MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
and
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
Sixty-seventh Session
February 4, 1993
A Joint Meeting of the Assembly Select Committee on Government Reorganization and Senate Special Committee on Government Reorganization was called to order by Co-Chairman Robert Sader, at 4:43 p.m., on Thursday, February 4, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Co-Chairman
Mr. Robert Sader, Co-Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry, Vice Chairman
Mr. Rick Bennett
Mr. Joe Dini
Mrs. Jan Evans
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. William Gregory
Mr. Dean Heller
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Gene Porter
Mr. Bob Price
Mr. Larry Spitler
Mrs. Myrna Williams
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Co-Chairman
Senator Raymond Rawson, Co-Chairman
Senator Matthew Callister
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana Glomb
Senator Thomas Hickey
Senator Mark James
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator William O'Donnell
Senator William Raggio
Senator Dean Rhoads
Senator Hal Smith
Senator Randolph Townsend
OTHERS PRESENT:
Judy Matteucci, Director, Dept. of Administration
Carol Jackson, Division of Industrial Relations
Joan Kerschner, State Librarian, State Library and Archives
Scott Miller, Administrator, Dept. of Museums & History
Steve Shaw, Administrator, Vocational Rehabilitation Div.
Following introductory remarks, Co-Chairman Sader suggested the committee try to focus its attention on the overall goals and concept involved in the reorganization, rather than budgetary issues and questions. These matters would be heard by the money committees at a future time, he pointed out.
Opening the testimony, Judy Matteucci, State Budget Director, assured committee members and public attendees the reorganization plan was intended to reduce the Governor's span of control and to group similar functions in an effort to improve coordination and efficiency.
Ms. Matteucci went on to explain the proposed changes within the Department of Museums, Library and Art. As shown on the operational chart (page 17 of Exhibit C attached hereto), she pointed out the three divisions to be affected would be, 1) Museums and History, 2) Library and Archives, and 3) Arts. The most significant move in this department was to transfer Historic Preservation and Archaeology and Comstock Historic District budgets from the Department of Conservation, where they are currently housed.
Scott Miller, Administrator for the Department of Museums and History, came forward and explained his department had started working closely on cultural resource management in general, as far back as 1986. To the extent possible, the physical consolidation of the agencies provided an obvious advantage in terms of personnel and support responsibilities involved with the different agency missions.
Specifically, Mr. Miller said, the Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology was responsible for the statewide mandate of review, compliance and promotion in the two elements of anthropology and archeology. He felt possibly the consolidation would bring the two agencies together in such a way the archeological resource and preservation resource could be administered in a more effective fashion.
Mr. Miller also explained the enhancements possible by bringing the Arts Council into the state's museum system. This would provide an outlet for a number of artistic endeavors, both performing and visual.
A long-standing relationship had existed between his agency and Library and Archives by virtue of the actual functions involved, Mr. Miller maintained. The function of State Archives and Records Management had been to review and develop retention schedules for archives and records, and this function had been more pronounced in recent years as a result of governmental requirements. Mr. Miller saw this being more efficiently handled under the planned reorganization.
There were areas which needed work, Mr. Miller allowed, but in terms of the overall reorganization, he thought the merging of agencies was logical and would increase efficiency. Co-Chairman Sader agreed this portion of the reorganization plan made sense.
Commenting on the area of grant writing, the State Librarian, Joan Kerschner, indicated under the reorganization plan their ability to capture funding for some important projects would be greatly strengthened. She said they were presently working on a rather large grant to the National Endowment for the Humanities for a conservation laboratory project to conserve some of the original paper heritage of the state. Presently, these documents were held in the archives if they were state records, but if not state records they were held in the Historical Society and in two special collections at UNR and UNLV. The ability to write a grant as a cooperative larger organization would give them more influence.
Mr. Garner noted the Nevada Literacy Coalition was listed under "Library and Archives" (page 17 of Exhibit C). Ms. Kerschner assured him this was a library-sponsored program. The relationship between literacy programs conducted throughout the educational system was discussed. Ms. Kerschner explained all state literacy programs were coordinated through the Governor's Literacy Advisory Council, however, there was a federal government policy to funnel funds for literacy programs from a number of sources. Thus, funds came from the Department of Education and Human Resources agencies. The National Literacy Act would also funnel money through the prisons.
Mr. Garner asked if Ms. Kerschner's agency should be the recognized focal point for directing efforts in adult literacy. Ms. Kerschner answered this was an effort too large to be handled by any one agency. Through the Governor's Literacy Advisory Council, the Department of Education handled the formal education programs while the library's focus was more on voluntary literacy programs. Although Mr. Garner thought there was still fragmentation, Ms. Kerschner reiterated the need to funnel this type of funding through many agencies in order to reach those in need. This was exactly why the National Literacy Act now required them to establish a Literacy Council.
Co-Chairman Sader noted this was an area in which there appeared to be a rough consensus at this time.
Ms. Matteucci asked the committee to next consider the consolidation of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation with the proposed Education, Health and Human Services Department. (Page 15 and 16, Exhibit C.) This reorganization would bring together a number of training efforts now located in other agency budgets in an attempt to group similar functions and make government more responsive to those served. Ms. Matteucci noted the Office of Protection & Advocacy, along with the Mentally Ill Individuals Program had been included under the category of Administrative Services for purposes of reporting violations. She added they had been unable to include this category in the Education, Health and Human Services Department because of a conflict in purposes.
Coming forward to testify on the Vocational Rehabilitation Division, Administrator Steve Shaw pointed out his Division was currently placed in the Department of Human Resources. Bringing it into the area of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation made a great deal of sense, Mr. Shaw opined. Although most job training functions had been brought together, one remained in the Welfare Division due to federal regulations. Co-locating and joining Nevada's work force under one central authority would be a great advantage for the citizens of the State of Nevada, Mr. Shaw maintained.
Co-Chairman Sader asked if the functions of SIIS rehabilitation were being brought into the Training and Rehabilitation Services. Mr. Shaw replied it was the Governor's proposal to place SIIS rehabilitation under the Rehabilitation Division. Further explaining, Ms. Matteucci said this had not been shown specifically because it would just come into the vocational rehabilitation program. There had been a significant change in the approach to rehabilitation in SIIS from a more medical model to the vocational rehabilitation model which Mr. Shaw's division currently employed. Ms. Matteucci noted this had been discussed in the money committees earlier in the day.
Senator Rawson asked if the function of Protection and Advocacy (appearing under Administrative Services) might be more naturally placed in the Office of the Attorney General. Ms. Matteucci answered this would present a conflict as the purpose of the Office of Protection and Advocacy of the Mentally Ill Individuals would be to advocate on behalf of people with mental illness who felt they had been discriminated against, and ordinarily this complaint would be against a state agency. Of course, the entity defending the state agency would be the Attorney General.
Mrs. Williams questioned whether Post Secondary Education was included under Training and Rehabilitation Services. Ms. Matteucci replied this was now under Business and Industry.
Returning to the subject of "co-locating," Co-Chairman Sader asked if all training and rehabilitation services would be located in one place. Mr. Shaw replied the Governor's reorganization plan would give them the ability to phase this in, however, it would be a large endeavor which would take time to accomplish.
Turning to the reorganization plan proposed for the Department of Business and Industry (pages 1 and 8-10 of Exhibit C), Ms. Matteucci pointed out the Department of Commerce and Industry Development were the only departments which had significant reorganization activity. The function of the Department of Business and Industry had combined a number of agencies currently advocating on behalf of specific industries. The Consumer Services Division encompassed functions relating directly to helping consumers with questions. Also included under Business and Industry was the Business Regulation Division.
Ms. Matteucci explained the Business Regulation Division had incorporated most of the current Department of Commerce. Within this category and under Insurance there was a recommendation to combine the current Department of Insurance and the Department of Industrial Relations. This particular combination was appropriate, Ms. Matteucci opined. The Insurance Commission actually performed regulatory activity over private insurance companies and many of the same regulations were imposed over Workers' Compensation Insurance by the Department of Industrial Relations. In fact, the Insurance Commissioner had some regulatory authority over the State Industrial Insurance System, which created some overlap.
Senator Rhoads questioned a reference to relocating the Racing Commission. Ms. Matteucci answered their recommendation was to relocate the Racing Commission's duties to the Gaming Control Board.
Responding to Senator Rawson's question whether the Consumer Affairs function could be placed within the Office of the Attorney General, Ms. Matteucci replied she would talk to the Attorney General and the Governor regarding this question.
Speaker Dini questioned the consolidation of Agriculture and Dairy Control. Would this abolish the Dairy Commission or would it continue with the same qualifications for its members (which had been statutorily set)? Ms. Matteucci told Mr. Dini they had envisioned the Dairy Commission members would become part of the Board of Agriculture which would displace the present Board of Agriculture members. She acknowledged this needed to be worked out with the Legislature. The reason for the combination, she noted, was they both advocated on behalf of pieces of the agricultural industry. Mr. Dini reminded committee members of the mess there had been before the Dairy Commission was created in 1967. If a Dairy Commission had not been put together, Mr. Dini opined the State of Nevada would have no dairies now. Ms. Matteucci said as a dairyman's daughter she was very sensitive to the importance of the Dairy Commission, and she would make certain the Dairy Commission became a functioning part of the Board of Agriculture, with the same regulatory duties as far as pricing.
This was further discussed.
Mr. Porter questioned what positions would be eliminated in combining the Department of Insurance with the Department of Industrial Relations. Ms. Matteucci said she believed the savings were all "reorganization" savings. The value of certain positions had been changed in both the Department of Insurance and the Department of Industrial Relations. This involved approximately five positions, a number of administrative deputies and two positions which would eventually be transferred to the new Administrative Services; however, no actuaries were involved in the reorganization.
Discussion was held between Ms. Matteucci and Mr. Marvel regarding the regulatory boards listed under the Department of Business and Industry, and the function of the Professional Licensing and Regulatory Boards. For the record, she assured Mr. Marvel, "There is no money that is coming into private licensing boards that's going into the General Fund or changing any hands in any other boards either large or small."
Continuing with the discussion, Ms. Matteucci noted the Commission for Post-Secondary Education had been located under "Boards and Commissions." She opined it might better be placed under Mr. Shaw's Vocational Rehabilitation agency, and if the committee felt this was appropriate, she saw no reason not to move it. No objection from the Commission for Post-Secondary Education was anticipated.
Addressing the function of Business Regulation, Ms. Matteucci explained most of this was the old Department of Commerce plus the Department of Insurance and the Department of Industrial Relations.
Ms. Matteucci then introduced Carol Jackson, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Ms. Jackson assured the committee she saw the plan for reorganization as providing more efficient service and better communication. The Industrial Relations Division presently experienced difficulty in that it had only one attorney. By combining its attorney with the Insurance Department's four attorneys, a pool of five attorneys would make it possible to take on the heavy work load.
Regarding the Administrative Services function, Ms. Jackson pointed out although the Industrial Relations Division presently had an Administrative Services Division, the Department of Insurance did not. Since the Department of Insurance handled assessments, fines and technical services, combining the two areas would compliment the Insurance Division. In the area of auditing, Ms. Jackson said the Department of Industrial Relations was currently required to audit insurers to make certain expenses submitted to the DIR were proper and appropriate. The DIR had been unable to fulfill this function for the past year because it lacked a person to do it. The Insurance Division had a unit empowered to audit insurers for financial responsibility and combining the departments would bring an auditor into the DIR to deal with claims expenditures and the financial aspect for solvency.
As to health care providers, Ms. Jackson said the DIR had auditors trained to examine claims files and medical bills to ascertain if the bills were paid appropriately. These auditors would join with the two auditors in the Department of Insurance, making a more efficient operation.
Ms. Jackson discussed the other changes proposed, and concluded by opining the reorganization complimented each division greatly, especially in the area of insurance regulations.
Mr. Dini commented the Rural Housing Authority had been trying to get out from under the state umbrella for many years. He wondered if this was the appropriate time to allow that agency to branch out on its own. Ms. Matteucci acknowledged this, but questioned whether the small counties could fend for themselves if the Rural Housing Authority was not under the state umbrella. Although the Rural Housing Authority in the larger counties was not under the state umbrella, Ms. Matteucci thought the reluctance to release the Rural Housing Authority was because it was more a statewide function, not a county function. Ms. Matteucci agreed if the committee did not think the Rural Housing Authority should be a state agency any longer, she would not oppose it being released.
Mr. Price questioned the reorganization of the State Contractors' Board under the Professional Licensing & Regulatory Boards (Liaison). Ms. Matteucci told him it would still be a fee-based board.
Mr. Sader pointed out the term "liaison" was confusing, and asked Ms. Matteucci to explain what "liaison" meant to the regulatory boards and how their current status would change. Ms. Matteucci explained "liaison" simply meant there would be a structure for those agencies to report through the Department of Business and Industry. There would be no change to their funding structure, no change to their personnel or legal requirements -- they would simply be monitored by the Department of Business and Industry. Mr. Sader asked if Business and Industry would have authority to supervise the liaison people. Ms. Matteucci replied no, there would simply be a conduit for paperwork for the licensing boards into state government.
Continuing, Mr. Price wanted to make certain the State Contractors' Board would retain its current powers, make appointments in the same manner, maintain the current fee structure, and set its own budget which would be submitted through the Department of Administration. He said the Ways and Means Committee had discussed other boards and the comingling of fees. Ms. Matteucci assured Mr. Price these funds would not be brought into the state treasury, but would remain the same as they are now.
Mr. Sader asked whether there was an administrative assessment on these boards. Ms. Matteucci said the only assessment to the boards was to pay for the newly created position of management analyst who would support the boards in the Department of Business and Industry.
Speaking to the subject of administrative support, Ms. Matteucci told Mr. Sader the administrative support budgets generally served the smaller boards without permanent staff. Some of these, she added, did not even have file room, but just passed the files from person to person. Currently most small boards had access to the Attorney General's Office, Ms. Matteucci said, and there was no increased access for the boards into the Attorney General's Office. Mr. Sader was concerned not only about the assessment, but also about tasking the Attorney General's Office during the next two years. Ms. Matteucci told Mr. Sader the federal government had disagreed with the state's way of budgeting the Attorney General's Office prior to 1993. Under the new scheme, if the boards needed additional help from the Attorney General's Office, the Attorney General would assess them for that time.
Mr. Dini suggested the Liquified Petroleum Gas Board should be located under the Board of Pharmacy (with liaison) rather than in the category of Administrative Support. (See page 10 of Exhibit C.) In years past, he reasoned, the Legislature had shored up the duties of this board by empowering it to monitor for price gouging and to provide consumer literature. Ms. Matteucci said she had no problem with this change.
Mr. Sader asked Ms. Matteucci to continue with her explanation of the difference between Administrative Support and Liaison. Administrative Support, she said, would require the more active involvement of the person in the management position in helping the smaller boards with such things as processing their contracts and amending budgets. Currently, Ms. Matteucci explained, this was being done in her office, but they were unable to do this on an ongoing basis; nor did they have time to become involved with the separate issues.
Responding to Mrs. Freeman's question regarding the Board of Nursing, Ms. Matteucci said there would be no changes in this board.
Mr. Sader asked how assessments would be handled for the smaller boards. Ms. Matteucci replied this would probably be in the same manner as her office presently assessed costs. Ms. Matteucci acknowledged there would be an increase in assessment roughly double what the present assessment was.
Mr. Sader also questioned whether Ms. Matteucci anticipated any statutory change in the autonomy of the boards, i.e., their decision-making authority. Ms. Matteucci replied "No."
Co-Chairman Rawson asked when Ms. Matteucci anticipated discussing the Department of Natural Resources. She thought the remainder of the reorganized divisions most heavily affected could probably be covered in no more than two meetings after their return from the Las Vegas meetings.
Recapping progress to date and what remained to be heard, Co-Chairman Sader brought up the subject of future joint committee meetings. Assembly committee members on the reorganization plan would not be meeting in Las Vegas, he pointed out. Senator Rawson said the Senate committee members would like one more joint committee meeting. He indicated Senate Government Affairs planned to discuss in public forum the reorganization plan during meetings in Las Vegas. Mr. Garner commented the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs would also be involved with the Senate Government Affairs Committee in Las Vegas in hearings on Wednesday, February 17, 1993. Senate Government Affairs would also have an afternoon hearing on Friday, February 19, 1993. Ms. Matteucci indicated the Chairman of the Commission on Governmental Reorganization, Dr. Kenny Guinn, and some members of the commission would be attending that meeting to explain the purpose behind their study and findings and to answer questions.
Generally, Mr. Sader said he felt the hearings had been very beneficial. It was his opinion the reorganization was long overdue. Co-Chairman Garner and Co-Chairman Rawson agreed.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:59 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Iris Bellinger
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
__________________________ _____________________________
Assemblyman Val Garner Senator Ann O'Connell
Co-Chairman Co-Chairman
_____________________________
Senator Raymond Rawson
Co-Chairman
??
Joint Assembly Select Committee on
Government Reorganization and
Senate Special Committee on
Government Reorganization
Date: February 4, 1993
Page: 1