MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
JOINT SubCommittee on GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
AND THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Seventy-First Session
March 2, 2001
The Meeting of the Joint Subcommittee on General Government of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman William R. O’Donnell at 8:10 a.m., on Friday, March 2, 2001, in Room 3137 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.
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne S. Chowning, Chairman
Mr. Bob Beers
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Lynn C. Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. David R. Parks
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst
Bob Williston, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel
Kim Foster, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Personnel
Ed Perry, Project Manager (contracted), Integrated Financial System Project, Department of Administration
Maynard R. Yasmer, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
Carlos Romo, Acting Administrator, Nevada Equal Rights Commission, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
Myla C. Florence, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
Personnel – Budget Page PERSNL-1 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 717-1363
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, introduced Kim Foster, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Personnel. Ms. Greene pointed out that her department’s budget had previously been presented and asked whether the subcommittee had other questions.
Assemblywoman Chowning noted that the department was going from 76 to 83 positions and asked Ms. Greene to speak on that. Mrs. Chowning said the subcommittee would like to know about any potential changes in the payroll assessment rates, and about the impact of the 3 new positions that were approved by IFC in June, 2000, and whether any adjustment could be made regarding overtime in the department.
Mrs. Chowning said the subcommittee also needs to know about the integrated financial system (IFS). She noted there are no new recommendations for continuing contract services with American Management Services (AMS), and said the department will need to give a good picture of what they have been able to accomplish thus far. She asked whether the department is able to roll out what it was planning on. She said it would seem the department would need money for the contract service, and yet that is not being recommended.
Mrs. Chowning said the subcommittee is also very concerned about the use of social security numbers in the timesheet process and the possibility of identity theft.
M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page PERSNL-2
Ms. Greene stated that the department is asking for only one new position this legislative session. She said it is 1 new Management Assistant for the department’s Las Vegas office. She said that position will be utilized by the training officers to fulfill their need for clerical support. The position, she added, will also provide clerical support to the Employee Management Committee and the hearings officers in southern Nevada.
Ms. Greene said the department is also asking for a temporary position to be made permanent. She noted that these are the only positions the department is requesting this session.
Mrs. Chowning asked what impact has been made regarding the 3 new positions that were approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC).
Ms. Foster noted that in the last budget hearing Senator Raggio brought up the question on overtime. She said she wrote a detailed response to that question (Exhibit C). She explained that it details the progress the department has to make in the current biennium.
Ms. Foster continued, stating that the question had been asked of the department why they needed the $110,000 continued in the base budget for paid overtime, since the department had had new positions approved for the integrated financial system (IFS). She said her memorandum is an attempt to explain that need.
She pointed out that the goal of the Department of Personnel is to minimize the overtime as much as possible. She said this in not only because of the cost, but also because of their concern for employee burnout. She noted that when employees get burned out the department runs the risk of losing them.
Ms. Foster said the department brought the IFS up in March 1999 in a very centralized fashion. She said they only brought up the most critical portions of that system at that time so they could successfully pay employees in a timely manner. She noted that the system was really brought up in a skeleton fashion because the department had to assure they covered the issues that the old legacy system could not handle for the year 2000.
The focus the department has had in the current biennium, Ms. Foster explained, was stabilizing the system and planning for the “rollout”, which they are expecting to complete by the end of fiscal year 2003. In an effort to provide an idea of how much work is left, she said, she detailed the positions that have been approved since the department began the project back in October 1997. She said there have been 6 positions added to the Department of Personnel since that time. She said she described in the document the duties for each of those positions, and went into the 4 major areas that the department still has to complete in the system.
Ms. Foster said those 4 areas that need to be completed include the system “rollout.” She noted that at this point in time the department has rolled the system out to 85 agencies for inquiry-only access. She explained that the reason they started with this is that it gives the agencies some time to get used to the system and start to understand it.
In the next phase, Ms. Foster said, the department gives the agencies on-line access to timesheet entry and personal actions. She noted the department has rolled out access to on-line timesheets to 24 agencies and divisions. She said this has given the department the opportunity to figure out what kind of problems they will run into when they get people going on-line to access to the system. She said it has helped the department develop its training programs and deal with issues that they might incur when they start rolling the system out on a larger scale. When the system is totally rolled out to 420 sites, Ms. Foster said, the department expects it will involve between 800 and 1,000 employees or system users.
Ms. Foster said there is a lot of work connected with the “rollout” as the department goes to each agency because they are actually changing the way the state is doing business. This, she said, brings a lot of challenges. What the department plans to do, she stated, is start in the agency by identifying key personnel that need to be involved in the actual “rollout” of the system within the agency. They then determine what methods those personnel want to use to communicate information about the system to all the users. She said they also identify subject matter experts within those agencies, and then start working directly with them.
Ms. Foster said the department identifies the business processes that are currently in use in the agency, and figures out how it needs to be changed to implement IFS within that agency. This, she noted, takes reviewing the documentation the agency currently has and rewriting policies and procedures for the new system. She added that the department also has to look at the security because that will probably be implemented a bit differently within each of the locations, depending on what the agency’s internal policies are. Once the security groups are identified, Ms. Foster said, they all have to be set up in the system.
Following that, Ms. Foster said, it must be determined geographically where the system will be run from and what hardware needs to be purchased and installed. She said the department also has to provide training to all the people, and noted that, at this time, the department has 6 courses attached to the rollout. These courses, she said, range from 4 hours to 3 days each. On top of that, she noted, the department is also developing the data warehouse which is being rolled out simultaneously with the rest of the system. That portion, she said, also involves training and security issues.
Ms. Foster stated that out of the 6 positions that were approved, 4 of them will be working directly on the “rollout” in addition to the normal duties they would perform to keep the system operational.
Ms. Foster said the next area the department is still working on is reporting requirements. She recalled the legacy system produced approximately 454 reports. She noted that at this point in time the department has only brought up the reporting needed to run the system and keep the department going for a few months. She said they had brought up 46 custom reports and 42 baseline reports. Baseline reports, she explained, are reports that actually came with the software.
Ms. Foster said that, since the system has been up and running, the department has developed an additional 44 custom reports, which brings the total to 132 reports, which is 29 percent of what was being reported out of the legacy system.
Ms. Foster said the department is trying to address its reporting area through the development of a human resources (HR) data warehouse. She said they just recently brought up the core release of the data warehouse that contains payroll reconciliation data and employee history data. She said the department is now starting to collect additional requirements for its next release because the department has been receiving many special reporting requests. She said they will be collecting these throughout the session but will not be starting work on them until the session is over.
Ms. Foster said the data warehouse offers more advanced technical solution to reporting because it allows users to start at subtotals and drill down to the minute details of information they might need for things such as payroll reconciliation. She said one can also download that information and sort it in whatever way is needed.
The next area Ms. Foster indicated the department has been working on, and continues to work on, is documentation. She said the department feels this is a very important part of the system. She stated that they did not have time to have detailed desk procedures developed when the system was brought up, so a major effort is now being made in this.
Ms. Foster said the department distributed in January 2001 a two-volume set of policies and procedures to the agencies. She said that provides detailed desk procedures on the operation of the system. She said they also include information for users who are on-line and for those who still are not on-line users.
Ms. Foster said that 170 procedures for the department’s central staff have also been completed. This, she noted, covers desk procedures for central payroll and central records. She said there are another 50 procedures that need to be completed to finish the central staff desk procedures.
Additionally, Ms. Foster said, the department has not had the time to document the administrative and production procedures for the system, which includes security documentation. She noted that they do have some security documentation at a high level that helped them to identify the security structure they were going to set up with the “rollout”, but a lot of work has been done on the security issue since the documentation was produced, and none of that is documented. Ms. Foster said the pieces of the system for running the nightly cycles still need to be documented as well.
The next item, Ms. Foster said, is implementation of additional system functionality. She said the software the department purchased provides the functionality, and they just need the time to go in and analyze the functionality and determine how they want to implement it. She clarified that it does not involve the purchase of any additional software, but is rather a question of the time it will take the department to implement it. She said the department wants to implement tracking of employee training, grievances, and employee evaluations.
To accomplish this, Ms. Foster said, requires considerable effort. She said they have to determine how the functionality will be used, and then they have to develop a prototype of the functionality in the testing environment, and then design and populate system tables. Then, she said, they go through three levels of testing. This, she explained, is followed by the development and publishing of procedures on the new functionality; the design, development, and testing of all the related reports; revising the security structure; and training. This, she explained, is done with assistance from the central records and payroll staff.
Along with that system, Ms. Foster said, the department is also working on a request for proposal (RFP), which the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) is currently reviewing. This RFP is to purchase time-data collection software. This software, she explained, provides capabilities to scan and electronically input timesheets. She said the main reason they have been looking at this software is to assist the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). She pointed out that NDOT does positive reporting and they have very extensive streams of cross distribution that they need to track their expenditures for federal reporting purposes. She explained that it was taking NDOT a huge amount of time to enter the timesheets and they requested looking into this type of software. Ms. Foster added that if that project goes well, the Department of Personnel is looking into the possibility of using that for some of the larger agencies to assist them in getting their timesheets into the system.
Ms. Foster said her department is still trying to get caught up on backlogs of work that were built up after they brought the IFS up. Those backlogs, she said, consist of reconciling the payroll trust fund and processing the associated adjustments, and reconciling retirement reports and processing those adjustments. She noted that the department also just recently conducted open enrollment with the health insurance. She said they had done a complete open enrollment, which meant they had to enter all the new insurance forms into the payroll system. She explained they had written interfaces to do that, but there are a lot of issues associated with that whole process that the department is also dealing with.
Ms. Foster said the department is working on payroll overpayment maintenance, and is processing EICON (Employees Insurance Company of Nevada) expirations and purging employee records subsequent to grievances and appeals. They also must process employee history maintenance due to reclassification of employees as well as system problem reports, she added.
Ms. Foster said the department sees items in the future that could impact the whole schedule and plan. She noted that one of them is the desired consolidation of the NDOT and central payroll cycles. She explained that NDOT currently runs on the advantage system, but they are running on a separate cycle that causes a considerable amount of extra effort. She said her department is looking towards putting NDOT on the same payroll cycle as central payroll.
Ms. Foster noted that there are always upgrades to the systems, and pointed out that in the current biennium the department implemented 4 or 5 necessary upgrades. She said the department may run into that again. Also, she said, what may come out of this legislative session might require changes. She also pointed out that the department could be impacted by audit findings.
Mrs. Chowning noted that tracking of employee training, grievance tracking, and employee evaluations were the 3 remaining items to discuss. Mrs. Chowning expressed appreciation for what Ms. Foster told the subcommittee. She asked Ms. Foster if she really thought the department had the budget to accomplish all they anticipate accomplishing. Mrs. Chowning expressed an interest in knowing that the department is going to be able to implement all of these plans with this budget.
Ms. Foster responded that the department has done a huge amount of planning in the last biennium to determine exactly what they need to do to complete the system. Ms. Foster said that, as far as the contract money is concerned, it was a unique situation that the department got the $279,000 with the contract money in the last biennium. She explained that most of the money for new development on the IFS project is in the DoIT budget. This time, she said, any additional new development or work on the IFS project related to the human resource system is built into the Department of Administration’s budget.
Mrs. Chowning asked for confirmation that the Department of Personnel will not be coming back to the IFC asking for any new positions or anything else. Ms. Foster said the department believes they are in good shape. She speculated that their return would only be for something that they do not know at the current time.
Mrs. Chowning thanked Ms. Foster. But, she noted, there are other agencies that have said everything was fine but it was found that lots of money was needed later. Mrs. Chowning expressed pleasure and hope that all that needs to be accomplished will indeed be accomplished by 2003. Ms. Foster echoed Mrs. Chowning’s hope.
Senator Jacobsen indicated there is a great deal of training involved in these plans and asked whether the Department of Personnel is able to accomplish all that in‑house. Ms. Foster explained that the department has almost completed all development of the six training classes that are associated with the “rollout.” She said she thought there are only one or two classes that have not been completely developed, but both have been started. She said they have two trainers, and according to their plan they can do it.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the department uses the train-the-trainer model, and Ms. Foster said they do. She said the department has a class for training the trainer.
Assemblyman Beers asked whether this is software the state developed or software the state purchased and bent to fit the needs of the state. Ms. Foster responded that it is software that was purchased and bent to fit. Mr. Beers speculated that there would be no development for evaluation, but rather it is just a matter of implementing it, training on it, and getting the data in. Ms. Foster confirmed that to be the case.
Mrs. Chowning directed attention to the issue of social security numbers.
Ms. Foster stated that the Department of Personnel has started to collect information and research that topic. She said she does not have complete data yet, but noted that she had promised the committee that she would come back with a response by March 7, 2001. She explained that a bit more analysis is necessary.
Mrs. Chowning noted that is only 5 days from the time of this meeting. She expressed her appreciation for having this matter addressed. She acknowledged that there are people selling identification (ID) cards that allow people to do lots of things. She explained that on those ID cards are someone else’s social security numbers. She noted that in her own case she has had her own credit report come up with 5 social security numbers. She recognized that there are people “wandering around” stealing other people’s identities, and there are people making a lot of money through that effort.
Mrs. Chowning said that, although we hear this is happening, the committee does not want the state to aid in that effort. She noted that drivers’ licenses will no longer have social security numbers on them, but rather will have unique identifiers. That indicates the state has gone a long way to help resolve that problem. Mrs. Chowning said the committee would like Ms. Foster’s department to offer a solution. She noted that if there is a cost involved the committee will need to know that as well. She said the committee wants all people’s identities to be protected, whether on the web or otherwise.
Mr. Beers pointed out that the purpose of the social security number is to facilitate the employer reporting to the federal government the employees earnings and tax withholdings. He noted that it would be illegal for an employer to operate without having the social security number of the employee. He said some systems have both an employee number and a social security number in different fields, but noted that the state system cannot operate without having the employees’ social security numbers tied into their records. He recognized the security concern and said that the social security number has gone far past the employer-employee relationship, but reiterated that the number was designed specifically for that relationship. He suggested that time may be better spent at something other than reporting to the committee on this question. He said he does not believe it is an abnormal thing for the employer to need the social security number in the payroll system.
Ms. Foster concurred, and confirmed that there will be a significant cost associated with making this change. She also pointed out that this issue did not arise with the implementation of the IFS. She said social security numbers have been used as far back as 1969 and possibly further.
Mrs. Chowning accepted the explanation, but pointed out that the numbers now are going to be going out over the Internet. Ms. Foster assured her that the information in the system that is associated with the social security number will not be distributed on the Internet. Mrs. Chowning recalled that was the reason the committee’s concerns had arisen.
Ms. Foster explained that her department has very tight levels of security within the system. She said the social security number is written on the timesheet, but the people who handle the payroll data have to sign confidentiality agreements, of which there are two. She said people who actually have access to the system and the payroll data have two separate sign-ons to get into the system, and it is limited even further to different security groups. This means that only certain people have access to payroll data versus personnel data, and there are different types of transactions they can process.
Assemblyman Hettrick said he had been contacted a number of times by employees in regard to this issue. What they would like to see, he reported, is for the time sheet to have a coded number on it and staff or the system converts that number to the social security number for transmissions that require social security numbers such as Mr. Beers was talking about. He stated that the employees’ contention is that they fill out time sheets that end up in a tray stacked on someone’s desk, and while they are very secure once they arrive at personnel they are not secure sitting in the office where they are prepared. He pointed out that anyone can walk by and get all of their information. The employees, he insisted, do not want the information on the timesheets to be that readily available to anyone who happens to walk by, slip it into a copy machine, and walk away. He pointed out that they are not asking for the social security number to be a hidden number throughout the entire system, but for an employee number of some kind to be used instead.
Ms. Foster said that idea has been discussed. She said some people thought the use of employee numbers could cause a higher error rate because employees would have to remember an additional number for their time sheets. She noted that there would also be the need for tables in the system that would translate the employee number into the social security number, which would cause an additional step.
Mr. Hettrick pointed out that the employee would not write an additional number, they would only write the employee number. He noted that this would make a match and no formula would be needed. He noted that is the simplest possible thing a computer could do. He recalled that he wrote computer programs at one time and he understands how a computer compares numbers.
Mrs. Chowning pointed out that the committee had been told the same thing about the drivers license numbers originally, that it could not be done. But, she noted, it was finally accomplished. She noted that with mortgages people give their loan numbers, and if they cannot remember the numbers then they can fall back on social security numbers. She acknowledged that the social security number does not have to be the very first source of information.
Mr. Beers asked whether employees start out with a blank timesheet on which they write their name. Ms. Foster said they do. Mr. Beers asked what the first entry is when staff goes to enter time. Ms. Foster replied it is the social security number. Mr. Beers asked whether there is an employee number that is not the social security number. Ms. Foster said there is such a number, and that it is a key field. Mr. Beers asked whether it is a complex key, and was told the employee number is a simple key.
Ed Perry, Project Manager (contracted), Integrated Financial System project, Department of Administration, noted that the advantage payroll system uses an internal key to do all processing. The external key, he said, is the social security number, but that is translated automatically when one goes inside the system. He said it was decided to use the social security number because that was the existing state practice, and has been for 30 years. He also said it was felt that, given the rush in which the system was brought up, there was not enough time to retrain everyone to “spit out a whole set of numbers” that would be significantly different.
Mr. Perry explained that it is possible to convert to using another number. He said the data-capture routine would need to be changed. He pointed out that this is a table-driven system, and there is a lot of work to do when one “goes playing with” the relationships in the database. He noted that such a change would be feasible, but stated that to make such a change in such a large system would involve costs in $100,000 increments. He estimated it would take from $200,000 to $500,000 to make that kind of a change.
Mr. Beers noted that it would only cost a couple of thousand dollars on his system. He protested that he does not understand the reason for such a high cost. He asked whether the social security number is entered and the system draws up the employee’s record. Mr. Perry said the program does some front-end editing by requiring a match by personnel staff with the social security number.
Mr. Beers asked, if the state goes to a number other than the social security number on the timesheet and that causes data entry problems, does that assume an “exceptionally stupid” data entry operator? Mr. Perry speculated that the problem would be the employee’s putting an incorrect number on the timesheet. He said what would happen when an incorrect number is entered is that the operator would get a mismatch immediately. That, he explained, would require that the operator track it down and the transaction be held in a suspense file.
Mr. Beers noted that to access the employee’s name a person must currently type in the social security number and there is a “look-up table” somewhere that translates the social security number into a system ID number. Then that is the piece the system uses to access the employee’s name and information, he added. Mr. Perry confirmed that to be the case. Mr. Beers concluded that the system is currently “doing a translation table” to accommodate the social security numbers on the timesheet. Mr. Perry agreed. Mr. Beers then asked whether it would cost $100,000 to $200,000 to fix that, noting that this involves one data entry screen.
Mr. Perry stated that he was giving the committee a conservative estimate so he would not have to come back to the committee and “look like an idiot”. Mr. Beers expressed his hope that the estimate is “very conservative.”
Mr. Perry assured Mr. Beers that this would involve a fair amount of work. Mr. Perry explained that just the testing cycles will each require $200 to $300. Mr. Perry continued that a person also has to make sure the change “cascades” through. Mr. Beers suggested that this only involves the payroll data entry, and it has nothing to do with the master file. Mr. Beers said all inquiries will still be done by social security number.
Mr. Perry stated that all the reports would be different. Mr. Beers asked how any of the reports would be different, and Mr. Perry acknowledged that if the social security numbers were shown it “would be okay.” Mr. Perry noted that on reports going back to the department, which do not have the employee ID and social security numbers, it may be desirable to have the position number instead.
Mr. Beers said he did not think that would even be needed because the relationship between the employee and the employer is still driven off the social security number. He stated that the committee’s concern is to get the social security number off the timesheet. He noted that in the system he is accustomed to he can do a search by name by hitting 2 keys at the point of data entry. He acknowledged that having to do that every time would burden the data entry process, but he envisions minimal modifications to the data entry routines and no modifications to the reports or the data entry tables. He said all that needs to be done occurs between the point of the timesheet being filled out and the data entry person substituting a number in the computer.
Mr. Hettrick said he agreed with Mr. Beers. He said he understands all that is being asked for is a simple subroutine that is built in as the first screen that says nothing more than “Enter the employee number.” This, he explained, would instruct the computer to go to the table to find the social security number and the system acts as though the data entry person had entered it. This, he said, would bring up the appropriate screen, and all other functions of the computer would be exactly the same as they are now.
Mr. Hettrick said that if there is a concern about changing the program on the output side on the reports the computer can be instructed not to print the social security numbers.
Mrs. Chowning said the committee appreciated the Department of Personnel’s cooperation and recognized that they were trying to produce their report by March 7, 2001. She requested that the department work with the members of the committee and their staff.
Ms. Greene pointed out that when she indicated the department was only asking for 2 new positions she had forgotten that the department is also requesting that 2 positions from DoIT be transferred into the Department of Personnel budget. She explained that previously the Department of Personnel paid DoIT for 5 data entry operators. She said that because of the decentralization it is believed that this number can be reduced to 2 positions, which would be transferred to the Department of Personnel’s budget, rather than paying DoIT for their services.
Mrs. Chowning requested clarification that the department has the 3 new positions approved at IFC, the 2 that are going to be transferred from DoIT, the temporary program assistant position, and the new clerical position. Ms. Greene said that is correct.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that at the previous meeting she had asked a question about state employees who are commuting back and forth around the state. She said she thought information was going to be provided regarding how many people are flying north and south and whether the individuals should be located in the North or in the South.
Ms. Greene said her department has the percentage of employees that are located in the North and South. She said approximately 51 percent are located in the Carson City-Reno area, 36 percent are located in Las Vegas, and the balance are located in the rural counties. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether an analysis has been done to support locating individuals in the communities in which they are working, rather than wasting time and money sending them back and forth across the state to do a job. She asked whether there is any analysis regarding where people should really be housed for the purposes of their employment.
Ms. Greene said agencies have the prerogative of moving positions geographically based on workload needs. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what would trigger such a decision and whether that has to be left up to the agency. She asked whether anyone has an idea how much is spent on transportation costs in relation to this issue. She also asked whether the Department of Personnel reviews the justification for where a position is to be located. Ms. Greene said her department does not. She said the budget office might review that when new positions are requested.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether that should be a personnel matter, and questioned the justification for 51 percent of employees to be in the North when the majority of the population is in the South. Ms. Greene said she is unable to respond to that question.
Ms. Giunchigliani recalled that about 10 years ago this issue had been discussed and suggested that there may be some documentation around that would be considered on this matter. She stated that it is her feeling this is a personnel matter.
Ms. Greene explained that the way the state is currently set up it is not a personnel matter. She said she would discuss the matter with the director of the Department of Administration and get back to the committee.
In addition, Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the Department of Personnel has plans to establish, or has even investigated the possibility of establishing, a clearinghouse style of resource for skills and training of job applicants. She also asked whether the state does cross training in preparation for or anticipation of what might be needed within agencies as technology and job functions change. She noted that there are so many jobs vacant and she frequently hears that there is no one with the skills to fill the position. She asked why preparation is not being made for that.
Ms. Greene said that is an area the department is undertaking now. She said the department anticipates that a large percentage of state employees will be retiring within the next 10 years and they are looking at succession planning.
Ms. Giunchigliani expressed her concern that it is more than succession planning; it involves anticipating. She asked whether there is a mechanism in state government that identifies for personnel what skills will be required for upcoming needs so individuals may be recruited ahead of time for training. This, she said, would allow them to fill positions when they come open.
Ms. Greene said the only concern she has with that is it could be considered pre-selection if training is provided to certain individuals for a job before the job is open. She said the Department of Personnel wants to give every person an equal opportunity to compete for a position.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she appreciates that concern, and repeated her concern that it is not good planning to not look at what sets of skills are going to be needed as government evolves. She said she considered that to be more “anticipating” than “pre-selection.” Ms. Greene said she agrees with that opinion as long as it is not specified that specific individuals would receive the training in a skill area, thereby eliminating others. Ms. Giunchigliani expressed an interest in probing this matter further because she feels the perception in the agencies and the public is that the state is not planning ahead for what skills are needed. Ms. Greene agreed.
Ms. Giunchigliani referred to Exhibit C and asked what “difficult to recruit classes” refers to. Ms. Greene said that is an indication of certain types of jobs, and mentioned correctional officers as an example. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether there is a prioritization established for these needs, and asked as an example how many engineers are needed. Ms. Greene said she does not know that off the top of her head. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether it is known how many forensic specialists, social workers, and correctional cooks might be out there. Ms. Greene said the list in Exhibit C is of ongoing needs for these positions. She noted that there is continuous turnover of correctional officers. She said that generally applies to all the classes listed in the exhibit.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether agencies look at this list, and whether there is any kind of prioritization assessed when a position is reclassified. Ms. Greene said positions are not reclassified based upon the difficulty in recruitment, but only on specific job duties that are assigned.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how often the job duties are reviewed. Ms. Greene said all classes are evaluated about every 10 years. But, she noted, if a job has changed at any time during that time period, documentation can be submitted for reclassification consideration. Ms. Giunchigliani asked who initiates such a reclassification request. Ms. Greene said it could be either the agency or the employee. She said that if the employee feels the job has changed the employee can submit the request directly to the Department of Personnel.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether every position has a job description of hours, duties, and so on. Ms. Green replied that is not necessarily so. She said the Department of Personnel has class specifications that are broad descriptions of the class as a whole. Then, she explained, each agency has work performance standards that further detail job duties of that particular position. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether a salary change can be made by submitting an application for such a reclassification. Ms. Greene said that substantial change in the job would need to be shown for an upward reclassification to be justified. She said that if it were just a general salary issue it would have to come before the Legislature.
Senator Neal said that any reclassification scheme for employees should be preceded by some type of an audit in order to justify it. He said that to do it without an audit creates the problems.
Ms. Greene said the department does audits. She explained that the employee must first complete documentation showing the changes in the job. Then, she explained, an individual does a desk audit of the position before any reclassification takes place.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION
DETR Rehabilitation Administration – Budget Page – DETR-53 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3268
Maynard R. Yasmer, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), said budget account 101-3268 represents the administration of the Rehabilitation Division. He said the division administers and manages a broad scope of programs serving individuals with disabilities. Within the division, he added, are the Bureau of Disability Adjudication, the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, the Bureau of Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired, vocational assessment centers, the office of Community Based Services, and Developmental Disabilities Planning Council program.
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DETR-55
This decision unit, Mr. Yasmer explained, is for additional out-of-state travel funding to enable individuals in his division to attend scheduled Workforce Investment Act (WIA) meetings and federal regulatory meetings.
Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Yasmer to comment on that, noting that it appears that it is almost a 200 percent increase in travel. She pointed out the increase is to attend two annual WIA meetings, the semiannual meetings of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, and regional directors’ meetings; and she asked why it is necessary to have such an increase.
Mr. Yasmer explained that the federal law changed and put the federal Rehabilitation Act under Title IV of the WIA and it organizes federal efforts similarly to what has been done in Nevada for DETR. Because of this, the rules are changing and the partnerships and one-stop activities are working better to serve people. However, he said, division staff must keep up on what the rules changes are as they occur, and what other states are doing to make this process effective.
E-910 Transfer to B/A 3266 Base – Page DETR-56
E-912 Transfer to B/A 3266 E710 – Page DETR-56
Mr. Yasmer said E-910 and E-912 together work to transfer a position. The current position is the Rehabilitation Chief position in the Office of Community Based Services (OCBS). That position, he said, originally was a Chief of Planning, Research, and Program Development in the “old rehab” days years ago, and it evolved into this position that is not generally allocable under the federal Office Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87. He explained that the position, when first established, provided planning and research services for all of the bureaus mentioned earlier. The position as it currently exists is providing services solely to the OCBS and the developmental disabilities program. In that nature, he said, the other bureaus and federal programs should not participate in the cost of this position. That is why the position is being moved, he explained, because it has nothing to do with any other activities that are going on in the division.
Mrs. Chowning said it was originally presented that the OCBS and developmental disabilities budgets would be transferred to the Department of Human Resources, but that is apparently no longer the position. Mr. Yasmer replied the division had not realized in the beginning that the developmental disabilities program’s federal rules would come into play and cause some difficulty with that move at this time. Therefore, he explained, some arrangements and concurrences were made between the agencies of both departments working together to have an interim planning process to effectively respond to the needs of individuals with disabilities. He stressed that no one involved in this wants to see this opportunity fail because it is the first time issues of people with disabilities have come to this high a level for consideration.
DETR, Disability Adjudication – Budget Page DETR-58 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3269
Mr. Yasmer said the Bureau of Disability Adjudication is totally funded and controlled by the federal Social Security Administration (SSA). He said the program has a responsibility for processing all applications for disability benefits under the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability programs. Mr. Yasmer said that the impact on Nevada’s economy under SSDI benefits in 1999 was that 29,900 disabled beneficiaries in Nevada received over $281 million per year in benefits. This, he noted, was an average of $9,408 per person per year. He said that under SSI, 17,463 individuals with disability and blindness in Nevada received nearly $77 million in benefits for that year. He noted that average was $4,404 person. He expressed appreciation that the program is doing what it can, but the benefits are not a lot of money for people to live on.
Mr. Yasmer said that Nevada’s Disability Adjudication program ranks fourth in the western states in performance, sixth in the nation in decision accuracy, and second in the nation in the rate of approvals of applications. Mr. Yasmer credited the division’s staff for the success the program is experiencing.
Mrs. Chowning referred to the corrected performance indicator numbers in Exhibit D. She noted that the division’s mean average processing time has gotten a lot better. Mr. Yasmer explained that the average processing time is one of the division’s difficulties, and it had to be raised “to the federal targets of 117 and 120 days for 2001, 2002, and 2003.” He said the average processing time is not really good, but it takes that amount of time to do it.
Mrs. Chowning asked how Nevada ranks nationally in that respect. Mr. Yasmer said Nevada’s average processing time is 99.2 days and the national average is 81.5. On SSI processing Nevada’s average is 115 days and the national average is 84.
Mrs. Chowning asked what he might need to make that better, but noted that the division does not have much control over that. Mr. Yasmer confirmed that they do not. He also explained that the average processing time now includes the federal level time review in cases rather than the time “in and out of the door of their office.”
M-516 Continuing Disability Reviews – Page DETR-61
Mr. Yasmer said this decision unit is an SSA-directed change in adjudication methods that requires adjudicators to perform more detailed reviews and activities, conduct claimant conferences, and prepare full legal rationales for each decision. Mr. Yasmer said the division believes this will result in even more approved cases.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether this will make the average processing time even worse. Mr. Yasmer said it could. He agreed there is nothing to be done about that, but he said there is a side benefit to this because the claimants have a better chance for approval. He said the ones that are disapproved will be more readily able to appeal to the court system because there will no longer be an administrational reconsideration process.
Mr. Yasmer explained that, to make this change, the division needs 1 new Disability Adjudicator IV to handle professional relations in the community with medical and related professions, and to monitor the medical examination process. He said the division also will need to look at reclassification of the adjudicator series to reflect the added required responsibilities in doing the medical determinations from the evidence of record.
Mrs. Chowning asked for clarification that SSA has directed the division to significantly reduce its case backlog, and asked how SSA determined what the division’s backlog is.
Mr. Yasmer said the case backlog is running around 1,200 cases that are 3 to 4 weeks behind. He said the backlogs are impacted by heavy workloads, heavy funding cutbacks for new claims processing, and staff turnover. He said he does not believe SSA is asking the division to reduce the backlogs because the budget cutbacks at the federal level do not provide the money to fund new claims processing. He pointed out that difficulty is on the federal side.
M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – DETR-59
Mr. Yasmer said this request is a response to a workload increase of about 6.5 percent per year that is an SSA projection. This, he said, represents about 2,600 additional claims in 2002 and about 4,029 additional claims in 2003.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page DETR-61
E-720 New Equipment – Page DETR-62
These decisions, Mr. Yasmer explained, are for desks, furniture, headphones, and SSA-directed electronic filing process changes. Mrs. Chowning asked what the $83,500 in E-720 will help the division accomplish. Mr. Yasmer responded that it is for an SSA-directed electronic filing process requiring software and hardware and expansion of current filing capacity. He said this is to accommodate the thousands of cases that are handled yearly.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether Mr. Yasmer thought this new system would help the processing go quicker or make it more difficult. Mr. Yasmer said he believed it will make it go quicker, but stressed that the bottom line is that there is nothing his division can do about it.
Assemblyman Beers asked whether DoIT has looked at this requirement. He also asked who is going to do the work on this in Nevada. Mr. Yasmer said the division has a contract with Versa Corporation, approved by SSA, to do the work. He noted that the work is on a minicomputer and is not tied to the state mainframe. He identified it as an AS-400 minicomputer located onsite, and said the AS-400 channels the information to the SSA network. He said that the division goes to DoIT when necessary, but there is not a lot DoIT can do with this system.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether Mr. Yasmer’s division incurs penalties if things are not accomplished within the expected times. Mr. Yasmer said there is ranking at the federal level, but the penalties occur against the claimants who need the help because they have to wait while their claim is being processed.
DETR, Vocational Rehabilitation – Budget Page DETR-64 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3265
Mr. Yasmer said the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation is funded 78.7 percent federal funding with a state matching fund at 21.3 percent. He stated that the bureau provide services to eligible individuals with disabilities to enable them to retain or gain successful employment. He drew attention again to Exhibit D and explained that that the original performance indicator calculations did not work and this exhibit reflected the corrections that had been made.
Mr. Yasmer said the performance indicators are based on a flat budget. He said the division believes if it can keep vacant positions filled it will meet or exceed the levels indicated. Mrs. Chowning asked how he realistically thinks the division will do that. Mr. Yasmer said that since there are no required vacancy savings in this budget, and since in decision unit M-200 the division is requesting public service interns, it is expected that this will be a “leg-up” for hiring people from those colleges.
Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Yasmer to explain how Nevada ranks nationally for providing services to clients. Mr. Yasmer said he does not have that information, but will get back to the committee on that.
Mrs. Chowning noted the complicated “in-and-out” in decision unit M-200 involving 2 positions. She asked Mr. Yasmer to tell what effect this will have on client services. She also asked whether there are waiting lists, why the assessment centers were not able to function on their own, and whether client services are going to be reduced. Additionally, she asked for a flowchart of the projected changes.
Mr. Yasmer said he is not sure exactly what all the changes are, but he could talk to the committee’s staff about it. Mrs. Chowning said she is referring to the combination of all the decision units with all the movement going on, and the committee would like to know what the effect will be. She told Mr. Yasmer he can get back to the committee later with that information.
Mr. Yasmer said the bottom line for this budget account is that client services will be relatively flat when compared to Fiscal 2001 authorized expenditure level for client services. He said M-200 is requesting 2 new public service intern positions to give the division an advantage in recruiting students from universities and colleges that have master degree programs in rehabilitation counseling. By recruiting students and allowing them to complete their internships within the rehabilitation division, he anticipates the division will then be able to pick up some of those individuals to fill the division’s positions. He pointed out that the division is having a difficult time recruiting for these positions since the federal government raised the credential rates.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the committee needs assurance that client services have not been reduced. She noted that it appears that way with the shifting of funds and the resulting unclear picture. Mr. Yasmer said he can give the committee that information.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired about the impact of the transfer of Vocational Assessment Centers (VAC) back to the Vocational Rehabilitation budget. She asked whether it will affect client services. She expressed concern about whether any services were being eliminated. Mr. Yasmer said he did not think it will have a great impact on client services, and certainly not a negative one. He said the transfer of VAC back into Vocational Rehabilitation occurred because the transfer out in 1997 did not work on a fee-for-service relationship and the program could not generate sufficient revenues to remain self-sustaining. He recalled that it was indicated in testimony to the 1999 legislative subcommittees that the division would return to the 2001 Legislature with a request to move the VAC back into the Vocational Rehabilitation budget if the division could not make that relationship work. Ms. Giunchigliani expressed her appreciation for the fact that it was indeed an experiment that did not work and she was glad that it was not going to continue.
Mr. Yasmer explained that, connected with that move, the division is “getting out of the business of running a business” in the production units, which have been providing the situational assessment services. He stated the division can get those through community rehabilitation programs at a unit cost. He noted that means the division will pay when a client is being assessed, and not paying when clients are not being assessed, as was the case when the division was previously running the program. He said he believes the overall costs will diminish somewhat, and case service should be improved.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the increase in the federal certification level is causing hiring problems. Mr. Yasmer said the federal law was changed to include a certification requirement for all individuals who are doing professional rehabilitation counseling in the agency. This, he explained, requires the highest state or federal certification in existence, the Certificate for Rehabilitation Counseling (CRC). He added it requires a masters degree in rehabilitation counseling and has a lot of course work.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether individuals would have to attain federal certification, assuming there is no state certification process. Mr. Yasmer replied they would. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the state would be better off with its own certification process, so there would be no need for the higher standard. Mr. Yasmer said a state process was considered, but noted that there is no rehabilitation counseling program certified at the universities in Nevada. He explained that would be needed for such a certification process to be in place.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the master’s degree requirement is affecting people’s ability to get certified since it is not a requirement for hiring purposes. Mr. Yasmer said that is so. He pointed out that there is a program for current staff because they could not be grandfathered into the new certification requirements. This is being carried out through distance education programs with San Diego State University.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the state pays for that, and Mr. Yasmer replied that it does. This, he explained, is because they are now required to have the courses and it is not their fault that they cannot be grandfathered in. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the state has a salary issue as well. Mr. Yasmer said the division thinks it is going to have one, and it has a request in for review. He stated that he is working with state personnel to evaluate this and to work toward achieving these equities.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether there is the possibility of contracting in the interim until the division can hire the personnel needed. Mr. Yasmer said that is difficult because one of the problems the division has in keeping good staff is that they go to work for the private sector where the salary is double. The state cannot compete with that, he noted.
Mrs. Chowning noted that one position, a Rehabilitation Coordinator II, has been vacant for 15 months. Mr. Yasmer confirmed that the division has had several vacancies.
Mrs. Chowning noted the committee for fundamental review had recommended the Rehabilitation Division consider merging the Bureau of Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired with the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. She asked whether the division has looked at that possibility, and, if so, what had been the result.
Mr. Yasmer said they have looked at that in great detail and have found the process extremely difficult. He said the division is continuing to evaluate what it can administratively combine and may have a plan for consideration for the next biennium. That, he said, is the best the division can do on that matter. He stated that he has spent a lot of personal time looking at that and he believes certain levels can be combined. One difficulty he pointed out is a vacancy in the position of Chief, Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. He said the position became vacant last August, but because of this pending issue the division was not sure whether to fill it. He said the division has asked the Chief, Bureau of Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired, to perform both jobs temporarily. Mr. Yasmer said he does not know whether that will be made permanent.
Mrs. Chowning suggested that Mr. Yasmer provide his thoughts on that in writing to the committee, as well as what his thoughts are for the future.
DETR, Vocational Assessment Centers – Budget Page DETR-73 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3264
Mr. Yasmer said the items of importance in this budget had already been discussed.
DETR, Client Assistance Program – Budget Page DETR-79 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3258
Mr. Yasmer said this budget account is for one small program that is federally funded and required by the Rehabilitation Services Administration grant. He explained it provides staff to assure the availability of necessary and appropriate assistance to clients to facilitate progress towards successful achievement of their respective rehabilitation programs. He stated that this is the advocacy program for vocational rehabilitation clients, for clients in independent living, and for clients at the independent living centers in the North and in the South. He said the program is staffed with a director and a secretary.
Mrs. Chowning commented that the program is accomplishing wonderful things for individuals statewide. Mr. Yasmer said the director of that program is doing a good job “keeping me out of the courts” by resolving issues with clients.
DETR, Services to the Blind & Visually Impaired – Budget Page DETR-83 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3254
Mr. Yasmer said the Bureau of Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired provides full ranges of services to individuals who are blind, deaf and blind, or severely visually impaired to assist them in achieving social and economic independence. He said the bureau provides a number of services, and noted that corrected indicators have been distributed in Exhibit D. He pointed out that performance indicators 7 and 8 are subject to the committee’s approval of decision unit E-325, which places a position with the Clark County School District to work with children who are blind or visually impaired.
E-325 Improve Pupil Achievement – Page DETR-87
Mrs. Chowning noted that this puts the program in Clark County School District only. She asked whether Mr. Yasmer anticipates serving 80 and then 100 children.
Mr. Yasmer explained that the program is a pilot in Clark County because the division has been working with the school district there for some time. He noted the school district is very interested in providing space and other accommodations for the rehabilitation coordinator that he hopes the committee will approve. He said the initial population group the school district has identified has about 246 children. He said the division is trying to do early intervention so when these students become old enough for the transition program to get into work or college they will be better prepared.
Mr. Yasmer said the division’s plan is to pay for services and goods that the children do not get from the school district. He noted that the school district is doing a fine job, but does not work with the children after school, on weekends, or at home. The equipment necessary to do their homework, such as computers with reading aids, stay at the school and students do not have access to those things at home.
Mr. Yasmer said the division intends to evaluate the program as it progresses and by the next biennium will decide whether to do more in this area or nothing. Mrs. Chowning said the program sounds marvelous and discussed one of her own students who became blinded by an accident and the resulting difficulties posed for his family.
Mr. Yasmer pointed out that this program will not cost the legislature any General Fund money. He said donations are recommended to fund this program. Mrs. Chowning noted that there is a donation from stock certificates that were donated in 1962. Mr. Yasmer related that an individual donated 50 shares of General Electric stock in 1962, and the 50 shares have now become 9,600 shares. He said the donation was specifically earmarked for services to blind children. He noted that in the market the previous day the shares were at approximately $45 per share.
Mrs. Chowning asked what is anticipated for the future of this program once the value of the donation has been spent. Mr. Yasmer said he believes the program is in good condition for a while, and the future of the program will depend on how well General Electric stock does over the next few years.
Mrs. Chowning noted that there is one position, Employment Specialist II, that has not been filled, and asked whether the position is needed. Mr. Yasmer responded that it is a brand new position and it was recently filled by a transfer from another program. He said it is the assistive technology position the division is having a problem getting classified.
Assemblyman Parks said he received an e-mail from an individual who was asking for an increase in services for the deaf and referred to the office of community based services. The writer, Mr. Parks recalled, had noted that Governor Miller had advocated the return of that position. Mr. Yasmer said he is familiar with that program, which is the office of community-based services in budget account 3266. Mr. Yasmer explained that the position had been presented for the committee the day before.
Mr. Yasmer said he does not recall that the position had been given and then taken away. He explained that the division does have a deaf coordinator position. He pointed out that what was provided and later taken away was the deaf resource center funding that was subsequently restored in a recent session.
Mr. Parks asked whether there is a demand for services that is not being met relative to a specific deaf population. Mr. Yasmer said he does not know of any. Mr. Yasmer said there is a “massive” program for deaf people, and gave as examples the telecommunications program for the deaf, the provision with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on telephone services through telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDD), operator intervention for relay services, and the 7-1-1 number.
Mr. Beers said he does not see “much line item” devoted to technology, and noted that technology has been a tremendous tool for visually impaired people. He asked whether that is buried in some of the large direct client assistance numbers.
Mr. Yasmer referred to budget page DETR-84, and said there is a line item called “Case Services.” He said it is through this category that the division provides quite a number of technology purchases for people with blindness or visual impairment.
Mr. Beers noted that the Governor’s recommended amount is larger than the agency’s request, but smaller than the 2001 work program. Mr. Yasmer referred to the summary on budget page DETR-89, and said that gives a better total picture of that line item. He assured Mr. Beers that it is holding very well to the 2001 level.
Mrs. Chowning inquired about how long Mr. Yasmer has been an employee of the state. He responded that it has been approximately 38.5 years, and he is a product of vocational rehabilitation. Mrs. Chowning thanked him for his years of dedicated service, and recognized that he has helped a lot of people. She noted that he is a “marvelous example” of what vocational rehabilitation can do.
DETR, Equal Rights Commission – Budget Page DETR-95 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-2580
Carlos Romo, Acting Administrator, Nevada Equal Rights Commission, Department of Development, Training and Rehabilitation, said the commission primarily covers employment discrimination, and discrimination in housing related to race, color, creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and disability. He said there are no new programs requested for the commission.
Mr. Romo said the division has established new performance indicators that they are working with and are monitoring daily and weekly to see whether the commission can meet them. He pointed out 3 performance indicators that the division thinks will benefit the general public and those people served by the commission.
Mr. Romo said the commission is trying to lower the number of calendar days to close cases. The division had projected that it would have 90 percent of them closed in 250 days, but indicated that the commission fell short of that. He said the figure came to about 70 percent. He noted there were several factors that contributed to that, the primary one being that, of the commission’s 11 field investigators, 5 had been newly hired and had less than 5 months’ service. He said it takes time for an investigator of complaints to become a journeyperson. Mr. Romo said the commission is aiming to continually lower that because it is important for the people who file discrimination complains to get services as soon as possible.
Mr. Romo said the commission has experienced an increase in credits for cases that are not jurisdictional within Nevada Equal Rights Commission. Also, he explained that when a case is filed against an employer that has 15 or fewer employees, and there is a larger employer out there that is not jurisdictional for the Equal Rights Commission, the case is forwarded to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Mr. Romo said administrative closures have been reduced. He explained the commission strives to reduce the percentage of administrative closures because, with the work-sharing agreement the commission has with the EEOC, the percentages must be kept down as much as possible. He noted that in 1993 they were as high as 35 percent, and in 1997 they were down to 9.3 percent.
Mr. Romo stated that the case closures for the last 3 years have remained at an average of about 900, and that is subject to the federal EEOC contract. The commission, he said, continues to strive to increase the numbers of closures and provide better customer service. He said the commission is contracted for 917 cases for the coming federal fiscal year.
One of the things the commission is very conscious of, Mr. Romo noted, is the number of cases that are either rejected or returned from the federal EEOC office. He said the compliance investigators in his staff are told to “do it right the first time” so the cases will not come back from the federal office, because that makes extra work.
Mr. Romo said that since 1996 the total inventory of cases has remained rather constant between 900 and 1,000. Currently, he noted, there are 1,053. He said the commission is concerned, however, about the increase in the days it takes to close cases. He said the commission had a high of 370 days in federal fiscal year 1993, but the commission is undergoing organizational analyses and changing processes and procedures. He said he feels those changes will help reduce those numbers. He expects that the performance indicators for this biennium will not only reflect the commission’s commitment to customer service but also to doing the best job possible with the resources available.
Mrs. Chowning noted the 1,053 cases and the high of 370 days, and recognized that if the cases are not closed within a certain federally-mandated time, money is lost. Mr. Romo agreed. Mrs. Chowning recalled that Nevada was on federal probation at one time, and asked whether he could tell the committee what the commission’s backlog is, and whether Nevada is in danger of federal probation.
Mr. Romo said the commission is working on the cases that are the oldest. He said there are 38 from 1997, and 102 from 1998. These cases, he agreed, are the cases that the commission needs to get out of the system to get federal credit as soon as possible. He explained that as they get older there comes a point where the state will no longer be credited; but, he noted, the commission still has to close them no matter what. Mr. Romo said the bulk of the cases are from the Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000.
Mrs. Chowning asked for the number of cases older than a year so the committee can get a good picture. Mr. Romo said he would provide that.
Mrs. Chowning asked, since the commission is trying to close cases in 250 days, how that number had been arrived at. Mr. Romo said it is partly because it is a national standard, but it refers to business days, not calendar days. He noted that there are approximately 21 business days in a month. He said they are not only dealing with national averages, but with averages in other states as well. He said the commission thinks 250 days is a workable number, and it is just a matter of a lot of monitoring of all processes. Time management, he stated, is “super-important.”
Mrs. Chowning commented that the cases are extremely important to people’s lives, and she asked what the national average is. Mr. Romo estimated that it hovers around 270 to 300 days. Mrs. Chowning noted that the commission does not have an administrator at present, and there is one position, a supervisory compliance investigator. Mr. Romo said that position was reclassified and it was filled with a Compliance investigator II just recently. Mrs. Chowning asked whether the administrative aid position has been filled. Mr. Romo said that position has also been filled.
Mrs. Chowning recalled that the commissioners at one time said that they had not met in 3 years and had not even been asked. She asked whether Mr. Romo enlists the services of the commissioners. Mr. Romo replied that since the reorganization and becoming part of DETR, the attempt has been to have quarterly meetings. The next one, he noted, is scheduled for March 29, 2001. He stated that the commissioners are very active in that respect.
Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Romo to also put the dates of those meetings in his report to the committee.
Senator Jacobsen commented that it is very important that the committee receive some kind of a chart with any request. He said this agency has been “by guess and by golly” for a number of years, and the Legislature does not seem to appreciate the activity. He expressed hope that the chart would be somewhat conclusive, including race, origin, age, or disability. Mr. Romo said that would not be difficult.
Mrs. Chowning asked, compared to the dire circumstances that the state was in years ago, what kind of picture can be presented today.
Mr. Romo stated that he has been with the commission since 1985 in some capacity, and he considers that becoming part of DETR has been an extremely good step from his point of view. This, he explained, is because the commission has not only had the leadership support, but has also been able to direct its energies to doing the primary business of investigating cases because of that support. He added that this move also gives the commission access to more resources. He noted that at the time of the fire at the Nevada Equal Rights Commission in August 2000 the commission was up and going again within 2 days. That, he explained, was because of the effort of the department as a whole as opposed to the smaller commission by itself.
Mrs. Chowning asked when the commission had become part of DETR, and Mr. Romo replied that it was in 1993. Mrs. Chowning recalled that, prior to that organization, the commission did not always have equipment to do the job.
Mr. Parks asked what literature and materials the commission provides for individuals who are interested in determining whether their problems constitute a valid claim.
Mr. Romo replied that this is another benefit gained from being part of DETR. He said that the commission now has a public information officer that has been extremely helpful in putting these matters together. He said the commission has general brochures relative to what the commission does. He said they also have brochures on such things as sexual harassment. He said the commission works with the federal EEOC to provide fact sheets on what constitutes racial discrimination, national origin discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination. These brochures, he stated, are posted and are available through the Internet and in the offices. Mr. Romo said the commission gets requests daily from employers and employees for that kind of material.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:16 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Bob Williston
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
DATE:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman
DATE: