MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 4, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:11 a.m., on Thursday, March 4, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. EXHIBIT A is the Meeting Agenda. EXHIBIT B is the Attendance Roster.
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
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU -- PAGE 111
Senator Shaffer, Chairman of the Legislative Commission, introduced himself. He commented regarding the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) and Nevada Legislature Interim budgets and in the front of each budget packet (see EXHIBIT C) is a letter outlining the budget review process. He stated the commission appointed a subcommittee to review and make recommendations on the budget to the Commission. The Commission then made the final determination as to what amount would be submitted to the legislature's money committees for review.
Senator Shaffer pointed out regarding 1991-93 budget, the general fund appropriations for operations were reduced by $1 million in cost-savings efforts. The $1 million has been utilized to reduce the amount of general fund money necessary to finance the 1993 Nevada legislature. He noted, additionally the LCB reverted $110,000 to the general fund from three, one-time 1991 appropriations approved by the 1991 Legislature which were for capital improvements in the Legislature and Sedway Office Buildings. The subcommittee recommended to the Legislative Commission, which concurred, the amount of general fund money to be utilized to construct the budgets should be the sum of the general fund appropriations made available for the 1991-93 budgets minus the $1 million in savings.
He stressed accordingly the budgets in EXHIBIT C are based on the reduced amounts and therefore do not provide for new employees nor upgrades for existing positions, both of which were initially requested. The LCB budgets do not include any maintenance or enhancements amounts. Furthermore, Senator Shaffer explained, due to the method of determining the amount of funding for the budgets, the money for the video conferencing system and revenue projection model had to be eliminated. The Commission, however, authorized the Director to request the money committees to reconsider funding these two functions during the upcoming biennium. He summarized the budgets are conservative and both the subcommittee and Commission recognized that priorities will need to be established in order for LCB to fulfill its major responsibilities.
Mr. John Crossley, Director of LCB, introduced himself to present some overviews on the Bureau and explained each Division Chief would present his respective budgets.
Mr. Crossley pointed out initially in the cover letter, as discussed by Senator Shaffer, LCB budgets were reduced by $1 million and in addition reverted $110,000 to the state general fund which reflected. $48,200 approved from AB826 of the Sixty-sixth session which had been approved for carpeting and some concrete for the front of the legislative building. He explained the building does require ongoing maintenance, but those funds were reverted. A total of $17,720 was reverted from SB152 of the Sixty-sixth session which was for data processing. A total of $50,000 was reverted from AB384 of the Sixty-sixth session which had been approved for the remodeling of the Sedway Office Building. He explained when the bank moved out it was LCB's desire to make the remaining portion of the building the same decor. Due to the lack of funds, the remaining space was just remodeled to make offices. He stated they turned out nicely, but the offices are not the same decor.
Mr. Crossley pointed out in the schedule included in EXHIBIT C the amounts were reduced and a total of $17,135,518 is requested which is the exact general fund appropriations listed on page 111 of the Executive Budget. He mentioned the general fund amount requested for this biennium is 5.1 percent less than originally was made available for the 1991-93 biennium and includes no new positions, upgrades, maintenance or enhancement items.
He indicated included in the budget is $791,000 in authorized money primarily used to support the legal division which is primarily revenue from the sales of publications. He remarked there is a separate budget for the High Level Radioactive Waste which amounts to $125,000 each year. This is the same amount provided in the last biennium. As Senator Shaffer mentioned, the budget does not include two new projects which had been started last session: video teleconferencing, $129,754 is to continue that operation at the present level; and $18,000 for the matching cost of legislative branch of government for revenue projection model (see EXHIBIT D). These will be presented and discussed as each budget is presented. He emphasized no cost of living or fringe benefits costs are included.
Mr. Crossley highlighted some budget statistics. Salaries represent 79 percent of the total LCB budget. Travel costs, both in and out of state including all operating divisions and the Legislative Commission, represents 1.9 percent of the LCB budget. Operating costs represent 17.6 percent and training costs are .25 percent. He stressed training is an important issue to keep staff, especially professional staff, well trained and informed.
Mr. Crossley discussed page 1 of EXHIBIT C which is the overall budget for LCB. The general fund amounts coincide with page 111 of the Executive Budget. The amounts for the last biennium do not coincide with the Budget office amounts. Mr. Crossley remarked the budget office included, which LCB tried to stop, the inclusion of the one-shot appropriation and the funds used for the cost of the 1991 session. Therefore, the figures on page one represent the actual LCB operational costs. He pointed out LCB had also requested the budget office to list each division's budget separately, but that did not occur so EXHIBIT C breaks out the divisions in more detail.
Mr. Crossley noted in expenditures, comparing the biennium, personnel costs increased 6.8 percent, travel decreased 23 percent, operating costs were reduced 5 percent, capital outlay went down 32 percent, training decreased 23 percent, and interim studies went down 13 percent.
Chairman Arberry noted a substantial reduction under interim studies and asked if sufficient funds were available in this area. Mr. Crossley replied sufficient funds were available. He explained last interim period a total of $80,000 was provided and actual costs were about $70,000 and he believed adequate services could be provided. He emphasized the statute provides if the interim studies fall short of funds, funds can be taken from the legislative fund for this purpose.
Mr. Crossley pointed out, on page 3 of EXHIBIT C, the percentage changes included a 6.2 percent increase in work program year because of savings which had to be realized through the $1 million in savings generated this biennium. He indicated the FY94 request is up 1 percent while FY95 decreases by 1.4 percent. He concluded the budget is pretty flat percentage-wise, and the general fund appropriation is down 5 percent.
Mr. Crossley stated all legislators should have received letters over the past week asking them to become members of certain committees within NCSL and CSG. Other appointments will be made by the Commission at the end of session. The budget included on pages 4-6 of EXHIBIT C represents the Legislative Commission's operating budget. He pointed out the main cost is the annual dues paid to NCSL, CSG and the Uniform Commission on State Laws. He stated LCB is assessed approximately $60,000 per year to NCSL, over $50,000 a year to CSG and $9,000 for FY94 and $9,500 for FY95 to the Uniform Commission on State Laws. He mentioned all states pay these fees. The fee for NCSL and CSG is calculated by taking half the organization's total budgets and spreading it equally among the states while the remaining half is determined by population. The Legislative Commission must provide for a number of committees and most of the travel in this budget is out-of-state to attend the national organizations. He stated the in-state travel is for the Legislative Commission, Audit Subcommittee, Building Subcommittee, and the Committee to Consult with LCB. He pointed out the Western Legislative Conference of CSG is in Nevada in 1993 so some funds for out-of-state travel is saved. He noted, in the past, when a major conference is held in Nevada, all legislators are requested to attend and historically, they have forgone salaries and the budget is built based on this assumption.
He explained the cost and operating expense of the annual audit of LCB operations is included. This audit was begun several years ago to audit the Legislative Branch of government. He noted many other states are following Nevada's lead in this area. The audit is performed by an independent auditor and it is a four-year contract. The personnel costs include the salaries of legislators who attend meetings in or out of state.
Mr. Crossley elaborated on page 6 of EXHIBIT C the costs are down in the session year because the Commission, interim committees and national committees are not attended by many legislators because they are in session.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
LEGAL DIVISION
Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, indicated the budget of the legal division is quite different in the first year of the biennium than in the second year. He explained the first and third columns and second and fourth columns of the budget document should be compared. He stated the expenditures actually drop a little in the second year of the biennium, because of the authorized expenditures previously mentioned by Mr. Crossley from publication sales.
He explained the division sells in the first year of the biennium $700,000 in publications, a large portion being the sale of NRS. The publications revenues are utilized to offset the expenditures for printing NRS and therefore reduces appropriations substantially in the first year of the biennium.
He pointed out the general fund appropriation drops about $98,000 from 1991-92 actual to 1993-94 request and about $67,000 from 1992-93 work program to 1994-95 request. The expenditures have been increased in anticipation of increased publication sales, as the market for NRS will grow due to more attorneys and more purchases. He mentioned LCB is in competition with a private publisher for NRS sales, but LCB is doing very well and increasing their market share. He expected the market share to increase this session because two cross-references were added through West Publishing Company and he believed it will be attractive to purchasers. Sales for the first year account for nearly 29 percent of the total budget.
Mr. Malkiewich emphasized this was a base budget with enhancement or maintenance items. The majority of the legal division budget is personnel costs which makes additional budget reductions quite difficult. He explained vacancies had to be left open for substantial periods of time in order to generate savings. He indicated a large portion of operating costs involve the production of NRS and other publications. Because these activities generate revenue, they cannot be cut back either.
Mr. Humke asked what the split was between the money realized by NRS sales versus other publications. Mr. Malkiewich stated NRS is the substantial majority, perhaps $600,000 of the first year's $697,000 was NRS. Of the $70,000 in the second year, approximately $40,000 was generated from NRS. He explained immediately after the legislative session ends, the Legal Division begins reprinting the new NRS and it is finished in about three months. He noted about 100 to 150 new sets are sold, but 1,700 or 1,800 reprints and replacement pages are sold to individuals who already own NRS.
Mr. Humke commented LCB has done a good job competing with the private publishers. He mentioned a firm in Reno wanted to market a computerized database of NRS and LCB may need to move in that direction to continue to compete. Mr. Malkiewich pointed out they looked in this direction a couple bienniums ago. A special subcommittee of the Commission had considered the purchase of computerized information. Placing NRS on CD-Rom had been considered but, at that time, the conclusion was the market was too small and costs were too high. Since that time, CD-Rom usage has increased drastically and will probably continue to do so. Additionally, the cost of producing material in this format has decreased. Another recommendation of the subcommittee was to monitor this in the future. Mr. Malkiewich emphasized over the coming years, there would be a shift in expenses for printing NRS with increased costs for producing the computerized format.
Mr. Humke remarked the Reno firm was looking to put the database on floppy disks as a low-cost alternative to NELIS access. Mr. Malkiewich replied LCB also permits the Legal Division to sell NRS information on computer tape for commercial resale so this would be feasible. In the future, he noted, this will be a major issue to be addressed as to the extent LCB can limit access to NRS. Currently the cost is reasonably cheap, $1,500 for private use and $7,500 for commercial use, but should LCB get into the market, the cost would increase. Part of the West Publishing Company's agreement was bartered to include cross-references throughout NRS in exchange for the computer tape. Therefore, reprints will include cross-references to WESTLAW, CJS and Digest Key Number System which is a tremendous benefit to the product considering these will also be on NELIS. He emphasized when the computer tapes are sold, the cross-references are stripped out so competitors would not have the added benefit.
Mrs. Evans commented the capital outlay and training categories decrease dramatically and asked why. Mr. Malkiewich responded the legal division anticipated the upcoming financial restraints and knew they would not be able to purchase a lot of materials. This was the one area where the division's budget could be trimmed. He noted the last budget had included purchase of some desks and other equipment. He emphasized the division acquired four offices from the Research Division when additional space in the Sedway Building became available. The offices needed to be furnished and so the division purchased the furnishings out of the 1991-92 budget. He pointed out the division has enough furnishings for all seventeen offices and now has room for two more attorneys. He stressed during session two attorneys are hired.
Mrs. Evans asked what the situation was with training. Mr. Malkiewich pointed out last session's training had been a bit of an anomaly. Most of the training money from 1991-92 was for an NCSL-sponsored event held in Florida. This program is for senior drafters, but the division sends any drafters who have been through a session. The division had previously sent drafters for the 1989 event in Indianapolis. He explained funds had been budgeted for three or four drafters to attend, but six were sent which increased the cost in the first year of the biennium.
Mrs. Evans indicated the decrease in training costs concerned her. She emphasized training is absolutely essential in the legal division due to the complex and dynamic type of work. Mr. Malkiewich pointed out another inherent problem, is few programs are available to help train bill drafters. He explained even if the bill drafters do not learn very much at the training programs, it is important to be able to meet with other bill drafters and sharing experiences is quite valuable. Mrs. Evans emphasized this is not an area where the legislature can "mark time" because they could slip behind the current trends and policies.
Mrs. Evans asked how the salaries for legal division personnel compared to other attorneys in the state system such as in courts and the Attorney General's office. She asked for a complete breakdown of comparisons on how legal division attorneys are doing vis-a-vis the other departments in state government. Mr. Malkiewich pointed out the last three times he has been in court on behalf of the Legislative branch, the attorney representing the other party had been a Deputy Attorney General, which generally receive higher salaries than employees of the legal division.
Notwithstanding, he emphasized their relations with the AG office have never been better and this had been a priority when he came to the legal division five years ago. He noted both offices represent the state and in 90 percent of the issues are on the same side, advocating the state's interests. Occasionally, the two offices end up in court because the Legislature and Executive Branch see these interests a little differently, particularly in the area of subpoenas. Mr. Malkiewich commented there is one thing the Attorney General stated which he would take exception with and that is she has the best law firm in the state. He indicated he believed the Legislature does. He emphasized it is difficult when people work as hard as they do and there is an imbalance of salaries between the two offices.
Mr. Malkiewich explained in 1989 both the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee formed subcommittees to investigate the issue of balancing salaries of public attorneys throughout the state and to come up with some recommendations based on compared work loads and responsibilities. He noted, last session, the Attorney General contended that their higher-level attorneys were undercompensated, and he concurred. He pointed out it is very difficult for the attorneys with that kind of experience and expertise to be paid the level they are and those salaries were requested to be increased. Generally, the increases were granted, although with budget reductions the Attorney General held off on implementing a large number of increases while phasing in others.
Mr. Malkiewich emphasized the authorized salary of the Assistant Attorney General is about $1,000 more than his salary which means it is also slightly higher than his Chief Deputy and Bill Drafting Advisors. Mrs. Evans suggested it would be helpful for the committee to see a breakout of salaries as a handout. She stated she was quite concerned because the legislature must continue to employ high quality people and she agreed with Mr. Malkiewich's assessment. She emphasized, if the legislature's opponents would continue to sue, good attorneys are a necessity.
Mr. Malkiewich clarified the legal division's entry level salaries are comparable to the Attorney General's office. The problem is primarily at the upper level positions and the difference is about one percent. It is not necessarily the money difference, but the impression it gives and the morale of having comparable positions receive salaries while they do not. He emphasized people with the kind of expertise and level of experience the legal division has cannot be purchased at any price in the private sector.
Mrs. Evans emphasized all LCB divisions need to stay abreast of all needs related to NELIS, the computer system, and data handling to assure all capacity, storage, and capabilities are available.
Mr. Crossley indicated a BDR has been introduced to request $132,000 in funds to keep the data processing system updated.
Mr. Dini asked how the hiring freeze affected the bill drafting function. Mr. Malkiewich insisted any reductions in bill drafting were directly a result of the lack of attorney staff and, while that was one of the reasons, it was not the entire reason. He explained when the Governor imposed a hiring freeze, it applied to LCB also, but he went to the Commission to ask what to do about attorney hiring. They realized, with session approaching, attorneys would be a necessity for bill drafting and LCB generated savings by leaving the positions open for three months before filling them. He indicated it hurt the division, but the largest impact was in the loss of experienced bill drafters as a result of the combination of work load, lack of compensation and environment.
He remarked between the end of last session and today, the legal division has lost three of their best drafters including the fastest and the most proficient, but not at the top level. He pointed out the three attorneys who have left the office each had more than two sessions of experience which is invaluable and hurt the division immensely. Additionally, the increased training, oversight, review and limited time in training impacted bill drafting.
Mrs. Williams asked about publishing NRS in computerized format, and whether demand would be enough to enable this format to be published. Mr. Crossley indicated this area would have to be researched. The appropriation was made based on continuing the present system. The computer format has been discussed, but not investigated for presentation.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the $7,500 and $5,000 charged for outside NRS publication is high enough. Mr. Malkiewich indicated a subcommittee headed by Fred Dugger had been formed to investigate other states' pricing and established comparable pricing for Nevada, but this was a few years ago. Ms. Giunchigliani asserted it may be beneficial to have Mr. Dugger relook at the numbers in order to remain in the competitive in the market.
Mr. Malkiewich mentioned this session will also be addressing the issue of public access. NRS, excluding the copyrighted annotations and West's cross-references, is the codified version of bills which is all public record and it is essential the legal division does not get to the point where it could be denying public records. He emphasized at the point where electronic communication becomes the predominant medium to public records, this issue will need to be addressed.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Crossley to provide a list, when the legislature lets RFPs for all LCB publications and printing, of how much is done in-house versus outside contractors.
Mr. Heller questioned the performance indicator on Resolutions Delivered. He asked if all bills and resolutions requested are delivered. Mr. Malkiewich replied no and that is why "delivered" is the measurement terminology utilized. He explained some bills are pulled halfway through drafting, but most bills completed are delivered unless the agency or legislator decides not to support it prior to delivery. He indicated "requests" is not a measure of the work done, it is the measure of work asked. He stated about 150 to 200 measures are requested, but not completed every session. Mr. Heller wondered if the 150 or 200 are those asked not to be delivered. Mr. Malkiewich indicated some are, but others are ones which could not be completed because session adjourns. He emphasized when the number of requests increase, prioritization occurs, and they rely on committees to indicate which bills are critical. For the most part, the BDRs which are not delivered are those which can afford to be left undone.
Mr. Heller noted the caseload was continuing to increase and no new positions were requested. He asked to have a breakout of the number of BDRs produced per bill drafter and wondered if the division would be able to handle the work load over the next biennium without increasing staff. Mr. Malkiewich replied ideally the division would like to increase staff, but he recognized in these tight economic times this was not feasible. He reiterated his concern with the bills is not as great as with the regulations. The legal division has implemented a system of limiting bill drafting requests which has resulted, after an explosion from 2300 requests in 1987 to 3000 in 1989, in about 2,500 in 1991 and this session is estimated at about the same. They began with 1,400 requests in 1991 and this session began with 1450, so he indicated they were right in line due to the BDR limitations. The regulations have jumped from 370 to 410 and reflect an over 10 percent increase in actual numbers. Mr. Malkiewich elaborated agencies are only allowed to submit regulations between June 15 of an odd-numbered year and October 1 of an even-numbered year which is 411 days. This worked out to 410 regulation requests to be completed in 411 available days.
Mr. Marvel asked of the bills and resolutions delivered, how many are not introduced. Mr. Malkiewich replied 1,500 bills and 300 resolutions were introduced of the 2,100 delivered last session. He estimated the number will be a little higher this session, but still approximately 1 in 6 do not get introduced. Mr. Marvel inquired what the cost was of the 280 bills and resolutions not introduced. Mr. Malkiewich responded it was difficult to cost out marginal expenditures because the division drafts bills anyway. Although 1 in 6 may not be introduced, the cost savings is not correlative.
Mr. Dini answered Mr. Heller's question regarding what happens to bills and resolutions. He indicated when leadership decides to sine die, everything in the backroom is delayed because appropriations much be addressed before adjournment. He stressed otherwise the session would continue indefinitely, but it is an arbitrary thing decided between the leadership of both houses where agreement is reached that the remainder of bills are not important. If there is an important bill it is pulled out and pushed through the process.
Mr. Dini indicated the biggest problem the legal division will have in the future, if nothing is done about regulations, it will be an increased work load. He noted the public is not even aware of the number of regulations being imposed and do not know about them until they are hit with another fee or regulation controlling their lives or businesses. He emphasized the number of regulations need to be brought under control and the legal division will need more staff to do so.
Mr. Price pointed out during a previous NCSL meeting in Idaho, they had completed a case going through the Supreme Court which ruled the legislature has the right not to look just at intent, but to approve or disapprove regulations proposed by agencies. He remarked in Idaho and perhaps in other states, this issue has gone to the higher court that the legislature can adopt the statute giving the Legislative Commission the right of approval and this is how Idaho got a handle on this issue.
Mr. Price stated, in regard to sine die and the pending bills, leadership usually comes to the Assemblyman who has undrafted bills and asks to have the top two pulled drafted for introduction.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
AUDIT DIVISION
Mr. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, introduced himself. He reiterated, as seen throughout the LCB budgets, the audit division is under severe restraints and the general fund appropriation is approximately $22,000 less than the last biennium's request. Basically everything included in the budget is flat. The only area increased is personnel which accounts for 88 percent of the total budget, and certain merit increases are for the staff which have not reached their top grade step. The travel expenses and capital outlay requests will remain the same as the actual 1991-92 expenditures which were down from historical levels. Travel costs are primarily for auditing in Las Vegas and rural Nevada. Operating expenditures were based on the FY92 amounts and provide for the same level in FY95. The FY94 level is slightly lower because every third year a peer review of operations is required and costs $7,500. This is an in-house quality review and will not occur again until 1994-95.
Mr. Crews pointed out the GASB dues are consistent throughout the biennium. Capital outlays remain the same and provides for some replacement of portable laptop PCs used for on-site audits. The training costs are decreased to the 1992 levels. He indicated no personnel increases are requested. Last session support staff was reduced by one position.
Mr. Marvel asked what the impact on audit capabilities will be realized due to the reorganization. Mr. Crews replied it would create some areas where the audit division will need to get in quickly, take a look and will require time to solve the problems. Some potential savings will be realized as a result of audits, but the audit division does not, unfortunately, get out to all agencies frequently which will also hamper potential savings. He reiterated he believes significant savings will come as a result of auditing after reorganization.
Mr. Crews mentioned going to the Audit subcommittee last summer and the Legislative Commission in September 1992 for approval to move into economy and efficiency audits. He indicated the division would eventually also be going into program results because the basis of these are now included as performance indicators in the Executive Budget. He emphasized this is the area the audit division will need to concentrate on and move toward in the next biennium.
Mrs. Evans commented she liked the work done on audit summaries and reformatting reports to make the information very accessible for legislators. It is concise and easy to read which assists the committee.
Mr. Heller asked, as a result of previous conversations he has had with the Audit Division, if through auditing of the agency performance indicators, they could provide some indicators which are more measurable. The Audit Division has the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of agency performance and operations. Mr. Crews concurred and noted the division has some serious concerns about many of the performance indicators included in the Executive Budget. He stated for the most part they are work load measures, not performance indicators, and questioned if that work load is directed toward accomplishing the goals of the agency. He reiterated, when the auditors are out in the agencies, they can look at this, but noted with the lack of staff, not all agencies and indicators in the budget can be addressed. The high concern areas can be reviewed and reported to the legislature both on the quality of indicators and the agency's stated goals and objectives which also are not included for review in the budget.
Mr. Crews emphasized the audit staff will need additional training on how to evaluate these criteria because the staff has been primarily a financial audit staff, but now they are evolving into performance audits. This will require different disciplines. He explained the current staff is primarily accountants, CPAs, MBAs and MPAs and, through turnover, personnel with backgrounds in other disciplines will need to be hired to help the division to focus on performance audits, indicators and economy and efficiency.
Ms. Tiffany asked if under the reorganization, Ms. Matteucci's office will be entirely responsible for internal audit controls within the departments or will the Audit Division have some of that responsibility. Mr. Crews responded a 1987 law stated the Department of Administration had the responsibility for assisting and setting guidelines and parameters for executive branch agencies to institute internal controls. The LCB Audit Division's responsibility is to report to the legislature indicating where there are shortcomings. He stated through their audits, they have reported back in the Biennial Report that nearly half the agencies audited had poor or nonexistent internal controls. Mr. Crews reiterated it is the executive branch's responsibility to develop internal controls.
Ms. Tiffany inquired if the reorganization will help the internal control situation. Mr. Crews stated his division has some concerns with eliminating control areas and control-type positions within the reorganization. In the Audit Division's opinion, supervision is always a key area and provides some assurance controls are in fact implemented, maintained, and operating as intended. If certain positions, especially key administrative positions, are eliminated there may be an impact on the quality of internal controls.
Ms. Tiffany asked if Mr. Crews would recommend internal control auditors not be removed from the agencies. Mr. Crews responded he did not believe that was the way the reorganization would be structured. He indicated the Department of Administration would be adding four new auditors, but these would not be coming from other agencies. Ms. Tiffany wondered if the four new positions will help to encourage internal control staff within the agencies. Mr. Crews emphasized the auditors would not be the answer. What the agencies would need is staff to assist in the installation of internal controls and systems. The Audit Division provides an evaluation of those agencies lacking in internal controls and reports back to the legislature. If the Department of Administration follows through after the audit reports and perhaps helps agencies install the controls, it would be a valuable service.
Mr. Crews emphasized large amounts of money are being lost in agencies because of poor management and accounting controls, but management controls are a key aspect of internal controls. Such as how is it known if the program is accomplishing what it was intended to accomplish and if the money is being spent properly. He reiterated those controls are practically nonexistent right now.
Ms. Tiffany asked if information in the Audit Division's reports could include a section similar to the budget format with goals, indicators, economic efficiencies and recommendations on organizational structure. Mr. Crews responded it would need to be evaluated. It would be beneficial. He noted when the division audits, they perform a preliminary assessment to determine the key areas with the highest risk of having problems. He explained not all functions or programs are audited within an agency. Ms. Tiffany requested these factors be included with recommendations to clean up and save funds in agencies. Mr. Crews emphasized last September the division requested direction from the Legislative Commission to perform a cost-cutting audit of the entire executive branch to determine why these internal controls have not been implemented. This is one of the Audit Divisions primary concerns, and Mr. Crews indicated the division needs to move away from agency audits and look at cost-cutting issues, not just picking agencies one by one.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
RESEARCH DIVISION
Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, indicated the research budget division is very flat, no new positions are proposed, and no enhancements and no maintenance items are recommended. He pointed out the line item under resources entitled transfer from High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLRW) committee. This was not included in the budget two years ago. He stated the procedures put in place are for a monthly billing of $1,000 to the HLRW committee for housing in the Research Division office and the related expenses. The HLRW budget will be discussed later, but he noted it is 100 percent federally funded and the research office has one and a half positions associated with the program. Research also provides utilities, copying, mailing, supplies, telephone and computer time for HLRW.
Mr. Marvel asked if $12,000 a year is enough to cover the costs for HLRW area or could more be assessed. Mr. Erickson replied it was a little low, but the exact costs had not been calculated. Mr. Marvel inquired if there were any federal restrictions on the amount of money which could be spent for this. Mr. Erickson answered no. A total of $125,000 is made available to the Legislature for the operations of the committee which includes staff support. This was regarded as a proper charge to the total program.
Mr. Crossley pointed out the Research Division had been identified as performing functions and services which were not paid for by HLRW monies. Therefore, the $1,000 fee was established as a start for repayment. The costs are being monitored to determine the accurate amount to charge. Mr. Marvel reiterated more of the total fund should be paid to the Research Division.
Mr. Erickson indicated staffing continues at 17.5 positions over the past two years. He explained the division has nine professional researchers including himself. They hold at least a master's degree and some have a doctorate or law degree or a significant level of expertise. There is an Office Manager, Technical Support person, and four secretarial positions. The remaining 2.5 positions are assigned to the legislative research library which has a distinct function within the LCB which has been in place at least 20 years.
Mr. Erickson testified out-of-state travel and training remains constant. He explained there are two types of training for staff which include skills training in the non-research area and training for newly hired researchers provided through NCSL. The out-of-state travel is the bulk of the other training which is the most important kind of training for staff. This is greater expertise in subject areas such as labor and management, industrial insurance, health care, etc. The division attempts to get training in the specific areas pertinent to interim and standing committees.
Mr. Erickson elaborated in-state travel is for travel associated with interim studies. Operating and capital outlay is similar to the past amounts and is on the low side.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
FISCAL ANALYSIS DIVISION
Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, introduced himself. He indicated, as with the other LCB divisions, the fiscal analysis division reflects a flat budget. He pointed out there is less money recommended in the coming biennium than had been approved by the 1991 legislature before the budget cuts. He stated there are 15 positions: 11 professional and 4 clerical. Mr. Stevens stated, within the eleven professional positions, Mr. Ghiggeri and himself are assigned to the Ways and Means Committee and Dan Miles and Bob Guernsey are assigned to the Senate Finance Committee. There are four program analyst positions which are shared by both committees. There is one person assigned to both Taxation Committees and one person assigned to the local government budget function.
Mr. Stevens explained on the expenditure side, most of the division's categories reflect the actual expense from FY92. Under operating costs there are some exceptions and the amount decreases due to the joint funding of the Revenue Projection Model by both Fiscal division and the Budget division in FY92.
Mr. Stevens discussed under capital outlay the $5,844 will provide for the lease of the copy machine. No other expenditures will be budgeted in either year of the biennium.
Chairman Arberry pointed out no training was budgeted. Mr. Stevens explained hard decisions had to be made when reducing $35,000 in expenditures for the current biennium. The amount reduced was less than other divisions due to the fact the Fiscal division's budget was relatively flat when approved by the 1991 session. One option taken was removing $5,000 from travel and to eliminate training funds. It was not a desired cut, but 96 percent of the budget is salary-related and in order to not reduce the number of existing positions there were few options left.
Mr. Stevens reiterated out-of-state travel is minimal and in-state travel expenses are just enough to perform the duties related to interim studies and minimal visits to state agencies during the interim period.
Mrs. Williams questioned if any of the fiscal staff were topped out. Mr. Stevens replied most of the positions within the fiscal division are topped out. Mrs. Williams asked why a five percent merit increase had not been included for the division staff as shown in the other divisions. Mr. Stevens explained most positions are based on the grade and step calculation and when positions reach to top step, there is no other opportunity other than reclassification to provide merit increases. He stated two or three positions within the fiscal division are not at step 15, the highest step, and merit increases have been budgeted for those positions.
Mr. Crossley interjected this policy on merit increases is true for all LCB divisions. No merit increases are given once a position reaches step 15.
Mr. Marvel asked if any formula had been developed on how much time the program analysts spent on Assembly matters and how much time for Senate matters and do any Senators call on the staff assigned to the Assemblymen. Mr. Stevens indicated he and Mr. Miles have discussed this issue and have tried to work out as best as possible an arrangement so that the money committees will not take more than their share of the program analyst's time. He pointed out it has worked so far this session. He emphasized it is usually later in the session where it becomes a problem, but both he and Mr. Miles have tried to assure this will not occur this session.
Ms. Tiffany inquired if a great deal of common information is shared between the Fiscal Division and the Budget Division throughout the years. Mr. Stevens replied they do communicate with the Budget Division during the interim and the two divisions cost-share on the Revenue Projection Model with both having access to the information.
Ms. Tiffany stated under operations the Budget Division went out for its own data processing system. She asked if the Fiscal Division has an online interface to the system to avoid duplication. Mr. Stevens indicated they do not have an on-line capability, but they do receive a tape of the Executive Budget from the Budget Division for input into the Fiscal Division system. Ms. Tiffany asked if there would be any cost saving by providing this information on line. Mr. Stevens replied it may facilitate
tracking through the budget process, but is not necessarily a cost saving factor.
Ms. Tiffany wondered if the budget formats in the two systems were compatible or was rekeying required. Mr. Stevens stated once the money committees resolve all the budgets and close them, the Fiscal Division produces closing sheets which outline all changes in each budget. The Budget Division then keys that information into its system and produces the actual budget.
Ms. Tiffany stated an on-line process is possible and asked if it would be encouraged. Mr. Stevens agreed it was possible and it could be investigated. He was not sure if the Budget Division would have some concerns, but it is possible.
Mrs. Evans asked, in terms of the forecasting consultant, if the Fiscal Division was satisfied this activity was being done adequately or was more help needed. She stated this was a difficult part of the Fiscal Division's responsibility. Mr. Stevens replied this was the first time a consultant was utilized. The Fiscal and Budget Divisions obtained through RFP the consultant Formetrix and he indicated he felt comfortable with the established system. He stated there was one complication as Mr. Crossley had discussed earlier. Mr. Stevens explained Fiscal had budget targets to meet like all other agencies and if the division was to continue to share the financial costs of the consultant's contract, an additional $18,000 over the biennium would need to added into the budget. The Fiscal Division had to make a decision as to whether the econometrics forecasting was more important than a position. The decision was to keep the positions and therefore these funds were removed to meet the target. However, the Legislative Commission did authorize Mr. Crossley to come back in and request the money committees consider putting this funding back.
Mrs. Evans requested the committee take a very serious look at the $18,000 expenditure. She stated she did not see how the function could not be done and it is absolutely essential it be continued to avoid crippling the operation.
Mrs. Evans voiced her concern regarding the sharing of staff and the level of work loads. She mentioned, especially, the work load having reached unrealistic levels in the Fiscal Division. She stated she personally is on the phone to the Fiscal Division constantly. As with the other LCB divisions, good staff are being lost because of work load, lack of salary increases, and unreasonable demands. She pointed out the money committees need to address these issues of work load, staffing, and compensation. She emphasized LCB hires good people, does not pay them enough and works them to death. She stressed there was work to be done on the LCB budgets.
Mrs. Williams commented, in regard to Mrs. Evans remarks, as an early riser, she thought she was the earliest riser, but she found oftentimes, before 6:00 a.m. she would go to the Fiscal Division and find both Mark and Gary working. She stressed this included weekends. She remarked this is probably true of Legal and Research as well, and she agreed with Mrs. Evans this cannot continue.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
Mr. Steve Watson, Chief Deputy Director, indicated the Administrative Budget is flat for the coming biennium. He noted on page 32 of EXHIBIT C the percentage of change for FY94 and FY95 actually is lower than FY92 actual. Merit increases are requested and travel is reduced to compensate for the salary increases. He explained the decreases in operating for the biennium concerns him. It will provide a challenge in managing the energy costs for the Legislative and Sedway Office Buildings. He stated in the last biennium the third floor of the Legislative Building had been shut down to save energy. The division will be meeting with engineers to replace lights as well as valves and other energy saving devices to meet the $125,000 cut in operating expenditures.
Mr. Watson explained $28,000 has been reduced in capital outlays primarily because of the purchase of a uniform telephone system over the last biennium which replaced the old system. Training was reduced by $2,000 which is not substantial, but training is encouraged by the Director.
Mr. Watson explained the Administrative Division is comprised of eight sections which provide the majority of behind-the-scenes services. The accounting unit is in charge of payroll, travel, accounts payable, purchasing, financial reports and has five positions. The general services unit is in charge of all mail services, supplies, copy center, purchasing, warehousing, furniture and equipment, and video conferencing. Mr. Watson explained, as Mr. Crossley had stated, a request to reevaluate the costs of the video conferencing system will be addressed later.
He stated the legislative police, with its eight-person staff, provide on-site security 24 hours a day - 7 days a week, transportation, first aid, and off-site security when the Legislature is in Las Vegas. The three Building Maintenance positions are in charge of heating, air conditioning for both the Legislature and Sedway Office Buildings, all sound and electrical systems, office repairs, construction on remodels, furniture construction, and video conferencing. He stressed he was especially proud of the remodel of the Sedway Office Building since no outside contractors were used. The Building Maintenance and Ground staff provided all services which resulted in the significant savings of over $50,000.
Grounds provides services for the legislative and Sedway Office Building grounds and the lot at the corner of Fifth and Stewart Streets acquired in 1991 with a total of four positions. This includes snow removal, vehicle maintenance, painting, remodel projects, and coordinating mall activities.
The janitorial staff of five provides full services for the legislative and Sedway buildings and the legislative portion of the parking garage. Information Systems provide the data processing services for Senate, Assembly, Legislators, LCB and staff, public and private subscribers to the NELIS system. There are six positions in this area. The Director's office is responsible for all five divisions within LCB and acts as secretary of the Legislative Commission and ex officio Fiscal Officer.
Mr. Crossley distributed information on the request for additional funds for the Video Conferencing System and Revenue Projection Model (see EXHIBIT D). He asked the $129,754 be added to the Administrative budget to continue video conferencing operations at the current level and $18,000 be added to the Fiscal Analysis Division budget to continue the Revenue Projection Model.
Mr. Crossley indicated the Legislative Commission authorized him to come before the committee and request these allocations be restored.
Mr. Spitler asked what agencies used the video conferencing equipment. Mr. Crossley indicated the Attorney General's office uses it quite frequently. Other agencies include: Welfare, Military, and Health Services. He stated he would provide the full list to the committee.
Mr. Spitler questioned if there would be any opportunity to charge-back to the agencies any costs incurred. Mr. Crossley responded the current charge-back is $25 per hour with a two-hour minimum and this has generated $6,000 dollars to date. The per hour rate covers operator costs. To cover all costs, the hour rate would need to be significantly increased.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
COMMITTEE ON HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Mr. Erickson stated federal monies have been made available to the state and specifically to the legislature for the operation of this committee. Operations include travel and salaries for committee members when investigating issues relating to the proposed high-level nuclear waste dump and for 1.5 staff positions which include a senior research analyst and a half-time secretary. The amount requested and expected to be made available by the federal government again is $125,000 per year.
Mr. Spitler questioned what activities conducted by the committee are different from what is performed by the Office of Nuclear Projects. Mr. Erickson indicated this is a legislative oversight committee made up of members from both houses. Mr. Price clarified the high-level waste committee is divided into several subcommittees and there are meetings on Yucca Mountain at various times. He stated the Technical Review subcommittee he serves on monitors all meetings held on Yucca Mountain to learn as much as feasible about the various subjects. He indicated the committee had visited quite a few storage facilities and the nuclear plants which have temporary storage of waste material. The main purpose of the committee is an ongoing monitoring process in preparation for the eventual reception of waste at Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Spitler restated the question of what Bob Loux's office does different from this Committee. Mr. Price stated Mr. Loux or his assistant are at some of the meetings. The Office of Nuclear Projects' position is adversarial to the project whereas the committee is a neutral and information-gathering.
Mr. Spitler requested a letter of clarification from Mr. Erickson on the specific differences between the two. Mr. Erickson indicated he would provide it.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
NEVADA LEGISLATURE INTERIM -- EXHIBIT E
Mrs. Mouryne Landing, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, introduced herself and Mrs. Jan Thomas, Secretary of the Senate. She stated the budget is based on the formula presented to the committee by Senator Shaffer. The requested budget is one percent less than the budget authorized by the 1991 Legislature.
She pointed out the proposed budget included no new positions, inflationary factors or provisions for salary increases. The budget includes three positions: Jan, herself and a shared secretary. The secretary has been shared for ten years during the interim period between Legislative sessions. She emphasized the staff decrease from 3 to 2.5 is because during session the secretary moves to the Assembly side as the minute clerk.
Mrs. Landing indicated the budget is essentially flat. There are a few maintenance items as a result of not using all in-state travel funds in the past. In-state travel allows staff to travel to Las Vegas for any subcommittee or interim committees. She stated the operating costs have been increased slightly and capital outlay would provide upgrading of copying equipment. The lease/purchase agreement was completed and had intended to upgrade the five-year old equipment. The delay was because of lack of funding. A total of $600 is also included for training.
Mrs. Landing indicated on the maintenance item the first two lines should be deleted. They were based on the original budget and no 4 percent inflation or out-of-state maintenance is included.
Mrs. Evans indicated the questions and issues regarding work load, staffing and compensation which had been addressed to Mr. Crossley and the LCB staff also apply to Mrs. Landing and Mrs. Thomas' areas also. Mrs. Evans requested Mrs. Landing to submit an analysis of her area's situation in this regard and if Mrs. Landing had any concerns in terms of travel needs. Mrs. Landing responded she would provide a list of tentative meeting she and Mrs. Thomas would be attending during the next biennium.
Mrs. Landing explained both she and Mrs. Thomas are very active in the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries. She stated she is on the committee for AOL and a member of the Executive Committee for NCSL. In the past, they have been authorized to take their two assistants to the annual meeting. Regarding support staff, as indicated, a secretary is shared and they could certainly each use a secretary in the interim period. She stressed they did not request an additional position because of the budget restraints.
DAIRY CONTROL -- PAGE 475
Mr. William X. Smith, Executive Director, introduced himself and Jacqueline Burris, Management Analyst and Senior Accountant with the agency. He stated they are in total agreement with the budget. He explained the Dairy Commission is primarily involved in the economics of the Dairy Industry. The commission ensures that farmers are paid properly and adequately and the products sold within the state all receive state approval through consumer health protection services. The commission audits compliance, accounts receivable, remittance, and costs to assure they are fair and reasonable. The staff consists of fourteen people with two positions currently vacant.
Mr. Smith pointed out the staff is primarily auditors and field investigators in Las Vegas and Reno. The agency is self-funded with revenues from assessments on dairy products. He indicated it was very difficult to develop a budget two years in advance. If something was to occur to the dairy products such as what occurred with Jack In The Box recently, it could have a grave impact.
He stated the commission has always stayed within its budget and has projected very accurately over time. Mr. Smith stated the goal or mission under the law is to assure an adequate supply of fresh dairy products at fair and reasonable prices. The commission sets a minimum retail price, but they cannot tell stores what the maximum price should be because that, under federal law, is price setting.
Ms. Burris indicated the base budget is slightly higher compared to FY1992 and the increase is due to the hiring of a new auditor and investigator. There is some increase in in-state travel for the two new positions. The enhancements include computer upgrades for both Reno and Las Vegas based on a recommendation of the Department of Data Processing. She stated the hardware cost estimated at $7,250, software at $4,450 and consulting and training at $2,300. She pointed out the FAX equipment for $3,500 will provide a machine in both Reno and Las Vegas. This machine will utilize regular paper versus thermal paper which accounts for the higher cost, but long-term operating costs will be less.
Mr. Arberry asked if training will be provided with the computer equipment purchases. Ms. Burris replied $2,300 is included for training. The second year training costs would be $1,500.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Commission's data processing system would be able to interface with state equipment. Ms. Burris stated it would not, but it would be capable of it at a later date if necessary.
Ms. Burris concluded the last enhancement item is for travel to the International Association of Milk Control Agencies meeting because it will be held in New Brunswick in FY95 with higher costs incurred.
Mr. Marvel noted the assessments on yogurt and ice cream were reduced and asked what prompted this action. Mr. Smith pointed out the 1991 legislature approved two new positions and two staff members left leaving four positions vacant at the time of the hiring freeze. He reiterated the monies are industry moneys and since from January 1, 1992 through April 30, 1992 the assessment on milk was eliminated. He stressed he could not have the positions so he did not need the money which had been the only reason in requesting the 1991 Legislature for the increase in butter, yogurt and cottage cheese assessments.
He stated this increase was not implemented either from June 30, 1991 until January 1, 1993 when it became apparent those positions would be filled. For the four months, no collection on assessments on milk reduced the income and the ice cream assessment was reduced from 4 cents to 2 cents per gallon. This was done because the funds were not needed.
Chairman Arberry asked how the reorganization will affect this budget. Mr. Smith stated they have been told the commission will be placed as a subcommittee under the Board of Agriculture in an advisory capacity. He stressed his concern this commission remain regulatory because regulation is needed in the dairy industry, particularly in light of the competition from out of state. He explained Nevada has three plants: Model Dairy in Reno, Anderson Dairy in Las Vegas, and Valley Dairy in Yerington. These plants deal solely in dairy products. More milk comes in from out of state than is produced in Nevada plants. Additionally, each grocery chain is bringing in their own brand of milk and could charge a greatly reduced price. State dairy plants cannot compete with the commission's regulation of minimum pricing. He noted the commission has been reassured by Ms. Matteucci they will remain regulatory in spite of the advisory notation.
Mr. Thorne clarified the regulatory authority of the Dairy Commission will carry forward with it as it is combined with the Board of Agriculture. Chairman Arberry asked if this is the case, why does it need to be combined. Mr. Thorne responded the reorganization is looking to combine boards with similar functions. There is a definite relationship between the agricultural functions and dairy functions.
Mr. Price commented twenty years ago he had worked on the reorganization and formation of the dairy commission. He inquired if a federal marketing order was still in place. Mr. Smith responded there is no federal marketing order in Northern Nevada any longer, but the Great Basin and Las Vegas do have one. California is the only state which does not have some type of federal marketing order. Mr. Price noted if an unregulated situation occurred, the state would be at the mercy of the large companies who could then run prices up without any limit.
Mr. Price pointed out in the original formation of the commission people with specific talents were appointed on the commission. It was not comprised solely of agriculture people. If the two boards are combined would the makeup of the commission remain the same. Mr. Thorne responded the board functions would be combined. Whether the board itself is expanded by the addition of the Dairy Commissioners or there would be a revised make up of the board to continue the level of expertise has not yet been determined.
Ms. Matteucci stated the proposal for the combination of Board of Agriculture and the Dairy Commission is the commission's expertise would be retained and would displace members of the Board of Agriculture. The remaining composition will be evaluated for possible additions from the agricultural community. The Dairy Commission would also retain its regulatory role. Other boards will also be combined into the Board of Agriculture: Predatory Animal and Rodent Control and the Beef Council. She indicated there is a large degree of overlap between all these boards.
Mr. Price asked is it anticipated with the actual BDR available, the total Board of Agriculture would be regulatory or just the Dairy Commission area. He indicated he did not see the clear line defined. Ms. Matteucci stated the three members of the Dairy commission will constitute the decision, regulatory piece of the Board of Agriculture.
Chairman Arberry pointed out the handout provided by Ms. Matteucci's office lists the Dairy Commission as advisory. He asked if the reorganization bill will reflect the regulatory status. She explained the advisory was included semantically in relation to budgetary control and appointment of executive directors. It was never the budget office's intent to make the commission's duties advisory.
Mr. Marvel noted the cost recovery recommended is quite a bit lower for the next biennium than it has been previously. Ms. Matteucci stated she had provided the fiscal division with the backup on the cost allocation recovery. She noted until this last biennium the legislative auditor refused to provide the audit information so the budget office could include the recovery amount for reallocation through the general fund. She indicated the auditor believed there was some conflict. Ms. Matteucci stated the disagreement was resolved and the audit reports were provided resulting in some audit costs to agencies.
Mr. Marvel voiced his concern about how many boards will be rolled into the Board of Agriculture. He stated the Beef Council has a separate function: beef promotion only. Ms. Matteucci stressed the purpose of reorganization is to bring like groups together. Therefore, the Board of Agriculture becomes a bureau of the Industry Development Division. The groups whose function are promotional toward particular industries are being brought together to coordinate activities. Mr. Marvel stated he wanted to have each industry spend its money how they wanted it to be spent. Ms. Matteucci responded there is no intent to commingle monies.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the sheep industry does not talk to the beef industry and this is the rationale for rolling all the industries together on the same board. Ms. Matteucci indicated over the years everyone has separated into their subsections of various industries.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the current Agricultural Board has its own Attorney General whereas the Dairy Commission is permitted to hire its own outside attorney. In the merging of the boards, she asked if the outside attorney would then be removed. Ms. Matteucci stated the budget as presented does not have the outside attorney removed. She stated the Dairy commission has statutory authority for outside counsel. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out this was a debate from last session and if consolidation is the goal this issue should be addressed again.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Matteucci to clarify the differences between administrative support versus liaison versus advisory status. Ms. Matteucci stated she will provide the tentative definitions her office has formulated. Theoretically, liaison would be a larger agency capable of supporting itself such as the Pharmacy board. Administrative support would be the smaller occupational licensing boards which need more administrative help than the larger boards.
Mr. Humke asked how a Slotting Fee noted under performance indicators would be defined. Mr. Smith replied there is only so much space on a grocery store shelf and the Dairy commission has found some dairy distributors are willing to pay for specific shelf space in the stores. That cost is added to the milk cost and therefore passed on to the consumer. The Dairy Commission monitors this practice very closely through depositions and invoice audits to assure all discounts are filed with the Commission and no one is buying shelf space at the detriment of another distributor.
Mr. Humke asked what statute or regulation prohibits this practice. Mr. Smith indicated there is a statute which refers to unfair business practices and the commission has interpreted it to include slotting fees, illegal discounts, etc.
Chairman Arberry asked for public testimony.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President for Nevada Farm Bureau, shared his concerns regarding the Dairy Commission. He stated the reason is in looking at combining the commission with the Agriculture Board, none of the three commission members are dairy producers themselves. Their expertise is finance, economics and accounting. He indicated there is a feeling by taking the commission and incorporating it with agriculture the bases are covered from a dairy interest standpoint, but currently there is a designated dairy farmer position on the board of Agriculture.
Mr. Busselman pointed out they have been trying to fill that position because Mr. Jack White has asked to be retired from the board. In contacts with the Governor's office to fill this position, they have been told to wait until after reorganization. They feel the assumption of the Governor is by including the Dairy Commission the dairy interests on the board will be fulfilled regardless that none of the three commissioners is a dairyman.
Mr. Busselman stressed from that perspective the Dairy Commission's integrity should be maintained separate from the board. If the purpose is to have all the industries talking, it is not necessary because they already do. He noted they are a very unified industry in promoting cooperativity. The specialization which takes place is based on function. He reiterated the evolution to separate councils or commissions for each industry was on purpose and he would like to see it remain as such.
Mr. Pete Olson, Dairyman, introduced himself. He stated he is the elected representative for Northern Nevada Dairymen. He remarked he reenforces Mr. Busselman's comments. Mr. Olson stressed from a dairyman's perspective, keeping the Dairy Commission as a separate entity is the only thing that makes sense. Since none of the commissioners is a dairyman and would not have the same abilities a dairyman would have on the Agriculture board, he did not see there would be any cost savings or shared interests or any benefits for the dairy industry.
Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on this budget closed.
Chairman Arberry requested the committee consider the introduction of BDR No. 671. A two-thirds majority was present as required for a committee introduction.
* * * * *
MR. HUMKE MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR No. 671.
MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
* * * * *
Chairman Arberry requested the committee consider the introduction of BDR No. S-1730.
MR. HUMKE MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR No. S-1730.
MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Marvel asked what the supplemental appropriation would be. Chairman Arberry stated $63,000 in one-shot.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
* * * * *
Chairman Arberry requested the committee consider the introduction of BDR No. 34-804.
MR. HUMKE MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR No. 34-804.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
* * * * *
Mr. Price explained the legislature had previously helped supplement the special Olympics and asked if it would be possible for the committee to request a BDR.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Kerin E. Putnam
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
March 4, 1993
Page 1