MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 12, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 12, 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, Principal Research Analyst

Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

William A. Glenn, Major, Nevada National Guard Reserve,

Ben Gillard, Captain, Nevada National Guard Reserve

Richard Edwards, Lieutenant Colonel, Nevada National Guard

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens

Walt Gardner, Concerned Citizen, Ruby Valley

Cliff Gardner, Concerned Citizen, Ruby Valley

Madelyn Shipman, Chief Deputy City Attorney, City of Reno

Juanita Cox, Concerned Citizen

Major Mark Comstock, Counter Drug Coordinator, Nevada National Guard

Major Felix Castagnola, Drug Demand Reduction Administrator, Nevada    National Guard

Juanita Cox, Concerned Citizen

Gayla Higgins, Concerned Citizen

Jeanine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum

Ken Green, Concerned Citizen, Fallon, Nevada

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens

Marilyn Nay, Concerned Citizen, Southern Nevada

Annie Barclay, President, Education Support Employee's Association of    Clark County

Bob Broniecki, President, Clark County Classroom Teacher's Association  O.C. Lee, Lobbyist, Police Officers of Nevada

Michael Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Kurt Fritsch, Representative, City of Henderson

Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Taxpayers

Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards

Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities

 

 

 

 

Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 404.

 

SENATE BILL 404:  Makes various changes relating to state militia.

 

Major William A. Glenn, Nevada National Guard Reserve, spoke in favor of S.B. 404.  He told the committee the reason the changes are proposed is housekeeping and to clarify some of the provisions of it and possibly reduce the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) liability.  He explained the bill and the changes to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 412.  He urged the committee to have this bill read, "The Nevada National Guard Reserve is an organized body comprised of able bodied residents of the state between the ages of 17 and 70."  Major Glenn stated this bill will actually reduce the state's SIIS liability by removing the, "comprising all residents of the state."  He told the committee they want the change of age to 70, because it does not make sense to cut the senior staff every couple of years when they reach the age of 64.  He stated those changes are basically housekeeping.  He referred to section 4 of the bill and told the committee they put this provision in there basically to provide the Governor with the authority to call people to service in case of an emergency.  Major Glenn explained the change in NRS 412.042 it states, "The military staff of the Governor consists of the adjutant general, not more than two assistant adjutant generals and the commanding general of the Nevada National Guard Reserve."  He explained what this does is go back to the original organization when there was a brigadier general as a commanding general in the Nevada National Guard Reserve.  He stated the rationale behind this proposal stems from a mobilization seminar he attended last year.  He explained the prognosis is with the cutbacks coming in the national forces if the nation gets into something like Desert Storm it is going to be a come as you are war which means more than the 72nd MP company will be activated and it will probably be activated sooner in the cycle.  He explained the fallback position of the Nevada National Guard Reserve is to be alerted when the regular Nevada National Guard has been called to active duty.  He told the committee the Nevada National Guard Reserve needs to have a command structure and organization in place before an emergency. Major Glenn stated the adjutant general may not be federalized, but could certainly have the organization moved out from under him if it is federalized.  He stated they are asking for a parallel organization which is viable, operational and in position with knowledgeable individuals.  He pointed out the Nevada National Guard Reserve does not compete with the Nevada National Guard.  He stated it is a skeleton organization designed to provide support in taking over the armories when the Nevada National Guard is gone.  He explained during Desert Storm and Desert Shield some of the legal people in the reserves were providing family assistance, arranging wills and personal papers.  He stated this was done free of charge.  Major Glenn stated it makes sense to have the commanding general of the Nevada National Guard Reserve become responsible for the licensed militias which, as he pointed out, is not available in the State of Nevada right now.  He pointed out the commanding general could be made responsible for the administration of discipline for the sake of uniformity.  He stated in section 5 it states the department shall adopt and provide suitable medals and so forth for the Nevada National Guard and he would add the Nevada National Guard Reserve.  He explained if they were expected to have training it would be the same for both organizations.  He told the committee the next section states, "the adjutant general shall encourage and promote rifle and pistol practice by Nevada clubs affiliated with the National Rifle Association of America, select and appoint representatives from such clubs."  He stated the only provision in this is that the ammunition must be sold at cost plus transportation so nobody loses money on it.   He stated the next section is again housekeeping because there had been individuals who work in sheriff's offices who had not been allowed military time to attend Nevada National Guard Reserve drills.  He explained this provision is basically clarification.  He pointed out section 6, subsection 3 states, "at the time of an emergency including natural or man-made disasters, the Governor may call any other able bodied citizens in this state under active service to be organized pursuant to department regulations to assist in response to mitigation or recovery from the effects of the emergency."  He told the committee that provision pretty much codifies the Governor's authority to do so.  He stated in section 7 an employer may not terminate the employment of a member of Nevada National Guard and Nevada National Guard Reserve is to be added.  Major Glenn stated the original draft showed there may be a fiscal impact as a result of this on local cities if they had to prosecute an employer who did it.  He explained the overall thrust of the legislation he has proposed would basically reduce SIIS liability and secondly provide a command structure as a fallback position in case of activation of the Nevada National Guard. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked if any other states had the similar ability as is suggested in this bill.

 

Major Glenn stated he thought about 37 states have state defense forces. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked Major Glenn to provide the committee with some information on the other states.

 

Senator Hickey stated on page 3 of the bill it states the ammunition must be sold at cost plus transportation charges and he asked if that statement was included in the original bill.

 

Major Glenn stated that particular language was not included in the original law.

 

Senator Hickey asked the amount the transportation costs are going to run.

 

Major Glenn stated the present wording says, "which ammunition shall be sold at cost plus transportation charges."  He explained the reserve is presently buying their own ammunition and they are not getting any support through the director of civilian marksmanship from the Department of the Army.

 

Senator Raggio stated he thought the bill would be successful, but only if it has general acceptance or support from the Nevada National Guard in this state. 

 

Mr. Glenn stated he had not had any communication from the Nevada National Guard on the proposed bill.

 

Captain Ben Gillard, Nevada National Guard Reserve, told the committee the reserves train in search and rescue functions and basic things like sand bagging or evacuation in times of flood or disaster.  He stated it is necessary to have an organized body of individuals who are trained and controlled during any disaster and that is what the reserves do. 

 

Senator Hickey stated in reading the bill it states there has to be a commander and he said he was not sure there should be a commander within the reserves and one within the guards.  He maintained one commander should run the operation and the others should submit to the orders and this would create a military line of communication.  Senator Hickey said this bill interprets all of the veterans as part of the army and the Governor can call all of them to active service.  He asked how the reserves would make the selection of a commander from all of these individuals.

 

Captain Gillard stated the way this bill is written now it states,"an unorganized body comprising all" and he added they are trying to separate the word "all" and put in "organized body comprised of" in the proposal.  He added the commissions are signed and executed by the Governor and the enlisted appointments are approved by the adjutant general.  He told the committee they would not accept anybody in the general public into this organized body during an emergency. 

 

Major Glenn stated it is very important to have an individual in charge.  He pointed out on line 29 of page 2 of the bill it states, "the adjutant general of the [Nevada] National Guard is responsible."  Major Glenn stated though there is another commander, the adjutant general of the regular guard is still responsible for the training, discipline, administration and so forth of the Nevada National Guard Reserve. 

 

Captain Gillard stated the reserves work in conjunction with the recruiting office of the regular guard to support and sponsor exploring posts through the Boy Scouts of America.  He explained they are able to do that because their mission is not as restricted with regard to pay as the regular guard.  He told the committee this is one of the good things they do for the public.  He stated they also stand by in the case of a natural disaster and to provide the extra manpower when counties and governments are stressed.  He explained the reserves are free manpower which is already organized and can be directed by the incident commander.  Captain Gillard stated he mainly wanted to speak to the necessity of having a force of individuals who are organized and legitimate to respond to public disasters and to help out.

 

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Edwards, Nevada National Guard, stated he is the present State Judge Advocate for the Army National Guard.  He told the committee he is here to express the opposition of this bill by the Adjutant General of the Nevada National Guard.  He stated many of the same concerns which have already been raised are the concerns of the Adjutant General.  He pointed out this bill creates problems in two major areas one of which is that it creates a state draft power for the Governor.  He explained under this bill the Governor is able to draft and activate all able bodied citizens between the ages of 17 and 60.  He stated this is currently not the law in Nevada and it is not the desire of the adjutant general to have that authority.  Lieutenant Colonel Edwards stated this proposal would disrupt the chain-of-command for the Nevada National Guard and the State of Nevada Military Department.  He explained under the current status of the law the Nevada National Guard Reserve only has organization in a formal sense once it is activated by the Governor, but then it comes into play for various limited activities which are all under the control and direction of the Adjutant General of the State of Nevada.  He stated under the law as proposed, in a time of activation the Nevada National Guard Reserve would become, in effect, a coequal branch of the militia of the State of Nevada.  He pointed out the proposed language directs the adjutant general to cooperate with the commanding general of the Nevada National Guard Reserve on all such matters pertaining to the National Guard Reserve and volunteer organizations.  He stated the Adjutant General also has grave concerns with respect to the authority and the expansion of possibly liability to the state

 

 

through the SIIS if this bill is enacted as is proposed.  He explained the possible liability exposure, the exposure for the SIIS system would be greatly expanded and those are all concerns. 

 

Chairman O'Connell asked if Lieutenant Colonel Edwards could comment on the other states which have this law. 

 

Lieutenant Colonel Edwards stated he had limited experience in that area, however, he stated the experience he does have is more in the nature of problems with the chain-of-command and the disruption of the chain-of-command with the state guard that has developed as a result of that.

 

Senator Hickey asked what the amount of the response time was during an emergency.

 

Lieutenant Colonel Edwards stated he could speak with respect to personal experience with the immobilization in Las Vegas.  He stated he is a practicing attorney in Reno and he got a call at 8:00 a.m. from the Chief of Personnel at the Nevada National Guard.  He explained he cleared his calendar and was at the command center to mobilize the troops which were used in the control action in Las Vegas.  He stated it was just a matter of hours in which that was accomplished and it was aided by the fact there are a lot of highly motivated guard personnel.  He felt it was a very efficient response.

He stated he feels there is no need to change the existing laws.

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, told the committee her organization is opposed to S.B. 404.  She explained the major concern is the change from an unorganized body consisting of all able-bodied citizens to an organized body.  She stated that is not a small change, but in fact, a major change creating, essentially a second national guard rather than a body in waiting to be called up only in times of emergency.  She explained the coalition is concerned about confusion of leadership as referred to on page 2 in section 4 which suggests the adjutant general be placed in a subservient role.  She also stated in section 6 on page 3 there are some specifics in which the National Guard Reserves may be called up.  She explained the concern is the distinction between the reserve as it would be newly defined in section 6, subsections 1 and 2.  Ms. Lusk stated she had not previously picked up the ability of the Governor to draft citizens into service as the previous speaker had suggested.  She explained if this is really what page 1, section 2 states it would be of significant concern to her organization.  She feels this would transcend the ability to call citizens in case of emergency, war or specific circumstances as stated in section 6.  She also feels changing the upper age to 70 does not make a lot of sense and they recommend eliminating the upper age and have it state "all able bodied citizens." 

 

Walt Gardner, Concerned Citizen, Ruby Valley, spoke in opposition to S.B. 404.  He stated he feels there are better avenues to go through to get the Nevada National Guard to help local law enforcement. 

 

Cliff Gardner, Concerned Citizen, Ruby Valley, spoke in opposition to S.B. 404.  He stated he is familiar with several activities involving the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in their actions taken against individuals in Nevada.  He explained he is very fearful of any increased jurisdiction by the federal agencies. 

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 404 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 354.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 354:      Clarifies that a municipality may by condemnation acquire property for project within or without  municipality.

 

Madelyn Shipman, Chief Deputy City Attorney, City of Reno, spoke in favor of A.B. 354.  She explained this bill is simply a clarification bill which was put in the back of her file when she was in court on a determination regarding condemnation for a drainage project, which involved a parcel of land in Reno and another parcel in the unincorporated area.  She told the committee this was a flood control project essentially and the judge said the word "acquire" in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 268.730 did not include the authority for her to condemn outside her boundaries.  She stated she had decided to go back and have the project redesigned so they would not have to take that parcel, as the shortest course, but it did delay the project by approximately 9 months.  She explained the law generally states the right to condemn must be expressly stated in the law.  Ms. Shipman told the committee Chapter 271 in NRS addresses special assessment districts for cities and it describes the same projects that are described and set forth in that statute and the authority to condemn is expressly set forth in this chapter.  She stated A.B. 354 follows NRS 271 in the same projects and she feels there should be no distinction whether individuals use special assessment district funding or city bond money. 

 

Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Shipman if she lost the case stated above.

 

Ms. Shipman stated she did not lose the case.  She explained a motion which did not allow the city to condemn the parcel in the unincorporated area based upon the lack of authority in the law.  She stated she has personally pursued three projects that have put city boundaries into either Sparks or into the unincorporated area for authorized projects under a 1985 bond issue.  She stated previously the law stated they may acquire, improve or equip within or without

 

 

or both within and without the municipality.  She explained the word "acquire" was determined by the judge to not necessarily include the authority to condemn.

 

Chairman O'Connell expressed her disapproval of the eminent domain law which she states is very upsetting to her.  She told Ms. Shipman any law which would give government that ability would not be favored by her. 

 

Senator Raggio stated NRS 271 includes condemnation under acquisition and acquire, but he asked where it allows that to occur outside the limits of the government.

 

Ms. Shipman stated during her research she did find the expressed language in NRS 271 which would allow them to acquire within and without boundaries.

 

Senator Raggio stated he would like to see that in the statute himself before making any decision on this bill.  He stated he has an additional concern as this bill is directed towards utilizing that authority outside the boundaries.  He asked if this statute requires

a vote on a specific project.

 

Ms. Shipman stated under NRS 268 it requires a vote.  She explained it is based upon a city election for a specific project similar to the 1985 bond issue.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the vote would be within the city only or would the people who live outside the city be able to vote when it is their land being acquired for this purpose.

 

Ms. Shipman stated the individuals living outside the city would not be able to vote even though it is their land in question.

 

Senator Raggio stated he found that troublesome and he requested an analysis of how that would work.  He asked if this was a flood project or something of that nature.

 

Ms. Shipman stated the project it came up in was a flood control project and drainage projects.

 

Senator Raggio asked Ms. Shipman how she could justify condemnation for that purpose even if it is based on a vote of the people when the individuals whose property is going to be acquired outside the limits have no right to vote. 

 

Ms. Shipman stated she understood Senator Raggio's point, but she could not give him an answer which would satisfy him.  She explained the drainage projects and flood control projects definitely benefit all of the citizens whether or not they live within the boundaries.  She pointed out this would be maintaining the flood control.  She told the committee there are a lot of county pockets within the City of Reno which are areas totally surrounded by municipal services and she explained it is impossible at times to stay totally within the jurisdiction when they are doing these types of projects.

 

Senator Raggio stated NRS 271.265 seems to comport to what Ms. Shipman is saying.  He explained it gives the general powers of cities, counties and towns and that they have the right to acquire both within and without the municipality which includes cites and counties.  He stated the statute lists projects it includes and he asked Ms. Shipman if that is the section to which she was referring.

 

Ms. Shipman stated that was the section she was referring to and it is indeed existing law.  She explained she is just trying to make NRS 268 similar to NRS 271. 

 

Juanita Cox, Concerned Citizen, spoke in opposition of A.B. 354.  She stated she is a resident of Storey County and 2 years ago she received a registered letter from the City of Reno which she thought was strange.  She explained the enclosed letter explained the City of Reno was going to go through her property to do survey work for the sewer pipeline.  Ms. Cox told the committee she called the Storey County District Attorney, Nevada State Attorney General, Washoe County District Attorneys and any other attorney she could possibly think of to call.  She stated she felt the City of Reno was going out of the scope of their power and jurisdiction.  She told the committee she was amazed when she saw A.B. 354 going before the legislature.  She stated she could see problems knowing what the government had already tried to do to her.  She recommends this bill be killed.

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, National Coalition of Concerned Citizens, told the committee their concern is if any such power exists or is contemplated to be expanded, the municipalities seeking to acquire property, condemn property or engage in any of the other processes must be required to work through that governing body which would be affected. She stated they must also have official approval of a noticed meeting of that governing body.  She explained it is virtually impossible for citizens to know what other cities are doing, beyond those in which they live. 

 

Senator Raggio asked Ms. Shipman to come back to the testifying table.  He asked her what the difference was between NRS 268 and NRS 271.

 

Ms. Shipman stated essentially there is very little difference in terms of the projects that are authorized to be built.  She explained the difference is whether it is done by local tax assessment district or by city-wide bonding whereby all the taxpayers are paying for the project.  She told the committee on a flood control project it did not appear to be appropriate to the city that it should be done by special assessment districts since it benefits basically the whole city.  She stated this flood control project was one of the authorized projects in the 1985 bond issue.

 

Senator Raggio stated the projects listed in NRS 271 do not require an election. 

 

Ms. Shipman stated that is not quite true.  She explained there is not an election.  She further explained when they proceed through an assessment district proceeding they must have 51 percent of the property owners' consent.  She pointed out they could also proceed if sufficient money from the city is put into the project so the project can be continued regardless of the protests of property owners. 

 

Senator Hickey stated the way he reads this bill there is no limitation of the governing body of a municipality. 

 

Ms. Shipman stated the only projects she is familiar with are projects down the border of the City of Reno.  She pointed out that is existing law already.

 

Senator Hickey asked if the northern municipalities can reach down into southern Nevada.

 

Ms. Shipman stated under the language of the statute she would assume northern Nevada could reach into southern Nevada as long as it was vital and necessary to the project.  She added she did not think that would ever happen.

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 354 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 253.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 253:      Enacts interstate compact for certain operations by Nevada National Guard.

 

Major Mark Comstock, Counter Drug Coordinator, Nevada National Guard, spoke in favor of A.B. 253.  He stated there are 54 state and territorial national guards currently involved in a war on drugs.  He expressed this is a war the country cannot afford to lose.  He told the committee the guard is fighting that war in Nevada with complete concurrence of Governor Miller, the attorney general and General Clark.  He explained their program has been designed, developed and improved and is in compliance with all existing state laws.  He explained they currently have individuals working in support of law enforcement agents throughout the state of Nevada, which is their focus.  He told the committee the local, federal and state law enforcement agencies come to the guard for support because they maintain unique capabilities and unique personnel and qualifications.  Major Comstock stated they do not have arrest powers and they are not policemen.  He explained they do not search, seize or partake in any seized assets.  He stated they simply provide technical and personnel assistance to law enforcement agencies who conduct the actual investigations.  He did state on occasion drug traffickers do not recognize or pay attention to state boundaries and they have used that to their advantage by crossing between the states.  He explained this sometimes requires law enforcement agents to also cross those boundaries.  He pointed out if the guard is to continue to provide support for the law enforcement that they have come to rely on the guard needs the ability to work both in Nevada and outside and the guard is in fact doing this.  Major Comstock stated A.B. 253 legitimizes what the Nevada National Guard is doing and it shows the State of Nevada is behind its soldiers who are out there risking themselves at times and it also protects those soldiers when they cross over into another state.  He insisted this will become more and more of an issue as society sees more drug trafficking operations in and out of Nevada.  He stated California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have been very capable and very productive in reducing those instances in their states because they have been funded and they have fought that war so well.  He explained Nevada got a late and slow start and as a result the state may have created what may be called a weak link because Nevada is only 212 miles from the Mexican border at the southern-most tip.  He told the committee the Nevada National Guard does not directly go after drug traffickers, but they are there to support law enforcement who has recognized the same problem.  Major Comstock stated the Nevada National Guard does not want to commission, they do not want to deputize, they do not want to become reserve officers, but they are there just to lend support, assistance and technical help.

 

Major Felix Castagnola, Drug Demand Reduction Administrator, Nevada National Guard, stated his department offers resources as an enhancement program to existing community-based prevention efforts.  He told the committee they take their resources in the Nevada National Guard and provide them to the community as an outreach program in a variety of different activities to promote drug awareness, drug education and a drug-free lifestyle.  He explained he is here to support Major Comstock and his goals. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked if any other state had signed the same kind of compact.

 

Major Comstock told the committee Arizona was the first state to sign and it was just recently passed in Louisiana and compacts are pending in California, Texas and other states.  He stated the compact was only introduced in Nevada approximately 1-1/2 years ago.

 

Senator Hickey asked what kinds of equipment and manpower the Nevada National Guard has in Southern Nevada.

 

 

Major Comstock stated they have tank units, but they would not use them.  He explained they have Military Police Organizations and personnel trained in intelligence to help analyze photo reconnaissance data and other sources of intelligence.  He told the committee there are specialists within the military all across the state who have a background in long-range surveillance, ranger-type of activities.  He explained they have been extremely helpful in the really remote areas that Nevada is covered with and where many drug trafficking operations take place.  He stated in some of these instances the local urban police are not totally familiar, comfortable or trained to work in long range surveillance.

 

Senator Hickey asked what other support besides the 50 or so men in the Military Police Organizations would the Nevada National Guard move across the state line.

 

Major Comstock explained the Nevada National Guard is using F-4 aircraft which fly photo reconnaissance all over North America, but aircraft are not restricted by the state boundaries.

 

Senator Rhoads asked if other law enforcement agencies are supporting this compact.

 

Major Comstock stated the federal agencies which support this compact are the Drug Enforcement Agency and the United States Custom Service.  He stated he could not speak for the local law enforcement agencies.

 

Major Comstock took the committee through the bill and explained it is almost a verbatim copy of the Arizona bill.

 

Chairman O'Connell stated this bill is perceived as federalizing the Nevada State National Guard and placing it directly under the federal agency which wants the services of the Nevada National Guard.

 

Major Comstock stated there are 14 authorized missions, the guard is allowed to help law enforcement in training, they provide liaison, administration, individuals working computers and many other functions the Nevada National Guard has that law enforcement either does not have or has in insufficient quantities.  He explained if he can provide a soldier with computer skills to a law enforcement agency who can then free up a deputy or an agent to go into the field to enforce the law, then he feels they have done something good.  He told the committee he has certain capabilities within his organization which law enforcement agencies do not have.  Major Comstock stated within the 14 authorized missions there is nothing that is cause for concern for somebody not illegally operating in counter drugs.  He pointed out he does not work in any area that is not drug related and he only works at the written request of an agency which is recognized by the state as a legal law enforcement agency and he only works in the support role within the defined missions.  He explained if one of the federal agencies attempted to have the Nevada National Guard perform a task which was outside the limits such as enter into the country of Mexico, they would stop, pull back, talk about it and either discontinue the relationship or get the law enforcement agency straight.  He told the committee there are very strict controls on the soldiers brought into this.  He explained they go through a very rigorous training program above and beyond their military duties before they are ever sent to work for any of these agencies and then they are continually checked during after action reviews on what occurred.  He stated there are a great many controls built into this system.

 

Chairman O'Connell stated one phone call she got on this bill was an individual concerned the Nevada National Guard would become part of the types of conflicts which occurred in Waco, Texas. 

 

Major Comstock stated he was not at Waco and he understands there is some information which leads individuals to believe the Texas National Guard did have assets on the ground at Waco.  He explained he did know for sure in the latest civil disturbance in southern Nevada his counter drug staff was stopped and they were not used in that capacity.  He stated they either do counter drugs or they do nothing and would not, to his knowledge, be used in anything other than a counter drug related mission.

 

Senator Hickey asked what the chain of command would be if the Nevada National Guard went out of the state.

 

Major Comstock stated if the Nevada National Guard was ordered by the governor of another state to come to work jointly with that state, his soldiers would come under the chain of command of that state's counter drug program.  He explained that would work for Nevada also if this state asked another state to bring in their counter drug enforcement soldiers.

 

Juanita Cox, Concerned Citizen, spoke in opposition of A.B. 253.  She stated the people of this nation created the constitution and then they created the government and she stated she feels very threatened by this bill.  She explained she feels the government is starting to take control militarily.  She told the committee she feels this bill takes some of the people's rights away and if the federal government takes the state's national guard to another state, our state is left unprotected.  She stated she feels this is unconstitutional under article 12, section 2 and under article 5, section 5.  She explained these sections give the Governor the power, but she believes this takes the rights away from the Governor.  She told the committee right now she has some control as a voter, but if another Governor is taking the guard from Nevada the people here have no control.  She asked the committee to kill this bill.

 

Gayla Higgins, Concerned Citizen, spoke in opposition of A.B. 253.  She told the committee she is concerned that our Nevada National Guard may be called to the east coast for some reason and that would leave Nevada unprotected in case of a natural disaster such as earthquake, flood or fire.  She explained they would need our Nevada National Guard here now, not 1 year from now as provided in article 2 which says, "no such withdrawal shall take effect until 1 year after the Governor of the withdrawing state has given notice in writing of such withdrawal to the Governor's of other party states."  She stated that suggestion makes her uneasy.  She suggested each state's national guard handle their own drug problems if necessary.  She pointed out in article 3, line 26 it refers to the normal course of military training and operations and she asked why our national guard would be conducting military training or operations in another state.  She drew attention to line 35 which talks about national guard personnel to train local civilian law enforcement and she stated she did not understand what civilian law enforcement would be.  She pointed out page 3, lines 2 and 3 refer to civilian law enforcement personnel again.  She stated line 14 refers to civic organizations, institutions and agencies and she questioned why our national guard would need to assist civilian or civic organizations in other states.  She called attention to line 21 which defines law enforcement agency and includes enforcement of penal, traffic, regulatory, game, immigration, postal and customs and she questioned why it would be necessary to include these items when this compact is supposed to be for drug enforcement.  She told the committee there were several other areas which concerned her and she would like clarification of these issues.  She urged the committee not to vote for this bill which she believes ultimately removes power from the Governor and the people of the State of Nevada.

 

Jeanine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified against A.B. 253.  She stated some of the opposition of this bill is due to the lack of explanation for the need for this kind of bill.  She stated one of the major concerns is the need for this bill has not been established.  She told the committee in Arizona passed this bill because they are on the Mexican border and they have many drug smuggling problems.  She stated she is concerned with the effectiveness of the Nevada National Guard fighting drugs.  Mrs. Hansen pointed out some of the problems recently in the United States have been with regard to the National Guard accusing individuals of violating drug laws and she feels that is some of the concern with regard to this bill.  She explained an individual could lose their home if they are renting to somebody who is caught in possession of drugs.  She made reference to an incident in Idaho and also to the Waco, Texas incident.  She stated she is not sure whether this is constitutional or not, but she suggested the committee get some advice before participating in this and risking a possible lawsuit.  She expressed concerns with regard to a fiscal impact of this bill.  She told the committee she feels the concern of the citizens is that this may be a first step to a national police force. 

 

Senator Raggio stated the drug problem in this country is absolutely tearing apart this country and instead of trying to find fault with every idea that comes along to deal with it he suggests they put their heads together to come up with a solution of how to deal effectively with this drug problem.  He said some of the complaints he has heard today have some validity, but he has heard a lot which has little substance.  He explained he is coming from a prosecutor's position and having lived with this problem and trying to deal with it and he suggested looking for a constructive approach to this to figure how to assist in dealing with the problem of drug control.  He insisted the problem is not confined to the borders and the law enforcement people do have some limitations.  He stated the terms of concern such as civilian law enforcement is a very well understood term meaning police officers and sheriffs and so forth.  He maintained he has no problem with the cooperation of military and law enforcement or Nevada National Guard and law enforcement.  He added he has a great deal of respect for the Nevada National Guard and he feels all of the comments made about the utility or the effect of the Nevada National Guard are inappropriate.  He insisted he is not particularly alarmed about using the Nevada National Guard strictly under an elected Governor's control to be used specifically for drug interdiction and drug control.  He stated according to this bill the Governor is the final authority to send the Nevada National Guard or not.  Senator Raggio stressed he accepts Major Comstock at his word that this bill is designed to be an effective tool to deal with the terrible drug problem in this country.  He also pointed out he is not concerned with the fiscal impact, because the state pays these people whether they do their job here or not.  He stated he believes in sovereignty of states, but he also believes there is a collective problem in America and that is dealing with drugs.  He suggested the committee and concerned citizens look at this bill from a reasonable standpoint and see if there is some kind of compact or some use for a compact of this kind. 

 

Mrs. Hansen stated individuals are concerned about individual rights which are being jeopardized by other drug laws.  She said she was just trying to explain why there are concerns when drug enforcement is involved.  She told the committee she does not know how the Nevada National Guard is financed and she is not sure if it would cost more, she merely said it was an issue they should look at and question.  Mrs. Hansen suggests the legislature to have a resolution encouraging additional border guards to help ease the drug problem. 

 

Senator Hickey asked Major Comstock if part of his mission is to be involved in the enforcement of drug abatement.

 

Major Comstock stated there are valid concerns and he would try to answer as many as he could.  He pointed out in regard to the question of whether there is a need for this.  He gave the committee an example stating there was a group of gentlemen living in Northern Reno who were crossing into Northern California to cook methamphetamine.  He stated they brought the results of that cook to Reno and the reason the Nevada National Guard got involved in that was because it was being sold at some high schools in Reno.  He stated when the gentleman in question left California there was a helicopter following him and when he brought the drugs back into the State of Nevada he was arrested at the border and is no longer selling drugs at the local high schools.  Major Comstock addressed the question of whether the Governor could withdraw troops.  He explained the Governor has absolute total authority over the Nevada National Guard no matter where they are and at any time all he has to do is politely decline a request from another governor and the troops stay here.  He added if the troops are out of Nevada, the Governor just has to make a phone call and they will be recalled back to Nevada.  He stated there is a very real financial impact to the Nevada National Guard on its counter drug program and to date he has spent $851,000 in this state.  He explained he has brought in that much revenue to the State of Nevada and hopes to bring in $2 million next year.  He told the committee this money is allowances for taking Nevada citizens and employing them as full-time Nevada National Guardsmen in support of law enforcement in the counter drug war.  Major Comstock stated he feels this is a good expenditure and there is no cost to the citizens of Nevada.  He explained that money is funded by Congress and it is spent solely for use in counter drugs and cannot be utilized in any other fashion except for the war on drugs.  He addressed the question of Arizona being more threatened by drug dealings because they are on the border.  He explained there is a very unequal burden with Arizona.  He stated any small thing the guard does in Arizona will probably be repaid tenfold as they have almost 300 guardsmen and they have years and years of experience in the counter drug war that Nevada has not maintained.  He pointed out if Nevada sends a few men to help Arizona what the state will get back is increased tenfold in their ability to come into Nevada and help fight our war on our ground for the state at absolutely no cost to the State of Nevada.  Major Comstock stated the Nevada National Guard does not, will not and has no desire to become cops. 

 

Senator Raggio stated this bill does not change the current practices.  He explained it is important to recognize that this compact does not provide the Nevada National Guard with any additional authority.  He pointed out Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 412.038 already provides the Governor with the authority to order the Nevada National Guard to serve outside the state.  He emphasized that is present law.  He added the compact does not give the Nevada National Guard the authority to act as a law enforcement agency.  He stressed this compact specifically allows the Nevada National Guard to provide support to law enforcement agencies to aggressively combat unlawful drug related activity.  He stated this compact also allows states to combine assets to use the National Guards in the most efficient manner.  He insisted although this compact does not change current practices very much it would provide uniformity among participating states since each state has different laws.  He stated this compact provides additional protection for the personnel of the Nevada National Guard and will prevent conflicts among the participating states.  He concluded the compact clarifies the role of support which the Nevada National Guard may provide to law enforcement agencies to help stop unlawful drug related activity.  Senator Raggio stated he is dedicated and committed to do something about the national drug problem.  He stressed he feels the Nevada National Guard is a vital part of this state and every other state and he would like to see the states pool their resources and work together, at minimal risk, to do something about the drug problem. 

 

Senator Hickey asked about the stationing of troops in other states.

 

Major Comstock stated the guard currently only has a pact with Arizona, but the F-4 aircraft are still used all the way up into New York.  He explained when the F-4s are used in a photo reconnaissance mission it is virtually identical to the mission profile used in Desert Storm.  He stated the only difference is they are not currently being shot at, although that could change in certain parts of Oregon.  He told the committee when they send the troops out they station the entire organization as if they had gone to a Desert Storm type environment.  He explained they do that for two reasons, those being the troops do a better job when they get there and it enhances their training overall.  He stated that is why they send them as a collective package to move into an area to photograph all of the targets that have been developed by law enforcement agents in there and then they gather everything up and return to Reno just as if they were deploying to an overseas location in the time of war.  He insisted this further increases their readiness and capabilities to fight a war.  He explained the counter drug war has not in any way diminished that, in fact the ability of the army and air have been enhanced because of this training. 

 

Senator Hickey asked if the planes which are associated with the Nevada National Guard can be used to cross borders.

 

Major Comstock stated they could indeed cross borders under certain circumstances.

 

Senator Hickey stated that is of concern to him and may become a concern to the state.

 

Major Comstock emphasized at the point the planes cross the borders they are not a state asset, they are federalized and become Title 10 soldiers.  He explained the guard does not allow them to work outside the continental United States except as federal soldiers and at that point Nevada has nothing to do with them and he stated he loses complete control over them. 

 

Mrs. Hansen stated she wanted to assure Senator Raggio she is as concerned as he and the committee members about the drug traffic and the state needs to do as much as it can, but must be careful in the way it is done. 

 

Mr. Walt Gardner, Concerned Citizen, Ruby Valley, spoke on A.B. 253.  He stated the main reason he is testifying before the committee is to appraise them of the abuse they are seeing in the rural areas.  He gave the committee members a copy of an article from the Western Livestock Journal (Exhibit C).  He made reference to several cases here in Nevada where the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has come onto private property on the pretense of a crime being committed and harassed the individuals living there and in some instances killing them.  He is very concerned about the power being granted to the BLM to confiscate and destroy private property for their own needs.

 

Senator Raggio asked how this information would pertain to the issues in A.B. 253.

 

Mr. Gardner stated the committee and the public should be looking at bills that protect the civil rights and property rights of citizens.  He explained the people need bills protecting their rights and not giving more authority to federal agents when it is not clear.

 

Senator Raggio stated this bill does not give authority to federal agencies.

 

Mr. Gardner stated he iterpretes this bill differently and he is very concerned that others will do the same.

 

Senator Raggio stated he feels with some of the questions, answers and testimony given previously on this bill it would dispel some of the concerns citizens might have about federal intervention.

 

Mr. Gardner stated he is concerned about the drug abuse in this country, but he stated he would like to commend Mrs. Hansen and be involved in her organization because he feels they are not getting to the heart of the problem.  He explained he feels the real problem is the de-structuring of the American family.  He told the committee if society really wants to solve the drug problem and many other related problems in our nation people need to get behind people like Jeanine Hansen and do everything they can to strengthen the American family.

 

Chairman O'Connell told Mr. Gardner and anybody else interested that this committee would be hearing bills with regard to the federal government taking property.  She stated these bills are sponsored by Senator Rhoads and told the individuals if they have concerns specifically about that they might want to speak with him after this meeting. 

 

Ken Green, Concerned Citizen, Fallon, Nevada, spoke in opposition of A.B. 253.  He stated he agrees there definitely is a drug problem in the United States, this one problem cannot be corrected with a national police force.  He stated that is what this bill boils down to is a national police force.  He told the committee this bill does not just cover the drug interdiction, it allows the Nevada National Guard to be used by almost every government agency in the State of Nevada which includes the BLM, forest service, postal service, customs, fish and game and every government agency, federal and state. 

 

Senator Nevin stated these are different agencies where drug intervention also takes place through shipping the drugs through the post office and other agencies.

 

Mr. Green stated if this is the case in how drugs are smuggled the state already have a police force in Nevada large enough to handle the situation. 

 

Senator Nevin pointed out this is a coordination of all the agencies and units working together, not apart.

 

Mr. Green stated he agreed with that, but all these agencies are given the authority to call on the Nevada National Guard they will use them for other reasons besides drug interdiction.

 

Major Comstock stated he would like to address some of the questions the previous speakers had.  He stated from personal experience the Nevada National Guard has been used to collect probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant to go forward.  He explained on one recent operation they were able to determine there was no probable cause and they turned to the law enforcement agency and told them they were done and walked out.  He told the committee the quality of the amount of probable cause being obtained is enhanced by the Nevada National Guard being there.  He explained they could put more people for longer periods of time with better equipment to determine whether or not illegal activity is there sufficient to cause a warrant to be issued and they very carefully look at the quality of that evidence or they will not be involved in it.  Major Comstock stated he could not afford to jeopardize the program and or have the Adjutant General come down on him.  He stated the Nevada National Guard does not involve themselves with property seizures. 

 

Senator Hickey asked Major Comstock if he had any lawsuits in regard to this kind of operation.

 

Major Comstock stated they do not have any lawsuits with regard to their operations with local authorities.  He explained that he looks at that situation very carefully so he does not put the guard in the position where that could be the outcome.

 

Senator Hickey asked Major Comstock to investigate the Nevada National Guard history of any lawsuits for the past 5 years and report back to the committee. 

 

Major Comstock stated with respect to property seizures, federal law prohibits the military from sharing in property seizure.  He explained he has nothing to gain in the way of property and he agrees there is a great deal of concern on law enforcement potentially abusing property seizures.  He stated this is outside his realm and the guard has nothing to do with it and never will.  He said he routinely works with fish and game, BLM and the forest service.  He explained all of these federal agencies work with the guard and they found out they were duplicating their work so they were brought together with the guard and they have since been able to define who is responsible for what out there and they share the intelligence developed to better fight the drug war.  Major Comstock stated this bill prohibits the guard to do anything that is not counter drug related. 

 

Chairman O'Connell stated she felt the committee should move on to another bill as there were individuals waiting to testify on other bills.  She stated the committee had a good idea of what the concerns are in this bill and she suggested the officers from the Nevada National Guard and the concerned citizens step into one of the conference rooms across the hall and work out some of the problems. 

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, testified on A.B. 253.  She told the committee she had one concern to share with them.  She asked if there is no arrest power, why should they include lines 34 through 37 which say, "nothing in this compact shall deprive a properly convened court of jurisdiction over an offense or a defendant merely because of the fact that the national guard, while performing duties pursuant to this compact was utilized in achieving an arrest."  She pointed out that statement seems inconsistent with what is being said here today.

 

Major Comstock stated they are not hiding the fact they are trying to effect an arrest, after all that is what the law enforcement is out there to do.  He explained they are very seriously out there to effect an arrest, but they do so by supporting law enforcement agents who make that arrest.  He stated they do everything in their power to use their abilities as military trained individuals to help the law enforcement enforce and make those arrests.  He added they are not trying to hide that fact at all.

 

Senator Raggio told Ms. Lusk those sentences do not add anything to the law, but it assures there is no defense raised that because they participated in an arrest that it is not a valid arrest or the court

 

 

does not have jurisdiction.  He pointed out today any citizen can make an arrest.  He added it is whether or not there are grounds reasonable to make the arrest.

 

Marilyn Nay, Concerned Citizen, southern Nevada, spoke in opposition to A.B. 253.  She told the committee each one of them live in their homes secure and she feels she does not have that freedom.  She read into the record:

 

      Fellow Nevadans, my thoughts are here on this paper.  We're convinced that by sitting innocently within the walls of our own home we are breaking some law, rule or regulation.  With all of these laws, rules and regulations we are being ruled and regulated to death.  The constitution has the protection we need as citizens.  The Declaration of Independence states that the government is to protect our rights and when it doesn't then it is time to change or get rid of it.  We feel that this is time to change some of the federal bureaucracies.  How many of you have heard the phrase, 'scared stiff?'  I now know the true meaning of that.  Our problems are coming mostly from the BLM.  They want our property.  That means our way to support ourselves and the very roof over our head.  I have been plagued with nightmares for the past while.  I wake up scared stiff with heart pounding and body stiff as a board.  That can't be good for a healthy heart, which I don't have anymore.  My deep feelings are the federal bureaucratic agencies are out of control.  Are we to be another Randall Weaver in Idaho, a millionaire Donald Scott in California or maybe a mini Waco, Texas.  There are many others, but I name only these.  If this sort of thing can happen to us it can also happen to you.  Our fate lies in your hands, the lawmakers.  Please help us and others like us.  We will not run.  Our kids and grandkids which are the fifth and sixth generation ranchers on this same property should be allowed the freedoms of living without the threat of contaminated drinking water.  And let me just say the dreadful fear of the knock in the night.  We are law abiding citizens of America and very true native Nevadans, yet we are being treated as guilty til proven innocent.  We haven't broken any laws.  We firmly believe right is right and wrong is wrong.  We are a prayerful people and we will continue to pray for your as long as you do that which is righteous.  Thank you kindly.

 

 

 

Chairman O'Connell asked Mrs. Nay to speak with Senator Rhoads regarding the problems she just addressed.  She explained Senator Rhoads has three bills on this subject which will be heard by the committee next week.

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 253 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 403.

 

SENATE BILL 403:  Requires local government employer under certain circumstances to appropriate amount sufficient to cover cost for employees' health insurance.

 

Annie Barclay, President, Education Support Employee's Association (ESEA) of Clark County, spoke on S.B. 403.  She told the committee they had requested two revisions to the language in the bill (Exhibit D).  She stated the two amendments should clarify exactly why they are here today on this bill as there has been some confusion.  She explained this amendment to the committee.  She told the committee the language in this amendment is meant to address the unique situation of the education employees in Clark County.  She emphasized they are looking for fairness and comparability to other public employee plans, they do not mean to compromise or in any way insert them into this problem.  She stated her desire today is a mechanism which will allow her to work with the school district to develop a funding program.  She explained what they have ended up with is an unfunded liability.  She pointed out there has never been a funding mechanism established to assist in the process.  She maintained they are only asking for the same consideration granted to other public employees in the compensation area.  She stated, however, the last line of this bill states what the purpose of this discussion is today. 

 

Bob Broniecki, President, Clark County Classroom Teacher's Association (CCCTA), spoke in favor of S.B. 403.  He told the committee the issue of $275 has caused a lot of concern with other public employee groups throughout the state and he stated his group is very concerned and they feel they should remove that from the language of the bill.  He explained they put the $275 in the bill because they have no intention of raiding the school district's treasury and taking money away from children's pencils, books and things needed in the classroom.  He stated his agency has a very good working relationship with the Clark County School Board and administration and the CCCTA is willing to work with the school board and administration to fund the health plan adequately.  He stated he is very proud of what the CCCTA and the ESEA has done.  He told the committee they have been able to cut back, save money and close plans.  He admitted the future will be bleak if they do not continue to fund this plan adequately.  He explained they have made some substantial cuts in the services, raising the premium and everything was done by the textbook, but he stated they are looking to the next 10 years.  He told the committee he needed their help, not

 

to mandate, but to have the language in the bill which will help the school board and superitendant deal with the CCCTA and ESEA to help continue to fund this plan.

 

Mrs. Barclay pointed out they are a very unique group within the state and she added, one of the few groups who formed an alliance such as the one between the two employee associations.  She added they are also unique in managing their own health and welfare plan to the extent they do which has been quite successful.  She explained they engaged in the partnership 3 years ago, which is a legal partnership.  She told the committee at that point they got rid of the third party administration because at that time third party costs ran anywhere from 8 to 12 percent.  Mrs. Barclay explained they felt this was money they needed because they were not seeing increases come in on the employer contribution side.  She stated their administrative cost is a little over 5.3 cents of every insurance dollar which is an excellent ratio.  She told the committee she felt they have done everything they can to contain costs.  She explained their difficulty is funding for the future and even though she feels they have a good relationship with the school administration they do not have the funding which would reflect that good relationship.  She stated any change in future administrations could be devastating so they are asking for a mechanism to deal with their unique situation.  She explained it would state if the employee association is mandated to provide this coverage without a prior level of compensation being determined, that the plans actuarial analysis would be the basis for determining the employer contribution.  She told the committee this would give them the power to go back to the school district and tell them they can work together to develop a compensation level which is representative of the kinds of services that are being provided.

 

Chairman O'Connell stated she is concerned about the fiscal impact this bill would have.  She asked how much this would cost.

 

Mr. Broniecki stated their intent is to go back to the school district, sit down with them and give them the figures.  He explained the dollar amount is not $275, but it probably would be between $235 to $255.  He stated at the present level the school district is contributing $204.90.  He told the committee there is not much more to cut since they have cut about all they can.  He maintained they are not going to clean out every dollar left in Clark County, because they know it is a tight money year. 

 

Chairman O'Connell asked if there would be any way these people would consider not having this responsibility.

 

Mr. Broniecki insisted there is nobody else around who could do a better job.  He explained they have worked nearly all the time on this for the past 3 years and they have put together a staff of nearly 50

 

people.  He told the committee they even have other groups coming to them for advice.  He stated he would not trust anyone else with this responsibility.

 

Mrs. Barclay stated from an employee's perspective she would not want to turn a very, very successful program over to the Clark County School District.  She explained it is not because they are not excellent managers, but she does not believe they could do it as effectively as she and Mr. Broniecki have or as cost effective as they have done.  She told the committee she felt it would be a waste of money to turn this project over to someone else and watch the bills skyrocket as they were in 1983 when they accepted the responsibility.

 

Senator Hickey asked how the prior agreement section of the bill would work.

 

Mrs. Barclay stated this language further clarifies the uniqueness of this organization.  She explained this also clarifies that this bill only applies to their organization.  She told the committee the actuarial study would validate what the benefit contribution should be.  She explained right now this would only apply to CCCTA and ESEA, but if in the future some governmental agency told the bargaining unit to go out and create a plan design then they would fall under this bill. 

 

Senator Hickey asked if the actuary helps design the plan.

 

Mrs. Barclay stated the actuarial study determines what the compensation by the employer should be for the plan that has already been designed.

 

Mr. Broniecki stated the reason the original $275 was in the bill was so no actuary will come back with a Cadillac.  He explained they cannot come back and tell them they will take the existing plan and enhance it such that it will cost the school district three times their contribution. 

 

Senator Hickey stated his estimation of the dollar value of the amount coming into the districts is the same, meaning the health insurance, life insurance and accident insurance would not change, but the actuaries could change.

 

Mr. Broniecki told the committee with the existing benefits that is correct.

 

Mrs. Barclay stated they are very concerned about making difficult choices in education.  She explained their concern is to remove employee insurance which is a vital component of any American's lives from that process and set it aside for the future and fund insurance according to what the actuarial study of this program says should be compensated.  She told the committee this would allow them to concentrate on other bargaining issues.  She stated she does not want to be put in the position of continually making choices between health care and supplies for children's education.

 

Senator Raggio stated the present law makes it permissive for any of the local entities to defray part or all of the cost of health insurance.  He explained even at the state level the law does not guarantee full payment in the funding of health insurance.  He stated this proposed bill would make it mandatory for any school district which has such an agreement to allocate the entire amount of the cost of that coverage up to a $275 cap.

 

Mr. Broniecki stated there is presently an employee contribution for a single employee plus children.

 

Senator Raggio maintained what this law will do is make it mandatory for the school district to pay up to $275 a month.  He stated he supposed that would vary depending on what the benefits are and what the health plan package is.  He asked where the money will come from to provide the increased amount which would be mandatory.  He stated he understands this does not affect the state's share because they have to guarantee support, but then it has to come out of the local share some place.  He stated he felt the money needed would take away from school supplies and salary increases.  He asked if that was correct.

 

Mrs. Barclay stated the coverage would come from the same place it comes from now.  She explained what this bill says is for the future it allows both of us to understand what that set aside amount should be so it could be worked into the budget.  She stated it would come out of the same funding source now, but they hope in the future the funding for education is greater. 

 

Mr. Broniecki stated the Clark County School District mandated to them an unfunded liability years ago when they stated they were tired of this and they did not want any part of it.  He explained in those days it was $69 a month and there were 3,000 teachers and in 10 years it has doubled and the contribution has not kept up with the pace of growth.  He stated because of growth in Clark County and the health care issue they are trying to nail this down so there will be adequate funding for the employees.  He stated he was not sure where the money would come from for this funding.

 

O.C. Lee, Lobbyist, Police Officers of Nevada, spoke on S.B. 403.  He told the committee if he understands the bill correctly in that it will not affect his agency, then they do not have a problem with the bill. 

 

 

Michael Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, spoke in opposition of S.B. 403.  He told the committee the language he feels is important to the district is on page 2, lines 12 and on.  He explained to the committee even if they remove the amendments they understand the $275 cap will still exist and this would not change the fiscal note.  However, he stated, if they removed the cap of $275 it would make the fiscal note impossible to estimate.  He told the committee he thought the Metropolitan Police Department has its own trust which administers its own insurance plan and a negotiated or otherwise determined amount for employee participating per month is paid in there.  He stated perhaps additional exploration of Mr. Lee's comments might be in order for the committee, although they certainly respect his comments and would want to know more about them.  He pointed out there was no adjustment calculated with respect to group insurance payments in the first year of the biennium and only a very slight adjustment in the second year of the biennium commensurate with the expectation for the state plan.  He added they do applaud any intent at equalizing the cost of medical care with the available funding either by virtue of the legislature increasing the available funding or by virtue of some constraint or restraint placed on the cost of medical care and we will acknowledge that disparity.  He explained they are wrestling with that in human services and medicaid and the local jurisdictions wrestle with it in group insurance related issues, workmen's compensation and so forth.  He stated this subject is near and dear to all of us, however, he stated they want to know more about the amendments.  He pointed out the Governor's budget does not fund a response to this particular need and with that he commends the bill to the committee's attention along with the amendments, because they still have some questions.

 

Senator Hickey stated he needed clarification on how this works.  He recognized they agree to allow actuaries to design the health and life plan and he asked if that was correct.

 

Mr. Alastuey stated the notion of actuarial studies being a key to good operation of the plan is certainly something everyone would embrace, however, he stated they are speaking with concern on this bill.  He told the committee their intention is not necessarily to have unilateral design of the plan by the bargaining group or to have an actuarial study independent of the governmental entity price the plan.  He added they are not pushing to have the governmental entity and the taxpayers, in effect, allocate money to the plan even in the absence of the availability of that money. 

 

Senator Hickey stated he thought that was already settled.  He added the design of the plan would come and then negotiations would be done on those benefits.

 

 

 

Mr. Alastuey stated that was new language and he added it is of concern to his agency.  He told the committee right now that is negotiated.  He explained the design of the plan is handled by the bargaining group and at this time the group would bring along with salary proposals and other proposals a set of requests and proposals which would then be worked out.  He maintained there is no specific requirement or contemplation in the current law that the actuary would price the plan nor is there a requirement the plan once priced by the actuary would be funded to a specific level prior to all other needs.  He told the committee the process is completely flexible, but this proposed bill would make funding of employee trusts the first priority and as Mrs. Barclay pointed out the other needs would follow thereafter. 

 

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, spoke in opposition to S.B. 403.  He told the committee the way the language is written he is not sure this would be exclusive to the Clark County School District interests.  He pointed out there are some other groups in the state who designed their health plans and he believes the employees are involved in the designing of these plans.  Mr. Etchemendy stated what he really wanted to address was the fact that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 288 establishes the procedures under which local government and their employees, which include school districts, negotiate all items and conditions of employment and so forth.  He explained to do that the parties bring their ideas and suggestions to the table and they work over these issues and in one fashion or another they resolve them.  He stated in some cases that would include the portion the local government will pay of the employees premium for group insurance.  He pointed out NRS 354 requires local government budget appropriate funds to meet the expenses they anticipate for their operations and of course that includes whatever expenses there are for employee benefits or whatever.  He explained the way this bill is written, it takes one of those items off the table, because the way this is written it states the sum the local government must pay cannot be negotiated any longer.  He stated in that respect he feels this bill is an intrusion on the negotiating process which everybody goes through on an annual basis.  Mr. Etchemendy stated he feels the local government and employee group should continue to negotiate these items as they have in the past and however they shake out, that is the way it is.  He stated if there is a disagreement, some fact finders and arbitrators will resolve that issue.  He told the committee they should not be mandated to get involved in this and he believes the bill as written opens it up to everyone, not just one district.

 

Kurt Fritsch, Representative, City of Henderson, spoke to the committee on S.B. 403.  He stated they are opposed to this bill although they are happy to see the cap removed at $275 because he stated they are already exceeding that cap in the City of Henderson.  He mentioned he is not sure they are exempted from this, because they do have three bargaining units that have designed their own insurance programs.  Specifically he stated those are the teamsters.  He told the committee they have a problem with the last portion of the sentence which is going to provide funding which is determined by the plan's actuary.  He explained the way he reads it is it would be a fully funded employer plan in the future for an insurance program.  He told the committee they do not have a fully funded plan today.  He told the committee for an example they pay $286 for an employee and then the employee kicks in for family after that limit of $286.  He stated this was their main objection and he does not feel they are exempt from this.  Mr. Fritsch stated the City of North Las Vegas asked that he share some of their concerns which are pretty much the same as the ones already mentioned with the exception they do have a monetary amount they believe it would cost them.  He stated that additional amount was $117,000 a year if the actuary cap was the amount that had to be funded into these programs. 

 

Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities (NLC), spoke on S.B. 403.  She told the committee the NLC does administer a group insurance plan for 19 different local governmental entities throughout the state, cities, counties, school districts and other local government.  She stated they just completed a survey of what each agency is contributing toward the cost of their health care and other benefits.  She explained the average employer contribution statewide for city and county governments is $205.  She told the committee they have a lot of the same concerns already brought up.  She stated she is concerned the NLC is not exempt from this the way it is written and they are extremely concerned with the $275 cap.  She told the committee out of 35 respondents in their survey, 19 of the entities are already exceeding the cap.

 

Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities (NLC), spoke on S.B. 403.  He stated Mr. Fritsch summed up the position of the league along with his own city.  He stated he wanted to add that the Nevada Association of Counties, Washoe County and Clark County have all signed in and had to leave, but their feelings are this should be a collective bargaining issue and they are against S.B. 403 as drafted.  He noted they have not seen the new amendment so he cannot speak to that on their behalf.

 

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Taxpayers, spoke on S.B. 403.  She stated Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 288 is a mechanism whereby local governments that are signatory to collective agreements negotiate wages and benefits and she feels this is a benefit they are taking out of the negotiation scheme.  She told the committee NRS 288 is one of the very few statutes they deal with that is not special or does not have qualifications by population.  She explained it is a statute that applies to every group regardless of size.  She stated this not only sets an extremely bad precedent and more groups will be here next session and it will be on more than medical.  She feels it will start eroding and going into the point where the legislature is creating those series of mandates that the local governments have asked them to fund.  She stated that is a very real danger they must look at if they put these provisions which create an unfunded mandate for a local government.  She insisted local governments have been making their case to the legislature that if they are going to keep cost shifting or making them responsible for things they cannot control, then in effect, they are going to be looking more and more to the state to hold them whole because the erosion of their revenue sources.  She explained for that reason they oppose the bill and the amendment.

 

Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, told the committee she concurs with Ms. Vilardo's testimony.  She stated they are facing mandates which become difficult especially in these particular economic times.  She explained the state already has problems with the budget and the funding sources are just not there.  She pointed out this amount of money is not in the budget and she stated they do oppose any appropriations that are not already in the budget.  She stated they do oppose this bill and the amendment.

 

Senator Hickey asked if health insurance is a privilege or a right.

 

Ms. Vilardo told the committee she does not know if it is a privilege or right, but she feels it has come down to the point where everybody feels it is a need.  She explained in her situation she had no health insurance until 6 months ago because her company could not afford it.  She insisted she appreciates what the association is trying to do, but she does not know the answer.  She stated she would like to say it is a right, but to what extent should it be a right. 

 

Ms. James stated all individuals working in companies have to face the problem of health care coverage because of the rising cost.  She told the committee her company has had to take a close look at the benefit packages offered by their employers and compare prices.  She feels it is better to have some insurance than none, but it is still a very hard issue to solve.

 

Mr. Broniecki stated he was willing to work with any group to make sure the language was exclusively the Clark County School District.  He told the committee they are unique because they are a self-administered, self-funded plan where the county and some of the other groups that are government entities are not self-administered.  He maintained they are administered in conjunction with the administration and with the employees.  He stated the teacher's trust spent $40,000 on antibiotics in the month of February.  He explained his insured got sick interacting with 30 kids in a classroom.  He stated they are very unique and they want to stay healthy. 

 

 

Ms. Barclay stated they are firm believers in collective bargaining and whatever they can do to augment that.  She explained the difficulty has been bargaining money for health insurance and the money did not materialize, so for 2 years they have taken a bath on this.  She stated their perspective is in order to keep good employees in the school systems working with kids, they need to be able to guarantee they are going to have those benefits they use as part of attracting and retaining them in the system.  She explained by removing it from that process the school district and the employee groups both know and can both agree on what the compensation level is and then they can argue about other things.  She stated she does not want this issue to deteriorate into arguing about what is best and whether they will fund employee plans or children's plans.  She explained they simply want to remove it from the dialogue.

 

There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                

                        Tanya Morrison,

                        Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                           

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Government Affairs

May 12, 1993

Page 1