The Joint Hearing of the Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation was called to order at 8:00 AM, on Thursday, March 18, 1999. Chairman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 2134 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.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Richard Perkins

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Robert Price (Excused)

None

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Colonel Mike Hood, Chief of the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), began his presentation of the Highway Safety Grants Account with a description of the budget. He said the account received grant funding from the Federal Highway Administration in support of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) through an 80 percent hard federal match and a 20 percent soft match, which was provided by the salaries and benefits of personnel assigned to the NHP commercial enforcement section. Additionally, an $80,000 allocation from the Highway Fund ensured the continuation of MCSAP until the balance forward and federal fiscal year funds were received. Colonel Hood noted the allocation was accompanied by an $80,000 reversion requirement that went into effect at the end of each fiscal year of the biennium.

Colonel Hood said the Highway Safety Grants account had authorized seven full-time positions in FY 1998 and FY 1999.

Chairman Giunchigliani interrupted to request Colonel Hood to justify the need for Highway Funds in the upcoming biennium.

Colonel Hood replied the $80,000 allocation protected the rollover of employee salaries until federal grant monies were received. The Chair then asked if the department repaid the Highway Fund. Colonel Hood repeated the department fully repaid the $80,000 allocation once federal funds were received. Chairman Giunchigliani wondered how long the repayment would take. Colonel Hood responded the repayment schedule depended upon the date in which the department received the federal grants. He indicated the disbursement of federal grant monies usually lagged by 60 days.

As the agency had traditionally received the funds in a timely manner, the Chair did not understand why the department needed the Highway Fund. Colonel Hood repeated the department had requested the $80,000 Highway Fund allocation to prevent the department from running a deficit in the salary category. Chairman Giunchigliani did not believe the allocation had ever been used due to the tardy nature of the federal grant disbursement. She then commented the issue needed review because it seemed the department was betting on the chance the salary category would fall short, rather than on an actual occurrence.

In reply to the Chair’s comment, Colonel Hood argued the money would be reverted at the end of the biennium. Chairman Giunchigliani recognized the fact that the federal grant disbursement might be tardy in the upcoming biennium, but since it had never occurred before, she felt the department’s use of Highway Funds was unjustified.

Colonel Hood was convinced the department would overrun their salary category if federal funds were late and the department did not have the ability to fall back on the Highway Fund allocation.

The Chair then inquired if the department had the flexibility to overrun their salary category. Colonel Hood answered though the state system allowed the department to overrun the salary category if need be he argued it was not thought of wisely.

Chairman Giunchigliani understood the action was not well regarded. Regardless, she believed that since the department had never encountered the potential for an overrun before, the recommendation for the $80,000 allocation was not warranted.

As no other questions were presented on the Highway Safety Grants budget account, Chairman Giunchigliani closed discussion on the issue and moved to the next budget account.

Before turning the discussion over to the division representative, the Chair highlighted the issues she felt were critical to the approval of the budget account. First, she wondered if POST would exist as a stand-alone agency once the new training division was established in DMV. If so, she asked if POST would be responsible for its own administrative costs or if it would still receive administrative costs and services from DMV. Second, the Chair inquired what areas POST would cover in training. Would it cover basic training as well as other types of departmental training? Third, she inquired if POST could assume the training activities, which had been designated for the new training division, should the legislature fail to approve DMVs request for the separate training agency. Fourth, she directed Colonel Hood to justify the placement of POST outside the jurisdictional authority of DMV.

Before the division could respond, Senator Jacobsen thought the discussion on POST should commence with a brief description of the agency, its mission and its subsequent functions.

In reply, Richard Clark, Chief of POST, summarized its functions. POST was a state regulatory agency that governed the professional standards and ensured the quality of training for law enforcement officials throughout the state of Nevada. Not only a regulatory agency, POST also provided a regional basic training academy in service training and professional certification services for approximately 130 criminal justice agencies and 9,000 peace officers.

Mr. Clark stated POST had been established in 1965, by the Nevada State Legislature for the purpose of standardizing and raising the level of professionalism in law enforcement throughout the state. He felt POST had improved the uniformity and consistency of the professional public services to the citizens and to the visitors of the State of Nevada. POST had also increased the personal safety of peace officers and citizens, from an increasingly dangerous and violent criminal element. Furthermore, Mr. Clark believed POST had reduced the costs, derived from vicarious liability, which could be protected only through vigilance and strict adherence to standards and quality training.

Although the Governor appointed the seven-member POST committee as defined by NRS481.053, Mr. Clark related that initially confusion had existed in regard to the structure and operation of the agency. In response to the confusion, Mr. Clark explained the Legislature had urged DMV&PS to complete a study of POST funding, its responsibilities, and its staff structure. Thus, in collaboration with the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, DMV&PS completed a study and made several recommendations that served as the foundation of Senate Bill 68, a bill sponsored by Senator Jacobsen.

Mr. Clark explained S.B. 68 established POST as a legitimate, autonomous, state regulatory commission for law enforcement and statutorily clarified its duties and responsibilities, established a staff structure sufficient to manage the day-to-day operations, and secured a dependable, adequate, funding source.

Next, Mr. Clark disclosed POST had experienced difficulty as a statewide regulatory agency that regulated the law enforcement of DMV. The problem arose when POST, acting as the state regulatory agency for DMV&PS, was in turn regulated by DMV&PS. As a result, he felt a conflict of interest existed. Mr. Clark elaborated as Chief of POST both the Director of DMV&PS and the Chairman of the POST committee supervised his position; the existence of two supervisory authorities created some confusion.

As most certification or training processes that existed for other professions required compensation, the Chair inquired what mechanisms, other than utilizing court assessment fees, POST would use to make individuals pay for training.

Mr. Clark answered the agencies, which utilized POSTs training services paid a minimal registration fee for basic training, however they did not pay any fees for in-service training courses. Nevertheless he indicated he had surveyed the agencies concerning an assessment of fees for in-service training.

Mr. Clark also said he had broached the subject with the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. Although, the agencies seemed supportive of a minimal increase in basic training course fees, Mr. Clark reported a registration fee imposed for continuing education courses was not supported. The consensus of the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association was court assessment fees were collected by the efforts of law enforcement for the purpose of training law enforcement officers.

Chairman Giunchigliani remarked that court assessments were used for a variety of purposes. Mr. Clark conceded that court assessments were used for purposes other than law enforcement training in POST since 1983.

The Chair next remarked that most groups of professionals were required to pay for their re-certification or training. She wondered if POST ceased providing basic training and focused solely on continuing education, what the agency’s budget needs would consequently include.

Mr. Clark replied there were various models that could be applied to POST’s staffing and training structures. One model would require POST to continue all training activities, including training for DMV&PS.

Chairman Giunchigliani interjected to inquire if POST had the capability to continue those activities. Mr. Clark responded that with a consistent level of support, POST would be able to continue its operations with ease.

Mr. Clark continued the establishment of a Training Division within DMV was not an effect of POST’s separation from DMV&PS. He speculated that if POST were to remain part of the department, DMV&PS would still retain the need to create their own training entity. Thus he felt the projected budgetary needs in such a situation were difficult to explain.

Mr. Clark explained if POST separated from DMV&PS, it could complete 40 percent of its current basic training activities by servicing those officers who employed outside of DMV&PS because that department itself utilized 60 percent of POST’s training space in the current system. Thus, if the department were to develop their own training entity, POST would only need to provide basic training services to the remaining peace officers in the state.

In an alternate scenario, Mr. Clark explored the possibility of shifting POSTs basic training resources towards continuing education. He felt there was a myriad of applications in continuing education, which POST had not been able to implement due to staff shortages.

The Chair opined her concern that should POST become a stand-alone agency, it would continue to upgrade course requirements to such an extent that it would adversely impact law enforcement agencies total costs. She needed assurance that the training required by POST would be absolutely necessary to the preservation of public safety in Nevada, while other less necessary activities should be paid for by the individual. Otherwise she felt a continuous upgrade of standards and training requirements would perpetuate continual growth in costs.

Mr. Clark responded expansions in POSTs training protocol and standard requirements had changed the minimum number of required basic training hours from 480 hours to 670 minimum hours. Notably, he disclosed most of the expansions POST had undertaken in the last few years had been mandated by the legislature. He cited course expansions in domestic violence, abuse of the elderly, child abuse and sexual exploitation, as examples of the subjects which were covered by new training courses for investigators, and which were mandated in previous legislative sessions.

Chairman Giunchigliani agreed that if the legislature mandated those requirements, they should be implemented. She was more concerned with superfluous requirements.

Mr. Clark related community-policing training activities had been undertaken by POST during the previous legislative session. Over 20,000 hours at the cost of $128,000 had been expended thus far and he emphasized the community policing training had been paid for by federal funds alone. Mr. Clark felt the training was excellent and he noted the benefits from activities like the community policing training came at no cost to the state.

The Chair remarked the subcommittee appreciated those training activities and POST’s effort in finding alternative sources of funding.

Senator Neal then asked how Mr. Clark would justify the existence of POST. Mr. Clark answered POST was often relegated to the status of a mere academy, when in fact, the division was a statewide regulatory agency that supervised the professional standards and the quality of training for law enforcement officials. Mr. Clark felt those responsibilities impacted the professionalism of law enforcement, the interaction between peace officers and citizens, liability costs, and the effectiveness of law enforcement.

Mr. Clark then explained a peace officer training agency existed in every state. He believed everyone, whether critical or supportive of law enforcement, wished to see a strong regulatory agency.

Senator Neal then asked what elements comprised the agency’s training protocol. Mr. Clark asked if Mr. Neal was referring to basic training elements or continuing education. Senator Neal replied he had referred to elements of the agency’s basic training program. He wanted to know specifically what that program taught.

Mr. Clark said POST taught a variety of basic training courses that included topics such as criminal law, crime scene investigation, patrol procedures, domestic violence issues, firearms, defensive tactics, and emergency vehicle operation. He repeated POSTs basic training courses covered over 600 hours of basic training even though the state only required a minimum of 480 hours.

Senator Neal then wondered if POST training required the trainee to live on site. Mr. Clark responded it was not absolutely required for trainees to live on site because there were different applications of the academy process and there were different academy approaches. Mr. Clark explained some training academies taught courses in a condensed manner lasting 15 to 16 weeks. Other programs at community colleges were more protracted, lasting through an entire semester of college.

Senator Neal next asked Mr. Clark to explain how a new recruit completed POST training. Mr. Clark replied that including the physical component of POST training, the entire training process lasted 15 weeks.

Senator Neal asked if POST had a facility that required a recruit to remain on site. Mr. Clark answered affirmatively. Senator Neal continued to ask how long the continuing education process lasted. Mr. Clark explained the state required peace officers to complete 24 hours of continuing education training each year. He emphasized the continuing education training was mandated by the state and not optional. In fact, an officer was required to complete firearm training, defensive tactics training, and use of force policy reviews in addition to the 24 hours of mandated continuing education training.

Senator Neal then wondered if an officer was certified upon exiting the basic training program. Mr. Clark replied affirmatively. Senator Neal clarified that in order to maintain certification an officer had to complete 24 hours of continuing education. Mr. Clark repeated that in order to maintain certification, an officer was required to complete 24 hours of continuing education coursework annually.

Senator Neal commented the purpose of POST was to create more effective law enforcement officers for the state of Nevada. In order to complete that objective he felt the agency needed to be a stand-alone agency. Mr. Clark concurred.

Senator Neal then wondered if POST training included training in functions, which were carried out by NHP. Mr. Clark answered the core of all law enforcement, which included NHP, was taught to all law enforcement officers in POST basic training. However, Mr. Clark conceded NHP did have specific training needs which required officers to have expert knowledge in accident investigation, citation issuance, and emergency vehicle operations

Senator Neal needed clarification that POST conducted training in driving. Mr. Clark repeated POST conducted emergency vehicle operations training.

Next, Senator Neal asked how POST training would differ from training conducted by the new entity proposed to be placed within DMV&PS. Mr. Clark explained training would differ in terms of specific coursework related to the cadet. A Highway Patrol Officer was different from other general aspects of uniformed law enforcement. Specifically, NHP officers had to be experts in traffic accident investigation and traffic control.

Senator Neal asked if POST taught those types of courses. Mr. Clark explained although POST provided courses covering those topics, NHP conducted specific training during the first week of the academy and for 6 weeks after the rest of the academy graduates had exited basic training.

Senator Jacobsen followed a similar line of questioning. He wondered if POST were to become a stand-alone agency, could it provide all of the services that all law enforcement officers needed in Nevada. He asked if POST could be a centralized agency.

Mr. Clark answered affirmatively and stated POST had operated in that capacity for the last several years. NHP had specific training needs they controlled within their agency because NHP had an alternate application than other agencies.

Realizing the academy was created through an individual’s generous contribution, Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Clark to explain how the academy building was established.

As he understood the academy’s history, Mr. Clark stated the academy had originally been located in Stead and then moved to Clear Creek. In 1985, Claude Howard, a contractor in Las Vegas, built and donated a building to NHP and afterwards the Stewart building was converted for DMV&PS use. Also in 1985, Mr. Clark explained the POST academy and the NHP academy shared the Stewart building for training operations until 1992, when basic training functions of all law enforcement officials were consolidated and incorporated into the Nevada Law Enforcement Academy (NLEA).

Next, Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Clark to clarify how the Stewart building was related to the academy. Mr. Clark explained when the buildings at the Stewart facility were refurbished, they were then used as dormitories. Two dormitories existed for the academies use, one of which was used solely for housing basic training cadets, while the second was used for housing continuing education cadets. Serving as a tremendous resource for the academy, Mr. Clark said a gymnasium and a cafeteria also existed at the Stewart complex.

Senator Jacobsen then asked if the resources at the Stewart facility were adequate. Mr. Clark replied resources were adequate, although the buildings could use some minor enhancements.

Next, Mr. Marvel questioned how POST taught continuing education. He wondered if POST required peace officers to travel to Carson City for training or could the training be completed through distance education.

Mr. Clark replied various applications of continuing education were utilized. Continuing education for all 9,000 peace officers in the state was not completed only in Carson City but also in training centers set up for a particular course in an outlying area.

Mr. Marvel thought distance education would be a useful tool to eliminate the need for peace officers to travel from outlying areas to Carson City. Distance education would allow peace officers to be trained within their own locale.

Mr. Clark answered POST had made a minimal attempt to study distance education training for certain training programs, although he noted further study would incur some amount of cost to POST. He then mentioned POST had used video taping and the Internet to conduct training on elderly abuse issues for distance education.

Mr. Marvel noted the University of Nevada, Reno had conducted distance education courses for nurses in outlying areas from their own hospital setting. Mr. Clark indicated however that it was not feasible to conduct some of POST’s courses in that manner, as they required hands-on study.

Mrs. Chowning next asked how thorough the training for domestic abuse issues was in POST. She cited an incident in Douglas County where a family had contacted the local police concerning a domestic violence problem that had involved children. The local officer chose not to file a report because the officer did not believe the charge. Mrs. Chowning noted the family was left in a state of desperation. The family had desired a report to be filed so that appropriate measures could be taken to receive help. She felt if the training was inadequate in POST, the consequences could be dangerous. If domestic violence training was not completed in basic training, she wondered how officers received the training they needed. She wanted to be assured training in POST was effective.

Mr. Clark responded the problem was more of a management or disciplinary problem rather than a training problem. Training did exist concerning domestic violence issues and certification was not received until the training had been completed. Furthermore, Mr. Clark stated POST training on domestic violence included interviews with victims and practical applications where the trainee was placed in a mock situation. He was confident trainees were fully aware of the law before they were certified. If the officer had not applied the law correctly, the problem was of a disciplinary nature.

Dennis Kollar, Academy Commander for POST, added continuing education at POST was supported by a grant provided by the State Prosecutor Counsel and the Administrator of the Courts. The grant served two purposes. One purpose was to put together a comprehensive manual on the treatment of domestic violence for all law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges in the state. The second purpose of the grant was to provide funds for regional training on domestic violence issues and to update officers in that field.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Kollar to remain after the hearing to discuss the issue with Mrs. Chowning.

The Chair then recalled previous testimony had concluded POST should provide needed training as a stand-alone agency and should allow NHP to continue to use POST services to train its officers. She felt the remaining questions concerned whether or not the state should use the dormitories at the academy or to allow the community college system to train officers. The $7,000 per cadet cost to send a trainee through the POST academy was greater than the cost of sending a cadet through the community college system. Thus, due to the immense costs, she thought only one training method should be funded.

Senator Neal commented that he understood two functions dealt with the education and training of law enforcement officers. One function dealt with the initial basic training of officers where the trainee needed to remain on site due to the nature of the training.

The Chair interrupted to comment that the dilemma revolved around the fact that much of the basic training conducted for peace officers was completed through the community college system not through the POST academy. Mainly rural locales preferred to utilize the POST facility because of the camaraderie involved.

Chairman Giunchigliani then stated she felt the subcommittee had arrived at a consensus, agreeing the POST division should continue as a stand-alone agency. However, she wanted to resolve the cost issue related to the two separate methods of providing training.

Senator Jacobsen agreed with the Chair’s comments and stated Nevada had "the best of all worlds" at the POST academy facility. He felt the academy benefited from the fact that the trainees learned and lived in one facility, building camaraderie. He also felt that separating POST into a stand-alone agency and continuing operation of the academy was a positive sum situation.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if Senator Jacobsen had suggested that both rural and metropolitan areas should be required to utilize the POST academy facility in Carson City and should not be able to use the community college system for basic training purposes.

Senator Jacobsen remarked the community college system could be used, but he felt it lacked the benefits which could be received from the POST academy. The academy facility accommodated both men and women making training in domestic violence issues more comprehensive. He argued collective training was essential to effective law enforcement.

The Chair acknowledged the benefits of the academy facility, but she had noticed a greater percentage of cadets were taking advantage of the new technologies offered by community colleges and through various distance learning opportunities.

Chairman Giunchigliani wondered if additional stipends could be paid or additional charges assessed in order to maintain both the academy facility and POST’s support for community college training.

Senator Neal then asked what defensive tactics or skills were taught in both the basic training and the continuing education programs at the community college facility versus the academy.

Mr. Clark remarked a significant component of the division’s basic training included defensive tactics and proper modes of utilizing force. In the continuing education block, each agency was required to review their use of force policy with officers each year.

Senator Neal was concerned that without proper training the division would incur greater liability. As a result he did not think the community college was as well equipped to provide training in those defensive tactics in field training.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated she agreed that adequate training needed to be provided. However, she noted cadets who had graduated from community college based programs were POST certified. She also believed many of the urban areas did not even utilize POST for basic training purposes, but used community colleges instead. Only the rural areas relied on the POST academy training grounds because of the dorm-style training. Regardless of which style program was preferred, Chairman Giunchigliani wanted to reconcile the difference in cost factors present.

In order to resolve the issue, Chairman Giunchigliani then asked subcommittee members if they were in agreement that POST should operate as a stand-alone agency and should continue to offer the training to NHP staff and basic training services to rural law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Clark clarified if POST was to operate as a stand-alone agency and continue to offer the same level of training to all the states law enforcement personnel, including NHP, some adversarial issues would become apparent. For example, POST was currently operating at maximum capacity and cadets were being placed on waiting lists. Also, Mr. Clark explained POST was only able to offer such comprehensive training programs to the entire law enforcement population in the state because of assistance provided by DMV. If POST were to become a stand-alone agency that support would not exist.

Chairman Giunchigliani commented the administrative support cost would then be transferred from the DMV budget to POST.

John Drew, Director for DMV&PS, then reminded the subcommittee that DMV&PS had submitted a budget request for a new training division. The Chair informed Mr. Drew the training division would be addressed in the following budget account. She recognized the Governor had finally recommended the training division. Mr. Drew stated he had thought the Chair questioned if POST should continue providing the Category I training to NHP officers or other officers within the department. He stressed the subcommittee needed to understand the creation of S.B. 68, which separated POST into a separate entity, was done in order to assuage the dissatisfaction that had been expressed by non-departmental agencies with POST’s provision of services to NHP officers.

Chairman Giunchigliani disagreed, as the statistics describing the number of cadets in POST had been re-evaluated and DMV over reliance was not the case. Although non-departmental agencies may have had the perception that NHP cadets comprised a majority of POST cadets, she did not believe it was a reality.

Senator O’Donnell interjected that Senate subcommittee members felt differently about the issue than did Assembly subcommittee members. He said Senate subcommittee members agreed with the Governor’s recommendation to bifurcate POST from DMV. However, he did not want to give the audience the impression that the Chair was also speaking the opinion of the Senate subcommittee members.

Chairman Giunchigliani then asked for clarification concerning POSTs training functions. She thought that if POST only trained non-departmental officers, roughly 30 people per year would be trained. She did not understand why two separate training divisions would be created to accommodate 30 people. If that were the case, Chairman Giunchigliani thought POSTs budget should be cut commensurate to the amount of people it served.

Mr. Clark replied POST anticipated training more than 30 people per year. Performance indicators for workload statistics predicted that at least 60 officers would be trained per year. Mr. Clark thought that if POST’s basic training responsibilities were cut, division resources would be shifted to assist continuing education programming. He related the experience of the four individuals involved with the basic training program amounted to at least 106 years of law enforcement experience. There were four A.A. and B.A. degrees, three M.A. degrees, and one J.D. degree. The basic training faculty also consisted of two former police chiefs, a former captain from the San Diego Sheriff’s Office, and an expert in firearms and courtroom testimony. Mr. Clark stressed those resources could be shifted from basic training in order to enhance continuing education.

For his own understanding, Senator Neal clarified POST would exist as a separate autonomous agency but would continue to receive departmental administrative support. He did not understand what issue the Chair felt remained.

Chairman Giunchigliani exclaimed her concern was related to the economic efficiency in creating two training agencies that conducted similar training activities. She said the legislature had dealt with the same issue in numerous legislative sessions and it had never been approved or recommended in The Executive Budget. She then indicated Senate and Assembly subcommittee members needed to resolve what type of training POST should conduct if a new training division was created so that overlap did not exist.

Senator O’Donnell interjected to comment that law enforcement officers dealt with what he believed was the second most dangerous job in the entire state. Accordingly, those officers required a greater amount of training than other professionals in the state. He then mentioned incidents where officers had been bombed, hit by moving vehicles, shot, and killed. Thus, he felt the level of training needed to adequately prepare an officer for duty should be of the highest quality. He argued that if experts in the field requested certain items to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers, those items should be provided. He did not think monetary quibbles were paramount to the lives of those officers.

Furthermore, Senator O’Donnell articulated, the division was requesting funds so that the training POST provided would be more sophisticated. The bifurcation of the agencies was simply a means with which POST specialized training towards specific law enforcement personnel. Because POST provided different training than NHP, Senator O’Donnell argued the budget request attempted to accommodate the needs of the law enforcement officers.

Again, Senator O’Donnell respected the Chair’s effort to save taxpayer dollars, but he was convinced that a life was more important than monetary concerns. Empathizing with the plight of law enforcement officials, Senator O’Donnell divulged, "I have been in that patrol car. I have worn that badge and I have carried that gun. I have almost been shot and killed."

Mrs. Chowning then reminded subcommittee members of the tragic killing of Officer Raul Eliazondo who died at the age of 23. Although he did not leave behind a widow or children, family and friends had grieved for him. Lacking officer backup, she explained a drug-induced individual had attacked Officer Eliazondo, taken his weapon, and killed him. She presumed the officer’s training had been completed at POST.

Mrs. Chowning emphasized that subcommittee members were not trying to reduce training requirements or to endanger the lives of officers like Raul Eliazondo. She articulated subcommittee members wished to ensure that the most effective training was provided, especially as Officer Eliazondo had been trained under the existing training protocol.

Mrs. Chowning objected to Senator O’Donnell’s comment that some subcommittee members were not as willing to provide the best level of training for Nevada’s law enforcement officers. She stressed that each member of the subcommittee respected the lives of officers and wanted officer training to be the best. If training was not good enough for Officer Eliazondo, she wanted the training to be improved.

Next, Mr. Perkins commented the training provided by POST was excellent. He then remarked local law enforcement officers had been concerned that the money and resources, which had been allocated to POST, were not being fairly divided between DMV and non-departmental officers. For that reason, The Executive Budget had recommended splitting POST from DMV&PS. He did not foresee a problem with that recommendation as it served the needs of local law enforcement more efficiently. Nevertheless, he insisted a state-level entity needed to exist that trained the state peace officers.

Mr. Perkins was concerned that after POST was split, the new training division appeared to receive an increase in funding. He was dismayed that the bifurcation of POST from DMV and the creation of a DMV oriented training division could not operate with the same amount of funds as POST had operated with under the previous system. He wanted to ensure the Legislature’s decision concerning POST would be fiscally responsible and still provide the same level of training that was desired. At that point in time, Mr. Perkins stated he had yet to be convinced that splitting POST from DMV &PS was cost effective. Finally, Mr. Perkins stated Senate and Assembly subcommittee members should rectify their differences and be as frugal as possible with taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Drew responded there were two independent issues being contended. First, he related the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training had developed a model standard, which had been reviewed by the Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 Committee (SCR-21). The findings of SCR-21 confirmed the conclusion of the association, which stated that a regulatory agency could only be effective as an autonomous agency. Furthermore, the association concluded the agency should have its own source of funding not in conflict with other agencies. Thus, for the most professional peace officers standards and training operation in the state of Nevada, it concluded POST should be a stand-alone operation.

Secondarily, Mr. Drew replied POSTs responsibilities, in addition to the need for a training division within DMV&PS, were also important issues. He stated agencies with far less law enforcement officers easily justified the fact that they had their own training division. He argued DMV&PS had needed their own training division for many years.

Mr. Drew then clarified to the Chair that the department had never attempted to create their own training division before. Previously, the option of making POST the department’s training division had created tensions from various bodies because it was inappropriate and would stretch POSTs resources too thin.
Mr. Drew concluded that the department had reached the point, with over 2,000 peace officers under its auspices, for justifying a separate training division specialized to the needs of DMV&PS.

Chairman Giunchigliani remarked subcommittee members agreed that POST should be a stand-alone agency. Regardless, she thought a revenue neutral budget separating POST and the DMV training division was needed. If, at some point in time, the legislature chose to create a separate training unit within DMV&PS, POST cadet slots would be commensurately reduced. The Chair reminded Mr. Clark that DMV, NHP, and Nevada Division of Investigation (NDI) officers comprised a portion of the 75 individuals trained by POST in 1998. Thus, aside from departmental law enforcement officers, POST only trained about 35 officers from local law enforcement agencies.

Senator O’Donnell then reminded the Chair there was a difference between fixed costs and variable costs. He lectured variable costs could not be cut and treated as a fixed cost.

Yet, Chairman Giunchigliani opined, staff needed to create a more specific plan concerning the division’s functions and the funding they needed to complete those functions should the legislature consider the separation of POST from DMV&PS.

Senator O’Donnell directed staff to draft budgets that reflected both the complete separation of POST from DMV&PS and the remaining departmental training needs. He advised staff to work closely with POST and the department to ensure all cost factors were covered.

As no other questions concerning the POST budget account were evident, the Chair addressed the next budget account.

The Chair remarked the only issue in the Training Division budget account remained the subcommittee’s concern over splitting POST from the department. As soon as the subcommittee received a revised budget, the subcommittee would revisit the account.

Mr. Clark observed that individuals in the audience had requested time for public comment on the preceding two budget accounts. Chairman Giunchigliani then opened the hearing to public testimony on the POST and Training Division budget accounts.

Ron Pierini, Douglas County Sheriff, first addressed the subcommittee and stated his support for the separation of POST from DMV&PS. Referring to a letter he had sent to the Chair concerning cost issues at the county level law enforcement agencies, he pointed out county agencies paid $14,000 to send a recruit to POST. He felt county agencies were doing their share to contribute to the training of law enforcement officials.

Mr. Pierini revealed county agencies were also struggling to solve other problems such as staffing shortages. The more money used for training officers meant that the amount of funding used to increase the number of officers employed was reduced. Mr. Pierini felt it was critical for county agencies to have adequate financial support to employ officers, while simultaneously maintaining a high standard of training. He contended that the state should be responsible for a portion of that financial obligation.

Chairman Giunchigliani clarified she had suggested that the trainee should assume a part of the costs of continuing education training to alleviate the financial pressures that were placed upon county and state budgets. Recognizing many of the rural counties were faced with unfunded mandates, she thought the state had to be more creative in finding sources of revenue.

Mr. Pierini stated county budgets for law enforcement training were extremely high in order to maintain the high level of training standards and to meet POST regulations. The county attempted to provide the most training for officers so that they could perform their job effectively in the street. Furthermore, Mr. Pierini mentioned that many officers paid for part of the costs of continuing education. He then emphasized the importance of sending officers to a centralized location for quality training despite the fee that might be charged to officers.

Next, Captain Jim Nadeau, of the Washoe County Sheriffs Office, stated he would relate the subcommittee’s favorable opinion towards the bifurcation of POST from DMV&PS to Sheriff Richard Kirkland who was Chairman of the POST Commission. In regard to training issues, Captain Nadoo felt some areas of distance learning in subjects such as domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual exploitation was very effective. However, other areas such as first aid, CPR, and defensive tactics required hands-on training and did not fit within a distance learning curriculum. Captain Nadoo stated many of the agencies hosted in-service training sessions to meet POST requirements thereby allowing several agencies to take part in the training program at one location at no cost. For example, he divulged Washoe County Sheriffs Office hosted field officer training programs where the instructor and facility were provided at no cost to the other agencies.

Next, Michael Doyle, a POST committee member, instructor and Chief Deputy for Douglas County Juvenile Probation, testified before the subcommittee. First, he thanked the subcommittee for their support on the issue at hand. Although he believed the numbers needed to be analyzed, the complete separation of POST from DMV&PS was important. Furthermore, he explained the areas of juvenile probation and Category II law enforcement totally depended upon the POST academy in Carson City for the provision of law enforcement training. In fact, other than Clark County Juvenile Probation, most juvenile probation agencies in the state relied heavily upon the POST academy.

Senator Jacobsen noted the discussion concerning POST should include comment on the POST committee. He asked Sheriff Pierini, Captain Nadoo, and Mr. Doyle if there were any problems associated with the appointment of committee members. He wondered if the POST committee’s coverage was comprehensive and effective.

Sheriff Pierini responded the POST committee itself had not encountered any adversarial criticism. He mentioned the county law enforcement officials had the opportunity to attend POST committee meetings and that meetings were open to comment from officers.

Mr. Marvel then asked Captain Nadoo if training was offered to rural agencies through Washoe County Sheriff’s Office training programs. Captain Nadoo responded if room was available, slots were given to rural officers. Again he mentioned the Washoe Sheriff’s Office Academy was financed cooperatively through Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) and there was an associated cost.

Mr. Marvel wondered if the courses taught at TMCC conflicted with POST. Captain Nadoo replied negatively. Mr. Marvel thought competition between the two entities would ensue. Captain Nadoo answered his office struggled constantly to fill slots as far as hiring for positions in the Washoe County Sheriff’s office and he did not see why the community college academy would compete with POST.

Mr. Doyle then commented he had been a member of the POST committee for seven years. He believed the structure of the committee was appropriate and it had always been the main thrust of the committee to regulate the standards for peace officers in Nevada. He mentioned that objective had been an on-going battle because POST was under the auspices of DMV&PS. Battles due to budgetary restraints on both sides led POST to believe that it could perform a better job as an autonomous agency.

Senator Jacobsen remembered when the POST academy commenced operation at the Stewart facility 22 complaints concerning the cafeteria had been issued but he had not heard one of any complaints received since the subcommittee last inspected the facility. He advised current subcommittee members to visit the facility.

Ron Skinner, Pershing County Sheriff, echoed the sentiments of Sheriff Pierini and stated it was essential for his agency to utilize the POST academy to train new cadets. He related the rural counties depended heavily upon POST for basic training. Additionally, Sheriff Skinner commented his office’s 12 sworn officers occasionally housed NHP prisoners while at the same time housing their own prisoners. Therefore he believed the standardized training was critical for all state police officers.

As no other public comment was presented on the subject, Chairman Giunchigliani addressed the Division of Administrative Services budget account.

Chairman Giunchigliani remembered the grants management system had been merged several years before, yet because of turnover within that area any one individual was not managing the grants.

Dennis Colling, Chief of Administrative Services for the DMV&PS, commented a grants unit had been organized within the division. Over the past few years, the duties assigned to that section had been changed because of significant turnover within the division itself. He explained the individuals employed within the unit were working full-time to perform other duties.

The Chair wondered if those positions could be transferred back to the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) to manage grants. She believed General Fund money was available to offset some of the costs.

Mr. Colling responded that General Fund monies were supposed to have been set aside for the positions in the Division of Parole and Probation.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if those management positions could be transferred back to OEM. Mr. Colling replied negatively and that he was opposed to such a transfer. He claimed there were a significant number of items within the Division of Administrative Services that needed to be addressed. Although those positions did not work full-time on grant management, they did perform grant reviews and there were other grants within the department. Therefore Mr. Colling held the grants management positions were needed in the Division of Administrative Services and should not be transferred.

Chairman Giunchigliani recognized the fact that the division may need the positions for administrative services, yet she contended those positions had been funded solely for grants management. She opined the subcommittee needed stronger justifications for maintaining those positions within the division if they were not performing their designated duties.

Mr. Colling maintained, however, the positions did perform some of the grant management duties. The Chair then asked specifically what duties the positions were performing. Mr. Colling conceded that he could not identify a specific grant and claim that had been managed by an individual in the grant management capacity. However he stated grants were reviewed by those positions.

Also, Mr. Colling indicated that other than grants in OEM, grants in the Division of Traffic Safety and in NDI were also under the supervision of those positions. He said he could provide additional information if the subcommittee so desired.

Chairman Giunchigliani commented that if subcommittee members received more information in the next few days, members would take the matter into consideration. Otherwise, she stated those positions had been created with a specific understanding that their functions were to fit the department’s needs in the grants management area. If those positions no longer performed the duties assigned to them, she felt the need for their continuation no longer existed.

Ginnie Lewis, Assistant Chief of the Division of Administrative Services added the Department of Administrative Services had experienced some difficulties in the past two years. Furthermore, she argued transferring those positions back to OEM would take away the opportunity for the division to repair the unit’s dysfunction. She admitted the positions were not performing the duties which they had been assigned, however she contended the division deserved the opportunity to get those positions "back on track." Moreover, because there were other departmental grants existing outside OEM, she did not think the positions should be decentralized as it produced redundancy in effort.

The Chair then commented those positions had been funded for that purpose in 1993 and since they had not performed their designated functions, there was no justification for their continuance within the division. She related the division would be given a few days to respond to the subcommittee’s concerns.

Next, Chairman Giunchigliani addressed the issue of cost allocation. She contended the division had not been able to develop a proper cost allocation plan for the past two legislative sessions. She asked Mr. Colling to disclose the details of the $40,000.

Mr. Colling answered their had been significant turnover in DMV and given the size of the department and the variety of divisions under its auspices, cost allocation reports required an inordinate amount of time and expertise. A survey of outside sources of cost allocations had been conducted and Mr. Colling had discussed recommendations with university-level individuals and CPA firms. As a result, Mr. Colling indicated the division had come up with a variety of cost allocation figures. For instance, one source cited cost allocations from $45,000 to $60,000, while another source quoted $40,000.

Mr. Colling thought it would be more advantageous for an outside agency to conduct the cost allocation review as it offered an innovated unbiased perspective. He conceded the cost allocation process significantly impacted the General Fund.

Chairman Giunchigliani commented the division had experienced difficulty with the cost allocation process for quite some time. She was concerned if the legislature approved the request for $40,000 to complete a cost allocation report, that it would not be completed correctly by the next biennium or March 2000.

Mr. Colling stated should the monies be available in the first year of the biennium to hire the firm who would complete the report, a cost allocation report could be provided for the preparation of the division’s budget in March 2000. Chairman Giunchigliani remarked that if the division could not conduct a proper cost allocation report, then the request was justified.

John Drew explained the budget account for the Drug Commission reflected the request for greater administrative support and he did not feel there were any unusual enhancements in the budget requests.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Drew to explain the functions the Drug Commission performed. As no reports or recommendations from the commission had been issued, she felt the commission had outlived its purpose. She wondered if the Drug Commission could be combined with the Juvenile Justice Commission, which handled drug issues as they pertained to juveniles.

Mr. Drew answered affirmatively and he disclosed the issue had been taken up the Office of the Governor. He felt there was a potential for combining the two commissions as overlap between the commission’s functions did exist. The only difference was between age factors and the Office of the Governor had concluded the issue needed to be explored more in depth.

Next, Mr. Drew disclosed Senate Bill 346 made statutory changes to the functions of the Drug Commission. He felt the legislation might be an avenue with which the two commissions could be combined.

The Chair wondered if the Byrne Grant funds could be used for that purpose. Mr. Drew responded affirmatively. However, he explained General Fund money was used to match the Byrne Grant and he said the commission would have to be careful not to deplete that General Fund allocation, otherwise the federal government might become concerned the state was supplanting those funds.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked how the Juvenile Justice Commission was funded. Mr. Drew could not provide an answer. Sandy Mazy, representing the Office of Criminal Justice Assistance advised Mr. Drew the Juvenile Justice Commission did not require a state match. The Chair clarified that in budget closings the two commissions could be combined to make the commission more comprehensive.

Next, Senator Jacobsen, referring to a previous subcommittee meeting, thought the combination of the two commissions was a reasonable suggestion as it allowed a more focused effort.

Chairman Giunchigliani remarked S.B. 346 would be an appropriate vehicle to make those restructuring changes. She directed Mr. Drew to investigate what language would be needed to combine the two commissions.

Mrs. Chowning commented the legislature had worked extensively with the Drug Commission in the previous legislative session to develop performance indicators. She thought the Drug Commission’s current performance indicators were unrealistic and needed further evaluation. She then agreed the two commissions should be combined and thought the work performed by the two commissions currently would be enhanced.

As subcommittee members had no further questions the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m..

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Janine Marie Toth,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Guinchigliani, Chairman

DATE:

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman

DATE: