Nevada committee hears bill to tighten charter-authorizer rules, require sponsors to serve as LEAs

The Assembly Committee on Education heard testimony and public comment Tuesday on Assembly Bill 39, a bill from the State Public Charter School Authority that would revise how charter schools are governed and overseen in Nevada.

The SPCSA’s executive director, Melissa Macadine, told the committee the bill has three main goals: require voting members of the SPCSA board to be at least 21 years old and to meet new conflict-of-interest limits; require each charter school sponsor to serve as the local education agency (LEA) for schools it authorizes; and remove redundant data resubmission requirements from the renewal process. Macadine said the changes are intended to “ensure that Nevada’s charter school landscape is best positioned to be as effective and efficient as possible.”

The bill would update NRS 388A.153 to add an age requirement and to bar board members from having financial interests in charter schools “in this state,” Macadine said. She also described a proposed change to allow no more than two charter school employees to serve on the SPCSA board but only if those employees currently work at schools “in good standing in the SPCSA performance framework” — defined in the presentation as having a current rating of three stars or above and no financial or organizational notices of concern or breach.

Macadine said the bill would clarify that each charter sponsor is the LEA for the schools it authorizes; she described a 2023 change in statute that she said unintentionally suggested the SPCSA would serve as LEA for schools authorized by municipalities. “This was an oversight that needs to be addressed,” she told the committee. The bill also strikes language that required schools to resubmit performance data the sponsor already provided, allowing schools instead to include other narrative and evidence in renewal applications.

Representatives of municipalities and charter groups spoke in support. Nicole Rourke of the City of Henderson said the city will serve as a sponsor and “feel[s] confident in our ability to adapt our plans to fully serve the schools in our community.” Gil Lopez of the Charter School Association of Nevada urged support for the bill’s LEA provision so authorizers can “have the appropriate oversight of their own charter schools.”

Spencer Flanders of TriStrategies and Anthony Curry of Opportunity180 said the bill would strengthen governance, streamline decision-making and align oversight and funding responsibilities. Dr. Stephen Nelson, an associate professor at UNLV, testified that the bill’s LEA clarification addresses a “legal fiction” in which the SPCSA could be liable for violations by schools it does not authorize; he said clearer lines of accountability could help parents and families know where to file complaints.

Committee members asked SPCSA staff to clarify how the conflict‑of‑interest language would apply to individuals with interests in out‑of‑state charter management organizations and how recusal or resignation would be handled if a member’s interests changed. SPCSA counsel Samantha King Powell described statutory board composition requirements and the current limit of two charter-employed board members.

No vote was recorded on AB 39 during the hearing. The bill drew support from municipal sponsors, charter advocates and education policy groups; no speakers registered opposition. The committee closed the hearing after public testimony and moved on to other agenda items.