Category Archives: Nevada legislature

Kirner Update and Charter School Follies in the Nevada Legislature

Kirner There’s a difference between stale bread and stale politics; stale bread is useful.

“Well, this: Assembly Member Randy Kirner (R-Reno) is trying hard (perhaps too hard?) to be a “play-a”. He flippantly confirmed to Riley Snyder what we’ve been reporting about him killing Senator David Parks’ (D-Paradise) sexual orientation conversion therapy ban (SB 353). He then claimed he was “worried about litigation costs”, despite the Senate removing the law suit portion of the bill. The truth came out in private later, when he told a visiting constituent he just doesn’t like Senator Parks (and he’s just too obsessed with raiding PERS & busting unions to allow LGBTQ lives to be saved).” [LTN] (emphasis added)

The first indication of threadbare banality is Assemblyman Kirner’s worry about “litigation costs” in regard to SB 353.  This is the second to last resort into which a member of the GOP will dock when a bill or policy is presented that might protect potential victims of discrimination or abuse. (The last resort is “God Says…”)

Our second clue revealing  Assemblyman Kirner’s platitudinous and unoriginal offerings is his adherence to ALEC’s talking points about public employee retirement programs and labor organizations.  It’s fairly easy to spot a Talking Point Politician – when he or she is faced with current facts and social needs, our undaunted culture warrior reverts to hackneyed and uninspired reiterations of someone else’s phrases.  “I’m worried about the costs of litigation,” applied to everything from civil rights law to equal pay for female employees. “I’m concerned about the effect this will have on the free market,” applied to everything from environmental standards to the appointment of consumer protection advocates.   This isn’t politicking, it’s sloganeering.  Real players bring something to the table for discussion – something besides personal animosities and stale talking points.

Industrial education isn’t the same thing as industrialized educationSB 509 is still alive and in the Assembly Education committee. There’s a phrase in the bill which should catch our attention, here’s the LCB analysis:

“Existing law requires an application to form a charter school to be submitted by a committee to form a charter school. (NRS 386.520, 386.525) Sections 21 and 22 of this bill authorize a charter management organization to apply to form a charter school. Section 2 of this bill defines the term “charter management organization” to mean a nonprofit organization that operates multiple charter schools. Section 21 also revises the required contents of an application to form a charter school. Sections 21 and 36 of this bill authorize a charter management organization to request a waiver of requirements concerning the composition of a governing body. Section 22 revises the manner in which a sponsor is authorized to solicit and review applications to form a charter school.” 

Let’s differentiate between EMO’s  (Educational Management Organizations) which are for-profit educational enterprises and CMO’s which are non-profits.  While there is this crucial difference, they share some corporate interests.  One of those interests is the promotion of schools – not school districts.  This becomes an important point when we’re discussing overall school administration because when comparing “successes” schools and school districts are very different creatures.

For example, KIPP (a CMO) operates individual schools in urban areas. However, KIPP doesn’t run school districts. Recently a KIPP school in New Jersey was touted for it’s high performance in Newark, but when a bit of expertise was injected from Rutgers University scholars the results were less than stellar:

“The bottom line is that KIPP schools performance on comparable measures of student growth, controlling for demography, resources, etc., are relatively average (marginally above average). Many district schools, including ones in Newark, far outperform them.” [SchoolFinance]

In other words, anecdotal evidence of high performance (without running a model of demographics across the district to see deviations)  doesn’t mean a particular charter school operation is necessarily “successful” or that its operating plan is better than that which might be achieved by a local district itself.

A few years ago, another CMO, Rocketship was supposed to be achieving “astronomical” results, and was all the rage. [WaPo]  Rocketship used an “industrial model” with lots of computers and an equally large contingent of inexperienced teachers.  Rocketship moved into San Jose, California, but a year later the San Jose Mercury News was headlining, “Rocketship we have a problem.”  It seems that corporations like Rocketship DO have to follow local zoning regulations.  More issues arose with the charter non-profit, and by May, 2014 the Alum Rock CA Board of Education rejected a Rocketship charter, saying (1) it had not made Adequate Yearly Progress, there was no assurance made to investors that the schools would make AYP in the future, students spent a large portion of their day with no licensed teacher (a violation of state law), the CMO offered misleading figures on student-teacher ratios by not including Learning Lab Students in the calculations (creating a 1:37 ratio), and while Alum Rock School District spends about 6% on overhead costs, the Rocketship school was required to set aside 15% for its corporate headquarters.  The final point in the rejection was that for all the Wonders of Technology described in the Rocketship process, the students were actually encouraged to be passive rather than active users of the technology.

A third CMO, Green Dot Schools, has had a similar rocky history.  After much initial ballyhoo, Locke High School in Watts, CA was subdivided into segments under the management of Green Dot. Two years later the segments were themselves closed – for lack of “success” – the result?

“In fact, Animo Locke II, Animo Locke III, and Animo Locke Tech all failed the 2012 WASC accreditation. forcing Green Dot to merge all of the campuses, operationally, into the one school to receive accreditation. Animo Watts will continue to operate independent of the schools located at the main Locke campus.” [Ravitch

Eli Broad and other Silicon Valley ‘reformers’ were challenged by the LA Times:

“Charters claim that their schools score far better than traditional public schools serving similar students. That’s not true. The students at Locke or any of the other at-risk high schools in LAUSD are not “similar students” when compared to those who have left the public schools and moved to the charters. What Broad, Green Dot and the others do not reveal is the scores of those charter students when they were in regular public schools. It’s our belief that those students were already outscoring their fellow students in the traditional schools before they moved into charters. Low-scoring students do not enroll in Broad’s charters. His charters have skimmed off the education-oriented kids who otherwise would be raising test scores for traditional public schools.”

Cracks were showing in 2010, when it was reported that by Parent Revolution’s own definitions 14 out of 15 Green Dot Schools weren’t reaching their promised levels of success, [examiner] and to add substance to the LA Times critique, Green Dot Schools were targeting schools for takeover which were already exceeding Green Dot results. [SeattleEd] (More at MJ 4/1/2011]

By 2013 the Green Dot experiment in Los Angeles was plagued by high teacher turnover, inadequate administration, and unstable evaluation policies.  Meanwhile, a Tacoma, WA middle school is being taken over by Green Dot Schools, but parents are advised that “space is limited.”  [TNTRib]  — not an admonition which can be pronounced by public schools.  The Seattle Times reported that most seats were already taken by April 29, 2015 — ‘lotteries were held for 6 of 8 charter schools.”  There are no “enrollment lotteries” for public schools.

It would indeed be interesting, if JUST ONCE some legislative body decided to put the kind of care, attention, concern, (and potential funding) in the hands of its public school districts as it does into the hands of privatizing and elite exclusionist interests.

Leave a comment

Filed under education, nevada education, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, privatization, Union busting

Battle Born and Still Squabbling: The Waning Days of the 78th Assembled Wisdom

Nevada Flag

Battle Born and still fighting.  Day 116 and the the squabble over revenue plans and priorities continues in the Assembled Wisdom.  See Let’s Talk Nevada for daily details.  The Latin Chamber of Commerce has lined up with the Governor’s proposal. [Slash Politics]  This makes some sense because those business interests which are opposing the Governor’s plan would actually pay very little under it. [Ralston] No, it doesn’t come as any surprise that those who are opposed to the plan don’t bear most of the burden, while supporters would pay a bit more than their share.

This morning’s agenda for Assembly Ways and Means includes SB 491, “Provides for the award of a grant to a nonprofit organization for use in Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and Fiscal Year 2016-2017 for the recruitment of persons to establish and operate high quality charter schools to serve families with the greatest needs..” 

Also on the agenda, AB 480, which would allow mortgage wholesalers from outside the state to act as mortgage brokers.  AB 481 would strike the limitations on the Consumer Affairs Commissioner and B& I Director to provide investigative assistance to the Attorney General in cases involving deceptive trade practices.

The Assembly Taxation Committee will take on SJR 13, the Settelmeyer, Gustavson, Goicoechea proposal to restrict property taxes — “no new taxes, and even less of the old ones” —  “This resolution proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to limit the amount of certain property taxes which may be cumulatively levied per year on real property to 1 percent of the base value of the property. “ How does this fit with revenue plans and local government interests? It doesn’t.  The beast got out of the Senate on a 12-7 vote.  The city of Reno estimates it will cost about $8 million in lost revenue.

The Assembly Committee on Education will be looking at SB 509 which pertains to charter schools.  From the LCB analysis:

“Existing law requires an application to form a charter school to be submitted by a committee to form a charter school. (NRS 386.520, 386.525) Sections 21 and 22 of this bill authorize a charter management organization to apply to form a charter school. Section 2 of this bill defines the term “charter management organization” to mean a nonprofit organization that operates multiple charter schools. Section 21 also revises the required contents of an application to form a charter school. Sections 21 and 36 of this bill authorize a charter management organization to request a waiver of requirements concerning the composition of a governing body. Section 22 revises the manner in which a sponsor is authorized to solicit and review applications to form a charter school.”

“Existing law authorizes a sponsor to revoke a written charter or terminate a charter contract under certain conditions and requires a sponsor to take such action if the charter school demonstrates persistent underachievement. (NRS 386.535, 386.5351) Sections 5 and 27-29 of this bill: (1) authorize a sponsor to reconstitute the governing body of a charter school in such situations; and (2) revise the conditions under which such action is authorized or required.”

The Senate Education Committee will be looking at SB 92, which requires a teacher deemed minimally effective after the three year probationary period is reverted to probationary status.  And, then there’s the predictable assault on “seniority” as defined in master contract agreements:

“Existing law provides that when a reduction in the workforce is necessary, the board of trustees of a school district must not lay off a teacher or an administrator based solely on seniority. (NRS 288.151) Section 30 of this bill requires the board of trustees of a school district to consider certain factors when reducing the workforce. Section 30 also provides that, if two or more employees are similarly situated after the application of those factors, the decision by the board of trustees to lay off one or more of the employees may be based on seniority.”

Meanwhile, back at the Battle of the Budget……………..

1 Comment

Filed under education, financial regulation, Nevada economy, nevada education, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, nevada taxation, public employees

Emergencies: Creating and Sustaining Them in Nevada?

lack of planning Someone is asking the right question:

“Assembly Member Elliot Anderson (D-Winchester) then asked the biggest question of them all: Why is this “emergency measure” popping up now, and does it stand any better chance of passing the Senate than AB 148 or the proposed Fiore-Hansen SB 175 amendment. All Oscarson Therecould say was “I certainly hope so.” Meanwhile, a whole lot of students, teachers, and concerned family members certainly hope AB 487 meets the same fate as the dead AB 148 and the failed SB 175 amendment.” [LTN]

The measure under discussion is AB 487, another iteration of the ammosexual agenda Carry Everywhere nightmare, and it’s due for a hearing (of sorts) in the Assembly Judiciary Committee bright and early on Wednesday morning [pdf agenda] if it can get “emergency status.”  The tenacity of the gun advocates seems proportional to their delusion that somehow more guns will make up safer from more guns.  In case you missed it, this Salon piece does an excellent point by point deconstruction of the right wing’s ideological stance on the issue.

There’s another bill coming up on Wednesday which deserves more attention than it’s likely to get in the waning days of a legislative session, SB 292

“Section 1 of this bill provides that a board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of a charter school is not liable for any civil damages arising from any act or omission by a person employed by or volunteering at a school-based health center. Section 1 also defines “school-based health center” for such purposes.”

… Existing law limits the amount of noneconomic damages that may be an action for injury or death against a provider of health care based professional negligence. (NRS 41A.035) Section 3 of this bill limits noneconomic damages that may be awarded in such an action to $350,000, regardless of the number of plaintiffs, defendants or theories of liability. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption in actions for negligence”

This is NOT a School Nurse Protection Act, at least not the way it is worded.   Notice the phrase “…by a person employed by or volunteering at a school-based health center.”  So,  volunteers manning the school sick bay, and not school nurses, cannot render the school or charter operation liable for their actions or their failure to act?  If the person is a school nurse there are professional requirements for that.  However, (and this is a pretty big caveat) non-certified personnel may be allowed to administer medication, for which there are no pre-service nor professional development  specified training requirements. [NASBE] What could possibly go wrong?

But wait, there’s more! Senator Roberson seems intent upon his assault on the venerable Collateral Source Rule.  The Legislative Counsel Bureau explains what happens under SB 291:

“A common law doctrine, known as the “collateral source rule,” prohibits a defendant in a tort case from introducing into evidence proof of amounts that the plaintiff received or was entitled to receive from a source other than the defendant in compensation for the harms or injuries caused by the defendant.”

Existing law provides a limited exception to the collateral source rule by allowing a defendant in a case against a provider of health care based upon professional negligence to introduce evidence of amounts paid or payable to a plaintiff pursuant to policies of health or accident insurance, the United States Social Security Act, worker’s compensation statutes and other programs or contracts that pay for or reimburse costs of health care. (NRS 42.021)

This bill replaces the existing limited exception to the collateral source rule and instead requires a court, upon a motion by a defendant in any tort case, to reduce the amount of damages initially determined by the jury or other finder of fact by the amount of past medical expenses paid in relation to the injury or death sustained. However, this bill prohibits the court from reducing the amount of the damages by any amount: (1) paid for any treatment, care or custody provided by a provider of health care or medical facility on a lien; or (2) paid pursuant to medical payment coverage.  (emphasis added)

The “defendant” in this instance would be a negligent or otherwise incompetent health care provider.  Again, whatever success a plaintiff may have had in court against a person who negligently caused their pain, suffering, and possible disability – Senator Roberson would like to see reduced by any amount covered by Social Security disability benefits, worker’s compensation, or health or accident insurance.  The two bills are a double whammy for victims.

This session can’t end soon enough?

Comments Off on Emergencies: Creating and Sustaining Them in Nevada?

Filed under education, Health Care, health insurance, nevada education, nevada health, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics

GOP Far Away Land: Solutions in Search of Problems

Alien Planet guns

It’s like they live on another planet.  Republican legislators in Carson City appear to be marching to the same off beat drum kit as their Washington, D.C. counterparts.  Have problems with infrastructure? Education? Revenue? Income inequality? Unemployment? The solution is (staccato drum roll) Pass more laws on abortion! Allow more guns everywhere!

The Single Song Sallies of the Nevada GOP are absorbed by these two.  Assemblyman Ira Hansen (R-NV backwater) proposes the following:

“AN ACT relating to abortions; revising provisions regulating an abortion performed on a pregnant woman who is a minor or a ward; requiring notification of a parent or guardian under certain circumstances before a physician performs such an abortion; providing expedited procedures for petitioning a court for judicial authorization to proceed without such notification; providing civil liabilities and criminal penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”

How this bit of anti-choice legislation addresses employment, economic diversification, educational funding, transportation, infrastructure, local government resources, provisions for mental health services, or any other major issue facing the state is pure conjecture.  The nationwide abortion rate among those under 15 years of age is negligible for the period 1990 to 2007, and abortions for those aged 15 to 18 years has declined from 21,800 in 1990 to 16,200 as of 2007. [CensusCDC]  This decline mirrors the overall decline in teen pregnancies, which in turn is linked to economic considerations, more contraceptives, and more information (read: sex education). [Pew] However, Big Daddy Government Types exemplified by Assemblyman Hansen, won’t be satisfied until every woman has to carry every man’s fetus to term.  And for this, time is being taken from taxation and budget consideration in the Assembled Wisdom.

Meanwhile, Assemblywoman Michele “Take Baking Soda for your Cancer” Fiore (R-NRA) would be happy to attach her Guns Galore amendment to any bit of legislation she can find. [LVRJ]  She lost the vote, 24-18 in the Assembly, but she’ll be back before the end of the session on June 1. [LTN]

What makes coping with single issue ideologues like Hansen and Fiore so frustrating is that Nevada does have some serious issues which need to be addressed.  Education, which was supposed to be the central feature of this legislative session, has some problems. For instance, Nevada schools ranked 50th in “overall state grades,” and 36th in K-12 achievement, 45th in standards and assessments, and 46th in school finance. [leg.state.nv]  The American Society of Civil Engineering grades Nevada a C- in infrastructure.  We “earned” a D+ in dams, and we have 36 bridges which are deemed “structurally deficient.”  The Mental Health Association reports the following in regard to Nevada’s mental health services: “The five states with the highest prevalence of mental illness and the lowest rates of access to care were Louisiana (47), Washington (48), Nevada (49), Mississippi (50) and Arizona (51).”

Speaking to the income inequality issue, Nevada’s not in a very good position in that regard either:  “The states in which all income growth between 2009 and 2012 accrued to the top 1 percent include Delaware, Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, North Carolina, Connecticut, Washington, Louisiana, California, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, Rhode Island, and Nevada.”

Now, can we please talk about something other than government so small it can fit inside every vagina, and guns galore?

1 Comment

Filed under abortion, Gun Issues, Mental Health, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Zombie Guns Blazing in NV Legislature

zombie guns 2

This is the kind of news Nevada can do without:

“A “campus carry” bill believed to be dead in the Senate will be amended into another Second Amendment measure on Friday, Assembly Judiciary Chairman Ira Hansen said Wednesday.

Hansen said that because the Senate Judiciary Committee won’t hear Assembly Bill 148 that would allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry their weapons on college campuses, it will be amended into a Senate bill on the deadline day for committee action on most bills.” [LVRJ]

The bills in question is SB 175 and SB 240.  The Guns Galore crowd, championed by Michele Fiore (R-NRA) and Ira Hansen (R-Ammostan), wants those with concealed carry permits to be able to pack “heat” on college campuses.  Little matter that others may find this uncomfortable or downright dangerous.  Happily, there are some restrictions in place on concealed carry permitting in this state – not that the Ammosexuals wouldn’t like to eliminate those eventually.

The Current Requirements

In Clark County those wanting a permit must the a Nevada resident of Clark County, or an out of state resident who has received firearms training in Clark County; 21 years of age, not prohibited from firearms ownership by state or federal law; and must successfully complete an approved firearms course in Clark County.  [LVMPD]

The requirements in Washoe County are essentially the same. A person must be at least 21, provide documentation of competence with a firearm, meet the standards set forth in NRS 202, have no DUIs in the preceding five years or record of “substance abuse.”  [Washoe pdf]

Campus Numbers

The University of Nevada campus in Reno as of the Fall of 2013 had 15,694 undergraduates, of whom 47%, or 7,454 were male, 8,240 were female.  The average age of a UNR undergraduate was — 21 years of age. [CP]  There were 23,090 undergraduates enrolled in UNLV, 12,824 female, 10,275 male.  The average undergraduate age at UNLV was reported as 18 years. 23% were aged 25 or older. [CP]

One obvious feature of these figures is that there are a significant number of young males on both major college campuses in this state.  We do know from the CDC* and other sources  that firearms and young men aren’t a particularly good mixture.  Pew Social Trends reported:

“Men (and boys) make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The gun homicide rates for both genders have declined by similar amounts since the mid-1990s, though the male rate is much higher—6.2 gun homicides per 100,000 people in 2010, compared with 1.1 for females.”

… and …

“Males are the vast majority of gun suicides (87% in 2010), and the suicide rate for males (11.2 deaths per 100,000 people) is more than seven times the female rate (1.5 deaths). The highest firearm suicide rate by age is among those ages 65 and older (10.6 per 100,000 people).”

Thus, what the ammosexual alliance is proposing is to place more firearms in a setting in which there are significant numbers of already vulnerable individuals in the setting.

Individual Tragedy and Economic Costs

Aside from the human tragedy there are economic factors to consider before advocating any further proliferation of firearms and the situations in which those guns can be allowed.

In December 2012, Bloomberg Business news reported that gun violence was costing the American economy some $174 billion.  Forbes magazine reported in 2013 that gun violence was costing each American about $564.

And, then there is the “market” argument, which the Minneapolis Post analyzed as follows:

“Treating gun violence as an externality assumes that weapons markets are legitimate and that we must live with the consequences.  However, certain aspects of this market may not be legitimate. Markets do not exist in a vacuum.  They are created and designed by people, and societies can decide to modify or restrict markets depending on its values and goals.

Debra Satz, a professor of philosophy at Stanford University, addresses this in her book “Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Limits of Markets.” At the heart of her analysis is the concept of noxious markets, i.e. “markets that people find especially objectionable” and which should be curtailed or eliminated.

One important reason why societies deem some markets as noxious is that trade in these goods causes extreme harm to individuals and/or society.  Markets in assault rifles, large-capacity ammunition magazines and related items could be thought of this way. The damage caused by guns used to commit crimes is so great that we must regulate them and, in some cases, eliminate them.”

We know, for example that alcohol and tobacco products are often classified as “noxious markets.”  There are spill-over effects in society, in terms of public health costs, and other related expenses or losses.  Therefore, we regulate and use tax policy to curb the consumption and use of these items.  State legislatures are quick to add “sin taxes” to diminish the ‘noxious’ markets for some products, especially in the tobacco categories. However, they’re remarkably slow to consider taxing/regulating the use of guns and ammunition.  An amended SB 175 merely serves to advance a ‘noxious’ market, rather than curbing firearms proliferation which endangers young people – especially young men.

U.S. News and World Report was more blunt on this subject, when speaking of the economic costs of firearms and school security in America:

“However, the firearms industry has managed to avoid picking up the tab for its externalities. A recent proposal by Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association shows the size of the problem. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, the NRA proposed that the best solution to gun violence in school is to have more guns in school. They argued that every school should post an armed guard (or several) to stop would-be shooters. Let’s set aside the constitutional and practical considerations and just consider the economics of this for a moment: It would cost nearly $5 billion per year to put a trained, equipped, armed guard in each of America’s 132,000 K-12 schools. That calls for a fee—let’s call it the “Schools Security Fee”—of $500 to $750 for every new and used handgun purchased in the United States. The fee is roughly the cost of a typical good-quality new pistol! If imposed, it would double the price of handguns and cripple the firearm industry. Yet it’s ironic that many of the folks who claim to hate taxes and government see no problem in proposing a $5 billion expansion in government, which necessitates taxes to pay for it.”

Whether viewed in macro-terms such as in the classification of firearms as a ‘noxious’ market, or in micro-terms as in a discussion of school safety officers, the message is essentially similar.  The manufacturers of firearms and their Ammosexual Allies are arguing that lethal weapons do not constitute a ‘noxious’ market and therefore should not be taxed or regulated even if the economic costs run into the $174 billion range.

Hostage Taking

While we can have socially oriented or economically based arguments over firearms regulations it must be admitted that there is an emotional factor to consider.  The positions taken by the Nevada Firearms Coalition which calls for legislation to “enhance personal liberty,” perceives proliferation as a ‘beneficial’ market, and a positive social good.**  “Armed” with this emotional attachment to firearms and their retail sales, the Guns Anywhere advocates are perfectly willing to hold other, and better, legislation hostage in order to advance their cause. Witness:

“As I reported earlier this week, Assembly Members Michele Fiore (R-Las Vegas) & Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) are retaliating against Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) & Senate Judiciary Chair Greg Brower (R-Reno) for shelving their “Guns Everywhere” bill (AB 148) in Senate Judiciary. So they just amended SB 240, Roberson’s mental health & “voluntary background checks” bill, to include elimination of Clark County’s “Blue Card” handgun registry…”  [LTN]

Winston Churchill was right: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

—————————————-

* Warning: Depending, of course, on your download speed this file can be very slow loading. (94.3 mb .zip format)

** See also: The 50 Caliber Institute.

Comments Off on Zombie Guns Blazing in NV Legislature

Filed under Economy, Gun Issues, Nevada economy, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, public safety

Sausage Grinding Nevada Style: The Legislature Scrambles to Sine Die

sausage Ah, the sausage is in the grinder for this session of the Nevada Assembled Wisdom:

“However in order to finally secure the votes to pass the full Uber deal, Roberson may be considering resuscitating a couple other bills previously thought to be dead. Democrats have made it clear they won’t play ball with Republican leaders if they move any further on AB 148(“Guns Everywhere“, including colleges & airports) and/or any of the voter ID/voter suppression bills (such as SB 169 and AB 266). There’s a new rumor swirling in the Building that Senate Republican leaders are considering scheduling hearings on these #Crazytown bills to scare the Democrats into supporting the Uber deal. I’m not sure yet how much force is actually behind it, but I can confirm it’s from a very reliable source.” [LTN]

Just what we need.  There are some tax and revenue issues to deal with, and some important issues concerning education which need attention… thus we’re hearing about Guns Galore! Vote Suppression! and, perhaps one more shot at privatizing (read: raiding) the Public Employees Retirement System, see AB 190. [bill text]

There’s something unseemly about using such egregious bits of Tea Party inanity as the Guns Galore legislation as a bargaining chip.  Some chips are counterfeit and this one is particularly untoward.  How many people are truly enamored of the idea of 18 and 19 year olds stashing guns in dorm rooms?  Of having some 18 or 19 year old “coming to the rescue” gun blazing and most likely untrained in police tactics?  Combine this with the Ammosexual propensity to call for background check repeals and we have a lovely recipe for a slaughter?  Once more with some feeling:

EVERY right comes with some responsibilities. And, truly responsible gun owners aren’t bellowing for proliferation, and are supportive of background checks to weed out the insane, the criminal, and the felonious from gun ownership.

Another counterfeit bit of coinage is the Vote Suppression legislation desired only by those who are afraid they won’t win the next election – or any election in which lower income, possibly people of color, maybe elderly, are allowed to express their options at the voting station.

There are some things that aren’t even allowed in a hot dog. Stuff that’s too toxic to add to an already questionable mixture of ingredients – and Tea Party idealizations about “liberty” and “free markets” (for the top 0.1%) are definitely in that category.

Sine die can’t come fast enough for this assemblage.

Comments Off on Sausage Grinding Nevada Style: The Legislature Scrambles to Sine Die

Filed under Nevada economy, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

Unleaded Truth Part II: Nevada’s Lead Contamination Issue

lead paint As noted yesterday, there are three jurisdictions in Nevada which have county health departments.  Health departments in the two metropolitan areas (Clark and Washoe counties) have addressed the issue of lead contamination in their areas.  In the remaining jurisdictions it appears to be a matter of state regulations, and the interest of county commissioners, as to whether particular attention is paid to toxic contamination in homes and businesses; and, it’s a matter of reliance on EPA regulations to protect renters and buyers.

All jurisdictions are required to uphold the provisions of the “federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act enacted in 1992. This law is commonly known as Title X (ten). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations implementing Title X apply to rental property built before 1978.” [Openjurist]

“Before ratification of a contract for housing sale or lease, sellers and landlords must disclose any known information concerning potential lead-based paint hazards and available records, must provide purchasers and lessees with a lead hazard information pamphlet, and must include specific language in the lease or contract related to lead. In addition, sellers must give buyers time to conduct a lead inspection. Most private housing, public housing, federally-owned housing, and housing receiving federal assistance built prior to 1978 are affected by this rule.” [EPA]

One issue raises up when we look at the forms for renters and prospective buyers.  The rental agents and sellers may check off a box on the forms indicating they have no knowledge of real, potential, or unsuspected lead contamination in housing constructed prior to 1978.  The form does not require the renter or seller to conduct any inspection to determine if lead contamination exists on the premises.  That’s left to the renter or buyer.

“Before ratification of a contract for housing sale or lease, sellers and landlords must disclose any known information concerning potential lead-based paint hazards and available records, must provide purchasers and lessees with a lead hazard information pamphlet, and must include specific language in the lease or contract related to lead. In addition, sellers must give buyers time to conduct a lead inspection. Most private housing, public housing, federally-owned housing, and housing receiving federal assistance built prior to 1978 are affected by this rule.” [EPA]  (emphasis added)

The current provisions require those renting property or selling property to give their renters information about the dangers of lead contamination, any known information about lead in the housing or common areas, and an attachment to the lease about the proper issuance of a lead contamination warning.   The expression caveat emptor comes to mind.

And, this can be a problem for residents of rural Nevada counties because the EPA list of certified lead contamination inspectors,  and those firms which are certified for lead contamination abatement projects are based in Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Reno, and Sparks.  As we’d suspect, state law (NRS 439.4797) puts those counties having more than 700,000 residents in charge (read: Washoe and Clark) and those with less than 700,000 (every other jurisdiction) under the auspices of the State Board of Health.

Advice from the state board of health might be cold comfort to those seeking affordable rental housing in those outlying jurisdictions, it begins with:

“Tenants and landlords should work cooperatively to investigate and correct lead based paint or other hazards. Nevada law requires that a landlord must provide a habitable condition inside of the dwelling (NRS 118A.290). Check your rental or lease agreement to determine your responsibility to address daily maintenance issues or repairs.”  [health.nv.gov pdf]

Indeed, NRS 118A.290 requires a residence be suitable for human habitation, the operative phrase may be: “A dwelling unit is not habitable if it violates provisions of housing or health codes concerning the health, safety, sanitation or fitness for habitation of the dwelling unit…” and, no, there is no specific mention of lead contamination.

Let’s focus in on rental property for the moment and the problems which may be faced by middle or lower income level inhabitants of these properties when it comes to coping with the state guidelines for lead contamination issues.  A tenant is advised to document instances of lead contamination with letters, photos, “evidence of health problems,” and work orders from private inspectors or contractors. This raises a reasonable hypothetical question.

A landlord in a jurisdiction outside of the two major metropolitan areas has signed off on a statement indicating he or she has no prior knowledge of any lead based paid issues in the building.  A tenant later notices peeling and chipping paint on window sills. The landlord again explains that he or she has no knowledge that lead based paint was ever used in the building, and doesn’t know if the underlying coat(s) of paint were lead based.  It would appear that the landlord has done all that is required at this point. After this point in the process it’s up to the tenant to provide certified mail notification to the landlord; allow the landlord 14 days to respond; and, then if nothing happens (like a certified inspection) launch the legal process. The question becomes: Who is responsible for paying for the certified inspection? For the cost of the “work orders, and private inspections?”  Return with us now to the real world – the one in which a lower or middle income family may not have the monetary resources, or the time required, to get an inspection, and launch into the legal processes required to get an intransigent landlord to move on the issue.

Yes, it would be nice if the tenant and the landlord worked cooperatively to resolve lead contamination issues – and, again in the real world, if this cooperation is going to bite into the landlord’s bottom line how realistic is it to believe that the tenant isn’t have to go to extraordinary lengths to bring the issue to the landlord’s attention, the attention of local authorities, and the attention of those who may assist in the resolution (and abatement) process.  It’s not like legal aid services aren’t already backed up with indigent defense cases, immigration issues, and other legal matters.

There are two elements of the situation in Nevada generally, and the rural areas in particular.  First, the onus moves very quickly to the buyer or renter when it comes to the inspection or abatement of lead contamination problems. A buyer has ten days to “check for lead,” in rural areas this means the buyer has ten days to find the list of certified inspectors (an easy enough task), then find one in the local region (not so easy outside the metropolitan areas), then find one who has time and resources to do the work within the ten days (now things are getting more complicated), and have the certified inspector perform the inspection and file the results —

Secondly, those tenants and buyers outside the metropolitan areas do not have much local support in terms of specific housing regulations other than building codes, state guidelines and statutes, and the federal lead contamination statute with EPA regulations. Again, caveat emptor is alive and well when it comes to the inspection for, and abatement of, lead contamination in local housing.

Surely, some future session of the state Legislature might offer consideration to (1) enacting statutes requiring the creation of a local board of health in areas with over 50,000 residents instead of the current 700,000; (2) empowering the local boards to enact ordinances regarding the inspection for and abatement of lead contamination; (3) requiring that sellers or landlords of property constructed before 1978  conduct an inspection of any properties offered for rent or sale – it not being enough to check off a box saying, “I just didn’t know…” or to have such an inspection record from a previous owner documenting that an inspection was indeed  conducted since 1978; (4) giving prospective buyers more than ten days to have such an inspection conducted before finalizing a sale. 14 would seem more reasonable, and 21 might be better.

The kind of contamination we’re discussing here isn’t an “inconvenience,” or some “tree hugger’s burst of imagination,” it’s a cause of damage to the brain and nervous system, behavioral problems, anemia, liver and kidney damage, hearing loss, hyperactivity, developmental delays, and in extreme cases, death in children. [EPA]  Additionally, in adults it can also cause abdominal pain, fatigue, headaches and irritability, loss of appetite, muscular weakness, and memory loss. [CDC]

There’s really no level of lead contamination that is acceptable, and there should be no question that in some instances caveat emptor isn’t really an appropriate civic response to the problem.

Comments Off on Unleaded Truth Part II: Nevada’s Lead Contamination Issue

Filed under EPA, health, nevada health, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, public health