MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
April 24, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2001. Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman, presided in Room 3137 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. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mr. David Goldwater
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. David Parks
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry announced that A.B. 517 had been removed from the agenda, and the committee would commence with the hearing on A.B. 52.
Assembly Bill 52: Limits fees which providers of health services that accept insurance payments may collect from patients and requires legislative audit of University Medical Center of Southern Nevada. (BDR 40-655)
Douglas Bache, Assemblyman, District 11, Clark County, informed the subcommittee that A.B. 52 had previously been heard by the Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services, and was then referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. The first section of the bill dealt with what was termed “balanced billing.” He explained that if a health care practitioner or facility entered into a contract with an insurer to provide services, the patient would not be billed for that service beyond the co-payment amount, the amount of the deductible, any stipulated coinsurance, or any amount beyond that which the practitioner or health facility had agreed to accept from the insurer for that particular health service; any balance beyond that amount would be absorbed or “written-off” by the provider. According to Mr. Bache, it was his personal experience with the University Medical Center (UMC) in southern Nevada that the amount which should have been “written-off” by the provider was instead billed to him. A.B. 52 would stop that practice and would stipulate that if a provider had entered into a contract with an insurer, the provider would be required to adhere to the edicts of that contract.
The second and more controversial portion of the bill addressed the proposed legislative audit of the UMC. Per Mr. Bache, the bill proposed to split the cost of the audit between the state and the UMC. However, Mr. Bache indicated he would leave the decision regarding the funding split to the discretion of the committee.
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, voiced support for A.B. 52, and explained the association had traditionally supported the periodic audits of state agencies and local governments. Ms. Vilardo indicated the association felt such audits were definitely required, particularly when conducted via an outside group. Such independent audits provided a “comfort level” to taxpayers who supported the institutions.
Gary Milliken appeared before the committee as a representative of the UMC, and introduced William (Bill) Hale, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), UMC, and Jeremiah Carroll II, Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and Director, Clark County Internal Audit Department, both of whom would comment on the issues addressed by A.B. 52.
Mr. Hale presented several documents to the committee, the first of which was entitled, “Report on the Registration and Bill Process at UMC QC/PC Centers,” Exhibit C, which explained the entire process of patient service at quick care and primary care centers of the UMC. Mr. Hale reminded the committee that the UMC processed nearly 800,000 visits per year, which far exceeded the number of yearly visits experienced by other facilities. While the UMC admittedly made mistakes and was far from perfect, Mr. Hale pointed out the vast number of processes involved in the treatment of patients (Exhibit C). He noted that human error was always a factor, regardless of the system utilized.
The second packet submitted by Mr. Hale for the committee’s perusal was Exhibit D, “PEPP/Nevada Baseline Full Case Review,” a report from Health Insight, a peer review organization for the Medicare program, which audited hospitals and reviewed the coding and billing processes. Mr. Hale called the committee’s attention to page 9 of Exhibit D, which contained a bar graph that depicted the error rate for hospital charts; the UMC was depicted as the first entry on the chart under the letter “A.” The chart indicated that the UMC’s error rate within the various audit categories was less than 5 percent, compared to the error rates of the remaining facilities in Clark County, letters “B” through “J.” Continuing, Mr. Hale advised that the third packet presented to the committee consisted of a series of letters in support of the UMC from a variety of managed care companies, Exhibit E, regarding services provided to their members.
According to Mr. Hale, the incident referenced by Mr. Bache regarding improper billing for medical services resulted from a visit to a UMC quick care center by a member of Mr. Bache’s family. The prescribed treatment for Mr. Bache’s family member required a laboratory test, and Mr. Hale explained that UMC conducted those tests for most of its managed care contracts, however, there were a few contracts which required that laboratory tests be sent out for completion, as was required by Mr. Bache’s insurer. According to Mr. Hale, the laboratory technician mistakenly returned the test to the UMC, where it was completed. Therefore, explained Mr. Hale, when the bill was submitted to Mr. Bache’s insurer, the costs were denied as a non-covered service. When the UMC received the denial, the clerk then billed the patient, as was customary for all non-covered services. When the UMC was advised of what had occurred and that it had erred, the bill was written off, and Mr. Bache was not made to pay for the service. Mr. Hale noted that passage of A.B. 52 would, in effect, fine the UMC $25,000 for an inadvertent human error in the billing process.
Mr. Carroll stated that Clark County did have an audit function. In 1987, the legislative auditors performed an audit of the UMC because of a request for emergency funding. One of the recommendations from that audit was to establish an audit office that would function independently, rather than reporting to facility administrators. Mr. Carroll reported that in February of 1988, the Board of Trustees and the Clark County Board of County Commissioners established the Clark County Internal Audit Department, and placed it under his direction.
Continuing, Mr. Carroll explained that the department consisted of ten CPAs, one Computer Information Systems Auditor (CISA) and one Certified Internal Auditor (CIA). Mr. Carroll reported that the department followed what was identified as the generally accepted government auditing standards, and in so doing, was subject to a peer review every three years (Exhibit F). The Clark County Internal Audit Department received the highest review issued by the National Association of Local Government Auditors (N.A.L.G.A.) in conducting audits. That report was also submitted to the Nevada State Board of Accountancy, of which Mr. Carroll was the past Chairman. The report was submitted in order to notify the board that the department was a qualified internal audit department, and individuals employed by the department were qualified for the CPA without the necessity of an individual review.
In conclusion, Mr. Carroll pointed out that the Clark County Internal Audit Department was independent with respect to the UMC, and was well qualified to perform any audit functions as directed by the legislature. If Mr. Bache had contacted the department, Mr. Carroll felt some of his concerns could have been addressed at that time.
Testifying next before the committee was William Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, who advised he would speak neither for nor against A.B. 52, but rather would address the issue of funding. The original intent was that the UMC would pay the entire cost of the audit, and Mr. Crews suggested that such action would be appropriate, because special projects undertaken in the past had been funded via a transfer from the audited agency. According to Mr. Crews, the bill now provided for a $25,000 allocation from the General Fund, and an additional $25,000 allocation from the UMC. Mr. Crews assured the committee that he and his staff could conduct the audit, if deemed appropriate by the legislature. He pointed out that every session, the Audit Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) was required to reestablish its priorities regarding agency audits, all of which were approved by the Legislative Commission.
Keith Beagle, President, Nevada Care, Incorporated, indicated he would voice support for Section 1 of A.B. 52, however, would lend his support to the UMC with regard to Section 2. Mr. Beagle noted he had enjoyed a long, working relationship with the UMC, and realized there was always the possibility of human error. According to Mr. Beagle, Nevada Care, Incorporated had enjoyed an exceptional working rapport with the UMC, as had most of the community.
Warren Hardy II, representing the Clark County Association of School Administrators, stated the association would also support Section 1 of the bill, and would stand silent regarding Section 2. The school administrators had brought forth a bill to address a specific problem it had been experiencing, and Section 1 of A.B. 52, which referenced “balanced billing,” would resolve that problem.
With no further information forthcoming regarding A.B. 52, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing. The next item for committee consideration was A.B. 15.
Assembly Bill 15: Requires establishment of program to provide supportive assistance to certain persons who obtain legal guardianship of certain children. (BDR 38-368)
Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, District 9, and Senator Bernice Mathews, Washoe District 1, introduced themselves to the committee. Ms. Giunchigliani explained that she was co-sponsor with Senator Mathews of A.B. 15, and indicated she would like to recognize the efforts of persons from Boulder City, who were the impetus behind “kinship” care, or “grandparent” foster care. Ms. Giunchigliani explained the bill would broaden the scope of foster care to include other family members and would, in addition, remove the program from the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), in order to eliminate the need for social worker review since the children would be under the care of relatives. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that after hearing previous testimony, and with a great deal of work undertaken by Michael Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources (DHR), the program had secured funding via the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. Basically, the program was narrowed to eliminate the invasiveness of social worker review, and via regulation, the Welfare Division would establish the funding level. As additional funding became available, the program would be equalized to establish payment at the current foster care level. Ms. Giunchigliani explained the bill would afford family members the same subsidy as foster parents, and noted the intent was to keep families together. A.B. 15 was an “equalization” bill with no General Fund dollars requested. Ms. Giunchigliani presented Exhibit G to the committee.
Senator Mathews explained that the northern Grandparents Guardianship Program group met with her and requested that she sponsor a bill, while the southern group met with Ms. Giunchigliani to request sponsorship of a similar bill. Consequently, since the bills were identical, Senator Mathews and Ms. Giunchigliani became co-sponsors of A.B. 15, which was a combination of the two bills.
Addressing the fiscal note prepared by the DHR, Mr. Willden referenced Exhibit G, and pointed out that the fiscal impact would be approximately $860,000 the first year of the biennium, based on an October 1, 2001, start-up date. The reason for that start-up date was twofold, and Mr. Willden explained the program would require system changes within the division, along with the need to adopt rules regarding guardian age and payment amounts, per the regulations stipulated by Sections 2 and 3 of the bill. Mr. Willden stated the fiscal note was based on the kinship care provider being age 62 or older, which had been determined because of the economics of the dollars available via the TANF program. As the program was developed, the division could adopt a regulation change to lower the age limit, in order to cover additional grandparents.
According to Mr. Willden, the second area where regulations were needed was regarding the payment amount. The division would like to pay the same rate to kinship care providers as was currently paid to care providers in the foster care program within the DCFS. As the current fiscal note stood, the regulations would adopt payment at 90 percent of that rate; he noted that the formula could also be changed once the program was operational. Mr. Willden announced that funding for the second full year of the program would be approximately $3 million. The fiscal note included not only the monthly payments to care providers, but also funding for a small contract with a nonprofit organization to provide basic case management services to the care providers for the children. Also included was funding for the full guardianship fees, background fingerprint checks, and a small amount for respite care and transportation. The entire fiscal impact of the proposed guardianship program would be funded via TANF federal funds.
Ms. Leslie asked for clarification regarding the nonprofit case management costs. Mr. Willden explained the cost would be $125,877 in the first year of the contract and $114,360 in the second year. The division was developing the concept with grandparent associations, as there did not appear to be a viable place to obtain information regarding available programs and services. The associations had developed their own outreach materials and “how to deal with the bureaucracy” information, et cetera, and the division would contract with the nonprofit to hire case managers to assist grandparents in dealing with issues such as guardianship, and to access programs such as health or child care. Mr. Willden further explained that the case manager for the grandparent program would provide a much-needed support system.
Ms. Giunchigliani voiced appreciation to those who worked on A.B. 15, and said it would address a very needy area. She noted that the supporters were not thrilled regarding the age requirement; however, a starting point was necessary for the program, and the age requirement could be addressed via regulations from the Welfare Division. The actual, long-term costs of the program were unknown, and the initial legislation would proceed cautiously. Ms. Giunchigliani noted many other states had moved in the direction of grandparent guardianship programs, and she felt the program should move cautiously regarding expansion. Eventually, stated Ms. Giunchigliani, the age requirement would be completely eliminated from the program, and she urged support of the bill.
May Shelton, representing Washoe County, spoke in support of the program, which she felt would be a valuable resource to aid the county in its Child Welfare Program, because it would assist in timely, permanent placement of children. She urged the committee’s support of A.B. 15.
With no further testimony to be presented regarding A.B 15, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing, and opened the hearing on A.B. 196.
Assembly Bill 196: Prohibits department of human resources from considering assets of child or pregnant woman or family of child or pregnant woman to determine eligibility for child health assurance program. (BDR 38-224)
Ellen Koivisto, Assemblywoman, District 14, stated she was introducing A.B. 196 on behalf of the Interim Legislative Committee on Health Care, which she chaired during the past interim. The measure was adopted by the aforementioned committee at its June 6, 2000, meeting and would prohibit the DHR from considering the resources or assets of certain persons when they applied for services from the Child Health Assurance Program (CHAP), administered via the Nevada Medicaid Program.
Mrs. Koivisto explained that members of the Legislative Committee on Health Care had adopted an identical recommendation during a previous interim. As a result, a measure similar to A.B. 196 was introduced and discussed during the 1999 Legislative Session, however, was not adopted. According to Mrs. Koivisto, the first version of A.B. 196 included an appropriation that was amended out of the bill by the Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services. That committee removed the appropriation from the bill because The Executive Budget included funding for removal of the CHAP assets test. Members also felt it was important that the bill go forward and make the policy change in statutes that would eliminate the assets test.
Jon Sasser, Washoe Legal Services and state cochairman of the Covering Kids Coalition, explained that A.B. 196, the elimination of the CHAP assets test, was the number one legislative priority of the coalition, and had been endorsed by its legislative committee. Mr. Sasser noted that the bill proposed to eliminate the assets test in the CHAP, similar to action already underway in 42 other states. Nevada was one of only eight states still requiring the assets test, which was not a requirement when the CHAP was adopted in 1988. The test was placed in the program in 1992 by then-Governor Bob Miller during the budget crisis of that year. According to Mr. Sasser, two interim health committees had recommended elimination of the test. The legislation was being presented in a somewhat different format, which Mr. Sasser felt would be more attractive to the legislature.
Continuing his presentation, Mr. Sasser stated in 1997, Congress passed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which resulted in the adoption of the Nevada Check Up Program. States were given two options at that time, either initiation of a stand-alone program, or expansion of the Medicaid coverage for children at an enhanced federal matching rate of 65 percent.
Mr. Sasser explained that because the CHAP included both children and pregnant women, if the assets test was eliminated for one, it must also be eliminated for the other. Another major advantage would be realized by allowing pregnant women earlier access to prenatal care via elimination of the assets test and earlier entry into the program. The Governor proposed the legislation hand-in-hand with expedited eligibility, whereby pregnant women would have an eligibility determination for Medicaid within seven days. Mr. Sasser stressed the importance of early prenatal care, and noted that Nevada ranked forty-ninth of the 50 states in terms of women’s access to early prenatal care.
Elimination of the assets test was also the cornerstone to a number of other efforts currently underway, and Mr. Sasser noted it was an important piece in the elimination of the “red tape” which existed between the Nevada Check Up Program and Medicaid. An applicant for the Nevada Check Up Program, who appeared to be Medicaid-eligible, was required to have Medicaid eligibility determined via the assets test. Per Mr. Sasser, statistics indicated that approximately 1,700 children had been referred from the Nevada Check Up Program for Medicaid eligibility determination, with only 85 having been determined as eligible for Medicaid. The process involved a great deal of time and “red tape,” and did not necessarily result in children being approved for Medicaid. The denial was mainly based on failure of the assets test, and families would withdraw because of the inability to provide verification regarding assets. Mr. Sasser explained the assets test consisted of 28 pages in the Welfare Division’s Eligibility and Payments Manual, and encompassed approximately 40 different types of assets, with different rules applied for calculation of the value of each.
Mr. Sasser pointed out that there could not realistically be a single application for both the Nevada Check Up Program and Medicaid if the assets test evaluation remained in effect. Elimination of that test would also make the on‑line application currently being created for the Nevada Check Up Program more feasible. Mr. Sasser stated A.B. 603, which the committee had previously reviewed, proposed a $5 million fund for uninsured families. Those funds would be used to seek a waiver from the federal government in order to provide the Nevada Check Up Program for parents as well as children. Such action would be dependent upon passage of A.B. 196 because in order to receive such a waiver, the state must demonstrate that it met three of five required factors, one of which was the removal of the assets test. Mr. Sasser stated it was his understanding that the combined fiscal note of eliminating the assets test, plus expediting eligibility for pregnant women, would be approximately $4 million in General Fund dollars over the biennium, matched by over $6 million in federal funding.
According to Mr. Sasser, the coalition would prefer that elimination of the assets test became a statute, in order to eliminate the temptation to reinstate the test, however, such action could be accomplished via regulation change, if the committee so chose. The coalition would urge that Nevada join the other 42 states and that the committee consider the recommendation from the previous two interim health care committees in eliminating the assets test for CHAP by passage of A.B. 196, funding for which was included in The Executive Budget.
Ms. Tiffany asked whether there was a competing bill similar to A.B. 196 introduced in the Senate. Mr. Sasser stated that, to his knowledge, there was no similar bill in the Senate. Ms. Tiffany asked if the allocation was included in the budget, would A.B. 196 be the vehicle to process the funding. Mr. Sasser answered in the affirmative.
Jan Gilbert, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, reported that the alliance would enthusiastically support A.B. 196, because the assets test was a block for many women and children in achieving health care services. Ms. Gilbert reiterated that it was an extremely important bill, and she pointed out that the assets test created a cumbersome bureaucracy for workers, because of the aforementioned 28 pages in the Welfare Division’s manual required to process an application. Passage of the legislation would result in a savings to the state because the Medicaid application process would proceed more quickly. Ms. Gilbert commented that it was shameful that Nevada was one of only eight states which still required the assets test, and she urged the committee to support A.B. 196. The alliance applauded the Governor for including the General Fund portion of the funding in The Executive Budget.
Alicia Smalley, representing the National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter, voiced support for A.B. 196. As a social worker, Ms. Smalley noted she had assisted clients in completion of the aforementioned applications, which were very cumbersome and complicated. It was felt that more pregnant women would receive services should the assets test be eliminated; Ms. Smalley felt it would be the right action to take.
Louise Bayard-de-Volo, representing the Nevada Women’s Lobby, indicated A.B. 196 was one of the issues the Women’s Lobby strongly supported. The assets test presented a significant barrier in preventing women from accessing early prenatal care and children from needed services. Ms. Bayard-de-Volo felt that the assets test also discouraged people from entering the process because of the paperwork involved. She reiterated that elimination of the assets test was a high priority for the Nevada Women’s Lobby, and urged committee support of the bill.
With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 196, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing, and announced the next bill for consideration by the committee would be A.B. 450.
Assembly Bill 450: Makes appropriations for purchase of textbooks and for other educational purposes. (BDR S-1164)
Sandra Tiffany, Assemblywoman, District 21, advised the committee that the appropriation to be utilized by A.B. 450 was included in The Executive Budget in the amount of $20 million. According to Ms. Tiffany, there was no program to support the $20 million appropriation, and the Governor approved creation of the legislation and subsequent program. A similar bill had been introduced in the Senate, and Ms. Tiffany explained it was basically the same bill, minus the program. A.B. 450 was actually created because a recent legislative audit determined that schools were using shared classroom textbook sets, as well as classrooms throughout the state that had no textbooks at all. Parents often complained because children did not have textbooks to bring home so that assistance could be offered with homework.
Ms. Tiffany stated that shared textbook sets and the lack of textbooks statewide was the target for A.B. 450. In order to accomplish creation of the legislation, staff from the Fiscal Division of the LCB had contacted the various school districts to research the ordering cycle of textbooks. Because of that seven-year cycle, the appropriation would cover a four-year period. Over that period, the school districts would have sufficient time to provide textbooks sets to all of the targeted grades. The question arose regarding reversion of funds after a two-year period, and Ms. Tiffany advised that a precedent had been established by allocations granted in Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs), which allowed spending appropriations over a four-year period. According to Ms. Tiffany, that was also the period requested by the school districts to allow flexibility in ordering.
Regarding the shared textbook sets, the audit advised that 2 percent were utilized in elementary schools, 33 percent in middle schools, and 33 percent in high schools. Ms. Tiffany explained an allocation of $1 million had been built into the bill to cover inflation over the four-year time period. A.B. 450 also delineated the process required for school districts to apply for funding and identify needs, et cetera. Ms. Tiffany noted that the requests would initially be received by the Department of Education, with simultaneous review by the Budget Division and the Legislative Bureau of Education Accountability and Program Evaluation. The request would then be returned to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who would make the final determination regarding the amount of the allocation. Allocations would be made on or before January 1 of each biennium, and any remaining funds would be utilized over the biennium for training or technology. Ms. Tiffany explained the districts would decide how to spend any remaining funds, and would forward such requests to the Department of Education. According to Ms. Tiffany, it was anticipated there would only be approximately $12 million allocated for textbooks, with $8 million utilized for training and technology. She felt that training to implement technology would be useful, as there were computers in some schools that were not being utilized.
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, LCB, explained that as such, she would neither oppose nor advocate the legislation, and was present at the request of Ms. Tiffany to report on the fiscal portion of A.B. 450. The bill contained two sections, and Ms. Braun noted the first section would appropriate $12 million from the state General Fund to the Department of Education for allocation by the Superintendent of Public Instruction to school districts to eliminate book sets and provide textbooks for every pupil who did not have one. The funding amount for that portion of the bill was determined by working with the Audit Division of the LCB, and with staff of the Clark County and Washoe County School Districts to develop the formula that would determine the total amount of funding needed to eliminate book sets and provide a textbook for every pupil. Ms. Braun stated that, based upon discussion with the Audit Division regarding its findings from the textbook audit, it was determined that approximately 2 percent of all elementary classrooms used book sets, along with approximately 33 percent of all secondary classrooms. In addition, approximately 5 percent of the pupils did not have textbooks for all classes. Per Ms. Braun, based upon discussions with Clark and Washoe County School Districts, the per-pupil cost for textbooks and workbooks for core subject areas was approximately $164 for an elementary school pupil, $180 for a middle school pupil, and $220 for a high school pupil; estimated growth was based at 5 percent.
Continuing, Ms. Braun reported that by using the information to arrive at a formula, it was determined that approximately $10.1 million would be needed to eliminate book sets across the state, and approximately $800,000 would be needed to provide a textbook to the 5 percent of pupils in need. The additional $1.1 million, which made the appropriation total $12 million, was provided to account for the increased costs in textbooks and workbooks over the four-year period.
Ms. Braun reported that the second section of A.B. 450 appropriated $8 million from the state General Fund to the Department of Education for allocation by the Superintendent of Public Instruction to school districts for the purchase of textbooks and other instructional materials, to provide for professional development of teachers, and for educational technology. That funding represented the remaining portion of the $20 million allocation represented in The Executive Budget for textbooks, professional development, and technology.
Mr. Marvel asked for clarification regarding the aforementioned Senate bill. Ms. Tiffany indicated that she had recently spoken to Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County, regarding the similar bill, and she felt the committee should decide whether to pass A.B. 450, or work with the Senate in an effort to combine the bills. Mr. Marvel inquired whether the bills were essentially the same. Ms. Tiffany explained that the Senate version of the bill did not contain the formula and/or program, and simply requested an allocation of $20 million. The funding portion of the bill might ultimately change, and Ms. Tiffany reiterated that the amount would be set at the discretion of the committee.
Ms. Giunchigliani referenced the $1 million allocation included in the bill for inflation, and asked what percentage or factor drove that amount. Ms. Braun explained that the amount was not based upon any specific number, but rather was determined after discussion with the school districts in an effort to determine a reasonable amount. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that textbook replacement was quite expensive, and she felt part of the problem had been in the area of proper funding for inflation. She opined that inflation would be a problem in purchasing new textbooks, and appreciated the $1 million allocation contained in A.B. 450 for that purpose.
Mrs. Cegavske noted there had been similar legislation proposed, which included amendments that would assist in the establishment of a program to assist the schools in the development of a policy to replace textbooks that were lost, stolen, overdue, et cetera. According to Mrs. Cegavske, she was aware of one high school in the Clark County area that reported a $60,000 bill because of losses, et cetera, and it appeared to be the only school held accountable for such losses. It seemed incredible that a program had not been developed on a statewide basis to alleviate the cost for replacement textbooks, and Mrs. Cegavske inquired whether such a program could be created for replacement costs. Ms. Braun stated the funding portion of the bill did not take such a replacement program into account; however, she could research that possibility for the committee.
Ms. Tiffany felt replacement programs should be established based on the policy of each school district; requiring the districts to establish such a policy would be better than providing the funding when no policy was in place. In years past, textbooks were checked out to students and if those books were lost or damaged, et cetera, the student was appropriately fined. Ms. Tiffany stated if it was possible to put a textbook back into each student’s hand, she felt a policy should be established by the school districts regarding accountability for damaged books or replacement costs.
Mrs. Cegavske testified that she had met with a group of parents from her district several weeks ago, and one of the issues discussed was the possibility of initiating a book fee or deposit, with assistance provided to those students who could not pay the fee, which was a plan that parents seemed to favor. Mrs. Cegavske noted that the state continued to put money into the purchase of textbooks, and yet the school districts and the State Department of Education were not doing much in the way of maintenance or retention. Ms. Tiffany concurred that it would be a good idea to include a textbook replacement policy. If the state was able to fund a book for every student, there should also be a policy in place to maintain those textbooks, as established by the school districts.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated she had contacted the LCB Legal Division to ascertain the parameters for a state textbook policy, including the possibility that such policy could be amended by local school districts. She indicated there should be some consistency in the policy so that parents and students knew what the expectations were. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she did not feel every child needed a textbook, mainly because every course did not require one. She felt the state should be cautious as it allocated dollars, and ensure that the funds would be utilized properly. What Ms. Giunchigliani had found was that some courses required the availability of a number of textbooks that matched the class sets for use by the students on a check-out basis. She noted that teachers rarely received homework from their students and, unfortunately, the state might be expending monies that were not needed. Ms. Giunchigliani testified that perhaps a “phase in” approach could be utilized at the high school level, or perhaps the state could ensure that a full class set was available with added textbooks for check-out purposes. Ms. Giunchigliani felt the dollars should be directed to the area where the actual need existed.
Ms. Tiffany concurred with Ms. Giunchigliani and noted that language was contained in the bill to stipulate that textbooks would only be purchased as required. If study material required the use of a textbook, Ms. Tiffany felt students should be provided one. She realized there were teachers who had brought materials to class that they had developed for use by their students, rather than a workbook or textbook, and those teachers should be allowed to use those methods rather than being forced to utilize a textbook. Ms. Tiffany indicated the state should not mandate the use of textbooks, or waste dollars when textbooks were not needed; however, she felt that when required, textbooks should be made available to every student.
With no further testimony forthcoming on A.B. 450, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing and opened the hearing on A.B. 573.
Assembly Bill 573: Reclassifies parole and probation officers as category I peace officers. (BDR 23-654)
Andy Anderson, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, referenced Section 5 of A.B. 573, which would remove parole and probation officers from a rating of Category II Peace Officer, and automatically place them into Category I Peace Officer, under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 289.470. The additional costs would involve the approximately 280 hours of additional training required for that rating, which would be beneficial to the officers and the Division of Parole and Probation.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the category change was being recommended for parole and probation officers. Mr. Anderson stated a Category I rating would provide better training, even though the authority of the officer would remain the same. More and more parole and probation officers were dealing with caseloads consisting mainly of felony offenders, and the additional training would be beneficial. Originally, explained Mr. Anderson, parole and probation officers were classified as Category I Peace Officers, however, were subsequently moved to Category II; he noted that most of the officers were Category I trained. Moving the parole and probation officers into Category I would mandate that all new officers received the additional training, which would make them better qualified to perform their jobs. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether there would be a long-term effect on salary, wages, or recruitment to the state or local governments. Mr. Anderson explained that one of the fears expressed by the division was that after new officers were trained as Category I Peace Officers, they would move to better paying jobs in local government upon completion of the training; however, extensive research determined that had not been the case. Most officers who moved to local government positions were Category II officers, which lessened the effect of their leaving the state system.
Richard Tiran, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, testified that from January 1998 through December 1999, the Division of Parole and Probation lost 124 officers. Research indicated that 12 of those officers went to Category I agencies, with the remainder having either transferred to a Category II agency, accepted medical retirement, or accepted jobs outside the law enforcement field. Mr. Tiran felt the more intense training provided in Category I was needed, and the costs would consist more of a time commitment, rather than additional monies expended by the division. In 1995, Mr. Tiran explained, officers were sent to Category I training, even though the NRS mandated that officers receive the minimum, or Category II, training. According to Mr. Tiran, offices had been receiving Category I training with no additional expense to the division, beyond the time commitment from officers for the enhanced training, which assisted them in dealing with caseloads that consisted of felons and repeat offenders.
R. Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated the division would remain neutral regarding A.B. 573, and understood the desire of officers to receive additional training. One concern was the curriculum currently being offered in Category I training, which included areas that were barely touched on by a parole and probation officer, i.e., 40 hours of traffic investigation, et cetera. Mr. Lutzow noted there were other issues included in the training that would make parole and probation officers more effective in the field, however, as offered and required by the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Academy, Category I contained information that the division did not feel was pertinent for its officers. According to Mr. Lutzow, the second issue was that Category II training ran for 8 weeks, as opposed to 14 weeks for Category I training. That would obviously have an effect on the division, simply in the loss of manpower because of the six additional weeks of required training. The division anticipated at least 15 cadets per class for POST training, which equated to approximately 90 weeks of lost time.
Regarding the fiscal note, Mr. Lutzow stated that adding six additional weeks to the training would also add the cost for food and lodging while officers attended the POST Academy, which would be estimated at $51,250 in additional “hard dollar” costs. Mr. Lutzow advised that should the division continue to utilize the community colleges in Las Vegas and Reno for officer training, the aforementioned “hard dollar” costs would not be incurred.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested clarification regarding the number of weeks required for Category I training. Mr. Lutzow indicated that as offered by the training division, the training consisted of 14 weeks, however, varied somewhat from school to school; Category II training was estimated at 8 weeks. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether there was any way to create a category that more accurately pertained to the training needed by parole and probation officers.
Electing to respond was Mr. Tiran, who stated Ms. Giunchigliani’s statement was accurate, as there were some subjects in the Category I training that currently did not pertain to parole and probation officers, i.e., vehicle stops. He pointed out that the training for building searches was appropriate for parole and probation officers, however, might not be required for personnel from other agencies that also attended the training. Mr. Tiran noted that part of the overall picture was the need for the POST Academy to redefine its classes. After a parole and probation officer completed POST training, there was an additional six weeks of in-house training conducted by the Division of Parole and Probation. Mr. Tiran felt that in-house training should be considered as part of the overall picture for the Category I training, thereby enhancing the pertinent study courses. The in-house training might include additional hours for building searches, and 30 hours of firearms training at the same level as that of a highway patrol officer or police department officer. According to Mr. Tiran, it was important to remember that parole and probation officers coordinated, assisted, and worked with other law enforcement agencies. Providing only Category II training could cause miscommunication in those efforts, which might lead to liability on the part of the division, because its officers had not been given all possible training.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the division had suffered problems in the area of miscommunication in the past. Mr. Tiran could not verify that there had been problems. However, he did relate his experience while assisting the Reno Police Department with a high-risk traffic stop for one of his offenders, and his need to be aware of the proper procedures that would be utilized by the police officers. According to Mr. Tiran, while he might not need to know the procedure to actually stop the vehicle, he would need to be familiar with the tactics used to extract the individual from the vehicle, along with handcuffing procedures, et cetera.
Mr. Tiran told of a specific incident involving a Parole and Probation officer who had not received Category I training, therefore was not familiar with extracting an individual from a vehicle, and subsequently walked around the front of the suspect vehicle which had seven firearms pointed toward it. Again, he explained, that was part of communication and training.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was any further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 573, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed. With no further business to come before the committee, the hearing was adjourned at 4:39 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carol Thomsen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: