MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 1, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, March 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 Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Diana Gamble, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Gronowski, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA)
Barbara Curti, President, Nevada Farm Bureau
Gordon Cronenberger, Chief Personnel Specialist, Department of Human Resources, Employee/Management Committee
Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, State Controller's Office
Andrew Goodrich, Washoe District Health Department, Air Quality Specialist
Larry L. Pedrett, University of Nevada, Agricultural Experimental Station
Ron Yamamoto, State Board of Agriculture, Farmer
Glenn Rock, State Personnel
Joylyn Harmer, Empire Farms
Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Linda Johnson, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA)
Dan Hickey, Nevada Farm Bureau
Mary Henderson, Washoe County Health Department
Carol Villardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Chairman O'Connell called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 145.
SENATE BILL 145: Exempts reasonable agricultural activity from certain local ordinances concerning air pollution. (BDR 20-1047)
Barbara Curti, President, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in support of S.B. 145. Her testimony was verbatim from Exhibit C. Barbara Curti asked the committee to listen to the concerns of the people who had joined her at the witness table.
Bob Gronowski, Nevada Department of Agriculture, spoke in favor of S.B. 145. Mr. Gronowski stated:
Normal agricultural practices indeed do disturb soil but cannot be abated by the same process that building and construction can do. While you're harvesting garlic and onions, it is absolutely essential you harvest them dry. Therefore, creating some dust and there's no means to abate the dust by applying water back to the field because that would interfere with the harvesting. Other operations, the planting, the cultivating, the weeding, the applying fertilizers, occur in times of the year.... not generally during the high pollution times of the year in the winter when we have inversions.... and do not create what I would consider to be a substantial amount of dust.
Larry Pedrett, University of Nevada, Agricultural Experimental Station, stated there were large dust problems at the experimental station while preparing the seed beds during the fall. Mr. Pedrett testified:
The language in the Washoe County Air Quality basically just directs dusts. And, I think that the law states PM10 which is parts per million.... 10 parts per million. There is really no way to measure how much dust there is. We're cited annually for dust behind the tractor and it's always in August and early September when we're preparing the seed beds. And, we have made an agreement with the Washoe County Air Quality people not to have a tractor in the field if the wind is blowing more than 18 miles an hour. However, we almost feel like we're stalked because they're there everyday with their video camera viewing the dust. And, I have to admit when you view a tractor pulling a rototiller up close with a video, it does look impressive. I'm here in support of this bill.
Ron Yamamoto, Farmer, State Board of Agriculture, testified in favor of S.B. 145. Mr. Yamamoto stated:
The stringent laws about the environment of dust is kind of unique for farming because it naturally makes some dust. However, when the environment, particularly wind, creates more dust when you're doing field work so we have to kind of refrain from these kind of activities. But, normally, if you notice in the springtime is the windiest time of the year. And, of course, in the fall when it's harvest time, it's always more windy then. So, we are very cautious.... these environments that we create.... but the law prohibits us doing certain things and some of the constituents out in the public.... we are dust makers. I don't know how to correct that. But, at the present time I have a suit filed on me for creating dust in my neighborhood. When I was farming, there was no homes around me and it was already subdivided, but there was no activity because it wasn't green out there. The minute I made it green, 5 years later they're all around me. I don't what to say about that, but anyway, we'd like to continue farming, but some of the law prohibits it.
Senator Nevin asked Mr. Yamamoto if agriculture were made exempt from environmental regulations, would that exemption cause other entities to ask for a like exemption from federal regulations.
Mr. Pedrett answered:
I'd like to address that a little bit because the period of time that the farming activity happens is really not during the inversion period of time in the Truckee Meadows area, where they're really having major problems. I think that we're all very aware of that. And, of course, we've experienced smog or pollution all winter long up there. The farming activity, I think, more than anything else, they're not really measuring.... I wouldn't mind if I was creating dust and they were measuring dust and I was polluting.... they said that I was polluting.... I wouldn't mind that. I appreciate their efforts. But, when it's a clear day, absolute clear day, they're not exceeding the EPA (Environmental Protection Act) rules.
Senator Nevin stated it was not just dust which makes Washoe County not in compliance with the Environment Protection Act (EPA). He added it costs the county money whenever there is a violation of the EPA.
Mr. Pedrett replied:
At the 1100 acres at the university farm, we are in the process of getting all of the cropland back into grazing land by a rotation process. And, I think the ultimate, after about 2 more years, it will all be grass and the chlorophyll will probably be more advantageous to the air quality than the little bit of dust 20, 30 days a year.
Ms. Curti added, agriculture was looking for a recognition that certain practices are necessary, while performing reasonable farming business, rather than an exemption. She said many people moving into the area of Reno like the open spaces of agriculture, but there was a danger of being cited because the daily farming practices were being performed and creating dust. Ms. Curti continued:
So, what we're asking for here is the state to recognize agriculture has to be allowed to function to do the things that are necessary within specific time limits and under good responsible practices. And, the University of Nevada was the first one. They're really close to Reno and I think they've tried real hard to conform... They have a grinding.... a feed lot.... just south of Reno, where they grind the feed in the morning and they were asked by the health department to wet that down as it was going into the grinder. Well, they're misting it to reduce dust, but if you sop it you end up with mush inside the grinder. So, what we're asking here, we think we're being extremely reasonable because we have included in there that there would not be a substantial effect on public health and no violation of federal or state law would occur.
Senator Nevin asked who would determine what was "reasonable."
Barbara Curti answered at the present it is the farmer and the Washoe County Health Department.
Senator Nevin asked what was the purpose of the legislation if the farmer was involved in determining whether or not there was a proper amount of dust.
Ms. Curti responded:
That's why we're here because we have a problem where we think we're doing a reasonable agricultural activity and we're being cited for doing that. So, I think the public has to decide how important open space and the green and all is as compared to the things that we have to go through to make a living.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Pedrett if there was programs at the University of Nevada or at other schools across the county which would deal with air quality in the agricultural area.
Mr. Pedrett answered affirmatively. He went on to explain the university had worked with the Dessert Research Institute to put some monitoring equipment at the experimental station to see if there was an excess of dust according to the federal standards.
Senator Hickey pointed out the Environmental Protection Act set up by the federal government placed standards on air quality which the state legislature could not override.
Senator Rhoads asked if there was a "Right to Farm" legislation being introduced in other states around the country.
Ms. Curti stated she knew some legislation called "Right to Farm" was being considered in other states, but she did not have information as to the status of that legislation. Ms. Curti added:
What we're talking about is an issue in many states where you find urban areas growing and encroaching into farmland.... people are trying to farm all around all people and trying to be good neighbors. It's a real problem. It's hard to tell how you impose good farming practices on a farmer who has to use good farming practices in order to be efficient, in order to make a living out there. For instance, when we bail hay, we have to bail it at a certain time when there's the dew on it so that it stays in the bail nice, all the leaves don't fall off of it. Sometimes there's dust when you bail. Those are things we just can't help. And, maybe they do sometimes exceed those standards for EPA (Environmental Protection Act but that's something we need to come to grips with. We feel if it isn't a substantial impact on public health, that maybe we need to allow agriculture to proceed with those kinds of good practices.
Senator Callister pointed out the existing law which governs agriculture allows for a violation only when someone has decided what the word excessive means. He stated he was having trouble deciding how S.B. 145 was going to help the agriculture and farming industry because the new language proposed in S.B. 145 was not distinctive enough to give an exemption that was measurable by some third party.
Senator Raggio stated:
I think this law as proposed would have limited application in this state because there are only certain areas where this is going to be occurring. Undoubtedly, in the Reno/Sparks area, in Fallon probably, in Elko and I think what has been proposed here appears to be very reasonable. The existing law, section 1, applies to the counties and section 2 to the cities. These laws have been in there since 1977 and at that time we were directing ourselves to concerns about a lot of construction practices and developments that were causing a lot of this type of activity to occur adjacent to cities and adjacent to urban areas. More recently it's come into significance because of the construction near cities. We had a lawsuit in Reno... substantial amount of damages that were awarded because the developer wasn't conducting his activities without controlling dust. And, I would submit that the original authority of cities and counties to pass these kind of laws was not intended to interrupt reasonable agricultural practices. I don't think that was ever the intent. So, I think it's consistent for the purpose of these laws to.... craft some indication here to deal with agricultural activity. That separates it from these other types of activities and limits the nonapplicability of these provisions to those activities. I think it's also pretty well protecting the public. Because if there is the finding that, not withstanding it's agricultural activity, that if they find, for example, that it does have a substantial effect, you wouldn't be exempt. And, also committee, note that they have to be in full compliance of federal and state laws. This doesn't exempt them from that. This only exempts them from the county and city ordinances. And, it could cover more than dust. It could cover burning for example. Because, in some agricultural practices, you have to burn the fields. This, I think, would make it a specific that there are exemptions for good sound agricultural practices that don't impair the public. So, I think it does have merit and I think it's necessary if you're going to allow agriculture in those areas obviously where it takes place. Now, I would assume in Clark County around Moapa, they would have the same concerns.
Senator Nevin replied:
In respect, I agree with what Senator Raggio says, but we have to keep in mind that only Clark and Washoe have to follow EPA (Enironmental Protection Act) guidelines because we're under the control of the feds for noncompliance. And, that's where the key comes in on me. And, I'm sure that the laws weren't made particularly after the farming and that industry, but it is now a contributor because of our EPA standards that we're mandated by federal law. Fallon and the rural areas don't have this problem because they're not under federal control, where Clark and Washoe County are. So, that was my concern.
Joylyn Harmer, Empire Farms, testified in favor of S.B. 145 and stated she represented Mike Stewart, the owner of Empire Farms. She reported Mr. Stewart was a garlic farmer and dealt with a lot of dust problems.
Mary Henderson, Washoe County and Andrew Goodrich, Air Quality Specialist, Washoe District Health Department spoke in opposition to S.B. 145. Ms. Henderson stated her department had issued only one citation in Washoe against any agricultural interest. She explained the citation was eventually dismissed after an agreement had been reached between the parties.
Mr. Goodrich read from Exhibit D. He added if Washoe County continued to violate federal standards in air quality there would be federal sanctions which would be imposed against Washoe County.
Senator Rhoads told Mr. Goodrich the committee had just heard about three violation citations which had been issued against agriculture. He asked Mr. Goodrich why his testimony stated there had only been one issued citation.
Mr. Goodrich said Mr. Pedrett and Mr. Stewart were in the same violation which resulted in a citation. Mr. Goodrich told Senator Rhoads the citation was dismissed after a joint meeting between the Washoe County Health Department staff, Mr. Stewart and the University of Nevada Farms.
Senator Rhoads asked why the Washoe County Health Department was opposed to S.B. 145.
Mr. Goodrich said he did not understand why S.B. 145 was necessary legislation.
Senator Rhoads explained there was a large move throughout the western states, because of the concern in the agricultural community, about violation of the Environmental Protection Act. He explained a bill such as S.B. 145 would help guide farmers to standardize good practices.
Ms. Henderson explained her department was only concerned with Washoe County and the Truckee Meadows basin.
Senator Rhoads added:
I recall in a briefing in the natural resources committee where they indicated that Battle Mountain of all places, was almost over the standards. And, there's hardly any farming over there. It's just mainly ranching activities. It's just that the wind blows and it's quite dry there. But, they're almost out of compliance and there's not much activity out there at all. It's very strange.
Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Goodrich if the Washoe County Health Department did use video equipment to monitor dust as the testimony from Mr. Pedrett indicated. Mr. Goodrich answered affirmatively and added video taping aided field personnel in their observation and research of dust emission.
Senator Hickey asked if there was any language at the Washoe County Health Department which defined "reasonable" in regard to dust emission. Mr. Goodrich said it was left to the discretion of the field inspector.
Senator Hickey recommended the term "reasonable" be defined clearly to avoid any confusion for the agricultural community.
There being no further testimony on S.B. 145, Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 145 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 157.
SENATE BILL 157: Revises powers and duties of state controller. (BDR 18-497)
Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, State Controller's Office, testified in favor of S.B. 157 . He read from Exhibit E.
Chairman O'Connell asked if S.B. 157 had a fiscal impact on the state. Mr. West stated he did not have any exact amount of any overpayments or collection on a yearly, basis but added he would get the information for the Chairman.
The Chairman asked for further testimony on S.B. 157, and there being none she closed the hearing on S.B. 157 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 165.
SENATE BILL 165: Increases number of members of personnel commission and abolishes employee-management committee. (BDR 23-471)
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), using Exhibit F, spoke in favor S.B. 165. Mr. Gagnier stated:
The bill (S.B. 165) as it is before you today, does two different things. Normally in the past we would have had these in two separate bills. However, this legislative session we were only allowed to request 10 bills and so we had to combine many of the bills. That's why this is combined. The first part of the bill deals with changing the composition of the Personnel Commission which regulates classified state employees. At the present time the Personnel Commission is composed of five people appointed by the Governor. There are very little requirements for the members of the Personnel Commission. Following a study that was conducted by the legislature one interim, a recommendation was made by the legislative auditor that the members of the commission, or at least some of them, be appointed based upon background. I can't really say that there has been much reliance on that. One member of the commission is supposed to be a representative of labor, one supposes to be a representative of business or management and the other three of whatever. The members of the commission are appointed by the Governor and I think that there has not been a great deal of regard for their background in personnel administration. We haven't had anyone on the Personnel Commission who has any personnel experience for a number of years, since a retired personnel analyst was on the commission. What we're trying to do is change the composition so that there are people who are on the commission that are broadly representative of the public and also that there would be some classified state employees on the commission. That is not unique. We did not dream that up in Nevada. That is the situation in at least one other state. So, what we're proposing is that there be four appointed members, each appointed by the Governor, the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state and the attorney general. Each one would appoint one member. There would be three members who would be elected. One each year serving 3-year terms and to assure that these elected people were.... at least had some support among their coworkers, they would have to have a nominating petition signed by 50 coworkers to get on the ballot. That's to assure that we don't have a very lengthy ballot and people who have no support whatsoever among their coworkers. Each year the department of personnel would conduct an election and these people would serve 3-year terms.... And then, there are a couple of other things I think I should point out if this bill were to be adopted. In section 4 on page 2, we're indicating that four members of the commission, which would be a majority of the seven would constitute a quorum, however, no regulations could be adopted except by the vote of at least five members. And, we obviously did that to assure that the four appointed members could not adopt regulations which have the force and effect of law, without the support of at least one of the elected members of the commission. And, that's the reason that is there. The personnel regulations, quite frankly, are extremely important. You adopt the statutes which govern classified state employees, but the regulations go much further. There are regulations that are adopted pursuant to NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 284, take up in an 8 1/2 by 11 binder about 2 inches. So, that will give you an idea about the length of the personnel regulations.
The second part of the bill is to change the grievance procedure or the arbitration procedure of our grievance system. Currently the final hearing for a grievance within state government is a group called the Employee Management Committee. This committee has existed since the (19)60s when it had some advisory functions. In the early (19)70s, we adopted, by regulation, the grievance adjustment procedure which you ratified by law a few years ago. And that body, the Employee Management Committee, hears grievances and renders a final and binding decision on grievances. The committee currently is composed of six state employees.... three management representatives and three employee representatives. It's assumed to be in that regard. The employee representatives are supposed to be recommended by employee groups and fellow employees. We would like to replace that committee with an arbitrator and have a professional arbitrator as they do in most instances in local government grievance procedures and eliminate the Employee Management Committee. When we first got this created by law, remember some members of the legislature indicated that it wouldn't work because it was an even number. We said, 'well it always had, we would think it would continue to do so.' There have been some ties. One of the problems that you have with a six member committee when three are management and three are employees is that the burden is always on the employee. The employee must prove his case and pick up one person. Even if all the employee representatives agreed with him which is not always the case. In addition, there is insufficient control to assure that the employee members of the committee are in fact representative of the employees. We feel that arbitration would be better. We would have more consistent decisions. There is currently a lack of consistency and we feel if we had arbitration that we would have that consistency.
I would like very briefly to outline the cost of the bill. I think if you looked at the fiscal note.... the fiscal note that was prepared by the department of personnel, as far as the election of members of the personnel, commission is concerned, we have no problem with that. I'm sure that their information is accurate and we have no problem and the cost of two additional commissions, we have no problem with that. As far as the cost though for arbitration as a replacement for the EMC (Employee Management Committee), I think we do have some disagreement with the department of personnel. If for no other reason, they didn't take into account in preparing their fiscal note, what the current salaries are of the people who serve on the committee. Now, if you have an Employee Management Committee composed of six state employees, they're all being paid. And, there is a cost. Now, maybe that is not a direct cost of each grievance hearing, but it certainly is a cost. I've provided to you the makeup of the current committee without the names. I've just given you the titles of the three members of each (Exhibit F). And, you can see that based upon their daily rate of pay and going back to 1991 when they held 16 days of hearings, the cost for their salaries and lost productivity was $18,688. Last year in 1992, they had 20 days of hearings and the cost was $23,360 in lost productivity. I think that should be subtracted from any prospective cost of an arbitrator that you would see in the fiscal note. Also, I think that we used a figure pretty close to what personnel used. We used $675 as the average cost for a professional arbitrator. On information from Triple A, they use $700. It's not that big a difference. But, I think that they have assumed that the hearings would last longer, a full day each. We see most hearings lasting a half a day. And, they also assume that each hearing would take an arbitrator 2 to 3 days of writing. Our past experience with arbitrators doesn't show that much involved. So, I think the fiscal note is a little high for the second part of the bill.
Chairman O'Connell asked why the fiscal note listed the figure of $8,120 for mailing of envelopes and postage when the use of inter-office mail could be employed and save postage.
Mr. Gagnier stated the inter-office system was not appropriate because in his opinion inter-office mail would not reach 90 percent of the people.
Mr. Gagnier continued:
Another point that I would like to make here that is not included in the fiscal note but that we think is extremely important, that when you're dealing with arbitration as we have proposed it in this bill, we're proposing that the employee and the agency each pay half of the cost of arbitration. That's not included in the fiscal note. So, really we're seeing that we're going to cut the costs because the employee and the employer are going to each pay half.
Senator Raggio pointed out the fiscal note on arbitration was indicated at half-cost.
Mr. Gagnier apologized for his oversight and continued his statement:
I think that this is important that we have this procedure because right now, the burden of our grievance procedure, as far as cost is concerned, falls on the agency that has members on the Employee Management Committee. That means employment security, taxation, human resources and employment security and the university. They're the ones that are currently paying, in effect, through having members on the committee and the agencies that have the most grievances pay nothing. And, under our proposal an agency going to have pay half and the employee going to have to pay half. Now, maybe that's going to make the employee be a little more cautious in taking a case and maybe it would have an agency take a better look at their personnel practices if they start forking out a lot of money for these hearings.
Senator Rhoads asked why the bill provided for employees to have more members on the Personnel Commission rather than the employer.
Mr. Gagnier answered:
I think we just picked that up because under NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 288, it says employee strikes the first name. We don't really care. If it would be more acceptable to have the employer strike the first name.... The more preferable method here is for the two sides to get together and jointly select one without having to go through this process.
Chairman O'Connell asked for further testimony regarding S.B. 165.
Glenn Rock, Director, Department of Personnel, spoke in opposition to S.B. 165:
S.B. 165, at least part of it, with exception to the arbitration part of it, is identical to A.B. (Assembly Bill) 193 that came up last session that was defeated. I guess defeated or wasn't passed, let's put it that way. In terms of the current composition of the Personnel Commission, I think it's important to note that the Employees Association drafted the law that's currently in effect; in 1983. I'm not positive about that. But, it seems to me that they supported the changes that are currently in effect. Interesting, in section 2 of the bill (S.B. 165), is that currently no employees are allowed on the commission. What this particular proposal does is it eliminates that so essentially you could wind up with all seven members on the commission being employees.... not just the three that are elected. It depends on the way that these people are selected by the elected officials. From my viewpoint, at least, it would seem to me that there may be a conflict of interest in terms of having employees determining disputes on classification which the commission does and also passing regulations. Currently, you have new employees, both sides, the administration and the employees and their representatives can come before that body and make a pitch in terms of for or against any regulation or that type of thing. I just think...that it's inappropriate for employees to determine their own regulations and their own classification. In terms of the state that does allow elected employees elected on the commission, that's Colorado. We did do a survey of the western states, that's the only state that does that. And, by the way all of the states in the western United States that use commissions, have a five board commission, with exception of the State of Washington. They have three. In all cases, with the exception of Colorado, those positions are appointed by the Governor not by other elected officials. Mr. Gagnier already spoke in terms of the regulation changes being controlled by five votes of the commission in his proposal and that's true. In other words, an elected employee on there could control the regulations, either for it or against. The current law requires a majority of the entire membership. It's not specific in terms such as this proposal. In terms of the election itself. We tried to anticipate the costs the best way we could. And, obviously we're going to have to verify signatures, I suspect. That's a fairly common practice in balloting and petitions. And, also we're going to have to insure that no one votes twice in the balloting process. I'm not sure how we would go about that. But, certainly it's going to require a great deal of time on our part. And, I am not saying it can't be done, because it could be done.
In terms of the arbitration of grievances in section 5 (S.B. 165), I think what you have to realize in terms of arbitration is what you're giving up. When the arbitrator comes in and makes a decision, that is no longer in control of the state. Right now, you have control on the Employee Management Committee and that's comprised of six members. Once you go to an arbitrator, you lose that control. An arbitrator comes in, makes a decision, they leave and essentially what you've got is that decision that they make. There's also no provision in here in terms of anything that might cost the state money. Of those decisions made by an arbitrator. In other words, there's no provision that it would go to the budget division in cases of fiscal impact and that sort of thing. That's something you might want to take into consideration. The other part, section 6 which is being deleted in this (S.B. 165).... what that does it takes out the provision for removal of any commission members. Currently in the statute you have a provision in there if people don't attend those meetings frequently or that type of thing, they can be removed.... so, that's essentially what this particular bill does. It assumes one thing. It assumes that the composition of seven members on that commission will do a better job than the five that are on there now. And, the five that are on there now is definitely a lay-body. I suspect the seven that you're going to wind up with in this proposal will be a lay-body also.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Rock to explain what the term "lay-body" meant. Mr. Rock explained there were no personnel specialists or labor specialists ont the Employee Management Committee.
Carol Villardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke in opposition to S.B. 165, testifying:
If there is a problem with the composition as Mr. Gagnier has testified to in needing a classified employee, maybe we could take one of the five members and have the Governor appoint by a list submitted by the state classified employees. But, we think it is important that this panel be constituted as it generally is right now and that is where it constitutes a balance between the labor aspect, if you will, and the management aspect. I think the committee needs to know that if it were weighted strictly to the classified employees that might be within state agency administration, you have rules and regulations that impact on other divisions of the state such as the university system. And so there are a number of ramifications from changing the extent because of the amount of classified personnel that are also over at the university system. I think the balance, as it is right now, takes into account, hopefully, the employee-labor-management aspect. I have appeared before that committee on regulations that they have put down. There's been a great deal of input on the committee and before the committee as it's constituted and the regulations obviously do get a hearing from both sides. The state, the personnel system, the amount of money that is generated or the amount of money that is used, makes that a concern to the taxpayers and just what could ultimately come down. And, for that reason, we also prefer having remain intact the provision whereby you have the committee hearing and making a determination on those grievances brought by personnel rather than going to arbitration. One of the biggest problems I have seen, and I have served on the Employee Management Relations Board and was chairman and that is the local government act, is arbitrators are making awards without any consideration for the ability of the local government to comply for pay. And, I could cite litany and verse for the 4 years that I was on there and the number of times that local governments have tried to get.... that is a major concern of mine. Because you have some of these rules and regulations that involve how you will interpret overtime pay or compensatory time off, you're talking about monetary issues. And, an arbitrator does not look to our budgets the way we would hope that they would and I've seen that with the local governments.
Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Villardo if an arbitrator had to write any kind of a summary after a decision. Ms. Villardo answered:
Oh yes. An arbitrator normally will. There is usually a time frame that is built into this system and what Mr. Gagnier said about striking on the panels, that is fairly consistent. And, for the labor seminars that I attended while I was on there and the American Arbitration Seminars, you generally try to get a time frame. Now, that time frame is not always met. And, so sometimes you can have them hanging in limbo because their panel members have so many cases. But, usually if it's a function of law that you've put in some parameters, when the arbitrators are chosen from the panel, they know what the guidelines are that they're looking.... who will pay. You know, I appreciate the fact that there will be a cost sharing by both the employer and the employee but, I also think that it gives rise to more cases being filed before the arbitrator that might normally happen right now in the given circumstance. As I say, if we're going back to the root of the problem being a lack of qualification or the state employees association feeling they want some specific representation, then I think we can take that one member and have that representation, but give us the existing balance on the rest of it. Keep it at five members, let us have people who have a background in personnel administration where there is management also. It's for those reasons that we're very concerned about the potential impact on the bill because we do believe there is one. And, since that's the largest area of the state General Fund budget, that's why I'm before you on it.
Gordon Cronenberger, Chief Personnel Specialist, Department of Human Resources and Coordinator and member of Employee Management Committee spoke in opposition to S.B. 165. He had a concern about using an arbitrator because the qualifications are not specified in S.B. 165. Mr. Cronenberger also expressed a concern about the high cost of arbitration and that cost may preclude a lower level employee from filing a grievance. He said most of the issues which go before the Employee Management Committee were not major concerns such as written reprimands, employee evaluations, or loss of a state vehicle. Mr. Cronenberger reiterated there was a high cost to the state because of the use of an arbitrator during the hearing process.
Senator Hickey asked how often the issues such as written reprimands, employee evaluations or loss of state vehicles would come up before the Employee Management Committee.
Mr. Cronenberger replied:
In fiscal year 1991, we had seven reprimands that were heard, were received and four evaluations, protest of these things. In 1992 went up to 13 and the evaluations went up to eight. So far in the first half of the fiscal year, we've had 11 written reprimands appealed and five evaluations.
Chairman O'Connell asked Bob Gagnier to answer the allegation that S.B. 165 was the same as an assembly bill from the l991 session.
Mr. Gagnier replied:
That portion of the bill that deals with the Personnel Commission was, in fact, a separate bill that was introduced in the last session. It died in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs because of certain personalities involved... Glenn had indicated, or it appeared from his testimony that he was indicating that we were removing from the law that portion that says any fiscal matter of arbitration must be submitted to the Budget Division. We have not removed that. That remains in the bill (S.B. 165) on page 3, lines 7 through 10. Under the grievance adjustment procedure, any issue that is arbitrated, either currently by the Employee Management Committee or under our bill by arbitration, if it has a fiscal effect, it still must be submitted to the Budget Division to determine whether that agency has the fiscal resources to pay it. That has been a safeguard that has been in our grievance procedure since it was adopted in 1972.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Gagnier to address the concerns mentioned in the testimony of Carol Villardo regarding the makeup of the proposed board in S.B. 165.
Mr. Gagnier replied:
Our problem with having one member of the current commission be a classified employee is number one, it would be appointed instead of elected. Here's where I think people lose sight of the special circumstance that we have, as opposed to everybody else in the state. The person doing all this appointing is our employer. When you're dealing with NRS (Nevada Revised Statute) 288, you've got the local government employee management committee and you've got all those issues. The Governor is making all those appointments, he is not their employer. He is in effect a disinterested third party. In our instance, he is our employer. He is then appointing people to these bodies that will resolve these issues for us. And, now, obviously, they're going to resolve them in a manner that is more his way than our way. So, just having the Governor appoint one member our of five as a classified employee, I don't think that would be satisfactory. If the committee has difficulty with the number seven, we have no problem with going back to five and having two elected and three appointed. It's just that we feel the election is a very important issue because then they would be truly reflective of the employees. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to side with the employees every time.... the impression was given I think that many of these are petty issues going to the Employee Management Committee. I think there's part of our problem that we have with this committee is that's how they view them. The people who have these grievances do not view them as petty. When you have an issue involving a performance evaluation, that affects your longevity pay, your merit salary increase.... these are very critical issues. Many of them have a economic impact on the livelihood of that employee. A written reprimand that goes unanswered can be used later to fire an employee because it is unanswered. These are important issues, they are not minor issues.
There being no further testimony on S.B. 165, Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 165 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 166.
ASSEMBLY BILL 166: Changes time for election of certain officers of City of Reno. (BDR S-822)
Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, spoke in favor of A.B. 166. She read directly from Exhibit G.
Senator Raggio commented in favor of A.B. 166.
Mary Henderson, Washoe County, spoke in favor of A.B. 166 and stated the bill was an example of two local governments working together to benefit the taxpayers and voters.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 166.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell told the committee she had received an amendment to Senate Bill (S.B.) 90 and asked for discussion.
SENATE BILL 90: Establishes policy and procedure for naming state property. (BDR 27-127)
Senator Raggio said the amendment to S.B. 90 did not address the concerns and intention which the committee had agreed. He pointed out S.B. 90 stated a state property could not be named after a specific person unless the person made a significant contribution to the State of Nevada while in the service of state government. Senator Raggio remembered the committee wanted to strike the words "while in the service of state government" which the amendment to S.B. 90 did not address. He also had a concern about the legislature having no role in the naming of a state property under the provisions in S.B. 90. Senator Raggio also remembered the committee agreed to have the Governor select the state property name from those suggested by a committee which would be set up for naming state property by proposed S.B. 90.
The committee agreed Senator Raggio's comments were correct regarding the amendment to S.B. 90. Senator Hickey asked if he could take the amendment to S.B. 90 and rework the wording and add some suggestions which he had to add to the bill. Chairman O'Connell agreed.
Chairman O'Connell asked for a motion to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) 24-542.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 24-542: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 24-542.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell told the committee she also had Bill Draft Request (BDR) 19-433 for a committee introduction from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and asked for a motion.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 19-433.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Diana Gamble,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
March 1, 1993
Page 1