MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 26, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 26, 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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Matthew Q. Callister (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Diana Gamble, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employee Association (SNEA)
Carol Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, State of Nevada
Mitch Brust, Department of Personnel, State of Nevada
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
Chairman O'Connell called the meeting to order, making the first order of business to dispose of Senate Bill (S.B.) 453 and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 162. She explained the bills were being withdrawn by the requestor.
SENATE BILL 453: Requires that sheriff of county in which metropolitan police department is located be appointed by metropolitan police committee on fiscal affairs. (BDR 22-1529)
ASSEMBLY BILL 162: Revises provisions for establishing eligibility for preference given to local contractors for public works projects. (BDR 28-239)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 453.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 162.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 417.
SENATE BILL 417: Revises provisions governing budget and requires fiscal note on legislation containing appropriation to indicate if appropriation is included in executive budget. (BDR 31-280)
Both Carol Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association and Judi Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, State of Nevada testified in support of S.B. 417.
Ms. Vilardo said S.B. 417 is a continuing effort of issues which the Nevada Taxpayers Association has supported which they consider to be structural fiscal reform. With more taxes and revenue sources being utilized and the increased budget, the Nevada Taxpayers Association has been looking for ways to implement fiscal changes which make it easier to understand the budget. Ms. Vilardo explained there was some potential problems in S.B. 417 expressed by Ms. Matteucci and those concerns have been addressed in the suggested amendment (Exhibit C). Referring to Exhibit C, Ms. Vilardo said the language which is currently in S.B. 417 talks about increases of other sources of additional revenue. If the State of Nevada received additional federal funds or entitlement money or grant money, it would be considered a new revenue source but would not be a point where a tax was raised or a tax rate was increased. This new revenue source should not have an impact on the general public relative to taxes. An amendment has been added to the language in S.B. 417 by the words "any new taxes or increased tax rates" to clear up what may be an ambiguity in tax increases, because of the natural increase in revenue by growth. Ms. Vilardo explained if there was an increase in sales or gaming taxes from growth it was possible there would be a misconception of an increase in tax revenue which would be subject to a secondary budget which is not the intent of S.B. 417. She said the language "new taxes or increased tax rates" clarifies the intent of the bill.
Ms. Vilardo explained the second change on Exhibit C is it no longer is necessary to have the wording on line 48 of page 3 of S.B. 417, which would affect local government in the executive budget, because the bill is very specific with the addition of language proposed in the amendment.
The proposed amendment would also clarify a fiscal note would be obtained from the fiscal analyst division and not just be a consultation with the fiscal analysis division.
Judi Matteucci, Director Department of Administration, State of Nevada, addressed S.B. 417 saying she generally approves of the bill. She has a problem with the bill being used to give new revenues or new taxes. S.B. 417 would require that the Governor target new revenues or earmark whatever new taxes the Governor would propose to particular programs. There may be an instance where a governor may decide to put the new taxes into the secondary budget toward some program which was assured approval by the legislature and then use the existing revenues to fund a program. Ms. Matteucci said the language now in S.B. 417 removes flexibility for both the executive and the legislative branches of government. She is concerned about the additional work the Budget Division would have to do to prepare the documents which would be required under S.B. 417. Ms. Matteucci gave the committee members copies of selected budget accounts (Exhibit C) to show them the extra work required.
Senator Hickey asked Ms. Vilardo what the bill would accomplish which was not already being done in the system.
Ms. Vilardo answered:
If there are new taxes and they're being used for enhancements in specific programs, it puts them out there, identified them, so that they can be unwound if they should not be accepted. And, let me use a case in point with this year's budget. You have not a new tax but it would be an increase.... The 30 million dollars on the insurance prepayment.... that has been plugged in an on-going operational expenses. Now, if it were killed, what is the 30 million dollars that you unraveled? And, that's what we were looking for, is you have a budget, you know what your revenue increases where you might receive additional federal funds, your new budget format which we have supported, tell you that part of it in the enhancement. Okay, so you're set, but now you have a budget that uses maybe 50 million dollars worth of increased tax rates, increased taxes, and within the budget expenditures is the money. We thought it would be easier to have it where you could actually pull out. And I don't know with Judi [Matteucci] and we did not discuss this when we were going over the bill but on the earmarking, I think that's made. I think from my prospective what I'd be looking at more was not the line item of salaries and let's say a classroom size reduction, but an enhancement in the area. A total dollar enhancement in the area that you would be plugging into. If it were K through 12 education, that you were going to enhancement it at this level where you could unwind that part of the enhancement and not consider it an earmarking. But, that's the reason for supporting that breakout.
Judi Matteucci also answered Senator Hickey:
To use that example, if a future budget director were to do something like that or a governor were to have a proposal like that, something that could happen with the secondary budget is that 30 million dollars could go for a class size reduction in kindergarten programs. And, essentially it would then be pulled out of a base and we could say that this new money is to support that kind of a program and what we're suggesting to you is both the executive branch and certainly the legislative branch would have far less flexibility to not go with those new taxes which essentially from there on after would be earmarked for that particular program then you currently have. In the current scenario, if the 30 million dollars is not forthcoming, then the legislature and the Senate [Committee on] Finance and the [assembly] ways and means committees have a good deal of discretion as to which program they [decide] in their collective thinking are less important than others. And, certainly class size reduction in kindergarten may be a program that survives and it may not, but that would certainly be problematic if you were to have to put together the second budget and that's something that I think would cause future legislatures and future governors some real problems if this were to become the requirement.
Senator Hickey asked Ms. Vilardo if she agreed with what Ms. Matteucci stated. Ms. Vilardo answered:
Not totally because if you follow the new budget program, the budget has a base line that's built into it. And, to say if your baseline already included kindergarten, you would have to have an explanation if you are pulling kindergarten out of that baseline so I don't quite see it being used the way Judi [Matteucci] is because if we accept and keep the new budget format, it would have to be a brand new enhancement. It literally should be one of the enhancements that's now being broken out that is not an existing program, that is not a baseline program. So, I disagree, but again, that's a policy question for the committee and.... Judi [Matteucci] and I have kind of agreed not to agree on this because we're coming from two different philosophical areas on this and so it's before the committee.
Ms. Matteucci said her primary concern was the amount of work required of the fiscal analysis division. She pointed out the budget format which the committee was looking at (Exhibit C) consists of base items, necessary to continue various programs, and enhancement items. Ms. Matteucci referred to page 721 of Exhibit C and said:
On page 721 you see the base items as Senator Raggio has looked at the budget this year. This happens to be the budget. It shows all the existing positions and all the baselines which were the expenditures levels of the current biennium, actually the [19]91-[19]92 actuals decreased by the amount of budget reductions that we imposed for the fiscal year that we are currently in fiscal year [19]92-[19]93. Which is the last column there that you see in the reserve for reversion. The next items that we are going to then are what we call maintenance items. These were identified by the interim subcommittee working with the Taxpayers Association, I was on the committee working with our offices to define the various components of the budget and included in there, the first one is inflation. The increase includes the increased cost now, just the incremental increased cost of insurance premiums, medical costs and utility inflation which in itself is difficult to pull out and just put in to these various, what we call decision packages. The second one on page 722 is demographics and caseload changes. This attempts to identify those specific resources that were identified to be necessary as a result of caseload increases or decreases. Again, it is incremental. This is just the increase in caseload that was necessary over and above the caseload that was approved or was experienced in the current biennium. Again, an incremental attempt to outline for the legislature what costs are attributable to demographic or caseload changes. The next two are relatively mundane, but very difficult for us to pull out. The occupational studies .... this is the incremental costs that were incurred as a result of the occupational studies that were conducted by the department of personnel and this just tells you how much more it's going to cost you for X number of positions that were upgraded as a result of the occupational study. And, again, decision item 400 is rate adjusted for fringe benefits. If we had any changes upward or downward on any of the fringe benefits, this then is the incremental costs of those. So that you can see all these things that were in the old budget format quite hidden and we could not tell you without a good deal of work what the particular costs were that were attributable to those items. The next one is one of two that tries to identify federal mandates and this one happens to be the Americans with Disability Act [ADA]. They thought that they'd have some costs that were going to be necessary as a result of the requirements of the ADA. There certainly are, as Senator Raggio knows, a number of costs that are included in particularly the Welfare budgets that are directly related to the total costs of federal mandates. Then we get into the new section. And, the new sections are called enhancements and these are all of the things that are not in the base definition or not included as a result of a cost to continue. And you can see here that case management was.... these are identified by essentially decision items. They were all grouped together. This was additional case management that was essentially not just for demographic cases, but to increase case management services in the community. Nursery classifications, crisis counseling observation, these are all the things that are over and above. Our question is, if indeed then the legislature wants to identify those costs that are attributable to new expenses incremental, then you already have a format that can do that. All you need to do is get back with the legislature and identify that as an enhancement item and say new taxes will be a new enhancement item and they will shown in here for you to review with the budget in whole. Which we think is probably a better way to do it and I can assure you that it will be less expensive to do it that way than it would be to require a second budget. I sort of have a question on the wording here. This says a second budget. I don't know if you meant incremental or whether you really essentially meant a second budget document. The way this reads literally, it says second budget document.
Senator Raggio had several comments in reply to Ms. Mattuecci's testimony:
First of all, we have in place right now NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 353.230 and I'm referring to the subsection 3 of [NRS] 353.230. This is a section that we added I believe in 1989. This section requires today that when the chief of the budget division prepares a budget, the Governor shall transmit that budget to the legislature and at the same time a separate document. Now, that's in the law. And the separate document must include two things: A) an analysis of new programs or enhancements of existing programs being recommended and B) any increase in or new revenue, so it's both increase and new revenue, being recommended in the budget. This separate document must specify the total cost by department or agency of new programs or enhancements, but need not itemize a specific cost. Now this was somewhat of a modification of the initial proposal, but let me indicate that I don't believe that was done this session. Had it been done as a separate document this session under 3a there would have been an analysis of a new program i.e. Facilities Capacity Act, Early Release even though that really got lost in the delivery given to us at the state of the state by the Governor. That wasn't picked on until way into the process of talking about the budget. There wasn't a separate document on increase in or new revenues being recommended. The new slot tax for example. An increase would be the $30 million in the insurance premium. I guess you could argue maybe that wasn't an increase but it certainly was a new program if nothing else. So, what I'm saying is I think there is language now that is probably being overlooked and not utilized in the way it was intended. The first discussion ought to be how does this proposal differ from what we already have with respect to the budget. That is the suggestion for a second budget. I assume that means something similar to what we already have, but I need to have some discussion as to what this accomplishes that is already not in place under this and if it is not followed by the Governor, what are the sanctions.
Ms. Matteucci responded:
I must respectfully disagree. The budget-in-brief document that we prepared in 1991 after passage of this particular language and I was party to some of the discussions on what this language meant. I think it was even by yourself as complying with this particular requirement. Our concern in 1989 was the same concern we have now. But, if you require us to go through and specifically identify each one of the specific program costs for which the new taxes are included in the document then that was going to be very expensive and timely.
Senator Raggio disagreed about the budget-in-brief complying with the language specified in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353.230. Senator Raggio said what he had envisioned by the referenced statute a document defining and delineating all items and it would be readily available to both the legislature and the public.
Ms. Matteucci responded:
Okay, I think then for 4 years then we have been miscommunicating because the document that we submit as a budget-in-brief was designed to comply with the requirement that you and Senator Joerg requested and this language was modified because of the very concerns that we expressed in 1989 about how difficult that separate document essentially
recomputed each one of those budgets was going to be to do. And, so like I say in 1991 felt we had complied and the 1993 budget-in-brief does exactly the same thing as 1991.
Senator Raggio responded:
That is not what we envisioned and it doesn't seem to be that difficult. Let me just repeat it so we know what we're talking about. I look upon the budget-in-brief as a executive summary, if you want, of the budget that we get, the two budget pages. So it's an executive summary I understand that. But it is not the separate document that confines itself to these items. So that's where we have a difference in interpretation. So, having said all that, how does this then change what is being recommended in the bill and with the amendments you are both discussing.
Ms. Matteucci answered S.B. 417 would require a whole new budget for any new taxes or tax rate.
Ms Vilardo stated:
Actually we were looking at a budget that would take the new tax rates and that may not be specific enough in here with the enhancements so that they were readily identifiable.... Ultimately, from my perspective as representing taxpayers, general public who don't have the sophistication to go through or have the time or the inclination to pick up a two volume book. Is to say, most people, speaking for the very general public that don't get involved in this point except increased expenditures when there's a natural flow of increased revenues because it hasn't hit our pocketbook. What we're looking for here, because every year since [19]81 we have increased taxes.... there has not been one year....is to be able to say okay here's the budget these are the natural increases, but here's one page. Budget may be the wrong word in so far as a duplication. It may be a preface sheet or something.
Senator Raggio answered:
What you're after and to the extent that the Budget Office is able to comply, what we're after is what we thought we had already in the law. And that is a second document, separate, that identifies new revenues, new taxes, changes in programs, new programs, enhancements all in one place that's apart from the base budget. That's what we thought we were going to have.
Ms. Matteucci again stated she feels the budget in brief accomplishes what Senator Raggio was after. Senator Raggio stressed he wants one document which could be picked up on after the state of the state address which singles out issues for the press, public and legislators.
Ms. Matteucci pointed out:
If you want....if what we're talking about is you want all the enhancements in a second page what with this new format you can do that. If that's all you want is a regurgitation of enhancements. I'll tell you right now senator.... these decision packages have as shown here on page 724, 725.... if you just want us to pull those out after the budget is done and copy that into some kind of another format and summarize it for you that is no problem. However, if you want us....you still run the risk of the other issue that I pointed out, i.e. that new taxes could be put in some of these enhancements. However, I think that's much less of a problem for us, much less of a problem, if you just want some summarization here. And, by the way, I doubt the Facilities Capacity Act would have showed up in what you're asking for.... The problem is that if you want to tie new taxes to certain programs and you want to have a separate document then what we're suggesting to you is that we're going to have to run dual data bases in order to prepare that very document if what the current format does for you is not sufficient. And, I think what Senator Raggio was saying is it is not sufficient at this point in time.
Chairman O'Connell said she is a very strong proponent of having more information from the budget. She explained in 1989 she was the vice chairman of the committee which looked at the problem of the lack of ease of reading the budget. She stated she wants S.B. 417 to strengthen the law, which would allow the public to get separate information from the budget.
Ms. Matteucci said she understands what the chairman was saying and agreed the law did need strengthening and clarification. She wanted to make sure the committee has an honest assessment as to what S.B. 417 would require fiscally.
Chairman O'Connell said she understands the state has about $31 million in enhancements which are built into the budget. Senator O'Connell asked if the budget could exclude those enhancements.
Ms. Matteucci answered:
The idea in creating the base and in the maintenance is that if you needed anything beyond those two things....essentially the interim committee....and Carol [Vilardo] sat through all the meetings so she can help me if I forget. The interim committee wanted to figure what the cost to continue current programs was and not to establish new things that would be good or helpful or whatever. And beyond that then we call them enhancements and we try to put them in like packages so everybody could see what it was that they were buying. They come complete as shown here on (page) 724 with their own funding sources. So, I cannot sit here and tell you no, I wouldn't take those out first because certainly those are new programs that are not being instituted. Now, the whole $31 million may or may not be in General Fund. Again, I don't have my budget-in-brief with me or I could give you that information on a breakdown basis, but it's broken down here in General Fund and federal funds and interagency transfers and other. But, General Fund is clearly shown. So, if this legislature felt that they did not want to go forward, then that's what the enhancement items are sitting there
for. I mean, that's a logical conclusion. We certainly thought that they were important enough to fund them, but that's a legislative decision. And, that's what this format helps you do.
