MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
May 17, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Monday, May 17, 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 M. Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst
Larry L. Peri, Program Analyst
Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Glenn Rock, Director, Department of Personnel
Philip J. Hauck, Supervisor, Technical Services Division, Department of Personnel
Michael H. Johaneson, Collective Bargaining Coalition, Service Employees International Union
Dr. Eugene T. Paslov, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education
Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association
Robert E. Dickens, Director, Government Relations and Economic Development, University of Nevada, Reno
ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 430: Makes various changes regarding fees of state land registrar and authorization to use state land.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, distributed an outline of A.B. 430 (Exhibit C) and a proposed amendment (Exhibit D). She repeated testimony given during budget hearings that in order to balance the budget the Division of State Lands would have to start charging fees for services. She said A.B. 430 was the bill drafted to accomplish that.
Ms. Wilcox acknowledged the division had operated without charging fees for many years, which she said was a surprise to many people who were prepared to pay a fee. She contended it would be fair to commence charging fees.
Ms. Wilcox described the three different types of fees that the bill would allow the division to charge. She said no fees have been charged previously for the items and permits listed.
Senator Raggio called attention to section 23 and asked if anyone with a pier at Lake Tahoe would now be required to pay a fee of $250 per year and if the owner would receive some service. Ms. Wilcox affirmed his query and answered the fee would give the owner the right to occupy state land by having a pier there. She said the fees charged in other states, particularly California and Oregon, had been used as a base for the fee schedule. California requires payment of the full cost of processing and environmental review for piers, a cost of about $400 per year, an amount greater than that being proposed for Nevada residents. She said California issues permits for 5 years including processing charges and a deposit of more than $1,000 at the time application is made to erect a pier.
Ms. Wilcox explained the provisions in section 24 cover primarily onetime activities such as dredging. She noted the fees are nominal for recreational activities and vary from about $250 to $1,000 for commercial activities.
Senator Raggio asked if the bill mainly applied to Lake Tahoe. Ms. Wilcox answered that was correct, that very little of it would apply to Lake Mead although some provisions would apply to Laughlin and along the Colorado River where some casinos have buoys. She said buoys were covered under section 23. She affirmed Senator Raggio's query that every buoy at Lake Tahoe would cost $150 per year.
Senator Coffin asked how much revenue was anticipated each year. Ms. Wilcox replied she estimated the measure would produce about $125,000, which is reflected in the budget.
Senator Coffin inquired if private lakes would be affected. Ms. Wilcox answered only navigable bodies of water would be affected, which includes Lake Tahoe, Washoe Lake, Walker Lake, the Truckee River, the Colorado River, the Carson River and the Virgin River.
She stated it would not include man-made lakes such as Lahontan Reservoir.
Senator Raggio asked if the people at Lake Tahoe were aware that A.B. 430 was under consideration. She replied, "I assume so. It's already been heard on the Assembly side. There was a front page article in the [Nevada] Appeal after the hearing, with a headline." She stated the fees on the California side of Lake Tahoe have become routine and the people on the Nevada side are probably aware of the fact they have "been getting a free ride."
Ms. Wilcox pointed out the cost to process permits has been paid by all the taxpayers in the state up until this point. She asserted the possession of a pier or buoy at Lake Tahoe vastly enhances the value of the property. She opined the proposed fees are very fair.
Senator Raggio inquired if anyone else collected fees for the same uses or purposes. Ms. Wilcox said no other state agency collects fees but Tahoe Regional Planning Association (TRPA) does. She acknowledged the TRPA fees are higher than those proposed in the bill.
Senator Raggio asked how charging a double fee could be justified. Ms. Wilcox responded TRPA fees are set up on an entirely different basis for a different purpose. She explained the TRPA fees are used for environmental review and environmental permits while the proposed state fees would allow people to use the land that belongs to the State of Nevada and to cover a small portion of the cost to process permits.
In reply to Senator Glomb's question, Ms. Wilcox stated California residents pay both TRPA and California fees.
Senator Jacobsen inquired about the pier at the 4H camp. He indicated it had fallen into disrepair, that nobody used it, so the determination had been made not to go through the TRPA process to repair it. Ms. Wilcox pointed to the amendment that exempts state agencies, which she felt would answer his query.
Ms. Wilcox continued her explanation of the bill. She stated section 25 would apply primarily to community drives to clean up the rivers. She said section 26 indicates how fees are to be distributed and the rest of the bill makes modifications in existing statutes primarily for housekeeping.
Senator Coffin inquired if the counties or other entities levy permit fees when something is constructed at Lake Tahoe. Ms. Wilcox responded she did not know. Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, interjected building permits were required for piers but not for buoys.
Senator Coffin asked if the state had to perform any duty other than issue a permit while leaving building supervision to the counties. Ms. Wilcox confirmed his question. She said all permit applications were sent out for review by the Division of Water Resources, the Division of Environmental Protection, the Department of Wildlife, the Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology,
and other agencies that might have jurisdiction, including TRPA and the Army Corps of Engineers with which the Division of State Lands has regular meetings.
Ms. Wilcox said the review process takes a minimum of 45 days. It includes initial and subsequent ongoing inspections.
Senator Raggio directed attention to section 27 and inquired if the legislation was designed solely for the purpose of raising revenue. Ms. Wilcox responded, "...it is designed primarily to raise revenue...." Senator Raggio asked if another regulatory system would be brought into being by the measure. Ms. Wilcox answered, "No.... We already have regulations at Lake Tahoe, and what we will be doing is amending those regulations so that they include--"
Senator Raggio asked the purpose of the regulations mentioned in section 27 and to what they would be limited. Ms. Wilcox replied, "We intend only to include...details like how far in advance you have to buy your application, what happens if you're delinquent, details of the application process."
Senator Raggio inquired, "We have your assurance of that?" Ms. Wilcox replied, "Yes, you do, sir." Senator Raggio declared, "We're making legislative history here so that we understand that these regulations are designed solely for that purpose and for no other." Ms. Wilcox replied, "That's correct, that they will be amendments to our existing regulations which go into the details of how permits are--"
Senator Raggio interjected, "So if somebody pays the fee, this agency is not going to deny them the right to have whatever is involved." Ms. Wilcox responded, "There would be no change in the way we issue permits now. Permits are occasionally denied, but very infrequently. As a general rule permits are issued and the question is what conditions are needed on permits in order to protect wildlife values or environmental values."
Senator Raggio countered, "It still leaves the philosophical issue that we are charging a fee and people are getting nothing for paying the fee...." Ms. Wilcox
responded:
I would not agree with that.... I would say people have been getting a lot for many years without paying any fees. People have been getting free permits that very much enhance the value of their property and free use of state land. And free services from our office, which amount to a substantial amount of money.
Ms. Wilcox reiterated many people at Lake Tahoe have been surprised that there have been no charges. She averred it is time for people who have been receiving those services to pay a nominal fee for them.
Ms. Wilcox described the provisions of the amendments set forth in Exhibit D. She said the amendments were the result of discussions with the Department of Wildlife after the bill passed the Assembly. She stated the first proposed amendment was a definition offered to conform with another bill going through the legislature.
Ms. Wilcox said the other amendment would add a new section to make it clear that the fees would not apply to client state agencies. She explained lands are assigned to state agencies for their use and the assignment process would not be affected by the bill.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the bill would interfere with the project at Cave Rock. Ms. Wilcox replied it would not, nor would it affect the 4H project because those are both state properties. She declared there would be no charges connected with either project. She said the permit to expand the boat ramp at Cave Rock had already been issued.
Senator Raggio asked that the reason for the bill be stated one more time. Ms. Wilcox declared, "This bill is needed to raise revenue...for the state land office."
In the absence of further testimony on the matter, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 430.
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 362:Provides skeleton form for revision of state personnel system.
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), brought back responses he characterized as preliminary to questions regarding exempt-merit proposals made on May 12, 1993, in a memorandum (Exhibit E) dated May 17. He declared he may have additional remarks after the SNEA attorney has had an opportunity to review the exempt-merit proposals.
Senator Raggio recalled not only was the exempt-merit proposal reviewed but also issues regarding changes in personnel procedures. Mr. Gagnier concurred and said, "In the paper that I've given you that's dated today, I've responded primarily only to those issues which we consider to be retaliatory."
Mr. Gagnier read and expanded upon his memorandum and a previous memorandum of May 12 provided by the director of the Department of Personnel. Mr. Gagnier charged the proposals would give "overly broad" authority to the Department of Personnel.
Senator Raggio invited Glenn Rock, Director, Department of Personnel, to come forward in the event his input was required.
Reading item 3 in his memorandum, Mr. Gagnier asserted the banding proposal, as cited in Mr. Rock's memorandum of May 12 to the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, was considered by SNEA to be retaliatory.
Mr. Gagnier corrected a figure he had quoted earlier and declared the percentage of employees at the top of their pay scale was 37 percent as of the previous June 23. He made the assumption the figure may be even greater since the freeze on hiring was implemented. He acknowledged those employees were ineligible for merit steps.
Mr. Gagnier said the law provides that the remainder of employees with satisfactory performance should be able to move up through the steps on an annual basis. To Senator Raggio's question as to how much each step was, Mr. Gagnier said each step was about 4.3 to 4.5 percent, down from 5 percent.
Mr. Gagnier called attention to a proposal in Mr. Rock's memorandum and endorsed the suggestion that agencies should hire extra staff in order to reduce overtime. He also called attention to the proposal to allow agencies to fill positions in any manner they wish, which he alleged would stop discrimination.
Senator Raggio asked for clarification of the "rule of five," which he asserted was the cause of much concern. Mr. Gagnier replied he would not argue in favor of a "rule of five," he would argue in favor of a "rule of three."
Mr. Gagnier explained the current rule provides that if there is a vacancy in a classified position, a number of names will be certified to the agency that equal four more than the number of vacancies. He indicated that meant there would be five names proposed for one vacancy, or six names proposed if there are two vacancies. He said those would be people who have indicated they would accept the position, and they would not necessarily be taken from those already employed within the system.
Mr. Gagnier stated:
Right now, because of regulations adopted by the Department of Personnel, over our objections...it is up to the agency whether they are going to recruit open-competitively, or promotionally. Now the law says...in so far as practicable, vacancies will be filled by promotion within the agency. But that the director of personnel and the Personnel Commission have determined that they will determine what is practicable each time they fill a job.
Mr. Gagnier acknowledged all the job announcements are received by his office. He declared:
The majority of them now are coming in, they're recruiting open-competitive. Now they may fill a position from within, but they're recruiting from open-competitive lists, which means inside the agency and outside the agency as well, as we watch these as they come into our office. So...the "rule of five" doesn't apply to within the agency...
Senator Raggio asked if there is always a list of five people. Mr. Gagnier replied that is true unless five applicants cannot be found or for some lower-level jobs that do not require the "rule of five," they only require open certification.
Senator Raggio asked how that serves the public interest. Mr. Gagnier answered, "To assure that the most qualified people, based upon an examination process, are being appointed to these positions." When Senator Raggio repeated his question to Mr. Rock, Mr. Rock replied, "Frankly, I don't think it does."
Mr. Rock averred the "rule of five" discriminates against people of different ethnic groups. He indicated his inability to reach people lower on the list from different ethnic groups. He said most states with more restrictions move into a broad-banding of hiring practices. He said, "People that score on an examination from 90 to 100 would all be certified and anybody could be chosen out of that group. And the same thing, if you drop down to the next band from 80 to 90...it's much less restrictive than our system."
Mr. Rock said California used to have a "rule of three" but they have moved away from it, as have other states, because it is so restrictive. He added:
When people take tests, how finite can you be? Somebody scores...let's say that the person who's number five...scores a 92, and yet the sixth person scores a 91.8...so that person's excluded and I would say the examination process is not that finite and I would like to see a much broader selection process.
Senator Glomb asked if factors other than score were considered, such as length of service. Mr. Rock replied at one time there were two things that could skew scoring, those being residency and veterans. He asserted he had long argued against them. He said the federal system did away with residency requirements a long time ago. He indicated, "People who are veterans can have points added to their scores and many times that will bring them up into that group...of the top five. So your top scorer on the examination may not be the person that you reach."
Senator Glomb repeated her question if any factor other than being a veteran added to the score. Mr. Rock replied, "Only those...added scores of the veterans and that sort of thing would be in addition to your score on the examination." He said people with experience in the agency would not be given extra consideration. He explained the advantage a person with experience in the agency might have would be in taking the examination.
Mr. Gagnier interjected, "One thing in response to...affirmative action for ethnic groups, we believe that the process that has been in effect for the past several years now discriminates against women." He asserted that while the promotional law was enforced the salary gap between males and females in state government was steadily closing, but during the first full year when the new rule was in effect the gap turned around. He averred the impetus to improve salaries in state government had been lost.
According to Mr. Gagnier, doing away with the "rule of five" would enable agencies to avoid the centralized personnel system and to adopt whatever rules they wanted. He recalled there had been a movement 2 years ago within the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means to eliminate the Department of Personnel as being redundant because most state agencies have their own personnel offices. He pointed out some of those offices are quite large. He added, "Yet they're paying the payroll...assessment to the Department of Personnel for all these services yet...the Department of Personnel contracts with them to do their own classification and examination and so forth."
Mr. Gagnier asserted S.B. 362 will lead to more control over personnel matters by the individual agencies. He asked, "Why should they pay a personnel assessment to the Department of Personnel?"
Mr. Gagnier asserted changes in disciplinary laws providing that employees would be allowed to appeal to the department head only would be a "major diminution of legal rights." He said the legal counsel for SNEA called the proposal to remove the hearing officer "one of substantive value."
Senator Raggio asked if that did not constitute just the removal of one step because the person would still retain the right to appeal to the director's office and to go to court. Mr. Gagnier responded:
Yes, but when you're going to court, what are you going to court on? You're going to court based upon the record that has been established, and you don't get a brand new trial. So who's to say that you're going to get a fair trial or fair hearing when you go before the director of your own agency. ...The guy who fired you is going to give you a hearing. That's ludicrous.
Mr. Rock countered:
The system works quite well in the gaming department right now. Essentially what they have...is their own personnel system. They have an appeal process that goes up through the director or the head of that agency-
Senator Raggio asked if they use a hearing officer as an intermediary. Mr. Rock replied they do not.
Mr. Gagnier reminded the committee that the employees to whom Mr. Rock was referring were unclassified. Senator Raggio responded that they were discussing a new classification with some similarities to unclassified employment, especially with the ability to collect overtime pay. He stated there is some similarity because it would be an exempt group. He voiced the understanding the nonexempt would retain their right to the present situation in which there is a hearing officer.
Mr. Gagnier reiterated the current rights of the group of employees would be taken away as a result of the overtime issue. He alleged S.B. 362 had been drafted as a response to the Benzler [Janice Benzler v. State of Nevada, 804 F. Supp. 1303] decision.
Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Gagnier was suggesting the legislature would forever be barred from making changes in the personnel system or change classifications because of the Benzler case. Mr. Gagnier replied:
No...I think that you could have made changes, perhaps you can make changes...in the future. What I'm saying is that if you make those changes in response to a group of employees who have exercised their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, that is retaliation under federal law.
Mr Gagnier continued to read his memorandum in response to the May 12 proposal and comment upon it. He asserted the Department of Personnel will make the determination who will be classified as "exempt-merit." He found fault with many of those included by the personnel department and said, "We will never agree to them making this determination."
Senator Raggio inquired who Mr. Gagnier would suggest should make the determination as to which employees would be "exempt-merit" if there is a separate Department of Personnel. Mr. Gagnier replied, "In our opinion, there is no current body in place that we would trust to make this decision. None."
Again Senator Raggio queried:
Let's concede for the moment that an exempt-merit class is established by the legislature...for several reasons...but primarily...the necessity to avoid the cost of overtime. ...Let's forget the legal arguments. ...Who should decide, other than the legislature, who goes into the exempt-merit service?
Mr. Gagnier replied, "We would propose...a suggestion that has been made within the ways and means committee...that we have a new body...that is truly independent." He indicated his intention the body should be independent of the executive branch of government. He suggested the legislature and the executive branch could give input as to who would serve on that body. He admitted that might pose a constitutional problem of interference in the executive branch.
Mr. Gagnier reiterated his distrust of allowing either the Department of Personnel or the state Personnel Commission to make the decision. He pointed out the state Personnel Commission is composed of people appointed by the administration. He declared, "On those two factors we're not going to get a fair shake."
Senator Raggio responded, "The people of this state are asked every day and universally to trust the judgement of the executive department in all other matters. How would you do this differently?"
Mr. Gagnier had no new suggestions. He continued reading his memorandum of disagreement with the proposals for revision of the state personnel system. When asked who makes decisions regarding attendance and leaves, he replied that is presently covered by law. He was unsure whether or not the new proposal envisioned additional regulations to be adopted by the director of personnel. He acknowledged some regulations exist for all classified employees.
Mr. Gagnier said the proposal read, "The director shall prescribe regulations for attendance and leaves with or without pay or reduced pay in the various classes of positions in the exempt-merit service." He opined the specificity in the proposal is similar to current law as it applies to classified employees. He reiterated he did not know what additional regulations might be adopted.
Mr. Rock explained the language of the proposal intended for annual and sick leave to be exactly the same as it is for nonexempt personnel.
Mr. Gagnier accused the administration of trying to force involuntary leaves, commonly called "furloughs." He called it another "detrimental" provision. He averred, "This is...contrary to current law. It would allow the administration to force these employees to take leave without pay."
Mr. Rock commented that when the system had been designed the proposal for involuntary furloughs had been included. He conceded it is not included in existing law.
Mr. Gagnier said he included paragraph 12 regarding the absence of apparent steps through pay bands in the list of items he opposed. He admitted to some confusion during a discussion on the matter on the previous Friday because it appeared there were no steps within the pay bands. He admitted there was a statement on page 26 that provided for bonus pay based upon evaluated job performance. However, he reported the committee had been told there would be no movement through the bands. Then, he said:
While there are no defined steps within a pay band, this proposal appears to say that there will be progression, so if you start at the bottom of a pay band you will work up to the top of the pay band and then beyond that you will be eligible for bonus pay."
Mr. Gagnier said he was not opposed to that concept, he simply felt there was some confusion regarding steps through the pay bands. Senator Raggio asked how one would progress through the pay bands.
Philip J. Hauck, Supervisor, Technical Services Division, Department of Personnel, stated at the present time some individuals qualify for a merit salary increase and can receive a one-step increase of approximately 4.5 percent until they reach the top of their current grade and step.
Mr. Hauck said what had been envisioned for the exempt-merit service was that individuals would be placed in four pay bands and have the opportunity to move through the pay bands from the bottom to the top based upon performance. He said it had been proposed that directors of departments be given the latitude to recognize outstanding performance from a pool of funds sufficient to provide for a 5 percent increase for standard performance. He explained the directors could provide something greater than a 5 percent increase for individuals with outstanding records. He indicated the provision would allow directors to give those who gave standard or lower performance something less than 5 percent. The use of the funds would be a matter of choice for the department directors as to how the money was allocated in recognition of performance, he said.
In response to questioning by Senator Raggio, Mr. Hauck said not everyone would move to the top of the band because there would not be enough money. He said cost-of-living increases would not facilitate progression through the band.
Senator Raggio voiced his understanding the proposal was a substitute for almost automatic merit steps. Mr. Hauck confirmed his appraisal of the situation.
Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Gagnier had concerns regarding arbitrary action and favoritism. Mr. Gagnier responded:
Any time you get into the area of performance-based pay...you have all the problems that you just identified. We even had a joint labor-management task force back in the `70s which we were able to get funded by a federal grant and brought in...a mediator with the federal mediation conciliation service who met as part of our labor-management group. We studied a number of issues including the issue of performance-based pay. After studying it for 18 months we admitted you couldn't do it. Every experience we have seen of it being done in government just doesn't work.
Mr. Gagnier recollected the issue had been brought before the legislature several times where it had always been rejected.
Mr. Gagnier continued his criticism of the May 12 proposal as enumerated in Exhibit E. He stated the proposal to eliminate current law regarding preference for promotional candidates constituted a substantial reduction of current employee rights.
Mr. Gagnier argued that some protections for employees against favoritism which had been established over the years were being removed. He charged that would return the system of favoritism
and employees would not be promoted based upon their ability to perform but rather upon "who they know and who they go out and party with."
Mr. Rock contended he would have brought the first alternative offered by Peat Marwick if he were really out to "get" state employees. He described the first alternative as giving those the option for employees in exempt service to serve at the will of department directors. He stated he had attempted to design a system that would fall in between those extremes.
Mr. Rock acknowledged some of the protections for classified people are missing from his proposal. He repeated an earlier comment that one of the keys to any system in terms of how effective it might be depends upon the ability of the supervisors and managers. He declared his experience had shown him that if supervisors and managers are provided with the same protection as that provided for the rest of the employees it is very difficult to get rid of those that do not perform adequately.
Mr. Rock asserted that if the supervisors and managers perform well the rest of the work force will perform well also. Conversely, he said if supervisors and managers perform poorly the rest of the work force will not perform well either.
Senator Raggio indicated the general public often has the perception that there is no cost-efficiency in government. He asked both men which proposal, if either, would address efficiency in government.
Mr. Rock responded he felt if some protections were removed for the supervisory group so that they could be removed more easily they would perform better. He declared one criticism he hears repeatedly from the public is that the system is inflexible, it is too bureaucratic, and "you can't get rid of anybody." He suggested many managers and supervisors simply give up in despair rather than go through all the steps required by the system to get rid of incompetent employees. He suggested his proposal would permit one deterrent to be removed from the system.
Senator Raggio asked if that was reflected in the Peat Marwick study. Mr. Rock replied the Peat Marwick study left the decisions up to the executive branch of government. He said Peat Marwick proposed a three-tiered system although they had not made very specific proposals.
Mr. Gagnier responded to the query regarding public perception that government lacks efficiency. He said he also believed supervisors should do better jobs. He reminded the committee that 4 years ago SNEA had promoted a bill to require the state to give training to supervisors because most supervisors needed training to conduct performance evaluations.
Mr. Gagnier stated there is no doubt that a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, right or wrong. He declared government in the United States is inefficient because the people have demanded that they have protections, that there be checks and balances, and that there be accountability. He doubted that the proposal would lead to efficiency and offered the opinion it might create more inefficiency.
Mr. Gagnier said, "First off, this doesn't even address the issue. What we should be addressing is the issue of rampant overtime in state government. ...Let's not come up with this big, long wish list from the Department of Personnel." He suggested the issue of overtime should be resolved first.
Mr. Gagnier reiterated, "How can it be efficient when...the top administrators of a state agency are the ones that are earning vast amounts of overtime?" He noted one division head, not any of the ones in gaming, had $60,000 worth of overtime.
Senator Raggio asked if overtime was built into the retirement system. Mr. Gagnier answered that the retirement system was not subject to overtime. He said a bill proposed during the last legislative session to include overtime had been killed.
Senator Coffin voiced his concern about the proposal by saying:
The reason we have created...a civil service with certain protections, which probably impeded...the firing of individuals was to protect them from political pressure. It was a means of helping avoid the patronage and the corruption of government which occurred when every job in government was subject to being an appointive position without merit or without even regard to anything more than maybe a kickback on the payroll...or a payoff by working in their campaigns...
Senator Coffin said the civil service system could be called the classified system in Nevada. He asked if the proposal would erode the old process. He indicated his understanding that many unclassified people serve somewhat at the pleasure of the employer, but added a new middle ground is being formed. He asked if those people would be more vulnerable to political pressure.
Mr. Rock replied:
According to the merit standards that the federal government has...most of the state systems...copied the federal government in terms of what they did.... The...late 1800s and early 1900s is when they actually came out with the civil service system.... Most of the language...in the state...pretty much copies the federal government.... One of the reasons I think Peat Marwick recommended that...the word used would be merit...is because of the amount of federal funds that does come into the state, and those programs do require that you have a merit system, so you can't get away from that. One of the standards in the federal system is that you take disciplinary action for cause, so to have cause...removes it from the political system.
Mr. Rock conceded some of the rights of the management-supervisory group and some of the highly paid professionals might be diminished. He averred many of the things that happened in the 1800s or early 1900s would not be permitted under present day court systems.
Senator Coffin maintained, "Things have a way of going full circle." He asserted, "Institutional memory disappears. We forget our history...." He sought reassurance that another 2,700 people would not feel more vulnerable to political action.
Mr. Gagnier declared he had specifically avoided the issue raised because the proposal did not address it. He agreed the burden of proof on an agency may be less to eliminate an employee if there is no independent hearing officer rendering decisions as opposed to the department head making decisions. He said, "You don't have that third-party hearing process that's going to give you fairness."
Mr. Gagnier disputed Mr. Rock's claim that it is "virtually impossible to get rid of people in state government." He averred the SNEA lawyer would also dispute that "every time she loses a case." He estimated there are about 250 people who are dismissed from state government each year.
Mr. Gagnier acknowledged that the majority of those dismissed were probably in probationary periods, which he called proper. He asserted the probation period of one year for state jobs is fairly long. He pointed out during that year the employee can be dismissed for any reason as long is it is not done for an impermissible purpose such as discrimination.
Senator Glomb asked why there had been so much overtime. Mr. Rock replied he really did not know how to answer the question because he had no control over agencies or overtime. He made the assumption it could be attributed to understaffing. He said historically overtime is due to either understaffing or to an emergency situation in which there is no other option.
Senator Glomb stated she felt that may be the key to the issue of overtime. She acknowledged the courts have made a ruling that people who work overtime must be compensated but, she said, "I question the wisdom of taking on...the whole personnel system and revamping it rather than first adjusting the key issue of...overtime." She admitted she had not determined whether or not the personnel system needed an overhaul, saying every system should work towards improvement. She said, "I fear a trap for this legislative body in trying to take this session along with all the other major problems we're trying to face this session." She expressed fear the courts might view an overhaul of the personnel system as a retaliative measure.
Senator Glomb asked if Mr. Rock could produce evidence as to which agencies had the most overtime, how many hours they used, and what their staffing patterns were during the past year or two compared to 5 years ago.
Mr. Rock replied he had the capability to produce the requested information regarding comparisons. In response to Senator Glomb's other concerns, he responded, "I think...throughout the country right now there are major efforts and concerns relative to civil service reform...." He listed several states that have enacted reforms which he attributed to the economic situation and to inflexibility in government.
Senator Glomb reiterated:
When...we have a budget that's in a new format, we're facing fiscal issues of crisis proportions, we're trying to reorganize state government, and deal with the SIIS system, and now to also take on the personnel system I think is a little much. I think we need to do this in more incremental fashion, and I for one, and with the chair's permission, would like some of that information about the actual overtime issue, which is the issue that brought us to the Benzler decision and an issue that I think we need to address head on.
Senator Raggio stated that responses had been received from the agencies involved regarding most of the overtime, although the information had not yet been analyzed. He asked the staff to do so, and said, "At the very least we are going to have some policy known to us before we adjourn as to how overtime will be handled and monitored in the future."
Senator Glomb expressed the desire that the analysis would give a clear picture of staffing patterns within the agencies that have high rates of overtime.
Mr. Gagnier interjected there is a proposal to repeal a law that would limit members of the Governor's staff and department heads to 80 hours of compensatory time. He asserted the law imposing the limit was adopted by the 1971 legislature as a response to the need for a supplemental appropriation to pay vast amounts of overtime to the outgoing managers and staff of the Governor. He averred the issue of overtime is an old issue, but the federal courts have since mandated that anyone receiving any overtime compensation falls under the nonexempt category.
Senator Callister agreed, "This is an overresponse to a fairly narrow problem, which was the overtime issue." He indicated he would also like to know who is accruing the overtime and whether there is a relationship to understaffing and overtime.
Senator Callister asked for a written proposal from Mr. Gagnier "as to how to deal with ballooning overtime concerns...." He asked Mr. Rock for a calculation of the "net-net increase in appointive positions that you anticipate as a result of the adoption of this proposed legislation." He asked how many could be appointed by the Governor or executive branch now and how many would be exclusively serving at the whim of the Governor under the new proposal.
Mr. Rock responded Senator Callister was referring to the exempt-appointed group which he believes would total 56, less than at present. He said there are 600 unclassified positions at present, many of whom serve at the will of the Governor.
Mr. Gagnier indicated he had given the committee a proposed amendment to S.B. 362 last Friday which he felt would address the primary issue of upper level people receiving overtime. He pointed out they regulate their own hours, which he called "the real problem." He said among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, in addition to the 350 SNEA plaintiffs, there were five positions claiming back pay in excess of $10,000 for overtime. He declared, "All five of them [were] the top administrators of one major division of a state agency who regulate their own hours."
Mr. Gagnier charged that was inequitable, saying, "People who regulate their own hours should not get overtime." He added, "It's people who are directed to work that should be paid overtime." He called that a fundamental difference that should be made part of policy. He offered to put any other requested proposals into writing.
Michael H. Johaneson, Collective Bargaining Coalition (CBC), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), focussed on his objection to S.B. 362. He recalled previous discussions regarding a list of exempt-classified positions and referred the committee to a memorandum he had written to Ms. Giunchigliani on April 28 (Exhibit F). He said:
Roughly, in our estimation, 1,000 of that 2,700 we will challenge. Some 60 job titles in there I think are challengeable when you relate those activities and job performance of those people versus the long tests in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Johaneson reasoned that many of the activities undertaken by employees are not necessarily included in their job descriptions. Yet he asserted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is "concerned about what people do." He alleged there may be another major series of lawsuits if the issue is not resolved.
Mr. Johaneson recommended that if a bill is adopted that would give authority to the Department of Personnel to establish an exempt status the bill should include a hearing appeal process using an outside third party. He suggested using the American Arbitration Association as a source of hearing officers. He averred it would be better to take his estimated 1,200 cases to arbitration rather than to federal court.
Mr. Johaneson warned, "The cost on this is going to be exorbitant...primarily because we don't get together in advance and work stuff out." He opined nobody would be satisfied if all appeals went to Mr. Rock.
Mr. Johaneson declared the unilateral authority given to the director of personnel in S.B. 362 is excessive, unnecessary and "scary." He concurred some measures need to be taken to increase efficiency in government and stated SEIU would like to make recommendations. He asserted, "The focus needs to be on resolving the overtime issue, not changing the whole personnel system."
Mr. Johaneson reflected on earlier discussions on the merit/band issue. He declared:
When you're talking about merit and bands, you also need to look at the value of the position. Value of position is established through objective class and comp [comparative] studies done on a regular basis. In most cases that I'm aware of...the top salary is the value of the position. It is the salary you compare against private sector, it is the one that you use when you take the objective standards of skills, education, responsibility and so forth, and weigh that. And if the top salary on a band is what the job is worth, then everything up to that is simply moving up to what the job is worth.
Mr. Johaneson asserted it is not so much a question of merit.
Senator Raggio asked for an explanation of the concept that the top salary is what the job is worth. Mr. Johaneson replied, "I've been involved in an number of class and comp studies.... We just did one in Clark County with the health district using Ralph Anderson and Company...and it was the first thing out of Ralph Anderson's representatives.
Senator Raggio inquired what a person should be paid for doing his job at the beginning of a band. Mr. Johaneson replied it would be something less than the value of the job, because experience would bring the person up to the value of the job. He stated he did not believe the value of a job should take 10 or 12 steps but that it should be much shorter. He said, "In public sector for 20 years we have stretched that out."
Senator Raggio asked if the public should have the right to expect that an employee ought to perform in a satisfactory manner after he passes the probation period. Mr. Johaneson agreed.
Mr. Johaneson said, "Every time you do a class and comp study and set up a band or merit system, you have to establish...where that job value is going to fit." If the value is in the middle, he declared, anything above it would be a bonus.
Senator Raggio accused Mr. Johaneson of making a strong argument against bands or steps and for fixed salaries. He said if that were done and cost-of-living raises were the only raises it might preclude many of these arguments. Mr. Johaneson suggested it might be proper if the state could afford it, but he did not believe it would be less expensive.
Mr. Johaneson submitted many factors should be considered before S.B. 362 might be adopted, because it is a complicated issue.
Mr. Johaneson recalled an earlier discussion regarding 618 people moving from hourly to salary work who might be credited for overtime as part of their new base salaries. Senator Raggio responded those persons had received overtime over a 2-year period and the increase would reflect the average they received on top of base. Mr. Johaneson expressed hope that would work as a transition.
Mr. Johaneson reiterated the problem of making an evaluation of the job objectively. He asserted the job should be worth more than the hourly rate if it required overtime to complete. He appealed to the committee to consider total take-home pay that employees families have relied upon. He admitted they have no legal expectation to continuation of that pay.
Mr. Johaneson agreed to provide some recommendations as requested by Senator Callister. He asserted the problem was too complex to complete before the end of the legislative session.
Senator Raggio said SNEA has suggested not only a study but also the utilization of agreements within agencies where they are recognized as bargaining agents. He asked what suggestions SEIU might have.
Mr. Johaneson responded he concurred with the suggestions made by SNEA and that the application of the Benzler decision should be studied. He opined there was a flaw in the application of the Benzler decision. He called it "part of the problem." He pointed out, "We represent a lot of public employees. They're all affected by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and we don't have a mess like this anywhere."
In response to a question by Senator Raggio, Mr. Johaneson said SEIU only represents about 2,000 state employees, but it also represents 5,000 in Clark County and 150,000 in California. He admitted he was not in a position to negotiate many agency agreements.
Senator Jacobsen expressed concern that many employees depend upon overtime as a necessity. He asked if there had ever been a determination of how much free time employees take for doctor appointments or other personal business. Mr. Johaneson replied his experience has been that most state employees take very little time off and usually give up breaks or lunch time for such personal business.
Mr. Johaneson concluded with the statement there will be more overtime as a result of layoffs and the increase in service as proposed under the reorganization.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 362 and opened the hearing on S.B. 86.
SENATE BILL 86: Requires development of state plan for educational technology.
Senator Rawson stated S.B. 86 had been requested by the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance because of the required appropriations. He said an interim study had disclosed the need for development of a statewide plan for technology. Another need is to encourage private enterprise to work in league with school districts to implement a better level of technology.
Senator Rawson described the bill, saying it will create an educational advisory board to develop a plan while the State Board of Education will have final authority to approve educational technology. He said the bill will include computer software as well as textbooks for instructional use.
Senator Rawson said members of the advisory board will be appointed by the Governor, including one teacher, one principal, one parent, one student, one member of the State Board of Education, two from the legislature, one from private industry and one from a high-technology industry. The advisory board members will serve staggered terms. He deduced such a broad cross-section of people would develop an appropriate plan. He said the advisory board would report to the State Board of Education and to the legislature.
Senator Rawson said the largest part of the appropriations sought in S.B. 86 would provide for a technology advisor to the State Board of Education. Other appropriations are requested for travel expenses for those on the board, although they will receive no salary. There is also a request for an appropriation of $110,000 for the university to develop programs to demonstrate teaching through technology for all state teachers.
Dr. Eugene T. Paslov, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, stated he had participated in the interim study on technology. He declared he had endeavored to bring about effective change in the public schools while holding down costs.
Dr. Paslov said there are three kinds of intervention which have been tried throughout the nation. He enumerated them. One is to develop higher standards and the accountability and assessment systems that go with them. A second is to restructure the system such as was done in Kentucky due to inequities in its distribution system and nepotism in local boards of trustees. The third intervention he described as new delivery systems which "require hands-on approaches" and staff retraining. He said the latter approach is the one being attempted through S.B. 86.
Dr. Paslov said S.B. 86 would provide for a major intervention in the system, which he supported. He indicated the improvement would come about incrementally at a modest cost.
Dr. Paslov described the provisions of S.B. 86. He drew attention to the definition of "educational technology" in section 2. He said the provisions in section 3 were derived from plans in other states.
Senator Raggio asked if there was any potential for money other than state appropriations. Dr. Paslov replied he had no indication any federal funds would be available, although he said the administration of President Clinton had demonstrated interest.
Senator Raggio inquired if it would be feasible to authorize the provisions of the bill contingent upon the availability of federal funds. Dr. Paslov acknowledged that had been done in the past. He pointed out no action could be taken without some funding.
Senator Raggio asked if the duties of the proposed coordinator of educational technology could be accommodated within existing positions. Dr. Paslov denied it could be done.
Dr. Paslov said:
Essentially what is being proposed here are computer stations, five stations for a classroom, or five stations for the university, north and south. These are five computers with a CD ROM, laser displayer, monitor, modem. So that the programs could be linked to each other as well as to libraries and universities and would drive the array of software that is currently available right now but that is not being used. The proposal calls for setting up pilot schools with a pilot site in each school of five stations.
Dr. Paslov explained that theoretically a fourth-grade teacher could have five students working on an hourly basis on some very complex software regarding the classwork.
Senator Glomb asked if the provisions of section 5 would remove the authority of local schools to make decisions regarding computer hardware. Dr. Paslov responded the intention was to establish standards, not to pass a judgement on any particular vendor. He declared:
The intent was not to have the state board purchasing Apples or IBMs for the school districts, rather they do that themselves, or other types of hardware. All that the state board would do, with the advice of the technology committee, would be to establish standards.
Senator Glomb asked if Dr. Paslov agreed the language needed clarification. He agreed.
Senator Glomb concurred there is a need to move toward more technology. However she expressed concern that nearly $300,000 would be appropriated at a time when cutbacks are being made in basics in the schools.
Dr. Paslov agreed with her frustration. He declared the interim committee had worked very hard to keep the expenditures modest. He said there had been some anticipation that there may be some federal assistance in another biennium, and there had been discussion regarding finding other revenue sources.
Senator Rawson responded there is no plan for the millions of dollars presently being expended for technology in the schools. He pointed out the schools are obtaining equipment that is incompatible with that in other schools. He suggested, "This may be a way for us to actually get more mileage out of the money that we're putting into it already."
Senator Rawson drew attention to provisions in the bill which would measure the effectiveness of the plan. He noted most states are going ahead with technology. He averred Nevada gives a lot of "lip service to economic development and high-tech alternatives" but he opined Nevada is far behind other western states.
Senator Rawson attributed the move of many high-technology companies into Utah to the plan developed by Utah 4 years ago. He said Utah students have ready skills upon graduation. He alleged there may not be serious economic development if Nevada fails to demonstrate it is willing to educate workers skilled in technology. He pointed out once the commitment is made high-technology companies are willing to assist in further development of educational technology.
Senator Rawson inquired if there is a person designated in the education budgets to coordinate mathematics and science. Dr. Paslov said one half-time position has been identified as a mathematics consultant.
Senator Rawson asked if a half-time position could be used for the designated coordinator under S.B. 86. Dr. Paslov responded the position is so important that he will attempt to do whatever it takes to implement it, including attempting to obtain Chapter II funds. He called the plan for educational technology "critical."
Senator Jacobsen concurred in the need but said he had reservations about creating another advisory committee. He stated there are already some 40 people dedicated to education. He said, "Maybe that's where some of the failure is, that some of these appointments...may...have nothing to give." He enumerated some of the boards already formed for educational purposes and said perhaps they may not be doing their jobs adequately. He suggested they might be directed to include the duties outlined in S.B. 86. He declared he was not ready to approve any more boards or commissions.
Senator Glomb said she did not see mention of the community colleges in the bill. She asked what their role may be. Dr. Paslov said the community colleges were not included. He explained the decision was arbitrary to use only the two teacher training institutions for teacher training for technology.
Senator Glomb expressed her concern that the needs of the community colleges should be included in the study plan. Dr. Paslov responded current teachers need the training and they are customarily trained through the universities.
Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), declared S.B. 86 confirms the difficulty of achieving educational goals due to the limitations of funding. She went on record in support of providing a plan for technology in education, agreeing with Senator Rawson that Nevada must move forward just as other states have been doing. She stated NSEA would be willing to assist in the development of a plan to promote technology in the schools.
Robert E. Dickens, Director, Government Relations and Economic Development, University of Nevada, Reno, supported S.B. 86. He admitted to an understanding of General Fund shortfalls and the difficulties of burgeoning numbers of boards and commissions.
Mr. Dickens informed the committee he had been involved in four or five federal proposals seeking additional resources for the university in the area of technology training. He endorsed the benefits to be obtained from such a move. He said:
The type of capability discussed in this bill is the wave of the future. An encyclopedia which all of us would visualize as a multi-volume set that's probably dead on arrival in terms of the proliferation of information can be contained on a compact disc. A single compact disc can contain the same amount of information as a 21-volume set of encyclopedias.
Mr. Dickens said the university has found that it can expand the collections of its library through the use of data bases, on-line formats or compact disc formats hosted in computers in other locations without expanding the square footage of the library. He declared, "That has a significant long-range affect on the state's capital construction needs."
Mr. Dickens explained not only the physical size of the collection can be reduced but also the weight. He said it enables the university to continue to make use of the existing facility.
As an example of the capability of computer technology, Mr. Dickens described the convenience he has found in being able to check precise weather patterns through the computer at the University of Michigan before he ventures out for skiing. He cited his son's ability to use his home computer to obtain information from a data base when the books he needed for a school report were not available.
Mr. Dickens urged the committee to move forward with S.B. 86 in
any acceptable manner that was feasible.
Senator Callister agreed use of educational technology is the wave of the future but indicated he concurred with Senator Jacobsen's remarks. He inquired how the creation of an advisory board would address the problem. Mr. Dickens responded formation of such a board would make educational telecommunications and instructional techniques a priority in the state.
Mr. Dickens acknowledged there are some classes available at the university. But, he said, teachers who avail themselves of those classes then return to their schools only to face a battle for resources. He declared if the State Department of Education set technology development as a priority the state would gain some leverage in establishment of a strategic direction for not only the state but also for individual school boards.
Senator Callister asked why the State Department of Education has not given up other programs or boards if the provisions of S.B. 86 are to be considered a priority. Mr. Dickens had no answer to the query but admitted the choices are difficult. He declared the difficulty may be due to the lack of expertise in the field.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 86 and turned to the matter of closing budgets.
Rural Housing - Page 450
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst, stated the only correction advised by staff for the budget would add $1,500 to expenses for the commissioner which had been inadvertently omitted from the agency budget request. It would be accomplished through an increase of federal receipts.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET BY MAKING THE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE BOARD AND COMMISSION PAY AND INCREASING FEDERAL RECEIPTS.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Department of Minerals - Page 503
Mr. Miles pointed out the agency would become part of the new Department of Business and Industry under the Governor's proposed reorganization plan. He said there had been a discussion regarding the deputy director's position which had been slated for reorganization savings.
Mr. Miles said the committee had also requested a proposed letter of intent to county commissioners from the agency. The letter would encourage county commissioners to endeavor to close dangerous and abandoned mines. The proposed letter of intent and the list of those to whom it would be sent are attached as Exhibit G.
Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, commented the deputy director of the Department of Minerals is actively involved primarily in education and communications. He also supervises many of the administrative activities of the office.
Mr. Guernsey said in most budgets the reorganization savings have been offset with vacancy savings. He pointed out there are sufficient funds in the Reserve category of the budget to reinstate the position of deputy director.
Senator Glomb inquired if the money to restore the deputy would come from the General Fund. Senator Raggio replied the money would come from reserve funds if reorganization savings were deleted.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF COMMENTS WHICH WOULD DELETE REORGANIZATION SAVINGS AND RESTORE THE DEPUTY POSITION TO BE PAID OUT OF RESERVE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,090 IN FISCAL YEAR 1994 AND $59,123 IN FISCAL YEAR 1995 AND TO SEND A LETTER OF INTENT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONS IN EACH COUNTY.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Small Business and Procurement Outreach - Page 508
Mr. Miles called attention to several adjustments which would reduce the transfer from community services, increase vacancy savings, and reduce the small business operating expenses. He stated the adjustments came about as a result of the revised budget submitted by the Governor on March 9. He apprised the committee those reflect only the net changes between the original budget presentation and the revision proposed by the Budget Division.
Mr. Miles explained the revisions were necessary because the funding source in the original budget had not been included in the Executive Budget. The proposed funding source would come from the stripper well funds through the Energy Conservation Program budget.
Mr. Miles said Small Business and Procurement Outreach has been proposed for transfer into the new Department of Business and Industry. He reminded the committee it is currently under the Commission on Economic Development which made the budget presentation.
Mr. Miles recalled there had been some discussion as to the placement of the budget. Concern had been expressed in prior discussions regarding the ability to obtain the correct match for the procurement portion of the budget if it was moved into business and industry. He said the Commission on Economic Development had testified the goals and objectives of the procurement outreach program fit closely with their own program and a match would be available. If the program was moved into the new Department of Business and Industry, it would require renegotiation with the United States Department of Defense for matching funds. He pointed out even if the program is moved it will be physically housed with the Commission on Economic Development.
Senator Raggio remarked it probably should be left where it is.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET AS PROPOSED AND LEAVE THE AGENCY WITHIN THE COMMISSION ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Business and Industry Administration - Page 512
Mr. Guernsey distributed two sheets (Exhibit H) depicting several possible adjustments to the budget. He explained the first sheet displays the proposals from the Governor's budget in the left column, adjustments to that in the center, and what the adjusted budget would look like in the final column on the right.
Mr. Guernsey said the second sheet lists the agencies and positions that would be contained in the new Department of Business and Industry. He indicated the administrative charges are prorated to offset the expenses of operating a central administrative structure.
Mr. Guernsey explained when the budget was constructed it was developed with assessments against certain agencies, those being Manufactured Housing, Consumer Affairs, Industrial Insurance and Insurance Agriculture. He said, "What we're attempting to do with that administrative portion is to assess all the agencies, and the most equitable way we could come up with would be based upon total numbers of positions."
Mr. Guernsey said if it is a General Fund agency there would be a General Fund charge. If it is a non-General Fund agency the funding that supports that agency would also pay their prorated share of supporting the administration of the new department. He said the suggestion was being made to eliminate the management analyst based upon earlier action in reference to boards and commissions and deleting the funding for that. He opined the position should have direct access to a clerical position, so it was being proposed to place a management assistant within the budget.
Mr. Guernsey stated there was much concern regarding the position of the deputy director of the Department of Commerce currently held by Jolene B. Rose. He said she performs activities in reference to industrial development bonds and other bond programs. He said the expenses of $40,900, to be increased in subsequent years, relate to one-fourth of the cost of her position. He said she works half-time for the Consumer Affairs Division and half-time in the Housing Division, both of which are scheduled for reorganization savings. He voiced the opinion the budget cannot support half of her position through vacancy savings but the savings could pay for one-fourth of her position.
Mr. Guernsey said the duties performed by Ms. Rose relate more to housing and bonding programs. He related the suggestion was made by Larry D. Struve, the director of the Department of Commerce, to increase the application fee for bonds by the additional one-quarter time cost of the position held by Ms. Rose. The fee would be transferred into the Housing Division as a revenue item to help pay for the quarter-time cost of the position.
Mr. Guernsey said the final recommendation was to charge all budgets a portion of the administrative charges to support the new budgets.
Senator Raggio restated the effect of the proposal which would be consistent with the action to remove the administrative charge from the board. He said the position of management analyst would be moved and a management assistant installed and the bond expenses would be augmented for the quarter position.
Senator Raggio inquired what the change would be in the Purchasing Assessment. Mr. Guernsey replied, "Based upon earlier actions from the committee in reference to closing the budget for the Purchasing Division, we've removed that purchasing assessment."
Senator Raggio asked how the reduction would be accomplished. Mr. Guernsey replied the reduction in the General Fund is founded upon a prorated share of the cost of administration, based upon the number of positions, whether the agencies are General Fund or non-General Fund. He said if changes are made to those listed on the second page of the handout adjustments would have to be made.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF-RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Rural Community Development - Page 598
There were no recommendations for change.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Public Defender - Page 632
Mr. Miles said only the state portion of the Public Defender budget was left intact while the county portion had been removed. He referred to a discussion regarding allowing the county portion back into the budget.
Mr. Miles called attention to a memorandum from the Budget Division (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.) which proposed a revised budget. He said seven of the counties had indicated a desire to continue to provide public defender services through the State Office of the Public Defender. The exhibit reflects the revised budget to include the seven counties.
Ms. Matteucci stated her understanding that the counties would be committed for the length of the biennium. She recalled there is a law that permits the counties to notify the state if they wish to discontinue services from the State Office of the Public Defender. She suggested it might be well-advised to adjust the form of notification so that the counties would not back out of the agreement. She concurred in the recommendation.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW BUDGET AS SUBMITTED.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Division of Aging Services - Page 927
Mr. Miles briefed the committee on suggested adjustments to the budget. A new Federal Title III-F grant for preventative health services was added to the current budget at an Interim Finance Committee meeting on February 12 on the basis that the agency had sufficient General Fund match for the new program. He said it had been acknowledged at that time that additional matches of $5,391 and $5,553 would be needed to continue the grant for the next 2 years.
Senator Rawson noted the federal match is 17 to 1.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET BY THE ADDITION OF THE GENERAL FUND MONEY FOR THE MATCH AND THE UTILIZATION OF ADDITIONAL TITLE III-F GRANT FUNDS WITH THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE PREVENTATIVE HEALTH SERVICES PROGRAM.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senior Services Program - Page 933
Mr. Miles reminded the committee the budget would include new positions to accompany a proposed Medicaid waiver to move some seniors from long-term care into group care facilities. He said the group care facilities would be operated through the Senior Services Program budget.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Glomb pointed out the reduction in caregiver training from $50,000 in each year to $10,000 in each year and asserted the caregiver training should be increased. She reasoned that patients would be moved from more costly care to community-based care under the Governor's proposal. She suggested the training should be directed to community-based caregivers. She suggested that moving patients from highly-skilled care to community care with less training was making policy which she deemed illogical.
Senator Coffin inquired if the funds being reduced were federal funds. Mr. Miles replied those were General Funds. He explained the federal funds included in the Senior Services Program budget were Medicaid dollars, which are care dollars. Training would be a state responsibility. He acknowledged there would be some General Fund savings due to the move from long-term facilities to adult group care.
Senator O'Donnell offered the opinion some training had already been given and it would be redundant to retrain the same people. Mr. Miles said the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had heard testimony that $10,000 would allow rotation of training between the northern and southern portions of the state. The ways and means committee then approved the addition of $10,000 to the budget.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO ADD $10,000 EACH YEAR TO THE EXPENDITURE ITEM, CAREGIVER TRAINING, AND TO INCREASE THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE ACCORDINGLY.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
THE AMENDED MOTION TO CLOSE THE SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAM BUDGET CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Child Abuse and Neglect - Page 952
Larry L. Peri, Program Analyst, stated there had been no recommendations to alter the budget.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Child Welfare Trust - Page 955
Mr. Peri repeated a discussion he had held with Senators Rawson and Glomb. He said "The action that's recommended in the [former] Child Welfare budget, which the committee has held, would increase the authority to collect Title XI revenue from the federal government." He explained it comes from two sources. One would go through the Child Welfare Trust and be transferred to the former Child Welfare [Youth Community Services on page 945 of the Governor's Executive Budget] account. To align the collection authority with the authority to receive in the other budget, the recommendation would be that the revenues be increased in each year of the biennium by $95,410.
In response to a query by Senator Raggio, Mr. Peri said the other budget, 101-3229 on page 945, now called the Youth Community Services and formerly called the Child Welfare Budget, has not yet been closed. Mr. Peri said it could be matched through this budget.
Senator Raggio suggested holding this budget until action is taken on the Youth Community Services budget.
There being no further business before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Jacobs,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
May 17, 1993
Page 1