MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE

      ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION

      and

      SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      February 25, 1993

 

 

The Joint Meeting of the Assembly Select Committee on Government Reorganization and Senate Special Committee on Government Reorganization was called to order by Co-Chairman Val Z. Garner, at 4:37 p.m., on Thursday, February 25, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

 

      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:

 

      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

      James Weller, Director, Dept. of Motor Vehicles and

        Public Safety

      Lew Dodgion, Administrator,

        Div. of Environmental Protection

      William Molini, Director, Dept. of Wildlife

      Garth Dull, Director, Dept. of Transportation

 

 

 

 

Co-Chairman Garner called the meeting to order; and explained this would be the last joint meeting of the Senate Special Committee on Government Reorganization and Assembly Select Committee on Government Reorganization.  He indicated this would complete the overview of the Governor's proposed reorganization plan but future meetings would be held to not only consider reorganization but to also afford an opportunity for public input.

 

Following Mr. Garner's remarks, Judy Matteucci, Director of the Department of Administration, came forward to review the reorganization of the Department of Corrections, Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Natural Resources and Department of Transportation (Exhibit C). 

 

Ms. Matteucci reminded committee members the principles behind the Governor's reorganization effort was to, 1) reduce the Governor's span of control; 2) group like functions and therefore improve services; 3) streamline the governmental process; and 4) make government more efficient.

 

Beginning with the Department of Corrections, Ms. Matteucci indicated this was little more than a name change for the Department of Prisons.  She indicated there had been a recommendation to include the Department of Parole and Probation in the Department of Corrections.  However, in reviewing the concerns of those related to the Department of Parole and Probation, the Governor had become convinced its function was more a public safety function than a corrections function.  As a result, the current Department of Parole and Probation was recommended for inclusion under the Department of Public Safety.

 

Senator Hickey questioned how strong the Governor's objections were to the change from the Department of Corrections to the Department of Public Safety.  Ms. Matteucci indicated she had spoken to the Governor of the concerns expressed by Legislators in this regard, but the Governor had strongly recommended if Legislators objected to the plan proposed for the Department of Parole and Probation, they should take the time to discuss this with that Department.  The Governor thought Parole and Probation had made a strong argument they were more public safety related.

 

Senator Hickey was not convinced this move was logical or efficient.

 

Continuing with her review, Ms. Matteucci noted there was a recommendation to split the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety into two separate departments, i.e., Department of Motor Vehicles and Department of Public Safety.  She distributed a position paper stating the purpose and objective as the plan related to the Department of Motor Vehicles (Exhibit D). 

 

Moving on to a review of the Department of Public Safety, Ms. Matteucci discussed the reorganization shown on page 4 of Exhibit C.  She told committee members this particular reorganizational structure contemplated a combination of law enforcement and training functions which would include, 1) the Highway Patrol; 2) the Investigation Division of the current Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety; 3) the Fire Marshall; and 4) the Emergency Medical Services Training Account.  Combining these functions would result in a large first responder training academy, primarily located at the Stewart Facility.

 

Additionally, Ms. Matteucci pointed out, the current Department of Military was included as a division with the Army and Air National Guard and a Division of Emergency Management, and Veteran's Affairs.  Veterans' Affairs was allocated to this particular area at the suggestion of Adjutant General Clark.  Ms. Matteucci continued with an explanation of the structure of the Department of Public Safety.

 

Coming forward to discuss the merits of the reorganization of the Department of Motor Vehicles, James Weller, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety stated they were looking at the reorganization plan with three objectives in mind:  1) Implementing the plan as it now existed; 2) Identifying concerns and making recommendations which would enhance the proposed plan and/or point out potential shortcomings; and 3) In the event no reorganization occurred, there were certain things they wanted to accomplish in order to make the existing Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety more efficient.  Mr. Weller assured everyone whatever was decided upon, his agency would cooperate in doing the best they could.

 

The primary benefit Mr. Weller perceived in creating the Department of Public Safety was the separation of the revenue producing operation (now existing in the Motor Vehicle side) from a service providing operation, i.e., the law enforcement side.  It also allowed them to place all public safety entities in one department.  Additionally, since the military also provided a public safety function, this would compliment the law enforcement side, Mr. Weller opined.

 

Mr. Weller saw secondary benefits in the following:

 

-     Elimination of duplicative state level law enforcement in the area of operations, administration and support services. 

 

-     Improvement in coordination of uniform law enforcement and investigative services statewide. 

 

-     Consolidation and enhanced training initiatives, basic training and in-service type training in law enforcement, fire fighting and hazardous material.

 

-     Streamlined management and other administrative costs. 

 

-     Flexibility in directing the resources to specific problem areas for specific purposes. 

 

-     Provision of information sharing and cost-utilization of expertise both in the uniform and investigative areas of law enforcement.

 

Mr. Weller maintained the consolidation of the law enforcement entities would also allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to work with appropriate state agencies in improving radio, telephone and other electronic services, an area in which Nevada was 25 to 30 years behind.

 

Philosophically, Mr. Weller said the state could no longer continue to throw people and money at problems.  He thought there were better ways to provide services to the public and the proposed reorganization plan went far in that direction.

 

Senator James questioned the reporting structure of the military.  Mr. Weller stated the military would be in the Department of Public Safety and would generally report to the Director of that department, which was the same type of relationship as the federal structure.  Senator James asked if this would create a constitutional problem.  Mr. Weller assured him other states were so structured; however, he was not completely certain how the proposal meshed with the Nevada Constitution.

 

Senator Hickey expressed concern over the proposal to include hazardous material enforcement in the Department of Environment.  Mr. Weller pointed out hazardous material enforcement, as it related to public safety issues, was spread out between two or three different agencies.  This was further discussed.  Senator Hickey asked Mr.Weller where his department fit into the scheme.  In reply, Mr. Weller indicated there was first a regulatory responsibility, and second, a licensing and inspection responsibility.  Reorganization would separate the regulatory, licensing and inspection responsibilities from the actual law enforcement aspect.

 

Senator Hickey and Mr. Weller further discussed the separate roles envisioned for the regulation and enforcement of hazardous material issues. 

 

Mr. Dini asked if the proposed plan would eliminate the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC).  Ms. Matteucci explained SERC was maintained under "Boards and Commissions (page 4 of Exhibit C).  This function would combine Emergency Management and the Emergency Response Commission which would provide a significant overlap.  Mr. Dini was not convinced.

 

Referring to Senator James' question regarding reporting procedures for the military, Ms. Matteucci said the asterisk shown on the chart (page 4 of Exhibit C) indicated in times of emergency the Governor was required to serve as the chief of the military.  For functional reporting purposes, the military would report through the Director of the Department of Public Safety. 

Ms. Matteucci told the committee the Colorado River Commission was not impacted in any way by the reorganization, but would stay as a separate standing commission.

 

Moving on to the Department of Environmental Protection, Ms. Matteucci reviewed the proposed consolidation of Air Quality, Water Quality and Waste Management.  Explaining the proposed separation of the Department of Environmental Protection from Natural Resources, Ms. Matteucci explained the consultants had seen the Department of Environmental Protection as a regulatory body with significant regulatory issues before it while the Department of Natural Resources was a preservation and conservation effort.  The consultants had also suggested environmental protection needed to be provided a higher profile. 

Ms. Matteucci then asked Lew Dodgion, Administrator of the Division of Environmental Protection, to come forward to testify.  After remarks on the history of the Department of Environmental Protection, Mr. Dodgion pointed out the close working relationship historically existing between Consumer Health Protection Services and the Division of Environmental Protection.  Consumer Health Protection Services had provided field support for immediate investigation and review of incidents involving air and water pollution, and had also contracted for sewage disposal services and laboratory support.

 

As earlier explained by Ms. Matteucci, Mr. Dodgion indicated the proposed reorganization plan would create the Department of Environmental Protection with the existing Division of Environmental Protection as a core combined with other environmental programs scattered throughout other state agencies.  By bringing these together into a single organizational structure all programs should experience less duplication, efficiency and service would be improved, there would be better use of resources and better protection of the environment and public health.

 

The reorganization proposed to bring the following programs into the Department of Environmental Protection:  1) consumer health protection services; 2) radiological health; 3) radioactive material disposal trust fund (all from the Health Division); 4) the gas pollution program (from the Department of Agriculture); 5) the motor vehicle pollution control program (from the Department of Motor Vehicles); 6) the recycling program (from Community Services); and 7) the high-level nuclear waste program.  Mr. Dodgion then spoke more in-depth on each of these categories, explaining the rationale for the proposed changes.

 

Emphasis was placed on the overlap in regulation of sewage disposal, Mr. Dodgion explained.  The Consumer Health Protection Bureau regulated septic tanks or individual sewage disposal systems under contract to the Division of Environmental Protection.  The Division of Environmental Protection took over with larger individual sewage disposal systems or septic tanks above 5,000 gallons.  For the regulated community there was a question of where to get a permit or permission for a septic tank or individual sewage disposal system.  Consolidation of this function would certainly provide a better service to the regulated community.

 

Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Dodgion if his Department would also have oversight on the underground injection control program.  Mr. Dodgion said, "Yes."  He also told Mr. Marvel they had control of this function for the mining industry as well.  Mr. Dodgion pointed out the State Engineer regulated water permits for some beneficial use such as dewatering of a mine, and he could require permit holders to reinject the water in order to save the resource. Reinjection was regulated under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, administered by the Department of Environmental Protection.

 

Discussion followed.

 

Senator Hickey asked what involvement the Department of Environmental Protection would have with emergency management.  Mr. Dodgion replied his agency was already involved with emergency management and, indeed, he was a member of the state Emergency Response Commission.  He said they now had and administered a grant from the Department of Energy.  This was shared with Consumer Health and Protection Services and with the Division of Emergency Management.  Senator Hickey ascertained there was a cross-involvement with the Emergency Management Division and the Department of Environmental Protection.  "Who was to take control of this?" Senator Hickey asked.  Mr. Dodgion replied the Division of Emergency Management was the agency responsible for developing and seeing that emergency response plans were developed.  He added the Department of Environmental Protection was sometimes identified as a resource agency for emergencies because they had people in the Bureau of Waste Management and Bureau of Federal Facilities with expertise in hazardous materials, chemicals and waste.  However, they were not first responders; nor did his agency set the standards for responses, as this was the responsibility of first responders'.  Senator Hickey disagreed with Mr. Dodgion's statement.  This was further discussed.

 

Finally, Mr. Dodgion told Senator Hickey his department came into play after the emergency had abated.  It was the responsibility of the Division of Environmental Protection to see that a spill was properly cleaned up to protect the environment.  Senator Hickey considered the whole area murky.

 

Senator James remarked if the reorganization plan was to consolidate government, it appeared strange to him a new department was being created when all the substantive duties were already being performed.  Reiterating Ms. Matteucci's earlier remarks, Mr. Dodgion said the concept was to take the regulatory environmental functions and place them in a department separate from the agencies actually managing the resources.  Continuing, Mr. Dodgion predicted consolidation of the mentioned programs should accomplish more efficiency because more resources touching on water or air quality were brought into the same organization.

 

Senator James felt it was inherently less efficient to separate the preservation or conservation of resources from their environmental protection through regulation.  He did not see it being much more than a cosmetic exercise.

 

Responding to Senator James, Mr. Dodgion insisted the consolidation would elevate the environmental protection programs to department status, place it closer to the Governor and elevate environmental protection in the public view. 

 

Returning to a discussion on the Military (page 4 of Exhibit C), Mr. Price remarked the United States Constitution set up the structure for military functions, and mandated the President to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Military.  Additionally, Article 12 in the Nevada Constitution stated, "The Legislature shall provide for the militia and the Legislature shall provide by law for the organizing discipline of the militia of Nevada and the effectual encouragement of the volunteer groups and the safekeeping of public arms. . . . The Governor shall have the power to call out the militia to execute the laws of the state and to suppress insurrection."  Mr. Price asked if Mr. Weller would provide a list of other states presently combining the military and the Department of Public Safety.

 

Mr. Price also suggested it should not be difficult to maintain the line of authority directly from the Governor to the military without going through someone else.  Ms. Matteucci agreed the role of the Governor was very important.  She said they had thoroughly discussed this subject with the Adjutant General who had then taken the concern to the Governor.  She added, ". . . and we specifically did that in the bill draft.  The Governor is still the Commander-in-Chief directly to the military, to address that very issue.  So I think we've covered that particular question. . . .".

 

In addressing Senator James' concerns, Ms. Matteucci acknowledged the chart was not completely detailed in what consolidation was proposed in the Department of Environmental Protection.  She said, "There are a number of agencies that are doing environmental protection functions right now that do get consolidated in here -- the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Agriculture, the Nuclear Waste Project Office, which is a separate office, and the Health Division and the Director of Human Resources.  All of those functions, Senator, are brought in together here with the consolidation; so I think there is much more consolidation than there probably appears here.  It's difficult to decide exactly who's got the most in line with each other when it comes to quality of water and quantity of water, but we really kind of did split it on the lines of 'this was a protection and preservation of a natural resources and this was a regulatory body.'  We think that the benefits in the efficiencies that will be achieved as a result of that combination outweigh what inefficiencies may result. . . .".

 

Ms. Matteucci then reviewed the consolidation proposed in the Department of Natural Resources (page 6 of Exhibit C).  Ms. Matteucci introduced William Molini, Director of the Department of Wildlife, and asked him to comment regarding Wildlife and Parks. 

 

Mr. Molini pointed out the combination of the Department of Wildlife and Parks under the Department of Natural Resources worked well in both Colorado and Utah.  Mr. Molini agreed Wildlife and Parks had some overlap but part of the responsibility of the Department of Wildlife was for the protection of natural resources and part was the delivery of recreational programs.  A potential for benefit, in terms of efficiency of delivery of programs, would be in the enforcement area where his agency maintained a force of 27 game wardens throughout Nevada.  Although the Division of Parks had some park rangers, it appeared there was a potential for enhancement of the enforcement delivery program in this area.  Mr. Molini further described what he saw as a beneficial combination of the Parks with the Wildlife Division. 

 

One concern mentioned by Mr. Molini was an earlier proposal to eliminate the regulatory authority of the Wildlife Commission.  With the proposed Natural Resources Board to maintain a regulatory structure, Mr. Molini thought there was a regulatory mechanism to address the function.

 

Mrs. Freeman questioned Mr. Molini regarding the combination of duties of the game wardens and the rangers.  Would there be cross-training for these individuals?  Mr. Molini said there would be cross-training as some differences existed in the enforcement missions.

 

Senator Hickey asked how park maintenance would be performed.  Mr. Molini agreed this had been a long-standing problem, probably due to funding.  Senator Hickey felt the parks had been anemic in their funding.  If the two functions were combined, how would the Wildlife and Parks Division provide the maintenance?  Mr. Molini was not certain they would have the capability to enhance park maintenance presently.  Responding to Senator Hickey's question regarding the problem of solid waste and garbage disposal, Mr. Molini said he was not sure he had an  answer.

 

Referring to a history of disharmony, Mr. Dini expressed doubt the Natural Resources Board could perform all the functions proposed.  Mr. Molini replied he did not have a detailed knowledge of the other functions commissioned to the Natural Resources Board. 

 

Mr. Dini also questioned how federal monies would be kept separate from other fees.  Mr. Molini agreed it was important for statutory language to provide for fees collected from licenses and permits to be dedicated to a wildlife fund and not diverted.  A diversion of those funds jeopardized substantial federal funds. 

 

Mrs. Freeman asked when the committee would hear more about the Natural Resources Board.  Ms. Matteucci said the membership of many of the boards and commissions being combined had not been specified because they wanted to discuss it with the committee once some decisions on the concept had been made.

 

Although Ms. Matteucci said she could make no predictions at this time, she said she would be happy to discuss with Mrs. Freeman the duties and responsibilities of the four boards involved in the proposed reorganization of the Department of Natural Resources. 

 

The proposed reorganization of the Department of Transportation was reviewed by Ms. Matteucci.  This was not greatly affected by the reorganization, she said, but pointed out a recommendation to move the Weights and Measures function from the Board of Agriculture to the Department of Transportation.  Ms. Matteucci told the committee there were members of the Board of Agriculture who had expressed concerns in this area; however, they were in the process of working on the duties and responsibilities to be transferred out.  Essentially, Ms. Matteucci said, they were suggesting moving the entire Weights and Measures function to the Department of Transportation under the supposition the bulk of their work was highway related.  She said she hoped to be more specific on this later.

 

One area of significant impact, Ms. Matteucci pointed out was the transfer of data processing and telecommunications.   

 

When Mr. Dini questioned the wisdom of moving the Weights and Measures function, Ms. Matteucci agreed not all of its duties were highway related, but because many duties were highway related, the Department of Transportation appeared to be the most logical move.

 

Recalling the same subject being discussed in a Ways and Means Subcommittee on Transportation, Mr. Price said testimony indicated just 1/4 of 1 percent of the activities of the Weights and Measures Division were associated with highway related activities.  Ms. Matteucci replied they had checked with the Director of the Department of Agriculture who believed the individual supplying Mr. Price's information perhaps misunderstood the question.  Thus, they hoped to have better information by the coming week.  Mr. Price indicated he had received information from various sources and at best it was confusing.

 

Mr. Price also questioned the use of federal highway dollars and having someone in the department not doing work relating to highways.  Ms. Matteucci said Mr. Dull had indicated if the costs for the Weights and Measures program in its entirety were not covered by the fees they raised, they would have to consider raising the fees.  Thus, it was important to get accurate information.

 

Garth Dull, Director of the Department of Transportation, came forward to review the proposed reorganization.  Referring to the meeting with the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Transportation, Mr. Dull said his department had no problem with the Weights and Measures division doing highway related work.  As to the consolidation of data processing services, Mr. Dull also could see no problem as long as the same service was provided, the personnel remained where they were, the present expertise remained and present services to the data processing section and CAD (Computer Aided Design) system were maintained.  The same held true for the communications function. 

 

Mr. Dull indicated conversations with people from the Weights and Measures division had suggested they did not believe a great deal of their work related to the Department of Transportation.

 

Senator James questioned the reorganization proposal for Water Resources.  Replying, Ms. Matteucci said there was very little change except the move from the Department of Conservation to the Department of Natural Resources and the addition of the Marlette Lake program. 

 

Senator James asked what would happen to the Division of Water Planning.  In response, Ms. Matteucci said this was in the Director's office.  The Commission had originally recommended placing this function with the Division of Water Resources, but the current Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources had thought this presented a conflict.  Thus, it was moved to the Director's office.  The additions, deletions and transfers of personnel were discussed.

 

Senator James then asked Ms. Matteucci to explain the rationale for placing the Water Resources Division under the Department of Natural Resources, while maintaining a separate Colorado Commission.  By way of explanation, Ms. Matteucci said she believed when the consultants had discussed the purposes of both the Colorado Commission, Natural Resources and Water Resources, they felt the water needs of Southern Nevada and the work done by the Colorado River Commission were of such a magnitude they should be retained as a separate commission and not brought under another mega-department.  Ms. Matteucci said she was not entirely clear why they had made this recommendation, but she would be happy to follow up and get an answer back to Senator James.

 

Mr. Price indicated he was still unclear regarding the data processing function being proposed by the reorganization plan.  He asked if there would be on-site supervision of the people from other offices.  Ms. Matteucci replied the direct supervision would come from the Information Technology Services (ITS) area.  Supervisory personnel would simply report to ITS.  There was no plan to eliminate all supervisory positions in any one particular area. 

 

Mr. Marvel remained concerned that agencies receiving federal monies would violate federal guidelines for use of those funds.  Ms. Matteucci assured him the audit services were just being bought and thus the proposed absorption of data processing by ITS would be able to withstand a federal audit. 

 

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 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 25, 1993

Page:  1