MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 19, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:03 a.m., on Monday, February 19, 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
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Utt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gary Wolff, Representative for the Nevada Highway Patrol, Teamsters 14 and 533
Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol
Andy Anderson, Executive Director, Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro
Jeanne M. Greene, Director Department of Personnel, State of Nevada
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Assembly Bill No. 122: Requires payment for all accrued unused sick leave of state employee under certain circumstances. (BDR 23-691)
Assemblywoman de Braga, District 35, introduced Assembly Bill 122, which was heard in the 1999 legislative session. The bill provided full salaries to state employees, allowed them to collect unused sick leave upon retirement and prevented loss of benefits they had earned. Ms. de Braga stated the current law allowed employees to collect unused sick leave and this bill removed the percentages of sick leave collected based on years of service.
Ms. de Braga explained Section 1 removed the provision at the end of the first paragraph that said, “the employee or his beneficiaries are entitled to payment for his unused sick leave in excess of thirty days.” They were required to have 240 hours before they collected their sick leave benefits. Based on the per year formula a percentage of those earnings had legally been withheld but the benefits were part of the salary the employees were entitled to.
Ms. de Braga explained there was a fiscal note on A.B. 122. She did not know the exact amount, but recalled that last session it was very high. Ms. de Braga clarified top of the scale employees were replaced with entry-level employees, which resulted in huge savings. Agencies and departments had been unable to keep their employees for various reasons such as salary. She reiterated the chances of retaining those employees would increase by adding additional benefits. After training, many of the new employees of the Nevada Highway Patrol go elsewhere to receive higher salaries. This bill would increase the benefits to the employee; however, it would not solve the problem.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked a question about page 2, line 36 and 37, of A.B. 122 and referred to possible “cleanup language” with the word “period” in line 37. She wanted to know if an employee was hospitalized two times with mental disorders, would the word “period” mean they could only be treated once. It appeared to Ms. Gibbons that the word “periods,” which was being deleted, would mean more than one time. The new language of “period” meant only once.
Assemblywoman de Braga replied the change “for a reasonable period of absence and if an extended absence necessitates separation or retirement provides for the reemployment” could be clarified but she understood it to mean a continuation would be the same as a second illness. Ms. Gibbons responded she did not want to discriminate against a mental or an emotional disorder. Ms. de Braga replied another consideration was an employee who accrued three months of sick leave and then became seriously ill. She stated presently the person would stay employed and use the sick leave because they were unable to carry any over to retirement. She noted if this bill passed it would have created a job vacancy because the person would have elected to retire.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. de Braga whether the language Ms. Gibbons referred to had been written at her request or by bill draft. Ms. de Braga replied the bill draft group revised that portion. Chairman Bache asked Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, if she was aware of the meaning and why this section was rewritten. Ms. O’Grady responded that it was to do clean up and normally everything was written in the singular rather than the plural and was not meant to change the meaning. Ms. de Braga also remarked if the whole sentence was reread it stated “provide for the retention of the job of such an employee” so that covered a per illness occurrence.
Assemblyman Brown asked if the calculation was based on salary. Gary Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, who also spoke on behalf of two teamster locals and other organizations, responded to Mr. Brown’s question. He stated when employees were hired by the state, a certain percentage for benefits was calculated into their salaries. There was also a percentage calculated for sick leave. Actuaries have been done throughout the state on the average sick leave taken by employees. His response to Mr. Brown was “yes.” To clarify, the agency needed to provide money to “buy out” the employee when they leave. If the agency did not have sufficient salary savings they would need to go to the Board of Examiners. Mr. Wolff stated to Mr. Brown that his testimony would provide answers to some of his questions.
Mr. Gary Wolf testified A.B. 122 encouraged employees to use sick leave wisely. It removed caps and the 240-hour penalty and helped the state efforts to retain valuable employees who left state service for better pay and benefits elsewhere. NRS 284.355 addressed a reward for employees who left state service with unused sick leave. He stated there was a problem when they must meet certain criteria as outlined in the current law. The current language that addressed unused sick leave created an unfair advantage to the higher paid employee over the lower paid employee. He stated under the current law an employee who earned $20 an hour would have to give up twice the amount of sick leave hours compared to an employee who earned $40 an hour due to the $8000 payout. He also explained giving back 240 hours under the current law created a penalty for those employees who saved their sick leave. Mr. Wolff gave handouts (Exhibit C) to the committee. Examples of employee salaries were compared, and measuring current status against the projected status under A.B. 122 indicated the small impact on department budgets.
Mr. Wolff testified a price tag was attached to A.B. 122 of $3 billion to $5 billion in the prior session. He stated Example 1 would give Trooper Smith a big payout of $26,488 if he retired under this bill. However, if Trooper Jones were hired with a salary of approximately $12,000 less than Trooper Smith, the savings would be approximately $50,484 over a three-year period. With this in mind under the current system, Trooper Smith would only receive $8,000 in sick leave pay upon retirement versus $26,488 under A.B. 122. He noted there was no incentive for Trooper Smith not to use his sick leave.
In Example 2, Mr. Wolff presented another Trooper with terminal cancer. If this Trooper elected to retire under the current law he would receive $8,000 in sick pay but under A.B. 122 he would receive $26,488. By electing not to retire and opting for sick leave, the Trooper would receive approximately $28,000 in wages along with retirement and vacation pay for a total of $35,000. Mr. Wolf also mentioned that replacements could not be hired until the Trooper retired, and more overtime would be required to fill his absence. Mr. Wolff said in his last 29 years with the Nevada Highway Patrol he had seen minimal abuse of sick leave. He also felt it made good business sense to pass A.B. 122.
Mr. Wolf gave a third example of Jane who worked for the Department of Personnel for six years. After marriage, Jane announced her pregnancy and as time went by, she left on maternity leave. After a few weeks Jane decided to stay home permanently, but found out if she quit she would lose 500 hours of sick leave she had accumulated. Currently, she was not qualified to receive money because the current law required she must have been employed ten years to draw a minimum of $2500 and Jane only had six years. If Jane were paid by the state for her unused sick leave it would cost $7,500. If the state immediately replaced Jane with a new employee making $750 monthly the first year the savings would only be $510, but in the next year it would be $9,450 and the salary savings would continue. Since Jane was entitled to 3 months of maternity leave she used the leave since she was not entitled to the 500 hours of sick leave even though she was not returning to work.
Mr. Wolf spoke about windfall payouts. What good were windfall payouts doing if they did not pay someone? Highest paid employees were just as entitled to their payouts as lowest paid employees. He explained A.B. 122 was equal for every worker in state service and treated the $10 an hour employee the same as the $50 an hour employee. The law was hurting the little people, but the new law would give everyone the same benefits. Now if you earned $10 an hour it would cost five times as many of your hours to buy back the same sick leave as someone in an engineering department who made $50 an hour.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Mr. Wolff if they offered this as a benefit to work for the Nevada Highway Patrol. Mr. Wolff replied it was a wonderful benefit but the NHP did not have collective bargaining. He explained they tell them to come to work when they are ill at the NHP and when they use very little sick leave and retire it becomes a punitive benefit. Mr. Wolff also identified Parole and Probation as an agency that had 100 percent turnover rates. He explained the Nevada Highway Patrol in southern Nevada was in a critical state of hiring because of the better benefit packages offered by cities and counties. The benefits were great when just beginning but proved poor when it was time to retire and receive rewards for unused sick time.
Assemblyman Neighbors commented he had seen some abuses of sick leave as a former county manager. He had found that when people were on sick leave the county was paying other employees overtime, and they had a policy that employees who didn’t use a certain amount of sick leave would receive annual leave, which was like money in the bank, and helped lower sick time and overtime payments. Abuses were very costly, and he added this was a good bill.
Mr. Wolff responded since the NHP did not have collective bargaining they were required to come before the legislature for benefit packages. He stated this was the only bill that would not hurt the Public Employee Retirement System and was an incentive bill, which would only benefit the state government.
Assemblywoman de Braga wanted to urge everyone to consider the long-term benefits of A.B. 122 as this bill would enable the state to retain employees for longer periods of time. Ms. de Braga requested to be excused to attend another committee meeting.
Chairman Bache asked for questions of Mrs. de Braga. Since there were none she was excused.
Assemblyman Brown questioned where he could find the formula that allocated portions of salaries to benefits. Mr. Wolff stated it could be obtained through personnel and they would show the percentage factor used. Mr. Wolff thought it was 28 percent but wasn’t sure. Mr. Brown wondered if the percentage was different for each agency. Mr. Wolff replied it was about the same across the board, but there were always exceptions and there are three classifications of state employees. He explained there were some who might be hard to find and employ and they had special clauses in their benefit packages; normally in the classified system or unclassified system the benefits were equal. Mr. Wolff referred Mr. Brown to the Director of Personnel, Jeanne Greene, and said she should be able to help him with any further questions.
Colonel Michael Hood, Chief of the Nevada Highway Patrol, spoke for the men and woman of the NHP. He noted that employees who came to work when ill, thus giving 150 percent knowing they were needed, were punished by the system. They realized their fellow employees would need to work overtime to cover their shifts if they did not report to work. When their career ended the state took away their earned benefits. He reiterated the unfairness of punishing people for not getting sick. Also when the shifts get low on staff, the shift commanders had the authority to call in replacements for sick employees. Accidents could not go unattended. Colonel Hood stated it was a good bill and spoke for the Nevada Highway Patrol, as well as all state employees.
Assemblyman Lee requested verification on a prior discussion made in the 1999 session regarding the Nevada Highway Patrol training. He asked if they were trained by the NHP and then went to another county job, did that county pay for a portion of their original training. Col. Hood stated there was discussion during the 1999 session and nothing happened. A bill was introduced for retention of employees for a certain number of years after training but it was defeated. Mr. Lee stated he remembered voting for this bill and questioned what took place and why it did not pass. He wondered if, on the Senate side, the main downfall was the financial consideration. Col. Hood stated it never made it to the Senate floor. Chairman Bache advised it was passed out of the Government Affairs Committee and went to Ways and Means Committee and it did not pass.
Col. Hood stated the price tag assigned to this bill was high and not a true figure. Overtime paid out to cover sick employees was not considered. Also, the retired employee was hired back at a higher rate of pay to cover for the loss of manpower.
Assemblyman Brown liked the bill and mentioned that he had received some sick leave in the private sector. Mr. Brown felt the main hurdle was to look at the bill from a legal perspective and try to understand if there was a legal right or property right to those monies versus a benefit. He stated he had questions regarding the formula and later would like input.
Col. Hood replied positively to Mr. Brown about the property right question and said when they received salaries from the Highway Patrol, the benefits were figured into their budgets. He continued by saying if a person used up their sick leave during their term of employment it had been budgeted and there was no problem. However unused sick leave was withheld. The money stayed in the budget and reverted back. Col. Hood felt there would be a property right to this money.
Assemblyman Price presumed if the bill were passed the troopers would be in a better mood when stopping people on the highway. Col. Hood responded his troopers were always in a good mood, no matter how they were treated.
Andy Anderson, representing the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and also Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, said his statement would be brief. He stated all constituents were in support of this legislation. He felt besides the retention value of the benefit, there was an example in the Metro Division of the Las Vegas Police Department of a sick leave payoff, which encouraged people to work when not feeling well. Mr. Anderson explained there were critical positions in Metro which required backup employees at all times such as at the correction facilities. There were times when one could work “short” on the street but the jail was mandatory and required people be brought in on overtime. When there was a heavy increase in sick leave abuse, the jail overtime was higher. Mr. Anderson stated in the long run encouraging employees to not abuse the sick leave and look at the positive benefits when they retired would save money.
Chairman Bache asked if anyone else wished to testify on A.B. 122. The hearing was closed.
Assembly Bill No. 90: Eliminates limitation on amount of unused sick leave employee in public service is entitled to carry forward from year to year. (BDR 23-532)
Jeanne Greene, Director of Department of Personnel, State of Nevada and Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, spoke in favor of this bill. Ms. Greene explained that as a result of a meeting with Mr. Gagnier A.B. 90 was formed. She further explained state employees currently accrued sick leave at a rate of one and one quarter days for each month of employment. When the employee accumulated a balance of ninety days only one half of any unused sick leave was carried forward to the next year. She said the balance went into a special sick leave account, which could only be accessed when the employee had exhausted his regular sick leave. Hours accumulated in the special sick leave account were not considered when payment was made for unused sick leave upon retirement, death or separation. A.B. 90 proposed elimination of the special sick leave account. Ms. Greene stated an employee with a catastrophic illness could exhaust most, if not all, of his regular sick leave. If they retired as a result of a disability, or even died, his or her survivors were not able to access the special sick leave for the purposes of sick leave pay. In conclusion, Ms. Greene stated by eliminating the special sick leave account, recognition would be given to the person who accrued sick leave by permitting all sick leaves be paid at retirement. She stated only a small number of employees would be impacted by this proposal. She also disclosed the fiscal amount was not significant and the average cost to the state would be $12,400 per year. Ms. Greene claimed another good reason for passage of this bill was not only the elimination of sick leave accounts but also the simplification of personnel record keeping. (Exhibit D)
Assemblywoman Freeman asked if there was a fiscal note on this bill. Ms. Greene replied the fiscal note was just completed on Friday, February 16. This fiscal note was submitted and was approximately $12,400 per year.
Chairman Bache asked for other questions from members of the committee.
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, spoke in support of A.B. 90. This language was added over thirty years ago and at one point there was a 90-day limit on the amount of sick leave an employee could accumulate. The state of Nevada came to the legislature and asked to eliminate the 90-day ruling. The agreement eliminated the 90-day limit, but after that time period had elapsed, the employee would only earn half of the normal rate. He stated although an employee would earn a day and a quarter sick pay monthly, if they were really frugal in their use of the sick leave the state would, in turn, dock them for half the 90-day period of time. Mr. Gagnier explained he was trying to remove the portion after the 90-day period, which would reduce the sick leave time and allowed the day and a quarter an employee would earn for the duration of their employment with the state. Mr. Gagnier stated this bill was passed before and was bogged down in Ways and Means Committee along with the prior bill A.B. 122.
Chairman Bache asked for questions from members of the committee.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 90.
Chairman Bache introduced four Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) to the committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-336.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
changes concerning municipal judges. (A.B. 180)
Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if the BDR was a mid-term pay increase. Chairman Bache stated one of the changes would be in the senior municipal judge as selected by majority of the sitting judges for a term of two years. He read the next section and said it pertained to the salary of each municipal judge. The section included the salary and stated there may be an increase during the terms for which they are elected or appointed.
Ms. Von Tobel stated that the BDR requested a mid-term pay increase. Chairman Bache indicated it enabled an increase because the city council set their salaries. Chairman Bache advised he had not planned on having a hearing on the bill today because they were just doing introductions. Ms. Von Tobel remarked there would be constitutional problems when the bill was introduced.
Assemblyman Neighbors stated historically most council seats needed to wait until the next regular election before a pay increase occurred. Chairman Bache read the salary might increase during the term for which the judges were elected. Also, he stated, the prior section said the salary must be fixed by the city council and be uniform for all departments of the municipal court. Chairman Bache advised he was sure a debate would take place with the city of Henderson if this bill was introduced.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-489.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED, ASSEMBLYWOMEN VON TOBEL AND FREEMAN VOTED NAY, ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
********
Assemblyman Brown asked Chairman Bache if he knew who had requested this bill. Chairman Bache advised BDR 21-475 was requested by the City of Las Vegas. Mr. Bache again reminded the committee these were introductions only and they would not be making a commitment on the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 21-475.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-57.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION
Chairman Bache asked for any discussion. Assemblywoman Freeman stated she hoped future introductions would include the bill sponsor. She advised it would be helpful. Chairman Bache said BDR 22-57 was something he had requested to clarify and simplify some of the notices.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Chairman Bache asserted that before adjournment he had set the start of the meeting at 9 a.m. Mr. Bache said Mr. Lee, Ms. Gibbons, Mr. Brown, and he were the only ones in the meeting on time. He stated the reason he set 9 a.m. on Mondays was to provide an extra hour for those who commuted on the weekends. He explained if the committee wanted to continue meeting at 9 a.m. on Mondays as long as possible during the session, it was expected they all be on time and begin promptly at 9 a.m.
Assemblyman Neighbors stated for the record, he was waiting for a group to attend the meeting and was standing in the doorway.
Chairman Bache asked for any further business.
Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting on Government Affairs at 9:59 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Utt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: