Introductions because we have a lot of bills here today. And get everyone to take their seats and I'll gets things rolling. So Sergeant at Arms go ahead and continue to pass out along with the pages. I want to thank Steve Wilson and Bill Half for the service today and for the pages as they are working hard right now passing things out, we have a lot of bills today we're coming close to crossover and we want these bills to be heard so I think we've got a lot of important stuff today, we want to move quickly, I've had some questions on public comments, and we're going to have public comments on the bills. We're going to have Steve Wilson, who's going to be in the back as soon as to begin and he's going to sign you up, you're going to have one minute to speak your piece on that bill, and only if you signed up beforehand so once you see Steve Wilson back there if you have interest please do so. We are changing order a little bit today in the interest trying to be most expeditious. We are going to have Senate Bill 670 first, Senate Bill 482 and then we'll proceed from the top to the bottom for the other five bills. And I know we're still passing some things out but I think Senator Apodaca can begin to explain his Bill, it's pretty easy and self explanatory, so we're going to do that, and I apologize for a little bit of the chaos as we move around the room, but settle down shortly, Senator Apodaca please. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Sorry I'll need the motion for a PCS, let's hear it from Senator Robinson, all in favor of the certain PCS say I I. Oppose, no. And the Is have it and senator Apodaca the Bill is before us. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members. What this does is simply restricts service on the board of governors to three, four-year terms. Right now you can do three stay off one and come back for three more. Each session we have hard time finding enough slots for the good members we have that want to serve on the Board of Governors so we think this is probably the best way to go forth. Senator Brown? The final report. Alright let me hold up for a moment, I see couple questions, Senator Robinson. Just a comment Mr. Chair, the Senator Apodaca if this had been made during my tenure I think you would have limited me to how many years, 9 instead of 12? No madam, I would have doubled term. Thank you. Senator Rucho. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Apodaca that's going to nine years assuming senator is 12.4 times 3 is 12, that's why I'm strong in, well I guess. My wife was a third grade school teacher, she can work with you on those times tables. Well I guess the question I have for you as Senator, don't you think 12 is a little liberal? I do Senator but I thought I'd just break it as, excuse me break a man a lot of it to begin with, thank you. Great, seeing no further question I do have a motion for favorable, this will be favorable to the PCS, and unfavorable to the original bill, all in favor say aye, Aye! Opposed no, the ayes have it, thank you Senator Apodaca. Second bill we have up the Senate Bill 480 and Senator Wells if you come up and present that please Alright, we have a motion to accept PCS. Senator Apodaca moves all on favor accept the PCS say aye, Opposed no, the ayes have it and PCS is before us Senator Wells you have the floor. Senate Bill 480 does two things it says that teachers and school employees just like other state employees, cannot engage in political activity during work hours, and they cannot use school computers or other resources for political purposes. This bill does not prevent a teacher from running for office, holding an office voting a candidate or advocating for an issue. While we're searching this, I saw some language in a related statute that talked about protecting public employees from political or partisan pressure while performing their job duties, and ensuring that public funds are not used for political or partisan activities. This bill does just that, it takes the protections already in place for state employees and replicate them for school board employees. North Carolina now has one
set of laws for state employees who are in political activities, and 115 sets of policy rules for school board employees. This replaces that disparity with one uniform law for we want it, everybody is treated the same. Chairman. I ask for your support Thank you, Chairman Tormen you have a question or a comment? I have a comment and then a motion Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Wales thank you for this bill is long over due I don't blow anybody that's says teachers or any other school personnel out to be doing political activities while on the job or using school equipment, materials, emails, phones any of that, that's absolutely taboo and no one should agree for doing that. The bill is long over due and I'll make a motion for favor report when the time is right. Thank you we'll hold that motion while we have some question [xx] walk around the room here Senator Pee Thank you Mr. Chair, you want me to walk around the room? Sir that's what do you said? No we are going to start here and I saw several hands so move around Thank you Mr. Chairman for Senator Wales how I support this I really do but how is it going to be enforced? Senator Wills? We've replicated the current ordnance of the last the state employees so I'll defer to staff on that one. The staff? There's a provision in the bill that, Please identify yourself I apologize [xx] of the research division, if you look on page 2 of the bill. Sorry, I'm trying to find more time the provision in the bill is that, I apologise, it's on page one, line 34 through 36 if a public school employee fail to comply with this action it would be grounds of disciplinary action and in cases deliberate or repeated violations could include dismissal Alright thank you I saw a hand from Senator Robinson. Thank you Mr. Chair, few questions, Senator Wells, and I too agree that we have to make sure that we keep our political activity separate from public institutions extra but my question is are school boards have to rely on counties to offer bonds, terms of building, etc, now how far does this go because when a bond is a bond referendum is proposed then that school board in often times, other people advocate for funding of that and without the school board saying we need the support to build schools which is non-partisan because it's part of the schools, then how does this legislation affect that does it preclude the involvement of those folk in terms of advocating for that? Senator Wells, I'll start and then let Stef[sp?] wrap up. There are specific sections in this bill they'll tell you where the superintendents and principals have the ability to advocate for anything and school boards can appoint other advocacy positions in the system at their discretion. So that statute of being for further comment [xx] I'm Cara McCrow research division in addition if the question is about the school board itself members of the school board because they're not employees of the system, they are not under these limitations. Senator Wells do you have further comment? One of the comment we did work with the North Carolina association of school administrators on this bill. Last I heard from them and I just verified that with Adam Pridmore they are okay with this Bill and it's handful. Okay so, I want to be clear because schools boards and the Superintendent often times especially and I know they are counters are like they've been Gilford county we expect the superintendent to be out front saying, yes this is something we need extra, and I want to make sure he is an employee or she and I want to make sure need Staff to clarify how this impacts that individual in terms of their leadership. Staff. On page 2 line 10, when it comes to an employee using public funds to advocate fo ragainst issues of local, federal or state policy, there's a special
exemption for individuals employed as superintendends or principals. So there are covert for them when it come to advocating on specific issues. A follow up? Yes, I don't see the provision Mr. Chair. Would you point that out to me please? Staff could you point that location again please? It's in the P. C. S. It's on page 2 line 10 and it would be sub-section D sub 2 sub 8 is the line it's on the employees employed as the superintendent or principal. I just want follow up Follow up I know you have questions but I just want now that I will come back, you can come back to me, what about in the case of the school board extra often times in our school systems what we do allow is a and not on school time but teaches to say in support of those issues, etc How as long as this is not on school time I want to make sure that this is not going to harm them. I know what the legislation says but I'm really concerned about someone may say [xx] the say yes hell on the school teacher we need the money for our school exetra exetra. Cara do you have clarification on that? Chemical Research, there is a specific provision that says that they cannot, if you look at page one lines 24 through 33 of the P. C. S, that no member of the local board or employer of the local board who's supervising an employee can make issue of force any rule or policy which will interfere with the right of an employee to engage in political activity when not on duty when at times during which the employee is not performing services, for which the employee receives compensation from the local board. And then, it does go on to create an exception, there were certain employees who sort of earn 24 hour duty and specifically says that they also can engage in political activities except during the regular scheduled working hours or when they are actually performing their duties. And it's a class one mastermina for the member of the local board or the supervising employee to try to enforce to the contrary Thank you staff, Senator Bryant do you have a question? To me this affect thousands of people and it has been several changes and I'm working hard to track it myself and try keep up with it. Could we have staff to briefly go over exactly what this does so we're all on the same page. Because I don't know if this has a referral to a J committee or goes next but they are legal constitutional implications, I just realize we need to know for sure what We first, yes it does go to J1 to this we still, Okay, J2, J1 they will be going to J1 so be addressing those issues We didn't have, I'd pause that if you all, it's in your discretion if you think that takes too much time, I'll go on with my questions. I really think that the major parts of this bill have been explained at least once, twice in a couple of areas, I think unless Staff there's a major part of the bill that we haven't covered here that you want to cover or, what we've heard right here explains exactly what the bill does. Okay, we haven't covered it in this committee before have we? I haven't been in the arena where it's been officially covered just read it. No, it was there at PCS's new yesterday. This Senator Pangal Pangal[sp?] Well, I have a. Follow up. Well that might but then I have several questions which might have been answered maybe if it had been reviewed. I'm concerned about sub-paragraph A2, I think 1 and three are pretty defined, one is about when you're on duty certain things you can't do, three is about certain equipment but two is quite marky to me and that's why I need some help, using the authority of the employees position or utilizing funds E t cetera in an election for candidate then have a time frame on it. So when we have this campaign that some of us will run, I haven't because I don't have enough money but poor people that run to have T. V. A. D and Miss Smith comes on, I'm miss Smith and I the third grade whatever county in I love Senator Tillman, he is wonderful and we now saying that is Miss Tumina. I just asking one of my questions. Staff I think clarification this is if covert is briefly tell me if I'm wrong on this that we are not curtailing anyone political activity is just they couldn't do that during the school day using the audio visual equipment from the school. So as long as trust school
equipment is not school time they have the freedom to be a private citizen as much as they want, is that correct? I just want the staff to explain what is A2? Staff could you. Section one when the first on page one line 17 what does that, what exactly staff could you explain that section Chemical research division so the provisioning in A2 will prohibit an employee I'll give you maybe an example if that helps. If you had a principal at a school, or a teacher at the school who in the course of the school day while they're teaching tells the class candidate X is the right candidate, you should go home and tell all your parents to vote for candidate X. As they're standing in front of the classroom and conducting a math lesson, that would be someone using the authority of their position to advocate for a candidate for office or affecting they're up follow-up Mr. Chair. Follow up. Is there something there that limits it to while you're at school, that's what I don't see and I I could be missing something. Senator Wells I'd like to address that briefly. Let me speak to a couple of things that are affecting folks, one is when we have policy makers get an email from a school email system is that person speaking for the system or they're speaking for themselves, if the email comes in from their gmail account clear it's a personal opinion, that's fine. But if we get 10 emails with 10 different positions from school X dot net email system, who is speaking for the school. Under this bill it's real clear that it's a superintendent or principal or somebody that the school has said is speaking for the school. The other issue that we're trying to address here is as a significant disparity across the state among those school systems on how employees are treated, some can do things that under this bill would be illegal and get not even a slap on the wrist passes nothing happens, I have seen an instance where an employee did something that would reflect fall on this bill and got an $8, 000 a year salary cut opportunity wills, I appreciate that I'm just trying to make sure we're not making some worse or leaving some loopholes, I am just wanting staff to explain to me what in her two limit her example to being in front in my class. It's nothing there to say yes. It has to be during the school or, they are doing one term whereas a one is limited to while on duty and three is limited to the actual equipment in two, you have used the position or funds supplies equipment. So I understand your example about the email that's inappropriate what you're saying is if he's doing the school's email. If I get the staff to answer then I'm definitely. I think we have addressed this like about three times so far this morning but for finally, staff is this for school crement or school duty? In A two, I'm specifically asking about A two. Chemical research division it would relate to that because in subsection B there's is the pro evasion in creating any policies that would limit the person. from being able to do things while they are off duty so A two is limited by sub section B. Okay I just have a follow up, so we are prohibiting something in A two that is unlimited. You got to go to section B to find out that you do have a constitutional right. I just only recommend that we limit A two to what it applies to. I think that the law is very clear on what the policy is and is stated that one ambiguously. Mr. Chairman Senator Apodaca. I think these are issues better addressed by J one because I think we are getting to the legal roam on this so Senator if you are all right with this let's move it out of here and deal with those issues in J one please Excellent point Senator Apodaca, Senator Brown did you have a question? Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious why you exempted principles and super intendeds, what is the difference in my opinion they are paid their own state terms just like anyone else I'm just curious why you exempted them Senator Wells a staff might correct me on this but I believe principle and superintendents are already treated slightly different from other employees but we do believe that if a principal or superintendent wants to come and talk to me about policy, I want to hear that. I just what to know what their position is and that they're speaking for the board. Follow up I could. Follow up. Again what were trying to accomplish in the bill is that someone on state time while they're working can't be in a political mood of promoting a candidate,
and who best could do that than those two in particular. Because of the power positions they hold within the system. To me you would almost I would think you'd almost start there because they have so much influence over the system. I'm just concerned why you would exempt them. Mr Chair. Chairman Tillman[sp?] do you have a comment? Senator Brown I think that principals and superintendents considered 24 hour home duty at all time and I don't know how you draw the line when superintendents many of them work late at night so to do the principals and I think we can get a problem if they do that most of the time they are the people that we go to for information, because they have a role that's a leadership role and I do I believe there are like 24 hour home duty. I think we might have a problem otherwise I do an amendment Harry just to do what you wanted to do. and if I find out it's not the case I'll do an amendment and [xx] very good clarifying point. Cara[sp?] could you mention the clarifying point? Chemical Research, the exemption for superintendent and principals is actually some what narrow only applies when they're are advocating for against policy issues that it is not applied to any of the partisan [xx]. Senator Micho[sp?] Thank you Mr chairman and that is very helpful but I agree with Senator Brown if there talking policy that's one thing on behalf of education they are getting involved with political candidates or partners in the elections and I think they should the same rules as everyone else should, Representative Brown has corrected, yes correction that is exactly what the bill does. Senator [xx] did you have a question? Yes, thank you Mr. Chair, a couple of simple ones just to make sure I understand. There's nothing in this bill that would prohibit off school grounds for a teacher saying, "I'm a teacher and I support X. " Is that correct? Staff is that correct? That is correct. Also I go into classrooms often many other still there's nothing in this bill that would prohibit that as long as we're not going in there trying to drum up vote, is that correct? That is correct. And in the final question and this may have to go to J one, how does this affect PTA? I've been a former PTA person[sp?] and I know a lot of issues get discussed PTA how does that affect PTA or do we know? I will assume that PTA or do not stay staff so shouldn't affect them at all. Is that correct? Right, they are not state employees Follow up unless they were Parent teacher, the teachers fail teachers there, so staff would questions B is why are at a PTA meeting is that considered on duty? If it is considered part of their job duty is to attend those PTA meetings it may be. I am not familiar enough with how PTA's are organized whether that's something voluntary the teachers engage in or whether that's part of their job duties. May we get more information perhaps follow up on J1, about something like that. That's a great point up there if the sponsors are admissible to that why don't we look into that because we don't want to exclude that. So we'll look at that because it might be a possible amendment J1. Thank you for bringing up that question. Alright Senator Wade. One question, does that mean that a principal may use the emergency system at school to send out to all the parents to vote for the upcoming bonds or not? Steph those are specific questions how would that specific question it was if I remember correctly can the principal use the PA system at the school to tell all the students to tell their parents to go home and vote for the local bond I believe there is actually audio lamentation on local boards using public funds to support bands, so that's a completely different statute from this but because of that will probably trickle down to the superintendent. The superintendent will be able to speak on policy issues generally however Great. Thank you, do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Tolman for a favorable part. Do we have a forward question? So what was the answer yes the press can do it or no they can't? The quick answer is that this law doesn't affect the existing laws in other places that talk about what so this bill addresses a very effective issue but without to refer the research the honest opinion is that they can do that but that would be a different issue from a different section of the law. Right we have the motion for favorable to the P. C. S and unfavorable to the Regional Bill from Senator [xx] all in favor say aye, Aye Oppose No. The ayes have it. Thank you Senator Well the the next bill we have up is Senate Bill 330. Senator [xx] if you come up we would allow the Senator to present the bill see if there are questions from the committee we do have two people signed up to speak on it, you'll be prepared I'll give you a minute each to address your concerns or support.
Senator Migginis[sp?] we have P. C. S Yes that's correct So we have a motion to accept by C. P. S. So moved by Senator Robinson, all in favor say aye, Aye Oppose No, the ayes have it. Senator Miginnis[sp?] the bill is before you Thank you very much Mr. Chair and members of the committee, this is a bill that will keep a change order in school construction from sitting on a contenders desk while waiting for the next school board meeting or some other type of delay. Time is money and any construction project does not need to be slow down or stop because of waving on someone's approval or disapproval for a change order, again this only affects school construction. This gives an avenue for an immediate answer on a change order and so a trigger if you will puts another set of ayes on the matter by requiring the school board be involved in the approval or disapproval of the change order on school construction if it reaches a threshold number and of course there are two threshold numbers there is the big district in North Carolina, they spend in excess of $50 million a year for the previous five years and then those that spent less than that. The North Carolina's School Board Association is here and I'll ask Sam to charm[sp?] in and just a moment. This is to bring certainty and clarity to the change order process of in school construction for every school district in North Carolina is especially important to smaller school districts who do not have construction management personnel or expertise and it makes everyone on the school board aware of the change order process and what such expenses and money and in time would be [xx] and I ask you a favorable vote on this and I'm well ready willing and able to answer any questions. also the architects and contractors have spoken to me they have questions and I am committed to working with them on their issues and if I could Mr. Chairman I would love for our school board association to give their thoughts. Yes, the first thing we have is we do have a technical amendment that's offered by Senator Tillman. Thank you Mr. Chairman, you told me something against you had a perfect bill, however I need to move to amend the bill on page line 8 behind the word B after word too which you left out is very technical is before you. Alright do we have any questions on the amendment? Seeing none all in favor of the amendment say aye, aye, opposed nay, the ayes have it. And the PCS as amended before us lets do this. Lets see have questions from the committee, let's see if we have questions that we hear from the public. Senator Apodaca. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator McGinnis, I am a little bit concerned looking at your Bill that the county commissioners are not brought into this. Since they are ultimately responsible for paying for these schools. I really don't care what the school board thinks, but I care more about what the county commissioners think. Have you thought about that sir? I did think about it but of course ultimately under the current rules and regulations as law [xx] in North Carolina that the the kind of commissioners are only involved in the funding of that and not involved in anything as far as the management or the construction Follow up Mr. Chairman. Follow up? Well we got to raise it in senate if they're liable for the funding and it's going to be an overage, they might want to know about it this. Absolutely true. Senator Brown I just completely agree, what you are saying here because you've given someone the power up to a hundred thousand dollar change order to approve a change order. You could have several million dollars worth of change orders in a construction job and so you've got two million dollars more to a board of commissioners that I have no control over. I have some real concerns over this. There actually are a lot of local policies regardless of this and Winner could talk a little bit about how local boards tend to address this. Do you have a comment or did I just call on you when you do not have anything to say about that? Good morning I'm Leann[sp?] Winter with the North Carolina School Board Association specifically on the conversation that has happened thus far obviously there's a lot of communication that goes on between school boards and county commissioners as they go through construction projects they do have budgets for each individual school if they are going to exceed the budget that has been given to them by the county commissioners they will obviously be conversations back with the county commission about what is going on and they would rectify that situation. So just because it is not mandated in this bill doesn't mean it doesn't occur but this maybe something that you want
to talk to bill sponsor about and something we might be able to amend. Senator Raven Yes thank you, do I have to comment on the side of Senator Apodaca and Senator Brown. Conversation does not do anything to fiskly constrain someone form doing something that creates an overrun that someone else is responsible for. I don't see how you could conduct a business that way the person with the money has to be asked, can we do this is? It okay to have the change order? Or all of the budgeting and all of the fund raising and everything goes out the window. Thank you Senator Tillman. Mr Chairman. Senator Tillman if you would. Mr Chairman every school that system that's building school commission are always responsible and so Senator Brown, Apodaca ex cetra, you're all exactly right but every school when the board of education undertakes a building project they have a budget and if they exceed their budget, the commissioner is going to extract a pound of flesh because they will simply cut their capital appropriations the next year or they will make them over runs out of their own current budget which happens nearly every time. You can have change orders into $100, 000 notes but I'm hearing you have read about that, but that budget is a responsibility of the school board, and if they don't come [xx] they are going to eat that in their own budget or else, they are going to be cut by the comminssioners.commisioners are going to get the last word regardless. They may have to wait for the next year they will get there for those overruns that's why that works. Senator Gills[sp?] let me ask you a question if you just [xx], one, we are in no way creating less accountability in this bill. All these issues we're discussing right now are current law and policy and what we're doing here is, we're creating more accountability if you want to create more accountability that's one thing, but we're not lessing accountability at this point in anyway are we? There is no state rule right now our law that is certain and consistent. The rules that are right now are different policies by different school and this brings some clarity but the main thing that it brings Mr. Chair is if from the second day the month after the school board meeting there is a change order that's brought forth, it could lay on the desk of the superintendent causing an immense amount of expense and additional delay the construction project because if there's no incentive to act on it accordingly and quickly. This brings about a trigger that if that that change order comes in in the middle of the month or the day after the school board, it's got to be acted on immediately either by the superintendent or according to the trigger of the different money value by the chairman or by his desgnee, so it brings about an immediacy again to we're doing this and we're bringing this forth to cut the cost of construction so that the construction project does not stop because of a change order. I hear exactly what Senator Brown and Senator or talking about but I think that's a different issue from what we're bringing about on this, I think that's a good conversation and I absolutely approve that as well but there is a difference this is to bring about clarity and certainty for the Man Otton monthly or what happens if a change order comes about in the process for school construction Senator Hurtsell any question? Only a couple of questions if I'm not mistaken and this may go to the senator or the staff I'm not sure which but are both counties and school boards subject to the Local Government. Fiscal management act staff [xx] without act? Is that an act that exists? There is something like that I don't want familiarity with the I apologize maybe the folks in the audience can speak to him I'm reasonably confident they are but in both cases both the school board and they are the county have to set up project ordinances, that reflect what is involved, and they can't exceed those project ordinances without some kind of action on the part of somebody, whether there is a change or not and there seems to me that the project ordinances, and at least initially approved or reviewed by the county commission when they authorized the money that goes to the county I am just trying to figure out whether
this doesn't. It seems to me this is a complex project all these things happen this may be concerns in the process. I don't think a lot of this questions have to do with this pro that's existing law this is putting one additional catapulting measure into this process if you want more additional you can have another bill or you can ask them amendments and this doesn't in any way affect those, those exist and we're just trying to say, with the challenge we have here, here is something we can do to make the process better Mr. Chairman and fellow board members this comes about because I witnessed a $6 million school because $7 million school via change orders, that did not require the school board vote, witnessed a roofing project have $130, 000 plus change order just because it came here with no oversight on anyone this is just two instances and again if we had construction management personnel involved in every project and every school which would be wonderful but the rural schools in North Carolina cannot afford that, this brings about another set of eyes on that side of it, but it also brings about immediacy to the process of the change order process, doesn't have really anything to do with your question there senator also because this is about the process of change orders themselves, but the wheeze, getting in the wheeze of that law. Senator Stein. Hey Mr. Chairman I'm a little concerned about the accountability issue when we're talking of up to a $100, 000 that's a big dollar amount to give to a staff person to be able to approve unilaterally, and bind a school board and then the county commission and then the people. Senator Stein let me speak to that real quick second. I've got the data in front of me. There are a lot of policies in place I'm looking at the contracts of school boards here, there are some school boards that say a change order of 2000 is what they authorize. Some are 250, 000, this is just putting a cap on it. It doesn't say that every school board has to do it at 100, 000, this says you cant do it for more. that kind of creates a limitation but most of the school boys already have self imposed something from two to 10 to 25 to 50 so the 100, 000 isn't what, unless the school board decides they think that important they can and most of them do lower than that. Follow up? Yes. My question is this bill permissive, does it say that a school board Can set a lower threshold if he wishes? Staff. If I'm up to, say yes he could do lower. no.yes.it says that the designee may approve a change over up to 100, 000, my question is Can a school boy decide to lower a threshold than 100, 000 so that he'd say up to 25, 000? Staff. Well that's all that all change orders involving school construction contracts shall be approved by the local board except as provided in subdivision one and two and then we go