MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 1, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, February 1, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William Raggio
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Diane Gamble, Committee Secretary
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mary Sanada, Office of the State Controller
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State
Nancy Dunn, Senior Management Analyst, Office of the Secretary of State
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Carlos Romo, Assistant Director, Nevada Equal Rights Commission
George Cotton, Clark County Affirmative Action Manager
Edward King, Business and Financial Services Administrator, Washoe County School District
Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association
Elaine Lancaster, President, Washoe County Teacher's Association
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting with Senate Bill (S.B.) 109.
SENATE BILL 109: Makes various changes relating to certain accounts maintained for use by office of secretary of state.
Mary Sanada, Office of the State Controller, spoke in favor of S.B. 109. She explained to the committee her office requested this bill in order to change some of the language in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 225.160. She further iterated, the controller's office is trying to make the process of refunds more efficient. She stated the process currently involves the secretary of state writing all refunds from a revolving fund. Ms. Sanada explained the revolving fund came into existence years ago when it took approximately 6 weeks to get a check from the state system, but she stated currently there are many times the secretary of state holds up issuing the checks from the revolving fund until reimbursement comes through the state system. Ms. Sanada stated the purpose of timely refunds is no longer being served by the use of the revolving funds. The controller's office would like to see that procedure changed to issue the refunds directly through the state system instead of having to write a check out of the revolving fund and wait for a reimbursement. Ms. Sanada explained she would like to see them keep the revolving fund as there are certain circumstances which would make it better to issue the check immediately.
Senator Hickey asked Ms. Sanada why they requested deletion of paragraph 3 on page 2.
Ms. Sanada told the committee her office did not request this particular language change.
Senator Hickey asked Ms. Sanada to explain exactly what her office wanted to accomplish with this bill.
Ms. Sanada told the committee her office simply wanted to be able to write one check from the state system rather than write a check from a particular agency and wait for that to be replenished through the state system.
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, spoke in favor of S.B. 109. Ms. Lau stated her office approved of the change in the bill. She explained the account would only be used for emergency purposes as in an overnight refund. She iterated this account would only be used for requirement of immediate payment.
Senator Hickey asked how often this account has to be used and what makes it so important.
Ms. Lau stated this account is used 4 to 5 times a month for overnight payments to clients, especially out-of-state clients. She explained this keeps the state services up and there is no long wait for the state system which can take weeks to get their money.
Senator Hickey stated he felt the problem with payments are interagency problems within the state.
Ms. Lau turned this part of the questioning over to her accountant with the secretary of state's office.
Nancy Dunn, Senior Management Analyst Office of the Secretary of State, told the committee this bill was a controller's office bill. She stated she is here to support the change in the language which the controller's office is suggesting. Ms. Dunn told Senator Hickey his questions deal primarily with another section of the statute which this language does not affect. She stated this particular statute covers both a revolving fund that is used and also a trust account. Ms. Dunn stated the language change affects only the revolving fund and not the trust account.
Senator Hickey asked Ms. Dunn who put this language into this bill. Ms. Dunn stated this is a controller's office bill. Senator Hickey asked if the controller put the language into this bill.
Ms. Lau told Senator Hickey she would go back and determine who wrote the language in this bill in section 2.
Senator Hickey also asked where the interest would go that is mention in section 2 of this bill.
Ms. Lau told the committee she would also get this information for them along with who wrote the language in this bill.
Senator Nevin told Ms. Lau he was concerned about the language in section 2 whereby it says the interest will be taken out of the general fund. He asked if Ms. Lau could find out exactly where this money would go, what impact it would have on the general fund and who suggested this language.
Ms. Lau told the committee she would send this bill back to the controller's office to get the information that the committee has requested.
Senator O'Connell asked Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, to come forward and explain some of the language in this bill for the committee.
Ms. Matteucci explained:
The brackets on page 2 of this bill, would, as Senator Nevin has pointed out, essentially remove the interest that is currently going to the state general fund on the trust fund which is for advanced fees for payments of services provided by the secretary of state's office. They currently go to the general fund. They would, in bracketing this out, that interest then goes back into this trust fund and there would be a decrease of money going into the general fund so the policy decision is whether or not you want to continue to have interest going to all of the other subfunds or continue going to the general fund. I don't know exactly whose bill it is or who added the brackets. We can certainly check for you.
Senator O'Connell asked if there was any idea of dollar amounts. Ms. Lau stated they would take it back to the controller's office to get answers to all of the committee's questions.
Senator O'Connell stated the committee would hold the bill until the state controller's office can answer all of the questions addressed by the committee.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 109 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 110.
SENATE BILL 110: Expands authority of Nevada equal rights commission to issue subpoenas.
Carlos Romo, Assistant Director, Nevada Equal Rights Commission, spoke in favor of S.B. 110. Mr. Romo stated Mr. Fernando Romero, Executive Director, Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) wanted the committee to know he is in favor of S.B. 110 and he wrote out a statement which Mr. Romo read to the committee. See Exhibit C.
Senator Callister asked Mr. Romo how far behind his agency is on processing claims. Mr. Romo stated it is 15 to 16 months from the opening of the claim. Senator Callister also asked if individuals wanted to sue another individual over an allegation must they wait for their claim to be processed with NERC. Mr. Romo told the committee, for instance, in an age discrimination charge the individual can go directly to federal court in a 60-day period after filing with the NERC. He explained per Title VII which is race, color, creed and national origin, individuals can request a right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within a 6-month period.
Senator Callister told Mr. Romo:
I guess the point I wanted to make, Mrs. Chairman, is that from my perspective as a private practitioner, although this is not an area I practice in, there are extraordinary delays and they are chronic. Whatever we can do to help resolve that 16-month backlog is crucial, in my estimation. And it is important to note, that 16 months, you may say that is just a little over a year but, then if you have got, as frequently is the case, you have a serious charge, it is going to go through that process and then into the court system because there is enough of an issue it is going to end up in the federal court system. That is going to be another 2 to 3 years so you are really talking about adding a year and a year and a half of delays before they even get to exercise their traditional rights. So I would be supportive based on that.
Senator Nevin asked if this bill would expand the NERC work load. Mr. Romo told the committee it would not. He explained this bill would give NERC the opportunity to request and subpena, if need be, the material at the beginning of a case rather than at the end before an issue goes to court.
Senator Nevin asked who at NERC would make the decision on whether an investigation would take place or not. Mr. Romo told the committee NERC has a procedure that allows them to have the charge served to the employer, then there is a fact-finding meeting which begins the investigation.
Senator Nevin stated some concern that the word "investigation" could be very broad in its meaning as is stated in the language of this bill. Mr. Romo explained the investigation would not begin until the informal fact-finding meeting.
Senator O'Connell asked if the circumstances are listed in law by which NERC can issue a subpena? She explained lines 12 and 13 on the first page of the bill state NERC has delegated the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas to any of its members for any hearing officer in its employ. Senator O'Connell feels this means anyone in the office can have the initial investigation started without having to go through any process to have the subpena issued. Mr. Romo stated he did not feel that would be the process and NERC is very careful when issuing the subpoenas. He explained NERC gets the assistance of the deputy attorney general who helps prepare the subpena. He further explained if an individual is not able to voluntarily provide the information requested, NERC would write them a letter and indicate if
the material is not forthcoming in a certain period of time NERC will
have no other recourse but to consult with the attorney general to issue a subpena. Senator O'Connell asked if all the subpoenas go through the attorney general, and Mr. Romo stated they did.
George Cotton, Clark County Affirmative Action Manager, spoke in opposition of S.B. 110. Mr. Cotton explained when the first meeting is held with NERC they obtain a large interrogatory and the employer is asked to provide certain documents. He continued saying sometimes the documents are not relevant to the case. Mr. Cotton further explained if the employer questions the relevancy of the request for these documents the employer may find themselves in an adversarial proceeding rather than the fact-finding meeting.
Mr. Cotton told the committee when the informal meeting was first set up by the legislature it was for the purpose of quickly trying to resolve cases so the employer can come in after receiving a charge of discrimination, and they could sit down face-to-face with the complainant and with a representative from the commission and try to arrive at a settlement. He further explained the formal meeting was not intended to be an initial stage of the investigation. Due to past experience with NERC, Mr. Cotton does not feel the subpena power they are asking for is cost effective or that this bill will help alleviate claims any faster than they are able to do now.
Senator Callister stated he did not understand the argument Mr. Cotton is making regarding disclosure of information at the initial hearing. Senator Callister stated he felt this was a very important step in the process in order to cut down on caseloads and time involved in cases. Mr. Cotton stated he was not against disclosure at the informal meeting. He explained his concern is when a subpena is issued relative to investigations, the individuals are being told they have been charged with the act of discrimination and that individual is given a certain amount of time to respond with a position. Mr. Cotton further explained at the initial hearing the individual is given a series of interrogatories. He stated if an individual questions the relevancy of some of the requested material, at that point, the individual must go to the supreme court. Mr. Cotton stated the individuals being investigated and NERC should sit down and discuss the requested materials whether they are relative to the issue at hand before the process becomes more costly to both parties.
Senator Callister stated if individuals create an administrative nonjudicial remedy to problems they must empower the decision maker with the skills and adequate information and procedures to make a decision; otherwise it will delay a final decision rather than expedite a decision which is exactly the opposite of what the policy makers are trying to do.
Mr. Cotton said he understood what Senator Callister was explaining, and he does not mind the commission having subpena power even at some stage during the investigation. His objection is if the committee grants this bill with the current language, the informal meeting which was set up by the legislature approximately 20 years ago, which has worked relatively well, will cease its primary function which was to try to work out problems between employer and plaintiff before a costly investigation.
Senator Callister told Mr. Cotton he understood his standpoint but, not all employers expedite these types of proceedings. In fact some delay the process and do not provide information which makes it tougher to get to the quick resolution.
Senator Callister asked Mr. Cotton if he would help provide the committee with some language which would help solve the problems with the bill. Mr. Cotton agreed to provide some language he feels suitable to this bill.
Senator Hickey asked if NERC's job is to determine legitimacy in the discrimination complaints. Mr. Cotton stated this was correct. Senator Hickey then asked how NERC got to the point where they need subpena power? He also asked if this was lack of cooperation between NERC and the Affirmative Action Department? Mr. Cotton stated he felt the problem was at the time of NERC's request for information prior to the fact-finding meeting. Mr. Cotton told the committee he would ask representatives from NERC to come into his office to look at the records they requested rather than go to the cost of duplicating them. He stated he was told by the NERC individuals were to bring the copied records to the fact-finding meeting because the NERC had the authority to get all the information they need. Mr. Cotton explained he felt pressed into situations of cooperation, but he feels cooperation should go both ways. Mr. Cotton suggested someone who is not involved in these situations should look at the request for information to determine if it is necessary or not. Mr. Cotton stated he is not against this bill because he does not want to cooperate or resolve the case, but he feels some of the information requested by NERC is not pertinent. It involves a lot of hours of copying and preparing for the commission when it will not affect the case in any manner.
Senator Hickey stated he felt all the documents should be public and be available although he does understand the problems dealing with the costs of preparing reports and reproduction. But, he would like to hear from the agencies themselves that were involved in these disputed cases, and he stated if there was any discrepancy in what Mr. Cotton said, he may take a different view.
Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Cotton how many discrimination cases a year Clark County has. Mr. Cotton stated this varies and they usually overlap into the next year, but probably 225 cases per year. He also stated they interface with hospitals, contract compliance, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice in some cases.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 110 and opened the hearing on S.B. 111.
SENATE BILL 111: Clarifies that it is authorized expenditure to use money in reserve for statutory contingency account to pay certain losses of public money.
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, spoke in favor of S.B. 111. She stated this is a result of the recent audit. She explained this bill just incorporates Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 282.330 with NRS 353.264 which is the statutory listing for all of the allowable expenses from statutory contingency, but it is missing NRS 282.330. This bill incorporates NRS 282.330 and NRS 353.264.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 111 and opened the hearing on S.B. 112.
SENATE BILL 112: Requires school district to include in its budget appropriation for unreserved general fund balances.
Edward King, Business and Financial Services Administrator for Washoe County School District, spoke in favor of S.B. 112. Please see Exhibit D.
Senator O'Connell asked Mr. King about his floor estimate in his written testimony which states his estimated floor is not less than 2 percent and she also asked what Nevada could expect as far as the growth of that 2 percent. Mr. King stated he does not expect any growth unless the state legislature has the capacity to provide additional funds the districts could use to improve their programs. He explained California has a 3 percent level, and the school districts do manage under that premise. Other states such as New York and Ohio use a 5 to 10 percent reserve, but that is a different environment than we have here in Nevada. Mr. King stated it would be ideal to have a 5 to 10 percent reserve. In the real world of schools which are people driven he does not expect much more than 2 percent would be a realistic goal unless the economy changes. Mr. King said it would not be realistic at this time to try to reserve any money until a much later date.
Senator O'Connell asked what this area cost his department over the last biennium in regard to snow removal, asbestos removal, etcetera.
Mr. King stated the asbestos removal was about $1 million. He said the snow actually depends on what year it is. Senator O'Connell asked if it exceeded the 2%. Mr. King stated it did not.
Mike Alastuey, Clark County School District, spoke on S.B. 112. Mr. Alastuey stated the Clark County Board of Trustees do not take a position on this bill. He stated in recent years, with the exception of the last two years, the Clark County School District has budgeted approximately 3 percent and maintained that level. Mr. Alastuey told the committee in the last two years, however, with the onset of the economic recession and also with the onset of state cuts and further potential cuts, the ending balance is nearing depletion at this time. He also stated one other issue he would like to point out is a need to examine the state's and district's policies on management of ending balances as a whole. Mr. Alastuey stated the state's policy of appropriating money based on what district ending balances happen to be over the last several years has a tendency to act as a disincentive toward district management of those balances.
Senator Nevin asked Mr. Alastuey if the governor's reorganization plan would have any affect on this. Mr. Alastuey stated he did not see any immediate connection.
Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association, spoke in opposition of S.B. 112.
I want to speak to you in opposition to the proposed legislation. We regard this proposal as unnecessary. Chapter 354 of the Nevada Revised Statutes already allows school districts to cope with the variations and uncertainties that were discussed by Mr. King. Chapter 354 allows school districts to establish a contingency account. A maximum of 3 percent can already be allocated to a contingency account to deal with these variations that were previously discussed. Contingency accounts by law allow school districts to budget for unforeseen expenditures or anticipated expenditures of an uncertain amount. We think the law already covers the need that was discussed previously. Further, the reports that are submitted by school districts to the Nevada Department of Education annual report under Chapter 387 show that statewide school districts already budget approximately $2.3 million in contingency accounts so they are taking advantage of the opportunity to put money aside to deal with unforeseen circumstances.
Senator Hickey asked if all school districts do this or just particular school districts. Mr. Bellister stated it was statewide and that the figure he gave him was a statewide figure.
Mr. Bellister encouraged the committee to consider opposition to S.B. 112. He suggested rather than creating another state mandate regarding how school districts budget, he would suggest school districts be allowed local control, local decision-making authority to determine the allocation of their local resources.
Elaine Lancaster, President, Washoe County Teacher's Association, spoke in opposition of S.B. 112. See Exhibit E.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 112 and opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 20-1276, Bill Draft Request (BDR) 19-555 and Bill Draft Request 19-556.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 20-1276: Repeal certain outdated statutes.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-1276.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND LOWDEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
* * * * *
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 19-555: Creates State Records Committee to approve schedules for retention and disposition of state records.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 19-555.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND LOWDEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
* * * * *
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 19-556: Expand authority of state librarian to approve minimum retention schedules for local government records.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 19-556.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND LOWDEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
* * * * *
There being no further business, Senator O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
February 1, 1993
Page 1