MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventieth Session

May 6, 1999

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 4:50 p.m., on Thursday, May 6, 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 R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel

Juliann Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst

Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association

Ken Bassett, Sergeant, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Carol Thomas, Chief Personnel Manager, Technical Services, Department of Personnel

Kara Kelley, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

David L. Howard, Lobbyist, Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, and Nevada State Chamber of Commerce

Mary F. Lau, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada

Cheryl C. Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors

Randy C. Robison, Lobbyist, National Federation of Independent Businesses, and Mesquite Area Chamber of Commerce

Janice L. Christopherson, Administrative Services, Nevada Department of Transportation

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County

Barbara A. McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association

Glenn Fair, Correctional Officer, Department of Prisons

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons

Kareen Masters, Personnel Officer, Department of Human Resources

 

In the absence of Chairman O’Connell and Vice Chairman Raggio, Senator O’Donnell opened the hearing on A.B. 297.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 297:  Requires employer or former employer of applicant for position as peace officer with law enforcement agency to make certain information regarding applicant available to law enforcement agency under certain circumstances.  (BDR 19-546)

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, said A.B. 297 was requested on behalf of the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association and dealt with immunity for persons who provide information to the background investigators during the background investigation for police officer applicants.  He stressed the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office wanted to ensure the people they hire are the people who are best qualified for the position.  Captain Nadeau explained because employers were reluctant or unwilling to provide information, a considerable amount of money had been spent and individuals had been appointed as police officers who should not have been in those positions.

 

Ken Bassett, Sergeant, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, gave an example of an incident wherein the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office had to terminate an individual because the necessary information could not be obtained from his previous employer. He stated the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office had spent over 37 weeks and approximately $22,000 on this individual before sufficient information had been obtained indicating this individual was not qualified for the position of police officer.  Sergeant Bassett insisted had the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office had the capability of A.B. 297 this individual could have been terminated substantially earlier in the process saving valuable time and expense.  He explained this individual had a history of sexual misconduct and harassment, but the previous employer would not give the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office this information because of the liability issues.  Captain Nadeau added some employers will only give dates of employment, but no history. 

 

Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro), and Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, stated Metro had experienced similar situations and was in total support of A.B. 297.

 

Senator O’Donnell asked if section 1, subsection 5, of A.B. 297 would require a subpoena in order to compel an employer to provide the information requested. Captain Nadeau referred to section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of A.B. 297, wherein the applicant will sign an authorization consenting to the release of the information.  Captain Nadeau stated if the employer then refuses to provide the information, law enforcement should have some ability to compel the employer to give the information.  Captain Nadeau further referred to section 2, subsection 2, of A.B. 297, wherein the employer is provided immunity, as long as the information provided is accurate.

 

Senator Care said it was a fundamental issue whether the state has such a compelling interest in the files maintained by a private employer that the employer must, absent a subpoena or an order to compel production, turn over those files pursuant to a statute.  He stated it was his point of view that was a draconian step and asked if there were other jurisdictions that presently permit this type of practice.

 

Captain Nadeau replied there were other states which provide this in statute.  He said the language of A.B. 297 was taken from a variety of other state statutes which were currently in effect.  He continued there were a number of other state statutes which provide various language as to the immunity portion of the bill and compel the issuance of the information.  Captain Nadeau asserted California’s statute on this issue has very similar language to A.B. 297.  California law enforcement agencies had been reluctant to give Nevada law enforcement agencies information because Nevada did not have any statutory requirements on this matter.

 

Senator Care inquired whether the federal government had a statute which would compel an employer to produce records containing the type of employment information set forth in A.B. 297.  Captain Nadeau replied the federal law does not compel an individual to cooperate with any investigation for a background check.

 

Senator Neal inquired why an applicant’s date of employment would be needed for a background check.  Captain Nadeau responded verification is needed to ensure a person was in fact employed with a particular company or entity.  Senator Neal further inquired why a list of the compensation the employer provided to an applicant during the course of the employment would be necessary for a background check.  Captain Nadeau replied one of the criteria of the background investigation is to verify an applicant has the means to support the lifestyle in which the applicant has been living. 

 

Senator Neal asked why a prior employment application would be needed for a background investigation.  Captain Nadeau responded the applicant’s prior employment application is needed in order to verify the information the applicant is currently giving is consistent with the information given to his prior employer.  Senator Neal asked why a written evaluation of the performance of the applicant would be needed for a background investigation.  Captain Nadeau responded to verify what type of employee the applicant was in his prior position.  Senator Neal asked why a record of attendance would be needed for a background investigation.  Captain Nadeau responded a record of attendance would be another aspect in looking at prior work performance.  Senator Neal asked why a record of disciplinary action taken against the application was necessary.  Captain Nadeau replied a record of prior disciplinary action would be valuable in a background investigation of a prospective police officer.

 

Senator Neal asked why a written statement from a prior employer would be required as to whether or not he would rehire the applicant.  Captain Nadeau replied the information could be valuable if it had any relevance on how the applicant would perform as a police officer.  Senator Neal stated the provisions of section 1, subsection 2 of A.B. 297, puts an employer in the position of making a judgment about an individual in which the individual could file a legal action against the employer.  Captain Nadeau referred to section 2, subsection 3 of A.B. 297, and pointed out one single incident may not be rejection criteria.

 

Senator Care asked if law enforcement agencies currently have access to the records of government employees as to the type of information sought under A.B. 297.  Captain Nadeau replied the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office typically does not have access to the type of information sought under A.B. 297 and therefore would like to see passage of this bill.

 

Senator Titus stated section 1, subsection 5 of A.B. 297, was putting a rather large burden on employers.  Senator O’Donnell stated he could support A.B. 297 if there was an amendment to section 1, subsection 5.

 

Chairman O’Connell returned from another committee hearing and asked if there was further testimony on A.B. 297.  Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified in support of A.B. 297. 

 

Carol Thomas, Chief Personnel Manager, Technical Services, Department of Personnel, said it was her understanding the employee information which is protected is not released without the employee’s request. 

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 297 and opened the hearing on A.B. 486.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 486: Requires certain governmental entities to consider impact of rules and regulations on small businesses.  (BDR 18-1297)

 

Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10, testified in support of A.B. 486 from his written testimony (Exhibit C).  He pointed out sections 1 through 8 of the first reprint of A.B. 486 address state government and sections 9 through 14 of the first reprint of A.B. 486 address local governments.

 

Chairman O’Connell asked Assemblyman Goldwater how he derived at 150 employees with regard to section 2 of the first reprint of A.B. 486.  Assemblyman Goldwater replied he came up with that number arbitrarily.  Chairman O’Connell asked Assemblyman Goldwater if he would mind amending the number of employees in section 2 of the first reprint of A.B. 486 if there is a specific number of employees already in statute under the definition of “small business.”  Assemblyman Goldwater replied he would amend the number of employees in section 2 of the bill if a specified number exists in statute.  He said a proposed amendment was considered which would eliminate the 150-person threshold and the proposed amendment was voted down by the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor because of concerns that this particular legislation should be targeted specifically at small businesses.

 

Senator Care asked with regard to the small business impact statement if a business would have to include for public consumption financials which otherwise might be regarded as confidential or proprietary information.  Assemblyman Goldwater replied most regulations in this bill do not apply to a particular business, but rather to an industry in a type of business.

 

Kara Kelley, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of A.B. 486 and stated the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce represents nearly 6,000 businesses in which 85 percent of those businesses have 25 or fewer employees.  Therefore, Ms. Kelley said she would welcome an amendment to section 2 of the first reprint of A.B. 486. 

 

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in support of A.B. 486 and submitted proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit D).

 

David L. Howard, Lobbyist, Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, and Nevada State Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of A.B. 486.  He stated 25 or fewer employees would cover 90 percent of the businesses represented by the Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce.  Mr. Howard pointed out employers who have beyond 25 employees are regulated by other entities of the state and local government.

 

Chairman O’Connell informed Assemblyman Goldwater the Senate Committee on Government Affairs would not consider an amendment in which he did not approve.

 

Mary F. Lau, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada, testified strongly in support of A.B. 486 and stated this legislation is another step in helping small businesses deal with government.  She said part of the Retail Association of Nevada’s strategic plan has been to add a local government liaison because it is dealing more and more at local government levels.

 

Cheryl C. Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors, testified in support of A.B. 486 and said the predominance of the Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors’ members fall within the small business definition of this bill.

 

Randy C. Robison, Lobbyist, National Federation of Independent Businesses, and Mesquite Area Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of A.B. 486.  He stated the National Federation of Independent Businesses wanted to go on record in support of this legislation with the amendments which have been proposed.  Mr. Robison submitted a statement from the Mesquite Area Chamber of Commerce (Exhibit E).

 

Senator Neal asked if the intent of section 4 of the first reprint of A.B. 486 was to describe what a significant economic burden is by having to issue an impact statement.  Ms. Vilardo stated her understanding was section 4 of this bill pointed out the need for a regulation to be evaluated for its economic impact on a small business.  She added section 4 of this bill would overlay the requirement in chapter 233B of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that a workshop must be held on any proposed regulation by an agency and that once the workshop is finished, an agency which is going to adopt a permanent regulation must provide 30 days’ notice of the hearing at which the regulation will then be adopted.

 

Janice L. Christopherson, Administrative Services, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), said NDOT did not have any opposition to A.B. 486 and indicated there were currently two divisions within NDOT which have to work under regulations.  Ms. Christopherson handed out an April 30, 1999 letter addressed to Senator O’Connell outlining the concerns of NDOT with regard to the impact of regulations on small businesses (Exhibit F).

 

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, pointed out chapter 233B of NRS has been in existence since 1993 and has imposed certain steps which regulatory agencies have had to go through when enacting regulations.  He continued local government has not had to operate under chapter 233B of the NRS, but will have to operate under chapter 233B of the NRS with the passage of A.B. 486.  Mr. Musgrove handed out proposed amendments to the first reprint of A.B. 486 (Exhibit G) in which the City of Las Vegas hopes will give it the chance to ease into the new process of enacting under the guidelines of this bill.

 

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, testified in support of A.B. 486 and said he hoped Assemblyman Goldwater would consider the amendments submitted by Ms. Vilardo and Mr. Musgrove.

 

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified in support of A.B. 486 and stated Clark County could support A.B. 486 with the amendments proposed by the Nevada Taxpayers Association.

 

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, said Washoe County would also like to work with everyone on the proposed amendments to A.B. 486.  Barbara A. McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, said she also would like to work on the amendments to A.B. 486 in an effort to come up with a compromise.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 486 and opened the hearing on A.B. 494.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 494: Requires personnel commission to adopt regulations relating to determination of work schedules of certain state employees who work in shifts. (BDR 23-1165)

 

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40, said A.B. 494 concerns employees who work in facilities or institutions which house patients, clients, juvenile offenders, or inmates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  She said this bill recognizes seniority as a condition for selection of shift and days off bidding.  She continued A.B. 494 also provides for special circumstances under which an appointing authority may use a factor other than seniority for making such determinations.  Assemblywoman Parnell said A.B. 494 was amended in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs to narrow the scope of agencies affected and the bill currently specifies employees of full-time residential facilities only. 

 

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, stated there are specific situations in state government which need to be addressed and possibly one law mandating a specific situation would not be appropriate for the different state agencies involved.  He said he believed the amendments in the first reprint of A.B. 494 would make the law work for all agencies involved.

 

Senator Neal asked Mr. Gagnier approximately how many people this bill would affect.  Mr. Gagnier said his best guess was this bill would affect about 2,500 to 3,000 people.  Mr. Gagnier continued currently there are approximately 1,500 approved custody positions within the Department of Prisons and within the Department of Human Resources Mr. Gagnier guessed there are about 1,000 people who would be affected.

 

Senator Neal asked why this situation could not presently be taken care of through a policy or existing regulation.  Mr. Gagnier stated the Department of Personnel was requested to adopt such a regulation and declined to do so on the basis that the Legislature had considered the matter and had not acted on the bill.  Mr. Gagnier added the Department of Prisons had established a pilot program.  Mr. Gagnier stated he believed the matter could be taken care of through collective bargaining.

 

Glenn Fair, Correctional Officer, Department of Prisons, stated he currently works at the institution which has the pilot shift-bidding program in place.  He said he believed A.B. 494 was a well-conceived piece of legislation which should be passed.  Mr. Fair indicated the pilot program generally works, but there are some problems with the system.  He said one of the problems is seniority is not necessarily taken into account when a position becomes available with good days off; i.e., Friday through Sunday.  Mr. Fair testified shift change has been used as harassment whereby if a person upsets the wrong individual, that person is immediately put on the night shift.  He said the passage of A.B. 494 would prevent punitive shift changes.  Mr. Fair stressed the passage of A.B. 494 would benefit the Department of Prisons.

 

Senator Porter asked how the pilot program came about.  Mr. Fair said it was his understanding this matter has come before the Legislature on several occasions and a pilot program was implemented to see how the legislation would work, if enacted.

 

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, testified against A.B. 494.  He said this issue has come before the Legislature as long has he has been in corrections.  Mr. Bayer said he did not believe it was necessary to put something like this in statute and pointed out he needs the managerial prerogative to be flexible.  He stressed the uniqueness of staffing a prison and emphatically stated he does not tolerate shift change harassment or any other type of retaliation.  He said the prison board is a constitutional board wherein this board is in control of all matters relating to personnel issues of the Department of Prisons.

 

Kareen Masters, Personnel Officer, Department of Human Resources, offered an amendment to the first reprint of A.B. 494 (Exhibit H).  She pointed out it is critical for agency administrators to retain the authority to decide how to staff their facilities and the flexibility to modify assignments when necessary to accommodate the needs of the clients and the agency. 

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 494 and opened the hearing on A.B. 653.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 653: Revises provisions relating to peace officers employed by state. (BDR 23-1700)

 

There was no testimony on A.B. 653.

 

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 653.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

There being no further business, Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Janice McClure,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE: