SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

May 14, 2001

The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:49 p.m., on Monday, May 14, 2001, in Room 2149 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 Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Part of Carson City, Assembly District No. 40

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Washoe County Assembly District No. 30

Assemblyman John Oceguera, Clark County Assembly District No. 16

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel

Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst

Laura Hale, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dean Heller, Secretary of State

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association

Kathy Augustine, State Controller

Jeanine Coward, Assistant State Controller, Office of the State Controller

Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Steve Bremer, Bureau Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

David Prather, Accounting Technician II, Fiscal Accounting Bureau, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, and Teamsters Local 14

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association

David L. Howard, Lobbyist, Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority

Kathleen Murphy, Former Employee, City of Elko

Richard Darby, Employee, City of Sparks

Eric E. Hutt, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, and Operating Engineers Local 3

Mariann Dowicky, Lobbyist, Nevada Service Employees Union

Dan Holler, County Manager, Douglas County

Kelly Kite, Commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County

Robin Keith, Lobbyist, Nevada Rural Hospital Project Foundation

Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel

James T. Spencer, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Government Affairs Section, Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General

Russell Shively, Officer, Washoe County Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service

Mary C. Keating, Member, Committee on Deferred Compensation for State Employees, Department of Administration

Steven J. Watson, Chairman, Committee on Deferred Compensation for State Employees, Department of Administration

Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Northern Nevada

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on A.B. 536.

ASSEMBLY BILL 536: Makes various changes to provisions relating to secretary of state. (BDR 18-1337)

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, testified the bill would allow statutes to conform with the unclassified pay bill, which gives his office four unclassified positions although the statute only authorizes three; one unclassified position has been kept open to conform to statute. Also, he said, the bill would clean up disparities in pay to assure maintenance of positions. Section 1 would add an executive assistant, he said, which should be unclassified, as are the majority of executive assistants in other agencies. This would allow him to appoint a chief deputy, a deputy of commercial recordings, and a deputy of elections, he said. He explained not more than two additional deputies would be in the unclassified service of the state, which would allow the secretary of state to put deputies in southern Nevada and Reno offices when necessary. He noted problems have occurred in the past with transactions that require the secretary of state’s signature and approval, without sufficient coverage in those offices. He said he worked with the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA) and other interested parties and everyone was comfortable with this bill. He said there is no fiscal note because the bill just moves positions around.

Secretary of State Heller clarified for Senator Raggio there would be a total of six unclassified positions in his office, with the two additions for deputies and the executive assistant position, a status requested by the executive assistant. The administrator of the securities division would be changed to classified service because it has peace officer status and may need more autonomy to lessen the influence of the official elected secretary of state, he said. He confirmed for Senator Raggio, by making this position classified, he would not be able to remove the person from service, but explained his rationale was, because the person in this position would be doing criminal investigations, he or she would need greater autonomy.

Under section 3 of the bill, Secretary of State Heller explained, the language would assure classified positions would be filled, as supported by SNEA and agreed to by the secretary of state. He clarified for Senator Neal if the position of deputy of the securities division were to become classified, the person filling the position could remain with the office even if Mr. Heller were not reelected. He said he was not aware of any opposition to the bill.

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (SNEA/AFSCME), testified he worked with the secretary of state and his staff to improve the bill. He asserted the language in page 2, section 3 of the bill was necessary to ensure currently classified positions would not “all of a sudden become unclassified.” Mr. Gagnier responded to Senator Neal he did not know the identity of the classified person referred to under section 2, but agreed to the language because the bill would move some unclassified positions to classified, which, he asserted, is an improvement.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 536 and opened the hearing on A.B. 314.

ASSEMBLY BILL 314: Makes various changes concerning collection of debts owed to state. (BDR 31-642)

Kathy Augustine, State Controller, provided three documents (Exhibits C, D and E) including a newspaper article, written testimony, and a report summary of accounts receivable. She provided a section-by-section review of the bill and explained the Department of Taxation turned over to the controller’s office $43.8 million in debt it could not recover, and the controller’s office would subsequently turn it over to private debt collection agencies.

Jeanine Coward, Assistant State Controller, Office of the State Controller, explained to Chairman O’Connell there are different statutes of limitation for different types of debt; some are more than 6 years’ outstanding, some are less. The breakdown on the numbers of years the debts are outstanding is not currently identified, she said, but the Nevada Tax Commission has asked for this same information and the controller’s office is in the process of compiling aging data to make determinations on which debt falls within the statutes of limitation.

Ms. Augustine said according to the contract with a debt collection agency, the state recovers 50 percent of whatever the agency collects, and the agency does not charge for the service. She explained to Senator Care, classes were held through the attorney general’s office following the 1999 Session to educate state agencies on how they should proceed with debt collection, starting with letter writing campaigns on debts of over 30 and 60 days. She added, a pilot program with the Department of Taxation has been effective with state vendors to do offsets. When a vendor bills for services to a state agency, the bill is matched against a list of state vendor debts, and deductions are made where possible. The vendor has 10 days to notify the controller’s office of possible error, she said, and to date, no complaints of error have been made.

Ms. Augustine explained one report shows 514 bankruptcies with total debt of $6,705,711.16, and the full report shows 2170 businesses with total debt of $43,852,286.18. In response to a question from Senator Porter, she responded a few agencies needed to be reminded to provide information on receivables information to the controller’s office, but her office has been working closely with the Department of Taxation and the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS), which are the two state agencies with the largest amounts of uncollected debt. She noted a lot of numbers were lost when the DMV/PS changed over to the Genesis system, but their agency accountants have confidence the currently reported numbers are correct.

Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS), testified section 2.5 of the bill would allow the DMV/PS to require individuals to clear up all bad debt with regard to prior department transactions before new transactions are effected, i.e., vehicle registration, driver’s license, or other documentation. He said such individuals would also be required to clear up debts related to prior transactions with the Division of Wildlife. Another section would allow DMV/PS to charge a $25 processing fee for returned checks, he said, which is an increase from the current charge of $10. He said he did not know when this amount was last raised, and noted Mr. Prather, the bad check administrator for the department, was doing a good job of tracking debt and trying to recover payments, as compared to a few years ago when nothing was done to address returned checks.

Steve Bremer, Bureau Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified in support of A.B. 314, particularly sections 13 and 15 on the pilot project with DMV/PS and the ability to charge $25 for returned checks. He assured Chairman O’Connell signage and outreach would be used to notify clients of the returned check fee. Mr. Colling also agreed to provide such notification. David Prather, Accounting Technician II, Fiscal Accounting Bureau, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, echoed Chief Colling’s statements, noting there would be a big benefit in not allowing individuals to carry multiple bad debts with the department.

Senator Raggio explained to Senator Neal a $25 returned check fee was authorized by the legislature last session for private industry. Mr. Colling explained further to Senator Neal the DMV/PS tries to operate like a private company and, he noted, public taxes are higher because people do not pay what is owed the state, so it is appropriate to charge as much as they can to ensure taxpayers do not have to pay more. Senator Neal asserted if the fee goes beyond the cost of the service provided, then it becomes a tax. Ms. Augustine added, the system can only handle one uniform fee, and she opined this is a reasonable amount.

Ms. Augustine explained to Senator Porter, currently, “TeleCheck” machines are not used, but she believes DMV/PS will reconsider using them. The machine indicates whether there are currently sufficient funds in an account to cover the amount of a check written by an individual, she said, but there is no uniform identification number so DMV/PS has trouble with people using different names.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 314 and opened the hearing on A.B. 9.

ASSEMBLY BILL 9: Authorizes use of arbitration for adjustment of certain grievances of state employees. (BDR 23-439)

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Part of Carson City, Assembly District No. 40, testified A.B. 9 authorizes the use of arbitration in the adjustment of certain grievances of state employees. Currently, she said, the final administrative level of grievances goes before the Employee-Management Committee (EMC), Department of Personnel, a body consisting of six members composed of three state employees and three officials appointed by the Governor. The bill would provide an alternative procedure whereby an employee filing a grievance could elect to have the grievance heard by an outside professional arbitrator, she said.

Assemblywoman Parnell stated there are approximately 15,000 state employees and one EMC, which often results in a long waiting period of up to 1 year for employees who may be in a hostile work environment. Also, she said, in cases of a tie among EMC members, the result is a loss for the employee. She explained A.B. 9 would provide for payment of arbitrator costs by the losing party, whereas currently, the Department of Personnel bears the costs for EMC proceedings. By choosing arbitration, she said, agencies would be responsible for individual grievances, which would encourage resolution. She clarified grievances regarding dismissal, suspensions, or demotions are not heard by the EMC and would not be eligible for arbitration; however, reprimands, working conditions, and equity issues would be eligible for arbitration. She urged the committee to consider not only the issue of pay, but also of working conditions and workplace morale within state agencies. She noted she is sponsoring the bill at the request of SNEA.

Mr. Gagnier reiterated the reasons for the bill in response to questions from Senator Raggio. Mr. Gagnier explained suspension, demotion, dismissal, and involuntary transfer all go to a hearing officer under contract with the Department of Personnel and cannot be appealed through a grievance procedure. He said everything else could go to arbitration, including disagreements over performance evaluations, written reprimands, working conditions, overtime or standby pay, and general work condition issues which are not as serious as suspension, demotion, dismissal, or involuntary transfer. Mr. Gagnier noted, in addition to addressing the problem of ties among the members, the EMC is composed of non-professionals who do not have to live within their own rules and are inconsistent in decision-making. He said employees may be required to provide information which management is not required to provide. He indicated the cost for EMC is not known because only travel and per diem costs are calculated, and there is no tracking of lost productivity.

Under the proposal, Mr. Gagnier said, the losing party would pay for the cost of the arbitration, which was established in the fiscal note to be approximately $16,000 to $17,000. The Department of Personnel would pay about $1700, and the rest of the cost would be borne by the state agency generating the grievance, he said, which would be fairer than having the cost assigned to the six agencies which employ the members of the EMC. He asserted, by requiring the loser to pay the cost, weak cases would probably not be taken to arbitration. He explained preference would be given to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) as a provider of arbitration if the interested parties could not agree on selection of a service provider. The FMCS has a high resolution record for decisions agreed to by both parties, and their costs are more reasonable than other service providers, he said.

In response to Senator Neal, Mr. Gagnier explained the Personnel Commission would select a panel of three members for arbitration for a given year, based on input from affected employee organizations. As cases come up for hearing, he said, the employee and the agency involved in the grievance could each strike one of the three names from the panel to determine who would hear the case. He pointed out professional profiles of the arbitrators would be available for review. Currently, he said, an average of 39 grievances go to the EMC, and the Department of Personnel estimated 20 percent of those grievances would go to professional arbitration. He clarified this process would not be for interest arbitration, as in collective bargaining, but strictly grievance arbitration.

Assemblywoman Parnell emphasized under the current process EMC members are state employees who are taken out of the workplace for a day or more and are not trained for resolution mediation, which, she said, is a possible reason for similar cases having different outcomes. She reiterated the point, if individuals know they could bear some of the cost, they might think twice and attempt to find a way to resolve a grievance.

In response to a question from Senator Raggio, Mr. Gagnier said the preference given to FMCS reflects current language in chapter 288 of NRS. With regard to where hearings would take place, he said he would have no problem with changing the locale from where people “reside” to where people “work.” Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol and Teamsters 14 and 533, testified in support of A.B. 9 and said he favors a “loser pays” concept.

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, (PORAN) Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, offered support for A.B. 9, and explained to Senator O’Donnell NRS 288.200 requires utilization of FMCS, which charges $25 for a list of arbitrators as opposed to $100 for a similar list from the American Arbitrators Association. He asserted the provisions of the bill would provide an alternative to the EMC and would encourage people to seek resolution of grievances. He added if a professional arbitrator is utilized, costs may be split among parties. Mr. Dreher said subsection 8 of the bill limits grievances to working conditions, reflecting language used in collective bargaining contracts throughout the state.

In response to committee questions, Mr. Dreher said, professional arbitrators charge anywhere from $200 per day, including per diem, to $1000 per day, and they “get to the heart of a matter in a hurry.” He said if an employee were to receive arbitration services through his or her employees’ association and lost, the association would pay the cost; but if the employee were not supported by such an association, and lost through arbitration, he or she would pay the cost. Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, testified in support of the bill.

David L. Howard, Lobbyist, Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitor Authority, asserted the testimony provided implied the provisions of the bill were a “backdoor collective bargaining process, one employee at a time.” He claimed government never wins in arbitration regarding employee salaries and benefits, and it is very costly. He suggested there would be no incentive to agree to anything with the option for arbitration, and said he has never seen an arbitrator from Nevada handle a case in Nevada. He concluded the bill would set a bad precedent for years to come, and voiced his opposition.

Mr. Gagnier claimed there was no intent to use the provisions of A.B. 9 as a vehicle for negotiations on compensation, and pointed out current provisions under chapter 284 of NRS guide salary disputes for state employees. The process, he said, would be to file an appeal with the Director of the Department of Personnel, and the Personnel Commission would have final authority. “It would be a stretch of the imagination to say that through grievance procedures you are going to negotiate,” he said, noting the “primary benefit of a grievance procedure is to improve communication for everyone.” He explained to Senator Neal the grievance procedure is mandated by law, and the Personnel Commission must set regulations for operation under the law.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 9 and opened the hearing on A.B. 365.

ASSEMBLY BILL 365: Requires that certain local governmental employers and employees submit certain disputed issues to arbitrator for binding arbitration in certain circumstances. (BDR 23-1057)

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Washoe County Assembly District No. 30, testified she brought the bill forward at the request of local government employees from Lander County and the City of Elko. She explained it would require a local government and an employee organization to submit unresolved issues to an arbitrator. Further, she said, if the parties do not reach an agreement within 30 days after the hearing, each must submit a final written offer regarding the unresolved issues. The arbitrator would then select one of the written offers and make a final and binding decision for which each party would pay one half of the costs.

Continuing, Assemblywoman Smith asserted all local government employees should have the same rights as teachers, firemen, and police officers. She read

a June 3, 1991, floor statement from the late Louis Bergevin, former Douglas County assemblyman, on a similar bill:

I’ve been one of the, perhaps, objectionists to expanding the bargaining powers of chapter 288, and I would submit to you that this is the only bill that has gotten out of government affairs that has to do with chapter 288. When I was chairman of government affairs in 1985, we passed a similar bill for the Police Protective Association. In my talking with both management and labor representatives of that association, it has worked well. The “last best offer” is a situation where everything, if they come to an impasse, the whole package has to be put into a “last best offer.” I feel secure that this will bring out the best from both sides of negotiations and will probably represent a better type of negotiation than presently exists with the schoolteachers.

Assemblywoman Smith introduced Kathleen Murphy, noting Ms. Murphy’s former employer, the City of Elko, now has binding arbitration for dispute resolution within its collective bargaining agreement. She pointed out the Assembly passed the bill unanimously.

Kathleen Murphy, Former Employee, City of Elko, submitted a written copy of her testimony (Exhibit F) and related a case of “unjust termination” from the City of Elko, against herself and three fellow employees, which was arbitrated in July 1995. She said the union prevailed, and the arbitrator ordered reinstatement, and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits, which were rejected by the city on the advice of legal counsel. The case was taken to U.S. District Court in August 1997, she said, prior to which the other three employees made settlement agreements with the city. The court ordered reinstatement, remuneration for back pay and benefits, plus interest for 3½ years on Ms. Murphy’s behalf, she said. To date, she said, the city has paid $147,000 plus interest under this judgment, and it was also ordered to pay attorney fees and court costs. Ms. Murphy said her attorney fees exceeded $200,000, and settlements paid to the three other employees exceeded $150,000.

Ms. Murphy asserted if the arbitration recommendation had been followed, her back pay would have been just $30,000 and there would have been no attorney fees. She expressed concern as a public employee, taxpayer, and resident of Elko, saying the decisions made by representatives of the city caused her, as the sole supporter for herself and three children, severe emotional and financial hardship for 3½ years. She claimed the City of Elko has since suffered substantial increases in insurance premiums, for which taxpayers are paying because of decisions made by city representatives. She urged committee support for the bill as the right and fair thing, as well as the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Richard Darby, Employee, City of Sparks, testified in support of A.B. 365. He said without binding arbitration there is no incentive for public employers to deal with their employees honestly during the process of collective bargaining. Mr. Dreher submitted a copy of a letter from Michael E. Langton (Exhibit G) in support of A.B. 365 and read the following excerpts:

When I have negotiated for local government employees, all parties know that there is no ultimate resolution before an impartial arbitrator that is binding on the parties unless, of course, the local government employer so stipulates. This process has been less than productive and is often referred to as “collective begging” as opposed to collective bargaining. . . . Passage of A.B. 365 would ensure that all employees of the local government employer are treated fairly and equitably vis-à-vis one another and would still protect the taxpayers’ interests.

Mr. Dreher requested support of the bill and cited a definition of arbitration from How Arbitration Works by Frank L. Corey and Edna L. Corey. “Arbitration, to use the words of one writer, is a simple proceeding voluntarily chosen by the parties who want a dispute determined by an impartial judge of their own mutual selection, whose decision, based on the merits of the case, they agree in advance to accept as final and binding. . . . Collective bargaining is the first stage and arbitration is the last.”

Mr. Dreher said the Assembly passed a bill unanimously to proclaim September 15 through September 26 as Nevada Mediation Week. He said courts are calling for and everyone is getting on board with the idea of alternative dispute resolution. He stressed if a decision is not followed under advisory arbitration, litigation follows with corresponding court costs. There are no strike mechanisms in the public sector, he said, and the provisions of this bill would force both sides to reach an agreement. It is the best procedure to use to resolve a dispute, he asserted, saving government funds and forcing decisions that normally would not be made except through litigation. He said binding arbitration is key to getting to the bottom of disputes and moving on. He concluded, “The legislature gave it to police officers, firemen, and teachers years ago, and now it is the rest of the employees’ turn.”

In response to Senator Raggio, Mr. Dreher disputed Mr. Howard’s observation the employees’ side never loses in binding arbitration, saying he has been there and seen arbitrators rule against employees. He also pointed out there is a provision under chapter 288 of NRS which prohibits an arbitrator from awarding funds to the other side if there is an ability-to-pay issue, and local governments can challenge the decisions of arbitrators under “arbitrary and capricious” language in the statute. Senator Raggio asked Committee Counsel Kim Guinasso to verify these statutory provisions.

Eric E. Hutt, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, and Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, representing public employees in northern Nevada, testified in support of the bill, saying it is a matter of fairness to provide for binding arbitration. Mariann Dowicky, Lobbyist, Nevada Service Employees Union, also testified in support of A.B. 365 on behalf of approximately 8000 employees in southern Nevada. She said it would encourage parties to come to the table with honest proposals to resolve matters.

Dan Holler, County Manager, Douglas County, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated it creates a confrontational and antagonistic approach to negotiations which extend the time frame through fact-finding. He said Douglas County has an open book policy with employees regarding its financial situation and should not be penalized for potential problems in another local government. With regard to fairness, he said, binding arbitration could be taken away from police officers, firemen, and teachers. He pointed out there is also a problem with timing because budgets are due before information on costs of binding arbitration would be available. In California, he said, local governments simply move funds to an area of their budgets not eligible for negotiations. Kelly Kite, Commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County, testified 75 to 80 percent of the general fund goes to employee salaries, and it is not possible to prepare a legitimate budget which includes allowances for binding arbitration.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County, testified in opposition to the bill because, she asserted, binding arbitration creates more animosity between parties in dispute. She said she agreed with Mr. Howard, professional arbitrators never come from Nevada, but usually California, and do not understand the issues of local government in rural Nevada. She said her experiences in Carson City through the 1980s and 1990s demonstrated binding arbitration takes longer and creates more animosity. She said the majority of Carson City employees, about 60 percent, would be eligible for binding arbitration under the provisions of the bill, which is of some concern to elected officials.

In one case, said Ms. Walker, an arbitrator made an error in awarding funds, which resulted in the city having to cut its fund balance in order to pay. Statute protects 8.3 percent of the ending fund balance from negotiations, she explained, but the city’s reserve fund balance was included in the arbitrator’s calculations, which included inventory. She offered to work with Assemblywoman Smith to help resolve some of the problems which occurred in Lander County.

In response to a question from Senator Raggio, Ms. Walker referred to a copy of a letter from Attorney Charles P. Cockerill, which refuted some of the testimony made to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs by a Lander County employee (Exhibit H). She suggested partial resolution of concerns with the provisions of the bill would be to change the beginning date for negotiations to something earlier than February 1 because budgets are due April 15.

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, testified the county’s labor relations director asked her to convey to the committee his concern the largest employee base is made up of employees not subject to “last best offer” requirements. The current process in Washoe County, Ms. Shipman said, allows for a panel to review the facts to determine which matters should be subject to binding fact-finding. In the experience of the labor relations director, this process has not been used, she said.

Robin Keith, Lobbyist, Nevada Rural Hospital Project, testified she could not support the bill and was not aware “we have any issues that would create the kinds of problems seen in Elko.” She expressed concern hospital board members would lose control over costs, and ability-to-pay issues would be in the hands of arbitrators who would not have sufficient knowledge of health care delivery systems to be able to balance resource utilization. Senator Care said in his experience with civil litigation, the threat of a trial is a strong motivator in getting people to settle disputes, and it seems binding arbitration would have the same effect on negotiations, rather than increasing animosity. Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 365 and opened the hearing on A.B. 395.

ASSEMBLY BILL 395: Revises provisions governing authority of city or county to control location of certain residential facilities and changes statutory name of “halfway house for alcohol and drug abusers.” (BDR 22-1118)

Assemblyman John Oceguera, Clark County Assembly District No. 16, testified this bill would address a problem with clustering of halfway houses which has been prevalent in some neighborhoods in southern Nevada, including those of Senators O’Connell, O’Donnell, Titus, and Care. He explained the bill would affect Clark and Washoe counties only, and other related bills do specify restrictions for group homes, but not halfway houses. This bill would do four things, he said: 1) provide a definition of single-family residences to be put into ordinance so halfway houses would be recognized in the section; 2) require the health division to include halfway houses in registry information; 3) require Clark and Washoe Counties and contained cities to approve first applications submitted on or after July 1, 2000, to operate a group home or halfway house within a particular neighborhood; and 4) require after the effective date of the act, subsequent applications for locations within 1500 feet of an existing group home or halfway house would have to be reviewed by the city or county, based on appropriate zoning ordinances. He said the bill strikes a balance between the needs of people who need halfway houses or group homes, and the neighborhoods in which those facilities are located.

Chairman O’Connell described a situation in a neighborhood where seven homes were purchased and used for halfway houses or group homes without any notification to the neighborhood residents. The issue was brought to the county commissioners, she said, but no assistance was provided in determining whether the activity was associated with licensed or certified personnel. She offered to share information files with Senator Care.

Assemblyman Oceguera explained to Senator O’Donnell the Legislative Counsel Bureau provided a legal opinion in 1997 with regard to whether listing such homes in a registry would be prohibited as discrimination. There were no decisions made in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he said, but there were some decisions in the Eighth and Third Circuit Courts. With regard to the 1500-foot requirement in the bill, court decisions have gone both ways, he said, and he considered 1500 feet to be “right at the limit of what would be constitutionally upheld.” He explained to Senator Raggio group homes were currently included in the listing of single-family residences, but halfway houses were not, and the bill would extend provisions to halfway houses to enable regulation of the number allowed in certain neighborhoods.

Ms. Guinasso explained to Senator Neal the current statutory requirement prohibiting such homes within 660 feet of each other is measured in radius, so there could not be two such houses located back to back.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 395 and opened the hearing on A.B. 386.

ASSEMBLY BILL 386: Makes various changes concerning public employees. (BDR 23-621)

Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, provided written testimony (Exhibit I) emphasizing the bill was for housekeeping. She noted agreement had been reached with Mr. Gagnier regarding its provisions. She explained benefits currently granted to classified and unclassified employees do not apply to individuals who serve on advisory boards and commissions, patient and inmate help in the state’s mental and correctional institutions, officers and members of the National Guard, and persons who are employed by contractors. Therefore, she said, the language in NRS 284.140 is obsolete.

Reviewing sections of the bill, Ms. Greene said section 3 would clarify the Department of Personnel director prepares and maintains an occupational index which categorizes positions in the classified service only, and section 4 would clarify employees automatically receive a copy of their performance evaluations. Section 5 proposes to consolidate language describing the appointment process and the appointing authorities’ responsibility to report personnel actions, she said. Section 6 would clarify when a decision is made by the director to refuse to examine or certify, the applicant would direct an appeal to the Personnel Commission rather than the EMC. Section 7 would clarify provisions related to the use of alcohol and drugs apply to both classified and unclassified employees. Sections 8, 9, and 10 are minor changes to be made to other statutes as a result of the changes proposed in sections 2 through 7. Section 11 would eliminate four items which are redundant or obsolete. Originally, some other redundant language was removed, but the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs amended the language back in, she said. She explained to Senator Raggio section 1 contained an amendment proposed by Assemblywoman Gibbons.

James T. Spencer, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Government Affairs Section, Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General, testified in support of the bill, and said the cleanup provided in section 2 was long overdue. Ms. Guinasso explained to Senator Neal the bill drafters only include sections of NRS to be changed, and because now there would be no change under section 7, it was not included in the reprint of the bill. Mr. Gagnier voiced support for the bill.

Russell Shively, Officer, Washoe County Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES), provided written testimony (Exhibit J) in support of the bill. He explained the bill would extend authorization for leaves of absence to employees who serve on RACES or the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) in the event of a declared emergency. Currently, he said, members of other emergency agencies are allowed leaves of absence up to a maximum of 15 days with pay under chapter 281 of NRS. Other than the inconvenience to the individual employer, which would give prior approval of employee absence, there would be no cost impact to any government entity, he said.

Mr. Shively pointed out NRS 482.375 presently allows amateur radio operators to deduct annual fees from their special vehicle license plates if they are registered with the local emergency management agency for the jurisdiction in which they live. Provisions of the bill would further allow city and state emergency planners to have a better understanding of who should be available in the event of an emergency, so they may plan their manpower and equipment allocations with a greater degree of certainty than is presently possible, he said.

In response to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Shively explained A.B. 386 would address the actual use of emergency communication, whereas A.B. 61 would require local communities to make reasonable accommodation to allow antenna structures within coding and ordinances.

ASSEMBLY BILL 61: Provides certain restrictions relating to regulation of amateur service communications. (BDR 22-672)

Mr. Shively explained to Senator Titus section 1 was added to A.B. 386 at the suggestion of Assemblywoman Gibbons because other quotas were filled up.

Ms. Guinasso explained to Senator Titus A.B. 386 was generic enough in relating to public employees to accommodate section 1. Ms. Guinasso said LCB bill drafters make determinations of whether subject matter is germane to an amendment being considered which is not necessarily limited to requiring it relate to the same chapter of NRS. Senator Titus stated she would like to have a more specific policy on when something could be included in a bill draft.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 386 and opened the hearing on A.B. 563.

ASSEMBLY BILL 563: Authorizes additional deferred compensation plan for state employees and employees of political subdivisions. (BDR 23-1345)

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, testified the bill would allow public employers to offer Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) Section 401(a) deferred compensation plans to employees. Currently, she said, it is not intended to include employer contributions, but A.B. 563 is flexible enough to allow them in the future. Full cost of the program would be borne by employee participants, she said, and employees would be able to defer up to 25 percent of their salaries or up to $25,000 with penalties for early withdrawal. Employees are currently offered an I.R.C. Section 457 plan, which has different requirements and would remain as an option, she said, and employees would accrue interest depending on their selected investments.

Mary C. Keating, Member, Committee on Deferred Compensation, Department of Administration, testified the bill would allow employees to invest the maximum allowable amounts in both I.R.C. Sections 457 and 401(a) plans, and an employer match could be implemented at some future time, if desired. She explained the 457 plan does not have a penalty for early withdrawal, but cannot be rolled into an Investment Retirement Account (IRA). She said the state has contracts with The Hartford and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Retirement Corporation for employee investment options. The plans are usually designed for long-term investments, she said, but employees who are closer to retirement can “catch up” through special provisions, and all employees are encouraged to participate to supplement the defined benefit plan under the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS).

Ms. Keating said there was currently $250 million invested in the 457 plans. The governor appoints five state employees to a plan committee to set general policies for plan options, and the plans are managed by the ICMA Retirement Corporation and The Hartford through contracts, she said. Remuneration for management is done through administrative fees which have been reduced due to the volume of participants, she said. In response to questions from Senator Neal, Ms. Keating said neither one of the contracted plan managers provides specific investment advice, but they work with the plan committee to advise on the types and quality of investments. Then, she said, individual investors choose what specific investments they want to make. She explained further the committee works with the retirement board, which has been supportive of this effort. Steven J. Watson, Chairman, Committee on Deferred Compensation, Department of Administration, testified support for the bill.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 563 and opened the hearing on A.B. 604.

ASSEMBLY BILL 604: Makes various changes relating to awards for state employees. (BDR 23-1307)

Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, provided written testimony (Exhibit K) in support of the bill. She explained section 1 proposes to move the definition of “longevity award” from chapter 285 of NRS because it is redundant with chapter 284. Section 2 would improve the original concept by defining the phrase “service award” as a suitable symbol, other than money, which recognizes employees’ faithful and exceptional service, she said. Ms. Greene asserted service awards are an important management tool in maintaining morale and encouraging loyalty among state employees whose salaries are not competitive, overall, with others in Nevada.

Mr. Gagnier testified in support of the bill and commented, “It’s too bad we have to come to the legislature to get pins and plaques.” He reported to Chairman O’Connell state auditors said there was no provision in the law to buy awards or plaques.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 604 and opened the work session with A.B. 92.

ASSEMBLY BILL 92: Authorizes county to exercise additional powers under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-428)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 92.

There was no second to the motion.

Senator Raggio clarified “home rule” would be limited to affordable housing, protection of animals, rehabilitation of rental property, rehabilitation of abandoned residential property, public health, and sanitation. He said he shared Senator Neal’s concerns about extending “home rule,” but in these areas it seemed appropriate.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 92.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Care pointed out two other bills drafted for this session involve “home rule;” one pertained to the protection and control of animals, and the other related to public health and sanitation. He suggested amending the bill to delete paragraphs (b) and (e), subsection 1, section 1. Senator Neal said he had no problem with the proposed amendment. Senator Care explained to Senator Raggio his reason for suggesting deletion of paragraph (e) was because the Clark County Health District was trying to enact local restrictions against smoking which were more stringent than what the state had enacted. With regard to paragraph (b), he noted there was currently a dispute stemming from a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1, which deals with control and protection of animals.

Senator Titus commented she appreciated Senator Care’s concerns, but agreed with an argument made by Senator Rhoads, local governments need authority to define things like horse tripping. With regard to Assemblyman Collins’ bill, she said she agrees with it also. Senator Care agreed to strike paragraph (e) only. Senators Neal and Porter said they had no problem with this proposal, and there was no opposition to the proposed amendment. Senator Titus clarified existing statute would supersede “home rule” in case of conflict.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 165.

ASSEMBLY BILL 165: Declares “Silver State Fanfare” as official state march. (BDR 19-579)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 165.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 326.

ASSEMBLY BILL 326: Requires local governments to disclose certain expenses relating to lobbying. (BDR 31-496)

Ms. Guinasso clarified the bill would currently cover only local governments. Chairman O’Connell stated it was amended to include the university system. Senator Titus said she opposed the amendment brought by Elko County, and although she has sympathy for their situation, she believes this would lead to additional exemptions. Senator Porter asked to hold the bill to get additional information from the Clark County School District. Chairman O’Connell agreed to hold the bill and opened discussion on A.B. 428.

ASSEMBLY BILL 428: Revises provisions governing state public works board. (BDR 28-229)

Senator Titus asserted this bill included another unrelated amendment. Senator Raggio clarified, currently the law requires the director of the Department of Administration to serve as chairman of the State Public Works Board and the Governor appoints six members. The bill would allow the board to elect a chairman and vice chairman from their membership, he said.

Ms. Guinasso requested the bill be held to determine whether the amendment was germane to the bill. Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors (AGC) Northern Nevada, pointed out section 4, page 2, lines 18-21 of the bill, made specific reference to the public works board composition, so it appeared to be germane despite the law regarding designation of the chairman being located in another chapter. Senators Raggio and Titus supported obtaining a ruling from LCB Legal Division. Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Guinasso to request a ruling, and opened discussion on A.B. 430.

ASSEMBLY BILL 430: Authorizes general improvement districts in certain counties to charge owners of dwelling units which receive services provided by district for which owners are not being charged. (BDR 25-1275)

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 430.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senators Care and Titus asked to be registered as “no” votes on the bill. Senator Care explained to Senator Raggio he objected because the bill provides if an individual does not agree to inspection of a rental property, he or she is deemed to have admitted a unit is being used for an improper purpose. Senator Care suggested there might be some other way to make this determination, and explained the concern is whether additional people are staying in the units. Chairman O’Connell stated the problem is billing is done per unit and additional people are using the units. Senator Titus suggested this could be addressed by putting in water meters to know how much people are using, and it would be much less intrusive and might be good for conservation as well.

Senator O’Donnell asserted people in general improvement districts need to have authority to make sure their zoning and governance is right, “otherwise there could be a terrible situation.” Currently, he said, “hot-bedding” takes place, where people rent units out to multiple parties who take turns sleeping in shifts.

Senator Titus asked what would happen when homeowners associations bring concerns regarding people not following rules, and whether tenants would have 5 days to answer an inquiry before someone could enter their homes. Senator O’Connell replied, “I’m thinking I want to change my vote. We’re going to hold this bill.” Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 443.

ASSEMBLY BILL 443: Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-986)

Ms. Guinasso explained the first reprint of the bill relates only to buildings open to the general public which are owned and occupied by the government. An amendment offered by Mike Tracey, she explained, was in conflict with NRS 293.740, which prohibits electioneering within 100 feet of an entrance to a polling place on Election Day. The term “electioneering” specifically includes soliciting signatures for any kind of petition, she said, and if the committee chooses to adopt the amendment, instruction on how to rectify the conflict would be needed.

Ms. Guinasso clarified for Senator Neal the 100-foot requirement, in statute since 1963, is only on Election Day to facilitate the ability of voters to get to the polls and decrease the possibility of intimidation. However, she said, the requirement could be amended at the pleasure of the committee. Senator Raggio said he did not think the statute should be amended, and people should not have to “run the gamut” of petitioners to be able to vote. Also, he said, he could imagine a situation where a petition could indirectly apply to a candidate. Senator Neal pointed out petitioners are required to get signatures from registered voters, so polling places are logical places to go. Senator Raggio countered there are lots of other places to go and suggested holding the bill.

Senator Care reiterated concerns he had expressed at the first hearing of the bill with regard to signature gatherers gaining access to crowds at sporting events or concerts. He asked for clarification as to whether a “structure” could be construed as a “building.” Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Guinasso to research the issue, and opened discussion on A.B. 483.

ASSEMBLY BILL 483: Makes various changes concerning reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. (BDR 24-557)

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 483.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Titus clarified for Senator Raggio all three proposed amendments discussed earlier were included in the motion. Chairman O’Connell explained to Senator Raggio the bill was generally intended to make campaign reporting forms easier to fill out, and one of the amendments proposed to clarify how to report ending balances. Ms. Guinasso suggested lines 16-18 be clarified to indicate ending balances for bank statements for each bank account for the reporting period.

Senator O’Donnell added there were problems with the current forms, including lack of separate reporting for in-kind donations and lack of logical figure balancing within a given form. He stressed candidates are liable for errors on these reports, and without guidelines or general accounting procedures to follow it was difficult to know what the forms required. Senator Titus added the bill would eliminate reporting of expenditures under $100, which were meaningless in the form in which they had previously been reported.

Chairman O’Connell explained Assemblyman Beers had worked with the secretary of state’s office and they were in agreement on the proposed changes. Ms. Guinasso expressed concern if the language were changed to “ending bank balance for this period,” there may still be a problem with the bank statement period matching up to the reporting period. Senator O’Donnell suggested use of a reconciled bank balance to match the reporting period by adding deposits and subtracting checks from the most recent bank statement, as listed in a check register.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 556.

ASSEMBLY BILL 556: Revises certain provisions governing authority of state board of examiners and requirements for certain agreements for interlocal cooperation between public agencies. (BDR 31-565)

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 768 AND DO PASS A.B. 556.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 637.

ASSEMBLY BILL 637: Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-339)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 830 AND DO PASS A.B. 637.

Senator O’Donnell said there was no opposition to the bill.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 649.

ASSEMBLY BILL 649: Revises certain provisions regarding governmental purchasing. (BDR 27-1127)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 649.

SENATORS O’DONNELL AND TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Raggio expressed concern that bids would not be properly secured if transmitted over the Internet. Senator Titus pointed out the bill required a secure Website for submission of bids. Senator Neal suggested if a bid was identified as such, it could be held securely on the Website until the time was appropriate to open the bid.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 650.

ASSEMBLY BILL 650: Makes changes to population basis for exercise of certain powers by local governments. (BDR 20-1074)

Ms. Guinasso noted there was a non-substantive conflict between A.B. 181 and A.B. 650 and the committee should make a motion to resolve the conflict if the committee intended to pass the bill.

ASSEMBLY BILL 181: Revises membership of county fair and recreation board in certain less populous counties. (BDR 20-336)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 650 TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WITH A.B. 181.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Hale,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: