MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 30, 1993

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 4:48 p.m., on Wednesday, June 30, 1993, at his desk on the Assembly Floor of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. 

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

      Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Vonne Chowning

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani

      Mr. Dean A. Heller

      Mr. David E. Humke

      Mr. John W. Marvel

      Mr. Richard Perkins

      Mr. Robert E. Price

      Ms. Sandra Tiffany

      Mrs. Myrna T. Williams

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

      Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst

     

 

 

 

SENATE BILL 568   Authorizes expenditures by agencies of state government.

 

Chairman Arberry requested a motion on SB 568.

 

      * * * * *

 

      MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS ON SB 568.

 

      MRS. WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

 

      * * * * *

 

SENATE BILL 569   Provides financial support for state school system.

 

Chairman Arberry called for a motion on SB 569.

 

      * * * * *

 

      MR. HUMKE MOVED DO PASS SB 569.

 

      MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE.

 

      * * * * *

 

SENATE BILL 571   Establishes maximum allowed salaries for employees in unclassified service of state and for certain other employees in classified service of state.

 

As the committee wished to discuss SB 571 more at length, Chairman Arberry adjourned the floor meeting and the committee reconvened in Room 352 of the legislative building.

 

Chairman Arberry stated he appreciated the committee agreeing to discuss this bill in more detail in the committee room.  He understood there were some problems and asked Mr. Stevens to explain the bill more thoroughly.

 

Mr. Stevens remarked SB 571 was the unclassified pay bill.   There were some concerns expressed on the floor regarding the salary levels.  Due to the reorganization, the governor requested that department heads be provided with a salary cap of $80,950.  The unclassified subcommittees on both the senate and assembly sides were initially reluctant to do so, but ultimately decided to recommend that salary level for some of the directors.  For other director positions, a salary level of $68,000 was recommended.  This would result in two different salary levels for department directors.  Mr. Stevens referred to SB 571, page 3, where the director of the Department of Administration and the Director of Business and Industry were among those whose salary would be at the $80,950 level.  The director of the Department of Information Services and the director of the Department of Museums, Library and Arts would be among those who earned $68,000.

 

The other major difference, Mr. Stevens pointed out, the insurance fraud investigators' salaries were brought up to the salary level of the State Industrial Insurance System investigators.  Other than some new positions added to the budget, the only other salary increases were in the courts, a recommendation of the court subcommittee that the attorneys' salaries should be increased but not to the level of deputy attorneys general.  In addition, the other salary raise was for the executive director of the Athletic Commission.  The subcommittee recommended a salary of $53,000 for that position because of recruiting difficulties.  Mr. Stevens stated these increases were the only ones he could recall in the unclassified service.

 

Mrs. Williams pointed out her concern was not with the salaries, she recognized the need for increases.  After speaking with several department directors, as a result of the unclassified pay bill, a situation was in existence where chiefs were making higher salaries than the executive deputy directors.  She had concern that serious moral problems were being created.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani agreed and asked for the rationale.  Mrs. Williams understood in one particular situation, the unclassified employees were raised to the same rank and step.  When that level playing field of the same rank and step was reached by the employees, some chiefs were making more money than their supervisors. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a reason why the supervisors' salaries were not adjusted.  Chairman Arberry replied when this issue had been discussed before the bill was written, it had been decided there would be no evaluation of pay at this time of the session.  This was an issue which should have been discussed at the beginning of session.  To attempt to reevaluate everyone's salary at this stage would take a considerable amount of time and would have a snowball effect.  It had been decided at the time to go with the governor's recommendation, do a study of the issue during the interim and then rectify the problem next session. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani maintained the administration knew this was a problem.  Chairman Arberry responded that was correct.  The administration realized there was a problem long before the legislative body was aware.  To attempt to make adjustments at this late date was not feasible.  Ms. Giunchigliani insisted that was part of the problem, to have this bill come out at the very end of the session, so there was nothing to be done but react vocally.  There should no increases for any employees while the study was underway.  Chairman Arberry stated he did not want to make any changes to the bill.

 

Mr. Price pointed out the inequities could be easily pinpointed and he suggested those could be taken care of.  He felt a big issue was being made out of a matter which could be easily corrected.  Because the administration did not take proper business practices into consideration, that was no reason to leave the employees with a feeling of inequality for two years.  One of Mr. Price's greatest concerns was that Nevada had one of the lowest paid labor commissioners in the nation.

 

Mr. Dini pointed out the legislature had been under fire last session when the unclassified salary bill was passed giving many employees raises.  The governor did not allow those raises to go into effect.  SB 571 stated the "cap" of the salary, not what each employee would be earning.  The governor was not obliged to give salaries as high as stated in the bill.  There had been negotiations of $65,000-$75,000, top.  A few salaries would have remained at a higher level.  However, altogether, there were only nine positions whose salaries would be affected.  Mr. Dini declared a monster had been created with this issue over a period of years.  He noted the county officials had not been given a raise this session.  The chief deputies of every elected official in the counties were getting more money than the elected officials throughout the state.  The senate Government Affairs Committee did not feel it was appropriate the county elected officials should get a raise until state employees received one.  Mr. Dini felt this was the best the legislature could do now, neither the administration nor the senate had appetite to change the bill.  A run could be made to change the bill, but it was a result of the reorganization plan.  He hoped the higher salaries would be high enough to attract the right people for the job.  It was not out of line as far as total cost, and although some people were being left out, there was not the time nor ability to convince the senate to change the bill.  He urged the committee to adopt the bill.

 

Mr. Perkins inquired if this was session law or was the bill placed in the Nevada Revised Statutes.  Mr. Stevens replied it was session law.

 

Mr. Spitler inquired what agency or personnel was making an issue of this pay bill, he did not believe it was the senate.  He suggested a trailer bill recommending a three percent increase might be applicable, to be paid out of vacancy savings.  Chairman Arberry pointed out once the bill was opened for consideration, everyone would want a raise.  He asked where the line should be drawn.  Even though there were some employees being shortchanged, the chairman realized it was not fair, but at the same time, when should it stop.

 

Mr. Heller remarked he appreciated all that had been said, but he remembered the unclassified pay bill from last session and had found it unpalatable.  He felt many members of the assembly had been deceived by a question asked during the general session which specifically asked whether unclassified employees received pay raises.  If the classified employees were to receive a four percent increase, would the unclassified employees also receive raises.  The answer given by the former chairman of Assembly Ways and Means was the unclassified employees would not receive a pay increase.  Mr. Heller felt that was an incorrect statement and was why the pay bill was passed.  It was bad public policy for classified employees not to receive a raise when their supervisors and agency heads did.  Mr. Heller praised the administration for their belt tightening and cuts last session.  The problem was, though, not everyone was required to make those cuts.  Some of the unclassified employees received very high increases, as much as 30-35 percent.  With that in mind, Mr. Heller stated he would not vote for SB 571 in its present form.

 

Mr. Marvel pointed out the salaries listed in the bill were not the actual salaries, but what had been authorized.  Mr. Stevens stated that was correct, the maximum allowable salary was listed.  Some positions were at that maximum level, some were not.  It was the responsibility of the appointing authority to actually set the salary of the individual.

 

Mr. Dini asked how many people would be affected by these salary changes.  He was aware there were nine department heads at the maximum level of $80,950.  Mr. Stevens replied perhaps 20 people would be affected.  Mr. Dini emphasized the state salaries were lower than those paid in Clark County and the raises were necessary in order to attract top people.

 

Mrs. Williams reiterated her problem was not with the salaries.  For too long, the state had overlooked the fact that in order to attract the brightest and best, the state must be able to compete on equal ground.  However, the problem as Mrs. Williams saw it was the difference between the salaries of a chief and a deputy and the deputy making more money than the chief.  She asked if it would be possible to prepare a trailer bill to authorize the chief to make three percent more than his deputy.  She felt good people would be lost from state government as a result of the salary inequities.

 

Chairman Arberry acknowledged he understood the problem.  He realized the issue before the committee was not only raising the chiefs' salaries to $80,000, but the trickle down effect which would involve all state employees.  Mrs. Williams restated the problem was the salary inequities.  Some department directors had expressed concern they would lose employees in chief's positions because their deputies would be making more money. 

 

Mr. Price remarked there had been a study some years ago on classifications, job descriptions and salaries.  During this session, Mr. Price had looked more into the salary issue and felt the state had much to learn.  He felt one of the reasons Clark County had higher paying jobs was their collective bargaining.

 

Chairman Arberry stated he understood some of the members had been approached by the directors of some agencies about this issue.  He emphasized he did not appreciate the agency heads coming to the committee members attempting to sabotage the bill.  The agency heads understood the dilemma faced by the legislators and in fact knew about it before the legislature convened.  He felt this issue should have been brought before the committee at the beginning of the session.  The agency heads have waited until this late date in the session to bring this issue to a head.

 

Mr. Price pointed out he had been aware of this issue throughout the session and had raised the point months ago.  He stated he had been told the issue would be resolved with the unclassified pay bill.  Chairman Arberry remarked Mr. Price may be correct, but the issue the chairman was concerned with was the agency heads not expressing their concerns to him until the last minute. 

 

Mr. Perkins asked if one of the justifications for creating a larger salary range for department heads through reorganization was due to the increased size of departments and more responsibility.  Chairman Arberry replied affirmatively.  Mr. Perkins pointed out the pay increases would not necessarily be for the same job, but an enlarging of the responsibility of the position.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated her concern was that no one else was getting a raise.  In addition, the committee was forced to react to a poorly reorganized budget.  It was time to change the way the legislature did business.  However, she agreed management was not being paid enough, in fact most state workers were not paid enough.  She emphasized by moving the bill out of committee with a do pass vote was no way to solve the problem.

 

Chairman Arberry remarked Ms. Giunchigliani's concerns were well taken and he agreed.  He felt the employees were not paid an adequate salary, but to try on June 30th to correct the problem was not a reality.

 

Mrs. Williams stated she had not intended to open a can of worms with her concerns over this bill and she recognized the constraints faced by the committee.  Nevertheless, there must be something which could be done to bring about some equity to the problem.  Possibly, Mr. Spitler's suggestion of a trailer bill could be discussed.

 

Mr. Dini called attention to the fact the bill must be signed into law by midnight tonight as it was part of the budget.

 

Chairman Arberry agreed not everything had gone as well as it could this session, but nothing was perfect.  However, something must be done today.  The chairman asked Mr. Dini to make a motion.

 

      * * * * *

 

      MR. DINI MOVED DO PASS SB 571.

 

      MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Chowning stressed although she was new to the Ways and Means Committee this session, she was offended by the last minute decisions the committee was forced to make and considerations being given to the senate.  She asked what message was being sent and how it would be different next session.  Employees were being told they would have to live with this inequitable pay situation because the committee had been forced into a box at the last minute.

 

Mr. Humke concurred with Mr. Heller.  Two years ago, the committee had been somewhat "scammed" by the effects of the bill by the previous chairman.  He did not agree with the bill, the average worker was not getting any pay increase.   Mr. Humke stated the governor was on notice regarding this issue.  He hoped the members of the committee would discuss this issue of pay increases and the fact there was a gun to their heads.  No one liked the outcome and he reminded the committee this was what they were elected to do.

 

Mr. Dini pointed out this bill was part of the whole budget.  If the committee should decide not to vote on the bill, a continuing resolution could be approved.  However, Mr. Dini did not feel this should be done as it had never been done in the history of the state.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE WITH MR. PRICE, MRS. CHOWNING, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI AND MR. HELLER VOTING NO.  MRS. WILLIAMS ABSTAINED.

 

      * * * * *

 

Mr. Spitler stressed he still felt even with the passage of this bill, the issue could be somewhat addressed by a letter of intent.  In a situation where deputies earned more than chiefs, a three percent adjustment may be awarded through vacancy savings.  He felt this would not be inappropriate.  It could be handled though vacancy savings, and it would attempt to solve the problems as identified this afternoon.  Chairman Arberry said the point was well taken and he would discuss the matter with Senator Raggio.

 

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 5:33 p.m.

 

 

                                          Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

      ______________________________

                                          Reba Coombs, Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

June 30, 1993

Page 1