MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
March 8, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:15 a.m., on Monday, March 8, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Marion Entrekin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Paul Page, Ph.D., Vice President for Development, University of Nevada, Reno
Kathalie Koche, Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, University of Nevada, Reno
James Jackson, State Public Defender, Office of the State Public Defender
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties
Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Office of Narcotics Control Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Julie Payne-Stark, Substance Abuse Coordinator, Office of Narcotics Control Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Gerald Allen, Acting Director, Nevada Indian Commission
Karen Hanks, Management Assistant, Nevada Indian Commission
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) Administration - Page 172
Paul Page, Ph.D., Vice President for Development, University of Nevada, Reno, said he is also the Executive Commissioner of the
WICHE Program and wished to make a brief comment concerning this program prior to testimony on the budget by the director of the WICHE Administration.
Dr. Page stated the State of Nevada participates in a 13-state regional compact known as WICHE and is made up of three commissioners appointed by the Governor for 4-year terms. The compact was formed in response to the limited number of openings in professional schools of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, etcetera. The program is administered by the director and a management assistant II.
Dr. Page further stated the primary focus of WICHE is to provide Nevada students access to education and professional disciplines that are not available through the state's educational system.
Each field of study is funded by a support fee which is paid directly to the school on behalf of the students. Students are required to repay 25 percent of the support fee and to practice their profession in Nevada for one year for each year support is provided. The remaining 75 percent of the support fee must be repaid if the student is unable to return to Nevada to fulfill the practice obligation.
As Dr. Page understands it, this program is placed under higher education but will remain independent and will not be affected by reorganization.
Dr. Page said the commission is pleased with the way the program is being administered and the loan collection for this program is progressing extremely well. He distributed to the committee Exhibit C, "Program Introduction" relating to the WICHE program.
Kathalie Koche, Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, University of Nevada, Reno, referred the committee to page 172 of the Governor's Executive Budget and said there has been very little change to this budget since the last biennium and is funded at the recommended level for fiscal year 1992. This account is responsible for a loan portfolio of about $7.5 million of which $4.3 million is in stipend grants administered by this program and the remaining $3.2 million is for loans.
Ms. Koche said the Operating Expense category shows an increase over fiscal year 1992 due to reimbursement for services performed by the attorney general's office and court and legal costs. There is also an increase reflected in this category for regional WICHE dues.
Senator Raggio inquired as to the number of meetings the WICHE conducts on a yearly basis, and Ms. Koche stated the board tries to meet on a quarterly basis.
Senator Rawson referred to the Performance Indicators on page 175 and noted Item 3, "Amount of payments on unfulfilled practice." He said a cost of $18,000 had been projected for fiscal year 1992 for this item but the actual expenses were $114,161 and $85,000 is projected for 1993. He asked, "What can you tell us about the collections? Are they coming in? Have you run into something unusual?
Ms. Koche replied:
We identified approximately 75 delinquent debtors and out of that 75 we now have 7 active cases. The collections for fiscal year 1991 exceeded projections after what I call 'my collection campaign' of $186,000. For fiscal year 1992 it exceeded projections of over $262,000. The average monthly billable accounts...the monthly billing that I do...are about 12 delinquent accounts per month and they are assessed a delinquency charge that was implemented in fiscal year 1991....The Performance Indicators you are referring to for unfulfilled practice...that was cleanup from the last session when we identified the delinquent debtors. It is levelling out to be about $70,000 per year for people who do not come back to practice in Nevada. I feel comfortable with the program now. We have implemented standard accounting procedures to rectify the problem and change some of the policies.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Loan and
Stipend - Page 176
Ms. Koche said the commission was able to reduce their General Fund appropriation request for the next biennium because of the success experienced in their collection efforts for the past delinquencies and the ongoing collection procedures that were put in place.
Ms. Koche continued her testimony by stating:
The rationale for the reduction in WICHE slots....Although there is a demand in the remaining fields that I am funding, to meet targeted budget reductions I looked at the demand from applicants, the job market, projected growth in the profession, and capability of repayment of the student loan. Therefore, we have eliminated the physical therapy field beginning in the fall of 1993 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. We have eliminated the graduate library science...that is through a telecourse communication in conjunction with the University of Arizona being offered at the University of Nevada, Reno. I have reduced the veterinary medicine slots from five to four...the pharmacy slots were reduced from six to three, and law slots from 15 to 12.
Senator Raggio asked, "On the different disciplines...do the particular associations work with you in attempting to effect collection? For example, the Nevada State Bar or Nevada Dental Association?
Ms. Koche replied the Nevada State Bar Association has been very supportive of their efforts and provides the commission with a list of the applicants who have passed the state bar. They have also agreed to work with the commission in the event a student fails to repay. In this case they will notify that student his/her licensure could be in jeopardy. Ms. Koche said she has contacted the other licensing boards but has not received much support in collection efforts from them.
Senator Coffin asked Ms. Koche to provide the committee with the name, address, telephone number and occupation of the individuals who are delinquent in repayment of student loans.
Ms. Koche stated she would provide the list but believes the names Senator Coffin is interested in are the seven active cases the Office of the Attorney General is pursuing.
Senator Glomb asked who makes the decision regarding qualification for a student loan under the WICHE provisions, and if a means test is used.
Ms. Koche responded that all applicants have to meet an October 30 deadline and are then ranked on their undergraduate grade point average and test scores, if applicable, to the program for which they are applying. She stated that not all fields funded by the program require test scores but will interview the applicant instead. This precludes the commission from applying a means test since the acceptance of the applicant into the program is often based solely on their academic performance. All students are treated alike and are ranked on their own merit. The highest ranking students are given the slots allocated and are then certified for eligibility into the WICHE program. The remainder of the students are placed on an alternate list for future consideration.
Ms. Koche stated it has been her experience that most of the students who have applied for the WICHE program have been in need. Less than 5 percent of the applicants have indicated they are not
in need and generally decline the funding because they do not want
to make the commitment to return to Nevada to practice their profession.
Senator Glomb asked if students are fulfilling their obligation to work in their profession in Nevada for the contracted amount of time required, and what happens to those who do not fulfill this obligation.
Ms. Koche said between 64 and 68 percent of the WICHE graduates return to Nevada to practice. Those students who fail to return to the state must repay 100 percent of their student loan.
Senator Rawson stated he has received letters from the Nevada State Dental Association to add more WICHE slots for the dental profession but due to budgetary constraints, understands this cannot be accomplished at this time. He asked Ms. Koche how many students are accepted for this profession on a yearly basis.
Ms. Koche replied, "Three."
Senator Rawson then commented:
There is a problem I have discussed each year, and there is not anything I am aware of that has been done to correct it, and we need some help. The western schools all have a preference of selecting students that have WICHE behind them and we only have three slots. When students do not get the WICHE acceptance, they are not accepted at the western schools prompting parents to send their sons and daughters to dental schools in the east. We need to negotiate with the western schools to see that students are not selected against if they do not have the WICHE contribution. Perhaps we need to add a category that is an unfunded WICHE acceptance....It would be my recommendation that if we cannot fix the situation that we simply get out since it is a discrimination at this point. I think something should be done to correct the problem because I would rather not get out of the program.
Senator Jacobsen said, "One of my concerns is the fact we should have a cosigner for the loans. Have we ever instituted that?"
Ms. Koche stated this has been implemented and the cosigner has to be a qualified individual over the age of 21. She indicated there are a couple of students who have declined the loan because they could not find a qualified cosigner.
Senator O'Donnell asked for a copy of the WICHE slots available and
the number of slots in each category.
Public Defender - Page 632
James Jackson, State Public Defender, Office of the State Public Defender, stated he is in charge of the agency that currently is rsponsible for providing indigent defense to criminal defendants in 9 of the 17 Nevada counties. Those counties are Carson City, Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, Lincoln, Nye, Pershing, Storey, and White Pine. His office, which currently reports directly to the Governor, is proposed to be transferred into the new Department of
Education, Health and Human Services and be placed in the Administrative Services Division.
Mr. Jackson further stated as recommended by the Commission on Governmental Reorganization, the Governor's Executive Budget is proposing that the Office of the State Public Defender withdraw from all county indigent-case requirements and concentrate instead on state prison and appellate cases. Under the proposed reorganization Mr. Jackson believes the function of providing indigent defense to county cases will be the responsibility of the county.
In discussions he has had with the Budget Division, Mr. Jackson believes the counties will still have the opportunity to accept services from the Office of the State Public Defender if they make the committment to remain in the system for the biennium. He believes this is an important goal since there is nothing more disruptive than having a county withdraw in the middle of the biennium from the state system. In the current biennium when a situation such as this occurred, it resulted in the layoff of three attorneys, one secretary, and the elimination of an investigator position.
Senator Raggio asked which county withdrew during the biennium and Mr. Jackson replied it was Douglas County effective July 1, 1992.
Senator Raggio said he thought there was a cutoff date in which this had to be indicated, and Mr. Jackson said there was a change made in the previous session of the legislature wherein counties must notify the state public defender, in writing, by March 1 if they intend to withdraw. If they do not provide that notice of intent to withdraw, then they are committed to remain under the control of the Office of the State Public Defender for the biennium.
At this point in discussions Mr. Jackson has had with participating counties, five counties have given a definite commitment they wish to remain in the state's public defender system. Conveniently, he stated, that makes up two judicial districts so there will not be a "tearing apart" of a judicial district. Humboldt and Pershing counties are in the Sixth Judicial District, and White Pine and Lincoln counties are in the Seventh Judicial District. Their county commissioners have voted to remain in the state public defender system. He has had conversations with the Budget Division concerning this and will be able to determine how this will factor out as far as staffing requirements are concerned.
Mr. Jackson said to date Carson City, Storey, Nye, and Esmeralda counties have not made actual determinations of what they wish to do. He is attempting to provide information to Carson City County so they can arrive at what it will cost them should they decide to handle the function of providing indigent defense. Nye and Esmeralda counties wish to go through a request for a proposal process wherein they will receive bids from attorneys and consider setting up their own offices. He has not had direct discussions with Storey County officials, but Mr. Jackson believes since they are in the First Judicial District with Carson City,they will do whatever Carson City County chooses to do in this regard.
Senator Raggio remarked:
Let us understand. You will provide public defender's services and staff accordingly for those counties who indicate they wish to retain your service and you will
commit to their participation during the full biennium.
Plus, you will continue to handle the state prison filings for inmates? Will you handle the appellate work for the same area...the counties that remain and the inmates?
Mr. Jackson replied in the affirmative to both questions posed. He further added:
Those counties that opted to handle their own county public defender cases under Chapter 260 of the Nevada Revised Statutes are obligated to handle all direct appeals and post conviction cases as well...though Chapter 260 of the Nevada Revised Statutes creates a problem because it says the State Public Defender is responsible for overseeing whatever it is those county defenders do, and I do not know what that means.
Senator Raggio asked, "At which point are we going to know which counties are going to remain under the State Public Defender in addition to those you have already enumerated?"
Mr. Jackson answered:
I am pushing them to give me an answer as quickly as possible. I cannot give you a certain date at this point. If it is the committee's pleasure that I indicate to these counties I must have the information by a specific date, I certainly will indicate to those counties I must know....
Senator Raggio said the committee will have to receive this information before the budgets can be closed and stated, "I think we will have to know pretty quick."
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, asked that the communication from the counties be in writing so that the Budget Division will have some assurance that the money will be there for the biennium.
Mr. Jackson stated he has indicated to each of the county commissioners not to just take a vote but to transmit the vote by way of a letter to the Budget Division and to the Senate Committee on Finance so they will know what their commitment is.
Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, testified that during a previous discussion regarding this situation, there was an indication that the Nevada Association of Counties had been asked to review the possibility of creating another county organization or some type of quasi-municipal organization to handle the public defender function.
Mr. Hadfield told the committee:
I would like to reiterate what Mr. Jackson has said. We have looked at the cost of doing that,and we have looked at the same difficulties that you have addressed with relationship to keeping counties locked into a system. It is my professional opinion that the Office of the State Public Defender provides an excellent service to the counties. We have an excellent relationship with the present public defender and the budget office has been up front with us on how to keep it going with the counties....We are doing exactly what Mr. Jackson is
doing on pressing the counties to make a commitment and give an answer...I do not see the creation of some replacement organization being possible. There is a critical mass out there, and this system works well for the state and counties because combined we can staff something that gives us the flexibility to move people from one judicial district to another if necessary....The information you have from the public defender is the most current we have.
Senator Raggio said, "I think for this committee's purposes we will have to receive definite commitments by April 15, 1993."
Mr. Hadfield felt this request was reasonable and said the Nevada Association of Counties will work with the Office of the State Public Defender to make certain the information is received prior to April 15, 1993.
Mr. Jackson stated of concern to him is Clark County's desire not to handle the prison cases in their jurisdiction, and he is unable to find statutory authority that states they do not have to do this but at the same time Chapter 260 of Nevada Revised Statutes indicates the Office of the State Public Defender must provide an oversight function.
On March 10, 1993, Mr. Jackson will be meeting with all of Clark County's 15 district judges to discuss the possibility of providing conflict counsel because Clark County wants the Office of the State Public Defender to handle as many of their conflict cases as they possibly can.
Senator Raggio reminded Mr. Jackson that with the staffing proposed in this year's budget for his office he would not have the employees to handle this assignment, but Mr. Jackson said Clark County would pay for the actual cost of that service which would still generate a tremendous savings for Clark County who had averaged about $1.3 million for conflict-defense cases each year.
Senator Raggio asked if staff would have to be added to process this work load, and Mr. Jackson stated he believed the additional staffing was brought out as an enhancement in the Governor's Executive Budget.
Senator Raggio asked if the request for funding reflected in module 799 refers to the Clark County conflict cases, but Mr. Jackson was unable to state with certainty that the funding was for this purpose.
Senator Raggio asked if the prison reopened at Jean, Nevada, who would handle the prison-inmate cases.
Mr. Jackson replied:
That is where the problem has been. Clark County has stated they do not feel they are responsible for those cases because the prison is a state facility, but I do not see any statutory authority that sets that out...that states the county is not responsible if it is happening within Clark County. When I spoke with Clark County, they were unable to tell me how many felony cases arise out of the prison and were only able to give me a total of about 168 post-conviction cases that were filed county-wide. I do not know how many of those came out of the prison.
Senator Raggio indicated he believed this issue had to be resolved so the committee will know what to anticipate for budget purposes.
Ms. Matteucci responded the Budget Division will resolve this problem and provide the committee with a report.
Senator Raggio asked, "How have the prison cases been handled up to this point? Has the public defender in the respective counties handled those or just in Clark County?"
Mr. Jackson responded in the county where the prison is located is where the Office of the State Public Defender was doing business, and his office automatically handled the prison cases as well. With the opening of the prison facilities in Clark County, the public defender in that county started doing the prison cases. Because of staffing demands the defender's office is experiencing in Clark County, they have now indicated they will be unable to process the prison work load any longer.
Senator O'Donnell remarked the Office of the State Public Defender had a total of 19 positions allocated but in reviewing the Governor's Executive Budget he noted a request had been made to increase staffing by 10 additional employees in the next biennium and the Governor recommended 9.75 positions. Senator O'Donnell asked for an explanation regarding this request.
Mr. Jackson answered the 10 additional positions were for the Clark County Enhancement and was a speculative number only.
Senator O'Donnell asked, "Are you banking on the fact that Clark County is going to pick up the tab for this?"
Mr. Jackson replied:
The county has to agree they want us to do this service, and if they agree they will pay for the service. The 9.75 positions are based on performance indicators projected under the reorganization and would be adequate. If I am responsible for doing public defense in the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Judicial Districts, seven people will not be enough; but at the same time we will have additional funding to pick up additional positions...
Ms. Matteucci pointed out:
When Mr. Jackson put together his budget request, he did not anticipate the Governor's reorganization would suggest we opt out of providing county services....We have set up a budget over the last two or three bienniums, and every biennium the smaller counties are opting out which is disruptive. For this budget the state is opting out of all the counties...if the counties want to come forward, they will need to notify us they want to stay....So far only five counties have told us they want to stay with the state.
Senator Glomb asked Mr. Jackson if the following statement is correct:
The budget as you are presenting it now is based on the counties providing their own public defender services; and depending on how many counties opt to stay with the state, the budget figures may change in terms of the number of positions and amount of revenue needed to provide the services.
Mr. Jackson agreed with her statement but added the counties will be responsible for that cost so there will not be an impact on the general appropriation.
Senator Glomb asked:
According to the performance indicators, you provide representation to indigent juveniles from the counties currently in the system, and revenue for this service is
not included in the budget at the present time. Will those counties have to decide whether they want your office to provide services to indigent juveniles?
Mr. Jackson replied if the county decides to remain in the state public defender system by making a commitment, his office will handle the entire work load including indigent-juvenile cases.
Ms. Matteucci stated the Budget Division will provide the committee with a revised budget after they receive final notification of the counties that wish to participate in the state public defender system.
Senator Glomb questioned, "What is the rationale behind moving the Office of the State Public Defender to the new Department of Education, Health and Human Services (DEHHS)? Why not leave it where it is now?"
Ms. Matteucci answered:
There is a conflict with [the Department of Motor Vehicles and] Public Safety, a potential conflict with corrections...we tried to figure out where this office should be handled and it ended up under [D]EHHS. It stood alone but the idea of reorganization is to reduce the Governor's span of control and consolidate agencies into single departments and since this one deals with human service functions it was decided to put it under [D]EHHS.
Drug Commission - Page 1009
Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Office of Narcotics Control Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, presented her testimony concerning this budget by reading from prepared text (Exhibit D).
Senator Raggio asked how many members serve on the drug commission and how often the committee meets.
Ms. Evans replied there are 13 active members and they meet on the average of every-other-month. They are presently holding open testimony regarding the issue of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Their function is largely involved with prevention of substance abuse.
Senator Raggio asked, "What is the status of the statewide master plan on substance abuse?"
Ms. Evans replied the committee has been very efficient in meeting their September 1 deadline and presenting a copy of their report to the Governor. This report is also a public document and is distributed around the state.
Senator Raggio asked that the committee be furnished a copy of the latest report prepared by the drug commission.
Senator Glomb said, "If I remember correctly, you were located in the director's office of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety?"
Ms. Evans replied since she is administering narcotics control assistance grant funds she will remain in the same office. However, the proposed reorganization plan separates the functions of the drug commission from the Office of Narcotics Control Assistance, and the Grants Analyst position from the Office of Narcotics Control Assistance is recommended to be transferred to the budget for the new Department of Public Safety. The Substance Abuse Coordinator and a Program Assistant position are also recommended to remain with this budget which is recommended to be transferred to the new Department of Education, Health and Human Services.
Ms. Evans introduced Julie Payne-Stark, Substance Abuse Coordinator, Office of Narcotics Control Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and said she is their new Substance Abuse Coordinator and is located in Las Vegas, Nevada. However, she is not physically located in the office of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Payne-Stark how she envisions her role presently and what recommendations she may have for her new position.
Ms. Payne-Stark replied:
I started my position on February 1, 1993. I have spent time trying to familiarize myself with some of the successes of the drug commission and some of the efforts that my predecessor executed. At this particular time I want to take the time to travel throughout the state, if budget permits, and communicate with other individuals throughout the state to determine what their needs and concerns are. The most important thing I need to do is be informed and be knowledgeable of the different issues as they relate to substance abuse. I need to be aware of concerns expressed by city, local governments, schools, agencies, organizations, and community people who want to know what is happening in their particular area or community as it relates to substance abuse. Through that knowledge I can best provide information to the drug commission to help them prepare their state plans.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Evans if her primary role will be in the area of developing grant applications, and Ms. Evans answered in the affirmative stating she administers the narcotics control assistance monies and expects to receive $2.887 million for fiscal year 1993 to be used to fund various law enforcement related programs.
Senator Raggio questioned:
Why is it necessary to keep a drug commission...a czar position...? It sounds like we have deviated a great deal from the program the Governor envisioned a few years ago when we made a great ado about a drug commission, a drug czar....We were going to have a frontal assault on substance abuse....While certainly well-intentioned, many of us observed at the time it appeared to be more fluff than substance. I realize in this particular budget
there is not a great deal of General Fund money, but are we really going to continue to have that kind of function in this state? I realize you [Ms. Payne-Stark] are new to the position, and as you stated you are trying to understand what is available....I am not trying to be critical, but did we do what we said we were going to do the last session? We do have a plan. Is that all it is about? We have shelves full of plans in our research division...are we really doing anything about it?
Ms. Evans answered:
The drugs are still out there, sir. I cannot really speak about the substance abuse coordinator because that
is a decision made by the Governor, but I can give some input that since Ms. Payne-Stark has been stationed in the Las Vegas area that has been helpful since I am in Carson City and only one person and I must administer the grant area....
Senator Raggio directed his question to Ms. Payne-Stark and stated:
One of the roles that was sought was to bring together all of the different agencies and departments to make sure they were not just protecting turf...and where there was an overlap they were working in a coordinated effort. Can you report to us these efforts have been achieved? Is there significant progress being made? Are the various law enforcement agencies...state, federal, local...working together in a more comprehensive manner than in the past?
Ms. Payne-Stark replied to the best of her knowledge since she started in this position she has seen this to be evident. She has noted there is a multi-disciplinary approach. She is now a part of the "weed and seed" team which brings together the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Drug Enforcement Agency, and other law enforcement individuals whose efforts are to eradicate the use of drugs and the crimes that are associated with drugs.
Ms. Payne-Stark further testified:
I am pleased with what I see and I believe you will note differences in a short period of time. There are many efforts going on that are successful. We are getting positive feedback from people....We have latch-key programs that are being implemented throughout the schools. They are using the school property and providing services to children. We are planning to work in a targeted area with housing projects involved. I believe the report from the commission will provide positive feedback.
Senator Coffin asked if there has been any discussion within the drug commission office about the possibility of decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of substances.
Ms. Evans replied what has been discussed is alternative sentencing rather than decriminalizing the penalty for possession of small amounts of a substance.
Senator Coffin asked if the commission has an agenda to pursue this issue, and Ms. Evans replied the commission does have an agenda.
Currently they are looking at the possibility of treatment in
prisons and jails and alternative-sentencing programs.
Senator Jacobsen asked Ms. Payne-Stark to provide him with a copy of her travel itinerary listing the areas she plans to visit throughout the state.
Indian Commission - Page 1013
Gerald Allen, Director, Nevada Indian Commission, stated the purpose of the commission is to study matters relating to all of the Indian population of the State of Nevada. In the area of state and federal government, the commission gets involved with a variety of issues and concerns that come across their desks regarding items of importance to the Indians. At the present time, the commission
is reviewing legislation regarding water resources, taxation, land right-of-way, and Indian gaming.
Mr. Allen said there are five commissioners that serve on the Nevada Indian Commission at the present time. Three of the commissioners are Indian representatives and two are representatives of the general public.
The Nevada Indian Commission, which currently reports directly to the Governor's Office, is recommended to be transferred into the proposed Department of Education, Health and Human Services and be placed in the area of boards and commissions.
Mr. Allen introduced Karen Hanks, Management Assistant, Nevada Indian Commission, who testified the commissioners asked to have the salary and fringe costs of the Executive Director position included in their Base budget.
Within the Salary category in the Base budget, the Governor is recommending Vacancy Savings of $48,906 for fiscal year 1994 and $49,091 for fiscal year 1995.
Ms. Hanks continued her testimony by explaining the Nevada Indian Commission is currently housed in a building that is not accessible for disabled individuals. The lease on this building will expire on June 30, 1993 after which the commission will move to a Carson City location. The cost of the move is to be paid by the new Department of Education, Health and Human Services.
Senator Raggio asked where their office will be physically located in Carson City and Ms. Hanks replied, "The Kinkaid Building."
Senator Raggio noted for the record:
You have given the committee a handout (Exhibit E), 'Resolution of the Governing Body of the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, Inc.' Apparently the inter-tribal council as a representative of all of the Indian tribes in the State of Nevada wishes to go on record they are opposing the merger of the Nevada Indian Commission with the Department of Education, Health and Human Services and the relocation of the Nevada Indian Commission office to Carson City, Nevada.
I realize you are speaking here under the auspices of the Budget Division, but I think you had better change your hat for a moment and tell us why the inter-tribal council, which this agency serves, feel strongly about these two proposals.
Mr. Allen replied:
As you know the Governor's reorganization plan has been in the newspapers and is known to the various tribes who have discussed it. I have attended several of the executive board meetings and they have also discussed the
plan with me. I have also received many telephone calls from the inter-tribal council and from the urban groups who have expressed their concern regarding the proposals.
They felt they wanted to be on record as to the Governor's reorganization. They feel the loss of the Executive Director...I was appointed the acting director
in March 1992 and am still the acting director at this
time. The Indian people themselves feel they want to keep the Nevada Indian Commission as it was with an executive director, the position I had which was education information officer, and the management assistant.... They feel you should keep this organization as it is in regards to its purpose and why it was established to begin with, and they submitted their resolutions and letters concerning that.
Senator Coffin remarked:
I have read some of the letters from members of the Indian tribes and particularly a letter I received from Richard Arnold who is with the Indian center in Las Vegas. Mr. Arnold is opposed to the reorganization plan and has made a good case for not merging the commission into the new department. Some of the things not mentioned which I recognize is the current state of affairs between Native Americans and the rest of the population, and it seems this would be an inopportune time to make this move...when you are talking about access directly between leadership and the tribes. I think if you consider the feelings of the people who have been here so long it is important for this group, status wise, to go directly before the Governor to present their case or feelings about this issue. I think that would be very important.
Ms. Matteucci answered:
Nothing is going to prevent the Nevada Indian Commission from talking to the Governor, and the Governor will still appoint the Nevada Indian Commission. This is a two-person office and to have them remain as one of the 21 departments you are looking at separately...it defies what we are trying to do in reorganization.
In fact I would argue just the opposite....By combining this two-person office with the Department of Education, Health and Human Services [DEHHS] they are going to get much greater service than what they are getting now sitting in Reno somewhat isolated from some of the support services. I do not see the move to Carson City...because they have to move from their location due to failure to meet the [provisions of the] ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act]. I would argue strongly, and I do not understand the concerns....
Senator Coffin said this is not a perception he has received from the letters but it is his concern. He further stated:
From the letters we have received although they may receive more theoretical support by coming into Carson City in fact they will be isolated from their constituents....There was a good suggestion in one of the letters about possibly opening up an office of this commission in the southern part of the state where there are thousands of Native Americans.
Ms. Matteucci replied:
And there are hundreds of Native Americans in Carson City area as well. You can make an argument for operating three offices, but it is a matter of a funding level and this budget supports the value of two positions...."
Senator Coffin asked Ms. Matteucci to explain exactly how the commission will benefit by moving from Reno.
Ms. Matteucci answered:
They are going to be located in Carson City and the most immediate benefit...the cost of their space is significantly different, but they will have the support services of the administrative services division of [D]EHHS. Right now they have to take care of all of their own personnel and fiscal work...they are going to get this support from [D]EHHS which will be a significant department....
Senator Coffin asked, "But have not we cut them back, too?"
Ms. Matteucci responded, "You have cut everyone back and the fact of the matter is...."
Senator Coffin interrupted and said, "No, you have. You have proposed to cut those people back, too, so that is the support service? It is being cut back...."
Ms. Matteucci interjected:
Everybody's support service has been cut back, and if you combine these smaller agencies then they will be better able to support themselves...I suspect they will be better able to operate in Carson City than they ever did in Reno simply because they will be closer to the support service here.
Senator Coffin replied, "If we can find them."
Ms. Matteucci answered, "We will be more than happy to point them out to you."
Senator Raggio commented:
Over the years one of the criticisms has been that this commission has been seriously underfunded. The tribal council has faulted it because the commission has not had the capability to act in a manner truly responsive to what the council felt were their important needs.
I believe taking away the Executive Director position is an extreme disservice to the Nevada Indian Commission. That is not a great amount, but doesn't that action add to their concerns? I would think if I were a member of a tribal council or inter-tribal council governing body it would really bother me....2.75 positions and we are now eliminating the Executive Director position. Seems to me you are adding to that impression. A commission that is almost pared to nothing now will not even have an executive director?
Ms. Matteucci responded, "That is not necessarily the case. Once again we have our vacancy savings that were put in here...vacancy
savings and not reorganization savings I might add."
Senator Raggio asserted, "I have heard that lecture before. When you have a small number of positions...it flies in the face of reality you are going to have to cut out the executive director."
Ms. Matteucci answered:
Not necessarily. If you will look at the Agency Request category [in the Governor's Executive Budget], you will see that the agency proposed continuing the vacancy savings as a means to meet their target."
Senator Raggio voiced he was aware of that and asked:
If you have to put this [budget] together you are assigned the duty...give me a proposal....With two people, who are you going to have in there? What positions are going to be in the Nevada Indian Commission if you had the choice?
Ms. Matteucci replied:
I would have an executive director and a management assistant, and that flexibility is given here. That is a decision the Governor will make but that is how I would do it. I agree with you...and that is why the position was left authorized because they need to make contact with their constituency.
Senator Raggio asked, "Who do you have now?"
Pointing to Mr. Allen and Ms. Hanks, Ms. Matteucci replied, "You have these two people right here."
Senator Jacobsen expressed his concern over this issue and said he would like to foster a better relationship between the Indian people and state government.
Mr. Allen commented in the past the relationship between state government and the tribes had been tense. However, the commission is trying to change that concept to provide a better working relationship between their people and the state.
Mr. Allen mentioned he had recently attended a meeting of the board of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation whose tribal body is currently in the process of conducting a phase II feasibility study for a temporary nuclear waste disposal site in that area. He brought some of the Indian commissioners to that meeting so that they could be informed and be aware of the issues there. He felt this was a good example of one of the efforts being made to enhance their relationship with state government.
Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marion Entrekin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
March 8, 1993
Page 1