The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:16 a.m., on Tuesday, March 23, 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.

Simultaneous videoconferencing of the meeting was provided to Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 426.

Harvey Whittemore, partner with Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, representing
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, explained A.B. 426 sought to clarify some confusion over the continuing jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) over irrigation districts. The bill was designed to correct or identify the legislative intent with respect to irrigation districts. However, the bill went further than had originally been requested in that it entirely exempted the irrigation districts from the definition of public utility. The districts sought exemption from PUC jurisdictions as long as they were only serving their members.

Lyman McConnell, manager of the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID) testified that in 3 prior years (1959, 1968 and 1986) the PUC had determined the TCID was not subject to its jurisdiction. TCID was considered a public entity under Nevada law. It was subject to all regulations as other local political subdivisions under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 41 and was required to operate in accordance with Chapter 539 of the NRS. Mr. McConnell felt exemption from the PUC as the TCID served its members was appropriate, as was determined by the PUC in the past.

Michael Pitlock, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission introduced a letter offering his comments on A.B. 426 (Exhibit C). His position on the bill was simple, he said. As long as districts were providing service within their districts to their members, the PUC had no problem with the legislation. The PUC believed the districts should be exempt from jurisdiction under those circumstances. However, he wanted to make it clear that, if in the event districts wished to serve customers outside their districts that were nonmembers, then in accordance with Assembly Bill 366 of the 69^th Legislative Session, they should be treated exactly like other cooperatives and be licensed as an alternative seller.

Chairman Bache’s interpretation of the bill stemmed from work he had done on A.B. 366 of the 69^th Legislative Session. A district fell into one of two categories, either an alternative seller if it served members outside its service territory, or be redefined as a co-op. He asked Mr. Whittemore if his understanding was correct.

Mr. Whittemore responded affirmatively. He indicated the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District did not intend to compete in the open marketplace for customers, it simply wanted to serve its existing members.

Mr. Bache asked Committee Counsel Eileen O’Grady if an amendment would be needed to clarify the irrigation district was a co-op for purposes of NRS Chapter 704. Ms. O’Grady indicated an amendment would be needed.

Susan Miller, Senior Government Services Representative, Sierra Pacific Power Company indicated she had originally intended to testify against A.B. 426. However, pending the amendment proposed by Chairman Bache, she withdrew her opposition.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 426 and asked Ms. O’Grady to draft an amendment defining the irrigation district as a cooperative with regard to NRS Chapter 704. He then opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 537. He indicated since A.B. 465 was similar in content to A.B. 537, testimony on the two bills would be heard concurrently.

James Spinello, lobbyist representing Clark County, presented a synopsis of comments and suggested language for A.B. 537 (Exhibit D). The Clark County Commission was pleased the issues of commission redistricting had been brought to the forefront, he said. He introduced the Clark County Commissioners who would testify from the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas.

Yvonne Atkinson Gates, Clark County Commissioner, supported A.B. 537. Since 1991, the last time the Clark County Commission redistricted, rapid growth was experienced in some of the commission districts. A July 1998 estimate of 1.2 million residents also showed commission populations that ranged from a low of approximately 131,000 to a high of 253,000 persons per district. Inasmuch as the growth in some districts jeopardized the one-man, one-vote principle, it was agreed the disparity was unacceptable for the community and the method of redistricting must be based on legally acceptable data.

In 1998, Ms. Gates continued, the board considered redistricting in time for the elections in 2000. Conflicting legal opinions were received. The Legislative Counsel Bureau indicated the commissioners could redistrict only with decennial census data, while the attorney general determined redistricting could be accomplished based on population data comparable to the decennial census. The latter method would include data from a special census or other population data acceptable to the courts. Current law did not clearly define data needed in case law. The Clark County Commission then stated it would pursue legislative clarification enabling mid-decade redistricting which would be based on legally acceptable population data such as a special census.

If the commission chose to conduct a special census, the mid-decade language would allow it to properly budget, or adopt the appropriate methodology to meet the hope of protecting individual communities while protecting the one-man, one-vote principle.

Ms. Gates felt A.B. 537, with the proposed changes (Exhibit D), better met Clark County’s concerns than the language of A.B. 465. She walked the committee through the proposed changes to A.B. 537, and ended by clarifying her support of the bill.

Bruce Woodbury, Chairman, Clark County Board of County Commissioners, reiterated Ms. Gates’ testimony. With the type of growth recently experienced in Clark County, he said, it did not take long for commission districts to become unequal in population. The two bills addressed the same subject in roughly the same way, and represented the consensus of the commission as a fair and equitable way to move forward with redistricting.

Concepts of basic fairness, the value of one vote versus another vote, and the constitutional principle of one-man, one-vote were the focal points to be considered, Mr. Woodbury continued. He believed one mid-point redistricting, 4 years after the dicennial census-based redistricting, would be sufficient to ensure basic fairness, while preserving stability, the accountability of a commissioner to his or her district, and to the constituents living within that district.

Assemblywoman Berman asked how many new districts would be added.

Chairman Bache answered Ms. Berman by quoting section 5 of the bill, "This section does not authorize an increase or decrease in the number of county commissioner election districts in a county."

Mr. Woodbury indicated that increasing the number of commissioners would not be a very good idea, but that better balance in the districts was certainly needed. In response to a question by Assemblywoman Segerblom, he added the commission saw the bill as enabling legislation, but he did not know if the language as written or suggested would make it mandatory or optional for a mid-decade redistricting.

Ms. Segerblom said, "No, I think it [the language] says you have the right to do it rather than we do it." Mr. Woodbury felt the word "may" was appropriate, and added the consensus of the commission was that one set of midpoint data was probably sufficient to keep districts equitable. At the same time redistricting would not be done so frequently that the accountability of an elected representative to constituents would be disrupted.

Chairman Bache indicated Assemblywoman Tiffany would present Assembly Bill 465.

Assemblywoman Sandra J. Tiffany, Assembly District 21, told the committee the bill had come through the Henderson Chamber of Commerce on behalf of Commissioner Woodbury, and she had been unaware of the work being done on A.B. 537 on behalf of Commissioner Gates. She had no problem with either bill and indicated a "mix and match" would be agreeable.

Ms. Tiffany distinguished the subtle differences between the bills. The mission of each bill was the same, the ability to redistrict within the decade because of population growth and the unequal differences in populations between districts. One difference in A.B. 465 was the data to be used would be set at "5 percent by any measure of population found reliable by the board of county commissioners." Ms. Tiffany used the words "population found reliable" as a means test to make sure the population data was constitutional. In that way the bill reflected the opinion of the attorney general.

By using the language "During the sixth calendar year immediately following the taking of the last decennial census . . . " [lines 17 through 19, page 1], Ms. Tiffany explained, there would be one census in the 10-year decade from 2000 to 2010, which was desire of Commissioner Woodbury. The other bill, calling for data "During the fourth calendar year . . . " would conceivably allow for two sets of data to be collected during the decade. She felt using the 5 percent population increase or decrease at the midpoint of the decade as the triggering mechanism for redistricting would be more flexible and would hold up constitutionally.

Ms. Tiffany’s final difference was for boundary adjustments. A.B. 465 allowed a new boundary to be created or an existing one to be adjusted. Numbers were not adjusted, simply the alignment.

Chairman Bache pointed out that different citations were used in each bill. A.B. 465 cited NRS 244.016 and dealt with the number of county commissioners in districts with populations of 400,000 or more. A.B. 537, which cited NRS 244.018, applied uniformly to all counties. NRS 244.016 applied only to Clark County because it cited counties with populations 400,000 or more. NRS 244.018 [A.B. 537] established additional districts or changed existing districts in all counties. He indicated he had requested bill drafting to address the uniformity issue.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked the commissioners the population in the largest and smallest districts. Ms. Gates replied that Mr. Woodbury’s district, with 253,000 people, was the largest. The smallest had a population of 131,000.

Assemblyman Lee referred Commissioner Gates to the handout (Exhibit D) and asked for clarification of the words on line 2-26, page 3, "practicable and preserve natural, political and traditional representation." Ms. Gates replied the language protected the communities of interest and would preserve those particular districts. Mr. Lee looked at the word "the political," and wondered why the term was used in the same context as "traditional" and "natural." Preservation of all communities of interest, which included a wide variety including political, was the thrust of the language, Ms. Gates replied. The language was also used in case law and protected the one-man, one-vote principle.

Chairman Bache asked the commissioners if either had a preference for the 5 percent or the 10 percent as stated in the two bills. He also asked at what time the commission wished to reapportion.

Commissioner Woodbury replied the 5 percent figure was a standard by which courts judged whether or not redistricting was acceptable. However, with the sort of growth Clark County was having, the figure was almost immaterial. Timing of the redistricting, during the 4^th calendar year after the decennial census data was made available to the county, would be in the year 2005, just prior to the 2006 election, which was what he had in mind.

Commissioner Gates added the 10 percent figure was a realistic number due to the growth in Clark County. But she saw problems with the year in which redistricting would take place. The basis for redistricting was the population information from the Census Bureau, which ordinarily would not be available until the year 2001. Her concern was not to have redistricting and a general election in the same year. Redistricting in the year prior to an election would be better for all concerned.

Chairman Bache observed that Ms. Gates had valid concerns. "One point may be that if the process does take a while, you have a [candidate] filing in May, the [census] is not completed until after May, and someone files for election for a county commission district that all of a sudden is redistricted into another one that is not up for election, you have a problem," he said.

Assemblywoman Tiffany indicated candidates should be given enough time to know what district boundaries were, and that the data was not taken too early.

Assemblyman Neighbors felt the bill should apply to all counties, but that he had not addressed the 5 percent or 10 percent issue.

Chairman Bache closed the hearings on A.B. 537 and A.B. 465. He indicated action would be taken later. He then opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 446.

Jeanne Greene, Acting Director, State of Nevada Department of Personnel testified in support of A.B. 446. State employees currently accrued sick leave at a rate of 1-1/4 days for each month of service, Ms. Greene began. When an employee accumulated a balance of 90 days of sick leave, only one-half of any unused sick leave for the year was credited to his regular sick leave account. The balance went into a special sick leave account which could be used only after the employee had exhausted his regular sick leave.

The hours in the special sick leave account were not considered when payment was made for unused sick leave upon the employee’s retirement, death or separation. A.B. 446 would eliminate the special sick leave account and allow consideration of all unused sick leave when payment was made.

An employee who had a catastrophic illness could exhaust most if not all of his regular sick leave, Ms. Green continued. If the employee subsequently retired as a result of a disability, or died as a result of the illness, neither he nor his survivors could access the special sick leave for the purposes of the sick leave payoff. Elimination of the special sick leave account would recognize the employee who had been conscientious in accruing sick leave, and would permit consideration of all accrued sick leave when the employee retired.

Ms. Greene explained only a small number of employees would be directly impacted by the proposal, and there would not be significant fiscal impact. Based on a 3-year history, the average cost to the state would be approximately $8,600 per year. She understood the legislature was considering A.B. 246 which would eliminate the special sick leave provisions and require payment for all unused sick leave. If A.B. 246 was not approved during the 70^th Legislative Session, she concluded, the Department of Personnel asked favorable consideration of A.B. 446.

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, also supported A.B. 446. In addition to Ms. Greene’s testimony, he indicated several considerations. The provision of itself was confusing. Employees did not understand it or the reason for it. It caused accounting problems within individual state agencies. Agencies were required to record special sick leave balances separately from regular sick leave.

Gary Wolff, Business Agent, Nevada Highway Patrol Association said he supported the concept of eliminating special sick leave provisions. His group, however, liked A.B. 246 better than A.B. 446. Total elimination of the special sick leave provision made better sense. However, he concluded, if A.B. 246 failed, he would certainly support A.B. 446.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 446. He felt because the other bill [A.B. 246] was already in the Committee on Ways and Means, he would entertain a motion to do pass and re-refer A.B. 446 to Ways and Means as well.

Mr. Bache pointed out to the committee there were 48 bills left to schedule. He indicated he would hold evening meetings only if necessary to get everything out of the committee by the April 9 deadline.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 494.

Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, Assembly District 40, testified on A.B. 494. The bill required the personnel commission to adopt regulations that established a shift bidding system for state employees at agencies which worked shift hours. The bill specifically allowed the commission to consider that different agencies would need different regulations to account for the special circumstances of their facility. Ms. Parnell said the bill was requested by the State of Nevada Employees Association and that Robert Gagnier would discuss the specifics.

There were two basic reasons for the introduction of A.B. 494, Mr. Gagnier began. People who worked shifts had particular problems. Education and continuing education was very important for state workers, and it was difficult for employees on shift work to plan ahead for community college or university classes. Shift work was equally difficult for employees with family responsibilities. It was almost a given fact that both a husband and wife would work, creating the problem of finding adequate child care. Planning a family life and addressing child care was an ongoing problem, made even more difficult by variable shift work.

Mr. Gagnier then went through the various sections of the bill and suggested some changes.

In section 1, subsection 1, the language "The commission shall adopt regulations . . . " specifically singled out for state agencies that operated for more than 8 hours a day or more than 5 days a week. By changing the section to read "those agencies that operate 24 hours a day every day," would address those agencies where shift work was standard.

Section 1 also indicated the personnel commission would adopt those regulations and that hearing would be held. The critical portion of the section began on line 8, page 1, Mr. Gagnier continued. The primary criterion would be seniority. The bill stated, " . . .Set forth a process that allows the employees, primarily based on seniority, to select their permanent work week schedule, including, without limitation, their days off and their daily shifts."

Lines 11 through 13 stated, "Provide a list of special circumstances under which an appointing authority may use a factor other than seniority for determining the order in which its employees select a shift or schedule." Mr. Gagnier felt different agencies had different special needs and those should be addressed in regulations, not in legislation.

The personnel commission needed to address the fact that agencies with special circumstances be precluded from legislation. NSEA tried to make every concession it could without losing the requirement there be a system of shift bidding.

There was some opposition to the language on page 2, lines 11 through 14. Once an employee had gone through the stated selection process and selected shift and days off, the selection could not be altered by management without the employee’s consent. That was a very important part of the bill, Mr. Gagnier emphasized.

Seniority was defined in subsection 4, line 15. If necessary, seniority would be established by the drawing of lots. Final implementation of A.B. 494 was addressed in sections 2 and 3, and allowed the personnel commission the time and opportunity to adopt the regulations by November 1, 1999. Actual law would take effect on January 1, 2000.

Chairman Bache inquired what other agencies, besides the obvious highway patrol and prison system, would be affected by the 24-hour amendment.

The principally affected agencies would be institutions such as prisons, mental health/mental retardation facilities, and the Caliente and Elko youth centers, Mr. Gagnier replied. A system was already in place for the highway patrol. The prisons had a pilot program. He said the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) did not fall under the definition. NDOT did not work 24 hours a day every day of the year.

Gary Wolff, Business Agent, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, had some concerns. If the regulations were based solely on seniority, and for instance a motor officer in Reno wanted to be a motor officer in Las Vegas on a different shift, would it involve moves from job to job across the state? The Nevada Highway Patrol Association had a system in place that worked well, and he did not want to see it changed.

Colonel Michael E. Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol, opposed A.B. 494. He felt the bill would affect the senior managers of the NHP, the capitol police, and parole and probation officers adversely. Seniority was already being given to line level officers and first-line supervisors. Administrators, however, needed the ability to place senior commanders, such as deputy chiefs, captains and lieutenants, into positions in which they excelled. Removing the ability for an administrator to place the right people into the right positions would be damaging to the NHP. He appreciated the concept but foresaw problems.

Kareen Masters, Personnel Officer for the Department of Human Resources, offered an amendment (Exhibit E) to A.B. 494. Ms. Masters appreciated the concessions NSEA made, but still had concerns about the bill. She believed it might hamper the ability of administrators in the department to staff in a manner which would best serve the needs of clients and the state. Facilities within the department provided services to a variety of clients including individuals with mental retardation, mental illness, children with behavioral disorders, adjudicated juvenile delinquents, to name a few. Many factors came into play when staffing decisions were made, including the special needs of clients, experience, knowledge, abilities of team members providing care or treatment, the gender mix of the client population, and the need to have staff cross-trained.

The primary consideration when work schedules were established, Ms. Masters said, was the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission and accommodate the needs of clients and the agency. It was also critical that administrators retain the authority to decide how to staff facilities and the flexibility to modify assignments when needed. The amendment (Exhibit E) addressed those priorities.

Ms. Masters addressed the salient points of her amendment. A change was made in subsection 1 to 24 hour-a-day facilities. Subsection 2 of section 1 indicated of primary importance were the operational needs of the agency and the needs of persons served by the agency. Language was added that allowed seniority to be considered as a factor in determining shift or schedule selection and provided for the establishment of regulations which allowed more than one method of calculating seniority. Clarification of the regulations applied only to the filling of vacant positions. The appointing authority’s decision was mandated final and was not subject to the grievance procedure nor judicial review. Ms. Masters concluded with her concerns the employee management committee would ultimately be in the position of making decisions which affected client care and safety, and the committee would not fully understand the needs of clients.

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, opposed A.B. 494. The issue of scheduling and staffing as a management prerogative was a very important point, he said. The prison system had a pilot program in two facilities which he felt worked well. The concepts addressed in A.B. 494 had been addressed in previous legislative sessions and had never passed. Still the Department of Prisons was attempting to deal with those issues at the agency level, which was the way they should be handled, he said.

Mr. Bayer explained the extremely complicated staffing and scheduling problems in the prison system. He summarized by telling the committee the prisons were trying hard to deal with seniority. Prison work was difficult. Shifts were assigned for 6 months to 1 year. He felt it was important for his agency to be able to determine shift assignments and do its very best to accommodate the seniority issues.

Chairman Bache said, "Mr. Bayer, I have been on this committee for five sessions, chaired it for three, and every single session this issue is brought up, and 99 percent of the problems are related to the prison system. We have had various employees testify at risk of disciplinary action to them, whether by you or your predecessor. I am tired of hearing the stories from prisons about this particular issue. This is where the problem is. I have not heard it [the problems] from other agencies. Why can’t you resolve the situation?"

Mr. Bayer appreciated Mr. Bache’s comments. He was the first prison director who tried to implement a pilot program. However, the fear of retribution phrase bothered him. "I do not retaliate against my employees," he emphasized. He suggested a poll of the prison staff would reassure the committee the staff was satisfied. "I’d like some consideration. I am trying to do something about this."

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Gagnier if he had any remarks.

Mr. Gagnier indicated lines 11 through 13 on page 1 of the bill addressed 99 percent of the concerns raised by previous testimony. NSEA recognized the need to allow the personnel commission, after extensive hearings, to determine definitions of special circumstances. He referred to Director Bayer’s comments by saying, "Out of the 700 [NSEA] members that I have in the Department of Prisons, this [shift scheduling and seniority] is the number one issue behind pay. There’s a message out there."

Mr. Bache asked if Mr. Gagnier was saying the schedule issue was more important than salary.

Mr. Gagnier replied the issue was second beyond pay. Seniority shift assignment and post bidding was common among many departments of prisons throughout the country, and most were attained through collective bargaining. It was done everywhere else; he could not help it if [the Department of Prisons] did not know how to do it in Nevada.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 494 and instructed Assemblywoman Parnell to handle any possible amendments. She was to coordinate efforts with Mr. Gagnier and others, and hoped she could provide amendments before the end of the week.

Chairman Bache, noting Councilman Michael McDonald in the Las Vegas audience, opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 402.

Michael J. McDonald, Councilman, City of Las Vegas felt A.B. 402’s original intent was good. He cited instances where similar legislation, passed in the 69^th Legislative Session, had dropped crime rates in certain areas, encouraged teamwork with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and addressed building safety and neighborhood liaisons. The teamwork issue, he continued, was the intent of A.B. 402. He believed the bill had gotten off to a bad start. "As of early yesterday morning," he said, "lobbyists were saying we are trying to form our own police department. I take offense. I would never do that. It would set us back 20 years."

Rather than put the board in a compromising situation, Mr. McDonald concluded, he asked for withdrawal of A.B. 402.

Chairman Bache accepted Mr. McDonald’s request, closed the hearing on A.B. 402, and asked for a motion to accept its withdrawal.

The Chairman recessed the meeting at 9:45 and announced a work session on matters previously discussed would take place following the recess.

Chairman Bache reconvened the meeting at 10:10 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 74.

Mr. Bache asked Assemblywoman Segerblom for clarification on her abstention from the previous vote on A.B. 74.

Ms. Segerblom found she would not be affected by the vote on A.B. 74. She therefore withdrew her abstention.

Chairman Bache indicated the bill needed no reconsideration because the previous motion to do pass failed 7 to 2 to 3. He asked for a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 74.

Chairman Bache invited comments from George Pyne of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).

George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System, told the committee the PERS board had met the day before and considered the amendments that had been proposed. The board’s position was 6 to 1 in opposition. Previously the vote was 7 to 0 on the original bill draft. Yesterday’s vote, he said, was in consideration of the changes that were made to include the 2-year sunset which, although the board did acknowledge it was consistent with the fact, the staff was directed to do a more complete study. The board felt the bill would set a dangerous precedent for a small group of people.

Mr. Bache inquired if Mr. Pyne would like an amendment to the bill directing a study on the issue of reemployment. Mr. Pyne indicated he and his staff would undertake a comprehensive study of the issue. He said he would advise the Interim Retirement Committee of the legislature as to the progress of the study.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked Mr. Pyne for details on the vote of the PERS board. Mr. Pyne responded the board had opposed the bill 6 to 1 and that the amendments had been considered. The larger concern to the board was not the 2-year sunset provision, but the fact the bill set a precedent for a very small group of individuals to be exempt from PERS retirement provisions. The board felt the legislation would open the door to more requests, resulting in higher plan costs over time.

Ms. Tiffany wondered if the board, having voted 6 to 1 in opposition, did not feel it worth changing the philosophy of PERS. Mr. Pyne responded affirmatively. He reiterated the board felt a study would be necessary, and that it had not been swayed by the sunset issue.

Chairman Bache, seeing no further debate, asked for a vote of amend and do pass on A.B. 74.

Noting Mr. Pyne was still in the audience, Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 189.

Chairman Bache refreshed committee’s memory on A.B. 189. It was a PERS bill, he said, and was held pending other amendments.

George Pyne testified on A.B. 189. It was a PERS technical bill, and was basically a non-fiscal bill in that it did not require any increase in rates for retirement contributions. There were some suggested amendments overlooked in the initial draft. The bill increased the amount of survivor benefits for certain surviving spouses and surviving children by $50 a month but neglected to increase survivor benefits for surviving dependent parents. In order to make that change, and since flat rate benefits were increased for children, he felt it would be well to take care of the surviving dependent parent issue as well. The change would have impacted Nevada Revised Statute 286.677, a matter which Eileen O’Grady had addressed.

The second change dealt with the issue of the benefit a retired individual who went back to work and re-enrolled in the [PERS] system received, and how the benefit was calculated. In addition, Mr. Pyne explained, Washoe County also wanted to amend the bill, and he indicated a representative from Washoe County would address the amendment in greater detail.

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney for Washoe County, indicated she was "proposing a little amendment" that had no effect on the system, no ramification to PERS or its financial aspects. The compensation package for local elected officials was set at a salary and eligible benefits. Currently in Washoe County there were two retired employees in the PERS system who were not eligible for the elected officials’ contribution on credit into the system. The amendment would allow, not mandate, a local government to equalize that compensation package by providing for the money that otherwise would have gone into the PERS credit to instead go into an individual’s retirement account. The amendment, she concluded, would clarify the authority of local entities, and distributed copies of the suggested language (Exhibit F).

Chairman Bache invited a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 189 with the proposed amendments from Washoe County and the technical amendments from Mr. Pyne.

The Chairman opened the hearing on A.B. 131, the bill dealing with state employee collective bargaining. He invited a motion.

Mr. Bache gave the committee time to read the amendment (Exhibit G). Assemblyman Williams indicated he liked the amendment and that it was long overdue.

Chairman Bache asked if committee members had the amendment on Assembly Bill 66 submitted by Assemblywoman [Sharron] Angle. He indicated he would have copies made. He then asked Mr. Pyne if he had technical amendments on Assembly Bill 303.

George Pyne said A.B. 303 had been introduced by the Nevada Highway Patrol Association and the Department of Motor Vehicles. It allowed a police officer or a firefighter who was injured in the line of duty and was disabled, in lieu of receiving disability retirement benefits from PERS to continue to work and have gainful employment. He was allowed to continue to participate in the police and firemen’s’ retirement fund, even though in his present position he would not otherwise be eligible for coverage based on the duties of the job. When the bill was originally presented, PERS had some concerns with respect to the bill language, not the intent. The PERS board supported A.B. 303 based on the drafted amendments.

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, indicated she had the language but was not sure the language was agreed upon by both parties.

Mr. Pyne indicated all parties agreed with the drafted language.

Chairman Bache decided to deal with A.B. 66 and furnished the committee with copies of the proposed amendment (Exhibit H).

Mr. Bache had concerns that even with the proposed amendment, the state would be opened up to an extreme amount of liability. He understood the problem the bill tried to address, but did not feel that was the way the problem should be addressed.

Assemblyman Lee also voiced opposition to the bill. It affected many small business owners who really did not want their employees caught in the "net" of state employees’ contracts. He did not see how the bill would be good for the state. He did not feel it prudent for small businesses to get into business with the state with their employees, and indicated he would vote no.

Chairman Bache asked for a motion on A.B. 66.

The Chairman asked for action on Assembly Bill 212, which dealt with the open meeting law.

Mr. Bache asked David Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, to access his notes on the last hearing of A.B. 212 and mention some of the highlights. The bill addressed the situation where, for instance, the town board in Douglas County as a group appeared at the Douglas County Commission. As long as the town board did not deliberate toward a decision, it was not considered a violation of the open meeting law. Mr. Bache recalled the testimony discussed appearances before the legislature. He said Kent Lauer of the Nevada Press Association had problems with the language.

David Ziegler accessed his notes on the first hearing of A.B. 212. He recalled Assemblyman Price’s testimony. Mr. Price had indicated the bill was trying to address the question of a governing body appearing before another governing body, and whether that would be a violation of the open meeting law. Mary Walker who represented Douglas and Lyon Counties and Carson City, offered an amendment limiting the bill only to testimony before the legislature.

Assemblyman Humke indicated he found portions of the bill somewhat distasteful, especially where the legislature was singled out as a government body before which a quorum of county commissioners could appear and not violate the open meeting law. Given the fact the bill language declared the legislature was not a public body, Mr. Humke did not feel it necessary to compound the problem with the bill as written.

Assemblyman Mortenson concurred that A.B. 212 without the amendment would change nothing in existing law.

Chairman Bache asked for a vote to indefinitely postpone A.B. 212.

THE MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 212 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

The Chairman opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 303.

Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, indicated the amendment had a 90-day clause in it and that he was in concurrence. The amendment was proposed by the Public Employees Retirement System.

Mr. Bache asked Ms. O’Grady to provide the committee with copies of the proposed amendment (Exhibit I). Mr. Wolff indicated two changes were made to the amendment language. The word "same" in the second paragraph was deleted, leaving the term "public employer" in place, because there were problems with the smaller agencies. It did not force anyone to hire anybody, it simply stated if an agency hired an individual, the individual would accept the provisions of the bill. The time was changed from 60 days to 90 days.

George Pyne, PERS, indicated his board voted in favor of the amendment on March 22. However, he thought the words "the same" were in the amendment the board had considered, and said he would have to make certain that "public employer" was what the board wanted.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Pyne if he agreed with the 90-day term. Mr. Pyne had no concern with 90 versus 60 days.

Mr. Pyne went on to explain the philosophy behind the amendment. It would be acceptable to PERS if, for instance, there was an individual who became disabled and was approved by the board for disability, but in lieu of receiving a disability retirement benefit, that individual preferred to remain gainfully employed with a public employer or with the same public employer, and thereby paid in at a higher contribution rate. Whether or not the individual accepted the job within 60 or 90 days was of no concern. The board felt since it was a situation between the employee and the employer, that employer-employee relationship should address acceptance of employment with the same employer, not necessarily a different employer. Mr. Wolff, Mr. Pyne said, preferred that it be with any public employer, and reiterated the board considered the amendment with the language "the same."

Assemblywoman Parnell, noting no one in the audience representing firemen, it appeared their group was comfortable with the amendment’s original language.

Mr. Wolff apologized and added he thought the bill was supported by all the firefighters’ associations and all police agencies in the state. He reiterated there would be a real problem with the words "the same", because it would not be fair to the smaller agencies. He wondered what employment would be available for a disabled officer in a smaller community.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel understood it would be a "like" employer, not the "same" employer, and asked if the term "like" could be used.

Mr. Pyne indicated it would be a participating employer. PERS had 130 public employers within the retirement system. If a firefighter or police officer became disabled from doing his or her job, Mr. Wolff would have liked to have that person be able to work with any participating public employer within the system. That employer would then pay contributions at the higher rate and they would continue to be in the police and firefighters’ retirement fund. Mr. Pyne’s suggestion would restrict the rehiring to the same employer.

Ms. Von Tobel felt it was a large policy difference, and was uncomfortable with changing the word "same".

It was the word the board considered when the vote was taken, Mr. Pyne said.

Chairman Bache had some comments. "The way I read it," he said, "where it says ‘in lieu of disability retirement benefits, he accepts another position with the public employer  . . .’, whether you have the word ‘same’ or not, implies to me that it must be the same public employer, even without the word ‘same.’ From the way it’s worded, I would assume the employer would be the current one. That would, however, be left up to the interpretation of attorneys. I do not know if the deletion of the word ‘same’ makes a difference in this particular case."

Both Mr. Pyne and Mr. Wolff concurred with Chairman Bache’s interpretation.

Assemblyman Thomas wondered if A.B. 303 was creating a precedent for a small group of employees.

Mr. Pyne said the bill provided individuals, who were otherwise disabled, with gainful employment. Employment was preferable, he said, rather than receiving a pension.

Mr. Bache asked if the situation could be considered "double-dipping," where a retirement benefit and a salary would be received concurrently.

No, Mr. Pyne responded. Mr. Wolff felt it was inherently unfair to not allow a

disabled firefighter or police officer to pursue another line of work. A.B. 303

was a humanitarian bill.

Chairman Bache asked for a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 303.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Tiffany indicated she would vote for the bill. She felt a voluntary retirement was different from someone disabled in the line of duty. Gainful employment for the disabled person was important to her.

THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Bache asked Assemblywoman Tiffany for comments on the "twin" bills, A.B. 537 and A.B. 465.

Ms. Tiffany asked that all the commissioners’ amendments presented in A.B. 537 be amended into A.B. 465.

Chairman Bache entertained a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 465 WITH THE

ENTIRE DOCUMENT FROM A.B. 537.

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked if all counties would be affected. Assemblyman Thomas asked if all amendments offered by the commissioners would be incorporated.

Yes, Chairman Bache replied. Everything would be included that was presented from the county commissioners. He asked for a vote to amend and do pass A.B. 465.

THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 465 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 11:15 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Charlotte Tucker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: