MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 14, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, February 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:
Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
John Slaughter, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Chairman O'Connell indicated the meeting would commence with the introduction of bill draft requests (BDRs).
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), came forward to explain that Bill Draft Request (BDR) 20-413 sought to decriminalize certain animal control violations in county government.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 20-413: Authorizes board of county commissioners to provide by ordinance for civil liability for person who violates certain ordinances relating to control of animals. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 150.)
Mr. Hadfield stated that, presently, violations fall under criminal statute and have a criminal penalty. He stated that counties would like the same ability as cities to issue citations for lesser offenses related to animal control. Mr. Hadfield emphasized that this bill would only address minor offenses. Violations involving vicious and dangerous animals and cruelty to animals would remain criminal offenses. In summary, Mr. Hadfield asserted that they were seeking a more appropriate civil penalty to address the crime.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-413.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, PORTER AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
John Slaughter, Lobbyist, Washoe County, explained that there were two items sought in Bill Draft Request (BDR) 20-319.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 20-319: Makes changes to provisions relating to terms of employment for county employees. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 151.)
The first would allow appointed and elected county officers to be reimbursed in the form of a monthly transportation allowance for automobile expenses and parking fees rather than the cents-per-mile basis utilized now. Secondly, the board of county commissioners would be allowed flexibility in providing annual leave to county employees.
Mr. Slaughter noted that existing law required the board of county commissioners provide no more than 15 days annual leave for employees. The law also authorizes the provision for additional annual leave for long-term employees. However, there is no definition for the phrase “long-term” employee, he said.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-319.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Connell drew attention to a bill draft requested by students in Orovada for a state dirt.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 19-722: Designates Orovada series soil as official state soil. (Later introduced as (Senate Bill 152.)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 19-722.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Connell introduced Senate Bill (S.B.) 94.
SENATE BILL 94: Prohibits state contractors’ board from issuing certificate of preference in bidding on public works to persons not licensed as general contractor. (BDR 28-955)
Senator Bill R. O’Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, explained that the language in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 338.010 was adopted to allow a bidders’ preference and the consequent result was that state sales tax stayed within the state. Further, Senator O’Donnell stated there was an anomaly in the language that allowed a preference to a general contractor with an A license for a specialty contract. He continued, stating that there were different types of contracts that are let by the government. An A license could get the five percent bidders’ preference, but a C license which was all that was required to bid on this project could not receive the five percent bidders’ preference. The general contractor would actually get the bid at a five percent bidders’ preference and then let the contract to a subcontractor with a C license who in fact could not bid on the proposal. Senator O’Donnell said he understood that three other bills would be coming before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs that dealt with bidders’ preference. One of which would be sponsored by the agency and that bill he thought should be the vehicle to correct the anomaly in the language. Therefore, he would withdraw S.B. 94 and allow the Contractors Board to submit their bill.
Chairman O'Connell asked for a motion from the committee members rather than withdrawing the bill.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 94.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell then introduced Senate Bill (S.B.) 95.
SENATE BILL 95: Revises provisions authorizing state employees to obtain additional retirement credit as payment for unused sick leave. (BDR 23‑210)
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, explained that under existing law both classified and unclassified state employees are paid for unused sick leave upon honorable termination, retirement, or their estate in case of death (NRS 284.355). The bill before the committee would add a new provision to the formula contained in NRS 284.355. Currently, a retiring employee would be paid for sick leave in excess of 30 days. The State of Nevada Employees Association agreed to the 30 days (240 hours) when it was originally proposed, he said. The law also contains caps on the amount of cash an employee could be paid. The caps have been increased several times, although Mr. Gagnier noted the State of Nevada Employees Association believed the caps were low and should be increased again.
Mr. Gagnier emphasized that the request for new language did not affect the caps, in fact, the new language appeared before that section and this new provision would not be subject to the caps, which would considerably increase the cost of the legislation. Mr. Gagnier stressed the increased cost again to the committee for clarity. He also pointed out that there was no fiscal note attached to the requested revised language, but there would be a fiscal impact. However, only the Department of Personnel could provide the information regarding the fiscal impact after an evaluation of the amount of sick leave on the books at the time of the study, particularly the average amount of sick leave for those employees retiring.
Mr. Gagnier continued, saying the State of Nevada Employees Association wanted to put into place a formula that retiring employees could use to add to their retirement. For example, he testified, under the existing law, a retiring employee could use the maximum amount of $8000 to purchase additional retirement. Mr. Gagnier asserted that the concept embodied in the bill would be to give a better benefit to the employee whereby they could add to their retirement by having the employer pay on the basis of one hour of sick leave for each day of additional retirement.
Mr. Gagnier further stated in discussions with the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) that perhaps the number should be 2 hours for each day of additional retirement. They were looking for a ratio of so many hours of sick leave an individual had with which they might purchase additional retirement. This purchase of retirement could also be accomplished using a combination of sick leave and cash. The cash would be subject to the formula that was already in place.
Senator Neal indicated that he had several questions, the first was how many days or hours made up the work year? Mr. Gagnier replied that there were 2080 hours per work year. Senator Neal queried was it not a fact that sick leave was a part of the 2080 hours and that this bill proposed to add to the 2080 hours. The Senator continued saying he understood an individual accrued 1 1/4 days of sick and disability leave per each calendar month. Senator Neal maintained that the proposed legislation seemed to double the amount of sick leave in order to make it work. Mr. Gagnier explained that if an employee utilized their sick leave that time would be deducted from their sick leave balance and they would be paid for that time and that could not count towards their retirement. He pointed out if they did not use sick leave, the leave remained in the individual’s account, and would not count towards retirement unless this legislation were passed. He pointed out that the employee would not be getting paid twice.
Senator Neal questioned Mr. Gagnier that if an employee had 30 days’ sick leave and the individual were vested in terms of retirement, then the retirement would stay the same, the sick leave would not take away from that. Senator Neal asserted that as he read the bill, the sick leave would be added to the employee’s retirement. Mr. Gagnier maintained that the money from the sick leave would be used to buy additional retirement time. He called attention to the fact that anyone in the system today could buy additional retirement time up to 5 years, although there were some exceptions whereby individuals could purchase larger amounts of retirement time. Basically, he continued on, once an employee had 5 years vested in the system, they could purchase 5-years’ retirement time. This new revised language stated that the employee could buy additional retirement time with the sick leave accrued and never used by that employee. Senator Neal clarified, saying that if a person needed 5 years in order to make 30-years’ retirement time and had sufficient sick leave to purchase that 5 years, this bill would allow for that purchase of time using sick leave.
Mr. Gagnier remarked that he was aware of a number of individuals with 1000- to 1200-hours’ sick leave and close to retirement. With the formula in this bill, the employer could purchase an additional 1000 days for the individual. Senator Neal asked if Mr. Gagnier was speaking of employees currently on the job. The Senator continued, and gave as an example, a person with 5 years on the job, who also had reached the maximum amount of sick leave in their account, if that employee would be able to buy credit in the retirement system. Mr. Gagnier replied to Senator Neal, saying that the employee could buy the time, but only when they retired. This law would not come into effect until an individual retired.
Senator O’Donnell disclosed that his spouse was a quasi-state employee, that Mrs. O’Donnell was a teacher, and he asked if this bill would apply to Mrs. O’Donnell’s retirement. Mr. Gagnier responded no, the bill only applied to classified and nonclassified state employees. Senator O’Donnell questioned whether Mr. Gagnier meant to say 1 day of retirement for 1 hour of sick leave. Mr. Gagnier replied that the statement was correct. Mr. Gagnier reiterated that 1 day of sick leave for 1 day of retirement would not be a good buy at all for the retiring employee. Presently, the average state employee earned approximately $18 an hour, and $18 is what would be paid for the day. An employee could purchase retirement now based upon age and actuarial costs. Mr. Gagnier again stated the formula in this bill was 1 hour of sick leave for 1 day of retirement. He stressed that if the cost was calculated at closer to 2 hours of sick leave the State of Nevada Employees Association would not object to the formula equaling 2 hours sick leave for 1 day of retirement. Mr. Gagnier emphasized that 1 day sick leave for 1 day retirement would be very expensive.
Senator O’Donnell queried “on whose part?” Mr. Gagnier responded on the employees’ part, explaining that the employees would be giving up their sick leave upon retirement when they could be paid for that leave. Senator O’Donnell asked how much employees were paid now. An average $18 per hour, Mr. Gagnier elucidated, citing that a person with 25 years of state service would be paid for all of their sick leave but no more than $8000. If $18 per hour was used as an average salary then it would not take very much to arrive at $8000. Many upper-level employees earn greater than $18 per hour. He stressed that the caps in the language are quite low. The same cap applies whether an individual earns $18 per hour or $36 per hour.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Gagnier for clarification between the bill before the committee and an Assembly bill that addressed a similar issue. Mr. Gagnier mentioned that the Assembly bill would do two things. One, it would eliminate the 30-day language in line 16, on page 1 of S.B. 95. Secondly, it would remove all the caps, so that a retiring or terminating employee would be paid for all accumulated sick leave with no limits.
Chairman O'Connell asserted that this bill would impact PERS and the Assembly bill would not. Mr. Gagnier replied that the other bill probably did not impact PERS. He maintained that it was not their intent to impact PERS. He continued saying that PERS would not pay for this. Senator O’Connell queried whether the funds would come from the General Fund. Mr. Gagnier said the agency from which the employee would retire would have to pay.
Chairman O'Connell inquired whether Mr. Gagnier knew what the fiscal impact would be. Mr. Gagnier responded that he did not know, but did not want to give the impression that the impact would be small. The Chairman then queried Senator Raggio saying that because this bill dealt with retirement if it would not have to go to the Senate finance committee. Senator Raggio and Mr. Gagnier agreed and pointed to the new language on page 1 with no caps as opposed to the caps on page 2. The new provision would have a considerable fiscal impact over the current law. To emphasize the impact, Mr. Gagnier referred to a study of administrators with sizeable sick leave accounts and stressed again that the impact would not be minimal.
Senator Neal asked if administrators were able to accrue sick leave at a different rate. Mr. Gagnier replied that there was no difference in this law between classified and unclassified employees. Senator Neal asked if the limit were 290 hours. Mr. Gagnier declared that there was no limit. Senator Neal asked how much an employee was allowed to be paid. Mr. Gagnier responded that the language was in the caps on page 2. Senator Neal asked for clarification if that did apply to everyone. Mr. Gagnier answered that it applied to every classified and unclassified employee, but there was another group within state government called nonclassified employees, for example, employees in the Governor’s office. Mr. Gagnier defined that under existing law, employees could accumulate up to 90-days’ sick leave at which time the rate of accumulation was cut in half. Once an individual accumulated 90 days sick leave, then the amount carried over from one calendar year to the next would be one-half of what was earned but not used in that year, but there was no limit on sick leave accumulation. Senator Neal again asked what the financial impact would be. Mr. Gagnier responded that the money available now was based on the formula found on page 2 of the bill. The difference would be what the new formula would cost over and above that. Mr. Gagnier stressed that the State of Nevada Employees Association could not state what the amount of the impact would be, only the Department of Personnel would have that information and they had not yet prepared a fiscal note.
Senator Porter inquired how the funding would be tracked and would there be way to predict how many employees would utilize the program. Mr. Gagnier replied that the Budget Division currently tracked these figures. He was not certain of the formula used, but stated again that it was computed into the budget.
Senator O’Donnell queried how long it had been since the money amounts for length of service had been changed. Mr. Gagnier answered by saying, as a guess, it was probably 6 to 8 years ago. Senator O’Donnell asserted that anyone who understood the time value of money would also know that every year a fixed amount sat on the books, the relative value of that dollar amount went down. Senator O’Donnell expressed his understanding of the bill pointing out the cap would be kept, however, a combination of buying 1 day for every hour of sick leave which might or might not equate to what the employee would receive now. He pointed out the State of Nevada Employees Association was trying to get out from under the cap or fixed-dollar amount which made it necessary to come to the Legislature so that the readjusted figures reflected the real intent of the law. Mr. Gagnier explained that Senator O’Donnell was partially correct in his understanding that they wanted to get out from under the cap on only this aspect. If the individual took the money in cash they would still be under the cap. Senator O’Donnell suggested that the fixed-dollar amount be indexed to determine the actual value in order to justify the number of hours of sick leave for 1 day of retirement. Mr. Gagnier stated that he would obtain the calculations for the fixed-dollar amount either tied to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or tied directly to the percentage increases granted to the majority of state employees during those periods of time. Senator O’Donnell suggested that the legislative staff would also research the calculations.
Chairman O'Connell inquired whether this was money the state had placed in a reserve fund. Mr. Gagnier replied that he did not believe the money was separate in any way, the funds to pay for this would come from agency budgets.
The Chairman asked if each agency had a reserve fund to be applied on an annual basis. Mr. Gagnier answered stating that there was a provision within the state budget on how both annual leave and sick leave are paid to retiring employees. He did not know the amount that was provided, but doubted that it was sufficient and that was why agencies had to go to the State Board of Examiners every month to obtain special money for those employees retiring unexpectedly.
Chairman O'Connell indicated her concern, explaining that in the case of the state employees health benefits, money could only be invested with the treasurer at 4 percent interest. Senator O’Connell wondered whether the agencies were bound to also invest with the treasurer. Mr. Gagnier did not believe the agencies could invest this money in any way other than through the state treasurer.
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded to Senator O’Donnell’s query as to the history of the caps. The first cap of $2500 was put in place in 1977. In 1979, they were adjusted on a sliding scale. The adjustment as the caps appear now was made in 1991, she said.
Senator Neal clarified his understanding of the measure stating that either the employee could be paid in cash for the sick leave or use the leave to purchase retirement. He further stated the funds had already been appropriated. This was an obligation the state owed to the employees. Mr. Gagnier continued saying that this would be an added benefit provided by the employer, the state, for employees.
Senator O’Donnell pointedly stated that he was reluctant to keep the caps in place because this measure would be revisited time and again. He continued saying that he would like to see the dollar amount indexed. At this juncture, Senator O’Donnell stated he was interested in being fair, but not necessarily in favor of another benefit or perquisite to the state employees. But again, he said he was interested in adjusting the fixed-dollar amounts in the bill.
Senator Porter queried the average number of sick leave hours an employee would have upon retirement. Mr. Gagnier responded saying that the Department of Personnel would have the information. Senator Porter posed a scenario in which the employee had 500 hours. Mr. Gagnier then said the first thing would be to subtract 240 (30 days) hours. The remaining 260 hours would be paid at that individual’s rate of pay at that time up to the caps.
The Chairman then asked if there was any opposition to S.B. 95 and George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System, came forward to testify. Mr. Pyne asserted that the Public Employees’ Retirement Board had not yet taken a position on S.B. 95. However, staff would recommend that the board oppose the bill based upon their interpretation of the current language. He continued, stating that there is a purchase-of‑service program in place. Any member who has 5 years of service credit can purchase up to an additional 5 years of service. Although that purchase must be made at the full actuarial rate, a calculated amount based upon the member’s age and pay at the time of the purchase. The actuarially determined rate provides the retirement system with sufficient funds to pay for the increased benefit the system would have to pay over the course of the member’s retirement. Mr. Pyne asserted that S.B. 95 would provide a subsidized rate for the purchase of service for state employees only. That is to say, the system would end up providing a subsidy based on the formula language. Mr. Pyne drew attention to the handout (Exhibit C) with the PERS current purchase program using $50,000 annual salary as an example. In this example, the cost of 1 year of service was calculated at $16,600. He emphasized that the cost of purchasing service was not insignificant given that the system would be paying retirement benefits over the lifetime of the individual including cost-of-living increases ranging between 2 percent to 5 percent per year.
Mr. Pyne stressed that the system remained financially whole as PERS received the full actuarial amount owed for the time purchased. He questioned whether the bill before the committee would accomplish that and pointed to the language in the bill citing an arbitrary formula that was actually one-half the cost required to make the system financially whole. Mr. Pyne stated that as PERS interpreted the bill, the formula using $24-per-hour salary with a sick-leave credit of 720 hours (2 years of service) would equate to $17,280, a reduction of $15,920 when, in fact, the full actuarial cost would be $33,200. Mr. Pyne stressed that the bill appeared to provide a subsidy and if that were the case, PERS would prefer that paragraph (a) in section 1 be deleted. Senator O’Donnell asked Mr. Pyne if he would agree that the artificial caps in the statute had a detrimental impact upon the retirement benefit over time. Mr. Pyne answered, saying that he could not argue with the statement, as PERS would not have a position regarding the removal or increase of the caps. Senator O’Donnell summarized saying that if paragraph (a) were deleted and the caps were adjusted to an index either to the first year the bill was instituted or the last time it was changed then the current figure would be equal to the figures that were instituted in 1991. Mr. Pyne agreed and continued that if paragraph (a) were removed, PERS would not be concerned regarding this bill.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association (NHPA), came forward to state that NHPA had authored Assembly Bill (A.B.) 122 and that bill addressed the concerns voiced by Senator O’Donnell. Mr. Wolff concurred with Mr. Pyne’s and PERS’ concern regarding a subsidy.
ASSEMBLY BILL 122: Requires payment for all accrued unused sick leave of state employee under certain circumstances. (BDR 23-691)
Chairman O'Connell pointed out that both S.B. 95 and A.B. 122 would go to the committee on finance. The Chairman asked Senator Raggio as chairman of the finance committee if the bill should be referred to the finance committee rather than take any action in government affairs. Senator Raggio agreed.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS AND REFER S.B. 95.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio declared that he wanted to amend the motion citing the issue of fiscal impact on PERS.
Chairman O'Connell asked for any further discussion. Senator O’Donnell remarked that with Mr. Pyne’s testimony there would certainly be a huge fiscal impact to PERS.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON S.B. 95.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REFER S.B. 95 WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O'Connell introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 22-240.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 22-240: Makes various changes to provisions relating to enforcement of building codes and zoning regulations by cities and counties. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 163.)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-240.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O'Connell then opened discussion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 96.
SENATE BILL 96: Makes various changes to provisions relating to disclosure of improper governmental action. (BDR 23-450)
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4, began to explain the bill declaring that certain state employees had submitted information to him regarding inappropriate actions by government officials who were in senior or supervisory positions to those employees. He continued saying that information regarding inappropriate action should be reported to the supervisor, but if it is the immediate supervisor involved then the state employee needs another manner in which to disclose the information. This bill would provide a separate mechanism, in this case, a hearing officer. The Senator emphasized a need for redress for the individual when the allegation involved that employee’s supervisor.
Senator Raggio requested clarification regarding the change in language in section 1, subsection 1, pointing out the definition of disclose or disclosure. The Senator also asked what section 2, subsection 2, would do by striking the language.
Senator Townsend replied that he would address section 1 first. The issue is whether an employee claims to represent a department, the state or simply as an individual. He said this was important when speaking with an employee; the supervisor could be speaking on behalf of the department, on behalf of the state, or was the supervisor simply speaking as an individual. That was the reason for the definition. The Senator stated he did not know specifically why the definition for “Personnel commission” was included on line 17, on page 1, but noted that perhaps it had been vague in the prior language. Senator Townsend further explained section 2, stating that it was meant as a means of clarification that if someone did use his or her position to influence something reported in section 1, this would be the procedure to make the complaint directly to a hearing officer. That would be the remedy because the employee could not go to the supervisor when the complaint involved the supervisor, he said.
Senator Care asked if there were any requirement in existing law that such a report had to be made in good faith. He continued, giving as an example a subordinate with a personality conflict with the superior who manufactured a complaint. Secondly, if the language meant oral or written communication. Thirdly, in section 1, subsection 1, the language states that a disclosure by a state officer or employee to any other person and yet in section 2, subsection 2, the language states that the state officer or employee against whom the authority or influence is used. He questioned if that could be construed to say that the recipient in one case was not a state employee or officer, but in the other section of the bill it is supposed to be a state employee or an officer.
Senator Townsend called attention to the definition in section 1 as a public issue meant to clarify that when an individual speaks to any other person, a state employee or a person not working for the state or in a government capacity, one should disclose whether they are speaking on behalf of the state or as an individual. It should be made clear whether the person speaking is doing so as a representative of the state or as a citizen of the state of Nevada. Senator Townsend stated further that he did not know what was in statute regarding good faith and that the committee should rely on Ms. Guinasso, Committee Counsel, for that information.
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, referred to the sections of the statute and continued stating that the person disclosing the improper governmental action to a hearing officer who would then determine the good faith aspect during the hearing. It would obviously be something of concern to the hearing officer.
Senator Care then posed the question of what would happen if the hearing officer determined that there was no good-faith basis for the allegation and that there was no violation of subsection 1. Ms. Guinasso agreed that would be the outcome.
Senator Neal remarked that if the committee was having difficulty with the language of the bill, if this could not also infringe on matters relating to freedom of speech.
Senator Townsend reiterated that S.B. 96 was a mechanism for use in reporting inappropriate or improper governmental actions when in fact, it might be the employee’s superior against whom the allegation was being made. Senator Townsend suggested that perhaps the legal department could refine the language to allay the concerns of Senators Neal and Care.
Chairman O'Connell wondered how the employee would understand the protection the bill afforded if the employee could not understand the language.
Ms. Guinasso pointed out that part of the problem lay in how bills had to be structured when adding new language and the fact that the committee was not looking at the whole subheading under which this would be placed after codification. The new language was based on what was in existing statute in terms of the right to go before a hearing officer. Ms. Guinasso asserted that it would be better to maintain continuity with existing language as much as possible.
Chairman O'Connell queried Mr. Gagnier as to whether the State of Nevada Employees Association had written procedures for employees to follow if this situation arose. Mr. Gagnier replied that the State of Nevada Employees Association had copies of the form promulgated by the Department of Personnel if they wished to file a whistle-blower complaint. Mr. Gagnier further commented that he understood more clearly what this bill was intended to do after learning the background from Senator Townsend. It appeared to him that the bill was designed to get around gag orders issued by state agencies. This happens all the time, but particularly preceding every legislative session he asserted. Mr. Gagnier asserted that there were state agencies that sent memos to employees stressing they were not allowed to talk to legislators. The agency would be informed that it could not restrict a citizen from speaking with a legislator. The employee can be told that they cannot purport to represent the agency. It was his stated opinion that this bill would solve the gag order difficulty and that the State of Nevada Employees Association would concur with that. Mr. Gagnier expressed that the association was concerned that language had been deleted on page 2, lines 19 through 23.
Senator Townsend stated that he did not want to lose the difference between the gag order problem and the ability to expose in some way improper governmental actions. The Senator reminded the committee members that during a previous session subpoenas had been issued to employees of a state agency to appear before committee members. This had been necessary in order to protect the state employees’ jobs.
Senator Care noted that he did not have a problem with the legislation, only in that the language was confusing.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Guinasso to revise the language based upon the concerns expressed in the hearing. Ms. Guinasso made the point that the term gag order would be avoided in statutory language, but that it would be addressed. Mr. Gagnier offered the assistance of the association’s legal counsel who was experienced in these matters.
Chairman O'Connell asked for any further questions or testimony, there was none. The Chairman closed the hearing at 3:42 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Julie Burdette,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: