MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 26, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, March 26, 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
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE - PAGE 109
Guy Shipler, Chairman, Judicial Discipline explained the Commission on Judicial Discipline has exclusive jurisdiction over the censure, removal and involuntary retirement of justices of the peace, municipal and district court judges and Supreme Court justices. Mr. Shipler commented the seven member Commission was composed of two judges or justices appointed by the Supreme Court, two members of the State Bar appointed by its board of governors and three members, who were not members of the legal profession, appointed by the Governor. Mr. Shipler explained the Commission had designed a grievance system which would protect the reputation of both judge and complainant. The grievance process consisted of three progressive levels of disciplinary action: (1) a confidential investigation of the complaint; (2) confidential probable cause hearing which determined the seriousness of the charge; and (3) public hearing where the Commission could dismiss the complaint, censure the judge, remove the judge from the bench, or force the judge to resign because of mental or physical disability. Mr. Shipler explained because of increased population and anti-judiciary sentiment the Commission's caseload had increased substantially. Subsequently the Commission had to rely on the Attorney General's office to perform investigations which were formerly performed by members of the Commission.
Brooke Nielsen explained she had outlined the duties associated with the increased investigations performed by the Attorney General's office (Exhibit E). Ms. Nielsen commented the $5,000 enhancement to the Commission's budget would be used to pay the travel, per diem, and other costs associated with investigating complaints. Ms. Nielsen pointed out the Attorney General's office did not charge attorney time to the Commission because it was a General Fund agency. Ms. Nielsen stated the Attorney General's office had dedicated approximately 900 hours of attorney time and approximately 700 hours of investigator time to the Commission over the last year.
Mr. Shipler commented the increased caseload compelled the Commission to meet more often. Mr. Shipler stated the Commission used telephone conferencing to avoid the costs associated with the travel and other expenses related to additional meetings.
Mr. Spitler asked if the request for $5,000 in additional funding would be used for anything other than Attorney General fees. Eve Miceli King, Administrator, Commission on Judicial Discipline explained the increase would be used for Attorney General expenses only.
Mr. Spitler asked if the FY 93 out-of-state travel category had been eliminated during the budget cuts. Ms. King explained she would research the actual expenditures associated with in-state and out-of-state travel over the last biennium and submit the findings to the committee. Mr. Spitler requested she also include information about in-state and out-of-state travel allocation for the next biennium.
Mr. Spitler asked the average number of complaints filed each year. Mr. Shipler explained approximately 114 informal complaints were filed (Exhibit C).
Mr. Spitler asked if the Commission had jurisdiction over judges who made inappropriate rulings. Tony Clark, Member, Commission on Judicial Discipline, explained the Commission had jurisdiction over judges who violated canons on judicial conduct. He stated any other violation would have to be handled through the judicial appeals process.
Mr. Spitler asked how the general public was educated about the existence of the Commission. Mr. Shipler explained the Commission's ability to educate the public had been severely impaired by the constitutional requirement for confidentiality. Mr. Shipler commented the Commission was currently exploring advertising options. He commented the election campaign between Judge Shearing and Judge Thompson had generated numerous complaints. The Commission requested the two judges submit public apologies which were subsequently published in the newspapers. Mr. Shipler explained this was an example of informal censure which promoted public awareness about the Commission.
Mrs. Evans commented the constitutional requirement for a chairman who was not a member of the legal profession was excellent because the subject of judicial discipline was a very delicate matter. Mrs. Evans asked the agency representative to define informal reprimand. Mr. Shipler explained the constitution did not specifically address the informal reprimand. He stated the Commission based reprimands on an interpretation of judicial rules from the Supreme Court on judicial conduct. Ms. Neilsen stated a complaint which did not rise to merit a probable cause hearing was handled by a verbal or written warning from the Commission. Mrs. Evans asked at what point the proceedings became public. Mr. Clark stated it could become public: (1) through the standard hearings process from investigation, to probable cause hearing and finally a public hearing; or (2) if a leak of information occurred.
Mrs. Evans asked the last time a judge in Nevada had been censured. Mr. Shipler explained the Commission was indirectly responsible for the early retirement of many judges. He explained when evidence was found which would result in a public hearing the Commission allowed judges to choose retirement. Mr. Clark interjected letters of censure issued to judges contained a probationary period. The probation would state if the judge continued the inappropriate behavior a public hearing would be held.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented additional funding for the Commission may be appropriate because of the increased investigations caseload. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the Commission produce an annual report which could be used as a source of information for the public. Mr. Shipler interjected the Commission had discussed expanding the minutes from the meetings, which would exclude the names of the judges, to distribute them to judges.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted 114 informal complaints were heard and 43 complaints were acted upon. She asked the results of the remaining complaints. Ms. Neilsen explained the remaining complaints were outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Nielsen to provide information about the jurisdiction and the code of judicial conduct followed by the Commission.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission and the Judicial Discipline Commission overlapped. Mr. Shipler explained only matters of judicial conduct came before the Commission.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why an informal reprimand was not made public. Mr. Shipler commented legislation was pending which would enable the Commission to impose fines and suspend judges for misconduct. Mr. Shipler suggested fines and suspension would be public information.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Commission's jurisdiction included accusations of sexual harassment. Ms. Neilsen explained sexual harassment was within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Commission could initiate a complaint. Mr. Shipler replied the Commission could initiate complaints but was hesitant to do so.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the complainant was notified of the status of the proceedings. Ms. Neilsen explained most of the complainants were notified of the proceedings. Ms. Giunchigliani asked the general time line of proceedings. Ms. Neilsen replied approximately three to six months were required to investigate and determine probable cause. Mr. Clark interjected the judge was notified of a complaint if the investigation revealed probable cause.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if an individual was disbarred in another state could they practice in Nevada. Mr. Clark commented the allegation would be handled by the State Bar Association of Nevada.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the agency representative to submit a revised budget request which would include supplementary funding due to the additional caseload being experienced.
Mrs. Williams asked if a judge could legally overturn a jury's verdict. Mr. Clark commented the judge's actions were unusual but legal and the Supreme Court would here the appeal. Mrs. Williams was concerned the judges actions made the judicial branch of government appear to hold itself above the law. Mrs. Williams asked if a judge who disregarded federal and state law would appear before the Commission. Ms. Neilsen explained only in the most outrageous case would the judge be called before the Commission. Most often the case would go through the judicial appeals process. Mrs. Williams commented not everyone could afford to appeal cases. Mrs. Williams asked how many public hearings had been held over the existence of the Commission. Mr. Shipler replied approximately two or three had been held. He commented most of the complaints were resolved prior to public hearing through resignation or not running for reelection. Mrs. Williams commented if the Legislature did not follow the law they would be skewered by the public. Mrs. Williams asserted having a different standard for judges was not in the best interest of the people of this state. Mrs. Williams asked the Commission to recommend legislation to correct the situation.
Ms. King explained Exhibit D itemized the use of a $5,000 allocation for the automation of the Commission office including computer equipment, fax machine and a recording device.
Mr. Humke asked how often the Commission had probable cause hearings. Ms. Neilsen stated approximately three or four times annually. Mr. Humke suggested the Legislative recording equipment and facility be utilized for the probable cause hearings. Ms. Neilsen commented the rules required an accurate recording of the probable cause hearing. Mr. Humke questioned the validity of the recording equipment request.
Mr. Price asked if the Commission conducted any probable cause hearings in the rural areas. Mr. Shipler commented because of the budget limitations, hearings were normally held in the Las Vegas and Reno areas.
NEVADA BEEF COUNCIL - PAGE 575
Tammy Wright, Management Assistant, Nevada Beef Council, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit F), which explained Nevada Beef Council's opposition to the proposed reorganization. She explained in order for the Beef Commission to continue to participate in national Beef Promotion and Research Board it had to be certified as a "Qualified State Beef Council." In order to qualify the Nevada Beef Council must be a beef promotion entity authorized by state statute and receive assessments or contributions from producers to conduct beef promotion, research and consumer information. Ms. Wright explained if the Nevada Beef Council was consolidated into the Board of Agriculture it would no longer qualify as a State Certified Beef Council. Subsequently the Beef Council would lose all access to checkoff funding and assessments. She explained the Nevada producers would lose state viability and voting rights at the national level.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Stephanie D. Licht, Board of Sheep Commissioners, stated she was opposed to the proposed consolidation of the Beef Council, Sheep Commission and the Junior Livestock Rodeo under the Board of Agriculture. Ms. Licht explained the Nevada Beef Council was a federally mandated program, the Sheep Commission was self funded and the Junior Livestock Rodeo was a General Fund agency. Ms. Licht asserted she had attempted to contact the administration on several occasions to explain her position with little success.
Ms. Licht commented on the amount of the cost allocation assessment for the Beef Council, $2,096 and Sheep Commission, $3,873 (Exhibit G).
Ms. Licht cited an article in the Elko Daily Free Press (Exhibit H) which commented on the impacts of the proposed reorganization on the agricultural industry. Ms. Licht explained the reorganization would remove the regulatory authority of the Beef Council.
Ms. Licht commented the leaders of the agricultural industry met with Judy Matteucci, Budget Director, on March 10, 1993 to express concerns about the proposed reorganization. According to Ms. Licht the meeting was unproductive and members of the industry were discouraged from expressing views which opposed the reorganization.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice-President, Nevada Farm Bureau, expressed the organization's support for the Nevada Beef Council. Mr. Busselman explained the funding derived from the cattle assessment, $1 per each head of cattle sold, was a result of a self-imposed tax approved by a national referendum. Mr. Busselman commented the Nevada Farm Bureau fully endorsed the promotional efforts of the Nevada Beef Council.
Mr. Busselman commented National Certification for the Beef Council could be safeguarded if requirements were maintained by the state. He stated it was imperative the certification requirements be met in order to continue beef promotion efforts in Nevada.
Mr. Marvel asked if the reorganization jeopardized the beef industry's ability to use its own funds. Mr. Busselman explained the reorganizational structure would have to be accepted by the National Livestock and Meat Board as a legitimate program. Mr. Busselman was concerned the Beef Council certification would not be maintained under the proposed reorganization. Mr. Marvel asked if the Budget Office had been advised of these concerns. Mr. Busselman commented during the March 10, 1993 meeting members of the beef industry had assumed modifications to the reorganization could maintain the certification. However Mr. Busselman was not sure it was possible any longer. Mr. Marvel asked the committee be provided a legal opinion about certification requirements.
Mr. Marvel asked when information about the certification requirements would be forthcoming from the National Beef Board. Mr. Busselman suggested the Beef Council of Nevada initiate communication with the National Beef Board to determine certification requirements.
NEVADA JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW BOARD - PAGE 578
Sue Hoffman, Board Member, Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board (NJLSB), read from prepared testimony (Exhibit I). Ms. Hoffman explained the board was composed of seven members appointed by the Governor. She stated the NJLSB was involved in conducting and supporting the following events for the Nevada 4-H and Future Farmers of America (FFA) youth: (1) Nevada Junior Livestock Show, Sale and Carcass Contest; (2) State 4-H Horse Show; (3) State 4-H and FFA judging contests and Quiz Bowl Competitions; (4) Nevada 4-H Exposition; and (5) Educational Awards and Materials to 4-H and FFA. She commented the programs directly impact 1,200 youngsters who participate in the events. Ms. Hoffman advised the agency's request totaled approximately $30,000 for each year of the biennium. Ms. Hoffman explained the Governor had recommended $26,995 for the same period. Ms. Hoffman commented the requested increase was due in large part to the escalated costs of the facilities used by the NJLSB. She explained the reduction in funding would have an impact on the current programs and operations of the agency.
Mrs. Williams asked the agency to explain the Carcass Contest. Ms. Hoffman explained the end result of the beef and cattle industry was the meat to the consumer. Ms. Hoffman stated the contest evaluated the quality of meat produced for the consumer.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau commented the agency supported youth programs such as the NJLSB and encouraged the committee to fund the program.
NEVADA STATE HIGH SCHOOL RODEO ASSOCIATION - PAGE 573
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga advised the organization sponsored 25 high school rodeos annually throughout the state of Nevada. Ms. de Braga commented the programs had significant economic impact on the rural communities of Nevada. She explained the funding, $17,000, appropriated to the Nevada State High School Rodeo Association (NHSRA) was used to sponsor students for the National High School Rodeo. The students then become eligible for scholarships and awards and served as ambassadors for Nevada. Ms. de Braga asserted the membership of the NHSRA had increased substantially over the past biennium.
Rich Lee, National Director, High School Rodeo Association, explained the National Finals Rodeo would be held in Gillette, Wyoming. Mr. Lee commented approximately 40 to 50 student from Nevada would qualify for Nationals.
Mr. Marvel commented he was in full support of the NHSRA because it was truly a family program. Ms. de Braga asserted the organization required students to maintain high standards of scholastic achievement and personal integrity.
Ms. Chowning commented the NHSRA obviously had a good impact on the youth of Nevada. Ms. Chowning asked how many students participated in the program and of those how many received scholarships. Ms. de Braga replied approximately 300 members were currently enrolled. She explained at the state level approximately six $500 scholarships were awarded; at the National level 15 scholarships were awarded which could be as much as $600. Ms. de Braga commented the scholarships were awarded on the basis of need and commitment to a higher education. Ms. Chowning suggested the scholarship information be included in the performance indicators.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Assemblyman Tom Collins commented the High School Rodeo was a wonderful program which served the state's economy and its families. He fully endorsed any support the state could give to the program.
DRUG COMMISSION - PAGE 1009
Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Office of Narcotics Control Assistance, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit K). Ms. Evans commented the budget funded two programs: (1) the Commission on Substance Abuse Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment; and (2) the Substance Abuse Coordinator. She explained the programs were proposed to be transferred from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to the Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Evans explained the Administration of the Narcotics Control Assistance Program would be transferred to the Department of Public Safety. Ms. Evans asserted the proposed budget, $13,943, would reduce the agency's General Fund allocation but maintain federal match funds.
Ms. Evans explained the budget allocations for the Commission which total $15,360 would provide travel and operating expenses. Ms. Evans distributed a report entitled Progress Report for 1991-1992, Commission Plan for 1992-1993 a copy of which is on file in the Fiscal Division. She explained the operational costs for the Commission were used to print the annual report.
Ms. Evans explained the Substance Abuse Coordinator's office budget allocation totaled $103,786 for FY 93 and $104,446 for FY 95. She commented the budget was comprised of operating and personnel expenses for two positions which included in- and out-of-state travel. Ms. Evans commented the Commission and the Drug Coordinator agreed the proposed reorganization would not compromise the current programs of the agency.
Assemblywoman Evans asked how the reorganization would impact the current operation of the two programs. Ms. Evans replied the reductions in the budget could be endured. Ms. Evans commented many employees made personal contributions to the production of the annual report and did not reimburse themselves for work-related telephone calls, postage and certain costs associated with the annual report.
Mrs. Williams asked if the funding was sufficient to maintain the federal matching funds at the current level. Ms. Evans affirmed the budget reductions would have no impact on federal matching funds.
Mrs. Williams asked if the role of the new coordinator would be different from the role of the previous "drug czar." Julie Payne-Starke, State Substance Abuse Coordinator, explained the only additional duty associated with the position was the coordination of the Governor's Forum. Mrs. Williams commended Ms. Payne-Starke for her work and commented the state was fortunate to have her as the Drug Coordinator.
Dorothy North, Chairman, Drug Commission, explained the members represented all areas of Nevada which was designed by statute. Ms. North explained in-state travel would be used to hold Commission meetings in various locations throughout the state to provide a forum for public comment.
OFFICE OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY - PAGE 1095
Kevin Christensen, Acting Director, Office of Protection and Advocacy, explained the office established a program for the protection and advocacy of individuals with developmental disabilities. Mr. Christensen commented the budget was a status quo budget which maintained current staffing and funding levels. Mr. Christensen estimated approximately $191,000 in federal funds for the protection and advocacy for developmental disabilities were unobligated at this time. He suggested the funds could be utilized for program enhancements. Mr. Christensen explained the agency had submitted a proposal for the use of these funds to the Budget Division. He explained the agency would come before the Interim Finance Committee to obligate the funds as soon as negotiations with the Budget Division had been completed.
Mr. Spitler asked when negotiation with the Budget Division would be completed. Mr. Christensen replied a meeting would be held later in the day. Mr. Spitler requested the agency present its findings to the Committee during the current budget cycle.
Mrs. Evans asked for comment on the proposed reorganization plan to move the agency to the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation. Mr. Christensen replied the agency and the Budget Division had received a memorandum from Chief Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Andrews which suggested the independence of the agency could be compromised if the agency was transferred to the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation. Mr. Christensen remarked the memorandum indicated no such compromise would occur if the agency was transferred to the Department of Business and Industry.
Mrs. Williams asked the committee be provided a copy of Mr. Andrews' memorandum.
Mrs. Evans asked if clients would be better served if the agency was a private organization. Mr. Christensen replied if the agency was redesignated as a private non-profit corporation many of the benefits provided to the agency would be eliminated. For example the agency would no longer have access to the various state agencies and offices.
Mrs. Evans asked how much the advocacy efforts for special education students had increased. Mr. Christensen replied approximately 75 percent of the current caseload for the agency was in this area. He commented it was a growing and complex area of advocacy because of federal and state regulations. Mrs. Evans commented she was concerned the increased caseload would hamper the agency's effectiveness in protecting special education children. Mr. Christensen responded the agency was working in cooperation with the University System to develop a self advocacy initiative which would inform parents of the rights of the special education children.
MENTALLY ILL INDIVIDUALS PROGRAM - PAGE 1099
Mr. Christensen explained the program provided protection and advocacy for individuals diagnosed as mentally ill in the state of Nevada. He commented the budget would maintain the current personnel and funding levels. He noted the use of federal reserve funds would be utilized to increase the legal services provided by the agency. Mr. Christensen commented the agency intended to increase legal services by $20,000 per fiscal year. He estimated the agency had approximately $309,000 in unobligated federal funds for the protection and advocacy of mentally ill individuals. He explained the agency had submitted a proposal for the use of these funds to the Budget Division.
Mrs. Williams asked if the $20,000 increase in legal services to the mentally ill would also be provided to the Office of Protection and Advocacy. Mr. Christensen explained $20,000 for each year of the biennium had been allocated to the budget for the mentally ill. However the proposal submitted to the Budget Office for the use of unallocated federal funds included a provision to augment legal services funding by $10,000 in the Office of Protection and Advocacy which would bring the total to $20,000.
STATE JOB TRAINING - PAGE 1059
Barbara Weinberg, Director, State Job Training Office, explained the program assisted economically disadvantaged individuals and dislocated workers to enter the work force. She explained the agency was funded, with the exception of the Displaced Homemakers Program which was approximately 2 percent of the budget, by the Federal Job Training Partnership Act. Nevada received approximately $10 million annually. The funding served 5 to 10 percent of the individuals eligible for the program.
Ms. Weinberg explained funding to states was calculated based on a formula. One-third is appropriated based on the number of economically disadvantaged persons in the state as compared to the U.S. total; and two-thirds appropriated based on relative unemployment. She stated because Nevada's unemployment was generally lower than the rest of the nation, funding was lower than most states of similar population. She commented the 1990 census data would change the relative proportions of economically disadvantaged which would increase Nevada's share of funding.
Ms. Weinberg commented the State Job Training Partnership Act required the same formula be used to allocate funds to major grantees, the service delivery areas, who by statute receive almost 90 percent of the state's grant award. She explained the agency was mandated to fulfill four major functions: (1) establish policies and procedures for grantees; (2) maintain fiscal and program compliance oversight of grantees; (3) provide technical assistance to assure grantee programs were properly administered and provide relevant and effective service; and (4) identify employment and training programs and project need to promote consistency, integration, coordination, and long range planning among programs.
Ms. Weinberg mentioned the Job Training Partnership Act was substantively amended in September of 1992. The amendments require: (1) 50 percent of the youth served be out of school youth; (2) economically disadvantaged participants; (3) 65 percent have an additional barrier to employment (basic skills deficiency, welfare recipient, pregnant or patenting teen, and/or homeless or runaway). She explained participants with barriers had a greater need for service which extended the cost and time of participation. She commented the fiscal reporting requirements had been increased to ensure program effectiveness. Ms. Weinberg advised the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992 require that funds available under Title II should increase by not less than 10 percent per year. The increases were reflected under Maintenance: 200 Demographic/Caseload Changes on page 1060 of the Executive Budget.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the 10 percent increase in Title II federal monies was guaranteed. Ms. Weinberg replied the funding was authorized but not as yet appropriated. She stated the agency received preliminary figures, based on the 1990 census data, which provided additional Title II funding.
Ms. Weinberg explained the Job Training Partnership Act and the Defense Authorization Act of 1992 would provide increased service to workers dislocated by defense downsizing. She commented the agency had received $165,000 in additional funding from the Department of Labor (DOL) to provide specialized training for dislocated workers.
Ms. Weinberg commented the Governor's Reorganization plan proposed that the State Job Training Office become a Bureau in the new Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. Reorganization savings of -$41,749 in FY 94 and -$56,004 in FY 95 was included in the personnel category. The Operational Organization Chart indicated the State Job Training Office would supervise the Claimant Employment Program currently administered by the Employment Security Department (ESD) and the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program currently administered by the Department of Education.
Mrs. Evans asked if the position was going to be eliminated or transferred to an administrative budget at the Department level. Ms. Weinberg commented the fiscal position was essential to the operation of the JTPA program. She explained the position would be transferred to the administrative section of the new Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. Mrs. Evans concluded the $41,749 in FY 94 and $56,004 in FY 95 listed as reorganizational savings was inaccurate because the position and its salary would be retained within the budget of another department.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was possible for the agency to administer Welfare's job training program. Ms. Weinberg explained the administration and operation of the jobs program could be defined separately which would allow the State Job Training Office to operate the program.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if a portion of the Department of Education's federal funding was being used for the JTPA programs. Ms. Weinberg explained 8 percent of the JTPA program was comprised of education and coordination grants. These grants were assigned, by the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992, to be allocated to the state education agency(s). Ms. Giunchigliani asked the agency representative to report the implications of the amendments as they relate to educational programs administration. Specifically could the program be administered by either the Department of Education or the State Job Training Office.
Ms. Weinberg explained Adjustments to Base indicated the substate distribution, based on the allocation formula, resulted in more funds going to the Southern Nevada service delivery areas due in large part to the increase in population.
Mrs. Williams asked for an explanation of the cost allocation formula which determined the distribution of administrative funds in northern and southern Nevada. Ms. Weinberg explained the cost allocation formula consisted of 15 percent of the total JTPA grant. The amount was then distributed between the two major programs in northern and southern Nevada. Ms. Weinberg explained the northern administrative account did not receive additional funding from Maintenance 200 because other monies were planned to be used to support the current caseload.
Mrs. Evans commented it appeared northern Nevada administrative cost had not been increased by Maintenance 200 and had not been increased in the base budget either. Mrs. Evans asked how caseload increases in the northern office would be funded. Ms. Weinberg explained the cost allocation formula determined the distribution of funds between the northern and southern offices. She advised the distribution of funds was imbalanced because the southern office had experienced a substantial increase in caseload. Mrs. Evans asserted she did not agree with the funding distribution.
Ms. Weinberg commented work program year FY 93 included a one-time allocation of $1.6 million for an emergency supplemental grant for summer youth employment and training approved by the Interim Finance Committee on September 16, 1992.
ASSEMBLY BILL 316 - MAKES APPROPRIATION TO THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES.
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, explained proposed amendments had been drafted for the committees consideration, (Exhibit M). Mr. Stevens explained the amendment would provide for cash payment as originally recommended by the administration. The exempt merit employees would be removed from the bill and review of the issue would take place at a later date. The amendment would increase the appropriation to Gaming Control Board employees and employees paid through the state highway fund.
******
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
SPEAKER DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MRS. EVANS VOTED NO.
******
ASSEMBLY BILL 55 - MAKES VARIOUS CHANGES TO PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLATION OF MISDEMEANOR.
Mr. Stevens explained the bill would change the administrative assessment at the local level.
*****
MRS. WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS.
MR. PERKINS SECONDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
*****
ASSEMBLY BILL 318 - MAKES APPROPRIATION TO THE DIVISION OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES OF DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES.
Mr. Stevens explained AB 318 was a supplemental appropriation to the Division of Child and Family Services which totaled $62,726.
Mr. Spitler asked if the date listed, July 1, 1989, was correct. Mrs. Matteucci explained the bill drafter had suggested the date but the appropriations were for a different fiscal year.
*****
MRS. EVANS MOVED DO PASS.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
*****
There being no further business before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Courtnay Berg
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
March 26, 1993
Page 1
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means