ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

February 7, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Wednesday, February 7, 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

Ms. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Bob Price

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Bob Beers

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Utt, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees

Association

Walter (Wally) Tarantino, Attorney at Law

Gary Wolff, Business Agent Lobbyist for the Nevada Highway Patrol Association and State Employees Association

Danny Coyle, Retired Grievance Committee Member

Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant Elko County, Nevada

Robert Hadfield, Director, Nevada Association of Counties

Thomas Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities

James Spinello, Legislative Team, Nevada Association of Counties

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Student Testing & Assessment Government

Affairs, Washoe County School District

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Pat Hines, citizen, Representative of Nevada Cure

Assembly Bill No. 9: Authorizes use of arbitration for adjustment of certain grievances of state employees. (BDR 23-439)

Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, Assembly District 40, Carson City, who represented a number of state employees, explained she was presenting A.B. 9 which would authorize use of arbitration for adjustment of certain grievances of state employees.

Ms. Parnell indicated the current final administrative level for grievances would go before the employee management committee that consisted of six state employees and officials appointed by the Governor. A.B. 9 provided an alternative to the current procedure. If an employee filed a grievance, the employee could elect to have the grievance heard by an outside professional arbitrator. There were approximately 15,000 state employees and only one employee management committee. Ms. Parnell said she received calls from employees who had to continue working almost a year in work environments that were often hostile while they waited for a resolution of their grievance. That created a negative situation for both parties. In the current committee structure, when there was a three-three tie the result was an automatic loss for the employee.

A.B. 9 would provide that the losing party would be liable for the cost of the arbitrator. Ms. Parnell believed this would alleviate frivolous grievances. The Department of Personnel presently paid for the entire cost of the committee procedure. If an arbitrator were chosen, the agencies would be responsible for individual grievances within their agency. That would encourage resolution before further action became necessary.

Ms. Parnell stated that cases before the employee management committee or an arbitrator would not include any grievances over dismissal, suspensions or demotion. She again reiterated the importance of paying attention to the fact that they did not currently and would not be able to include grievances over dismissal, suspensions or demotion under an arbitrator’s ruling. They did represent reprimands, working conditions, prejudices, and equity issues. She referred to the tone set by Governor Guinn in reference to the state employees, “I urge you to consider not only the issue of pay but of working conditions and work place morale within our state agencies.” She added she sponsored this bill at the request of the State of Nevada Employees Association and introduced Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association.

Mr. Gagnier explained A.B. 9 was heard in identical form two years ago and was passed by a wide margin in the Assembly and died in the Senate. Mr. Gagnier reviewed the history of the grievance procedure dating back to early 1970. The method of resolving disputes through some form of arbitration was put into the hands of an existing committee called the “Employee Management Committee.” Later it was codified in law and was now in NRS Chapter 284.

Mr. Gagnier explained that the envisioned EMC members would include six members of which three would be management and three would be employees recommended by employee groups, all appointed by the Governor. Over the years that had changed, and none of our recommended members are on the committee although one was an alternate. He also stated that at times the committee had been overloaded with management. He mentioned a personnel officer became an employee member although his association considered a personnel officer a management position. The committee itself had a mixed history of inconsistencies and processes and had nothing against the individual members.

Mr. Gagnier stated committee members were not compensated for their time, meeting one to two days per month. They did, however, receive their regular state pay. Because there was just one committee they often needed to postpone hearings several times. Some grievances would take nine months from beginning to resolution. He stated that was not an unusual length of time. Six months was more common. Mr. Gagnier said the committee frequently did a “stacked agenda,” and although scheduled for hearing a grievance the EMC might not successfully complete all cases scheduled for a particular day. Although the employee was prepared to present their entire case it might have been postponed. This occurred because of the nature of the committee.

Mr. Gagnier explained there was a totally different procedure for major issues as previously mentioned by Ms. Parnell. Those issues of suspension, demotion and dismissals had a much quicker process and had gone directly to a hearing officer. Those officers were appointed by the personnel commission and were contracted hearing officers, not state employees. These officers included one from northern Nevada and one from the south, with an alternate at each end of the state. By law the committee had time constraints on when they held their meetings and made decisions. Mr. Gagnier stated that the cases were not included in A.B. 9.

He explained the issues in A.B. 9 included reprimands, performance evaluations, regulation violations, and discriminations other than Equal Employment Opportunity Commission violations and basically covered an entire range of working condition issues. He also was told that since management and employee voting were equally represented, in most cases every vote would be a tie vote, each having voted for their constituents. Mr. Gagnier advised the tie votes were not that common but when they occurred, the employee would automatically loose. A management employee must side with them and their cause to win their case.

Mr. Gagnier also explained the committee had rules and those rules might not be strictly followed. As an example, the exclusionary rule states that witnesses may not stay in a hearing during review but that rule might not be used in all cases. Employee witnesses might have to stay out but management witnesses might be allowed in the hearing, so it could be somewhat discriminatory. Also, in a recent case the employee’s witnesses were required to disclose what their testimony would include, but the management’s witnesses were not. He again reiterated the inconsistencies within the current committee.

Mr. Gagnier stated a bill was processed a few years ago through the Government Affairs committee that would have replaced the Employee Management Committee with professional arbitration. The reason the bill did not pass was because it required each side to pay half of their cost. The Senate felt that those employees not represented by an employee organization could not afford that process. The Senate concluded, “Having professional arbitrators discriminated against the employees who did not have a labor organization” and the employees were not fairly represented. In conclusion, that was the reason given for not processing the bill. Mr. Gagnier explained the bill would have provided consistency.

Mr. Gagnier stated that at the time employees have no consistency because the Employee Management Committee might rule differently in each case with the same set of circumstances. The only recourse would be to go to court and then embark on a process of nearly two to three years at the earliest for settlement. He again reiterated that professional arbitrators who did this for a living would be more consistent and would be able to more clearly justify the reasons for their decisions. In many cases, Mr. Gagnier said, the Employee Management Committee would give their decision in one paragraph and he had seen decisions that were only two sentences long in response to a grievance.

Mr. Gagnier explained that perhaps the new process, as provided in A.B. 9, would eliminate some grievances since the losing party would be required to pay the costs of arbitration. The number of grievances would be diminished and, speaking for his organization, his members would be greatly upset if they consistently paid the cost of arbitration. They would not be willing to spend money on losing issues. Mr. Gagnier felt everyone should take a better look, and if an agency had to justify to the Governor and to the legislature the costs assessed against their agency for grievances there would be more accountability.

Mr. Gagnier was of the opinion that the present process was complex and could be made more efficient. He stated that the bill itself was “kind of backwards,” and to start with sub-section six. Subsection six explained the mechanism. The personnel commission would choose a panel of three arbitrators and they would obtain lists from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and/or The American Arbitration Association. They would then conduct a hearing and when agreement was reached between the personnel commission and employee organizations, a three-member panel would be established. If an agreement was not reached, they would need to begin the hearing process and choose the three arbitrators who would serve for one year. If a grievance was presented a selection would be made from that panel. The employee and employer would each strike one name and the remaining name would be the arbitrator that would hear the case. He stated the formula would speed up the process for resolving grievances. The employee could then choose his or her own grievance process either through the Employee Management Committee or through a professional arbitrator.

Lastly, Mr. Gagnier said that by the time arbitration began in a grievance situation it had already taken two to three months. The employee steps necessary in this procedure began when the employee filed the grievance with their supervisor. The supervisor had ten days to respond, then it would go to the division level where they also would have ten days. Beyond that level it moved to the department level where the department head would render a decision and then moved on to arbitration if the employee so chose. The department level had become disappointed in how the agencies were handling grievances because the department heads might not even see the grievance.

Mr. Gagnier advised that when the instructions were written during the O’Callaghan administration much was said about communication regarding the grievance procedure. It was designed to be a communication tool where a department head would be able to know what was happening in the “trenches.” He stated there was no way to know if the department head was aware of the issues since the decision was made in larger agencies by their personnel officers; therefore, arbitration was more important. He concluded his comments and asked for questions.

Chairman Bache asked for questions from committee members.

Assemblyman Mortensen questioned the principal objection in the Senate and why they had rejected the bill in a past session.

Mr. Gagnier responded that the only argument he remembered being put forward was the cost. Currently there was no fiscal note for this bill. They should assume the fiscal note would be the same as two years ago. The Department of Personnel indicated there were forty grievances that had gone before the Employee Management Committee each year. Of those, a certain number would go to arbitration. Based on that, the Department estimated there would be a cost of approximately $17,000 yearly for arbitration. That cost was not included in any budget. He explained that if that cost was actual, then every agency would handle a percentage of grievances and would need to budget accordingly. He concluded that it would not happen, explaining it would require going back and redoing three volumes of budgets.

Assemblywoman Gibbons stated she understood from Assemblywoman Parnell that the state had 50,000 employees. She asked how many grievances the state had yearly and questioned if this bill would also need to be referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means upon passing.

Mr. Gagnier replied that he was not aware of how many total grievances there were. If a grievance did not leave the agency of origin there might be no record. The only record from the Department of Personnel was on the total number of grievances submitted to the Employment Management Committee. He stated that two years ago the number submitted was approximately forty yearly.

Ms. Gibbons asked Chairman Bache if it would be necessary to refer the bill to Ways and Means? Chairman Bache advised that since there was no fiscal note he did not believe it would be required. He stated that Assemblyman Arberry would look at the bill and take appropriate action on the floor if he felt it should be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Gagnier asked Chairman Bache if he could add one more item. He noted that those who made an estimate of the additional costs did not take into consideration the savings. There would be a savings to the agencies that employed the six members of the Employee Management Committee. The brunt of the cost would be carried by the agencies that paid their employees who served on the committee. They would have more efficient use of those employees’ and officials’ time if they were working in their own offices rather than on the committee. He reiterated that this bill would cut down on the number of grievance cases but he had already addressed that.

Assemblyman Lee questioned the length of time in arbitration. He wondered if the arbitrator, not having the twice-monthly program, would therefore speed the arbitration process. He heard nine months and one year but did not see an absolute length of time required for resolution.

Mr. Gagnier contended it would speed the process of arbitration because it was difficult to get six people together at one time. They needed at least four for a quorum. If an issue needed to be postponed then the whole procedure would need to be repeated.

Assemblyman Lee also referred to page 2 line 3. He read a portion of the bill stating “unless the arbitrator determines that a different assessment of cost is more equitable.” Mr. Lee stated he understood the sentence but wanted to discuss the verbiage.

Mr. Gagnier responded the reason the line was included was because at times there are no losers. He noted that sometimes both sides are at fault. He stated the arbitrator needed flexibility in dividing the decision. If there was a losing party, that party would pay, but if no one lost they could divide the cost differently. He called attention to a grievance having more than one issue, which was not unusual and past committees have rendered decisions where one would win a portion and vice-versa. Therefore if the decision was 50-50 then each would pay half of the cost.

Assemblyman Brown asked for clarification on the statement made that the commission panel had produced inconsistent results.

Mr. Gagnier testified that at the present time he felt the committee did render inconsistent decisions. Mr. Brown then asked Mr. Gagnier on what he based his decision. Mr. Gagnier replied that he had seen cases where one time they would rule one way, and another time a different way. He reiterated it then created another problem of having an employee that might be suspended for five days with specific charges and rulings by the hearing officer and the suspension would be upheld because of the charges. Appeals could not be made to the hearing officer; however, the committee might rule one way and then again differently for another case. He again stated that it created more grievances because of the lack of consistency. Mr. Brown again questioned his feelings regarding an arbitrator producing more consistent results. Mr. Gagnier responded that if an arbitrator was a member of one of the services, the results of the hearing would be published and could be reviewed. That could determine how an arbitrator had ruled in the past on similar situations. It would give a better idea as to where the employee stood. He also stated that if the results were published and you could review prior rulings and see the results, then a case might not proceed further.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel questioned page 2, line 6, where it stated “each party shall pay its costs for the preparation and presentation of its case.” She asked if employees currently did not pay their costs and would this be a change.

Mr. Gagnier replied to Ms. Von Tobel that currently the employees did pay for their cost. If an employee appealed a grievance and hired an attorney they must pay the cost of that attorney whether they win or lose. That would also continue under this bill. Ms. Von Tobel asked if the language in the bill would change the current law. Mr. Gagnier replied that it would not, but it would make sure that everyone understood this process, because then there would be an assessment of costs. The assessment of costs contained in lines 3 through 5 was the cost of arbitration and not the cost to the employee for preparing their case. He again stated it was there for clarification and made sure the employee was aware they would need to pay for their own lawyer or employee representative. Ms. Von Tobel questioned if the employee would pay the arbitration costs up front. Mr. Gagnier replied the arbitration assessment of costs would be imposed after the decision was rendered and not before. There would be no payment up front.

Assemblyman Brown questioned arbitration costs. Mr. Brown’s prior experience with American Arbitration Association (AAA) was the cost of arbitration needed to be front-loaded. He asked if there were any prior dealings with the AAA in which that would not be necessary?

Mr. Gagnier replied that he was not sure. He also wanted to make note that the way in which A.B. 9 was drafted indicated that AAA would be the second choice for arbitration and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service would be the first choice. Mr. Brown asked if the intention would be to follow either of those rules in terms of the procedures of the arbitrations. Mr. Gagnier advised that he could not answer that question and did not know.

Chairman Bache advised that under committee rules he must ask if anyone wished to speak that was opposed to A.B. 9. There was no one opposed. He then referred to the next person who wished to speak on behalf of A.B. 9.

Walter (Wally) Tarantino, Attorney at Law and Legal Counsel for the Nevada Highway Patrol Association and the Nevada Corrections Association, along with Mr. Gary Wolff the Business Agent lobbyist for the Nevada Highway Patrol Association both testified. Mr. Tarantino advised that he would be brief and not repeat any of the remarks made in the prior testimony. He remarked that this legislation was long overdue and addressed concerns as an advocate and member of the Employee Management Committee.

Mr. Tarantino stated that as early as January 30^th he represented three grievances before the Employee Management Committee. There was also an additional fourth employee represented by someone else which meant that each employee would be allotted a period of one and one-half hours to present their individual case. Those employees had waited six to seven months or more for their case to be heard and such time constraints were very frustrating. Another frustration involved the lack of subpoena powers by the Employee Management Committee. If management witnesses were needed to go before the committee you were at the mercy of the state agency and the Attorney General’s Office to attempt to get management to attend the meeting. There might be times when they were on vacation or not available and there was no way to make them attend the meeting. If they were on vacation they might need to ask for a continuance, which would delay the hearing for another two or three months. Even bringing in a witness without the protection of subpoena caused problems. The employee witness might be intimidated by having to testify against supervisors and that issue would be alleviated if there was the ability to go to independent arbitration. This bill would supplement the Employee Management Committee and most cases could not be resolved in an hour and a half. There had been times when six cases were scheduled for one day and then the time was limited to one hour. If the opening statements from both sides were presented, one witness could easily use up the hour time slot. Complex cases with six or seven witnesses and a limited time allotment could not be beneficial to the employee or the state. He stated it would be appropriate for the losing party to pay all fees unless otherwise stipulated. The structure should make both sides look for more efficient ways to resolve situations. Mr. Tarantino stressed doing so would be helpful for both the state and employees and hoped for a positive ruling on A.B. 9.

Assemblyman Brown asked if anything decided by the Employee Management Committee would then be turned over to an arbitrator?

Mr. Tarantino replied that he had not drafted the bill and Mr. Gagnier would be a better source for this answer. He stated that in his interpretation of the bill draft it did not appear that an employee could receive a decision from Employee Management Committee and then go to an arbitrator. If the final decision by the Employee Management Committee was disputed, the employee could file for a petition for judicial review in district court and this could end up in the Nevada Supreme Court. He noted he did not feel the intent of the bill was to allow an employee that option. They would need to make a decision between one or the other and not both.

Assemblyman Brown questioned the “average time” of approximately one hour and if the employee had more witnesses, could they schedule a longer meeting.

Mr. Tarantino responded there have been occasions where one meeting would be scheduled in the morning and one in the afternoon if there were more than several witnesses. The EMC just recently requested that when exhibits were filed, the employee must advise them regarding number of witnesses and also provide a brief summary of their testimony. He noticed that happening only within the last several months. Mr. Brown asked what might have facilitated the change and Mr. Tarantino responded he did not know.

Mr. Wolff, who represented the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, also spoke on behalf of two teamster locals; Teamsters Local 14, representing Las Vegas and over 9,000 members, and Local 533, representing several hundred state employees. Mr. Wolff stated that he was both an employee and part of management and has had the opportunity to sit on both sides. He also remarked that A.B. 9 would provide equity to both parties and that there was nothing worse than going into the Employee Management Committee feeling like it was biased. As a prior manager, he felt that there was a prevailing attitude among management that they were going to proceed with the issue and the employee should be basically uninformed. If it became a three to three tie then the employee must continue their case in court. He stressed that court proceedings would cost the state a lot more money than arbitration.

Assemblywoman Gibbons stated it would save taxpayers money because it would be a more efficient process and would be more fair because there would be an arbitrator that was not working for the state.

Assemblyman Brown asked Mr. Wolff if most grievance cases sought monetary damage awards, or if damage awards were typical?

Mr. Wolff deferred to Mr. Tarantino. Mr. Tarantino stated that it was a mix and there were no punitive damages but one could envision cases where an employee might have a substandard performance evaluation and those were technical cases that would require a lot of time and witnesses because a merit increase in pay would be at stake. Therefore the employee would seek to recover the loss of income that they would have been entitled to. Mr. Brown stated he understood that district court was very expensive and that there was a mandatory arbitration provision for cases under $40,000 and the arbitration fees were set at $75 an hour. He explained that this was less than the American Arbitration Association, which was often $200 to $250 hourly. He noted that within six to twelve months the case would need to be finalized in district court and it was probably on par with the AAA arbitration in terms of time. He asked Mr. Tarantino if he was aware of considering utilizing the arbitration through district court rather than using the arbitrator through AAA or the other mediation service. Mr. Tarantino replied he was not sure, but stated the bill called for using AAA or Federal Mediation and Conciliatory Service and there was no reference to the court-mandated arbitration program. He stated that he was aware that if civil litigation was filed and the judge felt it would not amount to $40,000 or more, it was referred to and, by statute, the arbitrators would be limited to $75 an hour. Independent arbitrators considered asking a daily fee rather than an hourly fee and some could charge $600 daily. Others could charge up to $1,500 daily. He reiterated if this bill was to be adopted he hoped that both parties selecting the panel would try to be cost efficient.

Assemblyman Humke commented that Assemblyman Brown raised some interesting questions. He suggested an amendment that could improve the bill would be to create an alternate dispute resolution system that was similar to the one used in the major court district in the state. He felt it would tend to hold down the cost. He added some conservative members and pro- management members might suggest that this bill would supplement the current alternate dispute resolution system that was already in place with an expensive, burdensome system. Mr. Humke asked Mr. Tarantino or Mr. Wolff to comment.

Mr. Tarantino replied he was supplying friendly and positive information on the bill and any compromise should be directed to the State of Nevada Employees Association and Mr. Gagnier. He preferred not to comment.

Danny Coyle, retired state employee, explained that he sat on the Employee Management Committee for nineteen years and wanted to reiterate prior testimony regarding not having to follow precedence. He said it had bothered him when he was a member of the committee. No case law or consistent rulings had been established. When a case was presented it could be identical to a prior case and the ruling would be different. The committee was not bound by their previous decisions. He also complimented Mr. Gagnier’s testimony regarding the three to three makeup of the committee. Since it was an odd number, if there was a tie the employee lost. He reiterated that A.B. 9 would alleviate the inconsistencies in the grievance procedure and would speed up the grievance process.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel requested clarification from Mr. Coyle on the inconsistency of rulings made by the committee. She asked why different decisions were made. Mr. Coyle responded that his answer would be subjective and said it might be a different agency from case to case and the representation, testimony and preparation of the agency would have been involved. He related that he could ask the same questions and receive the same answers but a different decision could be made. He also stated that he would refer to prior decisions and would be told that there was no obligation to be bound by prior decisions or to establish any case law for decisions. He reiterated that it was frustrating and subjective.

Chairman Bache asked for other testimony on behalf of the bill. Mr. Bache then closed the hearing on A.B. 9.

Chairman Bache called for a five-minute recess to locate Assemblyman Beers who would be presenting the next bill.

Assembly Bill No. 60: Requires public body to post notice of its meetings on its Internet website, if any. (BDR 18-674)

Assemblyman Beers advised that he is a big technology fan and the intent of A.B. 60 was to gently urge government in Nevada to post their agendas on the Internet so citizens could more readily access the information. Mr. Beers divulged that during the pre-filing process a number of problems had been encountered with local governments that had a “static” Web site. He explained governments that had paid a vendor to develop an electronic brochure and paid a hosting fee to become accessible would not have the ability to go online and make any adjustments. This was a learning process for the state and local governments and there was still misunderstanding regarding the degree of difficulty encountered in producing Web site information, but there were also some fine examples of this already being done.

Mr. Beers asked the committee’s permission to return with an amended version of A.B. 60. He wanted a version that Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) and all parties would be happy with.

Chairman Bache advised Mr. Beers that he would hold a ruling on the bill and possible amendments in order to make it workable for various local entities. He asked for further testimony relating to the bill and since there was none, called for the first supportive testimony.

Ms. Stephanie Licht, representing Elko County, explained that their county was in the “static” category. She explained they had a Web site up but had difficulty in posting an agenda.

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), wished to review their membership’s concerns and agreed that eventually they would all be propelled into the new technological age. He explained that after he had contacted his local governments regarding this process he was surprised to hear about all the difficulty they were having in managing their Web sites. Problems ranged from lack of employee knowledge and expertise to not having enough response to these jobs. Mr. Hadfield shared other problems such as down-time, Web sites that crash, and that they were under time constraints. He understood that A.B. 60 would include any board, county or commission meeting that had public noticing requirements. Mr. Hadfield, as a spokesman for the town of Minden, explained that they did not have a Web site and if there was a need to change an agenda at the last minute he would then need to go to Douglas County for help. He explained there was a great variety of staff capability regarding technology. He stated he hoped to move forward with the bill as amended and would support the change.

Thomas Grady, Executive Director of Nevada League of Cities, testified that fifteen out of eighteen cities have Web sites but many do not have trained staff to maintain their Web sites.

James Spinello, Administrative Services of Clark County, testified Clark County currently posted Board of County Commissioners and planning meetings on the Web, but did not currently post within the three-day notification requirements. Mr. Spinello stated the main dilemma was being responsible for posting agendas for sixty-nine committees and boards. See Exhibit C. He stated that all of them meet the open meeting law requirements, but many of those committees met bi-monthly so it would be quite a task to make sure all would be posted within the three-day time period for notification. Many town boards had only part-time clerical support and only recently acquired personal computers. He stated they were making strides to automate but were still not fully operational.

Assemblywoman Gibbons questioned whether backup material for the meetings was put on the Web or just the meeting agenda.

Mr. Spinello answered that the backup material was not on the Web. They had the necessary skills but their agendas had nine people who could at any time make changes up to the last moment. He also made reference to this committee, which had one chairman that controlled the agenda.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel who represented all the outlying areas and the town advisory boards related they currently had listings on the Web sites as far as days and times of meetings, but was not sure what else they needed to provide.

Mr. Spinello advised that each agenda for every meeting would have to be posted by 9:00 a.m. on the third business day prior to the meeting. Ms. Von Tobel then remarked that the agendas she presently received would need to be posted to their Web sites. Mr. Spinello confirmed this statement would be true if A.B. 60 were passed. Because of the scope when referring to sixty-nine committees, the board and planning committees wouldn’t be a problem, but all the other meetings could cause hardship. He stated that many did not have the clerical staff to support this process.

Assemblyman Williams questioned why there was no fiscal note involved.

Chairman Bache responded that it would fall under the unfunded mandate statute (NRS 354.599) and called on Assemblyman Beers to also respond.

Mr. Beers commented there was a big misunderstanding as to the complexity of the task involved. With the modern desktop publishing tool, once the agenda was finalized, it would be faster to post to the Internet, much faster than having to take it downstairs and posting on the bulletin board. He indicated that he suspected there was no fiscal note because it was easier and faster. He felt the technology issue should be taken up with the individual governments.

Assemblyman Humke remarked he didn’t think it would be that difficult to get “up and working” and he felt confident that the bill could work. He also felt A.B. 60 should not be encumbered by a fiscal note.

Assemblyman Mortenson was of the opinion that since town boards had computers, the worst should be over and if they created the agendas on computer they could easily transmit them to an entity that could post them on a Web site.

Mr. Spinello stated he had spoken to a Webmaster and he would need to put aside his other tasks in order to complete this effort. The dilemma was that sixty-nine entities were subject to the open meeting law.

Assemblywoman Gibbons stated that was not workable and small towns still have problems posting the agenda notice. If unable to come up with amendments then this bill may need to turn into a resolution and make a date in the future when more of the counties would be able to conform.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked for the Web site address for the Clark County home page. Mr. Spinello stated it was www.co.clark.nv.us. Assemblyman Beers added that it was a “primo” example of Web sites and how they should look, as well as a great resource. Chairman Bache also commented that he and Mr. Beers had spent a great deal of time on the Web site on election night looking at the returns because they kept them updated in a timely manner.

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder, representing the Nevada Association of County Clerks and election officials, stated he was looking forward to working with Mr. Beers on A.B. 60. The city had not looked at the issue as closely as they should have, and felt that the way things were done was old fashioned. See Exhibit D for number of meetings his group would need to post on agendas over the Web.

Assemblyman Humke stated that those in staff roles and he, himself, found out about meetings through the computer. He communicated he had been speaking to people via the Internet and had received e-mails as well as agendas. Ms. Von Tobel stated that every small board had a secretary and they all typed an envelope, made a copy of the agenda and mailed it to her. The secretary would have a lot less work if she were able to post to the Internet.

Mr. Glover explained the problem was they were not Web-enabled so it could be entered. They had a Web site, but it was not programmed for posting. He also stated that he planned to put all minutes on the Web because it saved phone calls from people who requested a copy of the minutes from certain meetings.

Mr. Glover introduced Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk, whose Web site had won a national award. The county had received a trip to Washington as a result of their expertise. She stated they placed second in the nation for local government sites and “bumped” the city of Chicago. They also received $3,000 that was immediately put into their Web site. She stated that if a requirement was made to put every agenda for commissioners’ meetings, town boards, etc. it could create a fiscal impact on the agency or city. She suggested if each agency were responsible for their own agendas it would not create such a financial problem. She indicated she was very supportive of the bill and had found success in putting their minutes on the Web site. Election results had 30,000 hits to their Web site and on average they receive 16,000 hits weekly, a substantial number for their small county.

Dottie Merrill, who represented the Washoe County School District, claimed they had an active Web site that contained the agendas for the meetings of their board of trustees. She also stated that within 30 to 45 minutes after their meetings they had paragraph summaries added to their Web site on what took place and the nature of the discussions. She stressed the importance of providing this information that would make the public more aware.

Martha Tittle, representing the Clark County School District, advised that they currently had an active Web site and gave their Internet address and submitted Exhibit E. She stated that it had enhanced communication within their school district and among various constituents.

Assemblyman Williams advised that in Clark County you needed to call the day of the school board meeting before 2:00 p.m. and he wondered, since they had become so advanced, if the district would allow the public to submit their names over the Internet. He said that many times the line is busy. Ms. Tittle responded that in the age of technology it would be possible and desirable to pursue this form of communication so it would go both ways. Ms. Tittle advised Mr. Williams her response was a definite maybe.

Assemblyman Humke suggested that the practice of having to call on the day of the meeting should be amended and stated he was surprised that a suit had not been filed. Ms. Tittle responded that the board also provided the opportunity for people to speak who had not signed up to speak. She stated the intent was to allot time for the speakers.

Assemblywoman Gibbons questioned Ms. Merrill regarding procedures in Washoe County in allowing witnesses to speak. Ms. Merrill responded that they provided yellow sign-up cards and anyone who wished to speak could come to the meeting and fill out the card. They were given at least two opportunities for public comment.

Assemblyman Williams explained he would like to work with Mr. Humke on an amendment because, as it was now, if you wanted to comment on an item on the agenda and you did not call in, you would not be called upon.

Pat Hines, who represented herself and a group called Nevada Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), which is a state affiliate of a national organization, spoke. She stated Nevada government should set a technological example for local governments and public entities. She had a hard time finding out when committees would meet. She acknowledged she finally was advised that it was embedded in the Department of Administration only to find out that it was located in the Budget Division. Ms. Hines not only wanted an easier way to search but also wanted to request earlier posting of meetings prior to agendas being posted.

Assemblywoman Gibbons agreed with Ms. Hines about posting advance notice of meetings.

Chairman Bache assigned A.B. 60 to Mr. Lee who would work with various parties to come up with possible amendments. If it became more complicated then he might want to do a subcommittee.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Linda Utt

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: