MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
April 1, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:06 a.m., Thursday, April 1, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. James W. McGaughey
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Ken Haller, District 27
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Seale, Treasurer, State of Nevada; Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau; Russ Fields, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Minerals; Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada; Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association; Darrel Daines, Controller, State of Nevada; Fred Hinners, Chief Public Information Officer, State Industrial Insurance System; Keith Ashworth, Nevada Power Company; John Drew, Acting Chief, Nevada Division of Investigations; Major Marc Comstock, Counter Drug Coordination Officer, Nevada Military Department; John Sande, Airport Authority of Washoe County; C. Robert Cox, Attorney at Law, Airport Authority of Washoe County.
SENATE BILL NO. 172 - Makes various changes concerning certain funds.
Chairman Garner informed the committee SB 172 was the result of action by the Legislative Commission.
Robert Seale, Treasurer, State of Nevada, explained the bill was the result of an audit of the Legislative Counsel Bureau on the Board of Finance. He identified the members of the board, and said the language of SB 172 was archaic, requesting certain local entities to do things which did not make sense and which were not being done anyway.
Mr. Garner recognized the presence of Darrel Daines, Controller, State of Nevada, and thanked him for attending the meeting.
Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, concurred with Mr. Seale's statement, adding it had been 18 years in which the legislation had not been complied with, and the language was, therefore, appropriate to eliminate.
Russ Fields, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Minerals,
supported SB 172. He said SB 172 corrected a problem in Chapter 556 pertaining to geothermal funds.
ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE MOVED DO PASS ON SB 172.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 359 -Makes various changes regarding administration of program of deferred compensation for public employees.
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, District 11, proposed an amendment to AB 359 (Exhibit C). He further stated there currently was a committee dealing with deferred compensation for state employees, however, the committee did not have to be composed of people who were having money taken out of their paychecks for contribution into the plan. But he said in this case he had been asked by his constituents to authorize only those who were contributing to the deferred compensation plan be the ones appointed to take charge of it and to set up the structure of the committee. Therefore, he warned the committee, another amendment regarding the composition of the committee could be forthcoming.
Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, testified he was appearing as an individual participant in the deferred compensation program for the state of Nevada. He gave the background for AB 359 and explained what the deferred compensation program was. Mr. Keating expressed he was concerned about the way the deferred compensation committee was structured, defining his reasons why. He referenced the Governor's reorganization bill which suggested the possibility of the Department of Finance becoming the sole administrator of the Committee on Benefits and said, "If the bill comes out this way, it would truthfully put the whole deferred compensation program--which is not state money, it's money which belongs to me and a lot of the participants that you see in this room today, amounting to $40 million, 3,265 state employees--under one individual who is whoever the resulting Department of Finance might be." Thereafter, Mr. Keating systematically pointed out what each section of the bill intended to do and suggested how AB 359 could be amended. In conclusion, Mr. Keating said, "The truth of the matter is, this deferred compensation program really is not state money. It is money I've put in. As a matter of fact, at the present time my latest statement shows that I have $83,047.26 in this program. It is my money, it is not state money, it is my money. It belongs to these participants in this program out there. And we are very concerned about the fact that it's money we've set aside to use to supplement our income."
Chairman Garner asked Mr. Keating to submit his written, proposed amendment to Mr. Bache.
Mrs. Segerblom asked who selected the investments. Mr. Keating said the committee chose the firm or firms which provided the investment programs. He stated there were currently five or six different programs available from which the participant selected the one he/she wanted to participate in.
Chairman Garner asked all in attendance who had signed the attendance roster in support of AB 359 if they had further testimony to add to Mr. Keating's, or if they merely wanted to voice their support in favor of what was said. Mr. Garner called each by name, each replied in support of Mr. Keating's testimony and the suggested amendment.
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, spoke in favor of AB 359, Mr. Bache's amendment and Mr. Keating's amendment. He provided additional historical background to what had been presented earlier and added Mr. Speaker had also been approached about removing language which he had originally proposed. Mr. Speaker had indicated he had no problem with having the language removed from current law. In closing, Mr. Gagnier stated the Committee on Benefits did not want to be involved with the deferred compensation program.
Darrel Daines, Controller, State of Nevada, said he too supported Mr. Keating's testimony, but he asked to reserve the opportunity to speak to the amendments when completed. Mr. Garner asked Mr. Bache to inform Mr. Daines when the work session on AB 359 would take place.
Fred Hinners, Chief Public Information Officer, State Industrial Insurance System, speaking on his own behalf asked for clarification regarding Section 3, lines 15 and 16, stating why, and requested the language be deleted. Mr. Bache replied his amendment took care of the problem. Mr. Hinners then stated he too supported previous testimony.
Mrs. Lambert suggested lines 22 and 23 were the lines denoting Mr. Hinners problem, not lines 15 and 16. Mrs. Lambert said, "I don't know if legally there has to be an outlet for an emergency. But if we do it and then go home, we can't fix it like the L. A. County Board of Supervisors did. It's something to consider."
Chairman Garner asked Mr. Bache to check on it. Mr. Keating asked to address the issue raised by Mrs. Lambert. He said, "The federal law as I understand it, requires that it is still deferred compensation. So, we cannot pass a law which says the employer can never get at it. What we are trying to do is protect against one individual making that decision, not unlike what happened in L.A. County, and say that the only people that could take and appropriate those funds would be the legislature. That is why that language is there."
The hearing on AB 359 was closed with no action taken.
Mrs. Segerblom introduced her daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Liggett, along with their two sons, to the committee.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 11 - Authorizes certain additional boards of trustees to request tax on residential construction and increases maximum amount of tax that may be imposed by certain boards of county commissioners.
Keith Ashworth, Nevada Power Company, explained SJR 11, and its accompanying bill SB 296, had been requested by the Colorado River Commission, not by Nevada Power Company. He then gave the background for both pieces of legislation, referencing Exhibit D, a map which he had distributed, and told the committee why the Colorado River Commission wished to purchase the substation marked on the map rather than allow the Western Area Power Administration to purchase it. Mr. Ashworth concluded by saying, "Presently the Colorado River Commission has hired people in Washington to try to convince the federal government to allow the Colorado River Commission to buy this. Contrary to what you may hear by some of the power administration people, Nevada Power Company does not want to purchase this. We want to get the energy and the power off from it as a facility. We really don't need it. It would be advantageous to all of the users of this facility, but it needs to be upgraded, and Colorado River Commission would hire contractors and probably Nevada Power to help upgrade this system. We are presently in the process of trying to get Congress to go along with this scheme, for Nevada Power Company to do it. If they do not allow the Colorado River Commission to buy this, Nevada Power will not hook up to their buses at the new facility they would upgrade because it would not be compatible to the system in southern Nevada. So it is important that Colorado River Commission take this back. It should be, and must be, operated by a governmental agency, and the Colorado River Commission presently contracts this power out to all of us over these facilities, but Western Area Power does not own it."
Chairman Garner clarified SJR 11 did nothing more but enhance the ability of the Colorado River Commission in its negotiations in Washington, D.C. to purchase this facility. Mr. Ashworth agreed.
Mrs. Segerblom asked if SB 296 had passed the Senate, Mr. Ashworth said yes, it had been referred to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs two days earlier and would be heard in a week or so.
Mr. Neighbors questioned if the customers of Lincoln, Nye and Clark Counties supported the legislation. Mr. Ashworth said absolutely, they were the ones who first went to the Colorado River Commission to ask them to buy it. When asked who the customer was, Mr. Ashworth replied the customer for this facility was five utilities and the basic magnesium people.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS ON SJR 11.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 253 -Enacts interstate compact for certain operations by Nevada National Guard.
Chairman Garner opened the hearing by informing the committee concern had been expressed regarding AB 253. He said, "I don't know how many members of the committee have heard from 3 or 4 people that are opposed to the National Guard getting more authority. I don't know how to deal with that, and I have said to these people who have called me, if we took a vote on this today, I would delay a day or two before we put it on the assembly floor. But the reason I've brought these parties together today is to demonstrate that the differences which came out in original testimony have been resolved, and there has been a way to address those concerns from the Nevada Division of Investigations."
John Drew, Acting Chief, Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI), testified, "When we testified earlier in this committee on this subject matter, we voiced some concerns about maintaining coordination between what our division does, which is primarily narcotics investigations throughout the state of Nevada, and the National Guard and their counter narcotics program. We met, and we've discussed with National Guard what we are going to do, which is draft an MOU between the 2 entities that will provide for that coordination between their activities, Nevada law enforcement, and with our division so that we try to maintain a coordinated effort throughout the state and by what we are trying to accomplish here."
Major Marc Comstock, Counter Drug Coordination Officer, National Guard, said, "I'm here to reemphasize that our working relationship with Nevada Division of Investigations has never been stronger. We are of a mind that we would like to continue to strengthen that, and willingly open and enter into negotiations on this MOU to further strengthen our working relationship. It has been very good and we would like to continue that."
Chairman Garner asked the Major to tell the committee what resources were available, and may be available, through the kind of compact being entered into.
Major Comstock replied, "In many ways this compact deals with working out of the state of Nevada. My counterparts in the states of California and Arizona are particularly concerned about getting this legislation passed because some of the same people that Chief Drew and I are looking at cross rather frequently from Nevada to California and vice versa. We need to operate in both of those states without any kind of interference we can prevent by passing this legislation. I can use California assets in Nevada, and in turn, we will provide California with Nevada assets. It is primarily to facilitate working across the borders. Our instate operations won't be substantially changed by this legislation as I've read it. What we are doing instate between our two organizations is getting much better. We are providing more and more with respect to military equipment and hardware, knowledge and training to any law enforcement agency that needs it, but we do that through the Nevada Division of Investigations as our lead agency."
Mr. Garner then asked, "Is it my understanding too that these activities are under the jurisdiction of the Governor?"
Major Comstock said, "Yes sir, that is completely correct. Our entire program was approved by the Attorney General. The funding comes through the Governor and is administered by the Adjutant General through me. Our program is Governor Miller's program. As our Commander-In-Chief, we respond to him. What we are allowing now is for Nevada National Guard troops to be commanded by the California Governor when it becomes necessary because of all the interstate trafficking of counter drugs. We've done that previously, we just haven't legitimized it. This legislation will legitimize that and clean that process up. Also, and the reason why I was asking for this legislation, is it sends a clear signal to National Guard Bureau that Nevada is deeply concerned and committed to the counter drug war. But, one other state has passed this, although it's pending in other states. We are telling National Guard Bureau we are in the counter drug war to the best of our ability, and we're willing to cooperate with our neighboring states to the extent that we can."
Chairman Garner continued, "There are considerable resources that come to the state of Nevada in terms of funds that promote the D.A.R.E. programs, can you give me any figures on the amount of money that comes to Nevada?"
Major Comstock answered, "My own program started off small this year at about $350 thousand. We look to see an increase here by the middle of this month to over a $1 million in funding to support counter drug operations. That goes toward paying allowances to soldiers we will bring on board to use. On the supply reduction side, which does fund D.A.R.E., we are looking at $150,000 to $200,000. So there is quite a bit of money in the program and it will continue to grow as we show results."
Chairman Garner referenced a meeting with Mr. Drew and questioned his own understanding of high tech equipment which would become available to the state of Nevada in its drug interdiction programs.
Mr. Drew responded, "The General made reference to the two OH58 helicopters that, if finally approved, should be coming to the state in 1994." Major Comstock added, "I talked to General Clark yesterday and he has asked me to prepare a letter to the government asking to have those helicopters shipped to us immediately, and then asking for two more. So, we will put two of them in the northern end of the state, and two in the southern end of the state. They are very much in demand right now, and they would be a tremendous asset for all of the reasons I have just stated. They operate very covertly and they are extremely good at gathering information we need on what is going on out there."
Mr. Neighbors stated, "I too have received some calls today, and like Keith Ashworth testified, I am not sure I understand what I'm even asking, but last week SB 2 was soundly defeated in committee, unanimously. A lot of them think that this is another way of getting back----are you asking for local police powers? Are you going to be working with the government, local agencies, local police, county, or do you want the right to arrest without warrants?"
Major Comstock rejoined, "No sir, we can't possibly enter into that, and we would not. We are not in competition with any law enforcement agency. Our entire guideline is based on the concept of support. A bona fide drug law enforcement agency comes to us and asks us for support. In coordination with NDI, we provide things that they would not ordinarily have, soldiers, weapons, sophisticated night vision systems, and so forth. We also provide them with training, but we never act independently. We do not arrest people. We do not seize confiscated equipment or contraband. We do not transport prisoners unless there is a law enforcement agent with us, and we would never initiate a mission. I am prohibited from doing anything which even looks like that. We're simply there to support bona fide agents."
Mr. Neighbors said, "That is how I read the bill, but the calls I got expressed concern with that. When you say 'work with local agencies,' at what level? Do you have to have the Governor's permission if a particular county wanted your services?"
Major Comstock said no, and added, "A clearing house comes to mind. NDI is our real agency and has far more contact with the needs of the local law enforcement in the sheriffs and other state entities. NDI has been very good about supporting them and bringing us into a particular problem, and yet, we also support federal agencies, U.S. Customs Service and DEA. But it is almost always with NDI's involvement."
Chairman Garner asked for a motion to do pass AB 253.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS ON AB 253.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 380 -Requires provision for review by arbitrator of certain disciplinary actions in plan of civil service adopted by Airport Authority of Washoe County.
Assemblyman Ken Haller, District 27, testified there had been a long history of problems with the Airport Authority in Reno. He explained the history preceding current management and said, "Many of the employees who were at the airport when it came under the Authority were guaranteed, in one way or another, retention of their civil service status and the rights they had as an employee of Reno." He said in 1987 the Airport Authority developed a personnel manual which made certain changes which he considered anti-employee. Therefore, AB 380 was primarily intended to protect the employees of the airport.
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, District 11, stated AB 380 partially reversed the Senate bill which had been passed out of the Committee on Government Affairs last session. He pointed out AB 380 sought to restore the language from the 1989 legislative session pertaining to reviews.
John Sande, Airport Authority, pointed out the issue had been fully reviewed and debated last session and told the committee nothing had occurred since that time to warrant a change.
Robert Cox, Attorney, Airport Authority, reviewed the present situation and explained how AB 380 would change it. He said the system worked very well and did not deny anyone the due process right. In conclusion, he stated he was unaware of any problems as presented by Mr. Haller, and he did not see any need to have an arbitrator appointed.
The hearing on AB 380 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 322 -Requires establishment in Laughlin of branch offices for department of motor vehicles and public safety and for welfare division of department of human resources.
Mrs. Segerblom presented Exhibit E, an amendment which had been agreed to and prepared by the subcommittee.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 322.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
April 1, 1993
Page: 1