MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
April 30, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 7:35 a.m., on Friday, April 30, 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
SENATE BILL 18 - Extends time for repayment and reversion of money previously appropriated to Supreme Court of Nevada.
Mr. Don Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, explained SB 18 would extend the deadline for an appropriation made by the 1991 Legislature for the temporary relocation of the Las Vegas office of the Supreme Court during asbestos abatement. He noted the program was currently being held in abeyance pending construction of a new Clark County office complex.
SENATE BILL 21 - Makes supplemental appropriation for district judges' salaries and judicial pensions.
Mr. Mello said SB 21 would authorize a supplemental appropriation to the district judges' salary account. He reported as the result of a computer error, contributions to the Public Employment Retirement System (PERS) on behalf of one of the district judges were not made. A portion of the contribution had since been made from available funds. SB 21 requested funding for the remaining balance of the contribution plus interest.
Chairman Arberry asked who made the error. Mr. Mello said it was not known how the error had been made.
Mrs. Williams inquired why district judges did not make their own retirement fund contributions, as did all other state employees. Mr. Mello said he did not know the history of the practice but suspected it had to do with the constitutional issue of reducing a judge's pay. Mr. Stevens noted the judges' salaries were set by statute.
Mrs. Williams asked fiscal staff to research this issue.
Mr. Marvel asked when the shortages had been discovered. Mr. Mello replied the annual PERS membership statement which the judge received following the 1991 legislative session reflected an incorrect number of years of service credited to her account. An investigation of the matter revealed the judge was not listed as an active member of PERS.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Budget Division was aware of the situation. Mr. Mello replied his office notified the Budget Division of the error prior to the legislative session and requested a supplemental appropriation in the Executive Budget to rectify the mistake. The Budget Division did not include such an appropriation in the budget.
Mr. Marvel inquired whether the Budget Division had given an explanation for not including the appropriation within the Executive Budget. Mr. Mello answered the Budget Division had not provided an explanation.
SENATE BILL 194 - Makes supplemental appropriations for district judges' salaries and judicial pensions.
Mr. Mello explained SB 194 requested $55,646 to make PERS contributions on behalf of nine new district judges and $79,273 to fund pensions for three new retirees.
SENATE BILL 238 - Makes supplemental appropriation to Supreme Court of Nevada.
Mr. Mello reported SB 238 requested a supplemental appropriation for the Commission on Judicial Selection to fund future selection meetings and approximately $700 in outstanding claims remaining from the last selection meeting.
Mr. Marvel asked why $7,000 was necessary. Mr. Mello responded the Commission anticipated as many as three meetings prior to the end of the year. He noted any surplus would revert to the General Fund.
Mr. Marvel questioned whether the amount could be reduced. Mr. Mello estimated the figure could be reduced to $3,500. Mr. Marvel suggested the committee consider the reduced amount.
Mr. Dini asked what the average cost of a judicial selection meeting was. Mr. Mello responded the cost averaged approximately $2,600 to $3,100 per meeting.
Mr. Dini asked how many members sat on the Commission. Mr. Mello relied there were seven permanent members and two temporary members.
Mrs. Williams asked how long the meetings were. Mr. Mello stated the length of the meeting depended on the number of applicants. He noted the most recent meeting had lasted two days.
Mrs. Williams asked how much commission members were paid. Mr. Mello replied the members were paid $80 per day plus per diem. Mrs. Williams questioned why the meeting cost was so high. Mr. Mello pointed out meeting costs included travel expenses for commission members. The next meeting would be held in Las Vegas and most commission members would have to travel from other parts of the state.
Mrs. Williams inquired how many members were from southern Nevada. Mr. Mello responded two members were from southern Nevada. He noted two staff members would have to travel to Las Vegas to set up the meeting site.
Mr. Humke asked if any other retirements had been announced. Mr. Mello said he was not currently aware of any other retirements.
Mr. Humke questioned how many district judges retired per biennium on average. Mr. Mello said three judges had retired during the current biennium. He said the number of retirements fluctuated from year to year. He noted the present judiciary was nearing retirement age and more retirements could be expected. As retirees were replaced with younger judges there would be fewer selections. He estimated retirements averaged two or three per biennium.
Mr. Humke asked if the statute required staff travel to be funded from this account. Mr. Mello said it was not required by statute. Staff travel expenses were allocated to this account because the travel was associated with the judicial selection process. Mr. Humke suggested staff travel be funded from the Administrative Office of the Courts account.
Mr. Marvel inquired of the Budget Division staff why certain supplemental appropriations such as this one had not been included in the Executive Budget. Mr. P. Forrest "Woody" Thorne, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, said he was unsure why this supplemental appropriation had not been included in the budget. He agreed to provide an answer to the question at a later time.
SENATE BILL 64 - Makes appropriation to Budget Division to reimburse Legal Division of Legislative Counsel Bureau for expenses involved in preparing bill drafts requested by state agencies.
Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, explained NRS 218.248 required the Legislative Counsel Bureau to furnish to the Administrative Division a record of hours devoted to preparing legislative measures for state agencies. The Administrative Division would bill the appropriate agency for the cost of bill drafting in order to reimburse the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Mr. Malkiewich stated in the past, the Legislative Counsel Bureau had attributed a lump sum value of $100,000 to their bill drafting services rather than establishing an hourly rate. Agencies were then billed proportionately. At this rate, the cost of bill drafting services averaged approximately $25 per hour.
Mr. Humke asked if there was any limitation on the number of bill drafts the Executive Branch could request. Mr. Malkiewich responded bill draft requests were limited. The Legislature was currently working on a resolution to limit bill draft requests made by legislators as well as the Executive Branch.
Mr. Humke asked if each agency was limited to a specific number of requests or if the limit was a gross number imposed on the entire Executive Branch. Mr. Malkiewich replied the limit was a gross number for the Governor to work with. He noted during the past few legislative sessions the total bill draft requests had been well below the limit. He added the limit did not apply to budget bills.
Mr. Humke inquired what the current limit for the Executive Branch was. Mr. Malkiewich said he believed the number was 300.
Mr. Humke asked if the judiciary was subject to a similar limitation. Mr. Malkiewich replied the Supreme Court was limited to 23 bill draft requests and the Nevada Judges Association was limited to 5 bill draft requests.
Mr. Humke questioned whether there was any method of charging other political subdivisions and non-profit entities for bill drafting services. Mr. Malkiewich answered political subdivisions and non-profit entities had not been billed in the past.
Mrs. Williams inquired how many bills were drafted on behalf of political subdivisions, district attorney's, law enforcement agencies, etc. Mr. Malkiewich noted his office kept very detailed information on bill draft requests. He said the number of bills drafted on behalf of local governments was approximately 300. He noted the vast majority of legislative requests (approximately 1,300) were received from legislators, legislative committees or interim legislative studies.
Mrs. Williams asked if there was any way to capture revenue from groups who were not currently paying for bill drafting services. Mr. Malkiewich replied other entities could be billed for the cost of bill drafts at the same rate as charged to the Administration. He stated there currently was no statutory authority or mechanism for charging local governments. He said there was no reason such legislation could not be adopted but it would have to address the budgetary concerns of the local governments.
Mr. Price asked if the bill drafting process was authorized by statute or resolution. Mr. Malkiewich responded most of the authority was statutory; however, limitations on bill draft requests were adopted by resolution. He noted the statute included a provision prohibiting state agencies and local governments from submitting bill draft requests directly to a legislator for introduction. This provision was virtually ignored. Pursuant to statute, state agencies and local governments were supposed to submit bill draft requests to the Legislative Counsel Bureau before September 1 of the year preceding the legislative session.
Mr. Price inquired whether a standing committee should be established to screen bill draft requests. Mr. Malkiewich noted Joint Rule 16 was in place and performed a portion of that function. Joint Rule 16 required bills to be delivered randomly and in equal numbers to the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Majority Leader who then directed the bills to committee chairmen. Joint Rule 16 also contained a provision that if bills were not introduced within 15 days, they were dead.
Mr. Price noted those bills had already been screened by the Budget Division. He stated frankly he was considering removing the Budget Division from the screening process and allowing state agencies and other constitutional offices to submit bills directly to the Legislature. Mr. Malkiewich responded the process could be revised. He noted, by way of explanation, the principle behind screening by the Budget Division was the Governor needed to know what bills were being submitted in order to draft the budget.
Mr. Price pointed out if the Legislature was to prepare a legislative budget, that budget would also have to be based on bills from agencies. Mr. Malkiewich replied one thing to consider in establishing a legislative budget would be control over bills being proposed.
Mrs. Evans asked if there was any limit on the bills and/or resolutions coming out of interim study committees. Mr. Malkiewich said ACR 72 of the Sixty-sixth Session of the Legislature specifically stated there was no limitation on interim study committees.
Mrs. Evans noted bills issued from interim study committees were sometimes influenced by special interests and had significant fiscal notes attached to them. She asked the number of bills and resolutions requested by interim study committees following the 1991 legislative session. Mr. Malkiewich indicated he could provide the information. He said he believed the number was approximately 186, 183 of which had been completed.
Mr. Malkiewich noted his office now had the accounting capability to determine the number of hours devoted to bill drafting for the Executive Branch, local governments, legislators, etc., if the Legislature decided to bill each entity for those services.
Mr. Dini pointed out it had taken the Legislature several sessions to establish the schedule of bill draft limits. He explained the reason bill draft requests were screened by the Administration was to limit the number of requests submitted by individual state agencies. Additionally, the Governor did not want agency heads submitting bills which were contrary to Administration policy.
Mr. Dini stated another provision of the statute which was not being enforced was the prohibition against committees introducing bills which were outside their jurisdiction.
Mr. Humke suggested local governments and private associations should be charged for bill drafting services provided to them.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted bills were sometimes drafted but never heard. She suggested the Legislature review this issue.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she was troubled that bills introduced by constitutional officers were screened. She added she appreciated the Governor's need to review bills in order to draft the budget; however, agencies also needed to be able to work and function without limitation by the Administration.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was unconstitutional to propose an unbalanced budget. Mr. Malkiewich replied the Constitution required the Legislature to annually impose a tax sufficient to pay the expenses of the state. The statutes required a balanced budget. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if "balanced budget" had been defined. Mr. Malkiewich said the issue had been raised in past legislative sessions but a definition had not been established. The statute required estimated revenue and estimated expenditures to balance. Historically, budgets have been accompanied by legislative measures necessary for implementation.
Mr. Heller asked how many bills requested by constitutional officers had been denied by the Administration. Mr. Malkiewich said his office only had information regarding the number of bills received from the Administration.
Mr. Heller said agencies had expressed concern to him about the apparently arbitrary screening process. Agencies were sometimes forced to introduce pertinent bills through a legislator. Mr. Malkiewich stated there was a bill pending in the Senate which would allow constitutional officers to submit bill draft requests directly to the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Mrs. Williams asked if a reserve fund was a constitutional requirement. Mr. Malkiewich responded legislation was passed in 1991 requiring a reserve of between 5 percent and 10 percent of total appropriations. The historic custom of maintaining a substantial ending fund balance was simply a prudent business practice. He said he did not believe this was a constitutional requirement.
SENATE BILL 266 - Makes supplemental appropriation to Nevada Equal Rights Commission for certain expenses.
Mr. Carlos Romo, Assistant Director, Nevada Equal Rights Commission, explained SB 266 requested funding for a merit salary increase for a staff member which occurred in fiscal year 1990-91. He noted this funding was included in the Executive Budget.
Mrs. Chowning questioned why the Equal Rights Commission did not meet regularly. She asked how many times the commission had met in the past five years. Mr. Romo said the commission had not held a formal meeting. He explained part of the reason for meetings not being held was budgetary. He pointed out the function of the commission was to hear cases. To date cases had not proceeded to the hearing stage. He added it was very expensive to hold hearings if cases could be resolved through other administrative means.
Mrs. Chowning noted there was a tremendous backlog of cases. Commission members had informed her they wanted to help deal with the backlog but they were not asked for assistance. Commission members had indicated they were willing to travel at their own expense. Mr. Romo said he would convey this information to the Executive Director.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 43 - Directs Assembly Standing Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Standing Committee on Finance to limit transfers from Fund for the Promotion of Tourism.
Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner indicated she was Chairman of the Commission on Tourism and was appearing in support of ACR 43. She noted she had sent a letter to each member of the committee on March 19, 1993, which outlined the commission's concerns about transfers from the Fund for the Promotion of Tourism to support other programs.
Lieutenant Governor Wagner distributed copies of a chart reflecting transfers to other accounts (Exhibit C). She explained the commission had noted increasing amounts of money being transferred, making those amounts unavailable for the promotion of tourism.
Lieutenant Governor Wagner pointed out in cases when room tax revenue had fallen short of projections, tourism had felt the most impact because funds had been guaranteed to other agencies and the agencies' share of the monies was not subject to actual collections.
Lieutenant Governor Wagner stated passage of ACR 43 would help the Commission on Tourism build a strong and effective marketing program by limiting the amount of money which could be transferred to other programs and by making transfers contingent upon actual revenues deposited in the tourism fund. She pointed out transfers recommended in the Executive Budget amounted to 16.05 percent of the tourism budget. Limiting the transfers to 15 percent would mean a reduction of approximately $54,000 in the total amounts being transferred to other programs in each year of the biennium. She noted if the transfer reductions were applied equally to the recipient agencies, the Motion Picture Division would receive approximately $4,000 less than the Governor's recommendation in each year of the biennium. However, if the Motion Picture Division was the only program targeted to absorb the reduction, it would suffer the full $54,000 per year loss.
Lieutenant Governor Wagner distributed copies of a memo from Tim Carlson, Executive Director, Commission on Economic Development, expressing concern over the potential loss to the Motion Picture Division budget (Exhibit D).
Lieutenant Governor Wagner proposed two amendments to ACR 43 which had been brought to her attention by the Attorney General's Office. First, she suggested the resolution include a provision requiring the recipient agencies to demonstrate how the funding was tied to tourism. Secondly, language should be included in the resolution to assure distribution of funds to other agencies was based on amounts actually collected for deposit to the fund rather than from projected revenue.
Lieutenant Governor Wagner noted ACR 43 applied only to the coming biennium but hopefully the committee's support of the resolution would send a message to the Budget Division and the Senate Finance Committee. She explained the Commission on Tourism was comfortable in giving up 15 percent of its revenue but did not want the percentage to continue to increase.
Mr. Dini suggested the resolution be amended to take effect in the 1995-97 biennium rather than in the upcoming biennium. The extension of time would give the parties an opportunity to negotiate the figures. Lieutenant Governor Wagner indicated Mr. Dini's suggestion was agreeable to her and she would relay it to the Commission on Tourism.
Mr. Dini noted it would be difficult to argue against any of the transfers to other agencies included in the Executive Budget.
Mr. Tom Tait, Executive Director, Commission on Tourism, indicated the commission did not want to see any other agency suffer a budget cut. He suggested readjusting projected room tax revenue. He noted the original budget draft anticipated revenue increases of 4.5 percent and 5 percent, respectively, for each year of the biennium. Over the past six months actual revenues for the current fiscal year had increased by 5 percent to 5.5 percent compared to the same period in fiscal year 1991-92. Raising revenue projections to 5 percent in fiscal year 1993-94 would decrease the percentage of transfers to other agencies to approximately 15 percent.
Chairman Arberry inquired why the Commission on Tourism did not make this recommendation during its budget hearing. Mr. Tait said he did testify at the budget hearing that actual room tax revenues for fiscal year 1992-93 were approximately 5 percent to 5.5 percent over the fiscal year 1991-92 collections. However, he did not feel it was appropriate at that time to adjust the revenue projections.
Mrs. Evans expressed concern about language in the resolution directing the Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee to limit transfers in the budget. She suggested the matter should be resolved in the Executive Budget before it was presented to the Legislature. The bill should direct the Budget Division to work with the Commission on Tourism during the budget drafting process to ensure the 15 percent limit was achieved so the Legislature would not be left with the responsibility of making budget adjustments.
Lieutenant Governor Wagner said she appreciated Mrs. Evans' concerns. She noted this bill had been drafted after the Executive Budget was prepared and, therefore, had to request action by the Legislature rather than the Budget Division.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Commission on Tourism budget included room tax revenue projections for new properties in Las Vegas. Mr. Tait replied growth and expansion was factored into the budget. He noted in the past the addition of new properties resulted in a shift in market share rather than significant increases in gross revenue. Therefore, it would not be safe to project substantial increases in revenue until the new resorts had been on-line for a period of time and older properties could begin attracting new customers.
Mr. Humke seconded Mrs. Evans' remarks. He said the 15 percent limitation was not feasible in the coming biennium but he did not feel revising revenue projections was necessary.
Mr. Humke stated he would like to feel the Legislature was responsible enough to remain within budgetary limits which it imposed on itself. However, Exhibit C demonstrated the Commission on Tourism account had been used to balance the budget, either because bona fides spending needs arose after the Executive Budget was drafted or because efforts to draft a balanced budget were lax.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted at some point a policy decision was required to determine whether or not it was appropriate to shift funds from one account to another. Further, the Legislature would have to do the proper thing by funding needed programs and eliminating unnecessary programs.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was any additional testimony in support of or in opposition to ACR 43.
Mr. Thorne noted for the record the Governor's recommendation exceeded the commission's projections. He expressed objection to the commission's suggestion to increase revenue projections in the budget. He added the 15 percent limitation would place the agencies receiving transfers at risk.
Ms. Stephanie Licht noted Nevada citizens were required to live within a fixed budget and the government should do likewise. She commended the committee's efforts to begin making government agencies live within their means.
ASSEMBLY BILL 93 - Clarifies the provisions governing the revenue to be deposited in the fund for new construction of facilities for prison industries.
Mr. Ghiggeri explained AB 93 revised legislation passed in 1991 providing a 5 percent assessment against gross wages earned by inmates for deposit into a fund for construction of new Prison Industries facilities. The 1991 legislation allowed assessment against the wages earned in any program. AB 93 would limit the assessment to the wages of inmates employed in Prison Industries programs.
Mrs. Williams inquired whether any consideration was given to inmates who were providing support for children. Mr. Ghiggeri replied Prison Industries programs were certified by the federal government and money was set aside from the wages of inmates working in the programs for child support as well as for crime victims compensation.
Mrs. Williams asked if the 5 percent assessment would reduce gross wages for purposes of calculating child support. Mr. Ghiggeri responded the Department of Prisons currently assessed 24.5 percent for room and board for inmates employed in the programs.
MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS.
MR. HELLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 94 - Revises the provisions governing the profitability of the programs for the employment of offenders.
Mr. Ghiggeri explained AB 94 was recommended by the Prison Industries Advisory Board to allow Prison Industries to operate on a cumulative profit basis rather than requiring each individual program to operate at a profit. He noted the Advisory Board was recommending an amendment to the bill providing for review of individual programs which did not become profitable within three years, at which time the Advisory Board could recommend to the Prison Director to continue or terminate the program.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification on whether Prison Industries would be competing with private industry. Mr. Ghiggeri responded the intent was for Prison Industries not to compete with private industry.
Mr. Marvel noted this was something which the Prison Industries Advisory Board reviewed very thoroughly to ensure there was no infringement on labor or industry within the state.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 488- Provides a procedure for expeditious consideration of an application for commutation of the punishment of a prisoner who is terminally ill or physically incapacitated.
Chairman Arberry noted this bill dealt with the compassionate release of prisoners. He said it was not his intention to take action on AB 488; however, he wished to engage in discussion to determine the positions of the committee members regarding this issue.
Mr. Price expressed concern that the bill provided no time period in which victims could respond to the notice of a prisoner's release. He expressed his opinion the release procedure should be subject to the open meeting law, with advance notice given to the public. He indicated his willingness to draft an amendment to the bill to incorporate a requirement for public notice. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Price to prepare an amendment.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she agreed with Mr. Price's position.
Mr. Price stated, for clarification, he disagreed with the concept of releasing terminally ill prisoners early but since it appeared this legislation would pass, he wanted the language to be as precise as possible. He noted he intended to vote against passage of the bill.
Chairman Arberry suggested there was no need to draft an amendment if the committee, as a whole, was opposed to the bill. He noted there was a cost savings attached to the bill. Mr. Ghiggeri stated savings would approach $800,000 to $1 million over the biennium. He pointed out the savings was included in the Executive Budget and if the legislation was not approved, the savings would have to be reversed in the Department of Prisons budget.
Mrs. Williams suggested the problem with the bill might be one of semantics. She noted the early release was not compassionate and, in actuality, if public hearings were held, no prisoners would be released. She pointed out the bill addressed cases where prisoners were incapacitated by terminal illness and the state could save money by moving them out of the prison system to other jurisdictions where they could be supported by Medicaid or federal programs. The savings could then be used to support needy people who had not committed crimes. She suggested the compassion be for those needy people who were not receiving state assistance because the money was being spent on terminally ill prisoners.
Chairman Arberry reminded the committee about testimony in opposition to the bill stating there would be no guarantee terminally ill prisoners would not commit crimes if they were released.
Mr. Humke stated he had raised this issue with the Department of Prisons. He said he would have to see a list of prisoners who were so terminally ill and incapacitated they would be unable to commit a serious crime before he could vote in favor of the bill. He noted the bill currently required prisoners to be either terminally ill or incapacitated.
Mr. Humke agreed with Mr. Price that hearings should be made subject to the open meeting law.
Mr. Price noted there were many prisoners who should not be released under any circumstances.
Mr. Perkins said he was disturbed by the assumption that all prisoners were violent offenders. He noted many non-violent offenders would be included among the terminally ill or incapacitated prisoners considered for early release. In fact, the Director of Prisons and the Governor would be more likely to release non-violent offenders than criminals who had committed heinous crimes.
Mrs. Evans noted the bill would allow release of a prisoner who was incapacitated to such a degree as to not pose a threat to society. She questioned whether the language was adequate to address the concerns of the committee members.
Mrs. Evans added it did not appear prisoners would be monitored following release.
Ms. Tiffany said she believed constituents would not be in favor of passage of this bill coupled with the proposed Facilities Capacity Act. She said she would support AB 488 only if the original crime was clearly distinguished. She asked if the type of offense could be used as a criterion for early release.
Chairman Arberry pointed out that restricting releases would reduce the amount of savings. He reminded the committee that if this bill was not passed, $800,000 to $1 million in alternative revenue would have to be located.
Mrs. Williams said no one on the committee would support release of prisoners who had committed heinous crimes and there were safeguards in the statute to prevent that from happening. She agreed with Mr. Perkins that the majority of prisoners were non-violent offenders. She added other states had similar programs in place which distinguished categories of crimes.
Ms. Giunchigliani concurred with Mrs. Williams. She said this legislation could work if the committee believed conceptually that it would ease the burden on the taxpayer, if there was some consideration of violent versus non-violent offenses and if there was some other assistance program where the released prisoners could be placed.
Ms. Giunchigliani agreed the bill should provide for notice to the public but the bill should not be dismissed because it represented a significant savings to the state. She said she did not see a connection between this bill and the Facilities Capacity Act.
Mr. Dini pointed out neither this bill nor the Facilities Capacity Act represented long-term solutions to the state's funding problems.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the committee ask the Department of Prisons to identify the non-violent offenders who would be eligible for early release if the bill was passed. Mr. Ghiggeri indicated he had access to that information and would provide it to Ms. Giunchigliani.
Mrs. Chowning said the victims or their families should be notified of the prisoner's release. She asked what the average length of time of notice to victims was. Mr. Ghiggeri said as the bill was written, it required notice to the victim or surviving relative but did not specify any length of time prior to release of the prisoner. He noted victims were given prior notice of parole hearings but he did not know the length of time between the notice and the hearing. He said he would research the question.
Mrs. Chowning reminded the committee it had heard testimony that AIDS-infected prisoners could infect others if they were released. Additionally, Nevada was being impacted by prisoners being released early from other states.
Mrs. Williams noted the Prison Director had testified before the Interim Finance Committee that 53 terminally ill inmates had cost the taxpayers $1.5 million. Even if the $1 million savings could not be realized by passage of this legislation, it was possible to save $500,000.
Mr. Dini said he would like to see better supporting data. He noted the new regional medical center at the Nevada State Prison was being constructed to treat seriously ill people. He questioned whether passage of this bill would reduce the need for the new medical facility. Mr. Ghiggeri responded the Executive Budget included sizable savings based on construction of the regional medical center.
Mr. Spitler noted prior testimony had provided very weak proof of where those projected savings actually were. He expressed concern that the projected savings would not be realized.
Chairman Arberry appointed a subcommittee to investigate this issue and report their findings to the entire committee in one week. He appointed Mrs. Chowning, Chairman, Mr. Humke, Mr. Price and Mr. Perkins. He said he appreciated the committee members' comments regarding AB 488.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY - PAGE 515
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE - PAGE 517
BOARD OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS - PAGE 519
BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS - PAGE 521
BOARD OF CONTRACTORS - PAGE 523
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY - PAGE 525
BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS - PAGE 527
BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS - PAGE 529
BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN VETERINARY MEDICINE - PAGE 531
BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS - PAGE 533
BOARD OF HEARING SPECIALISTS - PAGE 535
BOARD OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL EXAMINERS - PAGE 537
LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS BOARD - PAGE 539
BOARD OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS - PAGE 541
BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS - PAGE 543
BOARD OF NURSING - PAGE 545
BOARD OF NURSING FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS - PAGE 547
BOARD OF OPTOMETRY - PAGE 549
BOARD OF ORIENTAL MEDICINE - PAGE 551
BOARD OF OSTEOPATHY - PAGE 553
BOARD OF PHARMACY - PAGE 555
BOARD OF PHYSICAL/OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY EXAMINERS - PAGE 557
BOARD OF PODIATRY - PAGE 559
BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS - PAGE 561
BOARD OF PUBLIC HEALTH SANITARIANS - PAGE 563
BOARD OF REGISTERED ENGINEERS - PAGE 565
BOARD OF SOCIAL WORKER EXAMINERS - PAGE 567
Mr. Stevens said there were several factors the committee might want to consider in closing the board and commission budgets. He noted the board and commission budgets could be impacted by decisions related to the Governor's proposed reorganization and those decisions would be made at some future date. Therefore, the committee could either hold the budgets until those future determinations were made or close the budgets (either according to the Governor's recommendation or to maintain the status quo) and reopen them if adjustments were required. He pointed out if the decisions regarding the reorganization were made too late in the session to reopen these budgets, adjustments could be made through work program changes by the Interim Finance Committee since these budgets were funded by fees rather than General Fund appropriations.
Mr. Stevens said the Governor recommended combining the Board of Architecture with the Board of Landscape Architects, combining the Board of Cosmetology with the Barber's Board, combining the Board of Hearing Specialists with the Board of Audiologists and Speech Pathologists and combining the Board of Physical Therapy with the Board of Occupational Therapy.
Mr. Stevens noted boards and commissions were being assessed for two positions. One position was an existing position within the Budget Division. In addition, the Governor recommended a new management analyst position within the Department of Business and Industry account.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BOARD BUDGETS TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AND ELIMINATE THE NEW MANAGEMENT ANALYST POSITION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Dini asked if the existing position was in the Budget Director's office. Mr. Stevens said the position was a budget analyst in the Budget Division.
Mr. Dini asked Budget Division staff to justify the need for the additional position. Mr. Thorne replied the position in the Budget Division dealt with budgetary issues pursuant to the Budget Act and contract administration through the Board of Examiners. The new position would serve as an external contact for the boards and commissions as well as the public.
Mr. Dini asked if the new position would provide the Governor with some level of control over boards and commissions to ensure they were dealing appropriately with members of the public. Mr. Thorne responded affirmatively.
Ms. Giunchigliani said it was inappropriate to assess fees to commissions which were not supported by the General Fund simply to justify a new position. If the Governor thought a new position was necessary, he should have followed the same staffing procedure as every other agency was required to follow.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted combining boards could have the effect of restricting public access.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
C. Dale Gray
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
April 30, 1993
Page 1