MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 18, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:08 a.m., Tuesday, May 18, 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. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mrs. Erin Kenny  (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Richard Perkins, District 23

      Assemblyman Mike Schneider, District 42

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Dana Bennett, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Andy Anderson, President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Inc.; Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson; O.C. Lee, President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs; Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association; Janie Reedy, President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Civilian Employees, Inc.; Nile Carson, Jr., Deputy Chief, Administrative Services, Police Department, City of Reno;  Frank Barker, Captain, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Daniel Barry, Lieutenant, Internal Affairs Bureau, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Robert Bayer, Operations Supervisor, Department of Parole and Probation; Lisa Foster, City of Sparks; Mark Balen, President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada; Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System; Al Edmundson, President, Retired Public Employees of Nevada; Madelyn Shipman, City of Reno; James Gale, Senior Property Agent, Washoe County; Pam Wilcox, Administrator of the Division of State Lands; Robert Schell, Senior Right of Way Agent, Clark County; and Stephanie Tyler, Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 593 -Revises provisions relating to investigation of alleged misconduct of peace officer.

 

Assemblyman Richard Perkins, District 23, declared he was currently a police officer in the city of Henderson and proceeded to testify in favor or AB 593.  He told the committee the legislation, if enacted, would not affect him or any other officer differently.  He then gave a quick overview of the bill, stating he fully supported accountability and following the rules and the laws.  In conclusion, he proposed an amendment (Exhibit C) to Section 2, explaining the reasons for the amendment.

 

Mrs. Lambert read the language on Page 2, lines 8 and 9, and asked if this would occur after the officers reviewed the record: the tape of the hearing, at the hearing, or both.  Mr. Perkins replied the language would indicate it could occur both ways, stressing the reasons why.  Further discussion followed regarding time frame, for which Mr. Perkins had no answer.

 

Mrs. Augustine questioned if promotions occurred from within the department, Mr. Perkins replied yes.

 

Andy Anderson, President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Inc., supported AB 593, suggesting the legislation advocated the policy of the Las Vegas Use of Force Board and ensured current policy could not be changed by future

sheriffs, or anyone else for that matter.  He then gave his reasons why the legislation was beneficial.

 

Mrs. Augustine referenced Section 1, subsection 1, and queried why Saturday, Sunday and Holidays were excluded within the 72 hours.  Mr. Anderson replied he and Internal Affairs did not work on Saturday or Sunday, therefore, if a notice was given to him on Friday he might not be able to contact a representative before Monday.

 

When asked by Mr. Bache if the intent was to essentially give law enforcement officers the same Miranda rights as given to criminals, Mr. Anderson replied yes.

 

Mr. Hettrick alluded to the 72 hour time frame, stating he was concerned the language would prohibit a supervisor from asking a question.  He recommended adding "formal" or "scheduled" to the language, stating why.  Mr. Anderson replied the intent of the law applied to an investigation involving alleged misconduct, not to general questions asked by a supervisor.  More discussion followed between Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Perkins regarding this concern.

 

Along the same lines, Mr. Williams shared a similar concern, but his pertained to the "judgment call."  He asked if the citizen would have the same opportunity to gather his thoughts and obtain an attorney as the law enforcement officer.  Mr. Anderson answered absolutely, the burden on law enforcement was custodial.  Additionally, in a criminal hearing suspects did not have to talk to law enforcement officers if they did not want to.

 

Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson, supported the legislation, saying, for the most part, it tracked with Henderson's current policy.  One problem he wanted to bring to everyone's attention was language did not appear in the bill to allow the employee to waive the 72 hours as previously brought out in testimony.  He suggested language be included to address that.  Additionally, Mr. Fritsch addressed Mr. Perkins proposed amendment and said the law and labor agreements currently provided for representation.

 

O.C. Lee, President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (NCOPS), responded to Mr. Hettrick's concern, assuring him what type of questions law enforcement officer's were seeking representation for.

 

Mrs. Lambert asked if the legislation tracked with Metro's policy.  Mr. Lee replied yes, with further explanation.

 

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified the 72 hours was important to his organization due to its far flung operations in state government.  He stressed the time which was sometimes needed to communicate between Indian Springs and Las Vegas, as well as other facilities throughout the state which were not close to representation.

 

Janie Reedy, President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association for Civilian Employees, favored AB 593, asking the bill be modified to include all police employees such as criminalists, 911 dispatchers, 911 operators, abuse neglect specialists, and employees in charge of releasing civilian employees at the jail. She maintained civilian employees were held to the same standard of conduct as police officers and were disciplined by police officers of various rank.  She then provided examples to support her statement.

 

Mr. Garner asked Ms. Reedy if she had spoken to the sponsor of the bill for the purpose of expanding the provisions.  Ms. Reedy replied she had done so that morning.  When asked when she had become aware of the bill, Ms. Reedy answered Friday afternoon but she had not seen Mr. Anderson until that very morning.

 

Nile Carson, Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department, introduced Kim Gibson, Lieutenant, Internal Affairs, and presented a position paper (Exhibit D) which spoke in opposition to AB 593 and included the Reno Police Department policy.  He encouraged the committee to not pass the 72 hour restriction and suggested changing the language to "a reasonable amount of time."

 

Mr. Williams alluded to public perception and asked if AB 593 increased negative public perception in reference to the 72 hours.  Mr. Carson replied yes, giving his reasons why.

 

Mr. Ernaut queried how long a suspect could delay a criminal interrogation under Miranda rights.  Mr. Carson replied under Miranda a suspect never had to answer questions.

 

Frank Barker, Captain, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, stated the police department was responsible for accountability and he thought Mr. Williams' question reached the heart of the problem concerning the perception of a cover-up with the 72 hour rule.  He illustrated actual situations within his department which needed to be quickly brought out and which would be totally unacceptable to the public under the 72 hour restriction.  Therefore, he said he was opposed to that portion of the bill.

 

Mrs. de Braga inquired if he would have a problem with the bill if Mr. Hettrick's recommendation to add "formal" to the language was adopted.  Mr. Barker countered it would lessen the problem but his department had rules pertaining to officers involved in incidents.  They were required to make reports prior to the end of a shift.  An officer involved in a serious incident currently had the right to acquire representation prior to an investigation, but not 72 hours.  He then suggested it would be difficult to write something to cover all situations.

 

When asked how much time was usually given to acquire representation, Mr. Barker did not offer a time frame but said when a serious incident occurred it was done rapidly to avoid establishing a bad public policy, which was what he thought the 72 hours would do.  More discussion followed regarding putting the officer on administrative leave.

 

Mrs. Augustine asked if it would help matters to delete the language pertaining to Saturday, Sunday and Holidays in the 72 hour period.  Mr. Barker's reply was it would help, but he thought "reasonable time to obtain representation" would be more acceptable.  Further discussion ensued.

 

Daniel Barry, Lieutenant, Internal Affairs Bureau, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, explained anytime an incident occurred having a potential for media coverage which could make the department look bad or if someone made a serious allegation against a police officer, an undersheriff could be contacted and an investigation could be performed before going to the media.  He concluded by saying a lot could be said for doing an expeditious investigation as time distorted facts.

 

Robert Bayer, Operations Supervisor, Department of Parole and Probation, testified the bill needed to be fine tuned.  He said there was such a wide variety of situations encountered in law enforcement, therefore, one had to be able to distinguish between gathering facts and data and building a case.  Giving an illustration of an incident which could occur in a prison setting, he said it was important to acquire the data immediately.  Equating his illustration to a shooting on the street, he said it too required immediate information.

 

Lisa Foster, City of Sparks, read into the record opposition testimony (Exhibit E) of John Dotson, Chief of Police, City of Sparks, who was unable to attend the hearing.

 

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Barker what the financial impact would be if officers were to take the maximum amount of administrative leave.  Mr. Barker rejoined he had not considered the financial impact but it would certainly impact the department based upon how many situations occurred.  He added it would create a hardship as the shift would have to be covered either by overtime or an adjustment in the schedule.

 

When asked by Mr. Williams how the financial impact, along with the 72 hour rule, would affect public perception, Mr. Barker replied the longer the investigation, the more people were inclined to feel a cover up had taken place.

 

The hearing on AB 593 was closed with no action taken.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 591 -Makes various changes relating to public employees' retirement system.

 

Mark Balen, President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, spoke in favor of AB 591, saying it was a wonderful bill.

 

O.C. Lee, President, NCOPS, supported the legislation.  He said it was good public policy.  In addition, he said NCOPS was not willing to take a decrease in salary or a layoff in personnel to fund the bill, therefore, he stated any proposals the committee could recommend to fund AB 591 would be appreciated.

 

Chairman Garner stressed the substantial fiscal note attached to AB 591 and rhetorically questioned where the bill would go to resolve the fiscal note.

 

Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System, provided and read opposing testimony (Exhibit F), stressing AB 591 would cost a $167 million per year increase in pay.  That would amount to a 10 percentage point increase in the contribution rate.

 

Mr. Garner stated he would consider scheduling another brief hearing on AB 591 or bring it up in a work session as Assemblyman Arberry, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, was unable to attend the hearing.

 

Al Edmundson, President, Retired Public Employees of Nevada, testified AB 591 would be very detrimental to the retirement system and it was expensive.

 

The hearing on AB 591 was closed with no action taken.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 595 -Requires public agencies to comply with certain provisions concerning relocation assistance for persons displaced by project requiring acquisition of property.

 

Assemblyman Mike Schneider, District 42, explained AB 595 dealt with roads, specifically the Desert Inn overpass in Las Vegas.  He gave an example of what had occurred when the first office building was purchased by the county for the project and said AB 591 would require cities, counties and state to comply with federal law.  He then defined what would occur under federal law and stated the bill had been written to include residences.

 

Mr. McGaughey queried if the purchase of the office building had been by negotiated agreement or eminent domain.  Mr. Schneider responded it had been a negotiated agreement.

 

Mr. McGaughey proposed the buyer then had the responsibility to honor the leases, and all conditions of the leases, of the tenants in the building.  The buyer had the obligation to buy out the remaining portion of the leases and compensate the tenants without the aid of AB 595.  Mr. Schneider answered the seller had switched to a month-to-month lease prior to the sale because of all the publicity surrounding the project.  Further discussion ensued regarding the leasehold period and the eminent situation which followed.

 

Responding to an opinion expressed by Mrs. Segerblom, Mr. Schneider said it was important to not injure either the owner of a building or the tenants, which is the case under federal law.

 

Mr. Ernaut had a hard time rectifying the bill and suggested the tenants needed to take action against the owner.  A discussion then took place as to how to prevent the same thing from occurring in the future without the need for legislation.

 

Mrs. de Braga questioned if federal law covered only the cost of relocating or did it also include the cost of printing new business cards, etc.  Mr. Schneider explained under which circumstances business cards and the like would be covered.

 

Mr. McGaughey expressed his desire for the county to have some sort of a mechanism to allow it to be a landlord thereby solving some of the problems.  He also asked Mr. Chairman if it would be possible to pose the problem to local governments to see if the statutes enabled them to become landlords, providing more time for people to move from the buildings being acquired and, at the same time, provide income for the local government.  Chairman Garner said the matter would be looked into.

 

Madelyn Shipman, City of Reno, stated she was in opposition to AB 595, but in fact, her testimony was composed of many questions which she said needed to be answered before action was taken on AB 595.

 

Mr. McGaughey asked if it was Reno's policy to continue as landlord when purchasing a building not immediately needed or did Reno issue a 30 day notice and vacate.  Ms. Shipman replied Reno had not experienced having to deal with tenants or with the relocation of individuals.  Further discussion followed.

 

James Gale, Senior Property Agent, Washoe County, testified in opposition for two reasons: 1) the requirements for the bill would be very expensive for all local governments, and 2) the requirements for the Federal Relocations Assistance Act were very time consuming.

 

Lisa Foster, speaking for Sandra Landeck, the Property Management Specialist for the City of Sparks, testified AB 595 would add an additional financial burden to cities which were trying to work with the residents in a constructive way to ensure all were treated fairly.

 

Pam Wilcox, Administrator of the Division of State Lands, testified she was not aware of any problems in her division, stating her agency was not required to follow the Federal Relocations Assistance Act unless it was using federal dollars.  She then explained when and how the federal formulas were used.  In closing, she added there would be a fiscal impact to the state if AB 595 passed.

 

Robert Schell, Senior Right of Way Agent, Clark County, stated passage of AB 595 would require every public agency within the state to acquire property and treat persons displaced by a project according to the dictates of the....otherwise known as the Uniform Act.  As a result the agency would have to adopt a portion of the federal government's social agenda as well as its notion as to what constitutes fair and equitable acquisition practices.   Continuing, he explained how a displaced property owner would have to bring the property up to the standards mandated by federal regulations, how the affluent could and would receive windfalls, the need for additional staffing and project implementation not currently available in public agencies, and the complexity of interpreting government regulations.

 

Mr. McGaughey asked Mr. Schell to explain Clark County's policy pertaining to being a landlord for a period of time, thereby helping people to locate elsewhere.  Mr. Schell replied it was Clark County's policy to rent houses back, explaining the process.

 

When questioned if commercial property was handled in the same manner, Mr. Schell replied previous testimony indicated it apparently had not been the practice.  But, generally, the policy was to minimize the hardship on owners and tenants.

 

Stephanie Tyler, Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), stated RTC was in opposition to AB 595 in its present form.  She added she had spoken to the sponsor of the bill and it had been agreed there was room to sit down and discuss possible amendments regarding the federal act which would make the bill workable.

 

Mr. Schneider presented closing remarks to the committee and stated he too was leery of using all of the federal regulations.  Therefore, he suggested working with the various organizations present to select desirable parts of the federal regulations for the purpose of creating legislation for Nevada.

 

Mr. Garner added it would be necessary to address the fiscal impact the bill presented.  Mr. Schneider implied it would impact only local entities.  Mr. Garner disagreed but said he would investigate what the fiscal impacts were.

 

The hearing on AB 595 was closed with no action taken.

 

Chairman Garner requested committee introduction of the following Bill Draft Requests:

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST  S-1917 -  Requires department of transportation to convey certain real property to United States for use of Walker River Paiute Tribe.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 30-1899 -  Makes various changes relating to Carson City.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 48-2008 -  Revises membership of Colorado River commission.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      BETTY WILLS

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

May 18, 1993

Page: 1