ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

May 8, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Tuesday, May 8, 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. Vivian Freeman

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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Utt, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Lisa Gianoli, Budget Manager, Washoe County

Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Mary Henderson, Director of Finance, City of Reno

Frank Siracusa, Chief, Nevada Division of Emergency Management

Richard Mirgon, Director of Emergency Management, Douglas County

Pat Lundvall, Attorney and Private Citizen

Richard Hobbs, Retired Colonel, United States Army

Lt. Col. David Pennington, Nevada Military Department

John Turnow, Chief Master Sergeant, Nevada National Guard

Stephen Sitton, Command Sergeant Major, Nevada National Guard

Janelle Kraft, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Senate Bill 225: Repeals prospective expiration of certain provisions concerning surcharges on telephone services in certain counties for enhancement of telephone systems for reporting emergencies in those counties. (BDR 20-499)

Lisa Gianoli, Budget Manager, Washoe County, stated in 1995, S.B. 473 of the Sixty-Eighth Legislative Session passed into law. The bill authorized the telephone line surcharge not to exceed 25 cents in Washoe County to enhance existing “911” services. The monies generated by the surcharge were deposited in a special revenue fund established to account for revenues and expenditures associated with providing Emergency 911 services (E-911) in Washoe County. During fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the Washoe County Board of Commissioners established the E-911 surcharge as allowed by statute, and created the advisory board which consisted of representatives appointed by the cities of Reno and Sparks and Washoe County. Ms. Gianoli commented the surcharge was leveled to enable public safety answering points to receive location information when a 911 call was received, as well as installing compatible technology countywide in the three Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). In 1966, technology was installed permitting PSAPs to obtain location information on calls placed from landlines. The implementation of phase one on wireless phones allowed the county to locate the actual cell phone number the 911 calls were placed from. Currently, the E-911 service worked with the wireless providers on contractual matters and phase one was expected to be in place in Washoe County in the summer of 2001.

Ms. Gianoli explained the surcharge was scheduled to sunset in December 31, 2001, and Washoe County’s funding needs were ongoing. The county had worked with the telecommunications industry since the Seventieth Legislative Session to implement a permanent solution providing funding to maintain vital service. In researching the provision of E-911 services throughout the United States, the use of a surcharge was a widely used mechanism to provide emergency service and was the best solution for funding. Concluding, Ms. Gianoli requested approval of S.B. 225, which allowed the surcharge to become a permanent source of funding for E-911 services in Washoe County.

Assemblyman Mortenson questioned what amount the county currently received to build and maintain the facilities. Ms. Gianoli replied they were using the funds to enhance 911 and purchase equipment that enabled them to provide the service. Their dispatch centers were located in Reno, Sparks, and North Lake Tahoe, and recently equipment had been added, as well as the database for locator abilities. The equipment allowed the locator the ability to track incoming landline calls and equipment would be added in the future for cellular tracking capability.

Mr. Mortenson understood start-up funds were necessary to begin a program but questioned if it was necessary to continue collecting that amount of money since the E-911 service was already in place. Ms. Gianoli replied there was a provision that did not allow them to accumulate more than $500,000 in the Special Revenue Fund. If the accumulation was greater than the amount at the close of a fiscal year, the surcharge would be reduced. Currently the surcharge was one cent. Mr. Mortenson verified the county was not presently collecting the 25-cent surcharge.

Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, spoke in support of the enhancement to the 911 emergency services and indicated the emergency services attempted to be responsible for use of the funds.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 225.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 225.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 306: Makes various changes relating to emergency management. (BDR 18-1231)

Frank Siracusa, Chief of Nevada Division of Emergency Management, testified on behalf of S.B. 306. Mr. Siracusa emphasized the mission of the Division of Emergency Management was to ensure the state of Nevada, and its local governments, could successfully prepare for, respond to, and recover from the effects of an emergency or disaster that might occur anywhere within the state. Mr. Siracusa stressed it was critical to maintain a direct line of communication with the office of the Governor during day-to-day operations in times of emergency. The Division of Emergency Management was one of the few agencies that worked directly with all state agencies on behalf of the Governor.

Mr. Siracusa noted the bill was strictly administrative and no financial impact was involved. Mr. Siracusa pointed out S.B. 306 was supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), and the National Governors Association (NGA). All levels of government agreed emergency management would best function under the office of the Chief Executive.

Chairman Bache clarified S.B. 306 removed emergency management from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) and located the agency within the administration of the Governor. Mr. Siracusa replied Chairman Bache was correct.

Assemblywoman Parnell verified that DMV&PS was one agency and, therefore, the director would be under the supervision of the Governor.

Assemblyman Lee questioned if the division was given peace officer powers through the DMV. Mr. Siracusa responded legislation passed in the Seventieth Session provided certain members of the State Disaster Identification Team peace officer powers. Members of the team included the Forensic Dental Identification Group consisting of dentists. Mr. Siracusa explained if a mass casualty occurred the dental team needed access to the identification repository for information and they required peace officer power. The rest of the staff of the Division of Emergency Management were not peace officers.

Chairman Bache asked if the director of the Office of Emergency Management was an “exempt” employee or a “nonclassified” employee. Mr. Siracusa replied the employees were classified. Mr. Bache questioned if employees under the director were exempt. Mr. Siracusa was not certain, but felt they would remain classified.

Assemblywoman Parnell questioned why the DMV&PS would be better off under the administration of the Governor. Mr. Siracusa pointed out the decision was prompted based on the activities performed by emergency management daily, and in times of emergency, which both required a direct line of communication with the Governor’s office. During the 1997 floods the Division of Emergency Management had no direct access to the Governor’s office, which caused delays in decision making and additional expenses were incurred. During the 1999 flood in Las Vegas a direct line of communication was maintained with the Governor and was approximately 500 percent less costly for a comparable emergency.

Mr. Siracusa explained most of the activities from the DMV&PS were in conjunction with the Governor. The DMV&PS hosted and sponsored the Governor’s Y2K summit two years ago and hosted the Governor’s fire summit. In November of 2001 Public Safety would host the Governor’s Conference on School Safety, which would be one of the largest school safety conferences in the country. The communication and day-to-day working relationship with the Governor’s Office was critical.

Assemblywoman Parnell commented the greatest benefit would be to eliminate the “middle man” who was currently the director of DMV&PS, but she questioned if the department would need to be relocated. Mr. Siracusa replied they would be housed in the same physical location with no additional costs and would report to the office of the Governor. Mr. Siracusa noted the change enabled the department to continue providing funds to local governments for emergency preparedness. The funds would have been cut over the next biennium because of administrative costs associated with the department.

Chairman Bache asked legal counsel if S.B. 306 would change the classification of employees to a nonclassified status similar to other gubernatorial employees. Ms. O’Grady responded the bill was written so the employees would remain classified. The language did not specify the director as classified or unclassified and did not address the employee directly.

Richard Mirgon, Director of Emergency Management for Douglas County, presented testimony in support of the bill. Mr. Mirgon emphasized the importance of the interaction between local government and the Governor’s Office during a disaster. He pointed out there was a considerable amount of confusion as to the chain of command during the flood disaster in 1997. Mr. Mirgon indicated emergency management discovered information had not been provided to the Governor’s Office and the Governor was responsible for decisions dealing with FEMA.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 306.

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 306.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 471: Makes various changes concerning adjutant general. (BDR 36-1347)

Pat Lundvall, attorney and private citizen, spoke in support of S.B. 471. As the wife of a military officer, Ms. Lundvall advocated a small change to improve Nevada’s Military Department. S.B. 471 was a compromise bill between the Nevada Military Department and the Governor’s Office. Ms. Lundvall explained the purpose of S.B. 471 was to broaden the pool of eligible candidates, thus ensuring the best and most qualified individuals could be selected to lead Nevada’s Military Department.

Ms. Lundvall explained NRS 412.044, subsection 2, mandated “one must be an insider and must have been an insider for a minimum of three years preceding the appointment to be eligible for the position of Adjutant General.” According to Ms. Lundvall, under current statute, one must be a member of the proverbial “good old boys club” to be eligible for appointment to the position of Adjutant General. The statute did not articulate qualifications, identify achievements, and did not identify experience but limited the Governor’s choices to individuals who were insiders. The limitation excluded highly qualified and broadly talented individuals from eligibility for selection. The Nevada Military Department was the only Nevada department or administrative agency that had the statutory limitation. Ms. Lundvall referred to a handout which identified every Nevada department and administrative agency and their leaders (Exhibit C). She pointed out the columns on the left showed the appointment process, and reiterated no other department or agency mandated its head or leader be promoted from within. Ms. Lundvall referred to the statutes in the handout identifying the appointment process and qualifications or eligibility requirements for selection.

Ms. Lundvall had been informed military technology changed rapidly and no one understood the changes in the development of military technology other than individuals from within. In her opinion, the statute assumed there were no other ways to obtain information, background, and experience in technology. The statute at issue was originally enacted in 1967, and in the mid-1970s the National Defense Department set forth their “total force policy.” Since that time, National Guard units and officers had been used in conjunction with the active forces and extensively in Operation Desert Storm. Ms. Lundvall noted the National Guard was used integrally with the first strike and not simply as a force of last resort.

Ms. Lundvall referred to a handout relating to how other states dealt with the issue (Exhibit D). She examined the statutes in each state that had an Adjutant General. Ms. Lundvall indicated there were only seven other states with similar limitations. In her opinion, there was no reason for Nevada to be “out of step with the majority of other states,” and more importantly, “there was no good reason for Nevada to be out of step with the evolution of the provision of military services nationwide.” Concluding, Ms. Lundvall read a letter from Brigadier General Frank Partlow, and briefly explained he was a West Point Graduate with a 30-year active military career, and was currently a staff writer for the Reno Gazette Journal. The letter read:

Dear Chairman Bache and committee members:

There are two key points I would like to make for the record. First, an expanded pool of candidates for the position of Adjutant General provides a better chance of identifying an officer who will best fit the position in a military sense. This in turn would allow the Governor to better professionalize the state’s military forces. In other words, to tailor the leader to the needs and the types of unit’s admissions the state is expected to supply in the defense of the nation, if and when called upon to do so. Second, the days when the National Guard was able to “weekend” games are gone. The National Guard is an integral part of the total force policy and is being used very differently today than it has in the past. States that do not change the way they do business will be left behind.

I support S.B. 471 so that the pool of professional military officers from which the Governor can select an Adjutant General is extended beyond its current limitations.

Signed, General Partlow

Assemblyman Lee questioned Ms. Lundvall’s credentials and asked whom she represented. Ms. Lundvall responded she was married to a military officer and had listened to approximately 100 officers who advocated the principle she represented in S.B. 471.

Mr. Lee expressed concern with various remarks made by Ms. Lundvall, particularly the comments “out of touch” and “out of step.” Mr. Lee emphasized he was not pleased with her testimony and felt the Governor had done a good job in the choices and decisions he made.

Ms. Lundvall indicated her husband became interested in the Adjutant General position in 1991. According to Nevada statute, Ms. Lundvall pointed out, the current Adjutant General had the ability to selectively retain individuals within the ranks of Nevada’s eligibility pool. After her husband’s interest in the job became known, he was selectively non-retained and, therefore removed from the eligibility pool.

Assemblywoman Gibbons announced the reason there were not many people at the committee hearing was because they were afraid. She acknowledged she admired Ms. Lundvall for appearing on her husband’s behalf.

Assemblywoman Parnell commented she had a brother in the guard and knew several guard members in the state and, in her opinion there would always be political situations within large groups.

Assemblyman Price pointed out there were eight states where the Governor made the appointment and the Legislature was required to ratify the appointee. Mr. Price remarked South Dakota had specific legislation that dealt with the amount of money lobbyists could spend on the Adjutant General.

Richard Hobbs, retired Colonel from the United States Army, distributed a handout (Exhibit E) and commenced testimony. He stated he was never a member of the National Guard but supported the Governor’s right to select the best person as the state’s Adjutant General. Colonel Hobbs declared although the cold war was over, the Army currently employed approximately 140,000 Army personnel worldwide. The Army National Guard and the Army National Reserve contributed to almost 13 percent of the total amount of soldiers deployed. Reservists logged 1,780,000 man-days in 64 countries in fiscal year (FY) 1999. Colonel Hobbs noted locations such as Bosnia and Kosovo had evolved into ongoing commitments. The Army was one-third smaller than in 1989 and the number of active divisions had been reduced from 18 to 10. In 1989 a Desert Storm-sized deployment of 261,000 active troops would have required 53 percent of the Army’s deployable strength and only 6 percent of its forward-station troops. Colonel Hobbs indicated today’s same deployment required 86 percent of deployable strength and included all deployable personnel, all overseas personnel, and most forward-station personnel. The Army had fewer deployable soldiers covering more deployments and they could not meet requirements without extensive use of reserve components. Colonel Hobbs commented because of the situation, the Army was forced to rely heavily on the guard and reserve units to help alleviate the strain on the active force. In his opinion, the guard was extremely important and in order to meet requirements to support our national interest, experienced leadership was vital. The bill permitted an expanded pool of candidates, and provided a greater chance of identifying an officer who might enhance the position in a military sense, and allowed the state to professionalize its forces. Colonel Hobbs strongly urged the committee to provide the Governor with the authority to select the Adjutant General from the broadest pool of candidates and include candidates outside the Nevada National Guard.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked if, under existing language, Lt. Colonel Cindy Kirkland could be appointed as Adjutant General if the Governor chose and she was sent to the Pentagon for extra training. Ms. Lundvall replied if Lt. Col. Kirkland disassociated herself from the Nevada National Guard and signed up for a tour with the active forces at the Pentagon, under the current statute she would be excluded. Ms. Lundvall emphasized whether Lt. Col. Kirkland was removed for five minutes or five years, she would be excluded from consideration for selection in the position. The amended statute would correct the deficiency.

Assemblywoman Gibbons clarified if General Partlow never served in the Nevada National Guard, there was no way he could be appointed to the Adjutant General position. Ms. Lundvall pointed out there was a compromise reached between the Nevada Military Department and the Governor’s Office. The Nevada Military Department wanted to ensure there was someone with background experience in Nevada’s National Guard. Therefore, the provision was to have the previous six years remain within the statute. The compromise retained that portion in the statute to ensure any eligible candidate had background and familiarity with Nevada’s National Guard. Colonel Hobbs would not fit that particular criterion.

Assemblyman Humke remarked he served as an officer in the Army National Guard and would not be included as a candidate for Adjutant General. He requested Colonel Hobbs to verify if active duty Army and Air Force units were largely indistinguishable from Reserve and Guard units. Colonel Hobbs responded it was becoming more and more that way because the Army had two regiments or brigades of active Army, a third of which consisted of Reserve or Guard units. Wherever the division went, so did the Guard or Reserve unit.

Mr. Humke questioned if it was a positive force to have military forces including the Nevada Guard units “rub shoulders” with professional soldiers who served in the regular forces. Colonel Hobbs responded there was a Guard unit at the desert training center in California, currently working just like the regular Army.

Lt. Colonel David Pennington, representing General Brigadier Giles Vanderhoof and the Nevada Military Department, highlighted his comments and concerns regarding S.B. 471. He disputed the statement regarding the Adjutant General not retaining certain officers because the board of officers who handled nonretention did not include the Adjutant General. The board examined an officer’s entire career before deciding if the officer was qualified to achieve higher rank and more responsibility. Lt. Col. Pennington clarified officers went to the Pentagon all the time and did not lose their membership in the guard. Most returned as better commanding officers; however, some decided career opportunities were elsewhere. Officers could make the decision to transfer from the National Guard to either the Army or the Air Force. The officers’ career progression would continue in their chosen service and not the Nevada National Guard; those that did not “fit the bill” were involuntarily retired.

Lt. Col. Pennington noted under current law candidates for Adjutant General had to serve a total of six years with three of the years being served immediately preceding the appointment. The requirement ensured the Adjutant General selected by the Governor was familiar with the National Guard’s missions and was familiar with the National Guard’s men and women in uniform. Lt. Col. Pennington indicated a comparison of the Nevada National Guard to other state agencies had been completed and it was determined the National Guard was a military organization and was part and parcel of the United States Air Force and the United States Army. In the opinion of the military department, no other agency in the state could make that claim. Currently the United States Armed Forces, which included the National Guards of all the states, fought two major conventional wars in two parts of the globe, Iraq and Korea. Lt. Col. Pennington stated, “Military missions were as changeable as the world we lived in and any commander who had been out of the loop for any length of time would struggle.” Lt. Col. Pennington asked if the committee was comfortable in allowing the Governor to appoint an Adjutant General whose military training and thinking was “stuck in the cold war, or worse, the Vietnam Era.” In his opinion, any commander who came to the National Guard with that mindset could destroy the National Guard as an organization.

Continuing, Lt. Col. Pennington maintained there was mention of Nevada being out of step with many other states. “We may be out of step with a lot of states, but we are in step with the active duty forces,” he stated. Lt. Col. Pennington referred to the recent Presidential election and the importance of the concept of “legitimacy” in a leader being crucial. The rank and file members of the National Guard were fully aware of how the active duty forces appointed their senior leadership and were fully aware the senior leadership was not chosen from the retired ranks (Exhibit F).

Lt. Col. Pennington referred to the saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and emphasized it was up to the committee to determine if the National Guard had a problem in their leadership.

Assemblywoman Gibbons remarked she did not think the language in S.B. 471 stated the Nevada National Guard was broken. The language proposed for deletion was the three years of service prior to his or her appointment. Mrs. Gibbons pointed out many people from the Nevada National Guard took missions and served in the Pentagon, and some of the very best people who were military leaders in the Nevada National Guard would not be eligible for appointment.

Mrs. Gibbons disagreed with Lt. Col. Pennington’s comment regarding not trusting our Governor, and felt the Governor should remain in charge of appointing the Adjutant General. S.B. 471 would not remove value from the Nevada National Guard and as a legislator she would never pass a law or eliminate language that diminished the guard’s presence. Mrs. Gibbons concluded the bill was fair and provided more power to the Governor.

Lt. Col. Pennington commented if it was the committee’s intent to allow the Nevada National Guard to send representatives to the Pentagon, or allow them to transfer to another armed force, or allow someone with continuous military service to return to Nevada as the Adjutant General, the bill was not submissive. In his opinion, S.B. 471 opened the floodgates and allowed every retired officer who left the Nevada National Guard within their 20- to 30-year career to become Adjutant General.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel expressed concern with the statement Lt. Col. Pennington made regarding the previous President never being accepted by the military. Lt. Col. Pennington responded he referred to the election controversy in Florida and the newspaper coverage about whether or not President Bush carried Florida, and if he was the “real” President. Ms. Von Tobel asserted she found his statement offensive and was not sure why he would bring that information into the discussion on S.B. 471. Lt. Col. Pennington admitted it was a poor example and apologized. He indicated he had attempted to make reference to “legitimacy” and the perception of ”legitimacy” by those who were subject to his or her orders and the importance in a military organization. Ms. Von Tobel reiterated he presented a poor example and believed the former President had shortcomings but was very popular, and the current President was popular regardless of what percentage of votes he received. Ms. Von Tobel believed if there was any problem with the Nevada National Guard it was the need to have a larger pool of individuals.

Assemblyman Brown asked Lt. Col. Pennington to describe the members of the board who made the determination of “selective nonretention.” Lt. Col. Pennington replied there were three members of the “selective nonretention” board appointed by the director of personnel who reviewed the records of military members eligible for promotion. Mr. Brown inquired if the Nevada National Guard appointed the members and whether the director of personnel was from the guard. Lt. Col. Pennington responded “yes.” Mr. Brown questioned how the director of personnel was selected, and Lt. Col. Pennington responded the Adjutant General selected him. Concluding, Mr. Brown queried the connection between the Adjutant General and the board. Lt. Col. Pennington stated he would not deny the fact the Adjutant General was their military commander and was very influential over every aspect of the National Guard, including the board and the director of personnel.

Assemblywoman Smith remarked she would make her decision based upon the policy of opening up the pool and not on personalities.

Assemblyman Humke requested verification Lt. Col. Pennington represented the Adjutant General and, based on testimony, the Governor would support and sign the bill if it was passed by the Legislature. Lt. Col. Pennington responded that was substantially correct, and General Vanderhoof would accept the language if the committee determined it was in the best interest of the Nevada National Guard and passed the bill.

Mr. Humke pointed out Lt. Col. Pennington had asserted some private views and those directed by the Governor. In his opinion, Mr. Humke felt it was difficult to sort out the private and personal views. Lt. Col. Pennington had provided a copy of remarks to the Adjutant General and he made no changes to the testimony. Lt. Col. Pennington stated he had added his comment about the perceived legitimacy of the Adjutant General and that was his personal view. The remainder of his presentation had been reviewed and approved by General Vanderhoof.

Mr. Humke pointed out he served as a 2^nd Lieutenant in the Nevada Army National Guard and was proud of his service. He supported any Adjutant General of the state, regardless of the path he or she took to the position.

Assemblyman Price noted the outside appearance of S.B. 471 gave broader latitude to the Governor for making a decision. He inquired if under existing law Colin Powell would be qualified to head up the Nevada National Guard. Lt. Col. Pennington replied Mr. Powell would not be qualified just as he would not be qualified to return to the Army as a four star general. In addition, Mr. Powell would not be allowed to return to military service under ordinary circumstances. Mr. Price asked if the reason was based on a rule or because he was not qualified. Lt. Col. Pennington stated, “Once you hang up the uniform, you hang it up. You don’t go back and try to regain your active duty status once you retire and it was a policy of the Department of Defense.” Legally, Mr. Powell would not be qualified to become the Adjutant General of Nevada.

Assemblyman Price noted the committee attempted to do the best job possible and took into consideration all parties’ interests to make laws to better serve the people in Nevada. Mr. Price pointed out although the Nevada National Guard was not a state agency, it was a state body, and he had concerns understanding why the person who was the head of both guards was the Governor.

Assemblyman Brown noted he had no complaints with regard to S.B. 471 because it was the Governor’s decision. One of the factors he anticipated the Governor would look at was whether the appointee’s service in the guard was immediately preceding the appointment. He did not believe that factor should prevent the appointment of someone who fell under the description.

Assemblyman Williams referred to Lt. Col. Pennington’s comments, “If this particular legislation passed it would open the door for numerous people who have retired.” Mr. Williams questioned if it was realistic that people who retired years ago would actually serve in the position unless they were truly qualified. Mr. Williams remarked Lt. Col. Pennington’s comments reminded him of prior legislation from the city of Reno, when they tried to eliminate the “rule of three” with the fire department. In that particular case, the fire chief had the ability to appoint three people under him, and the positions could only be appointed by the chief. Mr. Williams declared if you were not a friend of the chief, you would not receive one of the positions, no matter how hard you tried, worked, or demonstrated your ability to be top level in that particular department, unless the chief selected you. Employees who entertained advancing their career would be diminished if they were not a friend of the top person and would never be considered. Mr. Williams emphasized in every profession there was a “good old boy” system. According to Mr. Williams, it was a question of whether the men and women who served in the guard felt they had, regardless of their rank, an opportunity to one day strive and serve and possibly reach the top level. He asked Lt. Col. Pennington if he felt the current system inspired people to fight and be the best they could be. Lt. Col. Pennington responded he had served under leadership that inspired him to reach the top level. He was pleased to work under Generals Clark and Vanderhoof, who were both supportive of making rank and progression in his military career based upon merit.

Assemblywoman Parnell stated the vote for S.B. 471 in the Senate was 12 in favor, and 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted in opposition.

John Turnow, Chief Master Sergeant, addressed the committee and stated he was representing Chief Dickerson, who was their state Command Chief Master Sergeant (CCM). Chief Master Sergeant Dickerson was unable to attend the hearing but Mr. Turnow read a statement submitted by CCM Dickerson (Exhibit G).

Stephen Sitton, Command Sergeant Major (CSM), was the senior enlisted soldier of the Nevada National Guard and had been in the service for 24 years representing 1600 Nevada Army National Guard soldiers throughout the state. He sat on a national committee that represented 270,000 enlisted members of the National Guard. CSM Sitton remarked the 54 states and territories had special laws and operated differently. The National Guard currently had a promotion system for officers and enlisted soldiers designed to help fill authorized vacancies with the most qualified soldiers who demonstrated the potential to serve at the next higher grade. The system provided a career progression and grade in accordance with each soldier’s potential. His or her immediate supervisor evaluated each officer and enlisted soldier annually, and determined the quality of the officer core, the selection of future leaders, and the course of each officer’s career. CSM Sitton commented the officer evaluation report ensured officers’ specialties were considered along with specialty requirements for his or her duty position.

CSM Sitton explained today’s armed forces were not the same as the armed forces of the past. Technology and missions changed; therefore, they needed leaders with qualifications for today’s technology, military strategy, and training levels of soldiers. CSM Sitton noted most of all the National Guard needed competent leaders. As a representative of the soldiers, CSM Sitton was aware they were most familiar and comfortable with leaders who were current members of the Guard who had made their rank through the system. A good leader must be visible, competent, caring and knowledgeable on current issues affecting the armed forces.

CSM Sitton provided a history of the Guards’ retirement system. When soldiers retired after 20 or 30 years of service, some wanted to begin a new career. He posed the question, “Why is it not important to have the last three years prior to appointment if it is important to have had six years in the Nevada National Guard?” CSM Sitton asserted if the Guard removed the three years prior to appointment, they would loose the institutional knowledge they spent so many years instilling in the officer core. He believed the current system in place was the best one, but as a soldier he would follow whatever decision was made, and whoever was chosen as Adjutant General.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel was pleased to hear CSM Sitton’s last statement, as there seemed to be the feeling it would be difficult to follow a leader who was not accepted and present in the last three years. She was confident the current Governor and also future Governors would select a competent leader.

Colonel Hobbs commented he retired as a mobilization designee to the Pentagon. If an emergency had occurred, he would have been called back to duty as a member of the United States Army. There were cases where people were called back. General Maxwell Taylor, retired Chief of Staff of the Army, was called back by President John Kennedy to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Andrew Goodpastor retired and returned to West Point because of a problem. He was reduced from four stars and served several years as the superintendent of the United States Military Academy as a Lieutenant General.

Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on S.B. 471.

Chairman Bache stated they would have a work session for a few bills.

Assembly Joint Resolution 14: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to remove requirement that Legislature fix compensation of elected county officers. (BDR C-1526)

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.J.R. 14.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 75: Clarifies provisions relating to classification of employees of state printing division of department of administration. (BDR 29-751)

Dave Ziegler, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Committee Policy Analyst, advised the committee S.B. 75 was sponsored by Senator Amodei and heard on April 18. Mr. Ziegler pointed out the bill was in relation to the State Printing Office. Senator Amodei testified the bill was the result of contacts he had with constituents in regard to NRS Chapter 344 and the printing office. The language in the chapter changed certain positions in the printing office to classified positions to avoid a competitive process in which individuals would have to apply for their own jobs. Senator Amodei consulted with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), the printing office, and the Department of Personnel and was advised to change the statute.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 75.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 125: Makes various changes to provisions relating to financial reporting of local governments. (BDR 31-898)

Mr. Ziegler explained S.B. 125 dealt with local government financial reports, and when the committee heard the bill on April 18, no amendments were proposed. Janelle Kraft and Marvin Leavitt, representing the city of Las Vegas, had clarified the bill was the result of an interim committee for the distribution of revenues. Mr. Ziegler understood information collected over the years by an LCB employee who was retiring would be turned over to the Department of Taxation. Mr. Ziegler pointed out a question asked during the hearing was if the provision for the regulations on S.B. 125 would be placed in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC).

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 125.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Neighbors noted he was a member of the standing committee.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel added she was also a member of that committee.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 200: Expands authority of certain local governments with respect to administration of municipal finances. (BDR 21-631)

Mr. Ziegler asserted S.B. 200 was proposed by the city of Reno, and heard on April 18. The bill related to the local financial administration. Mary Henderson, representing the city of Reno, had testified the bill evolved from the city’s financial department and had been reviewed by the city council and focus groups. The Reno Director of Finance stated the measure corrected inconsistencies in the city of Reno charter, expanded the ability of the city to pledge revenues for the room tax, allowed the city to reduce the cost of public financing, and corrected several inconsistencies between the general state laws and the city of Reno charter.

Assemblywoman Gibbons commented other city charters referenced revenue binding, and S.B. 200 provided more protection to the citizen taxpayer because general obligation bonds made the taxpayer totally responsible. Special obligations could be revenue bonds and, if properly stated, could protect the taxpayer because it would be backed by the revenue source.

Mary Henderson, City of Reno, remarked the bill dealt with a room tax that had already been imposed by the city, which was the intent of the bill. The process had been initiated with the focus groups over a year ago to correct the anomalies in law within the charter.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 200.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 201: Makes various changes relating to certain loans made by local governments. (BDR 31-367)

Mr. Ziegler explained S.B. 201 was advanced by the Committee on Local Government Finance and heard in the April 18 Government Affairs meeting. The bill related to inter-fund and inter-governmental loans. Mr. Tom Grady, representing the Nevada League of Cities, had testified it was a housekeeping measure. Janelle Kraft, representing the city of Las Vegas, stated it pertained to inter-fund and inter-governmental loans, and “cleaned up” the statutes and provided structures for loans between local government and between funds. There was a recent situation in which a local government used most of its money to fund a development project without any interest or terms of the loan. When the committee became aware of the situation, they determined there was a need for guidelines. The local government would be excluded from using restricted money and had to make sure it could be handled without impairment of their financial condition. In addition, terms of the loan had to be specified.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 201.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 272: Makes various changes to charter of City of Wells. (BDR S-1225)

Mr. Ziegler advised the committee S.B. 272 was proposed by Senator Rhoads and the city of Wells. The bill was heard on April 19 and made changes to the city charter. Assemblyman Carpenter explained the bill and proposed amendment on page 1, line 4, which stated, “Mayor and councilmen not to hold other office[.] or certain employment.” Ms. O’Grady, LCB legal counsel, declared the amendment was too broad and she suggested inserting the word “certain” before “employment.” The primary issue was the mayor or councilmen were not allowed to work for the city. Mr. Ziegler remarked there was discussion about cross-referencing the open meeting law, and Ms. O’Grady testified it was not always necessary because it applied universally.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 272 AS OUTLINED BY MR. ZIEGLER.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 329: Prohibits certain public bodies from taking action by vote without affirmative vote of majority of entire public body. (BDR 19-640)

Mr. Ziegler advised Chairman Bache a research request had been called for on S.B. 329 as to whether or not the bill would apply to the board of regents. The bill was held for more information.

Senate Bill 487: Authorizes additional types of investments for money in certain public funds. (BDR 31-359)

Chairman Bache requested a motion to amend the bill. There was language throughout the bill stating, “the maximum investment in stock is not greater than 60 percent of the book value of the total investment of the state permanent school fund.” Chairman Bache asked for an amendment to reduce the percentage to 50 percent.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 487, CHANGING 60 PERCENT TO 50 PERCENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Bache commented he asked the Treasurer and was told his suggestion was “livable.” The Treasurer’s investing policy was 50 percent, 40 percent, and 10 percent over, with 50 percent being invested in the stock market.

Assemblyman Humke stated there was a slight difference between the Permanent School Fund and the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) fund because the PERS fund had to be considerably concerned with liquidity.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 541: Makes various changes to provisions governing department of museums, library and arts. (BDR 33-545)

Chairman Bache explained the bill changed the Department of Museums, Library and Arts to the Department of Cultural Affairs and various other changes.

Mr. Ziegler noted S.B. 541 was proposed by the Department of Museums, Library and Archives and was heard on May 1 to make various changes to the statute relating to the department. No amendments were proposed at the meeting. The bill had two purposes: the first was in accordance with the recommendation of the fundamental review process and changed the name of their department; the second was triggered by a project in Boulder City, the Railroad Museum Project, where a determination was made to update the statutes and create a single state system of museums.

ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 541.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Mortenson thought it was Mark Twain who said, “When you mention culture in the Nevada Legislature, the legislators reach for their guns.”

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 555: Makes various changes in general laws governing cities. (BDR 21-352)

Chairman Bache explained the bill was sponsored by the Nevada League of Cities and changed the cities from first-, second-, and third-class to categories one, two, and three.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 555.

ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Senate Bill 563: Makes various changes relating to telecommunications. (BDR 20-1334)

Mr. Ziegler explained S.B. 563 had been proposed by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, and Mr. Fred Hillerby, on May 2, to make various changes regarding telecommunications. There was confusion when wireless industry taxes were assessed, particularly when a person “roamed.” Congress decided the tax would be placed on the primary place of use, either the home or the business address. Mr. Hillerby commented the effective date of the bill should be changed to coincide with the date the federal act took affect, and he proposed that as an oral amendment.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 563 IN SYNCHRONIZATION WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:26 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Linda Utt

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: