ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

May 4, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Friday, May 4, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. David Brown

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Bob Price

Mrs. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City

Bill Berrum, Treasurer, Washoe County

George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada

Dana Bilyeu, Lobbyist, Public Employees’ Retirement System

Ronald John, Retired Sergeant, Carson City Sheriff’s Office

Mike Hood, Colonel, Nevada Highway Patrol

Gary Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties

Dan Holley, Detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Rusty McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada

Marty Bibb, Executive Director, Retired Public Employees of Nevada

Ron Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

Steven Turner, Director, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

John Cryer, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff Deputies Association

Heather Lutzow, Deputy Sheriff, Carson City

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities

Mike Neville, President, Washoe County District Attorney’s Investigators Association

Andy Anderson, Executive Director, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association

Jim Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance

Walter Tarantino, Legal Counsel, Nevada Corrections Association

Vice Chairman Lee opened the hearing on A.J.R. 14.

Assembly Joint Resolution 14: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise certain provisions relating to system of county and township government and compensation of certain elected officers. (BDR C-1526)

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, explained the Assembly Government Affairs Committee had sponsored A.J.R. 14 after hearing A.B. 256. Locally elected officials had not received a pay raise for six years and there had been controversy and adverse feelings about the Legislature setting the pay raises. The Nevada Constitution needed to be amended to allow county officials to set pay raises. If A.B. 256 did not pass, it would be another nine years before an elected official received a salary increase. She felt it was equitable to amend and pass A.B. 256.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she requested A.J.R. 14 because she did not feel the Legislature should decide county pay raises. The 37 percent pay increase asked for was not possible in Nevada’s soft economy. The counties could have come forward with the measure years ago, but did not want the responsibility of setting their salaries.

Assemblyman Humke asked Ms. Vilardo to explain the theory that A.J.R. 14 would diminish the control the Legislature had over local officials.

Ms. Vilardo replied she did not feel the individual legislators she had talked to felt that way. Because Nevada had grown and was “coming of age,” it was time for counties to set their pay raises.

Mr. Humke noted A.J.R. 14 was about compensation and asked Ms. Vilardo to describe areas of compensation local officials received. He questioned if they received the same benefit and retirement package other county employees did.

Ms. Vilardo understood they were on the same system and was aware that some counties treated sick leave and holiday pay differently than other counties.

Assemblyman Neighbors commended Ms. Vilardo on her testimony and explained the resolution needed to be approved by the voters in November of 2003. Many county staff made more than the elected officials.

Assemblyman Williams felt the passage of A.J.R. 14 would send a positive message to the voters. He would support the resolution wholeheartedly if he knew that A.B. 256 would not be passed.

Ms. Vilardo commented she had heard that possibly a version of A.B. 256 might merge with another bill. Concerns had been expressed about the bill’s indexing and waiver provisions. The rural counties had difficulty in getting qualified people to run for county seats. Nevada’s increased growth required elected officials with expertise to handle complicated issues. The rural counties could see a vacating of elected officials if some type of pay raise was not approved.

Mr. Williams stated the committee supported A.J.R. 14, but should not pass it until the future of A.B. 256 was clear. He did not want the public to think the Legislature had moved in one direction and then change.

Chairman Bache had heard A.B. 256 was part of the Judicial Pay Bill [S.B. 184], but felt A.J.R. 14 should be passed regardless. The issues were separate and it gave the counties responsibility for their pay schedules.

Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, was neutral on the resolution. The counties were divided on the issue of removing pay raises from the Legislature. Some elected officials were uncomfortable with having county commissioners set their pay salaries. A pay raise for a county clerk might be jeopardized if he reported illegal actions of county commissioners. A true separation of powers was needed. Elected officials had been put under pressure by county commissioners to perform certain acts and they did not want to be subject to the commissioners. He felt the Governor’s Salary Commission was a good approach to the issue because they used private sector salaries in Nevada for comparison.

Mr. Neighbors did not feel county commissioners would prohibit elected officials from getting pay raises because of a difference of opinion.

Mr. Glover stated it might seem like paranoia, but it was real to them. He hoped Mr. Neighbors was right. All elected officials had a certain amount of power in their counties and any unfair treatment might eventually harm the county commissioners.

Mr. Neighbors stated the real power was the control over county budgets.

Mr. Williams opposed the joint resolution because of what Mr. Glover had said. It was important for the public to be aware of any proposed raise. He felt the county commissioners should be removed from the bill so they did not have to vote on their own raises. It eliminated the appearance of impropriety.

Mr. Glover felt county commissioners might be reluctant to vote for raises that included themselves.

Bill Berrum, Treasurer, Washoe County, was neutral on the bill. He had seen commissioners try to influence department heads and agreed with the separation of powers. There might be undue influence on the assessor to review property values or have the treasurer use risky investments to increase money flow during budget reviews. A constituent might try to get tax penalties waived. The struggle for autonomy and salary equality was difficult. Many people felt “elected” officials should donate their time as a public service to the community. Administrative elected officials performed 90 percent of their duties by statute and did not vote on their salaries. Salaries needed to be competitive with the private sector to attract desirable candidates.

Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.J.R. 14 and turned the gavel over to Chairman Bache.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 349.

Senate Bill 349: Makes various changes regarding public employees’ retirement system. (BDR 23-752)

George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS), stated S.B. 349 was the system’s proposed fiscal legislation. The recommended benefit enhancements were the result of careful deliberation by the retirement board after listening to employers, employee associations and the Governor. The proposed language was a balanced compromise that served the members of the system, maintained benefit equity, and did not impact contribution rates.

The current statutory rate for regular members was 18.75 percent and 28.5 percent for police and fire members under “employer pay contribution plan” (Exhibit C). The biannual actuary study reflected a lower rate of 18.29 and 27.14 percent respectively. Any actuarial rate within .5 percent of the existing statutory rate did not need to change. The “employee/employer pay contribution plans” were affected similarly. The plan had seen significant gains and the board was attempting to make benefit enhancements without increasing contribution rates. Regular members received a pre-retirement death benefit of .3 percent and increased their retirement multiplier to 2.67 percent. Police and fire members received a .4 percent pre-retirement death benefit, a 2.67 percent multiplier, and .5 percent for the “25-and-out” provision.

Section 2, line 3, addressed the single survivor benefit provision. The plan purged discriminatory provisions contained within the Retirement Act that related to benefit availability on the basis of marital status. The Retirement Act penalized the act of marriage in some instances and single members in others. One member had contributed to the plan for 31 years. After 27 years of marriage he divorced his wife and the divorce decree called for his ex-spouse to be named his benefit recipient upon retirement. Unfortunately, the member died while still actively employed. The former spouse contacted PERS to receive benefits and was told no benefit was available because she was not a spouse in the “survivor benefit structure.” Married and single members paid for survivor benefits and they should be able to extend them to any named beneficiary, whether a parent, son, daughter, or friend. Currently, any single member could choose a beneficiary at retirement, but had no choice while actively employed. The issue was one of fundamental equity.

Mr. Pyne explained Section 7 of the bill addressed 25-and-out retirement for police and fire members. The benefit promoted the public policy of maintaining a youthful and vigorous front-line public safety workforce. Approximately 2000 members of the 9000 police and fire force would benefit from the provision. Section 8 modified the benefit multiplier from 2.5 to 2.67 percent for every future year of service. Page 3 of Exhibit C detailed the benefits of the proposed increase over a 20-year period. Sections 9 through 12 provided supporting modifications to expand the survivor benefit program, section 13 deleted obsolete language, and section 14 addressed judges’ retirement plans.

Chairman Bache asked why the employee/employer pay contribution was not equal to 50 percent of the employer pay contribution plan.

Mr. Pyne explained the employee/employer pay contribution plan had a refundable feature that made it more costly.

Chairman Bache asked if the multiplier was increased in the split-funded contribution plan would it trigger increased contribution rates in the employer pay contribution plan.

Mr. Pyne stated that was correct. The multiplier had been increased within statutory guidelines to not increase contribution rates across the board.

Chairman Bache asked why the police and fire did not receive additional benefits when they contributed more to the plan.

Mr. Pyne responded that could be done if the Legislature wanted to. The pension plan had a history of uniform benefits across the board for all members. The physical and emotional demands of public safety jobs allowed retirement at an earlier age. The majority of state employees retired after 20 years of service and the plan strived to provide uniform benefits and replacement income, regardless of what fund they belonged to.

Ms. Parnell commended PERS on increasing the multiplier and the incentive it provided qualified people to join the state work force. She was comfortable the increase was fiscally sound.

Chairman Bache disclosed he was a member of the regular PERS plan.

Mrs. Smith disclosed she was employed by a union trust fund that covered some of the plan employees, but did not feel it affected her.

Mr. Humke read a question he had received from a constituent:

At 30 years of service, for a person who is only 50 years old, will he lose dollars because of the new 2.67 factor? Could someone retire at any age with 75 percent of retirement and not 30 years of service?

Mr. Pyne explained the 2.67 percent multiplier reached the cap of 75 percent average compensation around 28 years of service. Any compensation beyond the cap came from additional pay increases or bonuses.

Chairman Bache stated you could not retire at 28 years even though you had reached 75 percent compensation.

Mr. Pyne clarified the bill did not provide for a 28-year retirement at any age. Chairman Bache explained it affected those employed after 1985. Employees before 1985 could top out at 36 years with 90 percent compensation.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if an employee could assign his benefits to other people besides his spouse.

Dana Bilyeu, Lobbyist, Public Employees’ Retirement System, stated current statute provided child benefits for children under the age of 18 or 23, if in school. The woman in the previous example could not collect any benefit because she was not a “spouse” at the time of the employee’s death.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if an active employee could name someone other than the ex-spouse as a beneficiary.

Ms. Bilyeu replied the divorce decree was the issue. If the divorce decree required a specific individual to be named as beneficiary, then that would be followed.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if that was mandated in the bill. Ms. Bilyeu replied negatively. The courts decided how community property was divided.

Chairman Bache asked how many employees were in the split-funded contribution plan. Mr. Pyne replied approximately 16,000 members.

Chairman Bache asked if new employees had to participate in the employer-only plan. Mr. Pyne explained in 1993 the Legislature mandated new employees had to participate in the employer-only program. Litigation had overturned the law and all employees could choose which plan they wanted to participate in.

Chairman Bache commented the four separate groups in the plan made it difficult to match benefits equally across the board.

Mr. Pyne stated there were basically two plans, regular and police/fire. Within the plans, the choices were employee/employer or employer-only contribution.

Chairman Bache suggested regular employees could receive an additional one-half percent increase but it would trip contribution increases in the split-funded plan. Mr. Pyne said the board worked hard to not increase contribution rates for any group.

Chairman Bache felt police/fire participants paid a higher contribution rate and were entitled to more benefits. He was concerned only 2,000 of the 9,000 public safety employees were able to access the 25-and-out benefit. The plan’s financial success would benefit a limited number of members.

Mr. Pyne stated the board routinely explored various proposals by members and implemented them when fiscally possible. Any member of the plan with five years of service could purchase an additional five years’ credit. Members entering the plan at age 29 could purchase service credit and be eligible for retirement at age 50.

Chairman Bache commented an employee needed to have money to purchase those service credits.

Mr. Pyne replied there was a significant cost to purchasing service, but it was an option available. Sometimes employers assisted in the purchase of service for their members. The physical and emotional demands placed on police and fireman limited their careers to 20 or 25 years.

Ronald John, Sergeant, Carson City Sheriff’s Office, supported the bill and felt it was viable to their department.

Chairman Bache felt the .5 percent increase for 25-and-out would trip the contribution rate in the next few years because 200 to 300 members would be eligible to retire. He asked Mr. John how he felt about the provision.

Mr. John replied PERS had assured them that would not be a factor and he did not know how other factors or numbers affected the program.

Mike Hood, Colonel, Nevada Highway Patrol, stated the bill was supported by the executive director of PERS, the PERS board, the Governor’s Office, firefighters and most of law enforcement agencies and affected every member of PERS. The bill increased the multiplier, allowed survivor benefits and gave police/fire the option to retire after 25 years. Police and firefighters paid more into the system and should have the option for early retirement. The profession belonged to young people and older police and firemen naturally lost their physical skills and quick reaction times. The 25-and-out option needed to be there for those who wanted it. He appreciated the benefit enhancements without increased contribution rates.

Chairman Bache thought an alternative to the 25-and-out was an increased index benefit of 2 percent or increased multiplier of 2.75 percent for police/fire.

Col. Hood felt the current system penalized the younger officers that joined the force. Retirement options were given to officers who joined the force at 30 and 45 years old and the younger officers needed options as well.

Chairman Bache did not think it was equitable for 7,000 officers to pay for a benefit they would not be able to use.

Col. Hood felt the bill addressed the option of police and firefighters to not work the streets anymore. Officers should decide when they have had enough and when their physical abilities were not up to the job anymore.

Gary Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, commented there were a lot of inequities in PERS. Many people contributed more than others and people had the right to have options available to them.

Chairman Bache asked if he would support 20-and-out because it affected all members equally.

Mr. Wolff stated he would support anything that benefited all employees. Other states had 20-and-out, but Nevada could not afford it.

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, supported the PERS board’s decisions and believed they had worked hard to balance the delicate nature of the retirement system. The bill benefited members across the board.

Dan Holley, Detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, stated his department had 600 officers who would be able to take advantage of the 25-and-out provision. The 7,000 officers not able to participate in the program supported the provision because they did not have to pay for it out of their pocket. Las Vegas Metro hired 26 out of 2,000 applicants annually and lost 15 of those in the first year. The officers hired today were younger, more educated and more intellectual and did not have a desire to do the “grunt” jobs older cops had done.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Holley about the alternatives of indexing and increased multiplier.

Mr. Holley supported Mr. Pyne’s recommendations and trusted his judgment on the best benefit for PERS. He could not speak to Chairman Bache’s alternatives because he was not a financial professional, but supported the 25-and-out benefit.

Rusty McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, supported S.B. 349 and the provisions contained therein. In November 2000 the PERS staff made recommendations for the 2001 Session. The benefits proposed protected the defined benefit system and were passed unanimously by the PERS board. At the February 2001 board meeting the firefighters presented additional benefit proposals. A compromise was reached with PERS to slightly reduce the initial benefits, increase the multiplier to all members, and provide a 25-and-out benefit for police and fire. The PERS board and Governor supported the bill and it was passed out of the Senate unanimously. The benefit of 25-and-out was the employer could replace someone at the top of the pay scale with someone lower. Las Vegas Metro had 1000 patrol officers with an average age of 24 and 3 years of service. Police and firemen paid 9.75 percent more than regular members to retire at 50 years old with 20 years of service. In 1979 all police and firefighters, married or single, paid for spousal benefits. The pre-retirement death benefit had the majority subsidizing the single member minority. All types of inequities were present in benefit plans. Although 7,000 members could not participate in 25-and-out, for the good of the police and firemen brotherhood, they supported the provision. The PERS board and staff, the Governor, legislators, labor organizations and public employee groups had worked hard over the last six months to bring the bill forward. The bill was a collaborative effort and provided good benefits to all members of the system. The Professional Firefighters of Nevada urged the committee’s passage of the bill.

Chairman Bache asked how many members would be able to take advantage of the 50-and-20 retirement benefit. Mr. McAllister replied about 50 percent of police/fire could afford to take the option when they reached 50 years of age.

Chairman Bache asked if they wanted to eliminate 50-and-20 and have 25-and-out for everyone. Mr. McAllister replied they would not be interested in losing the 50-and-20 benefit because it was beneficial to those who were hired at a later age and needed to leave at age 50.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she had not received one letter in opposition to the bill and commended them on their effort and work that had gone into the bill.

Marty Bibb, Executive Director, Retired Public Employees of Nevada, stated they supported S.B. 349 and believed it was a balanced bill. All employees should be able to choose a survivor for their benefits.

Ron Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN), stated the 26 law enforcement agencies in Nevada asked the committee to support S.B. 349, which provided equitable enhancements to members without triggering contribution rate increases to employees, local or state government. The proposed benefit enhancements increased the multiplier to 2.67 percent, established an equitable pre-retirement benefit for singles and marrieds, and allowed police and firefighters to retire after 25 years of service without penalty. Police and firefighters had tried to implement the 25-and-out provision in 1983. Exhibit D contained a position paper, a matrix of proposed benefits, a memorandum from the city of Henderson that addressed potential salary savings, and a letter from a police officer’s wife about the 25-and-out provision.

They would have preferred to see a 2.75 percent multiplier, but a 1 percent increase would cost $4 million dollars and the Legislature would not pass that. Any inequity in multipliers between regular members and police/fire members was not acceptable to Senator Raggio, other members of the Senate or Governor Guinn. An increased multiplier and the elimination of the 25-and-out option would not immediately benefit police/fire members. There was an immediate benefit to nearly 100 percent of police/fire members if 25-and-out was included with the 2.67 multiplier. There were approximately 9,400 police and firefighters enrolled in PERS and surveys indicated 98 percent of those responding want the 25-and-out option. The PERS study reflected only 25 percent, or approximately 2400 police/fire members would be eligible to take advantage of the 25-and-out option on July 1, 2001. The study did not take into consideration the members eligible for retirement with the purchase of additional service credits. The single member pre-retirement death benefit affected 30 thousand PERS members and removed penalties for being single or divorced.

Mr. Dreher concluded the PERS board and many other groups and individuals supported S.B. 349 and had worked to achieve a common goal that benefited all employees. PORAN requested the committee’s support of S.B. 349.

Steven Turner, Director, Peace Officer’s Research Association, stated he had been involved with getting 25-and-out passed for over a decade. Inequities existed in life and S.B. 349 addressed them as fairly as possible.

John Cryer, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff Deputies Association, stated S.B. 349 had overwhelming support from their members. The pre-retirement benefit corrected discrimination against single members. There had been overwhelming support for the 25-and-out provision from members that would not benefit from it. The hiring process reflected younger members were joining the force and they would be able to take advantage of that option in the future. Currently, Reno and Carson City police had provisions in their collective bargaining units to purchase service credit with unused sick leave.

Heather Lutzow, Deputy Sheriff, Carson City, stated she would benefit from all of the proposed benefits. Her profession was constantly changing and upgrading. Revolvers and fire wagons were now obsolete. Older officers helped younger officers in field training and would help them now.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, stated their 23,000 members supported S.B. 349 as amended. Her members were not interested in giving up the pre-retirement benefit for a higher multiplier.

Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, stated they supported the PERS board and their decisions.

Mike Neville, President, Washoe County District Attorney’s Investigators Association, stated they supported S.B. 349 and submitted a position paper (Exhibit E). Fifteen investigators in their office supported the 25-and-out provision when only two of them would be able to take advantage of it. He read a statement from Senator Bernice Mathews into the record.

Members of the Government Affairs Committee,

S.B. 349 contains equitable benefit enhancements for all members of PERS. It includes the 25-and-out early retirement for police and fire members, it includes a 2.67 percent multiplier for both police/fire and regular members and it includes a pre-retirement death benefit for all members. The entire Senate unanimously approved this bill on April 26, 2001, as the compromised bill, as written, did not trigger a contribution rate increase. I request the members of the Assembly to support S.B. 349.

Len Nevin, retired Senator, Reno, supported the legislation. Previous legislation had been submitted to provide the 25-and-out benefit, but it was defeated because it triggered the contribution rate. Law enforcement officers should be rewarded for the hard work they do.

Andy Anderson, Executive Director, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, stated there was controversy with the bill. They felt an increased multiplier benefited more members. Many officers could not afford to retire with 20 years of service. The money spent on pre-retirement benefits and the 25-and-out provision could increase the multiplier to 2.75 percent. Police and fire contribute at a different rate and should be entitled to a higher multiplier. Even though 25-and-out did not trigger a contribution increase, it limited the multiplier increase. All benefits had a cost factor and it came down to where the members wanted to spend their money. When 1000 questionnaires were sent out, 92 percent of the 600 responses returned stated they wanted the higher multiplier. An increased multiplier benefited everyone and 25-and-out only affected a few. The issue was getting the most from the money contributed.

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, felt S.B. 349 was a good faith effort by the retirement board. Their governing body overwhelming supported the increased multiplier. The largest group of state employees in the early retirement program was correctional officers. Correctional officers were predominately hired at an older age and preferred a better return on their money when they retired. He urged the committee to amend the bill so it would uniformly affect members across the board.

Ms. Von Tobel felt S.B. 349 was a good bill and it should not be changed. An increased multiplier could be looked at the next session. She felt the bill was for the ”greater good” of the group.

Mr. Gagnier stated their position was that raising the multiplier was for the “greater good.”

Jim Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance, supported S.B. 349 as it was amended. His members supported the bill and respected PERS’ decisions. The bill had important benefits for all state employees.

Walter Tarantino, Legal Counsel, Nevada Corrections Association, stated his organization overwhelming supported the legislation.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 349 and stated he had received numerous harassing and threatening e-mails and phone calls after he had made his initial statement about the 25-and-out provision. He was concerned about his and his family’s personal safety and believed a lot of the issues stemmed from the battle between the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and the Las Vegas Employees Association as to who would represent the employees there.

Mr. Humke shared Chairman Bache’s concerns and deplored that type of action. Anything done to one member of the committee was done to all of them.

Mr. John apologized to the Chairman and stated those actions were unprofessional and not part of the organization.

Chairman Bache stated the nastier e-mails and phone calls had been received from policemen in Las Vegas and he felt it directly related to the situation going on there. He asked Mr. Anderson when the election process would be over in Las Vegas.

Mr. Anderson stated the ballots were mailed out last Friday and would be counted a week from today on Friday.

Chairman Bache stated they would wait to process the bill because it was not appropriate to process it while the election was going on.

Mr. Dreher apologized to Chairman Bache in behalf of the Professional Peace Officer’s Association for any threats received or taken indirectly. Their organization did not support that type of action in any way.

Chairman Bache stated they would be holding a subcommittee on S.B. 349 in Las Vegas tomorrow and adjourned the meeting at 10:54 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: