MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 17, 1993

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 10:16 a.m., on Thursday, June 17, 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

     

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 753-     Eliminates Nevada Equal Rights Commission.

 

Mr. Fernando Romero, Executive Director, Nevada Equal Rights Commission, introduced Mr. Jerry Holloway, Chairman of the Commission, and Dr. Carlos Romo, Deputy Director.

 

Mr. Romero read a letter addressed to Chairman Arberry from Mr. Mark J. Ricciardi of the law firm of Kamer & Ricciardi (see Exhibit C).

 

Mr. Romero said he was appearing in opposition in AB 753.  He said he assumed the legislation was drafted to address the perceived backlog of the Equal Rights Commission.  He acknowledged that a backlog did exist; however, over the past three years, the agency had carried an average inventory of approximately 1,300 discrimination cases per year.  Each of the Commission's investigators was assigned over 175 cases.  The Commission closed, on average, 732 cases per year during that time period.  He said those figures were a far cry from the numbers erroneously reported in recent newspaper accounts of the situation.

 

Mr. Romero pointed out closure of the Commission's office pursuant to AB 753 would mean that all discrimination cases would have to be resolved through the already burdened court system.  As a result, victims of discrimination would have to hire an attorney at their own expense and wait up to several years for a court trial.  If cases were forwarded to the Los Angeles office of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it was conceivable cases could take up to 10 years to resolve.  It was also possible the EEOC, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, would invoke consent decrees against Nevada's hotel and resort properties as well as against governmental entities.

 

Mr. Romero stated in the past three years, the Commission had resolved 742 cases where monetary benefits were awarded to the complaining party.  For example, in 1991 over $1.6 million in settlement money was acquired through the efforts of the Commission investigators at no cost to the discrimination victim.

 

Mr. Romero noted the Commission also served the public by distributing educational posters, providing referral services to victims of discrimination and conducting seminars and workshops to train employees about discrimination in the workplace.

 

Mr. Romero stated the Commission needed to improve but pointed out it had improved over the past year.  He explained since July 1992, the Commission had dramatically reduced its inventory of cases over five years old.  By the end of the current contract year, the Commission will have closed 1,085 cases, the most ever in one year.  It was planned that by the end of 1993 all cases over four years old would be resolved.

 

Mr. Romero said AB 753 would eliminate the Commission in 1995.  He noted the bill was devoid of any language which would give the Commission an opportunity to improve its performance and continue providing needed services to the public.  He questioned whether the Commission should stop receiving complaints now in anticipation of the 1995 deadline.  He asked what standards of performance the Commission was expected to meet and what the guidelines for winding down the operation were.

 

Mr. Romero noted Mississippi was currently the only state without a federal employment practice agency.  He questioned whether Nevada would become the Mississippi of the west.

 

Mr. Spitler noted in the closure of the Commission's budget the committee had authorized two additional compliance investigator positions and $25,000 in additional data processing equipment to help with the backlog.  He explained the concern of the committee was that due to the backlog, people were not receiving services in a timely manner.  The intent of AB 753 was not to do away with the Equal Rights Commission quickly.

 

Mr. Romero stated he did not recall the committee authorizing the additional staffing and funding.  Mr. Spitler reiterated both money committees had approved two additional compliance investigator positions and a $25,000 appropriation for data processing equipment.  He reminded Mr. Romero of his testimony at that hearing that the Commission could eliminate the backlog and bring the caseload more current with those additional resources.

 

Mr. Romero noted in the past positions were added to the budget but money was not available to fund those positions.  He also stated he had to act in accordance with the proposal contained in AB 753 to eliminate the Commission in 1995.

 

Mr. Spitler explained AB 753 would give the Legislature an additional legislative session to review the progress of the Commission.  Mr. Romero reiterated by October 1, 1993, the Commission would not have any cases older than October 1991.

 

Mrs. Evans noted the committee had shown sympathy for Mr. Romero's position and the difficult circumstances under which he had been working.  However, it was not prudent for the Legislature to continue to fund an ineffective agency.  She said the committee wanted the Commission to remain open to serve victims of discrimination.

 

Mrs. Evans noted someone had suggested to her that the statute be expanded to authorize the Commission to issue a "right to sue" letter if a claim was not resolved within a particular amount of time.  She asked if that authority would be beneficial to the Commission.

 

Mr. Romo explained that 180 days after a case was filed, the claimant could request a right to sue letter from the federal EEOC.  The claimant could then proceed with the case in court by filing a lawsuit within 90 days.  If a right to sue letter was issued, the Equal Rights Commission would only receive partial credit for the case.

 

Mrs. Evans inquired whether the Legislature should consider authorizing the Commission to issue right to sue letters.  Mr. Romo said the federal right to sue letters were fairly easy for claimants to obtain.  It would not be helpful for the state to have the authority to issue right to sue letters.

 

Mr. Holloway noted a large percentage of individuals who filed complaints with the Equal Rights Commission could not afford the attorney fees associated with court proceedings.  Therefore, the right to sue was not utilized to a great extent.

 

Mr. Holloway pointed out over the past three legislative sessions the Commission had drafted legislation requesting additional staffing but new positions had never been put in place.

 

Mrs. Evans stated the Commission was missing the boat by making those requests to the Legislature.  She said requests for funding for equipment and staff should be included in the Executive Budget, not added on by draft legislation.

 

Mr. Holloway stated additional positions were included in the Executive Budget but those positions were not approved by the Budget Division.

 

Mr. Holloway noted while there was a large of backlog of cases, the Commission had provided help to a great number of people.  He asked the committee to reconsider the action contemplated by AB 753.

 

Mr. Romero indicated the Budget Director had cut funding for statutorily mandated training from the budget.

 

Mrs. Evans stated if the Executive Branch of the Nevada government did not value the agency enough to make proper recommendations for funding, then it would be difficult to convince the Legislature to do so.

 

Mr. Romero said if the Commission was given subpoena power, it could generate its own funds from federal resources such as Housing and Urban Development grants.  Chairman Arberry indicated the Senate was strongly opposed to granting subpoena power to the Equal Rights Commission.

 

Mr. Humke indicated he had suggested drafting AB 753 and he hoped it would be taken in the positive manner in which it was intended.  He noted every member of the committee realized the gravity of eliminating the Commission, for both employers and employees.  He stated the Commission and the Governor needed to know, however, the Legislature was prepared to follow through with its proposal, if necessary.  He reiterated the Legislature had given the Commission the tools it needs to improve.

 

Mr. Humke suggested the Commission could help the Legislature draft legislation creating a reconstituted Equal Rights Commission which could fend off the proposed sunset.  He asked Mr. Romero for his suggestions for improving, through statute change, the operation of the Commission.  Mr. Romero said the tool he needed was subpoena power.  He said the Commission would not use subpoena power wildly or at random.  In fact, it would be invoked only in conjunction with the action of the Attorney General's office.

 

Mr. Humke said the Commission could clear the backlog using the tools which the Legislature had provided.  He said in 1995 he would be interested to see how that had been accomplished.  He noted he had received complaints from small business owners regarding haranguing during settlement conferences.

 

Mr. Romero said the Commission no longer held fact-finding conferences.  Instead, informal settlement meetings were held simply to determine whether settlement was a possibility prior to beginning the investigative process.  He anticipated the process would become even more expeditious in the future.

 

Mr. Humke said he believed the Commission would take a positive approach to improving its operations.  Mr. Romero said he was still opposed to AB 753 since it provided no guidelines for improvement.  Mr. Humke suggested the committee issue a specific letter of intent regarding standards to be met.

 

Mr. Price stated he had worked out the current system of "haranguing" when the Commission was being established.  He pointed out the alternative was going directly to court.  He noted he was not in favor of AB 753.  He said if the Commission did not already realize it was being put on notice, it was beyond help.  He pointed out legislation was not needed to eliminate the Commission.  The Legislature could simply refuse to fund its budget.

 

Mr. Price said he did not know what other option the Commission had, when it was denied adequate funding by the Administration, than to plead its case to the Legislature.  He noted the Governor did not have the opportunity to elicit information through the hearings process as the Legislature did.

 

Mr. Romero commented the statutes mandated informal settlement meetings 10 days after a charge was filed.  If the statute was amended to allow for immediate notification of employers regarding potential complaints, much time and effort could be saved because frivolous complaints could be weeded out more rapidly.

 

Mr. Perkins said he was glad to hear cases were being closed; however, he was offended that AB 753 had to be drafted and this committee was put in the position of having to consider eliminating the Equal Rights Commission.  He said he was offended that Mr. Romero did not understand the agency should be giving 100 percent at all times, regardless of when the operation might be discontinued.  He said he was offended that this committee originally held this budget hearing in March 1993 but was only now receiving necessary information.  He said he was offended that Mr. Romero had not responded to the requests for information of auditors, fiscal staff or the committee for several weeks.

 

Mr. Perkins stated equal rights were very important to him and he was disturbed that AB 753 was necessary to elicit a response from the Commission to determine what it needed in order to accomplish its job.

 

Mr. Romero said he was offended that AB 753 was drafted and he had not been given an opportunity to prove his worth.  He said he was offended that he had not received the cooperation of the Budget Division, the Controller's Office, the Treasurer's Office, the Governor's Office or the Legislature.

 

Mrs. Williams questioned what would happen to pending cases if this bill was to pass.

 

Chairman Arberry called for public testimony.

 

Mr. Elmer Rusco, retired university professor, commented anything as important as abolishing an agency should not be brought before the committee at the end of the legislative session.  Chairman Arberry pointed out this agency had appeared before the committee several times.

 

Mr. Rusco said, in his opinion, AB 753 was a clumsy attempt to elicit cooperation from the agency.  He suggested if this were a sunset bill, it should be written like a sunset bill, stating what the agency must accomplish in order to continue and establishing a transition process.  He suggested the appropriate way to handle this situation would be through an interim study.

 

Ms. Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby, expressed opposition to AB 753 unless the committee could assure the public that discrimination claims would be appropriately handled in a timely manner.  She noted repealing the statute would include repealing the declaration of public policy.  She said she would not like to see that happen.  She suggested adopting legislation in the 1995 legislative session to strengthen the Commission.

 

Ms. Rosemary Flores, Executive Director, Nevada Hispanic Services, said her agency provided referrals to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission.  She stated 90 percent of her clients were low-income families, many of whom did not speak English fluently.  The Equal Rights Commission had been very helpful in assisting those clients.  She expressed concern about where those clients could be referred if the Equal Rights Commission was eliminated.  She voiced her opposition to AB 753.

 

Mr. Richard Siegel, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, testified he had been observing the work of the Equal Rights Commission for over 25 years.  He noted the committee had already sent a clear and powerful message to the Equal Rights Commission.  However, passing AB 753 would constitute overkill.

 

Ms. Catherine Copeland, Truckee Meadows Fair Housing, expressed opposition to AB 753.  She noted the Equal Rights Commission was the only administrative remedy for people who had been discriminated against in housing.  She urged the committee to give the Commission the tools it needed to become substantially equivalent to federal law.

 

Mr. Rick Johnson, Nevada Association of Employers, said he had experienced difficulties with the Equal Rights Commission over the years due to the Commission's procedures.  However, he was not anxious to see the Commission abolished.  He said he would like to have an opportunity to testify at length before the committee regarding the problems with the settlement conference process.  He stated it was very unfair to employers.  He noted the Commission based its performance disproportionately on money settlements and there was not sufficient interest in determining whether or not discrimination actually occurred.

 

Mr. Mike Johaneson, Service Employees International Union, expressed opposition to AB 753.  He said passage of AB 753 would adversely affect all parties.

 

Ms. Paula Berkley, Walker River Paiute Tribe and Washoe Tribe, expressed opposition to AB 753.

 

Chairman Arberry requested a committee introduction for a bill making an appropriation for an account for local cultural activities.

 

      MR. HELLER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION.

 

      MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Arberry requested a committee introduction for a bill related to trade practices, making various changes to the statutes governing credit service organizations.

 

      MRS. CHOWNING MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION.

 

      MR. PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

 

                                                RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                _________________________

                                                C. Dale Gray

                                                Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

June 17, 1993

Page 1