down to one and two, if it's the allies they had average construction of 50 million are required five years. Then the superintendent or the superintendent does it mean may approve a change order in the amount of up to $100, 000. So I guess you could ask for add language in there that says to be absolutely clear that the local board could set a lower threshold if that's what they wanted to do, but I think you could, I don't know may that's up for you all to decide. And that seems to be the intent of the bill sponsor and you may discuss if you want to put a clarifying amendment in or not. Did you have a follow up Senator Sam?, To see if that was the bill sponsor's intent. Again, this is about the process, right now there is no certainty, it is 100 counties, 115 LEA's, each one having a different thought process or in a different opinion. This brings about clarity for the construction and the architect, so when there is a change order it brings about the clarity of what's going to happen, it doesn't lay around, it doesn't prolong the project, it doesn't defer the project, and I don't have a problem discussing something lesser or making it weary and LEA will want something lesser, but the main thing when we've got this larger school Districts, that are building 50 million or $100 million a year, they have a professional construction managemnet personnel in their empoly . So they are watching over that segment of the value in the money. As it is right now, there is no a superintendent could for that matter pull a million dollar change order in theory because there is nothing out there right now. This gives us a starting place
and a number to begin with Senator Barefoot you have a question? Yes Sir, thank you Mr. Chairman, and I think you made a good point about how confusing this is, and Senator MCInnis, you know you are trying to made a bad system better when reality, if we gave the County Commissioners, who have to pay for this, the responsibility to build and deliver that, it cuts out all of this other stuff, and allows the people that pay for it to deliver that project as is supposed. supposed to be. I think maybe we're attacking the wrong part of this equation. I hear you senator I think that's another law. I don't think we can encumber the change order on the County Commissioners when the law is not in their name to build the school buildings. I hear what you're saying but I don't think we're on the right chart on that. Senator Apodaca Let's do this, let's move this bill out. I would put a serial referral on it over to finance and we'l slide it, put a tone and look at it there and we'll get it moving senator that's what we. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. And Senator Hartsill do you have a question or do you would like to deal that [xx]. What my concern is and I am not trying to be difficult under current law both the county and as I understand it, a school board is serve you to the local board of fiscal controller, if they are going to build the school they have to adopt a project coordinates for for building of that schoool particularly the school board. If and that is going to be what is that the county commission is advised of they can't approve a change order that exceeds the project ordinance anyway, I don't believe and if they do what I'm saying there's some folks who if they've done this in exceeding that then they may have violated the law already, and whoever the finance officer is involved who have to certify that a certain, whatever there are funds available to pay key four things, is also violating because they have this free order certificates, and all this kind of things they are building current law now and what I'm trying to figure out is how does this differ from what is currently, what's proposed in the bill because it seems to me it may otherwise be take care of already if folks are following preexisting law. A lot of what we're doing here is we're discussing the entire process rather than the specifics in this bill, we have had a motion to an idea to move it to finance committee, but what I'm going to do is we're going to vote on this now for a favorable report and a recommendation and write a recommendation to move to the finance committee, comment and then we're going to. And I hear you Senator Hasle but I understand every project has a contingency measured in it, most of the time the change orders are absorbed in it contingency and not outside of the budget itself, you're thinking if everything is outside the budget I hear what you're saying, but most contingencies are within that or most change orders are within that contingency measure which is not outside of the budget. Here is what we are going to do, we are going to have a vote here and it's going to be for a vote for to recommend for a go to finance without prejudice, and it's going to be a motion for the PCS has amended, rolling to new PCS, unfavorable to the original PCS, unfavorable to the original bill, unfavorable to the new PCS, as amended. Well prejudice, it's going to be all that without prejudice alright so all in favor of the motion say aye, opposed no, the ayes have it. Thank you Mr. Chairman and committee Was this his first Bill Mr. Chairman, [xx] we've got a few minutes, we don't have a committee right after this, so we're going to go right up to the buzzer For a senate for a one The Senator Warner commented on my ability to speak fast and drink lots of caffeine and so I'm going to take this one quickly. Senator, Bill 401 is a permissive bill what it does is it authorizes the Department of Public Instruction to develop a program of sports for disabled students. It also is permissive that they can spend up to $300, 000 on that program. There is also, that would not be showing in the bill, also there is private money that's willing to help. There is a group called Bridge to Sport who's raised private money that can help with this.
You have before you a letter from the North Carolina High School Athletic Association saying it's okay, and also Bill Coby Mr. Chair. I think she is talking exceptionally fast today. I would like to move for a favorable report for Senate Bill 401 Alright. Thank you See no questions from the motion for the favor report, those in favor say aye, Aye Those oppose no, the aye have it, we are going to set a bill we have a couple of bills that are I think very common sense, let's go on and present bill 536 and since it is in the eye of the beholder. This is we are going to have a motion for our PCS, and moved by Senator [xx] all in favor of say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it and Senate Bill 536 PCS is a false, senator Bradford. Thank you Mr. Chairman, what senate bill 36 does is it gives students information to know yes, Senate bill 536, it give students information to know before they go. Some of the biggest decisions that young people in this country are going to make and especially North Carolina are what college they're going to attend and what they're going to major in and what career path they are going to set themselves on. And what this bill does is it provides information to the North Carolina State Education Authority on some of the criteria that you think would be helpful in that planning process. In fact if I could at the appropriate time could I send forth an amendment Mr Chair? You can I'd urge you to not fill your second pill if you could, so would we have a moment here and go on and explain the amendment. This is not a Bill Clinton amendment but it does insert the word it to the I thought it was his but inserts the word it's to page one line nine the reason why the state education authority has two websites and we don't want it on there's we want it on CF and C website and this will allow them to do that. This seems like a very technical amendment and any questions, seeing none on favor the name it say aye Aye, Opposed no, the ayes have it and the PCS has amended this for you. Are there any question about what this ripple is doing? Senator Abdakar, Senator Belford would you not be worried that this information was published and nobody and every good you are on the mar it again did worry. [xx] move for favorable report. Thank you questions this time. My question is surely this information is out there and we really need government to tell people that what the private sector is doing? I have been listening, Let me Seven in he's finally been having an impact on my royal view Senator Belfate you're allow in response to that. I think the issue in this case Senator stand is that government know and they are anybody. And this is very impactful information especially if you are coming from a situation where it's is very important what you may dream, what you spend your money on in terms of what kind of a job you are going to be qualified for and what actually happens to the stream circum to those majors. If you get to CNFC's website they have a lot of information on there. It's nothing like this, it's nothing this specific and we're subsidizing this but private in public. I think it's in the state's best interest to make sure that our students are majoring in programs that are going to allow them to find a good paying job after college and so giving him a little information that we already have, I think we'll go a long way. Well we do have a motion for our favorable report All in favor say I. I. Oppose no. The I's have it and I think Senator Brefret[sp?] effectively threw a bus to himself and we don't have time for his second bill so we are, we look for a meeting and we are scheduled 3.40 on Tuesday, we'll probably have another meeting so that we've had two next week so we can run through these bills and some others that have come up. I appreciate your time and meeting is adjourned.