The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:28 p.m., on Monday, February 15, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Amelie Welden, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Landra Reid, Concerned Citizen representing United States Senator Harry Reid

Dorothy Riley, President-Elect, Nevada Nurses Association

Senator Alice Constandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, stated S.B. 28 will put into statute a current practice and ensure continuation of a critical policy. She indicated most companies currently involved in the state plan already cover such items, so S.B. 28 neither requires anything new nor necessarily imposes any additional cost. She added the bill does not address coverage for infertility or for abortions. Senator Titus expressed her belief
S.B. 28 is necessary to ensure that women’s health concerns are not given a low priority as the State of Nevada reviews and reforms its health plan.

Senator Titus indicated that in 1997, United States Senator Olympia Snowe, with support from United States Senator Harry Reid, introduced a bill similar to S.B. 28 on the federal level. That bill was known as the Equity in Prescription and Contraception Coverage Act. Senator Titus pointed out since that time, 22 states have introduced similar bills which would provide contraceptive coverage for women employees in state government.

Senator Titus asserted statistics lend support for the passage of S.B. 28. She said it is estimated more than 3 million women in the United States will encounter an unintended pregnancy each year. This figure comprises approximately 60 percent of all pregnancies. Senator Titus stated 44 percent of the unintended pregnancies will end in abortion. She added 53 percent of the unintended pregnancies are among women who experience contraceptive failure due to the incorrect or inconsistent use of contraceptives, and the remaining 47 percent are among women who are not using contraceptives. Senator Titus emphasized besides tubal ligation and abstinence, contraception is a woman’s only protection from an undesired pregnancy.

Senator Titus suggested women in Nevada need and deserve ready access to contraception for their own health and for the health of their children. She stated ready access to contraceptives allows a woman to space her pregnancies according to her desires, and reduces the rate of infant mortality and the incidences of maternal morbidity and low birth weight. Senator Titus claimed ready access to contraception also increases the likelihood that women will routinely visit their gynecologists. She noted an estimated 12 million Americans each year contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and infections which can lead to infertility, reproductive cancers, inflammatory diseases, premature delivery, and infections in newborns. Senator Titus remarked regular gynecological visits help ensure such diseases are diagnosed and treated.

Senator Titus stated contraceptive coverage also saves money because it is less expensive to pay for contraceptives than for the birth and care of a baby. She cited a recent study by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Inc., which concluded that for every dollar spent on contraceptives, over three dollars is saved in Medicaid funds alone. Senator Titus continued according to the National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality Act of 1986, 10 percent of infant deaths could be prevented if all pregnancies were planned. She concluded providing contraceptive coverage is good medicine and good economics.

Landra Reid, Concerned Citizen representing United States Senator Harry Reid, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). She spoke regarding Senator Reid’s and Senator Olympia Snowe’s Equity in Prescription and Contraception Coverage Act of 1997. Mrs. Reid mentioned the possible inequity of the insurance and health industries with regard to women’s contraception and women’s health issues. She emphasized many women are forced to use disposable income for contraceptive expenditures, and some women cannot afford reliable methods of birth control.

Mrs. Reid summarized S.B. 28 and cited statistics (Exhibit C) regarding unintended pregnancies and abortions. She indicated it would be more cost effective for insurance companies to pay for contraception than for abortion, sterilization, and tubal ligation. Mrs. Reid then pointed out statistics (Exhibit C) regarding savings associated with family planning and contraceptive use. She reiterated Senator Titus’ testimony regarding low birth weight, infant mortality and maternal morbidity, adding details about the definitions and incidences of these occurrences (Exhibit C). Mrs. Reid emphasized the importance of making contraception available to all women.

Dorothy Riley, President-Elect, Nevada Nurses Association, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D) in support of S.B. 28. She presented statistics (Exhibit D) regarding contraceptive use, unintended pregnancies, abortions, and health care costs. Ms. Riley also cited statistics (Exhibit D) regarding insurance coverage of contraception, abortions, tubal ligations and vasectomies. She pointed out insurance plans for Nevada state employees cover oral contraceptives, but not all plans cover other forms of contraceptives. Ms. Riley noted access to contraceptives could help reduce instances of babies born without proper prenatal care. On behalf of the Nevada Nurses Association, she offered to provide professional and technical assistance to the committee on this issue.

Alison L. Gaulden, Lobbyist, Associate Vice President of Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit E) in support of S.B. 28. She stated Planned Parenthood supports S.B. 28 because it would help prevent unintended pregnancies and help make planned pregnancies possible. Ms. Gaulden presented statistics (Exhibit E) on unintended pregnancies. She also handed out a packet with more information about contraception (Exhibit F), including Nevada and United States statistics; results from the Kaiser Family Foundation Survey on Insurance Coverage of Contraception, conducted in May 1998; and a press release regarding the costs of adding contraceptive coverage to health plans. Ms. Gaulden cited further statistics (Exhibit E) on infant mortality, low birth weight, and Nevada women of childbearing age. She pointed out contraceptive services increase the likelihood of diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections.

Cookie Bible, Nurse Practitioner, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, mentioned she is also employed by the Washoe County Health Department and the State of Nevada. Ms. Bible read from prepared testimony (Exhibit G) in support of S.B. 28. She offered statistics (Exhibit G) regarding a woman’s reproductive life and unintended pregnancies. She emphasized every woman’s contraceptive needs are different for medical and/or lifestyle reasons, and a woman should have access to the contraceptive method that best suits her needs. Ms. Bible provided information about the five most commonly prescribed birth control methods: oral contraceptives, Norplant, Depo Provera, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and diaphragms.

Roberta Gang, Lobbyist, Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit H) in support of S.B. 28. She emphasized the cost effectiveness of insurance coverage of contraceptives and presented statistics (Exhibit H) to that effect. Ms. Gang distributed summaries of an independent study commissioned by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (Exhibit I) regarding the estimated costs to employers for insurance coverage of contraceptives. She remarked the Nevada state health insurance system currently covers oral contraceptives, and the cost of adding coverage for other types of birth control would be minimal. The study showed it would cost the employer approximately $1 per employee per year to cover other forms of birth control besides oral contraceptives. Ms. Gang concluded, "…access to affordable and appropriate contraceptive options is a necessary part of women’s health and reproductive rights."

Senator Raggio noted if the additional cost for covering other birth control methods in addition to oral contraceptives would be $1 per state employee or dependent per year, the overall cost to the State of Nevada would be about $27,000 per year. Ms. Gang mentioned some state policies currently cover various contraceptive devices in addition to oral contraceptives, so the added cost could even be less than $1 per employee per year.

Senator Raggio asked if it would be more realistic to provide an option for those who want additional coverage of birth control methods besides oral contraceptives. Ms. Gang replied that with the low cost of covering all forms of contraceptives, she thought the state would want to make the coverage available to any woman who would like to take advantage of it. She stated this is an equity issue and reiterated there are medical reasons as well as lifestyle reasons for women’s preferences for certain contraceptive methods. Ms. Bible added if the state covered Norplant and IUDs, overall costs could conceivably go down.

Senator Care asked if anyone knew how long oral contraceptives have been covered under the state plan and if anyone knew the history of that coverage. Nobody present had that information.

Senator Neal referred to Senator Raggio’s previous comment about offering an option for insurance coverage of contraceptives, rather than mandating such coverage in a statute. Senator Titus indicated S.B. 28 is an attempt to guarantee that state employees have a "menu" from which to choose contraceptive options.

Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, President, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Nevada Chapter, conveyed that association’s support for S.B. 28. She read a prepared statement (Exhibit J) expressing the importance of contraceptive equity for women. Ms. Smalley mentioned the cost-effectiveness of insurance coverage for contraceptives in order to prevent high-risk multiple births. She presented statistics (Exhibit J) regarding health care costs for women, and she related the history of Margaret Sanger and her involvement with the issue of birth control.

Flo Bedrosian, State President, American Association of University Women (AAUW), Nevada, stated AAUW-Nevada is part of the Nevada Women’s Lobby. Ms. Bedrosian testified she has been a state employee for almost 20 years and has experienced the state health care benefits. She indicated her support for S.B. 28 because it would help ensure women have access to contraceptive methods based on their needs and choices. Ms. Bedrosian emphasized reproductive health care is an integral part of women’s health. She conveyed AAUW-Nevada’s support for safe and affordable family planning and reproductive health services. Ms. Bedrosian emphasized contraceptives are basic health care for women and have a proven track record of preventing unintended pregnancies. She stated as a basic health care need, contraceptives should be covered by insurance like other basic health care needs.

Ms. Bedrosian addressed Senator Care’s previous question regarding the history of state insurance coverage of contraceptives in Nevada. She indicated 20 years ago, when she began working for the state, oral contraceptives were not covered. She did not know when coverage of oral contraceptives began.

Sarah Chvilicek, Chairwoman, Nevada Women’s Lobby, read prepared testimony (Exhibit K) urging the passage of S.B. 28. She addressed equity for women in health care coverage, as well as the cost-effectiveness of insurance coverage of contraceptives. Ms. Chvilicek also spoke about affordability as a factor in birth control decisions. She said the State of Nevada should set an example for private business on this issue.

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), stated that currently the state’s self-funded plan provides coverage for oral contraceptives, but not for birth control devices. Mr. Gagnier indicated a number of SNEA members have had difficulty because they cannot take oral contraceptives for medical reasons. He offered SNEA’s support for S.B. 28.

Ronald M. Rentner, Lobbyist, Director of Advocacy, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Nevada, conveyed that organization’s support for S.B. 28. Mr. Rentner suggested the committee consider adding a narrowly drafted religious-conscience exemption to the bill. Roman Catholics and others in the faith community may have moral objections to the provisions of S.B. 28, and a conscience clause would ensure that such persons, who may provide health plans and services, would not be required by law to provide contraceptive services. Mr. Rentner also brought up insurance coverage of hormone replacement and suggested S.B. 28 may offer a convenient place to address that issue.

Senator Raggio asked if anyone is providing a fiscal note for S.B. 28. Senator Titus responded the acting risk manager is preparing it.

Senator Care asked Mr. Gagnier how many female state employees have taken advantage of the insurance coverage of oral contraceptives. Mr. Gagnier did not know the answer to that question.

Patricia Glenn, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Right to Life, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit L) in opposition to S.B. 28. Ms. Glenn had previously provided the committee a letter (Exhibit M) outlining her concerns about the bill. She testified there is no explicit exclusion of abortion in S.B. 28 and suggested some contraceptives covered under the bill might actually be abortifacients. She contended pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation, and distributed an exhibit outlining testimony heard by a United States Senate subcommittee to that effect (Exhibit N). Ms. Glenn also expressed her concern that persons opposed to contraception on moral or religious grounds are not protected under S.B. 28.

Ms. Glenn indicated according to statistics she had seen, the abortion rate increases with widespread contraceptive use, particularly in teenagers. She cited a study performed by Professors John F. Kantner and Melvin Zelnik of Johns Hopkins University (Exhibit O), which shows that one-third of teen pregnancies occur while the teen is using contraceptives, and that 35 percent of teenagers who are on contraceptives for 2 years become pregnant. Ms. Glenn suggested these incidences of unplanned pregnancies would cost the state more than had been indicated by previous testimony.

Ms. Glenn also noted contraception does not prevent sexually transmitted diseases or the problems that go along with unintended pregnancies. She indicated this information is especially relevant to teens and emphasized contraception does not solve the emotional problems experienced by teens who become pregnant while using contraceptives.

Senator Titus pointed out S.B. 28 addressed state employees, so not many teen girls would be affected by the legislation. Ms. Glenn noted the bill would also affect the dependents and families of state employees. She referred to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 60.

Ms. Glenn stated A.B. 60 would fund Planned Parenthood services through tax dollars and insurance premiums. She wondered if S.B. 28 would cover Planned Parenthood services for state employees.

Susan Barnes, Concerned Citizen, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit P) in opposition to S.B. 28. Ms. Barnes expressed concern about women using contraceptives without being informed about potential health risks. She suggested complications from birth control could contribute to high health care costs for women. Ms. Barnes stated women may not be informed that some birth control methods may be potential abortifacients. She objected to taxpayer dollars funding insurance coverage of contraception, and she was concerned S.B. 28 could provide for coverage of abortions. Ms. Barnes also addressed equitable contraceptive coverage.

Father Tom Cronin, Director of Life Ministries, Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno, spoke on behalf of the Dioceses of Reno and of Las Vegas. He read from prepared testimony (Exhibit Q) against S.B. 28 as introduced. He stated many issues in S.B. 28 are offensive not only to Catholic beliefs and morals, but also to the beliefs and morals of others. Father Cronin expressed concern that Senate Bill 28 would require insurance coverage of abortifacients. He also stated contraceptive mandates impede upon religious freedom and conscience rights. Father Cronin pointed out the absence of a conscience clause, which would protect health plan providers and health care providers who object to the provisions of S.B. 28 on moral and religious grounds. He added some patients may object to participating in a health plan that covers contraceptive options.

Senator Titus asked Father Cronin if members of the Roman Catholic faith are offended by current state insurance coverage of oral contraceptives. Father Cronin stated he is unfamiliar with the state health plans, but the Roman Catholic Church would consider any birth control method to be morally offensive. Senator Titus asked why no one from the Roman Catholic faith has expressed concern with current state health insurance policy regarding birth control. Father Cronin answered the Catholic Church’s objection stems with the wording of S.B. 28, which mandates everyone to participate. Senator Titus pointed out S.B. 28 mandates only that contraceptive coverage be available, not that anyone must use contraceptives. Father Cronin replied S.B. 28 mandates the participation of taxpayers and of subscribers to a state health care plan. Senator Titus again noted the current state insurance policy provides coverage for oral contraceptives, though such coverage is not mandated by statute. She reminded the committee that legislation containing the same language as Senate Bill 28 was supported at the federal level by United States Senator Harry Reid. She believed a conscience clause was added to the federal legislation and agreed such a clause could be added to S.B. 28 as well. Senator Titus indicated Senator Reid is a very religious person who has taken a strong anti-abortion stand. She explained that S.B. 28 is intended to address contraception, not abortion.

Carolyn A. Nelson, Lobbyist, Nevada Families Eagle Forum, testified in opposition to S.B. 28. She supported the testimony of Ms. Glenn, Ms. Barnes and Father Cronin. Ms. Nelson expressed concern about the current budget situation, and noted money is an issue with S.B. 28. She maintained procedures are not clearly defined in the bill and voiced concern about the words "without limitation" in paragraph (b), subsection 2, section 1 of S.B. 28. Ms. Nelson stated her individual beliefs that contraceptives are different from abortifacients and that an IUD, which would be covered by S.B. 28, is an example of an abortifacient.

Brandy DuPont, Concerned Citizen, stated her position as a natural family planning practitioner. Ms. DuPont opposed S.B. 28, again citing concern over the bill’s definition of a contraceptive. She reiterated a contraceptive should prevent fertilization, while preventing pregnancy could mean destroying an embryo after conception. She stated many health professionals and laypersons object to the post-fertilization mechanisms of action that are operative in the IUD and in hormonal contraceptives such as birth control pills. Ms. DuPont asserted these methods can cause a woman to lose a fertilized egg or embryo before she is aware that she has conceived. She maintained post-fertilization mechanisms of action are listed in the package inserts for relevant contraceptives and are included in standard pharmaceutical and medical references. Ms. DuPont stated, for some women, use of such birth control methods is morally equivalent to abortion. In their eyes, to mandate insurance coverage of these devices is to mandate insurance coverage of abortions. Ms. DuPont suggested such coverage inhibits religious and conscience rights.

Ms. DuPont said the inclusion of coverage for natural family planning is a positive aspect of S.B. 28. She explained natural family planning usually requires no drugs or devices, but does require couples to receive direction from competent instructors. Ms. DuPont stressed this form of birth control can be highly effective.

Ms. DuPont suggested S.B. 28 be modified to properly define conception and to protect the rights of individuals or groups that are opposed to contraception on moral or religious grounds.

Merritt K. (Ike) Yochum, Lobbyist, testified he was speaking on behalf of the Independent American Party in Carson City in his capacity as County Chairman of that group. He stated his opposition to S.B. 28 because he expects it would increase costs to the taxpayers. Mr. Yochum also suggested it is not a proper function of government to be involved in this issue. He maintained S.B. 28 is special interest legislation that favors some at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers.

Janice C. Pine, Lobbyist, Saint Mary’s Health Network, said she was making remarks on behalf of the Nevada Association of Health Plans as well. She noted there is always a cost associated with a benefit, and mandates ensure an increase in costs. She asserted several mandates assure an even greater cumulative cost increase which will be paid by employers and/or taxpayers. Ms. Pine stated the Nevada Association of Health Plans has a policy to oppose all mandated benefits. She acknowledged current state employee health plans provide contraceptive benefits and stated her belief that almost all members of the state health plan association cover this benefit when it is requested by the employer. Ms. Pine declared, to her knowledge, only one health plan does not cover this benefit.

Ms. Pine stated:

Ms. Pine indicated the St. Mary’s Health Network has worked to diminish the infant mortality rate and to provide adequate health care to mothers and their children before and after birth. She noted the network’s HMO does not currently provide coverage for contraceptive prescriptions. Ms. Pine urged a conscience clause be added to S.B. 28 in order to recognize religious beliefs and rights. She distributed language for such an amendment (Exhibit R) to the committee.

Senator Raggio pointed out S.B. 28 applies only to the health insurance provided by the Committee on Benefits of the State of Nevada. He asked how the St. Mary’s health plan would be affected. Ms. Pine replied the St. Mary’s Health Network responded to the request for proposals (RFP) that the state sent out during the last bidding cycle. Though St. Mary’s was not a successful bidder, the organization anticipates participating in the bidding process in the future. Senator Raggio pointed out coverage of oral contraceptives was a benefit at the time when St. Mary’s responded to the RFP. Ms. Pine suggested that benefit may have been carved out in St. Mary’s response, and there would have been negotiations with the state to provide that benefit in a different manner.

Bonnie S. Weber, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly, stated her opposition to S.B. 28. Ms. Weber said each state employee or one of his or her dependents could receive some sort of benefit under S.B. 28. She asserted state employees should pay for their own contraceptives, and she objected to taxpayers paying for such a benefit for state employees.

Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, and League of Women Voters of Nevada, expressed those groups’ support for S.B. 28. Ms. Gilbert distributed a copy of prepared testimony (Exhibit S), but did not read it to the committee. She pointed out many state employees are discouraged from coming to legislative hearings because of conflicts. Ms. Gilbert asserted if state employees had attended the hearing, many of them would speak in favor of S.B. 28. She stated over 50 percent of state employees are women, who have had to face the cost of contraception. Ms. Gilbert concluded insurance coverage of contraceptives should be a benefit of state health plans.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 28 and opened the hearing on S.B. 68.

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District, introduced S.B. 68. He indicated he has a personal conflict with the bill because of his involvement with the Stewart Facility. Senator Jacobsen reminded the committee about the monument recently dedicated to 88 law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. He asserted training is important because it teaches law enforcement officers to live with the law, to enforce the law and to ensure public safety. He stated the people of the State of Nevada owe a debt to peace officers and have a responsibility to that end.

Senator Jacobsen indicated there has been some concern about the Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Committee’s (P.O.S.T.’s) effectiveness over the past few years. However, he maintained P.O.S.T. accomplishes the goals it is intended to perform. He also mentioned that police chiefs and sheriffs sit on the P.O.S.T. Committee.

Senator Jacobsen noted the introduction of Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Senator Jacobsen stated S.C.R. 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session directed sheriffs and police chiefs to determine who was best suited to conduct P.O.S.T. Senate Bill 68 is a result of that study.

Senator Jacobsen expressed his belief that P.O.S.T. should be an independent regulatory agency appointed by and reporting to the Governor. He added sufficient funding is one of the most important requirements for success. Senator Jacobsen stated P.O.S.T. is more effective than community college training because it allows trainees to experience the training together and form a strong bond with each other. Also, he noted P.O.S.T. training forces trainees to get along with each other, regardless of differences.

Senator Jacobsen indicated an important feature of the P.O.S.T. program is its impact on law enforcement backup activities. Backup is especially significant in rural communities because of the small sizes of their law enforcement forces. P.O.S.T. ensures neighboring county forces have been trained in the same manner, which facilitates successful backup in crisis situations.

Senator Jacobsen reiterated his personal interest in S.B. 68, citing his daughter’s current employment in law enforcement in Nevada and her graduation from Nevada’s P.O.S.T. Academy and the FBI Academy. He said he has also spoken with many of P.O.S.T.’s graduating classes and has been impressed with the regimentation and camaraderie of the program.

John Drew, Acting Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified S.C.R. 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session instructed the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) to conduct a study of the feasibility of separating P.O.S.T. from the DMV&PS. The study addressed how P.O.S.T. could be funded as a separate entity and what direction P.O.S.T. should take. Mr. Drew explained the study was completed by a committee comprised of sheriffs and police chiefs from throughout Nevada as well as representatives from the DMV&PS. Sheriff Richard Kirkland from Washoe County chaired the committee. Mr. Drew stated the DMV&PS supports the final recommendations from this committee.

Richard Kirkland, Sheriff, Washoe County, and Chairman, P.O.S.T. Committee, indicated the S.C.R. 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session committee had statewide membership and participation. The committee met in various locations in Nevada and took testimony from all concerned individuals. It also performed research and surveyed law enforcement agencies. The committee has submitted a report presenting its final recommendations.

Mr. Kirkland addressed the recommendations included in S.B. 68. First, the S.C.R. 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session committee suggested the P.O.S.T. Committee be changed to a P.O.S.T. Commission, which should be moved from the DMV&PS to the Governor’s Office. One reason for this suggestion is to eliminate a situation in which a regulatory agency is regulating an agency for which it works and to which it is subservient. Mr. Kirkland explained everyone including the DMV&PS agreed with this recommendation.

Mr. Kirkland also relayed the S.C.R. 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session committee’s recommendation that the makeup of the P.O.S.T. Commission change from the current composition, which includes one member each from Clark and Washoe counties, three from any other counties, and one each from Category II and Category III peace officers. Instead, the S.C.R. 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session committee suggested one member each from Clark and Washoe counties, two members from counties other than Clark and Washoe, and one member each from Category I, Category II, and Category III peace officers.

Mr. Kirkland stated S.B. 68 also clarifies the duties of the P.O.S.T. Commission. The S.C.R. 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session committee recommended the P.O.S.T. Commission appoint an executive director, and S.B. 68 defines the duties of that position.

Mr. Kirkland noted S.B. 68, as currently written, suggests 14 percent of the court assessments would be distributed to the P.O.S.T. Commission. However, he indicated he would like to change that provision. Mr. Kirkland explained over the last few years, the budget of the P.O.S.T. Committee has changed every year, varying from 9.2 percent to approximately 15 percent of court assessments. He indicated these fluctuations are caused by changes in income, which is based upon assessments from fines and forfeitures due to criminal violations. In 1983, the Legislature declared the P.O.S.T. Committee would receive $1 out of every $6 from these assessments. Currently, P.O.S.T. receives $1 out of every $10. Mr. Kirkland indicated the year-to-year funding and budget changes cause great difficulty for P.O.S.T. Though funding may change, P.O.S.T.’s responsibilities to provide fundamental basic training, to fund in-service training, and to fund its regulatory function remain constant. Mr. Kirkland mentioned that in the current year, 8,500 law enforcement officers require certification; 15 years ago, this number would have only been a couple of thousand.

Chairman O’Connell asked if the P.O.S.T. Committee currently has a position comparable to that of the executive director as defined in S.B. 68. Mr. Kirkland replied affirmatively, and stated that the installation of an executive director as defined in S.B. 68 would not affect the fiscal note of the bill.

Senator Raggio pointed out there will be a fiscal note associated with S.B. 68 because the bill deals with court assessments. He stated under present law, at least 51 percent of court assessments must be distributed to the office of the court administrator. Senator Raggio explained S.B. 68 would guarantee that 14 percent of that amount would be distributed to P.O.S.T. Mr. Kirkland noted 1998’s allocation was 12 percent and the current year’s allocation is 9.2 percent. Senator Raggio observed someone will lose money as a result of the 14-percent provision in S.B. 68. He stated the possibly impacted programs appear to be the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, the highway patrol switching system, or the fund for compensation of victims of crime.

Mr. Kirkland reiterated his suggestion that the 14 percent provision be changed. He mentioned the Governor’s Office sets the annual budget. Mr. Kirkland recommended S.B. 68 be changed to require that funding for P.O.S.T. be at least equal to the amount under the Governor’s current budget, an amount recommended at 9.2 percent. Mr. Kirkland further stated he wishes to transfer the amount of money that currently exists for the operation of P.O.S.T., which is roughly $908,000, from the DMV&PS to a stand-alone entity. One problem may be that the DMV&PS currently pays for some minor elements of P.O.S.T.’s budget from the Highway Fund; that amount is currently $47,000. If S.B. 68 were passed, this source of funding would be unavailable. Thus, Mr. Kirkland stated that this year, P.O.S.T. would request an additional $47,000 above that which has already been approved. He stated P.O.S.T. would ask this amount be funded from the unexpended balance of all the fine monies, which stands at $463,828.

Senator Raggio asked if S.B. 68 proposed some officers or personnel now being trained under P.O.S.T. would no longer be trained under P.O.S.T. Mr. Kirkland answered affirmatively, and pointed out that part of this issue was raised during the sixty-ninth legislative session. He indicated one reason behind S.C.R. 21 of the Sixty-ninth Session was that the Nevada Highway Patrol Division and the DMV&PS have training needs of their own, which are now being met by the P.O.S.T. committee. The DMV&PS and the Nevada Highway Patrol Division have indicated they want to have control over their own training. Mr. Kirkland explained these entities have certain funding for such training.

Mr. Drew clarified the executive budget contains a request to establish a training division within the DMV&PS. This training division would be comprised of personnel and monies that have been, up to this point, part of "NLEA" (Nevada Law Enforcement Association). Mr. Drew indicated there would be a transfer to the new training division. He added that certain funds, like the aforementioned $47,000 which currently comes out of the Highway Patrol budget, would remain with the Highway Patrol and the new training division, should it be funded.

Senator Raggio pointed out the Senate Committee on Finance will have to analyze such budget issues. He emphasized there is a cost associated with
S.B. 68.

Mr. Kirkland suggested those people involved with P.O.S.T. would likely support making a change to S.B. 68 in order to ensure there would be no additional cost such as the aforementioned $47,000. He reiterated his belief that funding was available from the unexpended amount of money generated by law enforcement.

Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Kirkland to bring amendment language before the committee for its consideration. She also requested a section-by-section summary of S.B. 68.

Senator Care pointed out S.B. 68 would allow the P.O.S.T. Commission to be comprised of four members from Washoe County or any other county at one time. Mr. Kirkland indicated that was not the intent of the bill and suggested he would be in agreement with amendment recommendations which would be presented later in the hearing.

Senator Jacobsen acknowledged Richard Clark, Division Chief, P.O.S.T., Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, in the audience. Mr. Kirkland indicated others present in support of S.B. 68 included: P. Michael Murphy, Chief of Police, City of Mesquite; Gene Hill, Sheriff, Humboldt County; Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County; Bernie Romero, Sheriff, White Pine County; and Richard L. McKellip, Sheriff, Mineral County.

Andy Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (COPS), stated that organization’s support for S.B. 68. Mr. Anderson distributed a handout suggesting amendment language for subsection 3 of section 8 of
S.B. 68 (Exhibit T). He maintained the amendment would allow input from smaller organizations and indicated Nevada COPS has no intention to change the makeup of the P.O.S.T. Commission. COPS believes Categories I, II, and III peace officers should be represented on that commission.

Gene Hill, Sheriff, Humboldt County, specified his positions as a member of the P.O.S.T. Committee and as the President of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. Mr. Hill offered his support for S.B. 68 because it creates a better P.O.S.T. Commission to meet the need for law enforcement training, particularly in rural areas. Mr. Hill indicated some rural areas do not have community colleges to provide training. He also commented the P.O.S.T. Academy creates a strong bond among trainees. Mr. Hill stated it is difficult to recruit peace officers in Nevada, and S.B. 68 would help ensure that recruits receive the training they need to become good police officers. He indicated Humboldt County has the ability to utilize distance learning programs, such as the Law Enforcement Television Network (LETN). However, Mr. Hill emphasized LETN does not fulfill the need for P.O.S.T. training because it does not focus only on Nevada.

Nile D. Carson Jr., Deputy Chief, North Division, Reno Police Department, conveyed the Reno Police Chief’s support for S.B. 68. Mr. Carson noted the P.O.S.T. Commission as defined in S.B. 68 would be able to better address changing times and technology. He suggested the commission would no longer be encumbered by the consideration of a larger organization with its own needs. Mr. Carson expressed his belief that P.O.S.T. could better serve Nevada’s law enforcement officers and citizens as an independent commission.

Kenneth N. Elgan, Sheriff, Esmeralda County, distributed written testimony (Exhibit U) in support of S.B. 68, but did not testify during the hearing. Mr. Elgan’s written testimony attested to the high quality of training offered at P.O.S.T. and stressed the importance of P.O.S.T. to Esmeralda County due to that county’s limited budget.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 68 and opened the hearing on S.B. 83.

Senator Bill R. O’Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, introduced S.B. 83. He indicated the Purchasing Division currently contracts with one carrier, Southwest Airlines. Since Reno Air is becoming part of American Airlines, state employees will basically be able to travel on only one carrier. Senator O’Donnell commented this situation will arise predominantly because the state only contracts with one airline. Senate Bill 83 would allow Nevada to contract with two carriers to transport state employees within the state and out of state.

Senator O’Donnell asserted S.B. 83 will increase traffic to the Las Vegas and Reno areas, thereby enhancing tourism. He noted the bill allows for competition in the market.

Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit V) and handed out an exhibit summarizing the bidding for the state’s Reno-Las Vegas airfare contract (Exhibit W). He noted the contract was established in December 1996 and has recently been extended for 2 years. The bid was for airfare between Reno and Las Vegas, and the Purchasing Division requested pricing per segment, assuming 46,000 segments. Mr. Moell testified the contract was bid requesting pricing for a single vendor and multiple vendors. Southwest Air and Reno Air bid on the contract. Mr. Moell pointed out that according to the figures (Exhibit W), the state would be better off contracting with a single vendor, Southwest Airlines.

Mr. Moell indicated the state contract with Southwest Airlines was recently extended for various reasons, including the instability of Reno Air. He pointed out S.B. 83 would have had no impact on the award of this contract. Mr. Moell further noted that "any subsequent contract fundamentally changing the conditions of the original contract would cause the entire service to be rebid unless the original winning vendor agreed to any changes" (Exhibit V). He concluded by stating the Purchasing Division takes a neutral position on Senate Bill 83.

Senator O’Donnell asked if Mr. Moell believed Southwest Airlines would have matched Reno Air’s multiple-vendor price if the State of Nevada had contracted with Reno Air also. Mr. Moell answered no and added the Purchasing Division cannot speculate about such contingencies in the bidding process. He pointed out the savings realized by contracting with Southwest Airlines at a price of $30.60 per segment, assuming 46,000 segments, would be $64,400. Mr. Moell stated the number of segments traveled is actually much larger than 46,000; for example, he believed there were approximately 68,000 segments flown in 1997.

Senator O’Donnell brought up the cost to Nevada of losing Reno Air. He suggested this may have been partly a result of the state’s not subsidizing Reno Air by contracting with them. Mr. Moell testified airlines want to fill up only about 30 percent of their capacity with cheap seats, assuming airlines operate at a 70 percent capacity. He indicated a state contract, which amounts to $1.472 million per year, will not make or break an airline. Mr. Moell emphasized the State of Nevada is not responsible for Reno Air’s financial troubles or for Reno Air’s and American Airlines’ pulling out of the Reno-Las Vegas area.

Mr. Moell noted the Southwest Airlines contract includes not only state employees, but also employees of cities, counties, school districts and the University of Nevada. He pointed out the Purchasing Division is neutral on Senate Bill 83 because it reflects the practices the division already uses.

Senator O’Donnell reiterated his concern about Reno Air leaving the Las Vegas airport, especially in light of that area’s special interest in tourism. He stated he supports anything that could add to the tourism industry in Las Vegas.

Senator Care asked what the current contingency is if the contract carrier faces a pilot strike or some other incapacitating situation. Mr. Moell responded state employees would end up traveling on a secondary airline, taking whatever price that airline would allow. Senator Care commented such a situation may make a case for multiple contracts.

Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, Southwest Airlines, introduced various Southwest Airlines staff who would be on hand to answer questions. Mr. Lee stated Southwest Airlines’ opposition to S.B. 83, suggesting there are no problems with the current contract practices or carrier service. He indicated the bidding and awarding process has followed state law, and the Purchasing Division has selected what they believe to be the best overall bid in terms of cost and performance. Mr. Lee pointed out Southwest Airlines offers nine round-trip flights daily between Reno and Las Vegas, compared with five or six on Reno Air and one on America West.

Mr. Lee indicated Southwest Airlines would not offer such a low bid on a nonexclusive contract. He referred to Mr. Moell’s handout (Exhibit W) showing Southwest Airlines’ bid for a multiple-carrier contract is more than $20 greater than its bid for an exclusive one. The fiscal impact is great considering the contract covers state and local governments and the university system. Mr. Lee added if this bill were passed, Southwest Airlines would implement a multiple-contract fare.

Citing Mr. Moell’s handout, Senator O’Donnell pointed out Reno Air would have bid $35 for a multiple-vendor contract, for only an approximate $5 increase over Southwest Airlines’ single-vendor fare. Mr. Lee responded Southwest Airlines’ multiple-vendor price would be $53.10, for an increase of over $20. Senator O’Donnell indicated state employees would fly on Reno Air in that situation.

Senator O’Donnell acknowledged Southwest Airlines’ high performance in service, on-time flights, and low incidence of baggage complaints, but expressed concern about its incidence of bumping passengers from flights.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 83 and adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Amelie Welden,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: