The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Wednesday, March 3, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bache, Chairman

Mr. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Berman

Mrs. Freeman

Ms. Gibbons

Mr. Humke

Mr. Mortenson

Mr. Neighbors

Ms. Parnell

Ms. Segerblom

Mr. Thomas

Ms. Von Tobel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Ms. Tiffany

Mr. Williams

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, District 31

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache reported he had two bill draft requests (BDR’s) that needed introduction.

• BDR 18-787 – Authorizes commission for cultural affairs to grant certain

money as financial assistance. (A.B. 374)

**********

• BDR 31-289 – Makes various changes relating to financial administration of counties. (A.B. 375)

Captain Jim Nadeau, with Washoe County Sheriff’s Department introduced Sgt. Ken Bassett and Deputy Heather Balaam, also with the department and said they would all be testifying on the bill. Capt. Nadeau went on to say he was also representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association who had requested the bill and it was supported by law enforcement throughout the state. In doing background investigations on police officers many times critical information regarding job history and personal characteristics was not made available which led to hiring people who should never be involved in law enforcement. When someone drove down a highway an officer had the right to pull a person over, issue a ticket, arrest and even put them in jail, using force if necessary. The public needed to know law enforcement officers had the best training but also the personality to stay on an even keel. No one with abusive tendencies or characteristics should be in uniform and enforcing the law. There were several instances where requested background information was sought, but because of a concern over civil liability the only information forthcoming was benign, such as starting and ending dates of employment but no further job history. If someone had a history of beating people or had an explosive nature, that information would be critical in assessing a person’s ability to serve in law enforcement. The bill was asking for evaluation of attendance records, disciplinary action, or other types of information impacting hiring procedures.

Capt. Nadeau on to say human resource people questioned if it would require additional record-keeping beyond what was currently kept, but the bill only requested past information on file with an employer. Three criteria must be met in releasing information: the request must be in writing, accompanied by a notarized authorization signed by the applicant, and it must be submitted to the previous employer by a sworn law enforcement officer or an authorized representative of the law enforcement agency.

Deputy Balaam testified she had been with the background investigations unit in Washoe County for approximately a year and a half. Problems arose on a daily basis with employers who were questioned if there was something unseemly in an applicant’s background and the employer would not divulge any information because of civil liability. Many times even though an applicant had submitted a signed waiver stating the employer could divulge information, they would not. The past employer also would not disclose if an employee had been terminated or quit voluntarily.

Sgt. Ken Bassett, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, stated he was in charge of the background section as well as the training section. He pointed out an example where an individual was hired, a background investigation was done, which took approximately 10 weeks, the individual went through the law enforcement academy which took 17 weeks, and subsequently the Facility Training Officer (FTO) program in the detention facility which took 9 weeks. When the individual graduated, an announcement appeared in the paper and a report was received from a coworker at a previous employment site that there was a problem. With further investigation it was found there had been problems with sexual harassment and actual threats of violence to another employee and his family. The individual was subsequently released, but the accumulated time spent on training the individual was 35 weeks with the funds coming from taxpayer dollars. He felt no sheriff’s office should have to go through the time and expense of putting an individual through training only to find out the individual should not be in law enforcement.

Capt. Jim Nadeau stated in the handout provided each committee member there were two letters from other Sheriffs who also supported the legislation (Exhibit C). He went on to say Stan Olsen with the Las Vegas Metro Police and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association had wanted to testify, but he was called to the Committee on Judiciary so he had a handout dealing with a Las Vegas Metro Police officer (Exhibit D). In the article the employer was out-of-state, so the law would not impact them, but it was a typical type situation which had to be handled on occasion. What was being requested was immunity for the employer who provided the information. There was existing law found on page 3, section 2, subsection 3 of the bill, which already addressed employer immunity. What was being asked in subsection 2 was accurate information giving a better insight into the people being hired. It had been requested by human resource people there be an amendment clarifying the information was not being mandated by the change in statute. He felt it could be added to page 1, line 4, adding "if available" after . . ." provide to the law enforcement agency information . . .". All agencies were really requesting was information be provided which was already available.

Chairman Bache requested Ms. O’Grady to make a note of the requested amendment.

Mrs. Freeman questioned if the bill had been checked over by the district attorney in each affected area as well as any other attorneys who might be interested. Capt. Nadeau replied the District Attorneys Association as well as county counsels had reviewed the bill and no areas of concern were noted.

Mr. Humke asked, if the scenario presented by Sgt. Basset, where there had been an accusation of sexual harassment and went unreported by the victim, would it still be reportable under the bill. Capt. Nadeau replied oftentimes in background investigations there were allegations made about employees and the office was compelled to check out those allegations to determine if they were accurate. If they were not substantiated it was not used as hiring criteria because the allegations had to be substantiated and documented. The information to which Sgt. Bassett referred was subsequently investigated, documented, and substantiated by the employer, but if it had been available in the beginning the individual would never have been considered for the position.

Deputy Balaam responded "that was correct" to Mr. Humke’s question if there would only be a background investigation when an actual report was received from the previous employer. Capt. Nadeau pointed out the previous incident mentioned by Sgt. Bassett did not involve another law enforcement agency. The incident was reported to an agency, but the reporting agency was not involved.

The concern Mr. Humke had was, as a taxpayer, to ensure the bill went far enough in achieving what law enforcement agencies wanted to accomplish. Capt. Nadeau felt the employer should not be compelled to come forward with all information in all circumstances, only information involving termination or discharge, which could be substantiated.

Mr. Lee said after studying the bill and reading the articles that were passed out, he had a question on page 2, line 11 of the bill, where it stated, "A list of the compensation that the employer provided to the applicant during the course of the employment;" It did not seem to him something like that should preclude anyone from serving on a department and asked for an explanation. Capt. Nadeau replied the issue was salary. He thought it addressed the situation where an individual might be living well above his salary range and was only a part of the investigation in evaluating the individual.

Mr. Lee understood if the individual was living off drug money or a similar situation that was one thing, but comparing compensation between another state was not relative to the individual’s background. He did not feel what one agency paid an individual compared to another agency had a bearing on the competency of an individual.

Ms. Gibbons said she had a concern with the section to which Mr. Lee referred. How the employer would be contacted and what their protection would be in giving out information. She also asked for clarification of line 30, discussing refusal by the employer, because she felt it was not needed in the bill.

Chairman Bache interjected he understood a waiver was required from the applicant before approaching the employer so if there was no waiver the information would not be requested. Capt. Nadeau stated that was correct. The signed and notarized waiver was mandated and if the previous stated requirements were not met, no information would be forthcoming. In response to Ms. Gibbons concern if an employer did not release pertinent information and an individual was hired who had committed some type of civil act, then the employer could be held responsible for not releasing the information

Ms. Gibbons said her concern was if a past employer suspected a person of stealing but there was no hard evidence would that be seen as a refusal. Capt. Nadeau responded if there was an employee suspected of stealing and the employee was approached and told he could either quit or be fired, that information when presented to the agency was confidential by statute, and would not necessarily be rejection criteria, but part of the whole picture. No one single incident report would be taken into account unless it was investigated and substantiated by agency personnel. He wanted to stress information could not be released to anyone other than the requesting individual, or other law enforcement entities if the individual was applying to another agency.

Ms. Gibbons added, perhaps it should be specified in the bill a former employee could not sue the employer, so the information could be forthcoming to law enforcement. Capt. Nadeau replied on page 3, starting on line 22, there was specific criteria spelled out that was already in the law. So if the criteria was met regarding the release of information with the belief it was accurate and not done in a malicious manner, they were truly immune. He stressed there were other states throughout the nation who had language very similar to what was in A.B. 297 and some states asked for even more information, but most general laws were similar to Nevada’s and had been upheld when challenged.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if records were requested from previous employers was it to understand the patterns of employment. She pointed out there been an earlier bill asking that if an employee had been investigated, once the investigation was closed the record should be open to the public.

Rod Banister, Carson City Sheriff, testified the problem was ongoing in receiving information not only from private industry but other law enforcement agencies. The main concern was the liability issue. He explained there was a former officer from the Henderson Police Department which Carson City Sheriff’s office hired based on information provided by the personnel office in Henderson, which was basically just the dates of employment and salary. Subsequently, further background information was sought and when confirmed he was terminated before his probation was completed. The employee then went back and sued the Henderson Police Department because negative information was released. He stressed the best officers available should be protecting and serving citizens, not someone with a questionable background.

Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, stated he was also representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association with both organizations supporting the bill. He wanted to clarify one point it was not to create open records, but to ensure employers provided accurate information so informed decisions could be made. He pointed out in the article regarding the individual hired by the Las Vegas Metro Police Department, information about the employee was not provided by the employee’s former police agency. Although the agency was in Illinois and would not have been affected by the law, it was brought up as an example of what could happen. The incident occurred because the applicant lied and the former employer did not pass on accurate information. It was in the best interest of the community to have only the most qualified people in uniform because they were out in the community with guns, arresting people and putting lives in danger.

Mr. Lee said he still had a problem on page 2, with line 11, as he believed it took away from the life and liberty of the citizens. He was trying to make sense of why compensation should become involved in a background check. Mr. Olsen responded one of the aspects checked in the background investigation was the question of honesty and issues of corruption. If a person had a lifestyle beyond what his salary should support, then it was a flag for the agency. He added in Las Vegas, because of growth, the department was hiring so fast throughout the country it was becoming a broader issue.

Mr. Lee pointed out there was probably no way to tell if the person was invested in the stock market or what a spouses compensation might be, because nothing was being requested but the base salary with the previous employer. Mr. Olsen continued if there was a flag coming up for one of the investigators then they would dig deeper to discover further information. The flag could be anything, a letter saying a person drank a lot or he had been heard fighting with a spouse, it would only be a flag to look deeper into a particular area. Compensation could be another issue where it was noted someone was living way above their means, based on the type of compensation they had received. Just because a person went through training, graduated, and received a badge did not necessarily mean they were ethical and that was what agencies were trying to determine.

Ms. Von Tobel said she was a little confused. She assumed he was saying he did not support opening a file after the investigation was completed and yet he was saying law enforcement should have that privilege. Mr. Olsen responded the question was often asked why police were special. It was not police considered themselves special, but they must have the best people possible protecting citizens and their property. If the information was not accessible, a knowledgeable decision could not be made.

Ms. Von Tobel felt they should have access to the information, but she felt others who needed the information should also have access to whatever the investigation uncovered. She added she had a real problem in saying only the police had access to those records and not the public. Mr. Olsen stated a law was passed in the 69^th session saying information could be released if it was not malicious. However, the law did not set enough minds at ease in providing law enforcement and other governmental agencies information needed, to make informed decisions. Many times even something as simple as a driving record from another state would be unobtainable. One idea behind the requested legislation was to put in an immunity clause so people could follow the law passed in the 69^th session without the fear of being sued. In the case where the individual had lied to the department, he had indicated he worked for a construction company and left voluntarily. With further investigation it turned out he had been fired for being involved with a 15 year old girl illegally, and so the background investigation was reopened and when it was substantiated, he was terminated from the field officer training program.

If the open-records law passed, Ms. Von Tobel felt law enforcement would have access anyway. Mr. Olsen stated he was not sure how employers would respond without the language of A.B. 297 in law.

Mrs. Freeman said she was surprised the Federal Government had never addressed the issue of exchanging information between states and questioned if Mr. Olsen had ever heard anything discussed at the federal level. He responded he was not aware of any legislation being contemplated at the federal level. He pointed out federal law enforcement conducted their own investigations through the FBI which had offices in all major cities and every state. Because of budget constraints it was not feasible for Metro to send people across the country knocking on doors to verify information and under most circumstances the FBI would not assist in routine background investigations.

Mrs. Freeman felt exchanging information was something which should be addressed at the federal level so it would be available to all law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Neighbors wanted to comment the legal department at the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) looked closely to ensure a bill was constitutional. He felt language pertaining to a notarized release was important and key language to the bill. Mr. Olsen added most of law enforcement was already utilizing the notarized statement, but even then the employer was hesitant to release information.

Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association (NHPA), stated his association was in full support of the bill. "Police agencies needed to clean up their own backyard before pointing fingers at other people." He had conducted numerous background investigations over his 31-year career and wished to echo the previous speaker’s testimony. It had become increasingly difficult when someone was suspected of something and for fear of being sued, the employer only disclosed minimal information. When he was assigned to the Police Academy complaints an individual had severely battered his wife had been received from other cadets. It was found when contacting the spouse she had indeed been battered, he was brought before his superiors where he claimed he became angry over a test. During a subsequent investigation the individual had been employed by another police agency, and while she was pregnant he had run into her with a car, knocked her into a ditch, and drove off. An investigation was initiated, but because she would not cooperate the investigation was dismissed however, he was terminated due to battering his wife. The point he wanted to make was information from one agency was not being disclosed to other agencies.

Ed Flagg, President of Nevada Correctional Association, representing the Department of Prisons employees, confirmed his association was also in support of the bill. The Department of Prisons had problems getting qualified people because of limited information obtained through background checks. He added, many times qualified people had not been considered because of the lack of information they were able to obtain.

Col. Mike Hood, Chief of the Nevada Highway Patrol said within any police organization there was no greater need than obtaining thorough and complete background investigations and adequate training of personnel. Without those two areas addressed the police could not function outwardly with the public because of possible problems nor internally because of possible lawsuits. He wanted to respond to Mr. Lee’s question about compensation. In 1992 the highway patrol redid its background investigation, and it was now one of the best in the country. The compensation schedule was only one part of the package and if an individual making minimum wage had invested properly, it would come out through the investigation. What was being investigated was someone living above his means that might be tempted by forfeiture monies. The issue was simply, could an individual’s lifestyle be supported by their income. It was not a disqualifying factor, but was something that needed to be examined within the entire picture.

Ron Pierini, Douglas County Sheriff wanted to support the bill with just a side comment. In response to why the sheriff’s office needed background checks more than other agencies, was because in policing the most qualified individuals were needed as they were given unlimited power to enforce laws. He urged the committee to consider the leeway needed in trying to obtain information to insure a qualified choice and felt the bill addressed that need.

Bob Bayer, Director of Prisons stated, his was one of the larger agencies in the state conducting background checks. It could be very frustrating when the documentation on which they relied was nothing more concrete than employment dates, without further comment. Many times something became apparent in an application and needed verification from previous employers. Sometimes without verification it could also be a case of disqualification when it should not have been. He realized his agency was unique because his agency dealt more with drug interdiction and gang affiliation and imperative hiring process.

As there was no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 297.

Jack Jeffrey, representing Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, said the bill requested had been considered over a number of years. What brought the idea to fruition was the construction experience with the legislative building. There was confusion how an entity could turn down a bid when statutes simply stated "the lowest responsive and responsible bidder must be accepted." There had been court cases where it was ruled a governmental entity had broad discretion. However, in the case of the legislative building, the low bidder was a California pipeline contractor and the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) felt the lowest bid must be accepted but it turned out the firm was not a qualified bidder. About 50 percent through construction another contractor was hired to finish the building. In Oregon there was a program in place regarding pre-qualification and the original bill of the 69^th session was patterned after Oregon’s program. After conferring with the entities and due to time constraints the bill came out applying only to the State Public Works Board, with the idea of coming back in the 1999 session and having it apply to local entities. He realized there was some apprehension, such as the City of Henderson, who was concerned if qualification was needed before each project could be started, but the intent was to have the contractors qualify once a year. Another question was whether one entity could have different criteria than another and he felt it was acceptable just as different building codes could be adopted.

Mrs. Freeman stated she had seen instances in her county where public buildings were not constructed properly. One was in Washoe County where tremendous problems became apparent with the heating and air conditioning because of taking the lowest bidder. She questioned if the present bill was flexible enough to allow local governments to determine their own standards. Mr. Jeffrey stated several groups had approached him to work on the legislation and he certainly had no objection. He pointed out 2-years worth of work was done on legislation between Northern Nevada Associated General Contractors (AGC) and the Public Works Board he thought the concerns could be addressed without scrapping the bill entirely.

Chairman Bache said he would like to see the various groups get together and agree on some language to present to the committee, because collaboration had worked very effectively 2 years ago when dealing with the Public Works Board. He indicated Eric Radke, with public works, was unable to attend the hearing but had some concerns with the language and some amendments to offer. He stated he would like to have Mr. Radke included in any meetings held on the bill.

Gary Milliken, Associated General Contractors (AGC), wanted to testify in opposition to A.B. 298. As there was supposed to be a 2-year trial period to observe how the qualifications and regulations worked. The AGC was not notified regarding the regulations until November of 1998, so he felt there had not been adequate time to see if the system worked before requiring local entities to follow those regulations.

James Green, City of Henderson, wanted to go on record as opposing A.B. 298 because each local governing body would be charged with developing their own criteria for qualifying bidders so no uniform standards would be shared among local governing bodies. He felt it could lead to a substantial amount of conflict, litigation, and confusion. In addition the city would have to hire and pay for at least two more employees to administer and monitor the program. He also felt the time frame in the bill could be extended because the traditional 30 day bidding period did not take in the time to qualify a bidder and thought 90 days might be more realistic.

Marta Brown representing the City of North Las Vegas, said they too were in opposition of the present bill but would also like to work with the sponsors in alleviating the impact on local governments. The bill would substantially increase burdens to public bodies in administering public works contracts. She added the bill would impact the City of North Las Vegas because of "increased staffing, obtaining public meeting facilities, capital improvements budget, change requirements for city council meetings, delay bidding, construction and maintenance of public infrastructure." It could create hardships by pre-qualifying contractors for unique, emergency, specialized or fast track public works projects, and delaying those projects. There would also be additional legal exposure to the city for unknown claims and judgements, which could cause interminable delays to public works projects. She added she too would like to be included in working with the sponsors.

John Balentine from Washoe County Purchasing Division, stated he was also representing the Public Purchasing Study Commission. He introduced James Keenan with Douglas County purchasing and John Flansberg with Carson City Public Works. He went on to say they were all in opposition to the bill because of the ambiguity with each local government setting up its own criteria. In Washoe County alone there would be six entities having their own criteria and theoretically a contractor might be qualified to do business with two or three but not all of them. He indicated his remarks were in the handout (Exhibit E). He also wanted to point out the Public Works Board set the criteria in another section of the bill and was another ambiguity. Another problem was the bonding process requiring the contractor to have all of the equipment and personnel in place before even bidding on a contract, which would cause a hardship on the contractor. Another concern was with the out of state contractor, because as testified earlier by law enforcement, obtaining information from out-of-state would be equally hard when dealing without of state contractors.

Mr. Keenan, Douglas County purchasing, pointed out in Exhibit E, section 4, paragraphs 1 to 4 the application process was described. It required a pre-bid notice be sent out before solicitation, so applicants could submit an application but it would not be appropriate to open sealed bids until all the applicants had been approved or disapproved. Once bids were opened, financial information was available and not considered good practice. In gathering the information including responses and bidding there was an 85-day time frame. At Lake Tahoe a lot of the work could not be started for a good part of the fall, winter, and spring months, and adding 85 days could jeopardize the seasonal type projects.

Mr. Keenan pointed out several areas of the bill referred to "responsible," a common, often used, and very meaningful term in the purchasing field. It meant the bidder must be responsible and capable of performing all elements of the contract. He added they were not opposed to a statewide, standardized minimum set of requirements administered by the Public Works Board or some other agency.

John Flansberg, Street Operations Manager for Carson City stated he had held the position for the last 2 years and prior to that worked for Granite Construction for 7 years as a project manager and estimator. He pointed out, the bill required public works projects be qualified before bidding took place. Currently there was already a pre-qualification requisite in retaining their license. There were different trade licenses such as general/civil covering highways, and B1 through B5, including the building trades. Bidders were also pre-qualified by the amount of a contract on which they were able to bid through their bonding capacity. Every construction project was based on three principles: the engineering design, materials used, and the contract. The last comment he wanted to make was, it was unclear if pre-qualification criteria applied only to the general contractor but also subcontractors.

Mr. Humke questioned the prime contractor’s bid versus the subcontractors bid, and if a contractor had sufficient number of experienced personnel to perform a contract. There was also a section mandated by the bill asking the prime contractor to have equipment in place before performing the job. He thought it was a requirement by the Public Works Board when bidding for a job the prime contractor had to supply subcontractor and supplier information.

Mr. Flansberg said it was required to list subcontractors on public works projects. He pointed out most contractors did not have the required equipment for every job bid as they anticipated leasing or renting equipment during the construction phase. Most contractors had a small core of employees who worked with them year around, the rest were hired for a particular job. Union contractors required the unions to have personnel available to go to work when construction started.

Mr. Humke questioned if the release of certain bid information by a public entity was in opposition to "trade secrets" legislation, and questioned if anything in the bill could cause a conflict. Mr. Flansberg replied he felt there was, because in section 5 the appeal process was spelled as a public appeal process, which opened it to the public. In the purchasing section of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) it required the public entity and purchasing manager to hold back proprietary and confidential information on all contracts and public contract records. Because the reference was absent from the bill, it could be argued all information should be available to the public.

Mr. Humke pointed out he had previously been involved in the "trade secrets" issue and if he recalled the statutes correctly, NRS 600A, NRS 333, and NRS 49 dealt with the trade secret issues and should probably be referenced in the bill.

Chairman Bache stated he did not believe there was any intent to change the trade secret statutes.

Marvin Leavitt, representing the City of Las Vegas, who also were in opposition to the bill and he would not belabor the point. He would be willing to work on any amendments to make the bill palatable.

Jim Spinello, representing Clark County opposed the bill in its present form, however, he also would work with the sponsor in achieving the intended result.

The following people echoed Mr. Spinello’s sentiments and wanted to be involved in further work to the bill in finding equitable language:

Chris Weiss, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities

Mary Henderson, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County

Barbara McKenzie, City of Reno

Lisa Ginoli, Washoe County

Nina Laxalt, City of Sparks

Roger Grable, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) stated they had a "bid of preference" bill under NRS 408 where bidders were pre-qualified for all highway projects. NDOT attorneys felt wording of the bill, as written, was not specific enough to allow an exemption for NDOT and requested section 13 of NRS 408 be added to A.B. 298. To make it clear sections 2 to 5 should include language to make it clear it did not apply to any construction, reconstruction, improvement, or maintenance of highways subject to NRS 408.323 or NRS 408.327.

Chairman Bache requested Mr. Jeffrey meet with the parties affected by the bill to work out some compromise and report back to the committee. He said before taking up A.B. 303, the committee would take a short break. The meeting broke at 9:40 a.m.

The committee reconvened at 9:50 a.m.

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31, stated the bill was requested by the Nevada Highway Patrol Association to alleviate a disparity in the retirement system. It addressed the concerns of police officers and firefighters, and he was appearing to give his full support of the bill.

Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, stated he just wanted to say he was in support of the bill as it was one of the few times management and employees came together in agreement on legislation.

Col. Hood stated there was a real need for the legislation. The heart of the bill was in line 13, section 1 of the bill. It addressed the issue of a 7 or 8 year veteran highway patrol officer who was injured to the extent he could no longer function in law enforcement and elected to work for another governmental agency he could accept employment without losing benefits. If an officer was injured on the job after 18 years with the force and was not 55 he would have to work another 2 years before he could go to work for another agency without losing benefits. It seemed the injured officer was being punished. If the officer was out in the field and run over by a drunk driver, but could take a computer position, he should not lose his police/fire retirement, as he was still serving the state.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if she understood correctly, a person with 18 years on the force went to another state job the retirement would be based on the current job rather than the previous 18 years. Mr. Wolff said it would fall under the formula in section 2: "retirement could occur at 65 with 5 years of service, 55 with 10 years, 50 with 20 years, and at any age with 30 years of service. So if a person had 18 years at age 50 he would have to work additional years because he had not fulfilled the 20 years at age 50."

Col. Mike Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) stated the bill came about because an employee of the NHP was tragically bombed several years ago and no one realized what happened in the system until the employee had worked his way through the system. He was still productive and wanted to work finding a job with the highway patrol. He had been with the agency for 14 years as a trooper prior to the accident. Under the current rule he could take a medical retirement, for which the system provided, but he preferred to work. The bill would allow him to stay in the early retirement system while continuing to contribute the same amount as if he were in the police/fire system so he would have full benefits to retire at age 50.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if he would still be eligible under police/fire retirement even though he was employed elsewhere. Col. Hood replied as long as he or his employer contributed to the PERS system at the rate of police/fire, which was higher than a regular employee rate. She asked, once he decided to retire, would retirement be based on his years with NHP or the most recent job. Col. Hood pointed out as long as he was vested in the system the bill would ensure he could continue in the police/fire system.

Mr. Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol stated from a labor point of view the troopers needed to be replaced if they were no longer working in that capacity. When transferring to another agency, it left an open slot which could not be filled.

Ed Flagg, President, Nevada Corrections Association reported the Department of Prisons had never experienced similar problems, but it could certainly happen, and his association was in favor of the bill. He added he had known Ken Gager, the injured patrolman for 20 years and it was a tragedy he hoped would not happen to anyone else.

Ray McAllister representing the Professional Firefighters of Nevada, wanted to speak in favor of the bill. He pointed out it was similar to what could occur when someone was promoted into a 40 hour week position. The person had worked for years as a line firefighter pulling fire hoses and fighting fires, and then transferred to an administrative capacity. Even though duties were different he was still vested and remained part of the department. He questioned section 1, subsection 2, page 2 of the bill as it was not clear if the employee would continue at the higher rate or automatically be placed at the lower rate. He felt the language should be clarified so the employer was paying the extra 10 percent.

George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) stated the board had not had a chance to look at the bill. One question raised was mandating the employer to pay the extra amount and felt he was not qualified to respond. He then read from his prepared testimony (Exhibit F). Members of the police and firemen’s retirement fund did have different benefits than regular members. Certainly there was incentive to remain contributing members of the police and firemen’s retirement fund with respect to getting earlier retirement and the spouse’s option. He added PERS members may apply for disability retirement if they had at least 5 years service and were permanently and totally disabled. Disability compensation was figured at the same rate as regular retirement, except there was no penalty for age. Mr. Pyne felt similar circumstances would be rare so there would be limited fiscal impact on retirement contribution rates. However, if public employers had to pay into the fund at a higher rate there might be some impact on the agency.

He added another concern was how determination of disability was to be made as he felt there should be some type of a certified medical review. Also what happened if the employee terminated or transferred before becoming eligible for retirement, would it still be based the former job or current job. Eligibility for membership in the PERS system was not an individual choice but based on the employee’s position. The bill would only impact a few members, but created a new class of membership based on individual choice.

Chairman Bache pointed out although policy issues needed addressing it also appeared there were technical problems with the bill. He suggested Mr. Pyne provide some suggestions to the committee at a later date to overcome obvious technical problems. As there was no further business he adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: