MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
May 29, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, May 29, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Bernard Anderson, Washoe District No. 31
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Churchill, White Pine, Eureka (part), Lander (part) District No. 35
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Bob Williston, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Claire Jesse Clift, Secretary of the Senate, Nevada Legislature
Jacqueline Sneddon, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, Nevada Legislature
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Dr. Jane A. Nichols, Chancellor, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada
Darrell Rexwinkel, Administrative Services Officer IV, Department of Prisons
Thomas Glab, Chief of Plant Operations, Department of Prisons
Michael J. Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources
Bruce Alder, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Joe Crowley, Lobbyist, University and Community College System of Nevada
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Museums, Library and Arts
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1566: Makes various changes relating to governmental administration. (Later introduced as Senate Bill (S.B.) 582.)
Senator Raggio recalled that the committee had authorized a bill draft request (BDR) to revise the date for the remaining balance of an appropriation to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands, and also requiring the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to distribute to Douglas County in advance the appropriations for China Springs Youth Camp.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST S‑1566 AS A COMMITTEE BILL.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on S.B. 579.
SENATE BILL 579: Revises provisions governing compensation of certain legislative employees. (BDR 17-1007)
Claire Jesse Clift, Secretary of the Senate, Nevada Legislature, stated that S.B. 579 proposes to change the current attaché salary structure for several reasons. She pointed out that the current system does not reward the Legislature’s highly trained and proficient veteran staff, many of who come back to work for the Legislature session after session. She noted that newly hired attachés are paid the same daily rate as are veterans. As an example she stated that the Assistant Secretary of the Senate has nine sessions of experience as Assistant Secretary, and the Assistant to the Chief Clerk is currently serving in her first session; yet both earn the same daily rate of pay.
Ms. Clift presented the committee with a summary of the present attaché pay schedule and the proposed compensation schedule (Exhibit C).
Ms. Clift said that, at the same time, the qualified legislative staff who hold jobs during the interim with other state agencies can no longer afford to return to work for the Legislature during sessions because the attaché salaries, especially during the month of training, are no longer competitive. She noted that one of the Senate secretaries, who is a single parent, could not participate in training this session because she would have lost over 20 percent of her income. She said the days are gone when many of the attachés were “stay-at-home Moms” in a single wage-earner family. She stated that many of the attachés are single parents raising families, or are contributing to a two income family full time.
Ms. Clift said the proposed salary structure outlined in S.B. 579 is similar to the Executive Branch classified staff salary structure. She said the changes to the revised salary structure includes overtime pay for attachés who work overtime prior to session. Based on the current session data, this would affect approximately 11 Senate staff members who worked approximately 8.2 hours of overtime.
Ms. Clift stated that during session all attachés would be paid a daily rate as is the current practice. She explained that once session has adjourned sine die no overtime compensation would be allowed unless required by extreme and unusual circumstances.
Ms. Clift stated that a merit system has been incorporated into S.B. 579 to provide veteran staff monetary recognition of excellence and incentive to return session after session. She said the merit system is similar to the state classified service employees’ merit system based on standard evaluations of job performance and years of service. She said classified state employees receive an approximate 5 percent merit increase for each year of service, provided they have received a satisfactory job performance evaluation.
Ms. Clift pointed out that state employees also receive the budgeted cost of living adjustment (COLA) in addition to the scheduled merit increases. She said these classified employees are eligible for merit increases until they reach the top of their classification range. There are currently nine possible merit increases for each range, she added. She said a returning attaché, who had received a satisfactory job performance evaluation the previous session, would receive a 5 percent merit increase for the upcoming session, as well as the COLA allowed for classified employees in state service. She said attachés would be eligible for merit increases for nine sessions, provided they began at the entry level of their job positions, and based on satisfactory evaluations. At that time they would no longer be eligible for merit increases as they would have topped out at the maximum allowable salary for their job positions. They would, however, still be eligible for the budgeted COLA.
Ms. Clift stated that base salaries are determined for each job position listed in the statute. She explained that the base of each range will change when a COLA increase is budgeted and passed for state classified positions.
Ms. Clift stated that S.B 579 would bring all returning attachés to their appropriate grade level based upon the number of satisfactory sessions served in the same position for the 2003 Legislative Session.
Ms. Clift presented the committee with a summary of her presentation (Exhibit D).
Jacqueline Sneddon, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, Nevada Legislature, expressed her agreement with all Ms. Clift stated.
Senator Raggio asked whether the presession overtime for the Assembly is comparable to that of the Senate.
Ms. Sneddon replied that the Assembly probably has a little bit more than the Senate. She said there were more staff who came on early, but explained that was to start some new procedures. She said she expects that to be reduced at the next session.
Senator Raggio stated that it is obvious to the committee that they are blessed generally with good staffing during the sessions. He said the committee wants to encourage those who have experience to return. He asked whether it is Ms. Sneddon’s opinion that this would be an incentive that would help keep that kind of staff in place.
Ms. Sneddon replied that it would. She said a lot of staff “comes on board” with more experience and more expertise, and they must “hit the ground running.” She stated that, by being able to bring people back in subsequent sessions, the amount of support that can be provided to legislators is being improved.
Senator Jacobsen asked how long a training period is required prior to the session for the average employee.
Ms. Clift replied that most attachés have 1 month of training prior to session. She stated that is just enough to get the new employees started and to bring the other employees “up to snuff” with the new technologies that are incorporated every session.
Ms. Clift pointed out there are some committees that start earlier than a month before session. She said that the staff for the Committee on Finance were brought in on December 1 because they start 2 weeks prior to session beginning. She also pointed out that their issues are so complex that the additional training is necessary.
Senator Jacobsen asked whether there is a waiting list of those who want to work during the session.
Ms. Sneddon replied that there are a lot of applicants, of which 50 percent are interviewed and considered for positions. She said there was a waiting list of possibly 10 percent, which were very quickly picked up through normal attrition. She noted that she is now “keeping her fingers crossed” that everyone makes it through sine die so they can complete their assignments.
Ms. Clift pointed out there is a change on S.B. 579 on page 2. She stated that after line 45, which indicates “history clerk,” there should be a line added that indicates “journal clerk.” She pointed out there is no journal clerk listed. She stated it would be the same rate of pay as the history clerk.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 579.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on A.B. 297.
ASSEMBLY BILL 297: Makes various changes regarding educational personnel. (BDR 34-297)
Assemblyman Bernard Anderson, Washoe District No. 31, stated he was present to support A.B. 297, which he otherwise referred to as the “Quality Teacher Act.” He said the discussion recently about teachers and teaching in Nevada has been focused on the teacher shortage the state is facing, and the debate about the need for an increased salary for teachers. He stated the crisis is very real and the state is faced with a teacher shortage. He added that the teacher shortage is only part of this discussion.
Mr. Anderson stated research has shown that the single, most important factor that impacts students’ achievements is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. He said increased salaries alone will not address the need of professionals in the classroom, and a comprehensive system of support must be implemented to ensure quality teaching.
Mr. Anderson said that A.B. 297, as originally drafted, spoke to the three most important areas; professional development, enhanced compensation, and evaluation of teacher performance. He said the bill now addresses only the evaluation. He said the cost of the additional days and the enhanced compensation are in another piece of legislation which has been processed out of the Senate.
Mr. Anderson stated that A.B. 297 will deal with the evaluation of teachers. He recalled that, in the 1999 Legislative Session, both the Assembly and the Senate approved A.B. 332.
ASSEMBLY BILL 332 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Makes various changes regarding evaluation and admonition of educational personnel. (BDR 34‑1217)
Mr. Anderson stated this bill dealt with the problem of “drive-by evaluation.” He said that during testimony on A.B. 332 many teachers came forward and told of their lack of experience in being evaluated by their principals. He said that as a teacher for over 30 years, he attests to the high quality of evaluations he has received from administrators.
Mr. Anderson reiterated that during testimony on that bill teachers came forward and asked to be evaluated, and the Legislature agreed that it was not too much to ask for an administrator to actually observe the performance of a teacher for 1 hour before writing an evaluation.
Mr. Anderson noted that the Governor vetoed A.B. 332 of the Seventieth Session. He said that since then he has worked with the Clark County School District, the Washoe County School District, the Nevada Administrators Association, the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), administrators groups, and concerned citizens to amend the sections of the bill to address any remaining concerns. He stated the Governor has been apprised of the new language of the bill, and the bill was amended with the concurrence of all the above mentioned groups. He said the amendment will address the concerns that Governor Kenny C. Gwinn had with the original bill.
Senator Raggio asked what the concerns were that caused the Governor to veto the bill.
Mr. Anderson replied he was concerned about the amount of time and cost it would incur on the school districts “to help the teacher in evaluation to fix the problems that were noted in the evaluation and the responsibility on the school district to do that.”
Senator Raggio noted the original bill had the requirement that, on the request of a teacher, a reasonable effort must be made to assist the teacher to correct those deficiencies. He asked whether that is still in the bill.
Mr. Anderson replied it was not.
Senator Raggio also noted the requirement that an admonition include a description of the deficiencies of the teacher and the action necessary to correct them.
Mr. Anderson said that is currently part of the language of the law.
Senator Raggio asked whether this is included in the second reprint of A.B. 297. Mr. Anderson responded by saying this will take the state back to the evaluation process that is currently in place. He said all the parties concerned have “signed off” on this.
Senator Raggio noted that in section 1 of A.B. 297 the proposal is that an administrator shall, during the evaluation period, personally observe the performance for a minimum cumulative total of 60 minutes, 45 minutes of which must be in one observation.
Mr. Anderson pointed out that is because there is now a movement to block scheduling.
Senator Raggio asked whether that is the same for a post probationary teacher, that in each year an administrator would observe the performance, and at least 30 minutes of the observation would be continuous. Mr. Anderson replied that is correct.
Senator Raggio noted the evaluation must include a statement by the administrator, indicating the time the administrator personally observed the performance. He said his own observations indicate teachers and administrators generally work well together. He asked what the problems are.
Mr. Anderson replied it depends on the particular school and school district.
Mr. Anderson stated there is a pre-evaluation conference with the administrator during which there is discussion about the goals and objectives, the lesson plan is reviewed, and the teacher is asked what particular lesson the administrator should observe. He said that, often, especially with new technologies, the teacher wants the administrator to see whether a particular program is being implemented as the administrator expects.
Senator Raggio noted that this procedure does not appear too onerous. He asked whether a good principal would be doing this anyway, without the necessity of having it written in law. He said a teacher would encourage this to be done.
Mr. Anderson responded that a good principal would indeed be doing that. He added that the teacher needs to have an educational professional in his classroom because the students have no gauge by which to evaluate the teacher. He stated another professional educator does have such a gauge.
Senator Raggio concluded that Mr. Anderson’s presentation indicates there are situations where some administrators are not doing this kind of evaluation. Mr. Anderson replied that is unfortunately true.
Senator Raggio asked whether this situation results in unfair evaluations. Mr. Anderson replied it does not necessarily result in unfair evaluations, but neither does it allow the necessary feedback. He said the professional interaction is necessary for the educational enhancement to continue.
Senator Raggio asked what the reasons are for the changes of dates in Section 2 and Section 3 of the bill.
Mr. Anderson replied that the changes were requested by the Clark County School District.
Senator Mathews asked why this needs to be put into statute rather than somewhere closer to the board of trustee or to the principal’s level. She pointed out this should be particularly so when promoting site-based management.
Mr. Anderson opined that it is important because the administrator’s time has to be spent on many different activities, and it is necessary for the administrator to understand that evaluating the classroom is every bit as important as any other part of the job. He suggested that, unless the affirmative statement is made, teachers will not believe what they do counts. He said quality education takes place when the professionals are told what they are doing counts.
Senator Mathews clarified that question did not mean teachers do not need to be evaluated. She questioned why the evaluation needs to be put in statute and why it is not occurring on a regular basis at the site.
Mr. Anderson replied that it depends upon the administrator. He said he has seen great administrators who are terrible evaluators.
Senator Mathews asked whether it is only the principal that evaluates teachers. Mr. Anderson replied that vice principals and any other person who holds an administrative credential may also evaluate teachers.
Senator Mathews noted the evaluation is to find where the teacher’s weaknesses are and where performance can be improved. Mr. Anderson replied that educators believe they can always improve.
Senator Raggio asked whether the evaluation has to be done by a single person. Mr. Anderson replied that it generally is done by one person.
Senator Raggio noted the way the bill is worded it appears the evaluation would have to be done by one person. He asked whether that is what is intended. Mr. Anderson replied that it is.
Senator Raggio asked whether there will be an argument because the administrator certifies he spent the minimum time and the teacher disagrees. He asked how such an argument would be settled.
Mr. Anderson acknowledged the potential for such an argument to occur.
Senator Raggio stated that is the only question he considers to be “left hanging.”
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated there had been discussion while working with the amended language about this question. She pointed out the statement the administrator will include will be part of the evaluation form submitted to the teacher. She said there is a general level of comfort that, if the teacher wants to dispute the fact, it could be done when the evaluation form is given to the teacher and the post evaluation conference takes place. She stated the administrator would be able to verify having been in the classroom for a specific period of time.
Senator Raggio suggested there be a procedure before the evaluation comes out whereby the teacher signs an acknowledgement that the administrator has spent the specified time, avoiding the problem.
Ms. Cahill stated that is part of the evaluation. Senator Raggio suggested it be in the bill.
Ms. Cahill replied she believes that is the intent of the language of subsection 6(b) on page 2 of the second reprint.
Senator Raggio acknowledged that, but explained there ought to be some “sign-off” by the teacher before the evaluation so there is no argument about whether the administrator spent the required amount of time.
Ms. Cahill expressed confidence Senator Raggio’s concern is addressed, because the teacher will acknowledge the evaluation and observation have taken place and both the administrator and the teacher sign the form. She said the statement of the amount of time would be included in the document.
Senator Raggio said there should be some statement signed by both parties before the evaluation is received that indicates the administrator spent the required amount of time, thereby avoiding an argument. He asked whether that makes sense.
Mr. Anderson replied the instrument a particular school district utilizes in its evaluation is bargained in each individual school district.
Senator Raggio assured Mr. Anderson he understands that process, but he has an interest in avoiding an argument. He stated it would not be a question of bargaining and it can be addressed so it does not become a problem.
Ms. Cahill expressed her thanks to Mr. Anderson for revisiting this issue. She said a lot of people believe a person can walk by a classroom, glance in, and tell whether the teacher is a good teacher or a bad teacher. That is not what evaluation is about, she added; the evaluation is an instrument to help teachers improve performance and no administrator can do that by putting his or her head in the door and seeing that everyone is happy.
Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Anderson whether he would prefer to be evaluated by some of his peers. Mr. Anderson replied there is a collegial interrelationship among members of the various departments. He explained he teaches in the social studies area and among the department chairman, himself, and the other teachers, a new unit will often be modeled so each teacher can have an opportunity to see how other people handle a problem. He pointed out the evaluation is separate from the modeling process, and it is an opportunity for the teacher to have a direct relationship with one of the administrators who is trying to point out important functions of the social studies curriculum or the administrator’s style. He pointed out this is particularly important as the school system is changed from a 50-minute period to an 80-minute period. He explained that changing to block scheduling involves changes in methodology. He said be believes both elements are necessary, but have different functions.
Senator Jacobsen recalled that in the past Douglas County had a day when all the elected officials had to spend a day at school. He said they all got together at noon and were critics of the class and teacher. He noted the activity failed because the officials were too critical. He recalled he had indicated he would have fired three teachers that morning. He noted that within half an hour a teacher can be quite well evaluated, depending on the demeanor of the children and their attitude. He stated he would prefer to be evaluated by someone who is a professional doing the same kind of work.
Mr. Anderson indicated the administrator at a school has a responsibility to be the educational leader of the community. He said the relationship between the educational leader of the school and the individual instructor in the classroom has to be recognized, and that is the purpose of the evaluation. He pointed out education is not a democratic exercise.
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA), testified his association was involved in the negotiations for and the amendments to this bill and expressed the support of NASA for these amendments.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 297 and opened the hearing on A.B. 122.
ASSEMBLY BILL 122: Requires payment for all accrued unused sick leave of state employee under certain circumstances. (BDR 23-691)
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Churchill, White Pine, Eureka (part), Lander (part) Assembly District No. 35, stated that A.B. 122 in its second reprint has essentially added a second bill. She explained the bill now allows an authorized leave of absence for public employees to assist the Division of Emergency Management of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) or a local emergency management organization during times of disaster or emergency. She said that it also includes a disaster or emergency that occurs in California, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, or Arizona without the loss of regular compensation for a period of not more than 15 working days. In addition, she noted, it also defines the emergency disaster and such individuals as amateur radio operators and licensed civil emergency technicians, allowing these individuals to have leave to assist in an emergency or disaster.
Ms. de Braga explained the second part of the bill changes the payment to retired public employees allowing them to collect half of their unused sick leave upon their retirement. She explained that the present manner of awarding the amount of unused sick leave to employees is unchanged with regard to the length of service required for such payments. She pointed out this takes out half the 30 days and gives the employees 120 hours, so if they have not used sick leave or their special sick leave they would be entitled on a regular basis to their regular sick leave and half of their unused sick leave.
Ms. de Braga said the bill also states that, if individuals have already put part of their sick leave in the catastrophic leave account prior to January 2002, they would be allowed to withdraw that on an hour-for-hour basis and be compensated for half of that as well.
Senator Raggio asked about the $8,000 in Section 3 that has been raised to $12,000.
Ms. de Braga stated that is not part of her amendment. However, she speculated it just allows another $4,000 that could be provided to agencies from the reserve for statutory contingency account. She suggested the example of someone who is paid a large amount of terminal leave pay. This can leave an agency with insufficient funds to pay the salary, but the position could not be left unoccupied. She said that, instead of paying up to $8,000, there would be $12,000 to pay the agency.
Senator Raggio noted that Section 1 was added in the second reprint. He asked who it was that wanted this added to the bill.
Ms. de Braga said she is not certain, but it appeared to be an amendment by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. She said the sponsors of the bill did not oppose it because it seemed to them to be good law even if it does not exactly fit the bill.
Senator Raggio said it sounds like the ham operators, if they work for the state, would be allowed to go to other states and not lose any pay. He asked what the reason is for that. He said someone would need to address that.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association (NHPA), stated he also does not know who asked for this amendment. He said be believes the reason it was added is the reciprocal agreements Nevada has with other states under emergency conditions. He explained that what all too often happens is “ten tiers of red tape to get someone to respond.” He said he understands this bill would allow the Division of Emergency Management to make that decision and approve an individual’s leave on an emergency basis.
Senator Raggio stated he understands from reading it the individual could leave his job in Nevada, if qualified as a “ham” operator or for some other job, and serve in an emergency program in another state and Nevada would still have to pay them while they are getting paid there.
Mr. Wolff said he did not believe they would be paid in another state. He said this is a reciprocal agreement.
Senator Raggio noted the bill specifies “… without loss of his regular compensation for a period of not more than 15 working days ...”
Mr. Wolff said an employee would be loaned to another state and Nevada would compensate him while he is there under a reciprocal agreement in an emergency management situation.
Senator Raggio asked whether the employee would get paid in both places. Mr. Wolff replied the employee would only get paid in Nevada.
Senator Raggio asked whether anyone was present to speak about this. No one came forward.
Senator Raggio asked whether Ms. de Braga’s and Mr. Wolff’s interest was in the rest of the bill. They replied that it is correct.
Senator Raggio stated this seems rather arbitrary. He asked what the present situation is with respect to unused sick leave if an individual has 25 years of service. He asked whether there is a cap on the benefit of $8,000.
Mr. Wolff replied that is correct. He explained that the cap is currently $8,000 for an individual who has 25 years of service. But he explained this is only after the employee returns the first 240 hours. He explained that if the individual had 600 hours accumulated, the first 240 would need to be returned to be eligible for the buy-out program for the $8,000.
Senator Raggio asked how this bill changes that.
Mr. Wolff replied that it does not change anything in that part. He said it allows for half the 240 hours to be reimbursed to the employee when he becomes eligible for the buy-out program. He said it also allows the employee to buy half of the unused portion of his special sick leave account.
Senator Raggio asked, if he had 25 years of service and were eligible to receive up to $8,000, what this bill would do for him additionally.
Mr. Wolff replied that instead of giving up 240 hours he would only give up 120 hours.
Senator Raggio asked whether he would get more than the $8,000. Mr. Wolff responded that he would. Senator Raggio asked how much more he would get. Mr. Wolff replied it would depend on his current hourly rate and how many hours he had remaining in his special sick leave account.
Senator Mathews noted private industry does this. She recalled being dispatched to go to Los Angeles when the Veterans’ Hospital “went under” and a number of nurses and other medical personnel went there. She noted that in private industry one’s salary and benefits are “just paid.” She asked whether that would work with the state.
Mr. Wolff replied that he assumed it would.
Senator Mathews said she did not know why there needs to be the complicated formula to pay the benefits. She recalled that she had only stayed in Los Angeles for 10 days, but her employer paid everything. Mr. Wolff stated that under the provisions of Section 1 in this bill that would happen.
Mr. Wolff explained the bill originally asked to pay 100 percent of all unused sick leave before it was amended.
Senator Raggio asked whether that is what the fiscal note was based on. Mr. Wolff replied that it was.
Senator Raggio noted that the fiscal note is extremely high and Mr. Wolff acknowledged that fact.
Senator Raggio pointed out that there is a fiscal note of approximately $10 million from the Department of Personnel for the Executive Branch and approximately $20 million from the University and Community College System of Nevada.
Mr. Wolff said he does not believe the fiscal notes are accurate. He said he believes the figures reflect what would occur if everyone were to “retire tomorrow.”
Senator Raggio stated that one must assume “things can happen.” Mr. Wolff pointed out the employees would, first of all, have to be eligible.
Mr. Wolff stated that in the past several Highway Patrol officers have died of terminal cancer at home with hospice care. He said one of these individuals spent over 11 months on sick leave in hospice care. He pointed out that meant the individual could not be replaced over the course of that time. He said the money was budgeted for that individual, and the Highway Patrol worked one employee short for that period of time.
Mr. Wolff explained the bill would originally have paid off that individual for his unused sick leave, the state could have hired someone at an entry level, and it would have immediately incurred up to 35 to 40 percent salary savings. He added that it would have taken no more than 2½ years to replace the money lost to the state for paying off the individual’s sick leave. He also stated the family could have used the money for hospice care. He pointed out the family could not take the buy‑out because $8,000 was insufficient money to help in their case with the individual dying with cancer.
Mr. Wolff stated the NHPA feels this is a real problem with people who have had back surgery. He said it is known they are not coming back, and it makes sense to have the provisions of this bill to deal with the situation. He noted the fiscal notes seem huge “at this end,” but he pointed out that no one wants to look at the other side where money is actually saved. He said it can be shown conclusively in the scenarios presented that it costs the state more money to retain the employees than it does to “buy them out”. He said that through the salary saving process the state does very well in recovering the money. He reiterated that if the employee is not there the state is still paying the salary.
Mr. Wolff added, for the employee that leaves the work force and is healthy, this benefit would be a reward for not using his sick leave. He stated the NHPA feels this is fair. He noted the bill only gives the employee half his special sick leave. He estimated there are not many employees with a great amount of money in special sick leave. He also noted the present program has had no changes in 10 years and the fiscal impact to the state would not be great at all.
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), expressed his support for the second reprint of A.B. 122. He stated the bill now before the committee is a very good bill, but pointed out he is not speaking to Section 1 because he does not know anything about that section.
Mr. Gagnier brought to the committee’s attention a memorandum prepared for the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means that drafted the final version of this bill. He said much of it came from a memorandum done by the staff entitled “Assembly Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Sick Leave Bills A.B. 90 and A.B. 122.” He said the actual proposal in front of the committee is cited in that memorandum. He added it was believed by the subcommittee, of which Ms. de Braga is a member and which is chaired by Ms. Giunchigliani, this would cost $350,000 for the half payoff. He pointed out this is considerably less than the original fiscal note on the bill, which was very high.
Mr. Gagnier stated that, under this proposal, the Assembly subcommittee gave some examples the committee may find useful. He said the examples are for the payoff of the special sick leave account. He noted for a grade 27 with median sick leave usage there would be an additional $9,000. He added that a grade 35 would get an additional $12,000, and a grade 40 would get an additional $16,000. He indicated if the committee wants to look further into this he would commend the memorandum to them. He stated that it has a lot of information and gives the foundation for this amendment.
Mr. Gagnier stated the additional 120 hours found on page 2 line 49 under this proposal would not pay for an additional 120 hours but would pay for half of an additional 120 hours.
Senator Raggio asked how that would be computed. He noted that the bill says one is entitled to payment “equal to one half the sum of 120 hours and the hours of unused sick leave that have accrued but not carried forward.”
Mr. Gagnier said this is an additional 120 hours, so this is half of the additional 120 hours.
Senator Raggio noted this is half of the sum, so it is 120 plus whatever the other hours come to. He asked how much that would be in a usual case. Mr. Gagnier replied that it would have to be computed. Senator Raggio pointed out it is not just 60 hours, but rather half of the sum of the two.
Mr. Gagnier agreed. He explained he meant it is not the full 120 hours, but 50 percent of whatever the employee has in his or her special sick leave account. He said it will primarily be for long-term employees. He pointed out the memorandum prepared for the Committee on Ways and Means estimated that, in the bill’s new form, 90 percent of the people who would have advantage from this bill would be retiring. He further explained this bill would apply primarily to individuals leaving state service for retirement.
Mr. Gagnier stated that the NSEA believes this is a good compromise and a good proposal and NSEA supports the bill.
Senator Raggio stated he thought this bill was only applicable upon retirement.
Mr. Gagnier replied it is applicable for retirement, death, or termination.
Senator Raggio clarified that it would be for termination without fault. Mr. Gagnier replied that is correct. Mr. Gagnier added it applies for individuals with more than 10 years of service.
Senator Raggio suggested this matter needs to be put back into perspective. He stated the committee needs to bear in mind what the public understands. He pointed out that he has served in the public sector as well as in the private sector and argued that we in state service and in general in public service have very good sick leave benefits.
Senator Raggio pointed out that “long ago” an employee did not get paid if he did not show up for work. He stated that someone came up with the concept of sick leave, which was to give people time off if they were sick without losing pay. He said that was the concept for a long time. He said the idea was that a person would not lose money if he or she was truly sick. Then, he stated, we started computing the maximum amount of time per year an employee could have sick leave. Then, he added, we got beyond that and decided employees that do not use sick leave should still get some credit or pay for it. He said this was a revolutionary approach. He concluded that we seem to keep “never ending” this process that somehow unused sick leave becomes a real entitlement instead of a benefit. He pointed out the original benefit was to accommodate an employee who actually was sick and it was recognized he ought to get paid. He noted we are now banking sick leave.
Continuing, Senator Raggio stated this is not usually true in the private sector. He asked where the line is drawn on all this, and what the reasoning is. He asked whether the employees who work when they are sick should be banking their sick leave. He acknowledged this is in the law and we have gone quite far with it. He asked why it should now be extended.
Ms. de Braga stated this is not off target. She said she does not disagree with that line of thinking because the argument can be made either way as to whether the sick leave is part of the salary or is a benefit.
Ms. de Braga pointed out the one thing this bill does that puts it outside that debate is that it keeps some of the employees in employment. She stated the Highway Patrol is a good example of that.
Mr. Wolff stated the situation involves competition. He pointed out cities and counties have increased the benefits. He said he thinks this type of situation equally benefits the state and the individuals.
Senator Raggio noted the committee had been told this bill will only cost $350,000 annually.
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, stated the $350,000 was based on the payoff for half of the unused special sick leave. She said, if the additional half of 120 hours is included, it increases the cost to about $650,000 per year.
Senator Raggio asked how many employees that is based on and who would qualify.
Ms. Greene replied that is based on the number of employees that left state service last year.
Senator Raggio asked whether they were individuals who would qualify under the reasons in the bill. Ms. Green said that is correct.
Ms. Greene said there were approximately 130 employees with an average 230 hours in their special sick leave account.
Senator Raggio asked for clarification that, based on this information, those employees would have received an additional $650,000 cumulative. Ms. Greene said that is correct. Senator Raggio asked whether that would be the continuing minimum cost of this bill if it were processed. Ms. Greene replied that it is.
Senator Raggio asked Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, whether he has included this in the proposed budget. Mr. Hataway replied that it is not.
Senator Neal asked how the accrued sick leave occurs in the state. He asked whether it is for a specific number of hours per month, and if so how many hours are accumulated.
Ms. Greene stated an employee accrues 1¼ days of sick leave per month, and it is accrued up to 90 days. She explained that, after the employee has a total of 90 days on the books, half of the sick leave accrued through the year is put into the special sick leave account. She said that is the account this bill proposes to pay off.
Senator Neal asked whether the cost of the sick leave is appropriated each year. Ms. Greene replied she does not believe there is an additional appropriation for the sick leave. She said if an employee leaves state service the agency pays up to the maximum amounts and it must be paid from the current fiscal year.
Senator Neal pointed out that the money is there for that purpose.
Mr. Hataway replied that, if the cost is $650,000, the fiscal impact could be anywhere from zero to $650,000. He stated that, just from the recruitment process, the time it takes to replace the person, the longer the position is vacant the more savings there are. He noted most agencies absorb terminal leave payments.
Mr. Hataway stated there are agencies that come to the Board of Examiners for assistance up to the $8,000 limit, but it is not overwhelming. He stated that, under the current circumstances, most agencies are absorbing this into their vacancy savings. He said he cannot assure the committee all of the cost of this bill will be absorbed, but he speculated that, based on history, a majority of the cost would be so absorbed.
Senator Neal asked whether the answer to his question is the state does not budget for sick leave. Mr. Hataway replied salary is budgeted for the authorized full time employee (FTE).
Senator Neal asked whether the state budgets for leave without pay. Mr. Hataway replied it does not. He explained the state does budget for vacancy savings.
Senator Neal asked whether the state budgets for vacations. Mr. Hataway replied that is part of the individual’s salary. He pointed out that is a combination of sick leave, vacation, and the time the individual is actually on the job. He said vacancy savings are built into budgets that have 10 FTE positions or more to take into consideration all of those factors. He stated the basic understanding is agencies should manage their personnel to leave a position vacant long enough to absorb the cost of the termination, whether it is sick leave, vacation, or whatever the case may be. He stated that is just not practical in some cases. He said agencies come to the Board of Examiners for assistance in paying for terminal leave, but it is not usually more than a “couple of dozen.”
Senator Neal asked whether the Budget Division budgets for fringe benefits. Mr. Hataway said it does.
Senator Neal asked whether sick leave and vacation leave are considered fringe benefits. Mr. Hataway replied they are fringe benefits, but it is part of the salary. Senator Neal repeated his inquiry and Mr. Hataway said it is budgeted through the salary projections. Senator Neal asked how much the fringe benefits are budgeted for. Mr. Hataway replied it varies depending on the amount of Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), it is in the 20 to 30 percent level.
Senator Neal noted that in the past when he prepared budgets for the company for which he works, he had to budget for fringe benefits. He said benefits include sick leave and all other kinds of leave. He said the company had a procedure whereby the employee, if he had extended leave on the books, could trade it or give it to some other person who did not have leave. He stated it is not unusual for private industry to do these things.
Mr. Hataway said the state does budget for sick leave and vacation leave, but it is included in the salary portion for those positions. He explained there is not a separate line item for sick leave and vacation.
Senator Raggio asked whether the administration has a position on this bill.
Mr. Hataway stated that the administration has not taken a position on this bill, but said he does not think the administration would be opposed.
Senator Raggio asked whether the University and Community College System of Nevada have a comment on the fiscal impact of this bill. He stated that someone would need to respond, because the original bill had a substantial fiscal note from the university system on this measure.
Ms. Greene stated the committee had previously seen the language of Section 1 in A.B. 122. She pointed out that it was also an amendment Assemblywoman Gibbons amended into A.B. 386.
ASSEMBLY BILL 386: Makes various changes concerning public employees. (BDR 23-621)
Ms. Greene explained there was some confusion and the bill initially “died.” She stated it was recently declared an emergency measure and is to be heard on the Senate Floor later in the day.
Senator Raggio asked what the bill is about. Ms. Greene replied it is the Department of Personnel’s housekeeping bill.
Senator Raggio asked whether the same language is in that bill. Ms. Greene responded that it is.
Ms. Greene added that the language was not proposed by the Division of Emergency Management. She said it was proposed by an individual with an amateur radio group in Reno. She stated the Senate Committee on Government Affairs had heard this proposal as an attachment to another bill.
Senator Coffin stated that it also had appeared in the Senate Committee on Finance in conjunction with a bill relating to antennas associated with amateur radios.
Dr. Jane A. Nichols, Chancellor, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada, stated she is not able to give the details of the university system’s calculations. She said her office questioned the size of its fiscal note when it saw the difference between that and the state’s fiscal note. She said the university system’s fiscal division was asked to recalculate that. She added that she can provide those figures.
Senator Raggio stated that the committee will want a fiscal note from the University and Community College System of Nevada and any other agency that might be impacted by this bill before it processes the bill.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 122.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on A.B. 448.
ASSEMBLY BILL 448: Provides for licensing and operation of railroad gaming. (BDR 41-1066)
Ms. de Braga stated that A.B. 448 as amended has no money connected to it. She said it retains the portion of the bill that would allow restricted gaming on historical railroad trains such as the one in Virginia City.
Senator Raggio asked where this would apply.
Ms. de Braga replied it would apply to historic railroad trains. She stated the bill defines a historic railroad train as a locomotive that travels on stationary rails within the state and are operated by a non profit organization. She added that railroad gaming is a restricted license in this case.
Ms. de Braga explained the original bill had funding that would have allowed for federally mandated repair and maintenance on the two locomotives used by the Nevada Northern Railway. She said it is unfortunate the Assembly removed that funding from the bill. She expressed concern whether there would be any gaming if there is no ghost train.
Senator Raggio asked whether Ms. de Braga was discussing the first reprint of A.B. 448. He said he was told that it is now the second reprint to be considered. He also reiterated the appropriation had been removed from A.B. 448. He asked what this bill would do as it remains.
Ms. de Braga explained what remains would allow historic railroad trains to have restricted gaming licenses, and the Gaming Commission would set the guidelines.
Senator Raggio noted the commission may issue a restricted license and asked whether it would be for 15 machines or less. Ms. de Braga replied that is correct.
Senator Raggio asked whether this bill was designed for the Nevada Northern Railway.
Ms. de Braga replied that is correct. She pointed out it had been hoped the track between McGill and the junction with the Union Pacific Railroad would be purchased so tourists could come in from Utah. She pointed out that, since the money did not pass, the track remains in the hands of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. She indicated that Los Angeles Department of Water and Power would like to sell it to the Nevada Northern Railway, but the $700,000 cost would have had to be in the bill.
Senator Raggio asked why the railroad could not be leased. Ms. de Braga replied the track cannot be leased; it must be purchased or it just disintegrates.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 448.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on S.B. 580.
SENATE BILL 580: Makes supplemental appropriation to Department of Prisons for unanticipated costs associated with utility budget of Southern Desert Correctional Center. (BDR S-1563)
Darrell Rexwinkel, Administrative Services Officer IV, Department of Prisons, stated S.B. 580 is a supplemental appropriation for the current fiscal year. He said the amount is $184,000, and it is to supplement the utilities budget.
Mr. Rexwinkel stated the department had been before the IFC in February and requested $270,000 primarily for electric power, with a small amount for trash pickup and fuel oil. He said the reason for this request is that heating oil is used to heat the facility, but for every other use electric power is used. He stated the number of kilowatt hours used has remained fairly constant, but the cost of power has increased by 23 percent between FY 1999 and FY 2001. He stated there have even been increases in disposal pickup, and that is why there was a request for that funding.
Mr. Rexwinkel explained the price of fuel oil has increased 66 percent over between FY 1999 and FY 2001. He stated the number of gallons used has also increased substantially. He said the prison averaged 19,700 gallons per month in FY 1999 and almost 20,000 gallons a month in FY 2000. He added that, for the first 6 months of this year, the average was 35,500 gallons. He explained the reason is the prison has had a problem with the hot water heating system and the resulting increased usage.
Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the department had requested $50,000 from the Board of Examiners emergency account to repair the condensation tank and the heat exchange system. He said the department is requesting bids on that now and plans to have that completed by the end of June.
Thomas Glab, Chief of Plant Operations, Department of Prisons, explained that at the Southern Desert Prison the boilers make steam, the steam heats water, and the steam is converted to condensate and returned to the boiler to be reused. He stated the piping has corroded so the steam cannot be returned in the form of condensate to the boiler. He said the condensate is lost. He said that means fresh water must be brought in and must be heated from 60 degrees to 220 degrees as opposed to taking the already heated condensate from 160 degrees to 220 degrees.
Senator Rawson voiced concern that purified water has not been used in the boiler. Mr. Glab agreed, and added that it has been a problem with the treatment. Senator Rawson asked whether the problem will be taken care of in the future. Mr. Glab replied several problems have been identified and are now being worked on.
Senator Rawson stated an energy fund is being set up to deal with energy. He asked whether it is felt this should be handled as a separate appropriation. Mr. Glab replied this appropriation is just for this year.
Senator Jacobsen asked how much fuel storage capacity there is at the prison. Mr. Glab replied they have 40,000 gallons capacity.
Senator Jacobsen asked whether the department bids on the open market. Mr. Glab replied the department requests bids. Senator Jacobsen asked whether it was done through purchasing or independently by the department.
Mr. Rexwinkel replied the department goes through the Purchasing Division. He said the Department of Prisons receives the fuel, the Purchasing Division pays the bill, and the department reimburses the Purchasing Division.
Senator Jacobsen asked whether the prison has truck and trailer delivery. Mr. Rexwinkel replied he believes that is how it arrives at the facility.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 580.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on S.B. 581.
SENATE BILL 581: Makes supplemental appropriation to Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education for projected shortfall in personnel services category. (BDR S-1564)
Mr. Hataway stated that the problem this bill is intended to correct began in FY 2000 with the reclassification of one of three employees from Administrative Aide to Management Assistant. He said this was a change from pay grade 21 to 25. He explained that, because of a vacancy in another position in the agency it was possible to complete the year without the need of any additional funding. He said this made the problem invisible to everyone until the salary adjustment requirements were calculated for this year.
Mr. Hataway stated the total fiscal impact is approximately $5,700 and the division rounded it off to $6,000 to give leeway for any other costs that would be needed for this year.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 581.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on A.B. 518.
ASSEMBLY BILL 518: Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for start-up costs for new state college. (BDR S-1426)
Dr. Nichols stated this appropriation is for the coming fiscal year and would constitute start-up funding for the new state college. She pointed out the money for operations in the second year of the biennium has already been approved as part of the operating budget and it is based upon the formula and generation of student full-time equivalents (FTE).
Dr. Nichols said that means students are expected to be at the new state college in the fall of 2002. She explained that, in order to prepare, this $1 million will allow the college to hire the necessary staff and preliminary faculty to carry out the necessary functions over the next year. She said it would include the preparation of schedules, the preparation of a catalog, the development of the general education requirements for the curriculum for the freshman year, and the hiring of faculty that would be on board in the fall of 2002.
Dr. Nichols stated that, in order to meet what is clearly a large task, this $1 million is necessary in the next year. She said it is considered a one-time expenditure because in the subsequent years personnel and operating costs will be picked up under the formula.
Senator Raggio asked whether there has been a breakdown of the planned use for the $1 million prepared and submitted to the committee staff.
Dr. Nichols replied she learned of this just the night before the meeting and she did not have that information with her for the meeting. She stated the outline is prepared and can be faxed to the staff. Senator Raggio stated the staff would need to have that.
Senator Coffin asked how much of the salary portion of this appropriation is for administration rather than faculty.
Dr. Nichols responded most of it is for administration, student services, and non‑teaching faculty in the first year because that forms the backbone of the college. She pointed out that in subsequent years most of the cost will be for faculty. She explained this is for the groundwork being laid to get the faculty on board.
Senator Coffin asked, if a vacancy savings should occur because of an opening in management, where Dr. Nichols would suggest the balance of the money be applied if she were allowed to do that.
Dr. Nichols replied the original request for the start-up year was $3 million. She pointed out this $1 million is really a bare-bones budget and any vacancy savings will be needed in order to carry out the essential functions.
Senator Coffin asked for clarification Dr. Nichols would find a place to spend the money if a position comes open. Dr. Nichols responded she would like to be able to do that.
Senator Raggio asked whether Dr. Nichols will present the breakdown of the bare‑bones budget to the staff. Dr. Nichols replied she would do that today.
Senator Neal asked why this is separate from the operating money. He stated a new college is being started, and this should be part of an overall plan and not separate from operations or anything else that might be needed.
Dr. Nichols replied there is an explanation for why this had appeared separately as “one-shot” funding. She explained the format required by the Governor for the university system’s submission of the budget this time was based only on enrollment growth and nothing else could be put in the basic budget request. She pointed out everything else had to be done outside the budget process and appear as an enhancement or a “one-shot” allocation.
Dr. Nichols stated this $1 million cannot be justified as FTE driven. Therefore, she explained, it had to be placed on a list for “one-shot” funding.
Senator O’Donnell noted there have been reports in newspapers that statements have been made the state will be able to educate teachers and nurses for a third the cost of what it takes to educate them at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). He asked whether Dr. Nichols can assure the committee these students will be taught how to be nurses and teachers at a third the cost.
Dr. Nichols replied the figure she is familiar with is a third less. She added she cannot assure the committee of that in the first years of operations, but she can within five years of opening. She stated it takes five years to get the enrollment necessary to reach that economy of scale.
Dr. Nichols stated that within five years of opening its doors the university system is confident the cost per student will clearly be about two-thirds the cost is required to educate a student at any research university. She noted the data from across the country supports this figure. She stated the university system’s own formula, which was created in collaboration with the Legislature, will only fund this college at that rate. She concluded there are clear methods in place to guarantee the cost stays lower and allows Nevada to educate more students for less money over the long haul.
Senator O’Donnell asked what the additional one-third cost for teaching those students would be if they were placed at UNLV or at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR).
Dr. Nichols stated the automatic FTE-based funding provided to the universities is much higher than what will be provided to the state college. She stated the savings will come.
Senator O’Donnell restated his question, asking what the cost is to keep a student on the campuses of UNLV and UNR.
Dr. Nichols replied the cost for the state college is less primarily because 80 percent of the budget is based on personnel, and particularly faculty. She explained the teaching load of the faculty at the state college will be higher and the teaching salary and administrative salaries will be lower than those at the university. She explained there are scales, which have been approved by the board, for administrative costs at community colleges and at the universities, and they are different. She noted a scale of salaries for the state college is scheduled to be approved in the summer of 2001, and said it will be less than the scale established for the universities. She explained that, across the board in every cost category that is salary driven, the figures are expected to be about one-third less than are necessary at the research universities.
Senator O’Donnell asked if the cost is less, why those kinds of faculty could not be hired at UNLV and UNR. He stated it bothers him that there is a huge amount of capital improvement program (CIP) to build buildings for the students, and we will be told there must be a new campus, president, police, and everything that goes along with support staff for another university. He suggested all of these things may be able to be handled at UNLV.
Dr. Nichols referred to the suggestion there could be a differential pay scale at the university and have two classifications of faculty. She explained that many institutions have tried multiple pay scales and it is not successful. She stated the mission of the university is different and its faculty are needed to carry out the mission of the university. She said a differential pay scale and a differential workload do not work.
Dr. Nichols stated other models across the country had been looked at and the conclusion was reached that such a differential just does not work. She pointed out that, as far as the building are concerned, UNLV is out of space for students and classrooms. She stated the university will have to build more buildings. She stated whether they are put at UNLV, the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN), or at the new state college the state will still need to build new buildings. She said every way available is being investigated to use buildings more efficiently and effectively and to serve more students by distance education, but there will be more buildings built, regardless, to accommodate the students. She pointed out those students still need to be educated.
Senator Raggio recalled that President Carter at one point indicated, “There are not potential education students being turned away” from the school of education. He asked, if they are not being turned away, how we will know we will have students coming into this institution.
Dr. Nichols replied that is one of the key reasons to create this new state college. She stated there are indeed no students on the waiting list at the UNLV schools for teaching and nursing. However, she stated, the need for teachers and nurses is tremendous, particularly in southern Nevada.
Dr. Nichols considered the question of how more students can be enticed into teaching and nursing. She said one of the ways is to create new and different pathways that will appeal to students who do not or would not now attend UNLV and reach out to them. She pointed out there are many populations of high school students in Nevada who do not go to college. She stated we have to ask ourselves how we get them to go to college and how we get them to become teachers and nurses. She stated one of the ways is to create different types of institutions.
Dr. Nichols stated it is known that “one size does not fit all,” and not all students are successful in a very large research university. She said we will see over the years we will need to create a variety of ways for our young people to get there.
Senator O’Donnell noted the state college is going to have faculty that will be paid less. He asked whether their qualifications would be less, or whether their qualifications would be the same but they will accept less money.
Dr. Nichols said she preferred to avoid the word “less.” She stated the faculty at the community college is not considered to be less than the faculty at the university. She stated that faculty have different interests and they bring different skills and talents. She explained the faculty attracted to research universities want to do research. She noted they would have a degree that prepares them to do research and that is why they are attracted to the research university. She said that faculty who are attracted to state colleges are generally in love with teaching, not that faculty at the universities are not in love with teaching. She explained that teaching is the key reason for being attracted to an institution where they teach more and they do not do research.
Dr. Nichols acknowledged it may not be fair that there is a differential in salary. Senator O’Donnell pointed out there could be a one-third savings if all the salaries were made the same. Dr. Nichols declared, “We are not going to do that.” She stated the reality of the market place is there is this differential and that is what will be seen in the institutions in Nevada.
Senator Raggio asked at what session in the future Dr. Nichols anticipates the university system will be coming and saying the Legislature created an inequity between the faculty at the Nevada State College and the faculty at the university.
Dr. Nichols replied it will definitely be at a session after she retires.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 518.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on A.B. 530.
ASSEMBLY BILL 530: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for Welfare Division’s telephone system. (BDR S-1370)
Michael J. Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, stated although the summary indicates A.B. 530 is for a telephone system for the Welfare Division, it requests $67,887 to do two things. He said the first was to purchase some replacement telephone systems in 10 of the division’s offices. He stated that, of the $68,000, about $55,000 would be used as the state’s share over the biennium of purchasing these new telephone systems. He said the remaining $13,300 is the state’s share for a fingerprinting background check request.
Mr. Willden explained that 10 of the divisions 29 offices have antiquated telephone systems and need to have them upgraded to the current standard of Lucent technology in the large offices or the Northstar technology in rural offices. He stated the figure represents the 7-year lease-purchase cost, and approximately $27,000 each year for the next seven years on the state’s share of the lease-purchase.
Mr. Willden stated the other portion of this one-shot request deals with the fingerprinting background checks. He pointed out the Office of the Attorney General has indicated there should be background checks on all employees that serve children and that have access to children’s records. He noted that in the Welfare Division there are tremendous automated resources that have children’s records within them and the division is wanting to establish a policy to fingerprint and do background checks on all employees.
Senator Raggio stated that if the bill is processed it will have to be amended to indicate the purpose for which the bill was introduced. He noted it specifies only the telephone system, and an amendment would accommodate the other request. Mr. Willden agreed. Senator Raggio asked whether the amount is still the same. Mr. Willden said it is.
Senator Coffin asked what good it does to fingerprint and do background checks on all the employees. Senator Raggio asked whether it is only for individuals dealing with children’s records.
Mr. Willden replied there is a statute that gives liability to employers if they do not check backgrounds. He pointed out it is now a condition of employment that employees have background checks prior to hiring. He stated the division has approximately 900 employees for which the background check was not a condition of employment when they were hired and they cannot now require them to pay for their own background checks. He stated the division wants to spend the $13,000 to eliminate its liability.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 530.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on A.B. 531.
ASSEMBLY BILL 531: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for vehicle, furnishings and equipment for Nevada Youth Training Center within Division of Child and Family Services. (BDR S-1372)
Bruce Alder, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, stated A.B. 531 is a “one-shot” appropriation for the Nevada Youth Training Center in Elko. He said the request is for $73,144 to cover the purchase of replacement passenger vans, 2 utility vehicles, several hundred chairs, 6 large reading chairs for the library, 5 microscopes, and 6 television sets.
Senator Raggio confirmed the staff has looked into this and verified it.
Senator Jacobsen asked for a resumé of the camp.
Mr. Alder replied the Nevada Youth Training Center has the capacity for about 166 children. He said that over the last few years it has been running higher than that. He said with the opening of the high security Summit View facility in Las Vegas the populations of both the Nevada Youth Training Center and the Caliente Youth Center were brought closer to their rated capacities. He said that has been a big help.
Mr. Alder pointed out the Nevada Youth Training Center has had some innovative programs the division is proud of. He said it was the first facility in the nation to have a fire fighting crew made up of juvenile delinquent inmates. He pointed out this was 30 years ago. He said this group has been fighting fires for all these years and there has never been an incident in which inmates have run away. He said it appears that when the inmates are out there at a fire they grow up and it is a way for them to make money. He said when they do make money it first has to go to pay restitution. He pointed out the number of homes burglarized and said there is an order for restitution and it is often felt none of the restitution will be paid. He said these inmates will make as much as $10,000, pay off their restitution, and they get the rest of it. He pointed out the money actually goes to the youth parole counselors and they distribute it according to their needs.
Mr. Alder stated the first female fire fighting crew in the nation was started in Caliente. He explained this group mainly does camp support as opposed to actually fighting the fires.
He pointed out the programs are also cost effective, and added that other states are paying a lot more for the correctional services they are providing for these juveniles.
Senator Jacobsen stated that when he visited the Nevada Youth Training Center last year he was told the biggest problem was in-house gangs.
Mr. Alder replied the new facility in Clark County has been able to break down that situation. He said that in the past the most serious offenders had to be put in Elko or sent out of state, but they can now be kept in Las Vegas under greater security. He stated this is a sign of society and will be something we will fight against, but the facility is effective in controlling it.
Senator Jacobsen asked what happened to the “chucker program.” Mr. Alder responded the program is sound. He speculated the program will live into the future.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 531.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on A.B. 598.
ASSEMBLY BILL 598: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for enhanced health clinic for Jan Evans Juvenile Justice Center. (BDR S-1405)
Mr. Hataway stated this was recommended in The Executive Budget. He explained Washoe County is building a new juvenile justice center to replace Wittenberg Hall. He stated the term “enhanced” means going from a room that has been used in the past to an approximately 1,000 square foot addition to the building.
Senator Raggio asked whether the state’s contribution towards the building of the center is $3 million.
Mr. Hataway replied there was such a contribution. Senator Raggio asked whether this appropriation is to fund the balance. Mr. Hataway replied it is additional for enlarged space for a health clinic.
Senator Raggio asked whether this covers the fixtures and furnishings. Mr. Hataway replied it includes approximately 1,000 square feet and the equipping of the center.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 598.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on A.B. 454.
ASSEMBLY BILL 454: Requires Board of Regents of University of Nevada to appoint committee to study organizational structure of certain community colleges. (BDR S-69)
Dr. Nichols announced she was present to speak in favor of the first reprint of A.B. 454.
Senator Raggio noted the study in question would apply to any community college with an enrollment of more than 20,000 students. He asked whether this would limit it to the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). Dr. Nichols said that is correct.
Dr. Nichols stated this bill is the result of issues raised about CCSN, its administrative structure, the various campuses, and how responsive the college is to the neighborhoods that surround them. She pointed out CCSN has doubled in size in the last 8 years, and with this growth has come the need for a look at the administrative structure. She said the process of hiring a new president for CCSN is underway, and the individual will be “on board” this summer. She stated that with the arrival of the new president it is an opportune time to conduct a study on the most effective, efficient way for the various campuses to operate.
Dr. Nichols stated the concerns raised are from students, faculty, and people in the neighborhood. She said this bill would enable the regents to name a committee composed of neighborhood people and regents. She suggested faculty and students should also be named to the committee. She said the committee would look at the college where it is now, look at different models of administrative structure, and come forward with recommendations over the next year and a half.
Senator Raggio noted A.B. 454 in its present form evolved from an initial bill requiring each campus of each community college to have its own president. He noted that requirement has been “left behind” and now the consideration is of a study. He pointed out that, in another bill, consideration is being given to requiring an audit of the whole system. He asked whether this is outside the purview of that audit.
Dr. Nichols replied that it is. She said the intent of this bill is broader than an audit would be. She stated it is to look at good administrative models and what would work best in a college that large and located in so many different places.
Senator Raggio asked whether this is something the Board of Regents would not do without prodding.
Dr, Nichols replied it would be part of the work of the Board of Regents anyway. She pointed out the bill provides a particular structure the Legislature may want to insist on.
Senator Raggio noted a committee would be appointed. He also noted the Board of Regents would appoint the committee to consist of Board of Regents members, members of the community in which the campus is located, and other persons. He asked what is contemplated as the makeup of the committee.
Dr. Nichols replied this bill has happened very quickly. She pointed out the board has not met since the inception of this version of the bill. She said that, in keeping with past practice, she anticipates the committee would have regents, community representatives, and some representation from faculty and students.
Senator Raggio asked whether the cost of this would be absorbed by the university. Dr. Nichols replied the cost of the study would be absorbed by the university system.
Senator Neal asked what can be anticipated from the study. He noted Assemblyman Arberry was concerned about there being separate presidents for each college. He asked whether this is just something to “carry us into the next session.”
Dr. Nichols stated there is a serious question that will need to be answered, which is, “How large should a community college become and what structure should it operate under?” She asked, as an example, whether there should be an umbrella administrative structure and then each campus at some point, when it reaches a certain size, be given some degree of autonomy. She asked at what point the branch campuses of a community college should begin to be considered a community college.
Dr. Nichols reminded the committee a community college is based upon the close partnership with the surrounding community. She stated it is necessary to determine whether a structure is being maintained that allows such a partnership to happen and operate effectively. She said she anticipated these questions would be asked and she would return to the committee with recommendations on the answers to those questions.
Senator Neal noted that there would be a new president for CCSN this summer. He said he had read in the newspaper there was an individual by the name of Dr. Daniels who had been selected, and in the next few days he had heard the individual had turned down the offer. He asked whether Dr. Nichols could share what is happening in that regard.
Dr. Nichols stated that Dr. Daniels did turn down the offer. She stated it was his comment to the newspaper that he was concerned about the division on the board and he had decided not to remain in the running for the position. She said she had not talked to Dr. Daniels since that time and she does not know any further reasons he might have withdrawn.
Senator Neal asked whether the current president can be expected to be there for the next four or five years.
Dr. Nichols stated there is a Board of Regents meeting on June 8, 2001, to name a new president at the community college. She said she anticipates there will be a new president named at that time.
Senator Coffin recalled that this bill had been requested in November of 2000 because Assemblyman Arberry was aware there were problems on campuses and realized decentralizing might help the situation. He acknowledged the cost could be quite high because there is a lot of structure involved. He stated this situation resembles what occurred when this state college in Henderson was started.
Senator Coffin stated that, when the community gets involved, it is the boosters and the ones who put the most money into the effort and energize the Chamber of Commerce who “drive the divided Board of Regents to make decisions.” He said it is not the board that makes the decisions. He expressed fear this study will lead to a preconceived conclusion certain things need to be done. He suggested the regents ought to conduct the study themselves. He noted he does not believe every little town in southern Nevada needs to be involved. He stated everyone wants to have something and it is better for the regents to do it with Dr. Nichols’ leadership, whether or not they are divided. He pointed out the regents are complaining publicly and privately that they have too many committees anyway. He suggested that may be one of the reasons the board becomes so divided.
Dr. Nichols confirmed there is no predetermined outcome for this study. She stated she has no idea where the study will take the study committee. She agreed there is a great deal of pressure on the regents from various communities that want their own community college or want their own state college. She said that is a reality whether the study is done or not. She assured the committee this study would be done with integrity, looking at costs and looking at what is best.
Joe Crowley, Lobbyist, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), indicated the UCCSN opposed A.B. 454 in its original form, which looked toward creating several separate institutions. He said he would not predict the future, but he stated he does not believe the result of the proposed study is predetermined. He stated there are serious issues to be addressed, and it is important to study them. He explained the reason for involving people from the community is to assure ownership, to allow input, to express publicly the problems people perceive, and to develop ownership for the solution that ultimately will come about as a consequence of this study. He said there are ways of producing greater autonomy amongst the campuses without creating separate administrations for each of them. He speculated that is the direction the study will take. He reiterated it is important to remember that the UCCSN opposed the idea expressed in the original A.B. 454 of creating a separate campus.
Mr. Crowley stated he has been involved, as has the chancellor, in discussions with Assemblyman Arberry to negotiate a solution to the issue for this session. He stated this bill is the result of those discussions. He testified he was present to speak strongly in support of this version of A.B. 454.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 454.
Senator Raggio directed the committee to S.B. 579, concerning compensation for legislative attachés. He said there needs to be an amendment to include the Journal Clerk.
SENATE BILL 579: Revises provisions governing compensation of certain legislative employees. (BDR 17-1007)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 579, THE AMENDMENT BEING TO ADD THE POSITION OF JOURNAL CLERK IN THE BILL.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio directed attention to S.B. 581, the bill providing for a $6,000 shortfall.
SENATE BILL 581: Makes supplemental appropriation to Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education for projected shortfall in personnel services category. (BDR S-1564)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 581.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Rawson pointed out, for the record, he is a member of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and this bill does not affect him in any way.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio directed attention to A.B. 448, and indicated the committee is considering the second reprint of the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 448: Provides for licensing and operation of railroad gaming. (BDR 41-1066)
Senator Coffin expressed concern about the prohibition on the local communities on business licenses. He clarified he meant not just gaming licenses, but business licenses. He asked why shops would not need to have a business license. He asked whether there was something done to the amendment that he does not perceive.
Senator Raggio asked whether Senator Coffin was referring to the part where it says “no city, town, or county may collect any license fee or tax from the operation of railroad gaming.” Senator Coffin replied that is his concern.
Senator Raggio stated the bill would be held for clarification on that point.
Senator Raggio directed attention to A.B. 454, and indicated the committee would consider the first reprint of that bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 454: Requires Board of Regents of University of Nevada to appoint committee to study organizational structure of certain community colleges. (BDR S-69)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 454.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio directed attention to A.B. 530. He indicated that the bill needs an amendment to include the fingerprinting and background check costs and the delineation of amounts for each.
ASSEMBLY BILL 530: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for Welfare Division’s telephone system. (BDR S-1370)
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO AMEND AND TO DO PASS AS AMENDED A.B. 539, THE AMENDMENT BEING THE INCLUSION OF THE FINGERPRINTING AND BACKGROUND CHECK COSTS, DELINEATING THE AMOUNTS FOR EACH.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio directed attention to A.B. 531.
ASSEMBLY BILL 531: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for vehicle, furnishings and equipment for Nevada Youth Training Center within Division of Child and Family Services. (BDR S-1372)
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 531.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio directed attention to A.B. 598, and noted the committee is considering the original bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 598: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for enhanced health clinic for Jan Evans Juvenile Justice Center. (BDR S-1405)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 598.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio directed attention to A.B. 285.
ASSEMBLY BILL 285: Provides for appeal of decision of appointing authority regarding use of catastrophic leave by state employee. (BDR 23-438)
Two letters, one from Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (Exhibit E) and one from Marilyn Yezek, Chief of Human Resources, Department of Transportation, (Exhibit F) were presented for the record.
Senator Raggio stated that A.B. 285 was heard in this committee on May 26, 2001. He recalled testimony was given by Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Mr. Gagnier, and Ms. Greene. He noted the only opposition to the bill came from the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. He stated this bill provides for an appeal mechanism to assure consistency in the denial of catastrophic leave. He explained this would have a cost of about $20,000. He asked whether the staff had any other information on this bill.
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the staff checked on the cost of this bill. He indicated that, based on information on the reserve for the Department of Personnel, there is sufficient funding for the $20,000 that would be required for them to process a work program at IFC to transfer the money.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 285.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio directed attention to A.B. 555.
ASSEMBLY BILL 555: Makes various changes to provisions governing public employees’ retirement. (BDR 23-547)
Senator Raggio stated this bill deals with PERS and was processed on May 21, 2001. He recalled that, on the first reprint, the committee amended out the section on page 2 that stated “a participating public employer shall not refuse to employ a retired employee eligible for reemployment pursuant to this section solely on the basis of the date of his retirement.” He reminded the committee that language had been removed because Clark County had explained that was not their policy, and noted a letter had been sent out that had been misinterpreted. He said it was the committee’s feeling this language is not necessary.
Senator Raggio voiced concern that the Assembly put the language back in with its amendment.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO NOT RECEDE FROM THIS COMMITTEE’S PREVIOUS ACTION ON A.B. 555 AND AMENDMENT 929.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio appointed Senators Rawson, O’Donnell, and Mathews as the “first committee.”
Senator Raggio presented a proposed Letter of Intent (Exhibit G) on A.B. 123. The letter indicated the Senate Committee on Finance amended A.B. 123 to remove certain provisions that would have mandated the Public Employees’ Benefit Program to provide a choice of plans. The letter directs the Public Employees’ Benefits Program to make reasonable efforts to provide a choice of plans that include full coverage to all participants whenever economically feasible. The letter also directs the Public Employees’ Benefits Program to annually provide each participant specific information on the actual amount of any premium charged in the previous year.
ASSEMBLY BILL 123: Revises provisions relating to health insurance provided by public employees’ benefits program. (BDR 57-603)
Senator Raggio recalled the committee had asked for a Letter of Intent. He directed the staff to review the letter to see if it serves the committee’s purpose as indicated.
Senator Raggio directed attention to S.B. 309.
SENATE BILL 309: Makes appropriation to Division of Emergency Management of Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to purchase equipment that will provide emergency power supply for pumps that push fuel into Clark County. (BDR S-1158)
Senator Raggio asked whether this bill could be indefinitely postponed.
Senator Coffin stated the committee might as well postpone this bill indefinitely, but noted the committee needed to know the outcome. He stated the bill was evolving into a tax bill and the pipeline company refused to cooperate after having given indications for 4 or 5 months that it would cooperate. He stated the company cannot be forced to cooperate because it is an interstate pipeline company. He noted the bill required the company’s cooperation, and the company cooperated until it no longer fit its business plan.
Senator Coffin suggested the bill be “killed,” but pointed out the Legislature did its best for the citizens and did not have the power to force an interstate company to do what it wants it to do.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 309.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Mr. Hataway stated there is one more budget issue the Budget Division would like the committee to consider. He said it would be an addition to the classified pay bill the committee will ultimately adopt. He stated the Governor would like to have the committee consider a one‑step increase for the juvenile parole officers in the same manner it has been built into the budget for the adult parole and probation officers.
Senator Raggio stated that, according to fiscal staff’s memorandum, the cost is $68,624 for FY 2002 and $72,924 for FY 2003. He stated that covers 25 positions involving 15 youth parole counselors, 7 senior youth parole counselors, and 3 unit managers.
Mr. Hataway responded that number is correct. He stated this issue had just been brought to his attention in the morning before this meeting.
Senator Raggio noted this is based on some difficulty in recruiting for these positions. Mr. Hataway indicated recruitment is the primary issue.
Senator Coffin added that retention is also an issue. He noted these parole officers deal with some very bad “gun-slinging kids” and the officers need to be retained because they have the experience and they know the names and faces on the streets. He expressed approval for this measure.
Senator Raggio stated that, if it is acceptable to the committee, this could be included in the classified salary bill.
Mr. Hataway pointed out the budgets have been closed. He said that, if the budgets had not been closed, the division would have asked for the budget to be closed with this request included.
Senator Raggio stated the classified pay bill has not been drafted. He said that, if the committee is agreeable and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means is agreeable, a motion could be entertained conditioned upon the approval of the other committee that this adjustment be included in the classified pay bill.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO ADD A ONE-STEP INCREASE FOR THE JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER POSITIONS IN THE CLASSIFIED PAY BILL, CONDITIONED UPON SIMILAR ACTION BY THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator O’Donnell stated that he had been asked to research the historic marker program throughout the state. He indicated that a proposal was being made for a half-time position to ensure the state can keep track of the markers and keep them up to date.
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, informed the committee a proposal had been delivered to legislative staff for the creation of a half-time position of statewide monuments coordinator. He pointed out that, in a bill regarding the Mount Charleston monument, it came to his department’s attention there is a problem identifying these monuments throughout the state. He said there is also a problem promoting them, getting the markers in the right places, and getting all the historical background.
Mr. Sisco explained his proposal is for a half-time monuments coordinator who would be responsible for coordinating all those efforts so this could be done in the most cost-effective way. He stated the markers program is handled as an add-on to a Management Assistant position, the only clerical person in the state Office of Historic Preservation. He said this position would be able to handle all of those activities and bring a much higher prestige to this particular area.
Mr. Sisco pointed out this is a tourist state and having this position would do something to promote this function, which right now is just an add-on to a clerical position.
Senator O’Donnell thanked Mr. Sisco for the proposal.
Senator Raggio directed attention to A.B. 459.
ASSEMBLY BILL 459: Makes various changes concerning harassment and intimidation in public schools. (BDR 34-1286)
Senator Raggio indicated A.B. 459 had been discussed on the floor of the Senate. He recalled the bill provides for a safe, secure, respectful, and courteous learning environment for students. He stated there had been a question about the heavy fiscal impact this would have on the major school districts.
Senator Raggio said Senator Rawson had indicated that is no longer the situation and the initial fiscal concern had been revised. He presented two letters of response, one from the Clark County School District (Exhibit H) and one from The Washoe County School District (Exhibit I) indicating the fiscal concern no longer existed.
Senator Raggio stated that, even though the bill had not been heard in this committee, it is important these letters be made part of the record in this committee and should be sent to the committee that processed the bill.
Senator Rawson indicated the final amendment to A.B. 459 also allowed for relevant instructions to be sent in connection with this bill with other regular mailings. He said this would mean there would not need to be a separate publication and no additional costs.
The meeting adjourned at 10:33 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Bob Williston
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: