MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 9, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:05 a.m., Tuesday, February 9, 1993, in Room 101/102 of Cashman Field Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Pete Ernaut
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association; Ms. Donna McIntire, State of Nevada, Department of Personnel; Ms. Judy Vandever, Clark County Recorder's Office; Mr. John Pappageorge, Clark County; Mr. John Sherman, Washoe County.
ASSEMBLY BILL 18 - Creates committee on catastrophic leave and requires department of personnel to establish account for catastrophic leave.
Chairman Garner reiterated the summary on AB 18. Bob Gagnier of State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA) would be giving testimony on this bill.
Mr. Gagnier stated 4 years ago a bill was introduced which created the catastrophic leave program currently in state government. There were extensive discussions and a subcommittee was formed with former Assemblyman Gary Sheerin as chairman. There were many meetings and the bill passed the Assembly and went to the Senate. The Senate Finance Committee was concerned with the financial aspects of catastrophic leave because it was such a brand new concept with little idea of what the cost of the program would be. North Carolina was the only other state at the time with a catastrophic leave program and since it was so new, financial statistics were not available for comparison. For that reason, Senate Finance asked for and received a sunset provision on the bill for 4 years. The program would cease to exist on July 1, 1993, creating the reason for AB 18. Changes have been incorporated into this new bill which have been observed over the past four years.
Mr. Gagnier explained changes suggested for the new bill were designed to allow agencies regardless of size to have the same advantages and to create a committee within the Personnel Department. This committee would hear any problems concerning employees and an employee could appeal though no further than to the committee. The provision would not be subject to the grievance adjustment procedure nor judicial review. The committee's decision would be final.
Mr. Gagnier noted the program worked in this way: If an employee used all of his accumulated sick leave and had a life threatening accident or illness, with doctor verification, or the employee was involved in something requiring extensive recuperation which has been defined as in excess of 10 weeks (defined by regulation), the employee could request leave from the catastrophic leave program. This would cover not only the employee but also his immediate family.
The leave program as clarified by Mr. Gagnier could be established by either donating sick leave directly to another employee or into a pool or a bank where it could be drawn out. An employee could donate sick leave to be used by a friend or relative or he could donate to the leave bank. No employee could donate more than 80 hours in any calendar year nor could any employee donate his own sick leave if it would cause him to go below 240 hours. The idea was not to have an employee run himself short and then encounter the same problem later. No employee could use more than 6 months of catastrophic leave out of the catastrophic leave bank. These limits were established with the Committee on Government Affairs 4 years ago when this legislation was first implemented. Mr. Gagnier, at this point, offered to answer questions.
Chairman Garner referred to a copy of a letter from Donald Klasic, General Counsel, Office of the Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada (EXHIBIT C) in which Mr. Klasic outlined some problems with AB 18 amending NRS 284 to provide for the Department of Personnel to establish a catastrophic leave account for use by all employees, classified or unclassified. Chairman Garner asked Mr. Gagnier if Mr. Klasic's statement was true and Mr. Gagnier acknowledged it was but page 2, section 6, lines 8, 9, 10 and 11 of AB 18 further explained.
Chairman Garner questioned whether the University and Community College System of Nevada's (UCCSN) classified and unclassified employees would be included in this program. Mr. Gagnier admitted he would not have read the language in that manner but stated they could include both classified and unclassified employees. Currently the law does not include UCCSN academics because they are covered by a different sick leave law. Within NRS 284, the law sets up sick leave for employees in state government affecting both classified and unclassified employees but there is a separate law within NRS 284 regarding sick leave for the contracted academic personnel of the university system. Mr. Gagnier stated SNEA never assumed the catastrophic leave program would affect that section. He offered to check it further.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Gagnier if, in light of Governor Miller's Reorganization Plan, there would be any impact upon this concept. Mr. Gagnier replied if the reorganization plan passed there would have to be a rather large catch-all bill changing the wording; for example, Director of Personnel would be changed to whatever the new title would be under reorganization. This bill could possibly simplify things by creating one catastrophic leave program instead of 63 different catastrophic leave programs as currently.
Mrs. Segerblom asked how often the leave was used and what the impact was. Mr. Gagnier pointed out a representative of the Personnel Department was present who had those statistics for a portion of the four years the plan had been in effect.
Mr. Gagnier mentioned one of the concerns of the money committees originally was the cost, but the cost has been in reverse. In actuality, time was being donated at a higher hourly rate than was being used and, on paper, there was a cost savings.
Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Gagnier if the state had AIDS sick leave and was told yes. Mr. Neighbors further asked if it started right away or was there a waiting period to qualify. Mr. Gagnier added sick leave began at the end of the first month of employment and can be used immediately. Mr. Neighbors then rephrased his question to include pay for sick leave in the event of an employee quitting. Mr. Gagnier indicated an employee would have to work 10 years to receive pay for sick leave. Mr. Gagnier further explained after 10 years of service an employee was paid for everything over 30 days. For employees who have accumulated over 90 days sick leave, the amount available to be carried over into a new calendar year would be that amount of time plus half of what was earned in the same calendar year. A separate account was maintained for the remaining half of sick leave earned which could not be carried over. Before catastrophic leave could be used, all of an employee's regular sick leave and whatever was in this separate account, must be used. Mr. Gagnier also remarked there are plateaus after 10 years with maximum payment amounts.
Mr. Neighbors inquired about health and accident insurance while an employee was on catastrophic leave, and Mr. Gagnier assured him the situation would be the same as if an employee was still working.
Mr. Ernaut questioned if the 240 hours included compensation time, and Mr. Gagnier responded just sick leave. Mr. Ernaut then queried Mr. Gagnier in regard to an average state employee having 240 hours - 6 weeks of sick leave. Mr. Gagnier responded the majority of state employees have considerably more than 240 hours. Mr. Ernaut wondered if there had been any trouble with employees donating their compensation time to a specific employee in the event there were two employees with similar illnesses and one worked in a large agency and the other a smaller agency. He stressed he did not see what AB 18 could do to address this problem. Mr. Gagnier indicated under this bill, the Director of Personnel would create a pool and some employees could donate leave to the pool regardless of who it might go to and other employees could donate to a specific employee. The option was considered within the original bill and up to this time there have been no problems. Mr.Ernaut feared, in the event of like illnesses, a popularity contest might ensue to receive the catastrophic leave. Mr. Gagnier stated there were other ways to get the word out about a seriously ill state employee, memos within agencies, church and civic organizations were but a few ways to spread the word.
Mr. McGaughey referred to section 4, paragraph 1 of AB 18 which required the committee to serve in an advisory capacity to the director with respect to all matters, hold hearings if necessary and make decisions. He asked if this committee was making decisions, would that conflict with the advisory capacity of the director. Mr. Gagnier replied the only decision this committee would be involved in would be in the areas mentioned on lines 19 and 20 of subsection 3. This committee could make recommendations but would not adopt regulations. Mr. McGaughey reiterated according to the bill, the committee would serve in an advisory capacity to the director in all matters, but number 3 would give the committee the power of final decisions. Mr. Gagnier responded by stating, in his opinion, number 1 was put in by the bill drafter and could be eliminated if there was a conflict. Mr. McGaughey recommended research.
Mr. Gagnier added the fiscal note was primarily the amount of money the Director of Personnel felt was necessary to implement the committee. Mr. Gagnier stressed SNEA would like to clean up this bill if possible, but if the fiscal note becomes a critical factor, they would propose to eliminate everything except the repeal of the sunset. This legislation was too important to lose because of a $50,000 fiscal note.
Chairman Garner requested Donna McIntire, Regional Manager, State of Nevada, Department of Personnel, to explain how the catastrophic leave program has worked up to the present time and what records have been kept (EXHIBIT D).
Ms. McIntire stated the Personnel Department supported this bill which would ensure the catastrophic leave program was equitably given to all state employees. Ms. McIntire told a story of an occurrence in her office related to the catastrophic leave program. Ms. McIntire generally reviewed Mr. Gagnier's previous testimony in regard to agency size and the catastrophic leave program.
She noted in 1990, 24,435 were hours donated to the program; 14,507 hours were used, which left 9,928 hours in the program. In 1991, 27,495 hours were donated to the program (an increase of 12.5 percent), 19,958 hours were used (an increase of 37.6 percent) which left 18,407 hours (an increase of 85.4 percent) left in the program. 1992 figures were not available but would be ready February 19, 1993 and each committee member would receive a copy of those figures.
Mr. Hettrick asked Ms. McIntire of the 18,407 hours left in the program how many were specified for an individual and how many were in the general bank. Ms. McIntire did not know. Mr. Hettrick posed the problem of an employee receiving the hours needed if he did not know as many people. He suggested donating 90 percent of time to an individual and 10 percent to the general bank.
Mrs. Augustine referred to the $50,000 fiscal note and wanted to know what the money would be used for since the committee already existed. Mr. Gagnier informed her the committee was new and had not been in existence during the past four years. The $54,000 fiscal note would be used primarily for setting up this committee and this program by personnel, $40,000 for programming costs, $3,400 for committee expenses, and $10,000 for the time of the committee members. In later years, the program would cost $14,000 on a continuing basis.
To correct an earlier response, Mr. Gagnier said an employee would have to use annual leave first before catastrophic leave.
Mr. Hettrick called attention to the fact since this was an existing program some of the agencies might have a program that could be used instead of writing a $40,000 computer program.
Mr. Gagnier stated he was far from a computer expert but the Personnel Department estimated it would cost $40,000; $15,000 for file conversion and $25,000 for a new program. He stated SNEA had no way of judging the Personnel Department's estimate.
Mr. Gagnier offered Chairman Garner a copy of the fiscal note. (EXHIBIT E).
Mr. McGaughey wanted to ascertain the bill would level the playing field for all employees to have access to the pool of catastrophic funds and Mr. Gagnier agreed. Mr. Gagnier also pointed out an employee would have to have prior approval of the committee before using any hours.
Ms. Kenny questioned whether a department manager could turn down an employee for catastrophic leave. Mr. Gagnier replied at this time, the employee had no appeal rights. The board provided for in AB 18 would have the final say, but an employee would still have to go through his manager first. Ms. Kenny wondered if any employees have been denied by their managers and Mr. Gagnier said yes. He did state, however, "there has been a little personality that has slipped into some of these cases." The committee would help alleviate any tensions that might be caused between an employee and his manager if the manager denied catastrophic leave.
Mr. Hettrick requested clarification on unused or denied hours (to a specific employee). Mr. Gagnier stated once hours were given they could not be given back. Mr. Hettrick reiterated his previous concern of the general pool and the availability of it to those in need.
Mr. Neighbors commended the program. He would rather see the sick leave hours used wisely than abused by those few employees. He said it was nice to know when a qualified employee was sick, he could hope to have a little time to get well.
Mr. Bache asked Mr. Gagnier if there would be a long-term savings by consolidating the 63 accounts to one. Mr. Gagnier stated quite possibly but he really had no way of knowing.
Chairman Garner commented he was highly in favor of this bill and felt it had been used effectively. Chairman Garner requested Mr. Bennett to address the concerns of UCCSN and to look into the fiscal note because the bill would be rereferred to Assembly Ways and Means. Chairman Garner stated given the condition the state is in, the bill may not get out of Ways and Means. He would like to draft a bill eliminating the fiscal note while preserving the intent of the bill, mainly removing the sunset provision and setting up the committee. Chairman Garner wanted to process the bill with the fiscal note first but, if there was difficulty, he wanted to work on a bill without the fiscal note. He advised Mr. Bennett to come back to the committee with recommendations needed to process this bill.
Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 18 with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL 31 - Revises requirements for filing documents
with county recorder.
Chairman Garner opened the testimony by reading the summary of AB 31.
Judy Vandever, Chief Deputy Recorder, Clark County, testified this bill was drafted at the request of her department. The bill proposed to allow the recorder to require a legible document for recording. The current statute requires a document must be legible but also states they cannot enforce compliance when it is impossible to submit a more suitable copy. Ms. Vandever pointed out the mandate of a recorder's office was to create a public record of documents required by the Legislature to be recorded or recorded at the request of a citizen. She noted the permanent record in the state of Nevada was microfilm and each document should have the ability to be microfilmed legibly. The original document was returned to the customer making the microfilm the only record. The public could then view or request a certified or plain copy from this microfilm record. She explained EXHIBIT F was a packet containing examples pulled at random on Friday, February 5, 1993, by a microfilm lab technician. At times, customers tried to write over the illegible letters and words oftentimes making it worse. Ms. Vandever called attention to each of the separate pages of EXHIBIT F by pointing out various items on each page and the inability to decipher the words and/or numbers. Ms. Vandever drew attention to the stickers on the sides of the copies which stated, "Recorder's Memo. Possible Poor Record Due to Quality of Original Document." The last page of EXHIBIT F presented the worst copy of the packet which the recorder's office had to accept for recordation. If a person was familiar with the verbiage used in these documents, they could more or less fill in the blanks, but the average person would not be able to read them and the purpose of recording was to create a public record. No one should have to guess at the wording of an official public record.
Ms. Vandever enumerated the causes of illegible documents, the print was too small, multi-generations of copies (a copy of a copy of a copy), no contrast between the print and the paper, fax copies, and poor dot-matrix printing. If a document was important enough to be recorded, it was important enough to be fully reproducible and fully readable. These documents were important to people's lives. Ms. Vandever noted the recorder's office, while realizing the hardships of re-executing a document, has made the following suggestions: Before rejecting a document, a clerk would call a supervisor who would suggest to the person bearing the document some ways to comply. A brochure was included in EXHIBIT F which explained how to fix an illegible document. Documents could be redone which would require new notary signatures, seals, and customer signatures. The recorder's office would not require re-executing documents but would ask the data be redone on a separate sheet of paper and attached to the original. Also, just the illegible areas of a document could be put on a separate sheet of paper, identifying the sheet as clarification of the legal and attached to the original. If the form itself was illegible but the keyed in areas were presentable, a blank form could be attached to the original document. Ms. Vandever stressed there would be no charge for additional clarification pages. As keepers of the records, it would be to the recorder's office advantage, to maintain the integrity of these records. Ms. Vandever felt by not charging for additional pages, compliance would more easily be met.
Although current statute allowed the recorder's office to require a legible copy, Ms. Vandever pointed out it then stated they must accept the instrument conditionally when delay might adversely affect rights. Because it always adversely affects at least one of the signer's rights, the recorder's office has been forced to accept the document presented. Ms. Vandever strongly felt while a delay might adversely affect one of the parties, an illegible document could adversely affect someone in the community.
Ms. Vandever reviewed several other changes, approved by the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) in AB 31 dealing with the structure of the submitted documents. She noted these structural changes were to accommodate the modern recording methods now in use with computerized hammers putting the book and instrument number on the document. The Clark County Recorder's Office currently records 1,300 official documents daily. There is also a requirement for computer-generated endorsement or recording label room on the document. Ms. Vandever is requesting the top 1 inch of the document and the bottom 1 inch of the document and a 3 inch by 3 inch square at the end of the document be left blank for the endorsement labels. Ms. Vandever concluded her testimony by stating the recorder's office has only one purpose mandated by statute and everything else done in the recorder's office revolves around that one purpose of making documents public record to protect the general public.
Mr. McGaughey referred to page 1 of EXHIBIT E and questioned what the set of numbers across the top of the document was. Ms. Vandever stated it was a County Recorder number. Mr. McGaughey further questioned Ms. Vandever about the legibility of the examples brought as EXHIBIT F, stating he could read the document perfectly and asked whether there was more of a problem with the microfilm camera equipment. Mr. McGaughey noted Ms. Vandever could not read the numbers affixed by her office which were far worse than any of the verbiage on the document. He did agree with Ms. Vandever the last page of the example was terrible. Ms. Vandever stated she had spoken to Kodak regarding the numbers not being legible and, in order to make the numbers dark enough to show on the copy, it would create a black streak down the document. Ms. Vandever stated the number was also on the endorsement label. Mr. McGaughey again queried if the poor copy quality was more of a mechanical problem than a document problem.
Chairman Garner said two wrongs do not make a right. If the documents were illegible the problem with their own machinery should be corrected, but that did not diminish the need for a legible document. Mr. McGaughey again questioned the actual problem of camera malfunction and Chairman Garner asked whether the microfilm equipment contributed to the illegibility of the documents. He requested Ms. Vandever to produce something to address Mr. McGaughey's concerns and to prove to the committee her machinery did not create the problem to be solved with AB 31.
Mrs. Lambert expressed concern the community might not have enough time to implement changes by the January 1, 1994, the commencement date in reference to margin changes. Ms. Vandever stated structural changes were approved by Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) but she had not spoken to the community in general about changes.
Mrs. Lambert inquired as to whether the recorder's office would have a problem if the clarifying page did not have a fee and Ms. Vandever agreed it would be a good idea to waive the fee.
Mr. Hettrick expressed concern of fraudulent statements being typed onto the attached page if the original copy was not readable. Ms. Vandever agreed. Mr. Hettrick felt there should be a strengthening of this bill to avoid the misuse of system.
Chairman Garner responded since the original document could not be read, he was not sure if the clarification page would further complicate matters. Ms. Vandever admitted not knowing how much the attached pages would truly help.
John Pappageorge, representative of Clark County, addressed Mr. Hettrick's concerns. Mr. Pappageorge stated the new bill would not allow fraud as they were only providing for public record, not the legal document.
Mr. Hettrick questioned the accuracy of these documents in the event someone lost his original document and the only other copy was on file at the County Recorder's office. Mr. Pappageorge replied every document was subject to fraud and he thought there were other laws pertaining to possible fraud.
Ms. Kenny called attention to the fact there seemed to be an obvious problem with the entire photocopy and it would be considered commercially unacceptable. She also expressed a concern about taking the right away from the customer to have the recorder's office accept the document as is which could put someone in a real bind. While Ms. Vandever agreed, she reiterated the possibility of not being able to read the legal description in later years. Ms. Kenny suggested a system to follow up on the receipt of legible documents such as phoning and setting deadlines to deliver the legible documents. Ms. Vandever said she did send out lists to title companies to complete these documents but has not received much compliance nor did the statute give her any right to force compliance.
Mrs. Augustine pointed out many older documents would not meet AB 31 size requirements. She further agreed with Mr. Hettrick that the recorder's office require a clean document rather than a clarification sheet with typed or written words. Mr. Pappageorge acknowledged Mr. Hettrick's and Mrs. Augustine's request for clean documents as the goal of this bill.
Mr. Bache asked if there had been any fraudulent passing of documents. Ms. Vandever was aware of attachments not being accurate and admitted there could be complications from attaching forms with different verbiage.
Mr. McGaughey mentioned the possibility of a title company runner making changes on the clarification page or on the original document after signature and notarization. Ms. Vandever emphasized this was the crux of this bill change. Mr. McGaughey declared AB 31 did not state the document had to be legible or it was not acceptable. Ms. Vandever stated the fixing of documents was an internal policy put into place to try to get some semblance of legibility. Mr. McGaughey stressed there could be a tremendous liability in trying to figure out the numbers or dollars and cents on a document and a mistake could be very costly to someone.
Mr. Neighbors commented the County Recorder's Office records anything, even a grocery list, at the customer's request. He questioned whether Ms. Vandever had ever been challenged by the language of anything she has recorded. Ms. Vandever said no. She maintained her office was required to create a legible public record.
Ms. Hettrick followed up with a reference to AB 31 stating "legible copy." He felt there was no choice but to demand a legible copy.
Chairman Garner acknowledged John Sherman, representing Washoe County. Mr. Sherman stated Washoe County agreed with the intent of this bill and was ready to work with Clark County and this committee. Chairman Garner verified with Mr. Sherman this problem was statewide not just Clark County.
Chairman Garner requested Mrs. Augustine to assemble Mrs. Lambert's input regarding effective date.
The hearing on AB 31 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL 37 - Allows adjustment of boundaries of county commissioner election districts to equalize population within districts.
Chairman Garner opened testimony on AB 37 by reintroducing John Pappageorge to the committee. Mr. Pappageorge explained AB 37, a bill requested by Clark County, dealt with the realignment of Clark County election districts. The county would like to realign those districts in the interim between the 10-year census time. Clark County currently experienced large inequities among its districts. Some disparity was as much as 50 percent. Mr. Pappageorge read his testimony and it is entered as EXHIBIT G.
Chairman Garner verified with Mr. Pappageorge the fact last session this bill was amended to include Washoe County and Clark County was taken out of the bill. Washoe County was successful in obtaining this privilege of realignment. The City of Las Vegas could already adjust boundaries under its charter. Mr. Pappageorge said he would not object to a stipulation in the bill regarding the source of measuring the population.
Mr. Ernaut asked if it was possible to technically change, within a 10 year span, 50 percent of a district politically without having to go through reapportionment. Mr. Pappageorge agreed with Assemblyman Ernaut it could happen -- a district could change from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa, without having to go before the Legislature. Mr. Pappageorge stated the county would be willing to go along with anything the committee asked the county to use as a measure.
Mrs. Augustine wanted to verify this realignment would not be a monthly or yearly occurrence, only just before an election.
Mrs. Segerblom questioned who was in Seat A and Seat D. (EXHIBIT G). Mr. Pappageorge answered District A was Commissioner Woodbury and District D was Yvonne Atkinson Gate.
Mr. Bache implied there could be mischief with no limitation on the number of times a district could reapportion. Mr. Pappageorge read EXHIBIT H which he hoped would clear up any misgivings about the amount of realignments.
Mr. Neighbors asked if the City of Las Vegas was currently realigning when its districts exceed a 5 percent disparity, and Mr. Pappageorge did not know what numbers the City of Las Vegas was using.
Mr. Hettrick responded he agreed with Mr. Bache and he would feel more comfortable with a limit to just prior to election.
Mr. Neighbors queried whether this bill affected all of Nevada or just Clark County. Mr. Pappageorge stated the way the bill was worded it could apply to other counties as well. Chairman Garner stated it was a county commission bill.
Mrs. Freeman invited John Sherman, Washoe County, to testify. Mr. Sherman stated the part of the bill directly affecting Washoe County had to do with commission districts containing a certain number of state Assembly districts, but the requirement was eliminated. Washoe County Commissioners could not redistrict their boundaries. Mr. Sherman noted he had not had the opportunity to discuss the bill with the Washoe County Commissioners. Mrs. Freeman requested more information on how this would affect Washoe County before voting on this bill. Mr. Sherman offered to follow up for her.
The hearing on AB 37 was closed with no action taken.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:26 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JUDY HANNA
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
February 9, 1993
Page: 1