CORRECTED COPY

 

      MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      February 10, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 9:02 a.m., Wednesday, February 10, 1993, in Room 101/102 of the 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

      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:

 

 

      Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association; Francine Green, Director, Department of Social Services; Bonnie James, Director, Government Affairs, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce; Thom Reilly, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services; Dr. Francine Green, Director, Department of Social Services, Adult Mental Health Services; Bonnie James, Director, Government Affairs, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce; Curtis  Stewart, Superintendent of Caliente Youth Center, Caliente, Nevada; Rudy Moreno, Assistant Director, Administration, Department of Transportation; Nancy Knox, Director of Community Services, Southern Nevada Mental Retardation Services; Carol Corbett, Assistant County Recorder, Clark County; Susan Preator, Senior Personnel Analyst, Personnel Department, Clark County; Susan Pacult, Vice President, Clark County Public Employees Association; Mike Johaneson, Service Employees International Union; John Sherman, Management Analyst, Washoe County; Janie Reedy, President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Civilian Employees.

 

Chairman Garner explained the constitutionality of taking action on bills in Clark County, saying it could be done if ratification was performed in Carson City.  As Chairman he had not yet made a decision whether the committee would do so or not, but he added the planned work session would take place as scheduled.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 19 -  Makes various changes regarding public employees.

 

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), said it appeared AB 19 had two unconnected items in it.  The reason was the association had been limited to 10 bills this session because of legislation which had been passed in 1991.  Therefore, the legislative counsel had suggested combining issues to remain within the allotted amount.  Mr. Gagnier continued by saying Section 1 dealt with state employees who were required to buy or have licenses to perform their work for the state, and section 2 dealt with the amount the state paid toward retiree health insurance.  The bill proposed those with 5 years of service would receive 25 percent of the base amount; those with 10 years of service would receive 50 percent of the base amount; those with 15 years of service would receive 75 percent of the base amount; and those with 20 years or more of service would receive 100 percent of the base amount.  It would also require the legislature to change the base amount every biennium.  Mr. Gagnier further explained both sections in depth, and added the bill indicated a fiscal effect.  To the best of his knowledge a fiscal note had not yet been prepared but would probably be ready by the time the bill reached the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

 

Mr. Hettrick expressed concern with both parts of the bill, but wanted to know if the same licenses were required by the private sector, and if so, would the licenses carry forward if the person came out of the public sector and entered the private sector.  Mr. Gagnier replied yes, with some exceptions for social workers.  Mr. Hettrick asked how expensive might the license be for the social worker.  Mr. Gagnier answered approximately $110.  Mr. Hettrick then said he had problems with paying for licenses because he considered them part of employment, it was a choice.  If legislation was enacted which affected people in the private sector, it should also affect people in the public sector.

 

Regarding Section 2 of the bill, Mr. Hettrick thought retirees would get a hefty increase under the new language creating a significant fiscal impact.  Mr. Gagnier responded the only ones to receive a $100 monthly increase would be those with 20 years or more of service, others with lesser years of service, would get a lesser amount.

 

Further clarification of the fiscal impact on Section 2, the purchase of licenses by the state, and liability versus malpractice insurance for various licensed public employees then ensued.

 

In conclusion, Mr. Gagnier agreed to obtain the following information regarding: county and city fire fighters, were licenses required and, if so, who paid for them; employees in local government, which ones were required to have commercial drivers license due to their operation of heavy vehicles.

 

Thom Reilly, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, stated the division was not taking a position either for or against AB 19.  But regarding the fiscal note, it would cost the division about $17,000 a year to pay for all the licenses required by the division's staff.  He said if the bill was passed, an appropriation would be needed as the current budget could not compensate for it.  Mr. Reilly concluded by saying continued education was provided to their employees through the University.

 

Mr. Garner acknowledged the bill would be rereferred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

 

Mr. Neighbors asked how the education was provided and who paid for it.  Mr. Reilly replied the training was provided during work time under a contract with the University.  Therefore, training was paid for by the division.

 

Dr. Francine Green, Director, Department of Social Services, Adult Mental Health Services, representing the Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation, prefaced her comments on Section 1 of the bill by saying she had information regarding the committee's questions regarding licensing, continuing education, malpractice and liability insurance.  She acknowledged the bill had merit but, again, echoed the large financial obligation which would be put on the division to pay for the licenses.  It was estimated an additional $16,000 would need to be included in the budget to cover the expense.  She then suggested an amendment, should the bill pass, which would allow for a prorated amount to be withheld from the last payroll for an employee before the end of their licensing period.

 

Mrs. Augustine asked if the $16,000 could be better used in programs which had been cut in the last budget.  Dr. Green said she could not speak for the division.  Those questions would have to be addressed to Dr. Zadny.  In closing, Dr. Green said she was going to research if other states might be paying for professional licenses as she found it to be an interesting phenomena.

 

Mr. McGaughey said it had been the social workers and psychologists who had lobbied very hard to get licensing, therefore, maybe they should pay for it themselves.  He then suggested abolishing the board and the licensing, thereby removing the fees.  Mr. Gagnier supported this suggestion, stating his reasons why.

 

Bonnie James, Director, Government Affairs, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, opposed AB 19 because of the fiscal note in both sections.

 

Chairman Garner asked if there was a difference between those employees who were currently employed by the state, hired when no license requirement existed, and those employees who were now hired and could be told in advance which licenses were needed.  Mrs. James replied she thought so, and added any new position offered which required a license should be paid for by the employer.

 

In response to a question from Mrs. Segerblom, Mr. Gagnier explained it was up to each employer to pay the health insurance premiums for retirees.

 

The hearing on AB 19 was closed with no action taken.

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 22 -  Allows certain state employees to choose form of compensation for overtime and to choose work schedule based on seniority.

 

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, again testified AB 22 dealt with 2 issues but, he explained, the first part of the bill would need to be amended if it was to be processed.  Continuing, he explained the bill was designed to do 2 things: first, to provide for employees who were on rotating shifts, with different days off, to have some selection based upon seniority; secondly, to provide for an employee selection of receiving cash or comp time for working overtime.  Again, a detailed explanation followed with examples of application.  In addition, he brought out Section 3 had a fiscal note (Exhibit C) which, when introduced 2 years ago, was estimated to be $6 million, but was now estimated to be $1.9 million.  Once again, Mr. Gagnier explained which issue was based upon litigation and which was based upon federal legislation.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked what the administration's stand was on the bill.  Mr. Gagnier replied he had no idea, but he stated if the administration proposed what he anticipated, his organization would be back in federal court.

 

Mrs. Lambert referenced the Benzler decision and asked what the impact would be on AB 22 and if the bill would need an amendment to deal with the decision.  Mr. Gagnier said he did not believe so and gave his reasons why.  Mrs. Lambert then questioned the language on Page 3, line 1-4 and asked Mr. Gagnier to explain how it would apply, which he did.  Mrs. Lambert question then was, "That solution, whatever it may be, will amend this section of the law?"  The answer was yes.  Mrs. Lambert then asked, "Would it be more efficient to deal with the two together?"  Mr. Gagnier said probably, but he had to wait to see the proposal.

 

Mr. Hettrick questioned if the language on Page 2, lines 12 through 15, interfered with Page 3, lines 33 through 36; and if there was a benefit to negotiate time off versus paid overtime rather than putting what he thought was open-ended, language into the bill.  Mr. Gagnier pointed out state employees were being removed from the law in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 281 and were being picked up in NRS 284.  In response to the second question, Mr. Gagnier replied his organization's preference was to negotiate with agencies, but there was no lever to do so as a collective bargaining law did not exist.  If AB 22 did not pass, employees of non negotiating agencies would be stuck with the old law.  Mr. Hettrick commented on the new leverage SNEA now had because of the lawsuits it had recently won.  Mr. Gagnier merely replied, "Some people never learn," and stated the reasons why.

 

There was further clarification between Mr. Gagnier and committee members on how the bill would impact employees under different regulations.  In addition, Mr. Garner asked Mr. Gagnier to provide committee members with copies of those regulations.

 

When asked by Mrs. Segerblom if any employees were willing to work overtime without compensation, Mr. Gagnier explained there were those who did but he did not think it was proper for them to do so.

 

Chairman Garner recapped the bill for everyone's edification and asked Mr. Gagnier if the legislation would have alleviated the problem presented in the Benzler case.  Mr. Gagnier replied the problem would have still existed, however the economic impact would have been less had the language of AB 22 been in effect.  He then gave the reasons why.  In concluding testimony the fiscal note of $1.975 million was addressed.

 

Mr. Garner welcomed the students present in the audience.

 

Curtis Stewart, Superintendent of Caliente Youth Center, Caliente, Nevada, voiced opposition to AB 22 as outlined in Exhibit D.  A discussion then ensued with Mrs. Augustine regarding Mr. Stewart's statement concerning seniority.

 

Rudy Moreno, Assistant Director, Administration, Department of Transportation, stated the department was opposed to certain language contained in AB 22.  He then read from prepared testimony (Exhibit E).

 

Nancy Knox, Director of Community Services, Southern Nevada Mental Retardation Services, pointed to Section 2, lines 23 through 26, and said the language would severely disrupt the ability of the division to provide services to the residents of the facilities.  She proceeded to detail the services which were provided to male and female clients, and the reasons requiring a balance between male and female staff.  In addition, Ms. Knox stated the delivery of the quality of services required experienced staff be available on all shifts.  Choice of shifts by seniority staff would result in clustering creating a different set of problems.  She concluded by saying the bill would restrict administration from scheduling those individuals with unique abilities and talents.

 

The hearing on AB 22 was closed with no action taken.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 38 -  Increases fees charged by county recorder for copies and abstracts of certificates of marriage.

 

Carol Corbett, Assistant County Recorder, Clark County, said AB 38 proposed to increase the fees for certified copies of marriages and certified abstracts.  She explained how each was produced and said the current fee was $5.  The proposed increase would bring the total to $10 with most requests coming from out of state.  Similar fees were higher in other states.  She stated figures which were charged in other states and by other organizations which also provided certified copies of documents.

 

The hearing on AB 38 was closed with no action taken.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 39 -  Exempts certain employees from merit personnel system for county employees.

 

Susan Preator, Senior Personnel Analyst, Personnel Department, Clark County, submitted Exhibit F as testimony.  In addition, she pointed to line 2 and line 7 and said Clark County had not asked for the language changes shown in those lines.  She then proposed original language be restored to line 7.  Thereafter, she read her testimony and distributed a proposed amendment (Exhibit G) to the committee.  She concluded by stating it was Clark County's intent to grandfather in existing employees.  The new language would be applied to incoming employees only.

 

Mrs. Segerblom asked if the new employees would receive all benefits.  Ms. Preator said regular full-time employees would.

 

Mr. Garner commented on the number 737 and asked how many were young or senior citizens.  Ms. Preator replied she did not have those statistics, but generally most were very young or senior citizens.

 

Mr. Neighbors questioned if the clerical support person was part-time or full-time.  The response was full-time, county employee, with benefits.  It was then reasoned number 5 of the amendment referred to a political appointment.

 

Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber Of Commerce, supported AB 39.  She expressed the opinion the bill had merit for senior citizens and was a great opportunity for those needing part-time work.

 

Mr. Bennett asked Ms. James to express her thinking on the proposed amendments, particularly on the political appointments.  Ms. James declined to comment as she was not sure what the results might be.

 

Susan Pacult, Vice President, Clark County Public Employees Association, requested the language in subsection 2 be returned to "shall" instead of "may."  Stating her reasons why, Ms. Pacult then went on record as being in opposition to subsection 4 and exempting employees for county commissioners and justices of the peace.

 

Mrs. Augustine asked if Ms. Pacult would be in favor of adding another subsection to specifically handle nurses.  The answer was no as it was not inclusive enough.  Mrs. Augustine commented it was the wave of the future because many companies could not afford to pay the additional benefits.  A discussion then ensued between Mrs. Augustine and Ms. Pacult.

 

Mike Johaneson, Service Employees International Union, was in opposition to AB 39.  He stated the 737 part-time employees did not have rights and new legislation would take away even that and make them political appointees.  Exempting employees from the merit system had nothing to do with merit raises.  The merit system was based on whether or not a person passed certain criteria to be hired, not pay.  Therefore, people who might want to organize as a group under Nevada Revised Statute 288 would be impeded upon with the legislation in AB 39.  In addition, he voiced the opinion if an employer wanted to exclude someone from the contract, the employer should negotiate with the union, not with the legislature.  In closing, Mr. Johaneson mentioned a concern as voiced by the Department of Parks and Recreation which was the splitting of jobs.  Instead of one person there were two, saving benefits.  Although beneficial to the community, it hurt the people who would rather be full-time.

 

Mr. Garner referenced the 737 part-time people and asked why they were not organized into a union and what prevented it.  Mr. Johaneson replied it was their choice, but passage of AB 39 would preclude it from ever happening.  Mr. Johaneson and Ms.

Pacult then indicated for Mr. Bennett's benefit, part-time employees were covered by the merit system regarding hiring only.  Susan Preator said Clark County treated part-timers as employed at will and they were not covered under the provisions of the merit system.  Further clarification followed.

 

In answer to a question from Mrs. Augustine regarding how many more part-time employees were employed, John Sherman, Management Analyst, Washoe County, was asked to respond.  He said he did not have the information but be would be willing to supply it to the committee.

 

Janie Reedy, President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Civilian Employees, agreed with Mr. Johaneson's concern regarding the legislation in AB 39 precluding part-timers who might want to organize and added her own concern.  She wanted to know how the legislation would impact future proposals, i.e., job sharing by people who are now permanent employees working full-time with benefits.

 

Mr. Ernaut asked Mr. Sherman if his part-time employees were treated as "as wills."  Mr. Sherman replied he was not sure how they were being treated, and he said he would get the information back to the committee.

 

For the benefit of the committee Ms. Preator defined part-time hourly employee, temporary employee and other types of employees who did not work full-time.  She said the bill was directed at those employees who worked 20 hours or less each week, hired under part-time conditions.

 

The hearing on AB 39 was closed with no action taken.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      BETTY WILLS

      Committee Secretary

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

February 10, 1993

Page: 1