MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 15, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Thursday, March 15, 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. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. David Humke
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Sharon Angle, Assembly District 29
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Colleen Hillman, Office of the Military
Brigadier General Giles Vanderhoof, Office of the Military
Richard Leigh, Superintendent of Employees, Office of the Military
John Orr, private citizen
Drennan A. Clark, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada
Terry Campbell, private citizen
Richard Pruitt, State of Nevada Employee
Janey Pumphrey, private citizen
Roxanne Wilson, State of Nevada employee at the Air National Guard facility
Kevin Knup, Base Civil Engineer, Air National Guard
Kirk McKown, Department of the Military, Building and Custodial Manager
Assembly Bill 172: Revises provisions governing adjutant general and office of the military. (BDR 36-913)
Sharon Angle, Assemblywoman, District 29, Washoe County, stated there had been amendments offered and were reflected in pages 1-3 of Exhibit C. She had proposed the bill after several calls from constituents requesting clear guidelines in the Office of the Military and what the differences were between the responsibilities of federal and state employees. As she looked into the issue she found not only state workers, but also people involved in the National Guard wanted the guidelines clarified. As indicated in an article in the Reno Gazette-Journal (Exhibit C, page 6), there was much fear of retribution among all employees, and that was one of the reasons she felt the bill should be passed. In the second handout (Exhibit D), it indicated which positions fell under the State of Nevada and the United States (U.S.) Federal Military. The State of Nevada was the landlord and the U.S. military was the tenant. The state owned the land and built buildings to the specifications of the federal government. They also provided equipment and the employees to maintain those buildings. The federal government leased the land and paid 75 percent of the cost of building the building, but once the building was completed it became state property. Exhibit D, page 1, explained who were militia employees and who were state employees. The center of the page identified overlapping positions.
Ms. Angle pointed out in Section 1 of the bill, lines 1-4 established the accountability of the Adjutant General, which was in line with appointments made by the Governor. In Subsection 2, certain qualifications would be removed that limited the Governor when appointing an Adjutant General. Section 2, Subsection 3, lines 9-12 eliminated civilian state employees from federal military supervision and control, bringing the performance standards of the office in line with other state agencies. Another change in the bill would be the deletion of “must have completed 6 years of service in the Nevada National Guard as a federally recognized officer, 3 years of which must be immediately before his appointment.” That would allow the Governor to appoint an Adjutant General from a significantly broader and more qualified pool of candidates. Presently, no matter how distinguished a person’s military background was, if they had not been serving in the Nevada National Guard three years prior to the appointment they were ineligible by statute for appointment. She had a list of over 200 candidates outside the state that could be eligible, but could not be considered because they were not members of the National Guard. Only seven other states had as strict a statute as Nevada covering who could be appointed.
Ms. Angle pointed out in the Bill of Rights (Exhibit E) the Third Amendment said, “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the owner . . .” The Tenth Amendment indicated the state’s sovereignty rights, and that was the thrust in the bill. She felt the issue had to be resolved as to where federal sovereignty ended and the state started. The issue had come up many times regarding federal lands, nuclear waste problems, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) gaming, and she felt it was just one more indication that states’ rights were being eroded. Changes arose after the Department of Military reorganized its civilian state employees, placing them under a federal military chain of command. That reorganization changed the state policy that had been in place since the state was a territory. She felt the issue was a states’ rights issue as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled under the Americans with Disabilities Act that the federal government lacked the power to grant state employees employment rights enforceable against a state. So if the federal government lacked the authority to grant employment rights, then the federal government was not empowered to remove employment rights that belonged to state employees. She had received a legal opinion that the federal government lacked the authority to remove or take away employment rights.
Also indicated in the packet was the reasoning for the reorganization (Exhibit C, pages 7 and 8), affecting the contract with the Department of the Military. As indicated on the second page of the letter, it was the department’s interpretation that the Base Civil Engineer (BCE) was the one who should have supervisory authority over civilian employees in the day-to-day workload and indicated the supervisor must have a relationship with the BCE. Also included was the personnel organizational chart indicating the present chain of command (Exhibit C, pages 19 and 20), and a chart that showed how the previous chain of command was implemented (Exhibit C, page 23). There was a clear chain of command and when the reorganization took place the state employees fell between many military layers of supervision. Under the change, the administrative state officer would no longer be in charge, only consulted regarding hiring and firing practices and employee evaluations.
Pages 14 and 15 of Exhibit C showed the breakdown of how the employees were paid by either the state or the federal government. The first position of Adjutant General was paid 100 percent by the state, and going through the chart there were 25 employees paid by the state including custodial workers, maintenance repair, facility supervisors, grounds maintenance workers, heating and air conditioning specialists. Most of the employees paid by federal dollars were security officers, firefighters and environmentalists. When the money fell under federal supervision the lines were less clear as to who spent the money for which program. State employees were well aware of which programs should be paid for by state monies and when the money fell under federal supervision the lines were less clear as to who spent the money on which programs. She felt under the circumstances the monies were not being tracked in such a way that federal and state funds were being monitored properly.
Ms. Angle stressed that many of the people testifying on the bill were in fear of losing their jobs as she had a conversation with the Adjutant General and he told her if the bill passed, he felt because of the regulations he would be compelled to terminate state employees. Her contention was if the bill did not pass that was exactly what would happen and those jobs would be contracted by the military. The purpose of the bill would clearly delineate who was a state employee and that they be supervised by other state employees. On pages 21 and 22 of Exhibit C was a letter from LCB Research covering three states that had the situation where state employees were supervised by the military. In all three states it had been a difficult restructuring process, particularly in California where after seven years, that state was still finding discrepancies.
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified his only concern was Section 2 of the bill. He had read some comments about the bill and he wanted to say the system operated for many years the way the bill envisioned it should operate and changing those rules after so many years ignored the past. There were federal regulations requiring civilian state employees be supervised by federal employees as indicated in the language on line 19 of page 2, “Except as otherwise provided by federal law or regulation.” The difficulty with the current system was with the law that was passed several years before, and now incorporated in NRS 284.338, requiring anyone who completed a performance evaluation on a classified state employee have the state training required to do so. That was the main problem in having federal employees supervising because they did not enforce state laws. It was important to have state employees evaluated and supervised by trained state employees.
Colleen Hillman stated she was a state employee at the Air National Guard in the civil engineering division as a property manager. She had worked as an air traffic controller, at a five-star resort where there were many levels of supervision, the Public Service Commission under two layers of supervision and she now had supervision by the man for which she worked directly who was the BCE. She did not feel there were problems with the diversified levels and she was not in fear of job loss. If she was doing a good job she should have no problem keeping her job, and did not believe the rumor that the Air National Guard was privatizing and letting contracts. She also felt she should be evaluated by the person who was her direct supervisor even though he was not a state employee. She wanted to propose an amendment to the bill for consideration on Section 2, lines 21 where it referred to “adjutant general.” She suggested a comma be inserted with the additional language “or a member of the Nevada National Guard,” striking the words “a state employee of the office.” She thought the reason the bill had been requested was because of a personal vendetta by the person or persons requesting it. Another point she had was the funding used to construct, operate, and maintain the buildings. Those were not 100 percent state funds. Many times the construction was 100 percent federal monies, while the operation and maintenance was 75 percent federally funded and 25 percent paid for by the base.
Brigadier General Gils Vanderhoof, Adjutant General of Nevada, stated there were several issues he felt needed clarification. The notion that federal people were tenants on state land was false. The Air National Guard, where most of the employees were concentrated was entirely an Air Force-leased facility. There was no state land at that facility, should the air guard ever leave there it would not revert to the state. Seventy-five percent of the salaries of the maintenance people at those buildings were federally funded and 25 percent paid by the state. He was distressed by the article in the paper that referred to the proposed bill as a states’ rights issue, as it had nothing to do with what Nevada and the BLM were going through, or Nevada’s problems with the national debate regarding college gambling. It was a state militia and headed up by a state employee that was only accountable to the Governor who was the commander-in-chief. It was true there was a lot of federal money involved because they were also part of the Army and Air Force, and in time of war or emergency they could be called up and blended right into those services.
The mission of his office was to be in place in the event of any emergency or insurrection. The statement had been made federal people were hiring state people and although he saw no problem with that process, the Adjutant General was the final authority of all state and federal hiring. He, and General Clark before him, required all federal supervisors to attend the state training classes on issues or personnel regulations, accounting and finance policies, and any programs relating to the state. As a further safeguard, Mr. Miles Celio, who was the Administrative Services Officer for the state, was the second signature required on every personnel action required on a state employee. The Base Civil Engineer (BCE) had several supervisors even though he supervised several state people, and if there was to be any adverse action to an employee by the BCE, Mr. Celio who was the highest state official must also approve that action. The accusation people would lose their jobs if the bill passed had some small truth to it. There was a combination of federal and state guards on the base who were there to defend that base, and two separate armed forces could not be supported. If the bill passed he had no choice but to revert to previous administration coverage as a cost-saving measure, where contracts were negotiated with security firms. The statement was made the government did not care how much money was spent, and that was false. The state’s property and fiscal officer for Nevada was recommended by the Adjutant General and Governor and appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force or Army and must have been employed by the Nevada National Guard. If appointed, that person was a federal officer and responsible for all federal dollars that came to Nevada. All federal property, including buildings and construction also became his responsibility. When dealing with federal dollars, he stressed they had control over every single penny spent and required complete accountability. Whenever there was change some people felt threatened, but the vast majority of state employees he had talked to were pleased with the restructuring and minor supervisory change.
There has been federal supervision of state employees since the guard was formed. He felt there were safeguards for state employees by virtue of the fact it was a state employee who was the second signature on all personnel and finance actions. The proposed change would severely inhibit the ability of the Adjutant General to direct the office in an efficient manner and actually create unacceptable and unsafe conditions by creating voids in proper supervision, direction and review. In the case of the military police it was imperative they be under one supervisory position, there could not be someone in Carson City directing part of that work force. Another area was environmental scientists that were state employees on the army side and worked for the Facilities Management Officer, whose position was similar to the BCE on the air side, no one person in the office of the military could supervise or understand what the employee’s responsibilities were except their supervisor. There was also no way the firefighters could be split as they had to be under the control of the fire chief and the federal regulations were very clear on that issue. During his career he had supervised all of the employees at the air guard and many of the Nevada army guard. In some areas he had seen inefficiencies, conflicting direction and lack of accountability, so he had been one of the people in the forefront of requesting the minor supervisory changes reflected in the bill. His only concern was to assure the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization, and he did not feel the issue of federal employees supervising state employees was a major problem. If the unit ran more efficiently by having a state employee supervising a federal employee, he would have no problem with that either.
The current provision, enacted in 1967, worked and was part of a sweeping reform of the Nevada military code. He had discussed the issues with Governor Miller and he was assured the Governor supported him with the issue covering the state employees. The Governor and his staff also believed the requirement to be a member of guard for six years in order to be appointed Adjutant General was necessary.
Brigadier General Vanderhoof pointed out on his chart (Exhibit F) the different types of employees were color-coded, but it was not the entire organizational chart; it gave a good idea of where the state employees were employed. The “N” over the blocks indicated non-discretionary and the “D” designation was discretionary. The positions without any letter indicated those working for a federal supervisor. There were several state employees working for federal officials but only four people were removed from under the authority of the facility supervisor and placed under the facilities management supervisor. He felt it was only a minor change in supervisory controls.
Mr. Mortenson questioned how large the militia in Nevada was, including both military and civilian employees. Brigadier General Vanderhoof replied there were 72 full-time state civilian employees, and nearly 700 federal full-time employees with the Army and Air National Guard. Within the full time force some of the people were civil service employees, some were active guard and reserve, and some were under state control. Including the part-time guardsmen, the total was around 3,000. To put it in perspective, the total budget for the Army and Air National Guard of Nevada was nearly $72 million per year and the state budget was a little under 2 percent of that figure per year. They were a state force unless mobilized to respond to declared emergencies.
Mr. Price questioned if people were allowed to participate in the Nevada National Guard if they lived in other states, as his wife had participated in the National Guard in California for training and weekend duty. General Vanderhoof responded because of the close proximity there were some members from California. However, they were required to swear allegiance to the State of Nevada.
Mr. Price asked who the owner of the property was where the guard was housed. General Vanderhoof replied all the property at the Air National Guard was a federal lease, so the airport authority of Washoe County owned the property. In Carson City the building was a federal building. The Stead facility and the new Washoe County Armory, built a few years ago, were on federally leased land. All the armories except the Washoe armory were on state land. The state paid 25 percent of building costs and if the federal government vacated those properties, after 25 years they would revert totally to the state.
Mr. Brown said if he understood correctly, the military had no objection to having the three-year qualification requirement removed. General Vanderhoof responded that was not necessarily correct. They were in favor of no change and in discussion with the Governor and his staff they were adamantly opposed to any changes regarding the state employees as well as the six-year requirement. They did indicate if the Legislature felt a change was necessary, the only change they would consider would be that of the consecutive three-year requirement.
Mr. Brown wondered if they took the same position on the three-year provision on the assistant Adjutant General. General Vanderhoof replied that was not a problem as their consideration was only the requirement for the Adjutant General. Some states even elected the Adjutant General, with twenty-nine other states selecting their Adjutant General in much the same way as Nevada. He knew in South Carolina the Adjutant General was out campaigning the same way any other political official was.
Mr. Neighbors felt there would be a problem if there were two separate police forces and was certainly in favor of one person being in charge of that situation. He wondered if all the publicity had made it so the best solution would be to hire outside for qualified guards who would be supervised by the military. General Vanderhoof stated there were rumors that anyone coming to testify on the bill would be terminated, his exact reply was “I might not be the smartest guy on the block, but I’m not that stupid.” Anyone was welcome to come and testify for or against the bill and he would not consider any type of adverse action. His point was because of safety concerns he could not have two separate armed forces operating at the same facility.
Mr. Neighbors hoped that someone from the Governor’s staff would be testifying on the bill as long as the staff had discussed the bill with the general. General Vanderhoof said the Governor took the position it was totally unacceptable to him to have any change made regarding the state employees at the facilities.
Richard Leigh, Superintendent of Employees, Office of the Military, stated he was a retired police lieutenant and had worked 45 years in government positions and had been in the Air Force many years before. He presently worked for the Army National Guard and had been in the position for the past seven years, and wished to only speak to the Army side of the issue. He was physically located at the Stead facility where there were ten security positions, with staffing at 80 percent. He was a state employee, but the other seven officers reported to him. He thought it was important for him to answer to the military, as they were his customers. Mr. Celio the state administrative officer had hiring and firing authority even though he was located in Carson City. Mr. Leigh had never observed any inappropriate management by any military person over state employees. Since the reorganization was implemented, in the last six to eight months there had been better maintenance and the work orders were being completed in a timely manner.
John Orr, private citizen, said although he was a state employee he was testifying as a private citizen, and was in support of A.B. 172. The main thrust of his support was in the state supervision of state employees unless otherwise required by federal law or regulation. The reason he supported that concept was because for years he was the Administrative Services Officer (ASO) with the office of the military and he knew the problems of accountability that existed if the straight line of authority was interrupted by military supervision. The state supervisor was accountable for the resources by the chain of command and answerable to the Governor and the Legislature. With military supervision the accountability was to the National Guard Bureau and Washington D.C. and could be susceptible for abuse of both the state budget act and the state personnel system. Abuses had occurred in the past and if the bill was enacted, accountability to the legislative body would be reestablished.
Mr. Neighbors understood many of the salaries were paid by the federal government and some by the state, and questioned who paid his salary. Mr. Orr replied he no longer worked for the military but the ASO was paid 100 percent by the state. All of the 72 current maintenance employees were paid by the state and subject to reimbursement by the federal government. The Master Cooperative Agreement (MCA) established a partnership between the State of Nevada and the National Guard Bureau and the minor reorganization did away with the partnership and transferring all authority to the federal government. There was nothing in the MCA requiring the federal government to surrender resources to the state and likewise nothing requiring the state to surrender state resources to the federal authority. Without the bill state resources, including money and personnel, would be surrendered to military authority.
Mr. Neighbors asked if there was any condition of employment when the state employees were hired. Mr. Orr responded the MCA required the direct day-to-day supervision of the firehouse. The fire chief who was a guard employee and the ASO worked closely in protecting the firefighters rights and insured that the responsibilities were met. He felt absence of the state presence there would be abuse of the state payroll, overtime, and state leave systems.
Drennan (Tony) Clark, Solicitor General of Nevada, indicated he had served in that position for the past two months. Previously he had served as Adjutant General for 14 years and Commander of the Nevada National Guard. He was strongly opposed to A.B. 172 and the proposed changes it made to NRS 412.044 as it changed the qualification of Adjutant General. The statute had been operative in the state of Nevada for over 30 years and had worked effectively. To correct a misconception, he stated there were 24 states, including Nevada, having statutes similar to Nevada. A candidate had to be a drilling guardsman in the state at the time of appointment to Adjutant General. In 13 of those states long-time service with the guard was required, but not that the person had to be in service at the time of appointment to the position of Adjutant General. There were compelling reasons for the requirements for the appointee with the main one being familiarity with current National Guard rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. The appointee also needed to be familiar with state guard units and missions, the commanders, and the communities in which they operated. It insured the appointee was familiar with Nevada, the Legislature and how it operated, the Congressional delegation, and all of the guard bureaus and divisions associated with the guard at the federal level. So it was important that anyone put in the position of Adjutant General be familiar with Nevada and the National Guard and have recent experience. It could not be expected that someone who had been retired for several years or came from another state to be familiar with what was required within the state or be an effective leader and obtain maximum performance from the guardsmen. The point was the qualifications in the statute were adopted to ensure the best leadership within the organization.
The issue of requiring state supervision of state employees in the office of the military was already in place. The Adjutant General was the ultimate authority for the guard and he was a state employee. As a department head he had the authority to assign work, workers, and supervision where he deemed necessary to accomplish the mission. The proposed language in the bill would unduly hamper that flexibility as an executive department director. No other state or territory had such limitations in the statutes, nor was there a federal law, saying only federal employees could be supervised by federal employees. He found it interesting that there did not seem to be a concern with federal employees being supervised by state employees. About 18 to 20 months ago the Air National Guard passed a regulation requiring maintenance and custodial employees at the bases, nationwide, be directly supervised by the Base Civil Engineer (BCE). The BCE was a federal officer and responsible to his commander and the Adjutant General for the maintenance of the buildings on his facility. The regulatory requirement was adopted in the federal/state cooperative agreement bringing consistency in the operation of the department. If the BCE was supervising the maintenance and custodial in the Air Guard, the FMO should be supervising on the Army side as those positions were equal and would bring about consistency for both sides. One of the requirements for both the BCE and the FMO was to complete training at the Department of State Personnel so they would have the expertise to fill out and complete the annual evaluation form required by the state for state employees. It was required that there be a second rater on the evaluation and that was Mr. Celio, who was a state employee. So any hiring or firing was done through the direct state chain of command.
Terry Campbell, private citizen, testified there was a newspaper article in the packet (Exhibit C, page 6), and when the author of that article contacted the Adjutant General, questioning if state employees testifying for the bill would be fired, his comment was “I have not threatened anyone’s job.” However, in discussing the bill with Assemblywoman Angle the Adjutant General stated if it did pass he would have to dismiss all state employees. The committee should take into consideration the true intent of the bill. The Adjutant General had stated his main concern was the security forces and fire department at the air base; however, in reading the bill it specifically exempts those particular positions. He said there was a credibility problem if those positions were exempt and were at the same time being used to try and implement the bill. It was not a minor change being discussed, but a major restructuring change. The Legislative Audit Committee had voted to do an audit of the Department of the Military, so there were things going on that needed to be investigated thoroughly before considering passage of the bill. In effect, he felt the thrust was to do some “empire building” by taking all the state employees and burying them within the military structure. In selecting an Adjutant General from a pool excluding those who had not served in the past three years, he was sure the Governor would not go out of state to select someone to serve in that position. The Governor would be very careful in selecting someone from the state of Nevada, and if it was someone with a gap of three years he assumed there would be staff in place to deal with any emergency. It was like saying Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld could not be placed in the position he had been in again, because he had been out of that office for 10 or 12 years. Just because they had been out of the office for three years did not mean they did not have the expertise to return and serve as the Adjutant General.
Ms. Parnell questioned if he was currently an employee of the guard. Mr. Campbell replied he was not. She wondered if he had first hand knowledge of any threats real or implied, or was the testimony second hand information. Mr. Campbell replied his information came from Assemblywoman Angle.
Richard Pruitt, a State of Nevada employee for 18 years, stated he was the employee who approached Ms. Angle, requesting changes in the law. He had been threatened and the entire issue had turned his life upside down. His employee evaluation in October of 1999 was outstanding and was signed by then Adjutant General Clark. Now a little over a year later he had been demoted to a maintenance repair specialist, a position that was previously under his supervision. He had been a Facilities Supervisor over maintenance throughout the state for approximately 12 years and in Carson City for four administrators. Three of the administrators were long term employees for the state of Nevada who had since retired. Letters were even sent to his wife, trying to destroy his marriage and it was not a light subject when it involved people’s lives. His first line supervisor for the custodians was run out of his position after 12 years, and threatened as well, so he was no longer with the state. Two federal employees were placed in Mr. Pruitt’s supervisory position even though they did not meet the criteria set down by state personnel. Tracking and accountability procedures were done exactly the way the state Division of Buildings and Grounds and Public Works did their procedures. When the military made the change they did not even look at the productivity and if the bill passed it would promote federal employees and demote state employees.
Ms. Parnell said she had carried grievance procedure bills for state employees and asked if Mr. Pruitt had the same rights as other state employees even though he was in the office of the military. Mr. Pruitt stated he had been responsible for approximately 30 of the state employees and worked with the administrators and knew the system very well.
Ms. Parnell asked if he had filed a grievance with the state. Mr. Pruitt replied that the friction was between the state and federal sides such as construction projects. One instance was in Las Vegas where the state maintained the armory. When the building was built it was federally funded but under the capital improvements projects for the state and it was overseen by the Public Works Board. During the project there were many discrepancies between what was required by the state and the federal government. Issues such as environmental protection were sidestepped. When complaining to the federal military he was told not to question authority because when one questioned authority that person became the problem.
Mr. Parnell wondered if he had gone through the state grievance procedure that was available to a state employee. He responded he turned over to the Department of Personnel the improper federal government actions that were occurring in the agency. There was an independent hearing that was to be conducted by the Department of Personnel for him as a “whistleblower.” The situation developed because the federal people did not want to be accountable to the state.
Mr. Neighbors questioned if the letters he had received were from military personnel. Mr. Pruitt related they were anonymous letters but he had also received verbal threats. He had also turned in a work place violence report. And although he had two witnesses he was told that the verbal abuse was not considered work place violence.
Janey Pumphrey, ex-employee of the Office of the Military who had worked for them for approximately four-and-one-half years, stated she would read her prepared statement, which was in the packet she had passed out to the committee (Exhibit G, pages 1-3). Also in the packet was a copy of her letter of resignation (Exhibit G, page 4); a memo of a work order meeting (Exhibit G, page 5); a chart showing the makeup of the Administration Office in the Department of Military (Exhibit G page 6); and a sequence of events regarding personnel actions (Exhibit G, page 7). Early in her employment there had been remarks made that the military was going to take over state employees. At the time the Adjutant General assured the employees there would be no takeover. On May 17, 2000, there was an overview of the Work Order Meeting stating there would be no lay-offs. The military officer who was put in charge of the state employees asked for resumes and that was not the way state personnel operated. She felt the federal officers were completely unaware of the procedures that were followed by the state. Staff meetings as well as safety meetings were many times not attended by the military personnel. During the time she worked there she came to realize it was a very complex agency and one of the hardest jobs she had was dealing with time and attendance in the agency as there were several different work schedules. One instance was an individual who worked for the state during the week and for the federal side on weekends. Even though the state employees were trying to hire under state agency guidelines for state positions, the military staff wanted to hire their way without consistent hiring practices. There were also problems with federal reimbursements as there were state positions within the Office of the Military paid by federal funds and often those employees thought of themselves as federal employees. She believed that the citizens should be more aware of what was going on with their tax dollars and how the money was being disbursed. She felt there should be a way to monitor the issues and that someone in the military should be accountable to the state.
Mr. Neighbors asked if the state audited the funds. Ms. Pumphrey replied she would hope there were audits but she was not in a position to answer that question. She knew that so much money was allocated at the beginning of each fiscal year to be disbursed during the year. If there was a federal employee monitoring those funds, she wondered how the state could be certain those funds were being allocated in a proper manner.
Mr. Neighbors stated he thought the audits only occurred every three or four years and perhaps the legislative staff could check into the problem. He wondered about her letter of resignation, as she seemed to have some administrative problems, but had also started with the letter expressing her gratitude for how much she had learned over the four-and-one-half years she had been employed at the military. It seemed a little contradictory.
Ms. Pumphrey stated she had learned a lot from the administrator that had originally hired her, and for the time she was there she had put her heart and soul into the position. Because the administrator was away from the office so much due to his wife’s illness she learned her job from ground zero and because she had no one to fall back on she had to research every aspect of trying to run the office. She was grateful to have learned what she had and General Clark was a good administrator who provided direction. The following administrator was there for two years and was also supportive of the staff. The next administrator was only there for three months and completely inconsistent in her administration, taking away the employees responsibilities and indicating they were no longer needed. There were employees working in Herlong and wondered what that facility had to do with Nevada. There was so much contradiction between the supervisors she could no longer work under those circumstances.
Roxanne Wilson, state employee at the Air National Guard Base, testified she was the management assistant for that office and 75 percent reimbursed by the guard. She did the budget for the division and was one of the people responsible for the money being spent properly. There were specific guidelines on the spending for the federal side and that was for repair, custodial supplies and services, and two state engineers. All the firefighters and security police were 100 percent reimbursed from federal funds, but were supervised by state employees. She did not believe any of the state employees felt their jobs were in jeopardy at the Air Guard base. The administrator was mandated to follow certain guidelines set down by the guard, and was responsible for the overseeing the budget, maintaining the base, including all the custodial services, and the real property services. No state employee would have the same scope of expertise. Although she was considered a state employee she did federal work and no other state employee would know what she did, let alone supervise her work. The state and the federal government both monitored the funds, so it was not a case of just going out and spending money wherever they wanted to.
Ms. Von Tobel asked how the money was monitored by the state. Ms. Wilson responded when the funding documents came from the guard bureau at the beginning of the federal fiscal year, notification was sent to the state and the money was placed in their accounts. So the state knew what was received and they paid all the bills as purchase orders were sent to them.
Ms. Von Tobel inquired if the state auditors had done an audit during the time she had been employed at the base. Ms. Wilson stated they would not audit her office, but the main office in Carson City. She added she was aware there was an audit currently in progress that was being conducted by the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Ms. Von Tobel wondered if Ms. Wilson supplied any records to them, to which she replied she had spoken with the auditors the previous week. At that time she indicated she had backup documentation for any records and those would be available to the auditors. She went through all the bills and checked to see if the bill really belonged to a certain area and then it would be reimbursed. If a bill came through that did not belong to them, they called the accounting technician in Carson City, who in turn took care of getting it to the proper unit.
Kevin Knup, Base Civil Engineer (BCE), Nevada Air National Guard, testified that in the guard one was reassigned every three years and the Commander-in-Chief was the President of the United States. As a guard member he answered through the Adjutant General to the Governor of Nevada. He had been in the guard for 17 years and he oversaw over 300,000 square feet of facility at the base and was responsible for everything from custodial to new construction review. The reason there were state employees was because in the case of war or national emergency and the base was activated, there would have to be someone there to maintain the base. The federal government recognized that need and that was the impetus of the Master Cooperative Agreement with the state when it was first implemented. The real property records were to be maintained by the state employees and in the agreement it stated they worked for the BCE. It also stated that all state procedures would be followed and they were. Since the change made by the Adjutant General went into effect he felt the level of efficiency and the morale of the state employees had increased dramatically. The backlog of work orders had completely vanished since the supervision from Carson City had been changed.
Kirk McKown, Department of the Military, Building and Custodial Manager (BAC) in Carson City, said he had been in all facets of construction. The issue of federal employees supervising state employees had been a long-running debate and many of them did fear for their jobs. What brought the issue to a head were projects done by FMO where it became apparent there were many construction defects. A good example was the building in Las Vegas where 75 percent of the doors did not work when the building was accepted by the military. State maintenance was requested to fix the problem with the funding coming from the state budget. Another problem was at the Stead facility where the FMO oversaw a project involving the boilers, when it became apparent the work was not to code he stepped in and notified his supervisor. He was not aware at the time the contractor was a brother-in-law to the FMO, so the boiler inspector had to be called in and the project was going to be red-tagged. The FMO did not make the contractor fix the problem as he had already been paid so it cost almost $11,000 at state expense to fix the problem.
Ms. Von Tobel stated the auditors were looking for things like that and she suggested he contact the auditors so they would know what areas to review. Mr. McKown stated he had contact with the auditors and had gotten to know them on a first name basis. When he was taking the verbal abuse from his superiors, he had tried to talk with Mr. Celio whose response was, “We wouldn’t do a thing like that.” That told him that Mr. Celio’s heart and head was military, but the pocketbook was state.
Mr. Bache stated there was not enough time to hear the other two bills and he would reschedule them for sometime the following week. As he had not been contacted by anyone wishing to testify on A.B. 172 he had not expected the meeting to last so long. Also, he would hold a floor meeting to have committee introduction of some BDRs he had in his possession.
Assembly Bill 282: Revises provisions relating to refusal of peace officer to submit to polygraphic examination. (BDR 23-1271)
Due to the length of testimony on A.B. 172 this bill was rescheduled, and will be heard at a later date.
Assembly Bill 285: Provides for appeal of decision of appointing authority regarding use of catastrophic leave by state employee. (BDR 23-438)
Due to the length of testimony on A.B. 172 this bill was rolled over to the next day’s committee hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Virginia Letts
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: