - r a t l o n o f a l a v ; school i n Nevada. As a

student a t t h e Univrrsity o f F.'evada, Reno, I should l!"<e t o exp

my i n t e r e s t i n such a venture, and t o l e t you k-^ow t h a t I ani

willing t o render any services t h a t might be helpful t o vou •'n

your present e f f o r t .

K ark Haloh Dan t on

MRD/nird

^nu"ry 2 5 y 1975

D-^vid

Si\".'i-"C'"io' Oo^n-'o of jfoV"-''?.

Cni-^on City. iTcvr-fia 897!'"*1

Dear diintiec .^onoff: . ,

I em a ninicr at UI'JjV and. I am. vyitin'' to .Indicate my

d e n i ' T f o ' : * ^ j'ovada Ii<a".' "".oool., T ?ia,ve '•"•cam. ao^.lcna inf

'i^'t.lon fo'" tile l^nt aovryoi montha '••on'^'min'~ the ot'^rr ai--

atatra yi.i'^h '"'id not have ata""e aivT'-'o-i^t'^d ^'^hoo?.o tliia

year,

I fctincl out that the fi'V-t e?_a'-e in II"'".'aii yea t;iia

f-ll, .^11 of the other vOtates lyve rome fo"'m of finan<^ia.l

e-eciotanee and a for have ap-iv .-tp a^hoola in the atate,

I '"P-s cho^'-Tcd to learn thi.at :'cv da i.a the no at defieient at^te

in our Union rceardinrr a lav rroe-'^am.

I am ?r"a,Te ycu are yoinrT oefore th'^ a-uthern deleyafion

soon and I rant to stress my desi'ee for a. ITev'.da School,

I a.m. an aetive men. her of the UliXV Pre-Lar A sen, and I an. a

political "'riter for the school rarer, I ha.ve dene e:*tensive

resepych on this suhnc^t and rorld he most Pnrious to testify

a.t any hearings reyrdin.'^ this auhTect.

I wpjit to ,P:O to IP'"' school and I •^"arit to .mo to lam schoo3.

in Nevada, A-yin. if you need any assistP.nce remardinm this

matter please write to ne,

Thsjih you for your interest,

Very 'truly yours,

. OT"»-d»£s'n

1859' if. sth"st,

ilo, LP'S Ve.n:Ps, Nev.

09050

January 21, I973

Chief Justice D^vid Zenoff

Supreme Court hullding

Carson City, Nevada

Dear Sir:

I'm wrxting this letter in support of the proposal that a law school

be estaulxsnca in Nevada. I believe such a school could only benefit

the state ana its students.

A law sciioox woula acfmitely add to the academic pr>oc-i-t~a o-p

stete as well as give many deserving students a cha^crto'rl^ther theS

GQUC^XrXOJlS • ''

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

/

Judy V/hite

fettle t^e SCe/vtM

235 SOUTH SIERRA STREET

RENO, NEVADA 89504

322-6152

January 22, 1973

The Hon, Justice David Zenoff

Nevada Supreme Court

Supreme Court Building

Carson City, Nevada

Dear Justice Zenoff:

The Executive Board of Little Church of the Sierras has directed

me to communicate to you its unanimous endorsem.ent of your public

efforts to secure the rapid establishment of a law school in Nevada.

V/hat more can be said than that the need is here now.

Further, to show genuine commitment, our church is nrepared to

establish a modest scholarship fund to aid Christian students in the

pursuit of a legal education in Nevada.

We hope and pray that our state legislators will act upon your

proposal by appropriating the necessary funds this session. V/hat

better way for them to uphold "law and order"?

Tour respectful servant

SUPREME COURT OF NEVAD

DAVID ZENOFF. JUSTICE

CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89701

February 6, 1973

Mr. I2ari Wilfred Genest

140 Eiges Way

^arks, Nevada 89431

Dear ?yir. Genest:

Thank you for your letter of February 3 supporting

our efforts for a lav/ schcoL Tlie project is

gathering steam and I am hopeful.

A letter of support addressed to fenator John

Foley and Assemblyman Jack Schofield, Nevada State

Legislature, Carson City, v/ouid be helpful

Very truly yours.

EJavid fenoff

DE:irr^

THE HO'IORA^LE JIISTTCE DAVID ZEFIORR

SUPREME COURT SUILOIWG

CARSON, NEVADA 33701

1 4 0 TLOES V ' A Y

SPARKS, NEVADA 3S431

FESRJARV 3, 1973

DEAR SI R

I WOULD L I K E TO EXPRESS MY AOMtRATIOM FOR YOUR EFFORTS ON 2EHALF OF OUR UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AS

I I I RE'SAROS TO TRYING TO 3RING A ' LAW SCHOOL I N T O OUR STATE'S EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX,

AS A JUNIOR AT THE U OF R RENO, INTENOING TO PROCEED INTO LAW SCHOOL, I AM FACEO WITH THE UNPLEASANT,

THO NECESSARY PRO-PECT OF MOVING TO ANOTHER STATE I N ORDEF TO PURSJE MY EDUCATION.

TH I S PREDICAMENT I S MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT WHEN ONE REALIZES THAT THE PRESENT COLLEGE OF TRIAL

JUDGES COMPLEX AND THE LEGAL LMRARY ON HAND EMSOOY THE BASIC RECUH EMENTS FOR A COLLEGE OF LAW

WITH ONLY THE ADDITION OF INSTRUCTORS I N LAW REQ' IREO TO MAKE A LAW SCHOOL A REALITY FOR MEVAOA.

I T I S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FLEISCHMANN FOUHOATION TRUSTEES COULO LEAD TO THE

YEAR ROUND UTILITY OF THE COMPLEX AND I F THIS I S THE CASE, WHY HASN'T THE UMVERSITY SOARQ OF REGENTS

I T S E L F , PURSUED THIS GOAL?

"DOLLARS AND AM EXCESS OF LAWYERS" ARE SOME OF THE "ARGUMENTS" ALREADY OEING ADVANCED FROM CERTAIN

PERSONS WITHIN THE STATE BY WHICH THEY HOPE TO IMPEDED THE CREATION OF A LAW SCHOOL I N OUR UNIVERSITY

SYSTEM. IT I S ALARMING TO HEAD STATEMENTS MADE TO THE PRESS SY SOME MEMBERS OF THE CA R , SEMOANING

SUCH A MOVE ON WHAT APPEARS TO BE SELFISH, EGOTISTICAL AND SELF-REMUMERAT I V E GROUNDS. I T I S ALSO

A SHAME TO NOTE HOW MOST ADVERSARIES OF THIS ISSUE HAVE TO INSERT THE "REGIONAL" ASPECTS INVOLVING

THE POTEHTIAL LOCATION OF SUCH A SCHOOL, SEEMINGLY A 0ELI3ERATE ATTEMPT TO CREA E COMPLICATIONS FOR

WHAT I S SURELY AND AOVAUCEMENT I N THE FIELD OF H I HER EOUCATIO.N FOR OUR STATE. ONE MIGHT THINK THAT

THESE INCIVIOUALS SEE THE UNIVERSITY AND AMY ADDITION THERETO ! ' : TH£ LI'HT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

FOR THEIR RESPETIVE COUNTIES AMD NOT I N THE LIGHT OF A 0/ANCEMENT FOR THE STATE'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.'

THE IRREFUTABLE FACT REMAINS THAT THIS STATE HAS ONLY ONE UNIVERSITY, CONSISTING O r TWO BRANCHES AND

ANY SAINS TO EITHER CAMPUS I S A GAIN FOR THE UNIVERSITY I T S E L F ,

FOR ONE TO AOVAUCE THE OBJECTION TO A LAW SCHOOL I M NEVADA UPON THE REASONING OF "THERE ARE TOO

MANY LAWYERS HERE ALREADY" I S I N EFFECT TO SAY THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM I S TO BE VIEWED ONLY AS A

"JOB TRAINING M I L L " WHICH ONLY ADDS IMPETUS TO YHE VIEW OF AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF YOUNG

AMERICANS, QUITE CONTPIIRY TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE UNIVERSITY WAS REALLY ESTABLISHED, THE OBTAININS

OF KNOWLEDGE I N "ALL" SPHERES, WITH TK13 SEARCH JMIMPEOED BY "SOCIETAL NEEDS" AS INDICATED BY THOSE

WHO WOULD PLACE THEMSELVES I N SUCH A POSITION AS TO JUDCE WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE TO F . I D > ( | 3 H LAWYERS,

DOCTORS OR ENGINEERS THIS YEAR AND FARMERS, BIOLOGISTS ANO ARTISTS NEXT YEAR. I F THIS WERE TO BE THE CASE,

THESE PERSONS SHOULD BE GRATEFUL THAT AT THE TIME THEY WERE PROCEEDING THF.OU'H COLLEGE THE MAT I O N WAS

I N NEFO OF THEIR PARTICULAR COURSE OF STUDY. TO ENTERTAIN ANY CONCERT OF CREATING EDUCATIONAL

FACILITIES UPON A DEMAND I N THE LABOR FORCE I S RETROGRESSION FROM ANY VIEWPOINT OF LEARNING, A

DETRIMENTAL COU SE FOR THIS STATE TO EVEN ENTERTAIN. . V _

THE NATIONWIDE TENDENCY TOWARDS LOWERING ENTRANCE RECUIREMENTS, REOUCTIGH I N REQUIRED CUPRICULUM AND

ALL OTHER FORMS OF OILUTIOH OF SCHOLASTIC STANDARDS, BE I T TO ACCOMODATE MINORITY GROUPS OR BE I T TO

INCREASE ENROLLMENT AND ATTENDANCE TO AID THE ECONOMIC POSTURE OF THE INSTITUTION HAS TO BE CHECKEi)

REVERSED, I F THE UN I VERSITV I S TO F U L F I L L I T S MISSION OF PnOOUOiNO KNOWLEDGEABLE MEN ANO WOMEN. THE

CREATION OF A LAW SC OOL FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF " i i V A O A CAN ONLY SERVE TO INCREASE THE EMINENCE OF THE

STATE'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO APPROPRIATE UPVA-OS OF FIVE OR S I X MILLION

DOLLARS ULTIMATELY FOR A PHYSICAL EDUCATION COMPLEX EXCLUSIVE OF ANN A L MAINTENANCE COSTS SHOULD PROVIDE

A SUBSTANTIAL DEFENSE FOR THE EXPEHOITURcS INVOLVED FOR A LAW SCHOOL WHICH I VIEW A 3 B E I ' G 3GMEV;HAT MORE

RELEVANT TOWARDS HIGHER EDUCATION THAN A POTENTIAL POSITION I N THE "TOP TEN" GAINED THROUGH ATHLETIC PROWESS.

I WOULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ARTICLE 1 HAD PUBLISHED I N THE NEVADA STATE JOURNAL, 1 2 / 5 / 7 1 . WHICH

WAS A PLEA TO THE CITIZENRY OVER THE S I T U A T I ) N A T THEIR L' N I V E r s i T Y AND WHICH NETTED A SPECTACULAR RESPONSE

OF S I X LETTERS, S I X LETTERS MIND VOU FROM A POPULATION OF OVER A HAL A M I L L I O N . AFTER T H I S CRU3r|KS

DISPLAY OF PUBLIC APATHY AS I N REGAROS TO THEIR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM I V.'ITHOFEW FROM THE FIGHT AND RETURNED

TO ; V STUDIES.

I AM THE FATHER OF EIGHT CHILDREN, ATTEND THE UNIVERSITY FULL TIME AND WORK FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC

RAILROAD FUL-L TIME AND I AM CONCERNFO FOR THE GROWTH OF OUR UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, NOT ONLY FOR MYSELF AND

MY CHILDREN BUT FOR EVERYONE I N THIS STATE, I SHALL BE MORE THAN WILLING TO A I D YOU I N ANY MANNER YOU

MIGHT FIND F I T FOR ME, I N THE CAUSE OF OBTAINING A LAW SCHOOL FOR THE UN IVEFSITY SYSTEM OF F.'EVAOA A 3

WELL AS I N ANY OTHER EFFORT TOWARDS THE 8ETTEFMENT OF THAT SYSTEM.

RESPECTFULLY,

PS: I ' L L CERTAINLY HAVE TO RESTRICT MY VERBOSITY I F I EXPECT TO ENTER LAW SCH O L . '

EWG

AND 1972/ SEPARATE STUDIES WERE UNDERTAKEN" BY WEST CoAST'LAW" . •

SCHOOL FACULTY, IN DISCUSSING THIS WITH "PRESIDENT HARLAN "

CLEVELAND OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII BY TELEPHONE DECEMBER 18/

I LEARNED THAT:

(A) THE LATTER TWO STUDIES COST APPROXIMATELY $25/000;

(B) 1972-73 HAS BEEN USED AS A PREPARATORY YEAR/ WITHOUT

STUDENTS/ AT A COST OF $100/000;

(c) IN 1973-7^ THERE WILL BE 35 TO ^0 STUDENTS IN THE

FIRST CLASS AND THE COST IS ESTIMATED AT $500/000;

AND/

(D) WHEN ALL THREE CLASSES ARE OPERATIVE THERE WILL BE

250 STUDENTS AND AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF $1 MILLION,

2, DEAN WILLARD PEDRICK OF THE LAW SCHOOL AT ARIZONA STATE

UNIVERSITY HAS RECENTLY COMPLETED A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE STUDY IS

"BETWEEN $10/000 AND $15/000," I HAVE NOT SEEN THE RESULTING

STUDY.

3, SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY STARTED PLANNING IN 1957

FOR A LAW SCHOOL, I HAVE AVAILABLE A COPY OF A PROPOSAL SUBMITTED

IN NOVEMBER/ 1971/ BY THE LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

COMMITTEE OF THAT INSTITUTION. IT REVEALS A PLANNED FIRST YEAR

ENROLLMENT OF 150 STUDENTS/ MATURING AT 330 STUDENTS BY THE

THIRD YEAR/ GRANTING 85 DEGREES A YEAR (OR A ^3% ATTRITION RATE)

AND AN OPERATING COST OF $350/000 ANNUALLY.

IN 1968 DR. MARTIN GRUBERG DID A FEASIBILITY STUDY

CONCERNING THE NEED FOR A LAW SCHOOL AT WISCONSIN STATE UNIVERSI

AT OSHKOSH. IT APPEARS TO BE A GOOD REVIEW OF THE PROBLEMS

INVOLVED IN STARTING UP A LAW SCHOOL. IT ESTIMATES OPERATING

COSTS AT $2/000 PER STUDENT PER YEAR.

5. I HAVE CONSULTED BY TELEPHONE AND LETTER WITH JuSTIN C.

SMITH/ PROFESSOR AT HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA. HE NOTES: "ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES I HAVE WITH

FEASIBILITY STUDIES IS THAT THEY ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THEMSELVES

BY SHEER SIZE,., ADDITIONALLY/ ALMOST EVERY STUDY I HAVE SEEN

DOWNPLAYS THE COST OF ESTABLISHING A SCHOOL WITH THE RESULT THAT

LITTLE SERIOUS PLANNING IS DONE CONCERNING THE RISKS AND OPTIONS

AVAILABLE IN OPENING A SCHOOL." PROFESSOR SMITH WAS ALSO KIND

ENOUGH TO PREPARE A THREE PAGE "PROPOSED INDEX" FOR A LAW SCHOOL

FEASIBILITY STUDY. IT IS ALSO ATTACHED TO THE STATEMENT I WILL

FILE WITH THE COMMITTEE (ATTACHMENT B).

IN CONCLUSION/ ALLOW ME TO AGAIN NOTE THAT I AM DELIGHTED BY

THE INTEREST SHOWN BY THE LEGISLATURE IN THE POSSIBILITY OF A

LAW SCHOOL WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY OF MEVADA SYSTEM. CERTAINLY

OUR LONG-RANGE PLANNING WOULD INDICATE THAT WE ANTICIPATE THE

NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF A LAW SCHOOL.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU EITHER AMEND THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS

BEFORE YOU / OR INTRODUCE NEW LEGISLATION/ WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR

THE BROADER STUDY I HAVE DESCRIBED AND THAT YOU ALLOW FROM 12 TO

15 MONTHS FOR THAT STUDY TO BE COMPLETED. SuRELY WE CAN TAKE A

REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE FACTS.

BASED ON OUR PAST EXPERIENCE, THE RELATIVELY SMALL COST OF DOING

A GOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY WILL PAY BIG DIVIDENDS IN THE LONG-RUN.

LET US GO AHEAD WITH THESE FEASIBILITY STUDIES BUT PLEASE, ALLOW

SUFFICIENT TIME AND MONEY TO DO A GOOD JOB. NEVADA CANNOT AFFORD

THE LUXURY OF A QUICK,SURFACE-ONLY STUDY, THE UNIVERSITY DESIRES

TO PARTICIPATE IN A CAREFUL, WELL CONCEIVED REVIEW OF THE PROBLEMS

INVOLVED AND IT IS OUR CONVICTION THAT THIS CAN BEST BE DONE IN

THE MANNER I HAVE DESCRIBED.

NEIL D. HUMPHREY

CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM

FEBRUARY 13, 1973

University of Nevada System

New Program Review Procedure

All proposed degree programs, major programs, and/or options within

major programs must be evaluated and approved by the Board of Regents

prior to program initiation. Program developm.ent and evaluation

will proceed in tv/o phases. The information provided the Board

will permit quantitative and qualitative evaluation.

PHASE I - INFORMATION REQUIRED

(a) Statement of Need - basis for evaluation of need, program

justification relative to specific needs of the State of

Nevada, the Western Region and/or the nation. Present a

listing of similar programs operating in the State and/or

Western Region, and justification for duplication based

on System objectives.

(b) Statement of Objectives - relation- of program objectives

to System goals

(c) Statement of Scope - departments and colleges involved in

the program, and tim.e and effort estimates required from

each participating unit. Degrees and/or certificates to

be offered in the program.

(d) Statement of Resource Need - estimate number of students

anticipated for the first and fifth program years. List

additional faculty and additional assignable square feet

required for program initiation. Estimate total cost for

program initiation and maintenance for a high quality

program for first five years.

Information provided through Phase I will permit the Board to

evaluate the program relative to the stated objectives and goals

of the System. Approval by the Board of Phase I does not

necessarily imply program approval. It does, however, grant

authority to move to Phase il and final program submission.

PHASE II - INFORMATION REQUIRED

Resubmit Phase I information in addition to:

(a) Program entrance requirements

Attachment A

Page 1

(b) Program completion requirements

(1) Specific statement concerning exact requirements in:

1. Course v/ork, including any options

2. Research

3. Thesis or dissertation

4. Examination

5. Total credits

(2) Include a statement reciting the general University

requirements for this degree and the review v;hich the

proposed program has received to insure that these

requirements will be met.

(c) Curriculum

(1) Currently offered courses which can be used without

modification

(2) Currently offered courses v;hich can be used if modified.

State nature of modification.-

(3) List of courses not presently being offered (i.e., not

taught during the current or previous academic year)

which will be offered in the proposed program. Identify

seminar and individual study courses.

(d) Existing Faculty

List by name and rank all currently employed faculty in the

department. List highest degree earned, number of years of

applicable experience and nximber of years at this University.

Use columnar form.

(e) Supporting Facilities

(1) Library holdings presently available for the proposed

program.

(2) Research facilities (other than library) presently

available.

(3) Facilities or other assistance available outside the

University.

Attachment A

Page 2

(f) Budgetary Needs

Include a five-year projection of nev; resources needed for

the proposed program. Include the projected number of

majors in the program and the assum.ed number of student

credit hours to be taught. This budget projection should

be divided into five annual segm.ents and should list all

new faculty and support positions required, additional

operating monies, the value of new equipment and library

additions. If a new facility will be required within the

five-year period, estimate the necessary number of square

feet in the facility.

(g) Accreditation

Include a statement concerning accreditation of existing

programs in this department and aspirations for accreditation

of the proposed program.

(h) Consultants

(1) State what consultants were used in developing the

proposed programs, what their qualifications are and

who nominated or selected them.

(2) Summarize the consultants' comments and recommendations

(3) Summarize the department's response to the consultants

proposals for overcoming deficiencies noted.

(4) Attach the consultants' report.

(i) Supplemental data and attachments

List any supporting data which is attached to the master

copies of the proposal.

-Attachment A

Page 3

>

PROPOSED INDEX FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

Consideration to which study will address itself

A, The state, its resources needs and priorities in terms

of educating its residents

B, Reasons both for and against the establishment of a law

school as a part of the university system

1. Affirmative factors

(a) educational aspirations of residents of Nevada

(b) declining openings for out-of-state students

(c) desirability of obtaining legal education within

state with emphasis on state problems and state law

(d) cost to student of obtaining legal education outside

of the state

(e) desirability of having adequate representation of

Nevada born practitioners and coimselors

(f) advantage to the system of having a law school as

integral part

Cg) favorable experience of other sparcely populated

states on supporting a law school

2« Negative factors

(a) although ongoing cost per student the lowest of

graduate/professional education start up costs must

be met

Cb) any one state cannot satisfy educational needs of all

segments of its population

V

Attachment

• " Page 1

-2-

(c) projected surplus of recent law school graduates

in next five years . <

(d) positive aspect of obtaining one's professional

education out of state

II. Aims of Legal Education

A. General

B. Within confines of state as geographical area

C. On campus

III. Organizational Plan

A. Master Plan for the School of Law

B. Curriculum

C. Joint Degree Program

D. Faculty

E. Administrative Plan ' , ,

F. Student Body

G. Library Development

H. Temporary Quarters

I. Permanent Building

IV. Specific Considerations

A. proposed starting date

B. development of budget

C. timing in selection of the dean

B. establishing guidelines for faculty recruitment and selection

E. considerations to be reflected in admission policies

1. favoring of future practitioners for Nevada

2. identification of qualified residents

V

F. program as a whole '

1. University administrative family's goals for the law school

Attachment B

2, acceptability of a fairly fixed basic curriculijni

3. University of Nevada System's attitude toward joint degree

programs

G. possibility of joint appointments and best mechanism for their

implementation

H. advisability of charting a program of continuing legal education

I. establishment of a law school foundation

J. utili2ation of existing faculty resources in University of Nevada

System

K» publication of a professional journal

L« placement and alumni goals

Appendix (for restricted distribution)

A. survey of cost of establishing of most recently accredited

new state law school (see attached A.A.L.S. questionairre)

B. projected five-year budget for a new law school

C. appraisal of costs, risks and options of establishing a law

center as opposed to a law school as a part of the University

of Nevada System

Attachment

Page 3

•v^vc

I • Li iUi

'Up : • ' ' ^ i '] ']

t. /

'• '.J

^-XHIB/T'y

REA0l6(0li+7)(1-C0122SC0Ll)FD 02/10/75 01^5

ICS IPM5ZSB SAC - " '

ZC2C 21SL NL SACRAMENTO CALIF 200 02-09 5^P PST

PNS PAT rfJRPHY

TOO U ARLINGTON #9K

PHONE 522 7575 PENG NEV S9505

AS FOR ICR GRADUATES FROM U OF N NOW ATTENDING ^^CGEORGE SCHOOL OF

LAW IN SACRArCNTO WE FEEL IT NECESSARY TO EXPRESS OUR OPINION CONC

-ERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF A LAW SCHOOL IN NEVADA.

NEVADA IS A FRESTIGOUS AND GROWING STATE IT^OSE NEEDS INCREASE YEARLY.

>10 rCET THESE NEEDS A LAW SCHOOL IS MOST VITAL TO THE PRODUCTION OF

MDRE LAWYERS FAMILIAR WITH THE LAW Am POLICIES OF NEVADA WHICH CAN

-NOT BE GAINED FROM ATTEIJDING OUT OF STATE LAW SCHOOLS SECONDLY,

CUE TO THE LACK OF A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL IN NEVADA PREFERENCE WAS

GENIALLY GIVEN TO U OF N GRADUATES ATTErCTING TO GAIN ENTRANCE TO

'l^bfERN STATE UW SCHOOLS. WITH THE CURRENT INCREASED DEMANDS ON

sF-1201

r

r'

• ui Li I i i J

"r-r-r-w

I i 3 ii r

(

LAW-SCHOOLS. WITH THE CURRENT INCREASED DEMANDS ON LAU SCHOOLS ELRO

-LLICNT PREFERENCE IS NOW GIVEN TO RESIDENTS OF THOSE STATES.

THIRDLY INCREASE IN TUITON, ROOM AND BOARD M-AKE IT DIFFICULT

FOR MANY STUDErrrs TO GO OUT OF STATE IF THEY DO GAIN ENTRANCE.

FOURTH, NEVADA OFFERS NO PROGRAM AS EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE AS CAL

-IFORNIAS CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE EAR. SUCH A PROGRAM COULD EE

IMPLirCNTED IN A LAW SCHOOL ENVIROI'ENT. THEREFORE YOU WOULD EENEF IT

BOTH ATTORNEYS CURRENTLY PRACTICING IN NEVADA AS WELL AS THOSE UNDER

-GRADUATE NEVADA STUDENTS WHO DESIRE TO BECOI-E ATTORNEYS

LOUIS S TEST U^T^ MARK S MICHAEL UNLV

SF-1201 (R5-69)

r

•Correction to minutes of 2-15-73 meeting:

Senator Raggio present

SENATE AND ASSEMBLY EDUCATION JOINT HEARING

12-M0?jTn SCHOOL

Minutes of Meeting - February 20, 1973

The Senate and Assembly Joint Hearing was held on

February 20, 1973 at 2:30 p.m.

Senate Committee members oresent:

Assembly Committee members present;

Chairman John Foley

Senator Malker

Senator Bryan

Senator Raggio

Senator Neal

Senator Hecht

Senator Young

Chairman Jack Schofield

Witnesses : Lt. Governor Harry Reid

Helen Cannon, Clark County, Las Vegas

Kenny C. Guinn, Clark County, Las Vegas

Fenton L. Tobler. Clark Elem. Principal, N.L.V.

Richard Morgan, Exec. Dir., N.S.E.A.'

Edward L. Pine, Pres., V7.C.S.D., Reno

Edraond Psaltis, W.C.T.A., Executive Director

Marvin Moss, W.C.S.D., Reno

Gary Gray, Clark Countv Classroom Teachers Assn.

Dr .Marvin Picollo, Supt., W.C.S.D.

Also present:

Press representative

Joan B. Reid, League of Women Voters, Carson City

A1 Seeliger, Carson City

Arlo Funk, Mineral Co. School District, Hav/thorne

J. Johnson, Nye County School District, Tonopah

G. R. Craft, N.S.S.B.A., Hawthorne

Anne Roberts, Carson City

Reynoldo Martinson, National Educ. Assn., Washington, D.C.

liargaret Richardson, Reno

Joan Bedell, Reno

Shirlee VJedow, Nevada P.T.A., Sparks

Stephen C. Moss, Legislative Intern, Sparks

Bob Scott, Humboldt Co. School Dist., Winnemucca ^.

John Hawkins, Carson City School Dist., Carson City

S. Meyer, Carson City ,

Brent Begley, Legislative Intern, Reno ' ^

Joint Education Hearing

February 20, 1973

Page Two

Twelve-Month School:

Lt. Gov. Harry Reid was first to testify on the issue.

Lt. Gov. Reid began by stating that the 12-month school

should be allowed on a optional basis. The school districts

should be able to work out a program that will meet their

needs. \-le can go back now and look at what has happened in

other places. The traditional summ.er vacation was because

of two main reasons: 1. It was hot and not easy for

students to go to school in the summer months. At present,

most of the good schools do have air conditioning; 2. Needed

boys and girls to work on farms during the summer. These

two reasons are no longer valid. In the State of Nevada we

do have a rather unique situation. Over 50% of all of our

jobs are directly or indirectly related to the gaming industry.

This means that v;hen the boys and girls are out of school in

the summer, the parents are unable to go on summer vacation

with their children. For this reason we should look at the

summer vacation and its validity in the State of Nevada,

Another reason being that if we had a business and kept it

closed three miOnths of the year, we would have to consider

how good the business really v/as. The State of Nevada, in

Clark County, we have two new schools that are being opened.

Lt. Gov. Reid stated that he v;ould rather see this money

going toward teacher's salaries. Vie can look to places

such as Atlanta, Georgia school system, different districts

in California v/here it has been tried. Another situation

he is confronted with is the comments he receives stating

that the teachers are not being paid enough. The main thing

though - is the year-round school that is set up on a.

quarter basis.

Mrs. Helen Cannon follov/ed in testimony, stating that, with

reference to Lt. Gov. Reid's statement regarding teacher's

salaries, this is not actually how it works. Money for

building schools comes out of bonding and teacher's expenses

come from operating fund. A teacher could work year round

and therefore increase their input by 25%. It's very

expensive to purchase textbooks. If you have just 3/4 of

them using the books, those books v/ili go further. You

would be able to get along with 1/4 less textbooks.

They have had quite a bit of static on zoning of schools.

If they had a year round school for the secondary schools,

they could take care of zoning beautifully. If thoy operated

two schools on the traditional nine on three off, and some

of the outlying schools on a split session, you could take

care of 25% more students.

Joint Education Hearing

February 20, 1973

Page Three

Senator Bryan asked if they had figures indicating how

long it would be possible to post-pone future junior and

senior high school construction if we did go to some form

of the year round school system.

Mrs. Cannon commented not unless you could predict the

population growth. She feels her staff could make this

prediction.

Mr.-Kenny Guinn supplied the audience with a slide presentation

regarding the year round school. The slides supplied

the follov/ing information; Many Nevada schools are faced

with overcrovvrding - Rancho and Valley school have double

sessions. The double session caused the family life to

become disrupted and put too much pressure on the students.

Possibility of throe types of year round schools:

Quin-mester - breakdown of year into five sections,

students would attend school for four, vacation

for one;

2. Tri-mester - breakdown of year into three sections,

students would attend school for two, vacation

for one;

3« Quarter System - would provide four quarters, with

quarterly breaks.

Fenton L. Tobler testified next on the year round school,

stating that they have had a smooth situation in getting

the year round school off the ground. Mr. Tobler

stated that he and two others visited Chula Vista, California

to observe the program which is in operation there.

Mr, Tolbar and Mr. Lawrence, Deputy Supt., Clark County

School District, then made the slide presentation to a

group of about 300 parents. Subsequent to the slide presentation,

they held a group session with parents. Follov/ing

the session, a questionnaire was sent out. The returns from

the questionnaires indicated that 79% were for (or not against)

piloting the program in the school, 21% were against the program,

and 36 families indicated they would move to a different school.

The program was started January 29, 1973. Twentv-six students

moved to different schools - they have a total of 1,000

students. The program was set up on a neighborhood basis.

45 in school, 15 out of school. (45-15 plan). They divided

the school into four quadrants —A, B, C, & D, according to where

the lived. Out of 36 faculty members, 34 wanted to stay- with

the program. In their school they set up part of the third,

311 of the fourth and all of the fifth on extended contracts —

the teachers that started this year would teach an additional

Joint Education Hearing

February 20, 1973

Page Four

twenty-nine days, because they started in the middle of the

year. They would be paid a per diem wage for each day

beyond the 183 that their contract is signed for.

The 45-15 plan is recormended for the elementary plan^ and

the 90 on, 30 off is more related to high school level.

Senator Heal asked what this plan and bussing would present

to integration. Mr. Guinn stated that he felt it would

cause no problem.

Edward L. Pine was next to testify. He stated that their

school is entering its ninth month of the plan. The most

important concept - what are they doing to" and for the

children. He felt that if they could increase the caoacity

of a school, it would be of benefit to the taxpayer. Mr.

Pine further stated that they should condider: 1. The

children; 2. The taxpayers; 3. Teaching personnel.

Chairman Schofield asked why the.teachers in" Washoe County

brought an injunction against them. .Mr. Pine stated that

they are not on the best of terms for some reason. So

anything that they plan,they(teachers) try to throw some

roadblocks in the way. Many of the teachers are in favor

of trying this program. They act like this is complete

news to some of them. It has been going on for m.ore than

three and a half years. On the 22nd of this month the

Classroom Teachers Association are going to have some people

in to explain some of the disadvantages, he assumes. There

is one area they haven't worked out in their area - the

recreation program. This program in most areas are geared

to summer vacation. They are in the process of working this

out.

Mr. Ed Psaltis, Secretary of the W^ashoe County Teacher's

Association, introduced himself at this point and stated

that he would like to correct the record. They sought an

injunction against the school district on the year round

school, not the concept of the year round school per se.

• The Washoe County Teachers Association has never taken a

•stand on the pros and cons of the year round school for

two reasons: The district told some of their teachers that

they v;ould have training courses. This will be the first

one that is going to be held today, v/hich is a year or two

after the program had })een thought about. Secondly, I am

glad to see that Mr. Pine is coming on the 22nd. Mr. Psaltis

stated that he would like to speak later.

Dr. Picollo was next to testify. The sad part is - here is

a concept that he feels has a great deal of merit, when they

bring in side issues - is or is it not negotiable, is to miss

the point.

Joint Education Hearing

February 20, 1973

Page Five

Dr. Picollo (cont'd.);

Be very cautious in assuning that this is a panacea - it's

not. If you want to pick up space, the best v;ay is to

have double session. They feel it can improve the program.

Over lialf the recreation directors in their areas are

teachers. There is no reason to feel that these people

would not be available under the 45-15 plan - to go out

with the students. They are being cautious in saying v/hat

it will do and v;hat it v/on' t do. They v;ill not experiment

with the children. In 1929 there v;as"a landmark case.

John Hopkins University ran a study of what happens to

children during the summer vacation. Included'^ in their

findings v/ere; The reading pickup up, I.Q. grev;, spelling

deteriorated, handwriting deteriorated and arithmetic

deteriorated. These studies have been duplicated over

arid over. In that year, 1929, these people suggested a

program such as we are discussing today. Don't m.ake this

carry the burden of bond issues. Dr. Picollo stated he

felt bond issues would kill the issue.

Senator Raggio inquired if the 45-15 plan would mean the

regular 5 day week. Dr. Picollo answered yes, this would

be the 5 day week.

Marvin Moss stated that he has brought two documents v/ith

him that he will leave to be made part of the record.

One being a historical record of what has occurred at

the Sun Valley School, the other is a list of questions

relating to year round school. Mr. Moss stated that they

feel they should have some educational benefits. They

feel the cost will not increase with the year round school,

however, they will have more facts at the end of this year.

Washoe County has decided not to use extended contracts.

They have meet V7ith various recreation groups, and these

groups indicate that they feel there would be no problem

with recreation and year round school. There can be a direct

result on the state retirement system as a result of year

rqund school and extended contracts. A teacher may have an

increase in salary,going to $19,000 per year. If the figure

of $19,000 per year would occur v/ithin the last tenure of

the teachers employment, it could have some effect on the

retirement. There may also be some problem with teacher

tenure. If you have a teacher signing up for an 80 or 90

day contract, at what point are they fully tenure teacher •

or teachers that would bo on a continuing contract in the

State of Nevada. They do not at this time have the answer

to this problem. A teacher having taught 3 years is considered

to have tenure. If a teacher works for 90 days or half a contract

Joint Education Hearing

February 20, 1973

Page Six

Mr. Moss (cont'd);

does that constitute a year of employment or is it only a

half a year. (See Exhibits A & B)

Mr. Richard Morgan, Exec. Director, N.S.E.A., sneaking for

the teachers of the State, stated that they are" not in

opposition of the year round school. They do have some

concerns, however. Mr. Morgan comjnented on three of

these concerns: 1. They would like to have the abilitv

to have 3, 6, 9 or 12 month school. They are frightened

or intimidated, in fact, about the possibility of teaching

more than one 12 month period in a row. They"would like

some assurance that that wouldn't be a mandate thina.

2. Entire field of learning is rapidly changing. The

teachers need the availability of college courses to keep

themselves refreshed and to stay ahead of the students.

They would like to knov/ that they have the opportunity, not

to get many credits for recertification, but"to go back to

get nev7 course work, to work on another degree to get knowledge

that takes longer than a mini-degree. 3. The child -

the teacher has concern as to V7hether the child can learn

anything in the school in the middle of the summer, when

the weather is so warm. Mr. Moraan stated that he felt it

ridiculous to purpose the 12 month school unless the schools

are air conditioned. Mr. Morgan further stated that the

teachers were the proponents for change.

Edmond Psaltis presented the members of the committee with

an invitation to a meeting to be held February 22, 1973

at the Centennial Coliseum at 7:30 p.m. There will be two

men speaking on the 12 month school, giving the pros and

cons. Mr. Psaltis also added to the record a coov of the

Los Angeles unified school district report that has pluses

and minuses of year round school. The gentlemen that put

together this report. Dr. John Wright, head of L.A. City

Research and Evaluation Center, is sending them the various

study programs, shov7ing how much it will cost to implement

some of the programs. Mr. Psaltis further stated that he

would like to go on record supporting everything Mr. Moraan

said. One of the things that xMr. Moss has brought un, that

has made this program a success in San Diego, is the intersessions

program. There are foiir periods of three weeks

that the child drops off. The parents V7ere asked to check

any number of these sessions to indicate V7hen they wanted

their children to remain at home. Accordingly, if they

checked one or two, the child was then nicked up and taken

to a center where his education was continuing on a different

Joint Education Hearing

February 20, 1973

Page Seven

Edmond Psaltis (cont'd.)

level. This brougiit about a more relaxed air for the student.

Mr. Psaltis stated that he v;ould li3-;e us to attend.

(See Exhibit C)

Gary Grav stated that it has occurred to him that the

figure of $19,000 plus for a teacher's salary strikes him.

In the State of Nevada, most teachers earn something less

than half of that amount, $19,000 is maximum. Teachers

should be able to go back to school to gain further information,

but then if they are on the extended contract, they

must take a cut to go back to school.

Carl Shaff stated that he does not have one teacher in

his county that belongs to Nevada State Teachers Association.

Mr. Shaff further stated that after listening today,

he is very glad he does not. When you can put air conditioning

above students. He visited Sun Valley school last summer

and did not hear one student complain about the heat.

Being no further testimonies. Chairman Foley adjourned the

meeting at 4:45 p.ip.

Respectfully submitted.

Sharon W. Maher, Secretary

John Foley, Chairman

SUPREME COURT OF NEVAD-A

DAVID ZENOFF. JUSTICE

CARSON CITY. NEVADA 89701

January 17, 1973

Mr. Eugene M. Hayes

1020 N Mountain ^reet

Carson City, Nevada 89701

Dear Gene:

Thanks for your letter concerning the law school.

Right now, I am trying to convince some legislators

that they ought to act on it at this legislative session.

I'll count you as one of the supporters.

Best regards.

David Zenoff

DZrimg

1020 .V. liountain St.

CoA&on City, Mzvada S9701

15 JanaoAij 1973

Ju^sticz Vavtd Izno^^

htzvada Statz Supn.zmz CouAt

C a / i i o n C i t y , N z ^ a d j x B 9 7 0 1

VouA HonoA,

Tkli ZzttzA conicujis a qazittoyi and a -iaggzi-ticn pzAtatntng to

thz zitabZtilmznt oi a UnlvzAitty Weuoda Laio School.

At this point In tlmz what ccould bz thz mo6t z^^zctlvz action

that T can takz, oA a pAivatz cltlzzn, to znhancz thz

zitabllikmznt o^ tiiz icJiool? I do not coAz to got Atto

any action Involving Iti gzogAapklcal location at tAl& tlmz,

jait uiajt to 6ZZ At Z6tabll6hzd.

Would lAkz to 6aggz6t that thz -iZAvlcz clabi bz 6ollcltzd

^OA thz iappoAt to z6tabHih thl!> School. Such action on thzlA

pant would bz WAtivui thzAA coyiitltutlom and obyzctlvzfi.

Eugznz M, Hayzi

""ebruary 2, 1973

Suprc:ne Ccur v, of ITcvada

David Zcnoif, Juaticc

Car coil City, IJcvada

Dear Justice Senoff:

The follov/inG 113 students con prise the students at

UITIV v/ho are qualified to attend a state lav/ school and

would li]:e one established in iTevada. If I can be of any

further xielp oo you please let ne Icnow, Please be a.ssured

tint myself and many others here in Las Vegas are working

and praying for a Ilevada lav; school.

Thanlc you very much for your concern in this matter,

Sincerelj'",

Terry p, barren

ULijY Pre La-r Assn.

ilevc-da Law School Comm.

University of Ilevada, Las Vegas

V/rite: 1899 IT. 5th St

Ho. Las Vegas, Dev. 89030

Phone: 649-7335

P.S., A fcv.' members of my committee including myself were

wondering if it would be possible and proper to attend the

February 8 meeting at the Union Plaza.

Hie tmdersijnod ctudcnts are political science and prelaw

etudonts interested in the octablisiKent of a law school

in Kevada at the University of Kcvada at Las Ve^as.

Allen, lee 4487 Roscdale 457-2546

Anderson, l.iona 1215 Bull Run, IJLV 649-3082

ELiss, Jesper 2500 Hi^natree, ITIV 642-7639

Lra6ss» Bessie 2009A Ha.nni Cr. 648-5220

^"•ers. Vie L. 5411 7/airne St, 457-6154

Conne111'-, Kevin 1718 Statz, ITLV 642-4002

Daincs, ]3ruce 2106 Barrj'- Way 584-4324

Pabhi, A1 1021 E, Bonanza 759-6851

Garrett, Ron 1200 50th St. 649-5766

Gresnick, len 357 Revers Dr. 878-4535

Haley, De,le 735 Clarlcuay Dr. 648-1474

Harman, Kent 2215 Spruce 648-9513

Harper, Tom 4435 ^irne Ct. 451-7314

Harrin^'ton, David 4800 Doval In. 736-6065

Labete, Karl 4113 I-as Lomas Ave. 870-6081

Lamera, A1 511 Oxford Ave. 649-1752

LaPorte, Bill 1157 Toni #18 759-9151

Karren, Terry 1839 IT. 5th St, ITLV 649-7335

Kaus, Rick 1395 Lon£;acres #55 739-7597

Hash, Tom 2805 Talbet 734-6949

Oldham, Ron 1406 IT. James 878-4421

Patt'en, Bruce 1716 Rj'-en 582-4131

Penwell, Cliff 4420 E, Van Euren Hone

Skurski, I'argie 4404 Thompson Cr. 878-5876-.

Siaause, Jay

Smith Ron

1405 Vecas Valley 754-1766

1900 Statz St., IJLV 649-1185

Stoldal, Robert

Stuhff, Robert

Vi'acner, William

ZecRell, Christqplicr

Amundsen, Bob

Babbitt, San

Beckwitli, Jo Ann

Calos, Peter

Campbell, Dan

Bess, Miciia.el

Gansvrer, LI 03rd

Eardy, Wayne

Catalano, St eve

Hason, Betli

Price, Jim

Stout, Phil

Jameson,. Fred

Kirby, Paul

Kaslcewitz, Ei che 11 e

Murani, Gene

Payt en, Pan cla

Rodgers, Rodney

Sh crir, Frankie

Tofano, John

Tajrlor, Eichael

Watson, Gary

V/illiaras, Chuck

Weber, Mark

Hall, Paavo

llorthcutt, Helen

1304 Housoels

4411 Spencer ;4'53

1413 A Golden Arrov;

1130 University Rd.

2

334-4553

Hone

n 755-5714

#417 736-9328

6261 Dayton Ave. 870 -2629

4015 W. Charleston 878. -7727

4701 Fulton PI. 870. -3020

2153 Bridlewood 736. -3670

475 Sierra Vista 735-9210

2716 E. Carey 642'

0^

0 iinn

6329 Eristcl Way 870--8966

524OD Pebble Beach Blvd. 8778

734--8692

106 Gretnbriar Pornihouse 457-9285

677 Burton, Henderson 564-9953

5900 W. Propicana 376-0643

4488 Pecos Rd,

2532 Grcnas St,

3578 Tioga Way

625 H. 10th St.

6116 Inpire Cr.

2521 Realtc Rd.

715 E. Sahara #231

1407 Dorothy #2

259 Nebraska, Henderson 564-8673

4004 Edgewbod 876-0462

513 carpenter 370-6717'

451-5394

876-3378

734-2406

385-1847

878-0140

648-0473

734-7005

739-6242

Ilariia^el, Judith 1395 longacres 736-9955

Kirby, Paul 4483 Pecos Rd. 451-5394

Arellano, J.iaria 2645 Van Patten #7 735-4911

Chickcrin/;;;, John B. 93 D. Reno Ave 13

Papageorfie, Thomas 4214 Cotta-ge Cr, 632-6127

SilvUt';;!! i, Victor 501 S, Maryland Plo'/y. 332-4270

7i'ilson, Grc/;^ 4214 Clajonont jvl 457-5486

Bennett, V/illiam 208 Cani'-on Dr. 870-5092

levine, Rochelle 2234 Golden Arrc w

Patten, Allen I804 P. Premont #7 382-1159

SIcrede, Donald 1609 Strong Dr. 759-6539

Anderson, Rvissell 2659 Van Patton #22 385-1276

Costa, Tom 3351 Brussels ^2 734-6138

Dasoio, Russell 125 Rosemead

Ross, ilicliael 475 Sierra Vista #7

Hanson, Charles 724 Aster Ln ?^9B

Ilindcrlitor, Harry 1825 Griffith 382-5934

Meyer, Davie 212 Grland #27 878-1453

Simpson, Charles 67B Vic tory Village, Hender; son 564-2389

Payne, 'Jilliani 1157 Toni #4

Welles, P.J, 3380 Athens

Zervas, Michael 208 Orlando //I3 878-0240

Abbott, Gary 716 Plovrer St, 382-3234

Abemath^'-, Lys'-ndra 3826 Pima Ln, 735-4349

Alexander, Michael

Arness. Lar/rence

Bennett, Ja::ies

Beseda, Joiin

3926 Belleville

4213 ClajTiiont

208 Canyon Dr,

•

736-2069

870-5092

Bivens, Crecs

Carre, George

3650 Edison

4525 Ridgedale

457-5548

457-5910

Chandler, Leo

Christencon, Derek

Coatsworth, Robert

Doro^ii, Atilla

Piet, Joscph

Garan, Steve

Kardj'', \Iscyne

Lara, A1

Le\7ine, Liark

Lipkin, Tho;:ias

kalm, 1,'iciiael

Matteucci, Steve

Lerriweather, Toni

ITolen, Rochiey

Pandelis, Peter

Parsons, Michael

Pettit, Sandra

Plotkin, Mitch

Quinn, Chris

Reno, Jeff

Salamy, George

Schroeder, Steve

Statlander, Paul

Stewart, Janes

Sylvester, Roland

Ursini, Lerry

V7oodv/orth, Harold

29SO laCanada 755-8520

1213 Leonard 648-5031

3642 Doulder Ilwy. #406 457-9562

3979 Karen 457-047I

5I6 Date, Eoulder City 293-2534

PO Box 3049, IILV 382-2627

6329 Bristol ',7ay 870-0966

1624 3. Palm #193 457-2071

1091 Lulu Ave

2670 Timberlake Dr., ITLV

1905 Arville 878-1675

2021 Balsar 648-0742

23O8 LaPuente 649~2924

4730 S. Peeos 451-1440

4620 Alta Dr. 878-5000

2107 Marilyn

4335 W. Del Rey

Tonopaugh Hall #209

1809 Stonehaven 870-4511

102 Continental, Henderson 564-3122

2431 Palma Vista 735-2481

5232 Del Monte

1624 Palm #236

4624 Elanor Cr.

340 Xavier

209 IJorlen

457-4901

451-7266

870-1556

648-5073

SUBJECT: STATEMENT TO JOINT HEARING OF ASSEMBLY AND SENATE,

EDUCATION"COMMITTEES CONCERNING ACR-3 AND SCR-A

CALLING FOR A REPORT TO THE 1973 LEGISLATURE CONCERNING

FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A LAW SCHOOL.

I AM DELIGHTED WITH THE INTEREST SHOWN BY THE LEGISLATURE IN A

STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A LAW SCHOOL WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY

OF NEVADA SYSTEM. THE FACT THAT 9 SENATORS AND 33 ASSEMBLYMEN

HAVE SPONSORED RESOLUTIONS CALLING FOR A STUDY OF PROCEDURES

AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING A LAW SCHOOL IS ENCOURAGING

TO THE UNIVERSITY, IT IS OUR DESIRE AND OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE

THE HIGHER EDUCATIONAL SERVICES WHICH ARE NEEDED AND WHICH THE

PEOPLE OF NEVADA WISH TO HAVE,

IN THE UNIVERSITY'S TEN YEAR PLANS WHICH WERE PRESENTED TO THE

LEGISLATURE IN 1969/ 1971 AND AGAIN THIS YEAR/ BOTH UNIVERSITY

OF NEVADA/ LAS VEGAS AND UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA/ RENO INDICATED

THAT IS WAS THEIR INTENT DURING THE COMING DECADE TO PRESENT

REQUESTS TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR PERMISSION TO INVESTIGATE

THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING LAW SCHOOLS. IT IS UNIVERSITY

POLICY THAT ALL PROPOSED DEGREE PROGRAMS BE EVALUATED AND

APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS PRIOR TO PROGRAM INITIATION.

To SECURE THIS APPROVAL A DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY SUBMITS

INFORMATION TO THE BOARD WHICH WILL PERMIT EVALUATION OF THE

NEED/ OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM PLUS A

STATEMENT OF RESOURCES NEEDED. THIS PROCEEDS IN TWO PHASES,

THE FIRST PHASE PRESENTATION IS RELATIVELY BRIEF/ REQUIRING

CAREFUL THOUGHT BUT ONLY A LIMITED AMOUNT OF RESOURCES, IF

THE FIRST PHASE PROPOSAL IS APPROVED BY THE BoARD OF REGENTS/

THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE THE SECOND PHASE PROPOSAL.

THIS IS A DETAILED STATEMENT CONCERNING THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED

NEW PROGRAM/ ITS ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS/ COMPLETION

REQUIREMENTS/ CURRICULUM/ FACULTY REQUIRED/ SUPPORTING FACILITIES

NECESSARY/ BUDGETARY NEEDS PROJECTED FOR FIVE YEARS/ ACCREDITATION

REQUIREMENTS AND THE REPORTS OF ANY OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS USED.

THIS SECOND PHASE STUDY IS DETAILED AND IS DEMANDING OF THE

TIME AND RESOURCES OF THE DEPARTMENT/ COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY

INVOLVED, IT IS CAREFULLY REVIEWED BY THE ACADEMIC VICE

PRESIDENT/ THE PRESIDENT AND BY MY OFFICE BEFORE IT GOES TO

THE BOARD, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROCEDURE/ WHILE TIME AND

RESOURCE CONSUMING/ IS JUSTIFIED SINCE WE DO NOT WISH TO COMMIT

THE UNIVERSITY AND THE STATE TO A NEW PROGRAM UNTIL WE HAVE

•.ADEQUATELY JUSTIFIED THAT PROGRAM AND KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL COST,

A COPY OF THE REQUIRED OUTLINE OF THESE NEW PROGRAM FEASIBILITY

STUDIES'IS ATTACHED TO THIS STATEMENT WHICH I WILL FILE WITH THE

COMMITTEE SECRETARY. (SEE ATTACHMENT A)' I SHOULD NOTE THAT

EVEN AFTER THE BOARD APPROVES A NEW PROGRAM IN THE SECOND

PHASE PRESENTATION IT IS SUBJECT TO FUNDING BEFORE IT CAN

BE IMPLEMENTED.

ON DECEMBER W A REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF REGENTS AND I MET

WITH JUSTICE DAVID ZENOFF AT HIS INVITATION TO DISCUSS THE

POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAW SCHOOL. THE REGENTS PRESENT

EXTENDED AN INVITATION TO JUSTICE ZENOFF TO MEET WITH THE

FULL BOARD JANUARY 12. THE CURRENT LEVEL OF INTEREST THROUGHOUT

THE STATE IS IN LARGE MEASURE DUE TO JUSTICE ZENOFF S

INTEREST/ ENTHUSIASM AND ASSURANCES OF OUTSIDE FINANCIAL

SUPPORT.

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM HAS RECEIVED INQUIRIES AND

ENCOURAGEMENT FROM OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT

OF A NUMBER OF NEW PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. AT EITHER THE UNIVERSITY

OF NEVADA, RENO OR THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS. SCHOOLS

MENTIONED INCLUDE; (1) LAW, (2) VETERINARY MEDICINE, (3)

ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN, W DENTISTRY, (5) EXPANDING THE

UNR SCHOOL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES IN ORDER THAT IT WOULD BE AELE

TO AWARD THE M.D. DEGREE, AND (6) POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF A

SECOND SCHOOL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AT UMLV TO OFFER THE FIRST

TWO YEARS OF MEDICAL EDUCATION.

C ' • ,

-3-

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY.OF THESE SCHOOLS INVOLVES

A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY

AND THE STATE. SUCH DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE WITHOUT ALL

OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE AND/ IDEALLY/ NOT WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL

AGREEMENT AMONG THE UNIVERSITY/ THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE.

ON JANUARY 12/ 1973/ THE BOARD OF REGENTS AUTHORIZED THAT:

(1) FEASIBILITY STUDIES BE UNDERTAKEN FOR THE PROFESSIONAL

SCHOOLS MENTIONED ABOVE (EXCEPT THAT A SPECIAL NEEDS STUDY

IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 22/ 1973 CONCERNING

THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDENT SPACES AND

A COMPLETE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A SECOND SCHOOL OF MEDICAL

SCIENCES WILL NOT BE DONE UNLESS NEED IS SHOWN TO EXIST BY

THAT STUDY);

(2) SUCH STUDIES SHOULD PROCEED WITHOUT COMMITMENT AT THIS

TIME CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THE PROGRAMS/ AND THE STUDIES

SHOULD CONSIDER THE PRESENT AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE NEEDS IN

NEVADA FOR THESE SCHOOLS/ THE CAPITAL OUTLAY NECESSARY/ THE

PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS AND THE MERITS OF ALTERNATIVE

LOCATIONS;

(3) THE GOVERNOR/ LEGISLATURE AND APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL

GROUPS BE REQUESTED TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THESE STUDIES AND

FUNDING OF THE STUDIES BE REQUESTED OF THE GOVERNOR AND THE

LEGISLATURE; AND

(^) THE REPORTS BE COMPLETED AND PRESENTED TO THE BoARD OF

REGENTS AND THE GOVERNOR IN THE FALL OF 197^ AND TO THE 1975

LEGISLATURE.

THE UNIVERSITY DESIRES TO HAVE THESE STUDIES OR ANY ONE STUDY DONE

IN THE MOST OBJECTIVE MANNER POSSIBLE AND WITHOUT UNDUE EXPENSE,

BY DOING ALL OF THE STUDIES TOGETHER IT IS ASSUMED THAT CONSIDERABL

DUPLICATION CAN BE AVOIDED IN GATHERING DATA, ONE METHOD WOULD BE

TO ESTABLISH A "PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMITTEE/"

WITH REPRESENTATION FROM THE LEGISLATURE/ THE GOVERNOR AND THE

UNIVERSITY. THIS COMMITTEE COULD EMPLOY A DIRECTOR FOR THE

PERIOD NECESSARY (PERHAPS FIAY/ 1973 TO SEPTEMBER/ 197^) BY USE

OF SOMEONE ON DETACHED SERVICE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

BUREAU/ THE UNIVERSITY/ OR SOME EXECUTIVE AGENCY, Ih'E DIRECTOR

COULD OVERSEE THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE SUB-STUDIES/ WORK WITH

THE NECESSARY CONSULTANTS AND DO MUCH OF THE DATA GATHERING AND

ANALYSIS.

SINCE MID-DECEMBER/ AS TIME WOULD PERMIT/ I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO

GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT LAW SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDIES, I

BELIEVE YOU WILL BE INTERESTED IN THIS INFORMATION/ SKETCHY

THOUGH IT IS. '

LI .THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IS OPENING A LAW SCHOOL FALL/

1973. THEY COMMISSIONED THREE SEPARATE FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

THE FIRST/ WITHIN THE UNIVERISTY/ WAS DONE IN 1968. IN 1971

Q. Since we passed a $25 nrinion Bond Issue about 2 years ago,

why must we consider year-round school?

ANS. When the Board of Trustees went to the public asking for

approval of the Bond Issue, it was pointed out that consideration

and possible implementation of the year-round school would be

necessary during the life of this Bond Issue.

Q* How long has a study committee been in existence and who was represented?

ANS. In the fall of 1970 the Superintendent asked that a committee be

established to study the feasibility of year-round school. The study

Committee was originally composed of 7-teachers, 7-principals,

4-representatives from the State Department of Education and 5-members

of the Central Office staff.

Q* What year-round school alternatives were considered by the committee?

ANS. Cycling plans, quarter plans, trimester plans, continuous progress

plans, multiple trails and summer schools were all studied to determine

which concept would be the most feasible for the needs of

the Washoe County School District.

Q. Why have other year-round school plans failed in the past?

ANS. In the vast majority of the districts that attempted year-round school

at some point in the past, the Quarter Plan was used. This plan divided

the students into 4 equal groups with each group of students attending

school for three quarters and being on vacation for 1 quarter. This

meant that some students have to have January, February, and March as

-1-

eXH 'iB 'l f /4-

their vacation time. This plan just was not flexible enough to provide

solutions to the problems which were created in the community.

What alternatives does a community have if it is experiencing growth

within that community?

It tends to depend upon the size of the conmunity, but generally there

are four major alternatives available. They are:

1. Bond Issues- This has been the traditional method for

districts to provide facilities for the growth which is

taking place. At this point over 2/3 of all Bond Issues

for education are failing across the United States. This in

itself dictates that school districts must study and possibly

implement attendance plans which make better utilization of

existing facilities.

2. Rezoning- In most metropolitan areas older sections of the

communities have lost student population, but at tne same time

still have school buildings which are structurally sound.

By rezoning and drawing students out of some other area of

the community which has an excess of students, these

facilities can be continued in use.

3. Busing- Busing is another form of rezoning. By transporting

students who live in some other area of the district to an

area that has unused space, a district is able to utilize its

classroom space in a more efficient manner.

4. Year-Round School- This is a system in which through the

rotation of students, the capacity of a building can increase

from 1/4 to 1/3. In order to achieve this savings in space

the student population of a given attendance area would have

to be divided into 4 groups, with only three of the groups

being in school at a given time.

Q. How does the "45-15" Cycling Plan work?

ANS. By dividing student populations into 4 sections with only 3 sections

in school at a given time, a cycling system can be developed. Each

section of students attends school for 4-15 day sessions during a

given school year. Each section of students has 4-15 day vacation

periods during the school year. In the case of an individual student,

he or she will still attend school for 180 days during a school year

and will have the same number of vacation days as in a traditional

school year.

Q. Is there any period in which there is • ccgacn vacation period for

students and teachers?

ANS. Yes, all schools will be closed during the traditional Christmas

vacation period and during the first week in July.

p. Do teachers and students still receive the Federal and State holidays

as during the traditional school year?

ANS. Yes, such as: Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Nevada Day, Thanksgiving,

Washington's Birthday, Good Friday and Memorial Day.

Q. Do the children at Sun Valley have the same teacher all of the time?

ANS. Yes, each class and teacher are self-contained and when a class goes out

on a 15 day vacation, the teacher goes on the same vacation. Thus

Just as the students have 4-15 day vacation periods during the

-3

year, the teacher assigned to that class also has 4-15 day vacation

periods during a school year.

0. How were teachers assigned to cycles at Sun Valley?

ANS. Assignment was based upon seniority at the particular grade level

at the Sun Valley School.

Q. How were students assigned to cycles at the Sun Valley School?

ANS. Parents were asked to select first, second, third and fourth

choices of the cycles. In the vast majority of cases parents were

given their first choice with about 10 families receiving their

second choice.

Q» Do families moving Into the Sun Valley area have a choice of cycles?

ANS. No, they are assigned by the principal to the cycle which has space

consistent with the grade levels represented In the family.

0. If at sometime the year-round school would be at both the middle

school and elementary school levels, how would farmlles be maintained

on the same cycle?

ANS. Elementary attendance areas would have to be divided Into four equal

parts. If the family lives In D section, then those students would

be D section students regardless of the grade level.

Q. Do teachers at Sun Valley stay In the same classroom?

ANS. No, four sections of students are assigned to three classrooms. Thus

when a teacher returns from a 15 day vacation period, he or she will

be In a different classroom.

Q. What problems are created for a teacher by not having their own

classroom?

-4-

ANS. Each classroom is assigned a basic set of materials, textbooks, etc..

These materials stay in the room, the personal items of teachers

and students are placed in storage while they are on vacation.

Q. What problems are created by a cycling system?

ANS. When a teacher-student conflict arises, it may be necessary to

move a student to a different teacher on a different cycle. If

family continuity is to be maintained other children in the

family would have to be moved to the new cycle also.

Q. Would a 45-15 schedule require curriculum change?

ANS. Yes, particularly in the middle school and high school levels.

It would require curriculum to be placed into 9 week units.

Q. Will the concept of grade levels at the elementary level be changed?

ANS. It will be necessary to attempt to have as many grade levels represented

on each cycle as possible so as to provide alternatives for

families with children of different ages. This would probably require

some cross-grading.

Q. What effect will the year-round school have on pupil transportation?

ANS. It will tend to decrease the number of buses necessary to provide

transportation, as it is spread out over 12 months rather than on

a 9 month basis.

It will provide the opportunity for school bus drivers to work

a full year.

Q. What effect will the year-round school have on Special Education?

ANS. Adjusting to the year-round school program is primarily a matter

of scheduling. When all Special Education students are placed in

one of the four groups both student and teacher vacations coincide.

One positive effect has been noted in the shorter three week

V

vacation periods as opposed to the traditional three month

summer vacation.

The exceptional child's retention factor has always been a matter

of deep concern and teachers often repeat the old phrase, "he

forgot everything I taught him" when the child returns in the fall.

If the year-round school schedule is adopted, the learning process

is renewed after three weeks and the exceptional child has a

better chance of retaining materials after this shorter period.

Q. How will the year-round school effect the District testing program?

ANS. There will be little change. In the Sun Valley School, it has

been extremely simple to structure test dates so that all students

are evaluated in no more than a two week period. This is also

feasible on a larger scale.

Q. Will there be year-round psychological services?

ANS. Yes. A psychologist has already been scheduled to be on duty during

the summer months. Personnel will be increased as the need arises.

Referrals will be accepted at all times during the school year, and

lines of communication with other community agencies will be kept

open.

Q. What about variances?

ANS. Variances are individual requests for a student to attend a school

outside his delegated zone, and they are granted if the request is

reasonable and the preferred school has classroom space.

Q. What effect will the year-round school have on recreation?

ANS. The traditional nine months school allowed school facilities and

some personnel to be used in summer recreational programs. The

-6-

year-round school will cause a greater degree of cooperation betv/

een Recreation Departments and the Washoe County School District

as at least 25% of students will be on vacation at any given time

and recreational programs will have to be developed to acconmodate

that group. Conversely, there will not be large numbers of students

on summer vacation; thus, many of the summer programs will

be offered at other times of the year.

What effect will the year-round school have on the athletic program?

The year-round school will allow activities now compacted into nine

months to be spread out over twelve months. For Instance, track

and field and baseball occupy the same season now. With the yearround

school track and field would remain a spring sport and baseball

would become a summer sport.

Eligibility will not pose a problem as a student is eligible for

four calendar years upon entrance into the ninth grade whether

his section is in school or on vacation.

What effect will the year-round school have on the student accident

insurance program?

"Schooltime" student accident insurance will cover the 180 days that

the student is in school and "Fulltime" student accident insurance

will cover the calendar year, as it does now.

However, because students will participate in school-sponsored

activities during their vacation periods, there is a possibility

that premium rates may be increased, especially in the "Schooltime"

category.

What effect will the year-round school have on the school calendar?

Students will continue to attend school 180 days per year; however,

MRS 388.080 should be amended to allow a school district to move to

the year-round school compatible with the program and space needs

of a district.

Will the year-round school cost more to operate?

The per student Instructional costs to the District should remain

basically the same as on the traditional program. If a

student Is In the District, then the classroom, the teacher and

the supplies must be provided. That cost does not change with

year-round school.

Will the year-round school require more teachers?

No. If the district-wide student-teacher ratio Is maintained,

then the number of teachers employed on a district-wide basis

will not change.

Will extended contracts be available to teachers?

The program as It now Is constituted Is basically experimental, so

long as this Is the case, teacher contracts will stay 182 days

in length. At some point where year-round school would expand to

Include many schools, the extended contract would In all probability

be utilized.

Will the year-round school eliminate the need for construction of

new school buildings?

No. The year-round school Increases the capacity of a school

facility about 25%, the extended day does about the same In our

high schools. If we continue to experience new growth within

our School District, the year-round program would only post^

pone the time when new construction would be required. If new

growth occurred within the District In locations that made transportation

of the students to existing school facilities impractical,

new schools would have to be constructed to house them

as quickly as possible.

If you postpone"construction, would the increased costs of

construction eat up any savings that might result from the increased

capacities of a year-round program?

This is doubtful. If we take four of our existing elementary

schools that are of equal size (700 student cap.) and place

them on a year-round program, we have in fact created the capacity

of one new school equal in size to each of the four existing. In

today's (1973) construction market and for furniture, equipment,

school site and site development, streets, etc., this represents

about $1,250,000 to $1,350,000. Bond interest rates are now in

excess of 5% and going up. When we also think in terms of when

that new school opens, we have additional administrative staff,

lunch room staff, custodial staff, etc., and another complete

school plant to operate and maintain, whatever saving would

result to the District by not having these added costs for "X"

number of years, would have to be calculated into any potential

savings. Of course, there is also the possibility that the

costs of construction could stabilize or drop In the future.

Construction costs have stabilized somewhat this past year. To

assume that this inflationary spiral will continue forever, does

not seem a realistic point of view.

Will the schools be air-conditioned If the vear-round orogram Is

adopted?

To date our Board of Trustees has not made a commitment to airconditioning.

Our first experience with the year-round school

during the hot summer weather at Sun Valley in 1972, was not bad.

The building remained relatively comfortable; some fans were provided

and of course the open space building design allowed good

movement of air when the doors were open. We do not have funds

in our present capital outlay (Bond Funds) to provide airconditioning,

We do believe, however, that if the School District

is to seriously consider a year-round school as the way to

go in the future, then air-conditioning has to be considered.

When comparing the costs of installation of air-conditioning In

our school to the costs of new construction, the investront required

compared to capacity gained would be minor.

Q. Will air-conditioning increase our operational costs?

ANS. Yes. Air-conditioning will involve some additional expense, but

should not add a great amount. Its use would be approximately

three months. We have cool nights usually, so the units would

only have to operate to reduce daytime temperature, and be inoperative

during the nighttime. This type of operation would

increase our power costs approximately 5%.

Q. Will the year-round school increase costs of maintenance and operations

of school buildings?

ANS. Yes. Year-round operation will cost more in additional personnel

for coverage of custodial vacations, more power and water usage,

some fuel cost for domestic hot water. More use means more wear,

and, therefore, some additional maintenance cost.

Q. Would the School District be able to maintain equivalent standards

-10-

of housekeeping on a year-round basis as compared to the regular

school year where major repairs and housekeeping are accompHshed

In the summer?

ANS. Yes. Equivalent housekeeping can be maintained, but additional

personnel and/or mechanized cleaning equipment and scheduling of

cleaning procedure win have to be Instituted. Much more cleaning

win have to shift to night work than has been done In the past

when all heavy cleaning was done during the summer.

JOINT AbGEMBLY & SENATE LAV7 SCHOOL HEARING

JOT TRAVIS LOUNGE - UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA

2:30 P.M. February 26, 1973

Minutes of Mcetina

Assembly Comnittee Members Present:

Senate Committee Mem.bers Present:

Jack Schofield

Dr. Broadbent

Richard McNeel

John Foley

Wm. Raggio

Richard Bryan

Joe Neal

Guests Present: N. Ed Miller - Pres. U. of N.

Neil Humphrey - Chancellor

Stephen Kent - Intern

Dorothy Morrow - Nursing

Jim Edv/ards - Non Degree

Larry Portor - Business

Jeffrey Menicucci - Intern

Guest Speakers; Richard Siegel - Dept. of

Pol. Science

Tom Lorentzen - Pre Lav? Student

Ik.T,, ^ T C 4-, •» Z'": r-» 4-

iTcLi* JUJC4.VV

Chairman Foley convened the meeting by presenting the first speaker,

Richard Siegel, representing the Department of Political Science

at tiie University.

Mr. Siegel: I am not speaking for or against a Law School at the

University here. I am a pre-law advisor and just recently decided

it was about time to start doing some research for the elegibility

possibilities for students to get into lav; schools. He said that

he had here the 1972-73 Pre-law Handbook which is increasingly

being used by students who are applying to an official ABA, Association

of Law School and Admission Council, the Pre-lav; Guide. About

half of the law schools provide very specific guides as to their admission

policies and what I have here today is based on that information.

This is not a four m.onth study or anything just something

I found in a fev; hours study. What I have here prepared for you is

based on some of this information.

Six California Law Schools have detailed information v;hich I have

.provided for you, the .six that .are .listed on the first page of

the report and I have heard your question of what grade point

average and what lav; school test score is required to get into

into these six law schools. I found that if vve start, with the easiest

of the six to get into, Pepperdine University, you need a grade,

point average of betv;een 2.75 and 2.99 and a Law School Adm.ission

Test Score of between 500 and 549. The schools got increasingly •

- 1 -

LAW SCHOOL HEARING MINUTES jRUARY 26TII, 1973

difficult from that point. I suggest you turn to the last page of

my report. You see there an admission standards for a student of

3.0 - 3.24 and L.S.A.T. score of 500 - 549. At this level the

typical student will have a good chance of getting into three of

the easiest schools and v;ill probably not get into the others.

He may have a slight chanC3 of getting into the University of San

Francisco. If you turn to the student you might be particularly

interested in on page 3 with G.PA. betv:een 2.75 and 2.99 and an

L.S.A.T. score of 500 - 549« I would find this the very marginal

student as far as encouraging him. in law school as he may get

into Pepperdine but he will not get into any of the other schools.

My. conclusion in this regard is that a mediocre student can get

into Pepperdine. V7e don't have the data on a few other schools

in California like McGeorge and we have it from word of m.outh

that the students who can get into Pepperdine can probably get

into McGeorge also. He said he was surprised that San Francisco

had become a difficult school to enter as is Cal .Javxs.

He said he also wanted to provide some data on costs on getting

into law schools in California.

See Exhibit 1 for admission costs.*

I do not know of any definite data as far as our applicants from

Reno but we have already had one student in our department accepted

one to Eoalt Hall and a few of our students have been accepted

at leading Universities. We have most of these students getting

in 2.8 G.P.A. or above and their L.S.A.T. was about 525 or

thing of that sort but I can only be fairly subjective about this.

Senator Foley; Could you give me a run dov/n on the grade average

of the student admitted to Boalt Hall and other leading law schools?

Mr. Siegel: They were truly e.xceptional. 3.8 and 3.9. I also would

like to add that the female has the advantage over the male today.

Some female students are even getting letters from law schools

asking them to apply.

Senator Foley; How about Hastings?

Mr. Siegel: I haven't got much data but we have been sending regularly

students there from 3 to 3/5 students to Hastings.

Senator Foley; Those cost figures that was for a year wasn't it?

Dr. Siegel: Yes, for two semesters.

Senator asked if there were any questions.

Tom Lorcntzen spoke next and said he was speaking on his own behalf.

He said also for those in a simdlar situation. He said that there

had been talk of a two year feasibility study for a lav/ school and

this would make it at least 1976 before they could have one.

- 2 -

LAW SCHOOL HEARING - U. Of. N. FEBRUARY 26TH, 1973

He said that there were people around campus and around town who

would like the opportunity to attend law school and they weren't

18 to 24 years old but around thirty and it was increasingly hard

to attend law school as they had made an effort but could not get

in. He said that if they had to wait around for a feasibility

study they would not ever have the opportunity. He said that

he v/as speaking in terms of forty students and in another year

there would be twice as many of this type of applicant. He said

that Justice Zenoff had made it clear that Justice Clark had said

he could staff a law school over night and that there was a large

amount of money available, from various sources.

Mr. Lorentzen said that he could not see any reason v;hy they could

not open a school by the fall of 1974 if not earlier with a great

deal of concentrated effort. Many did not see the need of a feasibility

study as was brought out at a previous hearing,as it was

feasible as far as he could see.

He said that v/hen he was younger he was not as dedicated as he

has become now and his grade point average was not too high, about

2.5 in undergraduate and about 3.5 in graduate. A.s far as the

law school test \':3nt, he said he took it last spring and he v/as

working in one or the casinos and working overtim.e until 5:30 and

the: test was at 8:30 so that he didn't have any sleep. H esaid

he took the first part of the test and did pretty good but that

he couldn't concentrate any longer and so answered over half of

it at random by guessingand then v/ent to sleep. He said when

he got the grade Pack it was well above average so he wondered

about this test.

Senator Foley asked the next speaker to introduce himself.

Patrick Murphy, a student said that he had spoken previously at

the Hearing in Carson. But> he said, he wanted to say, that the

nev/ law school he had spoken of at the previous Hearing was now

accredited and he had written for information on the process they

had gone through. He said that if they started a law school that

he thought they should bear in mdnd starting a good one and one

that could becom.e accredited in a short tim.e. He said he would

pass this information on to the Committee at a later date v/hen

he received it. The school he mentioned was Antioch, in Washington,

D.C.

Dr. Miller addressed the Chair and said he wanted to extend his

appreciation to the Legislative Education Committee for holding

this Hearing and was sorry that it was not more well attended.

Chairman Foley said that they did have another Hearing scheduled

in Las Vegas Friday and that about all they could do was gather

tois information together to act within a week or two. He m.entioned

it would be in the Union Building, at 2:30.

LAV7 SCHOOL HEARING - MINUTES FEBRUARY 26th, 1973

Some discussion was held on the L.S.A.T. Dr. Siegel said there

were certain inequities in the test and that he found that most

schools did put grade point average ahead of this.

Assemblyman Schoficild told Chancellor Neil Humphrey that he did

have a textbook on preparing for the L.S.A.T. and it was very

interesting; he said he thought it would be very beneficial if

they would review it. He asked Mr. Humphrey if he had anything

he wanted to talk over with the Comumittees.

Mr. Humphrey answered not anything but that they thought there

should be a feasibility study. In fact, they had in mind several

of these studies for various professions.

Assemblyman Schofield asked what these other professions v/ere they

spoke of.

Neil Humphrey ansv/ered veterinary medicine, architecture and urban

design and dentistry.

Mr. Schofield asked if the University of Nevada was set up under a

Grant.

Mr. Humphrey answered that it was and that the land grant was

shared with U.N.L.V.

Mr. Schofield a.sked xf somehow there was a generous benefactor

offering money tov/ards moving this along, this sort of an establishment.

Vvnat he meant was, he said, say several benefactors

giving large amounts would they consider acting on this?

Humphrey answered it would depend on the size and from whom. He

said $1,000,000 was a lot of money but it wasn't all that much when

you started to lay it out. This wouldn't begin to cover the cost

of a program once you began to lay it out.

Senator Raggio said that he thought that both he and President Miller

must have some idea of the cost factor involved in this. What are

some of these he asked. He said that a lavi^ school would serve no

purpose and unless it was accredited by the Araerican Bar A.ssociation

it would not be worthv/hile. So, he said, he would like to know what

they were talking about in the way of money. Give me a ball park

guess.

Mr. Humphrey said he could give the figures of only what it would

cost somewhere else which he had done at the previous Hearing.

Senator Raggio said he hadn't seen that.

Humphrey said that he gave figures from a low of over $1,000.00

in Wisconsin to over $4,000 in Hawaii.

%

Mr. Raggio said you mean that is the operational cost. He was

answered yes per year per student. He then asked what about the

cost.of a law library and he was answered somev;here around a half

million dollars. He then asked about a physical plant and was

answered that it wasn't known.

- 4 -

LAW SCHOOL HEARING - MINUTES lEBRUARY 26TH, 1973

Senator Raggio asked if it had ever been discussed about using

the excellent facilities of the law library in this area for

this purpose.

Humphrey answered that the library in the National College belongs

to the Fleischmanii Foundation. He said that one of the reasons

that the Board of Regents had been recom.mending a feasibility

study was to go into these costs.

Mr. Schofield said that he had some figures from the University

of Hawaii and others and that it would be a pretty good estimate

that it would cost around $700,000 for a law library for fifty

students. He v;ent on further that some had in mind to get

started with a one year school and go on from there.

Senator Foley asked where would they go after one year and

then recognized that Mr. Schofield was only talking about getting

started for oneyear financially.

Mr. Humphrey said we don't knov; these things and that is the

reason we want a thorough study and that is v/hy we think this

study should be a joint onebetween the University, the Regents

and the Legislature. It is one thing, he said, for us to have

a study and present it to you and another that you participate

in it.

Senator Foley asked Mr. Humphrey V7hat kind of money would we

be talking about if v/e v.'a nt to cL fou3r vsci2r rnoc-icsJ school?

Would the cost double or triple he asked. Mr. Humphrey ansv/ered

that tliey didn't know.

Senator Raggio suggested that probably the strong argument for

a law school in Nevada is that students are denied admission in so

many places. It v/as said that McGeorge Law School v;ould acceot

Nevada students readily enough and how about Hastings he asked.

This is something v/e need to knov; he stated. They are pretty

good, you know he said. He said he didn't know how proud they

were of som.e of their students. Laughter.

Assemblyman Schofield then asked what was the criteria that had

caused the University to think of a study for architecture and

urban design.

President Miller explained some and answered that there was

national interest in this as well as local.

Chairman Foley dismissed the meeting at 4:15 P.M.

*For complete content of Dr. Siegel's presentation See Addendum 1

Respectfully submitted.

Geraldine Smith,

Assembly Secretary

Sharon W. Maher

Senate Secretary

- 5 -

ADDENDUM 1

February 2 3 , 1973

Conmittee on Education, Nevada State Senate

Richard Siage.1

Department of Political Science

Adraissions Policies of Law Schools in California

The xollo.7ing as a partaal anaj-vsis of the admi-ssions polic.es

of si>. oaj-rxornia scnools o:c Ira.'. On.ly those sii: schools, out

of a totcil of fifteen accredited lav.' schools in California,

dc.'ca, concernxi^g cnalifications of the aoplictonts

to their 1972-73 eritering classes. All data is derived fvon

i22mf.Il Ilandbooh prepared by the .Associaticn f';

Ariierican nav.' Sciiccas ana the Law School Adraission Counci..

Th.'.s ^ saiiiplo of cicmissions policxes leads to the follcwiw

ranking ox the given scnools ba,.sed on difficulty of admittance:

1. Stanford Univea-sity

2. University of Califor.nia, Davis

3- University of San Francisco

4. Golden Gate

5. Un.lversity of San Diego

6. Pepperdine University

fi^ta suggests uhat an 1972 a student could e;roe'.t to be admitted

to Pooeardina with a grade point r.voracre bat;oan 2,75 and

2.99 and encres between 5G0 and (cut c? possible

800), Such ^gualixicauions a.re only s l i g h t l y above the avc.raca

or mean porrormanca level of e.ll stu.dant.s applying -lo la-; school

However, a student v/ith cucli cu.alifications v/as va2r' uniikaiv

to be acmitted to cOny of the otlner five schools, even if his"*

L.S.A.T. score v/as as high as the 550-399 range.

The student need attain a. 3.0 - 3.24 G.P.A. to ha.ve a very good

chance for uhroe or iuore of the given schools. VZit.i such a

G.P.A. and an L.S.A.T. score kata'oen 500-549 the student had

about an even chance for Fan Dioco. VZith the same 3,?.?.. and a

550—599 L.S.A.T. the SwUdant was very lihaly to have been adiuitt

to Golden Gate as v/sll as San Diego and Peppsrd.Lne •

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Ilov/ever, only v/ith the follov;ing scoren could the student have

been confident of admission to the more selective schools:

Uni.versity of San Francisco 3.0 -• 3.2'I 600 - 6^9

University of California, Davis 3.5 - 3.74 650'- 699

Stanford University 3.6 + 650 - 699

Such confidence v/ould be based on the statistical evidence that

^ Hiajoritv of anolicants meeting the stated combined oualificati o-^s

were accepted In 19/2, ••• '• -

It should be noted that the above statistics indicate the level

^ iOr admresion. Levels at wiiich a

R9hi^irir.:ll.-t::vL. ^-'-'-sus cire mucn lov/er, Pemcrdine admitted almost

25'j ox i-cs applicants who had G.P.A.'s balov/ 2.75 and even

Stanford adinitted siii: candidates helow a 2.75 G.P.A.

No da^a v/as availaole to thxs v/rrter ccrzCGrning Nevada applicants

to Ci-lifornxa inscaaiswians. Howaver, it is rry subjective

judgment as a pre—lauv o-Civisor chat Mevadan success rates are in

line v/ith che data in the appandi:c of this memorandum.

3

APPKMDIX

h- Students with a G.P.A. between 2.75 - 2.99 and an L.S.A.T, score

of 500 - 549 had the follov/ing success rate at the selected

schools:

Golden Gc^ta

University of California, Davii

Pepperdine

Stanford

University of San Diego

University of San Francisco

TOT?Jj:

Applied Accented

84 5

43 4

22 15

40 0

63 ,5

94 2

351 31

.75 — 2. 99 and an

rng success rate:

Rate of Acceotanc.

68.2% (high)

0.0% (l0V7)

8.8%

Applied Accented

Golden Gate 71 14

University of. California, Davis 72 6

Pepperdine 16 16

Stanford 67 4

University cf San Diego 14 3

Universitv .';f Sc;n Francisco 104 6

TOTAL: 344 49

C- Students x-rith G.P.A. between 3. 0 - 3.24 and L.S.A,

500 - 54):

-

Applied Accented

Golden Gate 34 8

University cf California, Dav/is 57 6

Pepperdine 14 13

Stanford 70 3

University o: San Diego 20 9

University c: San Francisco 76 7

TOTAL: 271 46

Rate of Acceotance

100.0% (high)

21.4%

5.8% (levy)

14.2%

Rate of Acceptance

92.8% (high)

4.3% (lov;)

45.0%

IV. 0%

D- Students v,'ith a G.P.A. between 3.0 -3.24 and L.S.A.T, score of

550 - 599 had the following success rate:

Golden Gate

University of Califoi'nia, Davis

Pepperdine

Stanford

University of San Diego

University of San Francisco

TOTAL:

Applied

39

82

11

89

27

81

~J29

Accepted

29

4

9

8

27

24

"Toi

Rate of Acceni

/ 4 • 'i ^

4,9'o (low)

81.05

100.05 (high)

30.45

Addendum 2

COST OF LAW SCHOOL CALIFORNIA (1972 - 73)

Golden Gate; $48.00 per unit

University of California, Davis;

Residents: $670.50 fees

Non-Residents: $2170.50 Fees

Pepperdine: $63.00 per semester hour

about $2000.00 in tuition and fees for first year

evening division: $1,475.00 for year

University of San Diego: day division for academic year:

$1,710 for tuition and fees

Evening division: $1,210.00

University of San Francisco: Day division: $1,935.00

tuition and fees

Evening division: $1,360.00

($68,00 per credit)

Stanford University: $2,350.00 tuition and fees

over $5,000.00 for all costs for single

student

Day Range: High: $2,850.00 (Stanford)

Low : $1,710.00 (San Diego)

possibly lower at Golden Gate