Chairman O'Connell asked for any further comments on S.B. 417 or questions from the committee or Ms. Matteucci.
Ms. Matteucci stated she wanted to make a comment for the record:
If you want a second budget that ties new taxes into a second document then there are additional costs and it depends on the extent of the new taxes and how widespread their expenditures are. There would be an additional parallel data base that you'd have to establish and mainly this is just line charges and maintenance charges for that particular second document. You'd either have to duplicate the current data base, which causes storage problems on the main frame, or because we are out of room on the screens from data processing, we'd have to make program modifications. So, either one of those options will cost you about $57,000. If you do a double budget, we can go back to the legal....if you want it included in the one document but maybe in a second column, the second Governor's red column or something like that, there's going to be some incremental costs. I don't have a figure for you, I can try and get that. If you want it in a second book then the second book is going to depend on the extent of the second book. It will cost you anywhere from the budget-in-brief costs which is about $4,000 to $31,000 which would be essentially a second document of the same volume and size of the executive budget. So, either one of those ....
Chairman O'Connell asked if the requests of S.B. 417 could be accomplished by a change in format in the budget brief.
Ms. Matteucci answered:
If we continued to build the budget the way we are right now, with the enhancement sections, then we can run that. What we can't do is specifically tie new taxes to those enhancements. That would have to be your own conclusion. Because that's what causes us a problem. But obviously you can draw a conclusion that those enhancements are the new taxes. If you want the wording that Carol [Vilardo] has here. If you want a whole budget without including the new taxes, if you want an existing tax rate budget and then a second budget, we couldn't do that. So, that's the decision you all have to make on that. If you just want the enhancement portion right now, essentially we extract from the budget document itself, the enhancement packages we do right now by program or by budget, then that's not going to cause us too much problem. The budget-in-brief is going to be about 7 pages longer. But you wouldn't get the kind of detail you are looking at like here on page 724 (Exhibit C). But that gives you all of the enhancement pieces. But if you wanted the new budget in a secondary document essentially recreating a mini budget or it could be a maxi budget depending on the political courage of the particular Governor, then you're looking at much increased costs. We would need, in addition to the costs I gave, probably two staff. We'd essentially just cut down the budget workload for each one. The problem with this new format, while it's a much more precise format than the old format we had because you have to take out the incremental costs and put them down below in decision packages. While it may not look like it's much more precise, it really is from a workload standpoint. So, we'd have to essentially....we figured trying to minimizing the costs and be honest here, we think two more staff and then you could lower the agency assignments from their current load because you'd want analysis to continue to work on the budget whether it was in the new budget or the old budget.
Carol Vilardo added:
Just because there's a little bit of latitude in going away from the absolute bill, something for the committees' benefits, there was an interim study on the state budget process. Senator Rhoads was responsible for the first one, chaired the first one, got the second one continued. One of our recommendations as an association because Judi's [Matteucci] right we monitored everyone of those hearings and tried to be involved with performance standards that were coming up on this elected agencies, etc. because we think that's part of your structural physical reform in getting a handle on different items. But, there were a number of bills that were recommended from that interim study. Not one of those has surfaced yet. One of them that I believe....excuse because we are off of (S.B.) 417 so committees' indulgence, but we went off of it quite a bit with this....was a continuation. We had recommended a standing committee on that for at least two to three sessions because we felt it take that long to tinker and iron out some of the quirks that were found. And, I know there are some things that should be changed in the format right now. But, we're left without a vehicle and that bill draft request was part of that recommendation. There was another recommendation to which the administration was very supportive as was fiscal staff. And, that was the baseline budget for this year was an arbitrary acceptance of the last biennium. One of the bill drafts called for a cycling of what would amount to a program budget review every three legislative sessions because we knew there was some areas, maybe it was $5,000, but there would be a number plugged in a baseline for this new budget that should not have been because we haven't reviewed it. We've never done that kind of a review. And, so there's a bill draft called for a program review that would be cyclical so we can get to some actual numbers that the legislature is comfortable with and that was accepted, but as I say none of those bill drafts have surfaced and it is a perfect tie-in with this bill and other legislation which has come before you on these fiscal issues.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, wanted to be on record as being in support of S.B. 417.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 417 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 355.
ASSEMBLY BILL 355: Amends provisions governing testing of state employees for use of alcohol or controlled substances. BDR 23-663
Mitch Brust, Department of Personnel, State of Nevada, spoke in favor of A.B. 355 and explained the bill changed legislation from 1991 which dealt with alcohol and drug testing for pre-employment basis as well as for employees suspected of using alcohol and drugs. The changes suggested in A.B. 355 are: what substance would be tested; employees refusing to be tested would be treated alike; and, pre-employe testing is for controlled substances only.
Mr. Brust continued:
In section 1 of the bill (A.B. 355), we are suggesting that we remove the testing of blood, for three reasons actually. One is that we think the procedure is unnecessarily invasive. We can test by acceptable alternatives, testing breath for alcohol and testing for controlled substances by urine.
Senator Raggio told Mr. Brust he is not convinced a blood test should be ruled out of the choices in the law just because it is unnecessarily invasive. He stated he feels the choice of a blood test should be left in the language. Senator Raggio asked if people had objected to the blood test.
Mr. Brust answered no one had objected to a blood test. He explained the Nevada State Highway Patrol was used to test and the standard measure of testing by the Highway Patrol is the breath test. Mr. Brust explained there is a provision in A.B. 355 which would allow an employee, if they choose, to have their blood tested to give a similar reading.
Senator Raggio could not understand why Mr. Brust would want to limit any alternative to testing. Senator Raggio said if blood testing were left in the law, then they would not be limited to any particular type of testing.
Mr. Brust did not want to leave blood testing in for the controlled substance because there is a question as to whether blood testing would detect marijuana and PCP. A urine test is the only kind of test which can be certified.
Senator Nevin confirmed the concern raised by Senator Raggio because the existing law was written so that if there was not a breath test available, then they had to take a blood test. Senator Nevin raised the question, if there was not a breath test available what would be the process of testing if the blood test was excluded.
Mr. Brust stated if the committee wants to leave in blood testing for alcohol there would not be a problem but he wanted to take the least invasive method for alcohol testing. But, as to the controlled substance, Mr. Brust did insist on the urine test.
Mr. Brust continued to explain the bill:
The second change we wanted to address with the consistent treatment of employees who refuse to be tested. And, I direct you to section 2....that talks about when an employer can request testing. And, what you'll notice is subsection 1 the employer can request testing when they suspect a regular employee to use that term. When they suspect that they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs.... Section 2 talks about that the employer can also require testing when a law enforcement officer discharges their weapon. And second when an employee has an accident in an automobile. So, that's when an employer can test. If you go to the preceding page, section 2 talks about what an employer can do when an employee refuses to be tested. The problem is that section 2 only addresses the subsection 1. That is, if an employee who is suspected of using or abusing refuses to be tested. It does not mention the law enforcement person. It does not mention the employee who has the accident. We just want to amend line 25 to say section 1 or section 2 which would provide that any employee who refuses to be tested will be subject to disciplinary action. And, the other change I wanted to mention is in section 4 and that's lines 7 and 8 where we want to clarify that pre-employment testing will be for controlled substances only. And, that's consistent with that same section, line 13 where it talks about the consequences on a pre-employment test of failing the test and it's only for controlled substances. So, therefore we want to make it clear on a pre-employment basis for controlled substances.
Senator O'Connell asked for opposition testimony to A.B. 355.
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, told the committee he was not speaking for or against A.B. 355. He said the law had only been effect for 2 years and a great deal of time was spent on the law 2 years ago so he did not see a need to make changes.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 355 and the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Diana Gamble,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
May 26, 1993
Page 1